I was listening to an established and popular podcast, yo dog, when one commentator suggested that, with recent changes to engagement ranges given certain terrain features, and with event organizers rejecting the rule, the era of treating GW rules and updates as gospel, the one and only best way to play, is over. In this case, the context was competitive, but I figure that the point holds for more casual settings, and more hobby centric settings too.
My question is how many here agree with the commentator’s assessment. Is the mood out there such that people are ready to make house or local are flexible rules arrangements or … something besides chasing the corporate meta?
There are always some GW rules that get rejected, in 7th it were the advanced Flyer rules that came quite at the end of the edition and served no purpose but making Flyers worse, 9th saw some matched play terrain expansion that I haven't heard about since which seems to have not been accepted, too.
It's a little arbitrary, though, as GW's "suggestion for minimum table size" seems to have been taken as "only playable standard table size" by many tournament organizers, for example.
I'm not sure if its widely accepted but our group doesn't use rules brought in because of tournaments (limits on flyers, ork buggies etc) or clear money grabs (old vehicles not transporting Primaris) everything else we use GW rules for what they are.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: There are always some GW rules that get rejected, in 7th it were the advanced Flyer rules that came quite at the end of the edition and served no purpose but making Flyers worse, 9th saw some matched play terrain expansion that I haven't heard about since which seems to have not been accepted, too.
It's a little arbitrary, though, as GW's "suggestion for minimum table size" seems to have been taken as "only playable standard table size" by many tournament organizers, for example.
Oh man i had forgotten all about those. They basically were like "Here you can play a game of aronatica while you also play a game of 40k!" And it was a hilarious collective of the entire community going Nah fam, im good.
Oh man i had forgotten all about those. They basically were like "Here you can play a game of aronatica while you also play a game of 40k!" And it was a hilarious collective of the entire community going Nah fam, im good.
Oh no, it was way worse than that. "Here, you can play a game of rock/paper/scissors where player agency is irrelevant (GW literally suggested rolling a die to decide your maneuver) and you RNG to determine what Narrative™ you Forge™". A game of Aeronautica Imperialis would have been way more fun.
Even during this edition, we had one entire matched play publication being completely ignored by the Tournament organizers. Only a few of them recently started using the player placed terrain.
It's a little arbitrary, though, as GW's "suggestion for minimum table size" seems to have been taken as "only playable standard table size" by many tournament organizers, for example.
Well that's easy. Cash. Itc etc weren't exactly shy about admitting they went behind it when they realized they can fit more players to same room for more profit.
jeff white wrote: My question is how many here agree with the commentator’s assessment. Is the mood out there such that people are ready to make house or local are flexible rules arrangements or … something besides chasing the corporate meta?
Over here Ars Bellica is the most popular tournament rule set, and it's always had a few house rules to try and fix the game a little bit - so ignoring/modifying some rules is nothing new.
That being said, the current update is a clusterfeth in itself, so we're ignoring some things outright, like having to pay for warlords WLT and the horrible issues of the Engagement Range change (assuming intent over wording). I also won't tell a NL dude to no longer play their Jump Pack characters just because GW decided to feth them over without lube (=legends).
It seems like they're a bit out of touch right now, generally speaking.
Dysartes wrote: Sorry - what's this engagement range change, in broad terms?
Essentially it extends the engagement range to 2" when you can draw a line through obscuring area terrain (=ruins). The intent was most likely to prevent situations where you couldn't get into engagement range because a wall or something similar was in the way and the enemy unit was within <less than your base size> of that wall, which actually is a common tactic in competitive play.
However, what this did cause is that you can now charge someone and dip your toe into the ruin's base, fight them at 2", and then use the consolidate move to get off the terrain and prevent them from fighting back because they are no longer in engagement range.
IMO the pretty much replaced a "flamer can hit fliers" level issue with a "1+ armor makes me invincible" level issue.
In our group, most people didn't understand that change anyways, so it was super easy to drop.
If you look at the 3 figures - GW are trying to solve the issues of figure 2. Because in rules, its a bit weird that you can charge through breachable walls - and fight through breachable walls - but if your opponent keeps back sufficiently far that you can't get into engagement range, but also leaves insufficient space that you can't place a model, then you can't. Its not an intended mechanic.
But their solution causes loads of presumably unintended interactions and is therefore considerably worse.
The answer is probably something like "use your imagination". If you make a successful charge roll (or heroic intervention etc) to get through the terrain and into engagement range, but can't place the model, mark up where you'd have got to, resolve the combat, then place the models as close as you are able to where they should be. If the defenders survive, place the charging unit on the other side of the wall, this represents them being pushed back. If the defenders are cleared sufficiently, it should now be possible to place attacking models on the other side of the wall.
The whole terrain system seems clumsy imho along with inadequacies in other areas, and GW seems to want to patchwork that ridiculousness in the same way, E.g. ‘granular’ invul saves. Then movement, I mean, after thirty five years, why is this sort of thing even a problem?
that is what happens when designer fight tooth and nail to keep any remnants of True LoS.
GW could just put that a rule that if a unit is in range to be charged but a wall blocks the placement of a model, then either assume the models are engaged or make the attacked models advance so that the succesful charging unit is in range. But GW did the classic X is the problem, in this case walls or terrain, so instead of fixing X, GW makes a change that changes Y, Q and Z.
jeff white wrote: The whole terrain system seems clumsy imho along with inadequacies in other areas, and GW seems to want to patchwork that ridiculousness in the same way, E.g. ‘granular’ invul saves. Then movement, I mean, after thirty five years, why is this sort of thing even a problem?
Because they didn't exactly improve their rules for 35 years, but tossed out the entire thing every few years and started from scratch. Completely ignoring feedback and living in an ivory tower also didn't exactly help the rules writers to hone their skills.
Essentially the 9th edition of 40k is a game that just had its 5th anniversary.
There is no much entice to write better rules, there is entice to write different use so people buy more stuff, when the game is growing and people are buying stuff.
The only time GW starts to really change an already existing system, is if sales drops, and the design guys start getting odd questions from the sales guys, who are getting unfun questions from the people who can lay off everyone. In such a situation everyone in the DT is going to be swift and full of ideas like a spring weasel, and constantly testing new stuff and doing design and fixs or changes that are suppose to convince people to buy more stuff.
Tyel wrote: If you look at the 3 figures - GW are trying to solve the issues of figure 2. Because in rules, its a bit weird that you can charge through breachable walls - and fight through breachable walls - but if your opponent keeps back sufficiently far that you can't get into engagement range, but also leaves insufficient space that you can't place a model, then you can't. Its not an intended mechanic.
Why is it weird? In no other situation do I get to say "I have enough movement distance to get here but I can't place the model there" and pretend it's there. If I want to move to be on the other side of the wall to gain LOS for shooting purposes but my maximum movement distance puts the models halfway through the wall I don't get to move them to the other side and declare that good enough, they're stuck on the short side and don't get to make their full move. So why does melee get an exception?
TBH if you really hate the problem fix it by removing the breachable rule. It's a stupid rule that never should have existed in the first place and it causes more problems than it's worth.
Personally I just love that their terrain rules are fethed up enough that fighting in close quarters/dense terrain makes your arms and/or weapons longer and actually makes it easier to maneuver for an attack than fighting in an open field.
It fits in nicely with insane heavy cover rules that hamper defenders, but not attackers who just charged into the cover.
They've written better terrain systems than this. I have no idea what they were thinking (or how drunk the writers were when they wrote the semi-incoherent gibberish passing as rules).
That hills aren't terrain and buildings are units and can't be moved across (despite all the flat roof buildings that GW makes) just makes me wonder a lot.
Tyel wrote: If you look at the 3 figures - GW are trying to solve the issues of figure 2. Because in rules, its a bit weird that you can charge through breachable walls - and fight through breachable walls - but if your opponent keeps back sufficiently far that you can't get into engagement range, but also leaves insufficient space that you can't place a model, then you can't. Its not an intended mechanic.
Why is it weird? In no other situation do I get to say "I have enough movement distance to get here but I can't place the model there" and pretend it's there. If I want to move to be on the other side of the wall to gain LOS for shooting purposes but my maximum movement distance puts the models halfway through the wall I don't get to move them to the other side and declare that good enough, they're stuck on the short side and don't get to make their full move. So why does melee get an exception?
TBH if you really hate the problem fix it by removing the breachable rule. It's a stupid rule that never should have existed in the first place and it causes more problems than it's worth.
Wobbly Models
It's right in the rules and seems to cover this.
Tyel wrote: If you look at the 3 figures - GW are trying to solve the issues of figure 2. Because in rules, its a bit weird that you can charge through breachable walls - and fight through breachable walls - but if your opponent keeps back sufficiently far that you can't get into engagement range, but also leaves insufficient space that you can't place a model, then you can't. Its not an intended mechanic.
Why is it weird? In no other situation do I get to say "I have enough movement distance to get here but I can't place the model there" and pretend it's there. If I want to move to be on the other side of the wall to gain LOS for shooting purposes but my maximum movement distance puts the models halfway through the wall I don't get to move them to the other side and declare that good enough, they're stuck on the short side and don't get to make their full move. So why does melee get an exception?
TBH if you really hate the problem fix it by removing the breachable rule. It's a stupid rule that never should have existed in the first place and it causes more problems than it's worth.
Wobbly Models
It's right in the rules and seems to cover this.
wobbly covers the ground being to uneven for the model to stand, it does not cover "the model does no physically fit because there is a wall halfway through it"
This is the best most Gw rules fix ever because Blood for the Blood God!
More seriously -
I'm not really a fan myself. I don't know why they didn't go a different rout and say that the walls would just cancel the engagement range because the walls would prevent fighting, unless the terrain was breachable. GW gave 9th a lot of "flavorful" terrain rules that are very challenging to use at best. The then decided to use some further standardization for their Huge GT's but seemed to have abandoned any reasonable control over how that terrain format should work in favor of saying just run on through. Weird choice and it seems a bit lazy. But I do on some level think it was intentional. Khorne Bazerkers are in the shoot soon? I almost expect this terrain/engagement range stuff to get faq/retconned/fixed, in the next few months, after Khorne has made a splash.
Blndmage wrote: Wobbly Models
It's right in the rules and seems to cover this.
Nope. The wobbly model rule is for when you can place a model in a spot but you're concerned about knocking it over. It does not permit you to pretend a model is in a location where you can't actually put it. You can't "wobbly model" a model into the middle of a wall, floating at an arbitrary spot in mid-air, etc.
Actually, according to an article he wrote in White Dwarf, Jervis Johnson's intent with the AoS rules was that models CAN float in the air part way up terrain.
He was then baffled that people didn't understand this...
(Ref: 'Rules of Engagement' in January 2019 issue)
Lord Damocles wrote: Actually, according to an article he wrote in White Dwarf, Jervis Johnson's intent with the AoS rules was that models CAN float in the air part way up terrain.
He was then baffled that people didn't understand this...
(Ref: 'Rules of Engagement' in January 2019 issue)
Well aos and 40k different rules and it's even specifically said you can float. Gets rid of impossible to attack top of ruin situatioN.
Lord Damocles wrote: Actually, according to an article he wrote in White Dwarf, Jervis Johnson's intent with the AoS rules was that models CAN float in the air part way up terrain.
He was then baffled that people didn't understand this...
(Ref: 'Rules of Engagement' in January 2019 issue)
When a designers gets constatnly suprised by the players of his games, then there are some serious problems with his skills as a designer.
Tyel wrote: If you look at the 3 figures - GW are trying to solve the issues of figure 2. Because in rules, its a bit weird that you can charge through breachable walls - and fight through breachable walls - but if your opponent keeps back sufficiently far that you can't get into engagement range, but also leaves insufficient space that you can't place a model, then you can't. Its not an intended mechanic.
Why is it weird? In no other situation do I get to say "I have enough movement distance to get here but I can't place the model there" and pretend it's there. If I want to move to be on the other side of the wall to gain LOS for shooting purposes but my maximum movement distance puts the models halfway through the wall I don't get to move them to the other side and declare that good enough, they're stuck on the short side and don't get to make their full move. So why does melee get an exception?
Probably because the rule is seen as being "gamey" by the designers and is a guaranteed way to prevent close combat with no real tactical manoeuvring on the part of the defender and it's all caused by a quirk of the interaction between the terrain rules and the engagement rules. It's just a really stupid interaction where, if the defenders were 1mm further back you could charge and if they were 1mm closer you could charge, but if they're in exactly the right place you're suddenly completely immune to close combat. It's different to the situation where terrain prevents a model moving due to its base size because that's a permanent feature of that terrain that isn't really changeable by either player.
TBH if you really hate the problem fix it by removing the breachable rule. It's a stupid rule that never should have existed in the first place and it causes more problems than it's worth.
There are certainly a lot of ways GW could have fixed this problem properly, if they'd spent more than 10 minutes brainstorming a solution. In a wider context, I always thought Breachable was too liberally applied and wouldn't mind seeing it being used much less.
Slipspace wrote: It's just a really stupid interaction where, if the defenders were 1mm further back you could charge and if they were 1mm closer you could charge, but if they're in exactly the right place you're suddenly completely immune to close combat.
How is this different from situations where +/- 1mm makes you completely immune to shooting? Or +/- 1mm is the difference between a movement path being blocked or not. Or a unit being 12.000000001" away completely immune to being charged no matter how many charge range buffs you have. You can call it "gaming the system" if you like but that's a huge part of 40k in general and I don't see how this one specific thing is any worse than the others, especially when the only reason it comes up at all is that "breachable" lets you magically teleport through solid walls without even slowing down.
Slipspace wrote: It's just a really stupid interaction where, if the defenders were 1mm further back you could charge and if they were 1mm closer you could charge, but if they're in exactly the right place you're suddenly completely immune to close combat.
How is this different from situations where +/- 1mm makes you completely immune to shooting? Or +/- 1mm is the difference between a movement path being blocked or not. Or a unit being 12.000000001" away completely immune to being charged no matter how many charge range buffs you have. You can call it "gaming the system" if you like but that's a huge part of 40k in general and I don't see how this one specific thing is any worse than the others, especially when the only reason it comes up at all is that "breachable" lets you magically teleport through solid walls without even slowing down.
Because it's trivially easy to pull off and results in weird uninteractive situations. This isn't a case of just being out of range, it's a massive "nope" button available in almost every game due to the way GW's terrain rules work. There's nothing particularly gamey about being out of range with a weapon, or too far away to charge, or not being able to get LoS. Being unable to charge a unit because they are a very specific distance from a ruin wall is clearly seen as gamey by GW (and a lot of the community). The rule doesn't really represent anything in the way those other situations do - it's gamey because there's no good plausible in-universe reason why a unit standing exactly in one very narrow region is suddenly immune to being charged. Just missing out on LoS, or weapon range, doesn't fall into the same category.
Slipspace wrote: It's just a really stupid interaction where, if the defenders were 1mm further back you could charge and if they were 1mm closer you could charge, but if they're in exactly the right place you're suddenly completely immune to close combat.
How is this different from situations where +/- 1mm makes you completely immune to shooting?
Care to enlighten us as to such a hypothetical situation?
That's not "completely immune to shooting", that's just "immune to 12" guns".
and the charging thing isnt "completely immune to charges", if a squad charges them from behind, theyre still reachable.
Still, GW should make it where terrain is "embarkable" so if youre in it, you benefit from cover BUT it allows your opponent to charge the terrain piece instead of your unit
That's not "completely immune to shooting", that's just "immune to 12" guns".
Ok rephrase: 0.00001" further than longest gun.
There. "but akshully" crowd satisfiea.
Not at all, tneva.
CanadianCorporalBob was comparing the melee situation with a shooting one where the target unit is somehow in a spot where moving them 1mm closer or further away would render them vulnerable to shooting, especially thanks to an odd terrain interaction. This mirrors the Engagement Range situation for melee where by sitting just the right distance from a wall, a melee unit can't engage their target through the wall, nor is there enough room for them to fit between the target unit and the wall.
No-one (to my knowledge) has an issue with a unit not being able to be charged because they are further away than a possible charge distance, which would be the mirror to saying "but what if the unit is 1mm over the maximum shooting range?!?!", which is what your "Well, akshully" response tried to cover in error.
Dysartes wrote: Care to enlighten us as to such a hypothetical situation?
True line of sight, remember? A model can be hidden behind terrain or other models but only from one specific position. You don't get to say "well, if I were 1mm farther over here I could shoot it so I get bonus LOS tolerance to make it work". So why should melee units get bonus engagement range to compensate for being unable to reach a target?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote: This isn't a case of just being out of range, it's a massive "nope" button available in almost every game due to the way GW's terrain rules work.
So charge from a different direction. Or bring some guns and kill a single model so there's a space to move into engagement range. We already have a massive "nope" button to shooting when ever piece of terrain on the table blocks LOS even when you can see the models through it, why is it a problem that a unit can be difficult to charge?
There's nothing particularly gamey about being out of range with a weapon, or too far away to charge, or not being able to get LoS.
Of course there is. Do real weapons magically end at a specific distance? No. Accuracy or damage may start to fall off beyond a certain point but you can't be standing exactly 0.0001" beyond the maximum range of a gun (a range which is already laughably short for a 28mm game) and be completely immune to attack. And you certainly can't be immune to a tank just because you're sitting behind a wall, the tank can shoot through the wall to kill you and/or shoot the building itself to collapse it onto you. It's all completely gaming the system and playing 40k the dice game instead of 40k the war simulation.
Movement and positioning is supposed to be important; right?
I really do not see why it was an issue, but if that's not what the designers intended then the change is perfectly fine.
On topic... There is nothing positive about community rules. They fragment play groups and promote cliques. The last thing I want anyone telling me is "This is how we play it here." The rules are the rules whether you agree with them or not.
oni wrote: Movement and positioning is supposed to be important; right?
I really do not see why it was an issue, but if that's not what the designers intended then the change is perfectly fine.
On topic... There is nothing positive about community rules. They fragment play groups and promote cliques. The last thing I want anyone telling me is "This is how we play it here." The rules are the rules whether you agree with them or not.
Yes, agreed. Move and positioning should matter, very much.
But… community rules? Some communities are bigger than others and it already happens. So…
Lord Damocles wrote: Actually, according to an article he wrote in White Dwarf, Jervis Johnson's intent with the AoS rules was that models CAN float in the air part way up terrain.
He was then baffled that people didn't understand this...
(Ref: 'Rules of Engagement' in January 2019 issue)
Well aos and 40k different rules and it's even specifically said you can float. Gets rid of impossible to attack top of ruin situation.
Yup. It just represents a model climbing that surface and they are only a certain distance up, while also fixing a lot of potential exploits. Granted it leads to some 'interesting' situations, but as an abstraction wargaming always will and sometimes realism is sacrificed for streamlining. At least in theory, the quality of the execution is... inconsistent.
jeff white wrote: I was listening to an established and popular podcast, yo dog, when one commentator suggested that, with recent changes to engagement ranges given certain terrain features, and with event organizers rejecting the rule, the era of treating GW rules and updates as gospel, the one and only best way to play, is over. In this case, the context was competitive, but I figure that the point holds for more casual settings, and more hobby centric settings too.
My question is how many here agree with the commentator’s assessment. Is the mood out there such that people are ready to make house or local are flexible rules arrangements or … something besides chasing the corporate meta?
Back to the original topic...wasn't the ITC formed because of a rejection of GW's mission scenarios? We just may be moving back in that direction, where the tournament scene isn't happy with GW's rulings and incorporates their own.
Dysartes wrote: There's nothing particularly gamey about being out of range with a weapon, or too far away to charge, or not being able to get LoS.
Of course there is. Do real weapons magically end at a specific distance? No. Accuracy or damage may start to fall off beyond a certain point but you can't be standing exactly 0.0001" beyond the maximum range of a gun (a range which is already laughably short for a 28mm game) and be completely immune to attack. And you certainly can't be immune to a tank just because you're sitting behind a wall, the tank can shoot through the wall to kill you and/or shoot the building itself to collapse it onto you. It's all completely gaming the system and playing 40k the dice game instead of 40k the war simulation.
I've always felt that the listed range for shooting weapons should just be an increment which penalizes BS by one for each increment after the first. So a BS 4+ shooting a 24" gun at a target 25" away goes to BS 5+, and so on with the shot only becoming impossible once it would put BS to 7+. BUT such a change would also need to go hand in hand with a rework of LoS/targeting rules (imo absolutely ridiculous right now).
On topic... There is nothing positive about community rules. They fragment play groups and promote cliques. The last thing I want anyone telling me is "This is how we play it here." The rules are the rules whether you agree with them or not.
Do you play in tourneys?
Do you accept that TOs can decide what can be used, etc?
If so, then you've already accepted "This is how we play it here".
I find it rather strange that people are rejecting this rule change:
Page 263 – Obscuring
Change the first sentence of the second paragraph to read: ‘Models that are on or within this terrain feature can see, and can be seen and targeted normally.’
Add the following to the end of this terrain trait:
‘While a model is within 1" of an Area Terrain feature with this trait (e.g. Ruins) and the shortest line between it and an enemy model crosses over or through this terrain feature, then while those models are within 2" horizontally and 5" vertically of each other, they are within Engagement Range of each other.’
Why you might ask? It's pretty much the rules for Defense Line added to Obscuring Area Terrain to avoid shenanigans. What is there to hate?
alextroy wrote: It's pretty much the rules for Defense Line added to Obscuring Area Terrain to avoid shenanigans.
Because "pretty much" is not "the same", and it's the nuances that matter. The defense line rule doesn't expand engagement range in the movement phase and make units in ruins more capable movement blockers, and it doesn't allow the fight phase exploits where you consolidate and turn off the crossing line so models you just hit can't hit back. If they had just added the defense line rule it would have been a much better (though still unnecessary) change.
alextroy wrote: I find it rather strange that people are rejecting this rule change:
Page 263 – Obscuring
Change the first sentence of the second paragraph to read: ‘Models that are on or within this terrain feature can see, and can be seen and targeted normally.’
Add the following to the end of this terrain trait:
‘While a model is within 1" of an Area Terrain feature with this trait (e.g. Ruins) and the shortest line between it and an enemy model crosses over or through this terrain feature, then while those models are within 2" horizontally and 5" vertically of each other, they are within Engagement Range of each other.’
Why you might ask? It's pretty much the rules for Defense Line added to Obscuring Area Terrain to avoid shenanigans. What is there to hate?
Well for one makes silly easy to make ds charges. It also allows charge, attack, consolidiate, be immune to return attack shenigans. Do you really think it's good for game you can attack enemy without exposing yourself to counter melee using this?
NinthMusketeer wrote: Thought you couldn't consolidate to get put of engagement range?
You don't. You consolidate closer to the enemy, but by doing so you change the way engagement range is defined. You fight at 1.9", end your consolidation move at 1.7", and now because the line between models no longer crosses the terrain engagement range drops back down to 1".
NinthMusketeer wrote: Thought you couldn't consolidate to get put of engagement range?
Thanks to the new errata you can consolidiate so that the engagement range goes from 2" to 1". So when you are 1.9" from enemy and then engagement range goes down to 1" what happens? You aren't engaged anymore...
It would work better if there wasnt' consolidiate move but thanks to that you can manipulate the engagement range itself before opponent gets to activate.
Slipspace wrote: This isn't a case of just being out of range, it's a massive "nope" button available in almost every game due to the way GW's terrain rules work.
So charge from a different direction. Or bring some guns and kill a single model so there's a space to move into engagement range. We already have a massive "nope" button to shooting when ever piece of terrain on the table blocks LOS even when you can see the models through it, why is it a problem that a unit can be difficult to charge?.
It's mainly about verisimilitude. Having terrain block LoS fits with how we imagine real life would work. Having units be magically unchargeable because they're a very specific distance from the edge of a ruin wall is not how we imagine real life to work.
This specific trick has been in use for a very long time and the counters you're calling out rarely work. This is probably partially down to the prevalent style of terrain at many stores and tournaments. That said, in practical terms, your solutions often simply don't work for other reasons. It's very easy to string out your units in such a way that charging from a different direction isn't possible because you've effectively blocked the entire approach using relatively few models. It's not difficult to do, and that ease of setting up this particular trick is likely one of the reasons the rule was changed. It's not like you have to block out a full 360-degree circle around your units, since 40k battles tend to have armies line up and face each other, making approach angles highly predictable. Similarly, shooting stuff only works if you actually have LoS and you often need to be able to remove a significant portion of the unit to free up the space to charge because by the time you're shooting the opponent knows which models they can remove while still maintaining this blockade.
All your solutions have already been tried. This has been a known problem for a while. It's not like this is some new thing that GW are making a kneejerk reaction to. You can argue all the other solutions you want, but we have the proof of literally years of examples of this being problematic.
Slipspace wrote: It's mainly about verisimilitude. Having terrain block LoS fits with how we imagine real life would work. Having units be magically unchargeable because they're a very specific distance from the edge of a ruin wall is not how we imagine real life to work.
But this problem only happened in the first place because of a lack of verisimilitude in the breachable keyword. If we had terrain work like it does in real life then the charging unit couldn't charge at all, regardless of the exact position of the models on the other side. You can't charge through a solid wall, and you certainly can't get through the wall without slowing down. But apparently in 40k walls are all holographic projections that block line of sight without having any physical presence.
If you want an easy fix to keep verisimilitude get rid of the breachable keyword and clearly define the obscuring and impassible part of ruins to be only the wall elements (with the base, if any, only giving the +1 save bonus).
It's very easy to string out your units in such a way that charging from a different direction isn't possible because you've effectively blocked the entire approach using relatively few models.
If they block the approach from a different direction you charge and kill the blocking models. Blocking with suicide screens is part of the normal game, should charging units be able to bypass them in other situations?
since 40k battles tend to have armies line up and face each other
So don't do this? Use deep strike, outflanking, fast units, etc. "Line up and roll dice" should result in losing a lot of games.
Same thing with shooting. Get into position to get LOS, don't just set up your gunline and expect to do anything useful with it.
Slipspace wrote: It's mainly about verisimilitude. Having terrain block LoS fits with how we imagine real life would work. Having units be magically unchargeable because they're a very specific distance from the edge of a ruin wall is not how we imagine real life to work.
But this problem only happened in the first place because of a lack of verisimilitude in the breachable keyword. If we had terrain work like it does in real life then the charging unit couldn't charge at all, regardless of the exact position of the models on the other side. You can't charge through a solid wall, and you certainly can't get through the wall without slowing down. But apparently in 40k walls are all holographic projections that block line of sight without having any physical presence.
If you want an easy fix to keep verisimilitude get rid of the breachable keyword and clearly define the obscuring and impassible part of ruins to be only the wall elements (with the base, if any, only giving the +1 save bonus).
It's very easy to string out your units in such a way that charging from a different direction isn't possible because you've effectively blocked the entire approach using relatively few models.
If they block the approach from a different direction you charge and kill the blocking models. Blocking with suicide screens is part of the normal game, should charging units be able to bypass them in other situations?
since 40k battles tend to have armies line up and face each other
So don't do this? Use deep strike, outflanking, fast units, etc. "Line up and roll dice" should result in losing a lot of games.
Same thing with shooting. Get into position to get LOS, don't just set up your gunline and expect to do anything useful with it.
I agree that Breachable is an overused keyword and I think the game would be improved if it wasn't so common. I'm not sure it's really a case of lacking verisimilitude though, since I can see situations where it might be appropriate to use it to represent some ruins.
As for your other points, I'll simply reiterate that this is a known, real-world problem and your solutions have been tried. They do not work the vast majority of the time. When I mentioned blocking approaches, I was talking about the unit that's using this trick doing the blocking. You can set them up in such a way that the unit itself is doing the blocking and is not chargeable. This is because many ruins are 2 or 3-sided and you can just spread out 1.1" inside the walls, which can add enough distance to a charge to make it literally impossible, or at least virtually impossible.
Using Deep Strike, outflank and fast units is the sort of thing that sounds like a good idea, but - once again - you quickly realise isn't that practical in actual games. Deep Strike is really easy to screen out, and is something any competent player will do as a matter of course. Fast units often can't assault into ruins due to their unit type, so they're not much use here. Outflanking often puts you too far away from the units using this trick for most of the same reasons Deep Strike doesn't work.
Have you actually played a game against someone using this tactic effectively? If you have, you should immediately see why your solutions don't work as well as you think they should.
Ultimately I don't think any of that matters though. The realism argument seems good enough to disallow this. The presence of other things that may also feel equally unrealistic doesn't give this tactic a free pass.
Slipspace wrote: You can set them up in such a way that the unit itself is doing the blocking and is not chargeable. This is because many ruins are 2 or 3-sided and you can just spread out 1.1" inside the walls, which can add enough distance to a charge to make it literally impossible, or at least virtually impossible.
How exactly does that work? A unit can be more difficult to charge but it can't be impossible. You can always charge from the open side of the ruin, which means there is always a finite movement + charge distance required to get into engagement range. It may be more than you want it to be but it's not impossible.
And people really need to stop using 3-4 sided ruins. They were a stupid concept in 7th when you have invulnerable units inside of sealed boxes and they're a stupid concept in 9th. Solid walls should never be more than two sides.
Using Deep Strike, outflank and fast units is the sort of thing that sounds like a good idea, but - once again - you quickly realise isn't that practical in actual games. Deep Strike is really easy to screen out, and is something any competent player will do as a matter of course. Fast units often can't assault into ruins due to their unit type, so they're not much use here. Outflanking often puts you too far away from the units using this trick for most of the same reasons Deep Strike doesn't work.
It sure sounds like you're dismissing these options for counters because they aren't straightforward "spend 2 CP to kill the target unit" win buttons. If your opponent screens out your deep strike threats you kill the screens before bringing them in. If fast units can't assault into ruins you use them to shoot a hole in the unit and open up a spot to charge into. Etc. Or, TBH, you ignore the unit hiding in the ruin and go win the game elsewhere while it sits there being useless.
Have you actually played a game against someone using this tactic effectively?
Yes. Hitting them from the other side of the ruin works, and if you have any indirect fire you can clear spots to get into engagement range.
The presence of other things that may also feel equally unrealistic doesn't give this tactic a free pass.
It does when the only reason it exists at all is a lack of realism, and the current solution makes the realism problem even worse.
If you look at the 3 figures - GW are trying to solve the issues of figure 2. Because in rules, its a bit weird that you can charge through breachable walls - and fight through breachable walls - but if your opponent keeps back sufficiently far that you can't get into engagement range, but also leaves insufficient space that you can't place a model, then you can't. Its not an intended mechanic.
But their solution causes loads of presumably unintended interactions and is therefore considerably worse.
The answer is probably something like "use your imagination". If you make a successful charge roll (or heroic intervention etc) to get through the terrain and into engagement range, but can't place the model, mark up where you'd have got to, resolve the combat, then place the models as close as you are able to where they should be. If the defenders survive, place the charging unit on the other side of the wall, this represents them being pushed back. If the defenders are cleared sufficiently, it should now be possible to place attacking models on the other side of the wall.
Doing the dangerous thing and replying before I finish reading the rest of the posts heh.
I REALLY like your solution. It's fluffy AND it solves the problem. (To be fair, I'm also okay with making the attacking squad walk it's way to somewhere it can charge through...less fluffy, but tactically very interesting. I suppose you could say the squad is reinforcing the walls or some such silliness)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now that I've caught up with the rest of the posts, I'll also add:
First off, not a tourney player and almost certainly never will be. I'm one of those filthy casuals (and a TTS-only filthy casual at that lol)
Maybe there should be more doors on 40k terrain.
In my mind, buildings should make it difficult to dig units out. In such a rules set, you'd generally want to keep these kind of buildings to a minimum (two, or maybe just one for a king of the hill style setup). Adding more would be an interesting tool to change the style of play. A map with a ton of buildings (e.g., a city fight) should be a slog of digging units out of the hidey holes.
The idea of a squad holed up in a building defending all the approaches and forcing the enemy to attack via a choke point (e.g. a door way) seems flavorful and makes holding the building tactically flavorful.
Obviously, the entrenched unit shouldn't be invincible, hence buildings should have no more than two intact walls for this purpose. Essentially, holding the building means the opponent has to either charge through the doorway (where they might only get a couple models in range to melee) or slogging it around to the open side of the building, which might cost them a turn.
But like I said before,Tyel's solution seems like a good one in that it keeps the changes to a minimum and fixes the problem effectively.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Thought you couldn't consolidate to get put of engagement range?
You don't. You consolidate closer to the enemy, but by doing so you change the way engagement range is defined. You fight at 1.9", end your consolidation move at 1.7", and now because the line between models no longer crosses the terrain engagement range drops back down to 1".
Must just be me, but I’m finding it hard to visualize a circumstance when this can actually happen. Theory is fine, but on the table?
NinthMusketeer wrote: Thought you couldn't consolidate to get put of engagement range?
You don't. You consolidate closer to the enemy, but by doing so you change the way engagement range is defined. You fight at 1.9", end your consolidation move at 1.7", and now because the line between models no longer crosses the terrain engagement range drops back down to 1".
Must just be me, but I’m finding it hard to visualize a circumstance when this can actually happen. Theory is fine, but on the table?
Imagine a unit just on the edge of the ruin, 1.9" from an enemy outside the ruin that they just charged. According to the new rule that unit can attack. After it attacks it can then consolidate towards the enemy and move so the front edge of its bases are all outside the terrain at, say, 1.7" away. As the shortest distance between the two units no longer goes through the ruin, engagement range is now 1" and the targeted unit cannot attack back.
oni wrote: Movement and positioning is supposed to be important; right?
I really do not see why it was an issue, but if that's not what the designers intended then the change is perfectly fine.
On topic... There is nothing positive about community rules. They fragment play groups and promote cliques. The last thing I want anyone telling me is "This is how we play it here." The rules are the rules whether you agree with them or not.
Yes, agreed. Move and positioning should matter, very much.
But… community rules? Some communities are bigger than others and it already happens. So…
Wow, but… no.
Let's say, by chance, you and I meet at a convention at an open table for a game of W40K. Who's community rules do we use? Yours? Mine? Do we ask what the locals do? Or do we simply play by the games rules; GW's rules?
There is only one reasonable answer and that is to play by the games rules; GW's rules.
So why then should anyone play using 'community rules'? Seems a lot like being told "conform to the group think or be excluded".
NinthMusketeer wrote: Thought you couldn't consolidate to get put of engagement range?
You don't. You consolidate closer to the enemy, but by doing so you change the way engagement range is defined. You fight at 1.9", end your consolidation move at 1.7", and now because the line between models no longer crosses the terrain engagement range drops back down to 1".
Must just be me, but I’m finding it hard to visualize a circumstance when this can actually happen. Theory is fine, but on the table?
Imagine a unit just on the edge of the ruin, 1.9" from an enemy outside the ruin that they just charged. According to the new rule that unit can attack. After it attacks it can then consolidate towards the enemy and move so the front edge of its bases are all outside the terrain at, say, 1.7" away. As the shortest distance between the two units no longer goes through the ruin, engagement range is now 1" and the targeted unit cannot attack back.
Again, nice theory. Show me a magic terrain piece where this can actually happen for an entire unit.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Thought you couldn't consolidate to get put of engagement range?
You don't. You consolidate closer to the enemy, but by doing so you change the way engagement range is defined. You fight at 1.9", end your consolidation move at 1.7", and now because the line between models no longer crosses the terrain engagement range drops back down to 1".
Must just be me, but I’m finding it hard to visualize a circumstance when this can actually happen. Theory is fine, but on the table?
Imagine a unit just on the edge of the ruin, 1.9" from an enemy outside the ruin that they just charged. According to the new rule that unit can attack. After it attacks it can then consolidate towards the enemy and move so the front edge of its bases are all outside the terrain at, say, 1.7" away. As the shortest distance between the two units no longer goes through the ruin, engagement range is now 1" and the targeted unit cannot attack back.
Again, nice theory. Show me a magic terrain piece where this can actually happen for an entire unit.
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking. While most ruin terrain pieces can be used to execute this play, it's actually pretty easy to avoid by just not putting your models within 2" of the terrain in the first place so I don't think it's likely to come up very often in actual play. The other consequences of the rule, like making charges into terrain paradoxically easier, will come up quite often.
I think the solution GW have used is very sloppily conceived and should be rewritten. At least the really weird consequence of this ruling is avoidable, unlike the problem with the original rule, which was too easy to exploit.
We always house ruled things whenever something came up that was just obnoxious to us.
Examples being:
- You can only see that guy's antenna or banner, but you are able to shoot him, even though it's purely cosmetical.
- Bodyguard models that are hiding behind a wall make it impossible to target the character model standing out in the open.
Not making it "your" game in your local community when you play with friends is a bit of an alien concept to me. Nobody will come to your house and break apart your models if you houserule to make it more fun for yourself.
I can understand it if you attend a con or a tourny that you go 100% by the book, though.
Let's say, by chance, you and I meet at a convention at an open table for a game of W40K. Who's community rules do we use? Yours? Mine? Do we ask what the locals do? Or do we simply play by the games rules; GW's rules?
There is only one reasonable answer and that is to play by the games rules; GW's rules.
Or you could try that age old thing where you talk to each other. Afterall, you're already going to have to discuss what the terrain features are, what mission to play, wether or not we're using one of the GT packs, etc...
And there's NO guarantee that whoever you meet will even be familiar with current update x/GT pack whatever-it-is-this-month, etc.
oni wrote: So why then should anyone play using 'community rules'? Seems a lot like being told "conform to the group think or be excluded".
Do you play in tourneys? Have any of them ever had terrain placement/type rules? Restricted what units/sources could be used? Scoring rules?
If so you've already accepted playing by community rules.
alextroy wrote: Again, nice theory. Show me a magic terrain piece where this can actually happen for an entire unit.
It doesn't have to be magic. It just has to have a wall or an L shaped terrain on it. And practicaly half the terrain is an L shaped thing, because of how LoS functions this edition.
The era was never here, certain people just delusionally tried to twist the game to fit their own vision rather than accept and embrace the vision as presented. GW always said that the rules were for you to adjust as you see fit, not this "official" crap. Here's a quote from May 1999 in regards to people questioning if the Citadel Journal was "official":
The worst thing in the world for our hobby would be a drift towards 'rules lawyers' and 'officialdom' - we get enough of that from the tax office and traffic police.
this too, a direct quote from Rick Priestly himself:
Rick Priestly, Warhammer rulebook wrote:I'd like to make a plea about queries, questions, and 'officialdom' in the hobby. Warhammer is inherently adaptable, the rules and ideas in the game are a springboard to better and greater things. I encourage players to develop the game to suit themselves, to invent and change rules to their own taste and explore their own ideas about rules, modeling, scenery and backgrounds.
People corrupted the game to be way more serious than it ever was meant to be and everything has suffered as a result. Sadly that mindset seems to have completely polluted the game. I have never seen anyone willing to really house rule anything, just like most people it seems anything that's not the latest GT pack might as well not even exist and it's unfathomable to imagine anyone saying to use something else. It's a bit ridiculous.
Corrupted the game, because they wanted clear rules, which removes drama, personal likes and outside of the game involvment? What is next playing the game with the rules as writen being the first step to satanism?
It's a little arbitrary, though, as GW's "suggestion for minimum table size" seems to have been taken as "only playable standard table size" by many tournament organizers, for example.
You can fit more tables in a given space and you can make the tables cheaper, it's not surprising that people hosting multiple games at a time and providing tables/terrain are embracing a rule that makes them more money and allows them to have bigger tournaments. Also it's popular because it's actually good for the game. Melee armies have more of a chance without getting blown off the table T1 and maybe not even getting into charge range on T2. I don't like it thematically as there was already way too much stuff crammed into a tiny area at 2k points and 6x4 tables but I won't deny that it has improved gameplay.
Karol wrote: Corrupted the game, because they wanted clear rules, which removes drama, personal likes and outside of the game involvment? What is next playing the game with the rules as writen being the first step to satanism?
The rules aren't clear, and didn't remove drama. Just made it more convoluted.
Let's say, by chance, you and I meet at a convention at an open table for a game of W40K. Who's community rules do we use? Yours? Mine? Do we ask what the locals do? Or do we simply play by the games rules; GW's rules?
There is only one reasonable answer and that is to play by the games rules; GW's rules.
So why then should anyone play using 'community rules'? Seems a lot like being told "conform to the group think or be excluded".
Presumably, that's something that you'd talk with your opponent about, but, personally, I'd assume the default for two people from different communities would be to use the GW rules and, optionally, make any adjustments to them that can be agreed upon. You'd, of course, want to come prepared to play by the GW rules if necessary (or I suppose you could turn down the pickup game if you don't have a list handy that meets those rules). No reason you can't have a community rule set that you play within your community (or, alternatively, perhaps your community favors GW rules, which is perfectly fine). Just like real life though, you gotta understand that there will be differences in these rules and be prepared to work with the other person to overcome those differences.
If you don't agree with the rules decisions in your local community, that really sucks. Try to avoid people who are being absolutists with respect to the community rules and are willing to work with you on finding common ground. If those people don't exist, I'd say the community isn't worth it (obviously a horrible outcome if that community is the only way to play the game...but if it's not fun to play, you might be better off not playing unfortunately)
catbarf wrote: Using the rules as a platform for building the game system that you and your buddies want it to be is a great thing and I wholeheartedly encourage it.
But it's just not a useful approach for pick-up games against strangers at the local shop, and for a lot of people that's the only gaming they get.
Or, most likely, the only kind they WANT. I've been to many shops over the years, and people WANT to basically randomly show up and hope someone else did the same, rather than have a semi-organized group. Lately now you have FB groups or discords or whatnot to organize, but it's far from an actual gaming club it's still basically people who are only connected by going to the same game store, with nothing else.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Thought you couldn't consolidate to get put of engagement range?
You don't. You consolidate closer to the enemy, but by doing so you change the way engagement range is defined. You fight at 1.9", end your consolidation move at 1.7", and now because the line between models no longer crosses the terrain engagement range drops back down to 1".
Must just be me, but I’m finding it hard to visualize a circumstance when this can actually happen. Theory is fine, but on the table?
Took about 20min from faq release until i ran into this
oni wrote: Movement and positioning is supposed to be important; right?
I really do not see why it was an issue, but if that's not what the designers intended then the change is perfectly fine.
On topic... There is nothing positive about community rules. They fragment play groups and promote cliques. The last thing I want anyone telling me is "This is how we play it here." The rules are the rules whether you agree with them or not.
Yes, agreed. Move and positioning should matter, very much.
But… community rules? Some communities are bigger than others and it already happens. So…
Wow, but… no.
Let's say, by chance, you and I meet at a convention at an open table for a game of W40K. Who's community rules do we use? Yours? Mine? Do we ask what the locals do? Or do we simply play by the games rules; GW's rules?
There is only one reasonable answer and that is to play by the games rules; GW's rules.
So why then should anyone play using 'community rules'? Seems a lot like being told "conform to the group think or be excluded".
Let's say, by chance, you and I meet at a convention at an open table for a game of W40K. Who's community rules do we use? Yours? Mine? Do we ask what the locals do? Or do we simply play by the games rules; GW's rules?
There is only one reasonable answer and that is to play by the games rules; GW's rules.
Or you could try that age old thing where you talk to each other. Afterall, you're already going to have to discuss what the terrain features are, what mission to play, wether or not we're using one of the GT packs, etc...
And there's NO guarantee that whoever you meet will even be familiar with current update x/GT pack whatever-it-is-this-month, etc.
oni wrote: So why then should anyone play using 'community rules'? Seems a lot like being told "conform to the group think or be excluded".
Do you play in tourneys? Have any of them ever had terrain placement/type rules? Restricted what units/sources could be used? Scoring rules?
If so you've already accepted playing by community rules.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Thought you couldn't consolidate to get put of engagement range?
You don't. You consolidate closer to the enemy, but by doing so you change the way engagement range is defined. You fight at 1.9", end your consolidation move at 1.7", and now because the line between models no longer crosses the terrain engagement range drops back down to 1".
Must just be me, but I’m finding it hard to visualize a circumstance when this can actually happen. Theory is fine, but on the table?
Took about 20min from faq release until i ran into this
Thank you for the illustration. So the issue is one of GW fixing one niche tactic (using Breachable walls to create a unchargable unit) and creating a different niche tactic (extra Engagement Range that can be abused if you can dance a unit far enough away and out of terrain).
I guess people need to ask which problem is worst.
alextroy wrote: Thank you for the illustration. So the issue is one of GW fixing one niche tactic (using Breachable walls to create a unchargable unit) and creating a different niche tactic (extra Engagement Range that can be abused if you can dance a unit far enough away and out of terrain).
I guess people need to ask which problem is worst.
Plus making deep strike charges into ruins more likely than the same charge against a unit not in a ruin, plus having units in ruins block additional table space in the movement phase. They've replaced one edge case situation with several different problems and IMO that is clearly a bad trade.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Thought you couldn't consolidate to get put of engagement range?
You don't. You consolidate closer to the enemy, but by doing so you change the way engagement range is defined. You fight at 1.9", end your consolidation move at 1.7", and now because the line between models no longer crosses the terrain engagement range drops back down to 1".
Must just be me, but I’m finding it hard to visualize a circumstance when this can actually happen. Theory is fine, but on the table?
Imagine a unit just on the edge of the ruin, 1.9" from an enemy outside the ruin that they just charged. According to the new rule that unit can attack. After it attacks it can then consolidate towards the enemy and move so the front edge of its bases are all outside the terrain at, say, 1.7" away. As the shortest distance between the two units no longer goes through the ruin, engagement range is now 1" and the targeted unit cannot attack back.
Again, nice theory. Show me a magic terrain piece where this can actually happen for an entire unit.
This actually came up during my game yesterday. A unit of deathwing terminators was partially sitting on a ruin to hold an objective. My daemon prince charged them and made sure he was getting the bonus to engagement range:
Spoiler:
After the daemon prince fought, I consolidated closer, but dragged the "shortest line" out of the area terrain, reducing the engagement range to 1" again. The terminators were not allowed to fight back:
Spoiler:
It's definitively avoidable, but also quite easy to gotcha people this way if you know how to.
Wayniac wrote: The era was never here, certain people just delusionally tried to twist the game to fit their own vision rather than accept and embrace the vision as presented. GW always said that the rules were for you to adjust as you see fit, not this "official" crap. Here's a quote from May 1999 in regards to people questioning if the Citadel Journal was "official":
The worst thing in the world for our hobby would be a drift towards 'rules lawyers' and 'officialdom' - we get enough of that from the tax office and traffic police.
this too, a direct quote from Rick Priestly himself:
Rick Priestly, Warhammer rulebook wrote:I'd like to make a plea about queries, questions, and 'officialdom' in the hobby. Warhammer is inherently adaptable, the rules and ideas in the game are a springboard to better and greater things. I encourage players to develop the game to suit themselves, to invent and change rules to their own taste and explore their own ideas about rules, modeling, scenery and backgrounds.
People corrupted the game to be way more serious than it ever was meant to be and everything has suffered as a result. Sadly that mindset seems to have completely polluted the game. I have never seen anyone willing to really house rule anything, just like most people it seems anything that's not the latest GT pack might as well not even exist and it's unfathomable to imagine anyone saying to use something else. It's a bit ridiculous.
AKA that's Preistly blaming his shoddy rules writing on the players
It's just fundamentaly different gaming mentalities. The original game is intended to function much more cooperatively than many like to play it. That's not bad rules writing.
Personally I like a system where I can squeeze efficiencies and play cutthroat games. But I can recognize that wasn't the original intent. RP was building for a different mindset than I tend to apply. That's not his failure.
Insectum7 wrote: It's just fundamentaly different gaming mentalities. The original game is intended to function much more cooperatively than many like to play it. That's not bad rules writing.
Personally I like a system where I can squeeze efficiencies and play cutthroat games. But I can recognize that wasn't the original intent. RP was building for a different mindset than I tend to apply. That's not his failure.
I disagree. While I can get behind designers not balancing their games for top competitive play, for your average two dudes meeting at a store with their average two armies, the rules have to provide a well functioning game out of the box without any need for modification.
If you can't even do that, you aren't deserving of the title game designer, and yes, that is bad rules writing.
The new obscuring rules are bad and anyone involved with getting them added to the FAQ should feel bad. No excuses.
Wayniac wrote: The era was never here, certain people just delusionally tried to twist the game to fit their own vision rather than accept and embrace the vision as presented. GW always said that the rules were for you to adjust as you see fit, not this "official" crap. Here's a quote from May 1999 in regards to people questioning if the Citadel Journal was "official":
The worst thing in the world for our hobby would be a drift towards 'rules lawyers' and 'officialdom' - we get enough of that from the tax office and traffic police.
this too, a direct quote from Rick Priestly himself:
Rick Priestly, Warhammer rulebook wrote:I'd like to make a plea about queries, questions, and 'officialdom' in the hobby. Warhammer is inherently adaptable, the rules and ideas in the game are a springboard to better and greater things. I encourage players to develop the game to suit themselves, to invent and change rules to their own taste and explore their own ideas about rules, modeling, scenery and backgrounds.
People corrupted the game to be way more serious than it ever was meant to be and everything has suffered as a result. Sadly that mindset seems to have completely polluted the game. I have never seen anyone willing to really house rule anything, just like most people it seems anything that's not the latest GT pack might as well not even exist and it's unfathomable to imagine anyone saying to use something else. It's a bit ridiculous.
AKA that's Preistly blaming his shoddy rules writing on the players
If you don't like his rules modify them to suit them. That's literally the point being made here.
That being said I agree in part with both sides. The Cult Of Officialdom is strangling the game because it results in things like losing Jump pack Chaos Lords/Canonness and restricted squad options like the Skitarii and Plague Marines and such. Things that could be easily housr ruled back in but people just won't because its not "official". But at the same time the game is no longer a few isolated pockets of nerds playing in the garage or on the kitchen table using tupperware or the kids toys for terrain. The standards GW should be held to both for the scope and price of the game should be much, much higher but being locked into the mindset of "its just supposed to be fun, change the game how you want" is just as harmful as sticking too rigidly to the rules (albeit for very different reasons).
Insectum7 wrote: It's just fundamentaly different gaming mentalities. The original game is intended to function much more cooperatively than many like to play it. That's not bad rules writing.
Personally I like a system where I can squeeze efficiencies and play cutthroat games. But I can recognize that wasn't the original intent. RP was building for a different mindset than I tend to apply. That's not his failure.
I disagree. While I can get behind designers not balancing their games for top competitive play, for your average two dudes meeting at a store with their average two armies, the rules have to provide a well functioning game out of the box without any need for modification.
If you can't even do that, you aren't deserving of the title game designer, and yes, that is bad rules writing.
The new obscuring rules are bad and anyone involved with getting them added to the FAQ should feel bad. No excuses.
Well I cant speak to the current obscuring rules, but I'm pretty sure Rick Priestly didn't write them.
Sim-Life wrote: If you don't like his rules modify them to suit them. That's literally the point being made here.
Yes, and the point is that needing to modify broken rules is a sign of incompetence by the author, an author who expects me to pay them a significant amount of money for their work. I give credit to Rick Priestly for his work in the early days of GW but the reality is that he, like most of GW's authors from that era, absolutely sucked at making good rules. And rather than admit that 40k was a game that needed to be refined into something better they insisted on blaming "competitive" players for "unfairly exploiting" their mistakes and "playing the game the wrong way". But quality rules matter just as much for casual/narrative play as for competitive play and 40k's flaws were problems in all of them.
Things that could be easily housr ruled back in but people just won't because its not "official".
But where do you draw the line? And what do you do about balance concerns? If a character in the current codex is designed around only having a 6" move giving an upgrade to 12" is a significant buff that hasn't been accounted for. And is "GW used to do this" the only valid justification, or should I be able to expect my opponent to house rule in anything I think is cool? Am I entitled to jump packs on my guardsmen if I want them? Sure, some of these things might be fine but most fan-made content is garbage. The average 40k player is even worse than GW at creating good rules and I don't think it's reasonable to expect every game to involve negotiating about which house rules will be allowed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: It's just fundamentaly different gaming mentalities. The original game is intended to function much more cooperatively than many like to play it. That's not bad rules writing.
It's absolutely bad writing. Over and over again 40k has flaws that have nothing to do with enabling a cooperative RPG-style game, it's just bad design and poor editing with "BUT NARRATIVE" being used as an excuse for why the author didn't do a better job.
jeff white wrote: I was listening to an established and popular podcast, yo dog, when one commentator suggested that, with recent changes to engagement ranges given certain terrain features, and with event organizers rejecting the rule, the era of treating GW rules and updates as gospel, the one and only best way to play, is over. In this case, the context was competitive, but I figure that the point holds for more casual settings, and more hobby centric settings too.
My question is how many here agree with the commentator’s assessment. Is the mood out there such that people are ready to make house or local are flexible rules arrangements or … something besides chasing the corporate meta?
I think 'local tweaks' are a good idea - a single set of 'universal' rules are often a race to the bottom and the lowest common denominator.
'One default/proper way to play' can be extremely stifling and issues are only compounded when the rules are flawed/broken. Games like warmachine/hordes have basically died because of an over-insistance on 'competitive steamroller or gtfo' and defined approach- it's telling that the 'brawlmachine' format which has inspired a bit of a resurgence stemmed from a local effort, rather than an official dictat.
And I don't blame the writers- at least not really. 'Incompetence' is an easy accusation to level, and often, whilst at least somewhat warranted I do think the greater issue isn't so much lack of ability, but rather unsolvable situations - ttg's are limited systems that can only hold so much weight anyway, and rough edges are unfortunately par for the course for any system that survives beyond a starter box. There's only so much that can ever be accomodated without compromises and paying a price, and imo the latter two aren't always worth it.
Anyway, different groups have different circumstances and approaches to gaming and I'm very much in favour of players taking ownership of their games along with at least some of the responsibility for 'what' they play and 'how' they play.
This actually came up during my game yesterday. A unit of deathwing terminators was partially sitting on a ruin to hold an objective. My daemon prince charged them and made sure he was getting the bonus to engagement range:
Spoiler:
After the daemon prince fought, I consolidated closer, but dragged the "shortest line" out of the area terrain, reducing the engagement range to 1" again. The terminators were not allowed to fight back:
Spoiler:
It's definitively avoidable, but also quite easy to gotcha people this way if you know how to.
Please tell me this was for a tourney or that your opponent encouraged you to do this... otherwise it's a real jerk move to actually pull this garbage in a friendly game.
GW explicitly changed the rules to work that way, and I believe that this change is hot garbage and that the rules team should know better by now to not at least ask a few of their playtesters for feedback on such a change.
Spoiler:
But if it lets you sleep better, I'm a fairly sporting opponent. I gave my opponent the option to ignore this part of the FAQ, but they declined thinking that their deathwing heavy list would benefit from easier charges after deep striking. Karma always catches up to you.
Jidmah wrote: Why do the circumstances of my game matter?
GW explicitly changed the rules to work that way, and I believe that this change is hot garbage and that the rules team should know better by now to not at least ask a few of their playtesters for feedback on such a change.
Spoiler:
But if it lets you sleep better, I'm a fairly sporting opponent. I gave my opponent the option to ignore this part of the FAQ, but they declined thinking that their deathwing heavy list would benefit from easier charges after deep striking.
Karma always catches up to you.
Originally I was just calling it out as a jerk move, but reconsidered that as perhaps being a bit harsh considering I didn't know the context.
It's obvious the rules team did not consider what's in these examples. I know I didn't. After seeing them I now agree, this change needs to be revised. Perhaps clarifying that the charging unit must begin it's move outside of the terrain feature.
Wayniac wrote: The era was never here, certain people just delusionally tried to twist the game to fit their own vision rather than accept and embrace the vision as presented. GW always said that the rules were for you to adjust as you see fit, not this "official" crap. Here's a quote from May 1999 in regards to people questioning if the Citadel Journal was "official":
The worst thing in the world for our hobby would be a drift towards 'rules lawyers' and 'officialdom' - we get enough of that from the tax office and traffic police.
this too, a direct quote from Rick Priestly himself:
Rick Priestly, Warhammer rulebook wrote:I'd like to make a plea about queries, questions, and 'officialdom' in the hobby. Warhammer is inherently adaptable, the rules and ideas in the game are a springboard to better and greater things. I encourage players to develop the game to suit themselves, to invent and change rules to their own taste and explore their own ideas about rules, modeling, scenery and backgrounds.
People corrupted the game to be way more serious than it ever was meant to be and everything has suffered as a result. Sadly that mindset seems to have completely polluted the game. I have never seen anyone willing to really house rule anything, just like most people it seems anything that's not the latest GT pack might as well not even exist and it's unfathomable to imagine anyone saying to use something else. It's a bit ridiculous.
AKA that's Preistly blaming his shoddy rules writing on the players
If you don't like his rules modify them to suit them. That's literally the point being made here.
No, the point being made is that he's a shoddy rules writer and says to fix it yourself. Amazing he gets the support he does.
That really isn't what he's saying by a long shot, EviscerationPlague. He's saying not to get wrapped around the axle of what's 'official', whether that concerns rules ambiguities, optional content in ancillary publications, or coming up with your own rules.
Priestley has penned tightly-written and well-designed game systems since and always kept to that same ethos.
Insectum7 wrote: It's just fundamentaly different gaming mentalities. The original game is intended to function much more cooperatively than many like to play it. That's not bad rules writing.
It's absolutely bad writing. Over and over again 40k has flaws that have nothing to do with enabling a cooperative RPG-style game, it's just bad design and poor editing with "BUT NARRATIVE" being used as an excuse for why the author didn't do a better job.
We're probably mixing up two things here.
I'm saying that the Rick Priestly quote comes from a different philosophy when it comes to game design, and that philosophy is perfectly fine.
But as for the current rule adjustments being awkwardly rammed into 40k, yes I agree that many of them are incredibly dumb.
Let's say, by chance, you and I meet at a convention at an open table for a game of W40K. Who's community rules do we use? Yours? Mine? Do we ask what the locals do? Or do we simply play by the games rules; GW's rules?
There is only one reasonable answer and that is to play by the games rules; GW's rules.
Or you could try that age old thing where you talk to each other. Afterall, you're already going to have to discuss what the terrain features are, what mission to play, wether or not we're using one of the GT packs, etc...
And there's NO guarantee that whoever you meet will even be familiar with current update x/GT pack whatever-it-is-this-month, etc.
But none of these things modify game rules, so I don't see how it applies.
oni wrote: So why then should anyone play using 'community rules'? Seems a lot like being told "conform to the group think or be excluded".
Do you play in tourneys? Have any of them ever had terrain placement/type rules? Restricted what units/sources could be used? Scoring rules?
If so you've already accepted playing by community rules.
I think tournaments are a poor comparison. There's almost always a tournament pack or similar document that lays out everything so players local and nonlocal will know exactly what to expect; there shouldn't be any surprises.
Unless you and your opponent are part of the same community and play each other often, it's reasonable to expect the game will be played using GW's rules. It's also reasonable to expect that an outside player will reject 'community rules' and 'house rules' if only to keep things simple and un-bias.
Wayniac wrote: The era was never here, certain people just delusionally tried to twist the game to fit their own vision rather than accept and embrace the vision as presented. GW always said that the rules were for you to adjust as you see fit, not this "official" crap. Here's a quote from May 1999 in regards to people questioning if the Citadel Journal was "official":
The worst thing in the world for our hobby would be a drift towards 'rules lawyers' and 'officialdom' - we get enough of that from the tax office and traffic police.
this too, a direct quote from Rick Priestly himself:
Rick Priestly, Warhammer rulebook wrote:I'd like to make a plea about queries, questions, and 'officialdom' in the hobby. Warhammer is inherently adaptable, the rules and ideas in the game are a springboard to better and greater things. I encourage players to develop the game to suit themselves, to invent and change rules to their own taste and explore their own ideas about rules, modeling, scenery and backgrounds.
People corrupted the game to be way more serious than it ever was meant to be and everything has suffered as a result. Sadly that mindset seems to have completely polluted the game. I have never seen anyone willing to really house rule anything, just like most people it seems anything that's not the latest GT pack might as well not even exist and it's unfathomable to imagine anyone saying to use something else. It's a bit ridiculous.
AKA that's Preistly blaming his shoddy rules writing on the players
If you don't like his rules modify them to suit them. That's literally the point being made here.
No, the point being made is that he's a shoddy rules writer and says to fix it yourself. Amazing he gets the support he does.
But Priestly had nothing to do with modern 40k. Robin Cruddace is the lead designer on nu-40k.
Ah, this subject again. How long it took, a month? "Everything happened before, everything will happen again."
This time I'm not going to get involved in-depth in this, but just a few words.
First, in defence of Rick. Those were the times, when "wargaming" meant "historicals", which were, and still are, deeply cooperative in preparation and only adversarial, not competitive in gameplay. And from that perspective, wargaming never changed. It is only in this century, when "competitive" became so loud part of the hobby.
Now about this whole "blame the players for shoddy rules" crap. It has been discussed before, that competitive players are very prone to conflate two separate things: "clear rules" with "competitive oriented rules". Those are not the same. The easiest example: a clearly written game, that is designed for 7hrs gameplay is completely unsuited for blind pickup and tournaments. Another area where "competitive rules" directly hamper non-competitive game uses is terrain. As long as you only play with flat table and isolated terrain pieces, "quantified" terrain rules and removing TLOS can be made to work ok. But when you play on unquantifiable dioramas? TLOS is the only way to write terrain rules that will be usable anyhow, because you simply cannot write quantified rules that will account for naturally looking terrain. Another one - templates. I get why those were unwieldy in tournament setting, but removal of those directly took away a significant portion of wargames nature out of 40k. Throughout all those years of posting here, I can say with 100% certainty, that many competitive players can neither fathom or even imagine how non-competitive, historical wargaming works like. So they will endlessly argue, that their way is the only way that is happening IRL due to lack of any other personal experience and very narrow perspective on the whole hobby.
Next up: official vs houseruled approach to 40k and which is "natural". I have easily converted a few "official only" players into "houserules all the way" players, because they were only sticking to official rules due to obnoxious character of their local FLGS "community", closed to any kind of sandboxing. Not because they wanted to play that way. "Your dudes" very easily expands to "your game" once you step outside of blind pickup and make actual friends in this hobby. And the "clear rules" argument has nothing to do with that, people with certain mentality will always expand/tweak the ruleset to better fit their desires, even if it worked ok out of the box. That is because, again, many aspects of historical wargaming are unquantifiable and not codifiable into unexploitable rules.
Lastly, some people seem to not realise - majority of people playing this game do not travel around the world on regular basis, so the universal nature of the ruleset has significantly less value to them than a tailored experience.
EviscerationPlague wrote: 40k is fiction and is not "historical", or do you think people aren't laughing at the HH players that are pissy about the Mk6 armor?
"Historicals" is a word encompassing a specific approach to wargaming and should not be read literally. There are many, many fictional and yet historical wargames. Just google VSF for example.
EviscerationPlague wrote: 40k is fiction and is not "historical", or do you think people aren't laughing at the HH players that are pissy about the Mk6 armor?
He's referring to historicals, not actual history or science fiction/fantasy. Games like hail caesar, pike and shot, saga and dozens more. The gaming ecosphere is much more than gw or other sci fi/fantasy games
And amongst historicals, and historical focused groups this diy/home brew thing I'd quite the norm has has been for decades before gw was even a thing.
EviscerationPlague wrote: 40k is fiction and is not "historical", or do you think people aren't laughing at the HH players that are pissy about the Mk6 armor?
He's referring to historicals, not actual history or science fiction/fantasy. Games like hail caesar, pike and shot, saga and dozens more. The gaming ecosphere is much more than gw or other sci fi/fantasy games
And amongst historicals, and historical focused groups this diy/home brew thing I'd quite the norm has has been for decades before gw was even a thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: More and more, I am enjoying the ignore button, as I would expect its use in general is increasing as the GW centered hobby is bifurcating in much the same way as academic philosphy split between so called analytic and traditional aka continental philosophy. One expected that everything in the world might be made clear with clear language, much like so called competitive 40K. Inthe end, for all the blustery arrogance and doctorates granted on e.g. possible worlds, the entire program after 50 years is clearly a sham... history will repeat.
Its just not the same game/hobby as when we were young dude. There are options out there but the likes of us are just seen as old men yelling at cloud by many in the GW scene now.
Dai wrote: Its just not the same game/hobby as when we were young dude. There are options out there but the likes of us are just seen as old men yelling at cloud by many in the GW scene now.
That's fine. We're old & set in our ways - wich are oddly more flexible than the new kids ways.
jeff white wrote: More and more, I am enjoying the ignore button, as I would expect its use in general is increasing as the GW centered hobby is bifurcating in much the same way as academic philosphy split between so called analytic and traditional aka continental philosophy. One expected that everything in the world might be made clear with clear language, much like so called competitive 40K. Inthe end, for all the blustery arrogance and doctorates granted on e.g. possible worlds, the entire program after 50 years is clearly a sham... history will repeat.
Using bifurcating instead of divided is positively sesquipedalian. 9th is way more clear than 7th, that clarity has improved my gameplay experience because I don't have to look up core rules as often and I basically never have to look for FAQ or Errata. I am not a competitive 9th edition player and I don't see how a casual player could enjoy bickering or 4+ing rules constantly. Adversarial games have to have rules, otherwise, you are just playing pretend and if that is what you want then why do you need a 100-page rulebook? How does doctorates on possible worlds relate to the thread?
The game should allow you to play a game with your miniatures and when GW makes decisions like not including options for Chosen to ride to ride discs or Chaos Lords not being able to take jump packs then that makes some of those people unable to use those miniatures. Handwaving it away by invoking house rules as an option is not a defense of GW, it is acknowledging GW's failure. GW could just stop providing codexes and just give the basic profile of each faction's basic trooper and basic gun and let people figure the rest out themselves, but people should not have to write their own codex to play the game. Drawing the line arbitrarily exactly at wherever GW is at and saying "this amount of rules is good, we'll handle the rest ourselves" is blatant white knighting, why shouldn't you have to invent the stats for lascannons and why don't we have a cost for Chaos Lords on bikes?
Riding a Helldrake as a surfboard? House rule and there is nothing wrong with that house rule, but there is a time and a place for that. Picking up a bike that has been available to Chaos Lords for over a decade? That should go in the codex. Profile of a lascannon that is an option in the box for Havocs? Needs to go in the codex.
jeff white wrote: More and more, I am enjoying the ignore button, as I would expect its use in general is increasing as the GW centered hobby is bifurcating in much the same way as academic philosphy split between so called analytic and traditional aka continental philosophy. One expected that everything in the world might be made clear with clear language, much like so called competitive 40K. Inthe end, for all the blustery arrogance and doctorates granted on e.g. possible worlds, the entire program after 50 years is clearly a sham... history will repeat.
Using bifurcating instead of divided is positively sesquipedalian. 9th is way more clear than 7th, that clarity has improved my gameplay experience because I don't have to look up core rules as often and I basically never have to look for FAQ or Errata. I am not a competitive 9th edition player and I don't see how a casual player could enjoy bickering or 4+ing rules constantly. Adversarial games have to have rules, otherwise, you are just playing pretend and if that is what you want then why do you need a 100-page rulebook? How does doctorates on possible worlds relate to the thread?
The game should allow you to play a game with your miniatures and when GW makes decisions like not including options for Chosen to ride to ride discs or Chaos Lords not being able to take jump packs then that makes some of those people unable to use those miniatures. Handwaving it away by invoking house rules as an option is not a defense of GW, it is acknowledging GW's failure. GW could just stop providing codexes and just give the basic profile of each faction's basic trooper and basic gun and let people figure the rest out themselves, but people should not have to write their own codex to play the game. Drawing the line arbitrarily exactly at wherever GW is at and saying "this amount of rules is good, we'll handle the rest ourselves" is blatant white knighting, why shouldn't you have to invent the stats for lascannons and why don't we have a cost for Chaos Lords on bikes?
Broadly I’ve no problem with home brew or community rules. I do remain skeptical they necessarily fix anything (a lot of home brew rules tend to favour the writer), but if it gets a game in it gets a game in.
However. As with any deviation from Bog Standard Rulebook rules? Don’t spring it on your opponent without discussing it beforehand. Ever. That is a Richard Move.
And yes, that absolutely extends to “I need this game to be tournament practice for me so we’re using the additional rules from that tournament”. Let your opponent know that request in advance, and be gracious if they refuse.
Example. WHFB 8th Edition. I favoured Big Monsters. I had not exactly sneaky but lesser seen tactics to get the most of out them. For instance, Large Targets could see over intervening terrain, provided the model could. Models with Fly could Charge over intervening terrain. Thus Dragons, Manticores et al could declare and complete a charge over intervening terrain.
Was on turn two of a game, ready to do my charges. My opponent had left some juicy and worthwhile flanks exposed, and yes I fully intended to capitalise on that. Chariots we’re split up (I usually ran four, because I loved Impact Hits), but with two flying flank charges lined up, I split them up. Two went for a central unit (they typically hit hard enough to win and break in a single round) . The other two charged one of the units about to get Flank Charged (one by a Black Dragon, the other by a Manticore), in the hope their impact hits would bring weight of kills, and in the certain knowledge the Flank charges would strip out enemy rank bonus.
The two flanked combats were therefore about as sure a thing as you could get in WHFB, with only Rubber Lance Syndrome to spanner things.
I declared the Chariots first, liking to keep my opponent guessing. Then it was Dragon O’Clock. “Black Dragon is going to charge Unit A in the flank”
Oh apparently I couldn’t do that. Being well versed, I politely referred my opponent to the relevant rules which showed I could see, and could charge.
Oh no. Oh no no no no Dear Reader. This was a Tournament Rules Game (never mentioned before). And of course, that meant the Woods my big beasties were lurking behind were infinitely tall. So ashkerly I couldn’t see and couldn’t charge….
Yeah that game was abandoned rapidly.
If my opponent had a) told me of their intent to use that rules subset and b) had, I dunno, actually furnished me with a copy of the damned thing? I could’ve run things differently. Like….very differently. All four Chariots into the middle unit, or two and two perhaps. But as it stood, I was screwed. Because my opponent just decided Extra Secret Special Rules should always apply.
Don’t be That Guy. Just discuss it, and FFS be prepared and more than willing to hand over a copy of those additional or alternative rules. Your preference, your responsibility.
I believe that one of the strengths of 40K is functioning as a lingua franca among tabletop wargamers. I started in historicals, and one problem there was the specificity of the models and time periods. So I might be fascinated by Alexander the Great and have collected a 15mm army but my opponent is a fan of the War of the Roses and therefore we couldn't have a game without prior coordination and sharing of models. It worked even in those pre-email days, but it made getting a game hard. Gaming conventions and game clubs with leaders and schedules of games where we would volunteer to GM and bring all the models etc was one way to get games in, but it could be rather difficult to get started. Those groups can also collapse due to any number of reasons - I find that there is often a leader who can also be rather autocratic. Groups splinter.
Then I came to 40K circa 2nd Ed and suddenly I could just collect and paint up a 1000 point army, go to the store on 40K night and have a game. I have found that more or less true of the many places I have been posted or visited over the following 25 years or so. I packed a small 1500 point army in my gear for long course down south and I could rock up to any game store around the base and get a 40K game in. I moved from town to town and could count on playing 40K wherever I ended up. House rules, though, restrict that. It can be quite off-putting to play someone that uses "house rules" that alter rather important aspects of the game rules - our lingua franca is no longer common. I see house rules with smaller, fairly closed gaming groups that play on a given night each week but play a different game system each week. I've been part of such groups and they are fun while they last.
Still, I think that house/community rules are a barrier to new players. That doesn't make them bad, but they can restrict the health of the gaming community.
EviscerationPlague wrote: 40k is fiction and is not "historical", or do you think people aren't laughing at the HH players that are pissy about the Mk6 armor?
"Historicals" is a word encompassing a specific approach to wargaming and should not be read literally. There are many, many fictional and yet historical wargames. Just google VSF for example.
Okey, but expecting regular people to play the way games were played in prior century is like expect someone to wear stuff people wore in the 1980s or play games under the rules people used in the 60s. Games are played to be efficient, fast and compatitive. And the RPG or cooperative elements aren't a real thing in regular games. It is not even that people always don't have time to talk to others, they just don't want to go over lenghty set of rules and identifires for specific rules etc. That is why end of 8th people would rather play with L shaped ugly looking , but perfect for gaming, walls covering entire tables.
If anything, for no skimirhs games like infinity, TLOS is a huge hinderance and problem. Half the problems with have with Out of LoS shoting, cliping wierd movment and catapulting of models through walls etc are because GW tries to make people play a non skirmish table top game with skirmish LoS rules.
vict0988 wrote: The stats, abilities and cost are all out of wack. An outdated legends datasheet is not good enough.
You don't get it. If you want them to be updated or at least okay for their cost, you're just a WAAC power gamer
And a lazy one at that.
So you want the thing costed correctly? Well;
1) What's the current cost of a Chaos Lord?
2) What's the current cost of a bike?
3) What's the current cost of the gear the WLs sporting?
Just add those things together....
vict0988 wrote: The stats, abilities and cost are all out of wack. An outdated legends datasheet is not good enough.
You don't get it. If you want them to be updated or at least okay for their cost, you're just a WAAC power gamer
Ah yes. The chaos lord playing wanting to play with a jump pack lord or a bike sorc is such a WAAC, because both options would litteraly blow up the game balance. Or a dreadnought with two auto canons or a razorback with a top mounted psycanon. The game would be dead if orks had an actual set of characters on bikes etc.
When/if GW ever phases out classic marines characters, I guess marine players are going to be WAAC for wanting jump pack/bike characters, up until GW brings them back to join the outridder chaplain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs 805972 11406135 wrote:
And a lazy one at that.
So you want the thing costed correctly? Well;
1) What's the current cost of a Chaos Lord?
2) What's the current cost of a bike?
3) What's the current cost of the gear the WLs sporting?
Just add those things together....
There is no bike cost for character to compare. With primaris one can compare the cost of a mounted and not mounted chaplain, and have an extremly weak narrative games only claim to use something like an outridder captin or librarian. Chaos doesn't have such stuff, because the only character with a pack is a special character and those are always costed oddly.
Good question to ask yourself: when was the last time you played a game of 40k strictly according to the rules as stated in the BRB? This means no house rules, no convention scenarios, no ITC objectives, terrain / deployment rules followed to the letter, etc.
Up until 8th edition, that seemed exceptionally hard to do. Many rules contradicted one another, or it was impossible to figure out which was applied first, or there was not common agreement on how to interpret what was stated on the page. I've spent weeks of my life rules lawyering at the table just getting past turn 2.
A universal set of rules, a tournament set of rules, I'm not sure this actually matters. For the most part, people stick with the rules as stated in the BRB. When they can't, they wing it in whatever makes most sense. It has always been that way.
vict0988 wrote: The stats, abilities and cost are all out of wack. An outdated legends datasheet is not good enough.
You don't get it. If you want them to be updated or at least okay for their cost, you're just a WAAC power gamer
And a lazy one at that. So you want the thing costed correctly? Well; 1) What's the current cost of a Chaos Lord? 2) What's the current cost of a bike? 3) What's the current cost of the gear the WLs sporting? Just add those things together....
Why do lascannons need a S value? Can't you just decide in your gaming club what S it has? What is the difference? Is the S value of a lascannon more important than rules for a Chaos Lord on bike? Why does Thousand Sons need rules for mounting discs? Waste of paper when you can just house rule is it not? House rules should be for exceptional things, like surfing on a Helldrake or Chaos Orks. I want rules that are very permissive, like allowing armies of vehicles or monsters and then I want pts and missions to make reasonable lists to be better than weird or niche stuff so people don't have to buy FW or convert models to get a huge power boost.
Good question to ask yourself: when was the last time you played a game of 40k strictly according to the rules as stated in the BRB? This means no house rules, no convention scenarios, no ITC objectives, terrain / deployment rules followed to the letter, etc.
Up until 8th edition, that seemed exceptionally hard to do. Many rules contradicted one another, or it was impossible to figure out which was applied first, or there was not common agreement on how to interpret what was stated on the page. I've spent weeks of my life rules lawyering at the table just getting past turn 2.
A universal set of rules, a tournament set of rules, I'm not sure this actually matters. For the most part, people stick with the rules as stated in the BRB. When they can't, they wing it in whatever makes most sense. It has always been that way.
You're a nerd if you don't fast roll your saving throws, technically they aren't listed along with hits and wounds as something you are meant to fast roll. Other than that? I have played dozens of 9th games following GW rules.
EviscerationPlague wrote: 40k is fiction and is not "historical", or do you think people aren't laughing at the HH players that are pissy about the Mk6 armor?
"Historicals" is a word encompassing a specific approach to wargaming and should not be read literally. There are many, many fictional and yet historical wargames. Just google VSF for example.
Okey, but expecting regular people to play the way games were played in prior century is like expect someone to wear stuff people wore in the 1980s or play games under the rules people used in the 60s. Games are played to be efficient, fast and compatitive. And the RPG or cooperative elements aren't a real thing in regular games. It is not even that people always don't have time to talk to others, they just don't want to go over lenghty set of rules and identifires for specific rules etc. That is why end of 8th people would rather play with L shaped ugly looking , but perfect for gaming, walls covering entire tables.
If anything, for no skimirhs games like infinity, TLOS is a huge hinderance and problem. Half the problems with have with Out of LoS shoting, cliping wierd movment and catapulting of models through walls etc are because GW tries to make people play a non skirmish table top game with skirmish LoS rules.
I don't know where did you get this "prior century" from. "Historicals" does not mean playing antiquated rulesets, "playing the same way your grand dad did". There are great many modern "historicals" rulesets out there. Just visit wargamevault.com.
The main problem here is that so many "wargamers" nurtured by 40k communities are completely incompatible with the mindset required to play the "historicals" ways of wargaming. They expect "NPC culture of single-serving opponents" otherwise known as pick-up games, with some players getting infuriated by the very idea of having any sort of pre-game chat beyond "2000pts matched, current GT". This seems to be especially true in US. A lot of 40k players are also obsessively focussed on list building as the core aspect of the "skill" and this focus alone makes it hard or straight up impossible for them to understand why "historicals" are still very much adversarial games that test generalship skills.
The rules are a lingua franca. That very fact makes it much easier to explain house rules with folks you've never met. You don't need to explain the whole ruleset first. As for new folks, it's probably best to limit the house rules to those that remove aspects of the game, imho, but *shrug*
(Edit: of course, you have to be prepared for no one to be interested in your house rule as well be open to your opponent suggesting house rules as well)
Karol wrote: Ah yes. The chaos lord playing wanting to play with a jump pack lord or a bike sorc is such a WAAC, because both options would litteraly blow up the game balance.
You either have memory of mayfly, or are just parroting excuses of that extremely toxic and waaac game club of yours, because that's exactly what happened in both 7th and 8th editions. Hello? Herohammer rings a bell? Superfriends? 3 BA/SW captains that for some reason dumped their chapters and were playing Doom on their lonesome? Cherrypicked CSM crap that somehow always amounted to sticking wings or disc or bike or palanquin or whatever on most broken neckbeardy melee weapon/trait combo and Leeroiying it into enemy army to delete it on rerollable 2+ roll?
Gee, I have no idea why people might dislike that. Sure, it only sunk both editions, but anyone who calls out anti-fun netlisters on that gak somehow is the one at fault, not dudes actually doing so, eh?
vict0988 wrote: people should not have to write their own codex to play the game
Yeah, adding one line of wargear to CSM lord entry is 'writing your own codex'. Nice hysteric hyperbole.
why don't we have a cost for Chaos Lords on bikes?
Gee, maybe, just maybe, because the option was broken in past editions? Funny how people point out the rules for bike lord still exist, but people who do it 'totally for the fluff, honest guv' always whine these aren't OP so you can't waaac these and they pretend said rules don't exist just proving the point of opposing side.
Even from fluff perspective, why should CSM have bikes and/or jump packs? They lost their industry, have no spare parts, no traitor legions used them extensively before - GW should just delete the option altogether, CSM are not loyalists, they shouldn't be mirror copies of them. They should get daemonic mounts like juggernauts or whatever discordant is riding, priced appropriately, none of that '+10 pts upgrade makes CSM lord utterly broken' waaac gak.
Picking up a bike that has been available to Chaos Lords for over a decade? That should go in the codex.
Space marines used to use eldar guns. Orks could use bolters. You could virus bomb enemy army and delete it on 4+ before game even started. Etc, etc. Funny how no one whines about all the other gak GW removed because it was broken and/or didn't fit the setting anymore, it's always the players of the same entitled 2-3 armies.
Deathwatch players have much better cause for protests because inept hack who wrote their book ruined 2/3 of the army options with SIA restrictions. Primaris ones, ditto, with idiotic power weapon rules. Ynnari with again, utterly inept handling of the faction. There is good 10+ factions that have far better claim to being shafted by GW, yet somehow, you almost never see these players complaining - and certainly not to the point of making dozens of salty posts crying someone dared to call out their netlist wombo combo mini once. Go figure
Karol wrote: Ah yes. The chaos lord playing wanting to play with a jump pack lord or a bike sorc is such a WAAC, because both options would litteraly blow up the game balance.
You either have memory of mayfly, or are just parroting excuses of that extremely toxic and waaac game club of yours, because that's exactly what happened in both 7th and 8th editions. Hello? Herohammer rings a bell? Superfriends? 3 BA/SW captains that for some reason dumped their chapters and were playing Doom on their lonesome? Cherrypicked CSM crap that somehow always amounted to sticking wings or disc or bike or palanquin or whatever on most broken neckbeardy melee weapon/trait combo and Leeroiying it into enemy army to delete it on rerollable 2+ roll?
Gee, I have no idea why people might dislike that. Sure, it only sunk both editions, but anyone who calls out anti-fun netlisters on that gak somehow is the one at fault, not dudes actually doing so, eh?
vict0988 wrote: people should not have to write their own codex to play the game
Yeah, adding one line of wargear to CSM lord entry is 'writing your own codex'. Nice hysteric hyperbole.
why don't we have a cost for Chaos Lords on bikes?
Gee, maybe, just maybe, because the option was broken in past editions? Funny how people point out the rules for bike lord still exist, but people who do it 'totally for the fluff, honest guv' always whine these aren't OP so you can't waaac these and they pretend said rules don't exist just proving the point of opposing side.
Even from fluff perspective, why should CSM have bikes and/or jump packs? They lost their industry, have no spare parts, no traitor legions used them extensively before - GW should just delete the option altogether, CSM are not loyalists, they shouldn't be mirror copies of them. They should get daemonic mounts like juggernauts or whatever discordant is riding, priced appropriately, none of that '+10 pts upgrade makes CSM lord utterly broken' waaac gak.
Picking up a bike that has been available to Chaos Lords for over a decade? That should go in the codex.
Space marines used to use eldar guns. Orks could use bolters. You could virus bomb enemy army and delete it on 4+ before game even started. Etc, etc. Funny how no one whines about all the other gak GW removed because it was broken and/or didn't fit the setting anymore, it's always the players of the same entitled 2-3 armies.
Deathwatch players have much better cause for protests because inept hack who wrote their book ruined 2/3 of the army options with SIA restrictions. Primaris ones, ditto, with idiotic power weapon rules. Ynnari with again, utterly inept handling of the faction. There is good 10+ factions that have far better claim to being shafted by GW, yet somehow, you almost never see these players complaining - and certainly not to the point of making dozens of salty posts crying someone dared to call out their netlist wombo combo mini once. Go figure
Chaos Lords, with jump packs, and.......on bikes.....are "what ruined 8th and......7th edition? That's what broke 7th?
And Chaos can't build jump packs and bikes? Bikes? Really? When they've got the Dark Mechanicum cranking out Thunderhawks, tanks, and daemon engines?
Oh, Irbis, Irbis, Irbis! You're parody is to die for! You're killing me! But you're almost too good. Anyone who didn't know better might actually think that you were serious! And just constantly pushing for factions that you don't play to be as weak as possible, while at the same time pushing for factions that you do play to be as strong as possible.
EviscerationPlague wrote: 40k is fiction and is not "historical", or do you think people aren't laughing at the HH players that are pissy about the Mk6 armor?
"Historicals" is a word encompassing a specific approach to wargaming and should not be read literally. There are many, many fictional and yet historical wargames. Just google VSF for example.
Okey, but expecting regular people to play the way games were played in prior century is like expect someone to wear stuff people wore in the 1980s or play games under the rules people used in the 60s. Games are played to be efficient, fast and compatitive. And the RPG or cooperative elements aren't a real thing in regular games. It is not even that people always don't have time to talk to others, they just don't want to go over lenghty set of rules and identifires for specific rules etc. That is why end of 8th people would rather play with L shaped ugly looking , but perfect for gaming, walls covering entire tables.
If anything, for no skimirhs games like infinity, TLOS is a huge hinderance and problem. Half the problems with have with Out of LoS shoting, cliping wierd movment and catapulting of models through walls etc are because GW tries to make people play a non skirmish table top game with skirmish LoS rules.
They are lots of cooperative games that aren't RPGs.
There are lots of games that have been using the same rules for decades, if not centuries, Monopoly, checkers, chess, the Royal game of Ur.
They are lots of cooperative games that aren't RPGs.
There are lots of games that have been using the same rules for decades, if not centuries, Monopoly, checkers, chess, the Royal game of Ur.
Like playing house or running around with a model going pew pew, yeah there are games like that. W40k is not that. Every game that has a win condition is automaticly, in its very nature compatitive. The worse thing about the w40k situation, is that the people who claim to not care about winning or gaming or competition, could house rule their games and do what ever they want with existing rules. Something they claim they do already. Yet somehow this is not enough, the narrative rules have to be added to normal games. True LoS, paint score in the game, making the company which struggles with one game system write 2-3 for different ways of playing. etc
You think chess, checkers or monopoly is non compatitive ??? I either misunderstood something strongly or I am probably missing something important here.
You either have memory of mayfly, or are just parroting excuses of that extremely toxic and waaac game club of yours, because that's exactly what happened in both 7th and 8th editions. Hello? Herohammer rings a bell? Superfriends? 3 BA/SW captains that for some reason dumped their chapters and were playing Doom on their lonesome? Cherrypicked CSM crap that somehow always amounted to sticking wings or disc or bike or palanquin or whatever on most broken neckbeardy melee weapon/trait combo and Leeroiying it into enemy army to delete it on rerollable 2+ roll?
Gee, I have no idea why people might dislike that. Sure, it only sunk both editions, but anyone who calls out anti-fun netlisters on that gak somehow is the one at fault, not dudes actually doing so, eh?
I don't know what hero hammer or super friends means, I assume those are older builds of some sort. I do remember suicide smash captins from 8th, because that is when I started to play the game. my army is +2 sv, if that was powerful in the past, I wish I have played my army back then and now when they were really bad tough.
And people so optimise armies to their budget. What are they suppose to do, buy bad stuff? What if the stuff they like is the strong stuff. Plus I remember the advice to marine players or me, being given in 8th. In order to properly play w40k, because marines are ultra bad, I should always start my army with the loyal 32, followed by something like a castellan. And to be honest I would rather have a strong army out of my own, singular, codex then to be forced to buy 3 books and 3 different armies to have a somewhat valid army to play.
Karol wrote:Every game that has a win condition is automaticly, in its very nature compatitive.
... that's just not true.
What, are party games competitive? Musical chairs? Pinata?
You think chess, checkers or monopoly is non compatitive ???
Yes - or, at the very least, can be played not competitively.
To be played "competitively", the win condition has to be the primary reason for play. When the win condition is simply a by-product of playing the game for the experience or shared activity, then it is no longer competitive.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: To be played "competitively", the win condition has to be the primary reason for play. When the win condition is simply a by-product of playing the game for the experience or shared activity, then it is no longer competitive.
While it is of little surprise to anyone that many players don't understand this nuance, it is to my endless disappointment how many players fundamentally do not comprehend the very concept of a win condition simply being a means to an end.
If we lost Bikes because they were competitive at some point in the past Tyranids should really fear for their flying hive tyrants because for many editions they seemed to be the only competitive option in the whole Codex.
Snarky post blaming knife-ears for removing CSM options.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: If we lost Bikes because they were competitive at some point in the past Tyranids should really fear for their flying hive tyrants because for many editions they seemed to be the only competitive option in the whole Codex.
Lost the full Dakka Flyrant option. Which was just as BS. Hundreds of models invalidated. A Chaos Lord on bike can at least make a nifty champion.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Ibris is the one with the memory of a mayfly because it wasn't all those characters that made Superfriends broken, it was Invisibility LOL
It helps that I had no context for this reply (the original was on the previous page), and I took this as a reference to the old cartoon with the Wonder Twins.
It still makes more sense than the original post.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Chaos Lords, with jump packs, and.......on bikes.....are "what ruined 8th and......7th edition? That's what broke 7th?
Always remember-
Bikes: just as bad as virus bombs.
They are lots of cooperative games that aren't RPGs.
There are lots of games that have been using the same rules for decades, if not centuries, Monopoly, checkers, chess, the Royal game of Ur.
Like playing house or running around with a model going pew pew, yeah there are games like that. W40k is not that. Every game that has a win condition is automaticly, in its very nature compatitive. The worse thing about the w40k situation, is that the people who claim to not care about winning or gaming or competition, could house rule their games and do what ever they want with existing rules. Something they claim they do already. Yet somehow this is not enough, the narrative rules have to be added to normal games. True LoS, paint score in the game, making the company which struggles with one game system write 2-3 for different ways of playing. etc
You think chess, checkers or monopoly is non compatitive ??? I either misunderstood something strongly or I am probably missing something important here.
You either have memory of mayfly, or are just parroting excuses of that extremely toxic and waaac game club of yours, because that's exactly what happened in both 7th and 8th editions. Hello? Herohammer rings a bell? Superfriends? 3 BA/SW captains that for some reason dumped their chapters and were playing Doom on their lonesome? Cherrypicked CSM crap that somehow always amounted to sticking wings or disc or bike or palanquin or whatever on most broken neckbeardy melee weapon/trait combo and Leeroiying it into enemy army to delete it on rerollable 2+ roll?
Gee, I have no idea why people might dislike that. Sure, it only sunk both editions, but anyone who calls out anti-fun netlisters on that gak somehow is the one at fault, not dudes actually doing so, eh?
I don't know what hero hammer or super friends means, I assume those are older builds of some sort. I do remember suicide smash captins from 8th, because that is when I started to play the game. my army is +2 sv, if that was powerful in the past, I wish I have played my army back then and now when they were really bad tough.
And people so optimise armies to their budget. What are they suppose to do, buy bad stuff? What if the stuff they like is the strong stuff. Plus I remember the advice to marine players or me, being given in 8th. In order to properly play w40k, because marines are ultra bad, I should always start my army with the loyal 32, followed by something like a castellan. And to be honest I would rather have a strong army out of my own, singular, codex then to be forced to buy 3 books and 3 different armies to have a somewhat valid army to play.
I mentioned chess, Monopoly, The Royal game of Ur, even checkers, to counter your point about playing "games under the rules people used in the 60s." The Royal Game of Ur in particular is easily 4,000 years old. People still play it.
Re this whole „existence of win condition means that the game is competitive” crap. There are two meaning of the word competitive, which are conflated on dakka constantly and universally, a lot of times to justify a cutthroat approach to the game. The first meaning is „adversarial” - there are two sides acting against eachother to first meet the win condition of the game. The second is „to sort involved players according to their prowess”. Those two are not the same, and while all competitive games (in the second meaning) are adversarial, not all adversarial games are competitive. You can’t have a meaningfull tic-tac-toe or rock/paper/scissors championships, despite both of those games being adversarial.
edit: on a second thought, there is a game that is competitive (in the second meaning) while being cooperative at the same time - Rubber Bridge played in non-teamed mode. In this mode, your pairing with three of your "opponents" will change throughout the evening, after each full game, until everybody played in team with each other. In this mode, the overall winner is decided by how good you are at cooperating with your opponents, not by how good you are at being an adversary to them.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Ibris is the one with the memory of a mayfly because it wasn't all those characters that made Superfriends broken, it was Invisibility LOL
It helps that I had no context for this reply (the original was on the previous page), and I took this as a reference to the old cartoon with the Wonder Twins.
It still makes more sense than the original post.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Chaos Lords, with jump packs, and.......on bikes.....are "what ruined 8th and......7th edition? That's what broke 7th?
Always remember-
Bikes: just as bad as virus bombs.
Yeah I want Ibris to not be a coward and get back here to defend their statements.
Unlike 9th, the core rules of 7th were irrevocably broken.
In HH you get by because of just how much patching over they've done and the fact that you'll only ever have to deal with at most 4-6 different armies.
Even then, you can still see areas where the rules become stupid (dangerous terrain and binary armor saves comes to mind.)
Karol wrote:Every game that has a win condition is automaticly, in its very nature compatitive.
... that's just not true.
What, are party games competitive? Musical chairs? Pinata?
You think chess, checkers or monopoly is non compatitive ???
Yes - or, at the very least, can be played not competitively.
To be played "competitively", the win condition has to be the primary reason for play. When the win condition is simply a by-product of playing the game for the experience or shared activity, then it is no longer competitive.
Musical chairs is DANGEROUSLY competitive. I've seen NFL level injuries come out of that game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: Ibris is the one with the memory of a mayfly because it wasn't all those characters that made Superfriends broken, it was Invisibility LOL
Invisibility wasn't really necessary for end of 7th deathstars. Most deathstars had a high invulnerable saves, ablative wounds, 4+ or better feel no pains, and tank characters like smashfether who couldn't really be hurt no matter what you did.
I had a tournament at the end of 7th where me and my opponent both had 1000+ point deathstars crash under the effects of Sisters of Silence. We lost 2 wounds each. 1000+ points of melee death. 2 wounds each.
Noncompetitive games with win conditions off the top of my head (there are plenty more):
Pandemic: Fall of Rome (probably other versions too, but that's the one I have)
- you cooperate with your fellow players to conquer / ally with the barbarian hordes before roman society collapses.
Forbidden Island - you and your fellow players Scrooge McDuck your way across a sinking island to collect all the treasures and escape before the island sinks.
Forbidden Desert:. Your treasure laden airship crashes in the desert and y'all got to go find all the parts and fix it before you die of dehydration.
There's plenty more. These are just the ones I have. Cooperative boardgames are a fairly major subgenre of boardgaming. And tbh, my wife and I have yet to win any of them (except for once when we misunderstood the rules of Forbidden Desert )
DeadliestIdiot wrote: Noncompetitive games with win conditions off the top of my head (there are plenty more):
Pandemic: Fall of Rome (probably other versions too, but that's the one I have)
- you cooperate with your fellow players to conquer / ally with the barbarian hordes before roman society collapses.
Forbidden Island - you and your fellow players Scrooge McDuck your way across a sinking island to collect all the treasures and escape before the island sinks.
Forbidden Desert:. Your treasure laden airship crashes in the desert and y'all got to go find all the parts and fix it before you die of dehydration.
There's plenty more. These are just the ones I have. Cooperative boardgames are a fairly major subgenre of boardgaming. And tbh, my wife and I have yet to win any of them (except for once when we misunderstood the rules of Forbidden Desert )
DeadliestIdiot wrote: Noncompetitive games with win conditions off the top of my head (there are plenty more):
Pandemic: Fall of Rome (probably other versions too, but that's the one I have)
- you cooperate with your fellow players to conquer / ally with the barbarian hordes before roman society collapses.
Forbidden Island - you and your fellow players Scrooge McDuck your way across a sinking island to collect all the treasures and escape before the island sinks.
Forbidden Desert:. Your treasure laden airship crashes in the desert and y'all got to go find all the parts and fix it before you die of dehydration.
There's plenty more. These are just the ones I have. Cooperative boardgames are a fairly major subgenre of boardgaming. And tbh, my wife and I have yet to win any of them (except for once when we misunderstood the rules of Forbidden Desert )
And of course, Blackstone Fortress.
Not familiar with it...but now I'm intrigued and am going to check it out heh
nou wrote: But when you play on unquantifiable dioramas? TLOS is the only way to write terrain rules that will be usable anyhow, because you simply cannot write quantified rules that will account for naturally looking terrain.
Well, the evidence from multiple games is you can, but tends to be area terrain rules (this area with some ruins, counts as ruins, you can see 10cm within/in/out).
nou wrote: But when you play on unquantifiable dioramas? TLOS is the only way to write terrain rules that will be usable anyhow, because you simply cannot write quantified rules that will account for naturally looking terrain.
Well, the evidence from multiple games is you can, but tends to be area terrain rules (this area with some ruins, counts as ruins, you can see 10cm within/in/out).
Only if you can establish clear enough boundaries for such areas. On cityscapes you often can, on continuous hill/rock landscapes you either have to use TLoS or default to near planet bowling ball environment of binary visibility. To be perfectly clear - I’m talking about fully modeled tiles or full tables that actually look like a landscape, not simply a nice looking table with discreet terrain pieces on it. No stepped hills, no scenery bases or other „crutches”. On all of those TLoS results in a lot more terrain influence than quantified terrain designations.
Dai wrote: Its just not the same game/hobby as when we were young dude. There are options out there but the likes of us are just seen as old men yelling at cloud by many in the GW scene now.
That's fine. We're old & set in our ways - wich are oddly more flexible than the new kids ways.
Oh no it is the Inquisition game all over again - we are the radicals!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: A lot of 40k players are also obsessively focussed on list building as the core aspect of the "skill" and this focus alone makes it hard or straight up impossible for them to understand why "historicals" are still very much adversarial games that test generalship skills.
List building emphasis is a deliberate design choice. It is how to get engagement outside of the relatively few games a player will have in their expected time buying GW models. I do wonder how net lists have impacted that, only GW would know with sales figures though.
nou wrote: But when you play on unquantifiable dioramas? TLOS is the only way to write terrain rules that will be usable anyhow, because you simply cannot write quantified rules that will account for naturally looking terrain.
Well, the evidence from multiple games is you can, but tends to be area terrain rules (this area with some ruins, counts as ruins, you can see 10cm within/in/out).
Only if you can establish clear enough boundaries for such areas. On cityscapes you often can, on continuous hill/rock landscapes you either have to use TLoS or default to near planet bowling ball environment of binary visibility. To be perfectly clear - I’m talking about fully modeled tiles or full tables that actually look like a landscape, not simply a nice looking table with discreet terrain pieces on it. No stepped hills, no scenery bases or other „crutches”. On all of those TLoS results in a lot more terrain influence than quantified terrain designations.
I'd rather play with stepped hills and scenery bases than have a lovingly-modeled rolling countryside result in the very top of the head of one of my troops being visible to the enemy and thus getting the entire squad killed because his tetanus-locked posture is unable to crouch. Which will take five extra minutes to resolve, as we check exactly which of the firing models can see it because they're each positioned slightly differently (and god help us if other terrain on the table gets in the way of doing this). Then I'll try to return fire with my heavy weapon teams, but being modeled with tripod-mounted guns means they are unable to see out of their trench, helplessly incapable of hefting their guns onto the sandbags. Meanwhile, on the other side of the battlefield, a slightly steep (but in theory completely traversable) hill is dotted with empty bases, marking the position of a squad whose pewter sculpts will not stand upright in their heroic action poses. They're shooting straight through a dense patch of jungle to hit a unit on the other side, because whoever made this jungle terrain couldn't realistically make it 100% impossible to see through, and so thanks to TLOS the terrain might as well not exist and is less influential than under a more abstract system.
I really, really like realistic terrain aesthetically, but treating LOS completely literally in a mass-battle game with statically-posed models- not to mention an implicitly non-linear ground scale- causes a bunch of problems. I find it much more tolerable in skirmish games where there's only a handful of models on the table, and individual positioning is something I'm willing to deal with, rather than a tedious hassle when moving a squad of 20. Those games also tend to be consistent about how they handle positioning, unlike 40K where your exact position and visibility matter for assessing whether you can be shot at but have no impact whatsoever on whether you can be removed as a casualty.
nou wrote: But when you play on unquantifiable dioramas? TLOS is the only way to write terrain rules that will be usable anyhow, because you simply cannot write quantified rules that will account for naturally looking terrain.
Well, the evidence from multiple games is you can, but tends to be area terrain rules (this area with some ruins, counts as ruins, you can see 10cm within/in/out).
Only if you can establish clear enough boundaries for such areas. On cityscapes you often can, on continuous hill/rock landscapes you either have to use TLoS or default to near planet bowling ball environment of binary visibility. To be perfectly clear - I’m talking about fully modeled tiles or full tables that actually look like a landscape, not simply a nice looking table with discreet terrain pieces on it. No stepped hills, no scenery bases or other „crutches”. On all of those TLoS results in a lot more terrain influence than quantified terrain designations.
I'd rather play with stepped hills and scenery bases than have a lovingly-modeled rolling countryside result in the very top of the head of one of my troops being visible to the enemy and thus getting the entire squad killed because his tetanus-locked posture is unable to crouch. Which will take five extra minutes to resolve, as we check exactly which of the firing models can see it because they're each positioned slightly differently (and god help us if other terrain on the table gets in the way of doing this). Then I'll try to return fire with my heavy weapon teams, but being modeled with tripod-mounted guns means they are unable to see out of their trench, helplessly incapable of hefting their guns onto the sandbags. Meanwhile, on the other side of the battlefield, a slightly steep (but in theory completely traversable) hill is dotted with empty bases, marking the position of a squad whose pewter sculpts will not stand upright in their heroic action poses. They're shooting straight through a dense patch of jungle to hit a unit on the other side, because whoever made this jungle terrain couldn't realistically make it 100% impossible to see through, and so thanks to TLOS the terrain might as well not exist and is less influential than under a more abstract system.
I really, really like realistic terrain aesthetically, but treating LOS completely literally in a mass-battle game with statically-posed models- not to mention an implicitly non-linear ground scale- causes a bunch of problems. I find it much more tolerable in skirmish games where there's only a handful of models on the table, and individual positioning is something I'm willing to deal with, rather than a tedious hassle when moving a squad of 20. Those games also tend to be consistent about how they handle positioning, unlike 40K where your exact position and visibility matter for assessing whether you can be shot at but have no impact whatsoever on whether you can be removed as a casualty.
I never said that TLOS is without flaws, but you are exaggerating possible problems by sticking to 40k mess of rules. I refer wargame mechanics as a whole, wargaming is much broader hobby than GW products. Visibility rules can be written so that tip of the head or an antennae aren't granting visibility. One of the reasons why I got into miniatures wargames in the first place was a simulationist approach to LoS compared to hex-based wargames. So I, prefer to have to resolve some infrequent issues with visibility instead of abstracting everything further than necessary.
And BTW, tripod mounted guns and troopers lying on the ground should have different visibility than standing troopers in a lot of battlefield situations. As long as game is symmetric in that regard, so that tripod mounted guns have visibility restrictions both ways, once as a boon, once as a hindrance then all is good. But I have to stress here - I prefer simulation wargames and I understand perfectly, that 40k never really was one, and this is my personal preference. I have given up on 40k being made to my liking a long time ago, so I'm not advocating for such rules in it anyhow.
nou wrote: But when you play on unquantifiable dioramas? TLOS is the only way to write terrain rules that will be usable anyhow, because you simply cannot write quantified rules that will account for naturally looking terrain.
Well, the evidence from multiple games is you can, but tends to be area terrain rules (this area with some ruins, counts as ruins, you can see 10cm within/in/out).
Only if you can establish clear enough boundaries for such areas. On cityscapes you often can, on continuous hill/rock landscapes you either have to use TLoS or default to near planet bowling ball environment of binary visibility. To be perfectly clear - I’m talking about fully modeled tiles or full tables that actually look like a landscape, not simply a nice looking table with discreet terrain pieces on it. No stepped hills, no scenery bases or other „crutches”. On all of those TLoS results in a lot more terrain influence than quantified terrain designations.
I'd rather play with stepped hills and scenery bases than have a lovingly-modeled rolling countryside result in the very top of the head of one of my troops being visible to the enemy and thus getting the entire squad killed because his tetanus-locked posture is unable to crouch. Which will take five extra minutes to resolve, as we check exactly which of the firing models can see it because they're each positioned slightly differently (and god help us if other terrain on the table gets in the way of doing this). Then I'll try to return fire with my heavy weapon teams, but being modeled with tripod-mounted guns means they are unable to see out of their trench, helplessly incapable of hefting their guns onto the sandbags. Meanwhile, on the other side of the battlefield, a slightly steep (but in theory completely traversable) hill is dotted with empty bases, marking the position of a squad whose pewter sculpts will not stand upright in their heroic action poses. They're shooting straight through a dense patch of jungle to hit a unit on the other side, because whoever made this jungle terrain couldn't realistically make it 100% impossible to see through, and so thanks to TLOS the terrain might as well not exist and is less influential than under a more abstract system.
I really, really like realistic terrain aesthetically, but treating LOS completely literally in a mass-battle game with statically-posed models- not to mention an implicitly non-linear ground scale- causes a bunch of problems. I find it much more tolerable in skirmish games where there's only a handful of models on the table, and individual positioning is something I'm willing to deal with, rather than a tedious hassle when moving a squad of 20. Those games also tend to be consistent about how they handle positioning, unlike 40K where your exact position and visibility matter for assessing whether you can be shot at but have no impact whatsoever on whether you can be removed as a casualty.
I never said that TLOS is without flaws, but you are exaggerating possible problems by sticking to 40k mess of rules. I refer wargame mechanics as a whole, wargaming is much broader hobby than GW products. Visibility rules can be written so that tip of the head or an antennae aren't granting visibility. One of the reasons why I got into miniatures wargames in the first place was a simulationist approach to LoS compared to hex-based wargames. So I, prefer to have to resolve some infrequent issues with visibility instead of abstracting everything further than necessary.
And BTW, tripod mounted guns and troopers lying on the ground should have different visibility than standing troopers in a lot of battlefield situations. As long as game is symmetric in that regard, so that tripod mounted guns have visibility restrictions both ways, once as a boon, once as a hindrance then all is good. But I have to stress here - I prefer simulation wargames and I understand perfectly, that 40k never really was one, and this is my personal preference. I have given up on 40k being made to my liking a long time ago, so I'm not advocating for such rules in it anyhow.
Can you reference any example rules paradigms from TLOS simulationist games that address the two generic concerns in catbarf's post? Which are (at least as I read them):
1. Utilizing single models for individual fighters can never adequately represent (simulate) the range of poses/stances/gaits/etc. those fighters would assume in reality
2. Miniature terrain (at least at the scales games are played at) can never adequately represent the complexity of terrain in reality
I'm curious what the solutions to those problems are in the systems you say you prefer.
nou wrote: But when you play on unquantifiable dioramas? TLOS is the only way to write terrain rules that will be usable anyhow, because you simply cannot write quantified rules that will account for naturally looking terrain.
Well, the evidence from multiple games is you can, but tends to be area terrain rules (this area with some ruins, counts as ruins, you can see 10cm within/in/out).
Only if you can establish clear enough boundaries for such areas. On cityscapes you often can, on continuous hill/rock landscapes you either have to use TLoS or default to near planet bowling ball environment of binary visibility. To be perfectly clear - I’m talking about fully modeled tiles or full tables that actually look like a landscape, not simply a nice looking table with discreet terrain pieces on it. No stepped hills, no scenery bases or other „crutches”. On all of those TLoS results in a lot more terrain influence than quantified terrain designations.
I'd rather play with stepped hills and scenery bases than have a lovingly-modeled rolling countryside result in the very top of the head of one of my troops being visible to the enemy and thus getting the entire squad killed because his tetanus-locked posture is unable to crouch. Which will take five extra minutes to resolve, as we check exactly which of the firing models can see it because they're each positioned slightly differently (and god help us if other terrain on the table gets in the way of doing this). Then I'll try to return fire with my heavy weapon teams, but being modeled with tripod-mounted guns means they are unable to see out of their trench, helplessly incapable of hefting their guns onto the sandbags. Meanwhile, on the other side of the battlefield, a slightly steep (but in theory completely traversable) hill is dotted with empty bases, marking the position of a squad whose pewter sculpts will not stand upright in their heroic action poses. They're shooting straight through a dense patch of jungle to hit a unit on the other side, because whoever made this jungle terrain couldn't realistically make it 100% impossible to see through, and so thanks to TLOS the terrain might as well not exist and is less influential than under a more abstract system.
I really, really like realistic terrain aesthetically, but treating LOS completely literally in a mass-battle game with statically-posed models- not to mention an implicitly non-linear ground scale- causes a bunch of problems. I find it much more tolerable in skirmish games where there's only a handful of models on the table, and individual positioning is something I'm willing to deal with, rather than a tedious hassle when moving a squad of 20. Those games also tend to be consistent about how they handle positioning, unlike 40K where your exact position and visibility matter for assessing whether you can be shot at but have no impact whatsoever on whether you can be removed as a casualty.
I never said that TLOS is without flaws, but you are exaggerating possible problems by sticking to 40k mess of rules. I refer wargame mechanics as a whole, wargaming is much broader hobby than GW products. Visibility rules can be written so that tip of the head or an antennae aren't granting visibility. One of the reasons why I got into miniatures wargames in the first place was a simulationist approach to LoS compared to hex-based wargames. So I, prefer to have to resolve some infrequent issues with visibility instead of abstracting everything further than necessary.
And BTW, tripod mounted guns and troopers lying on the ground should have different visibility than standing troopers in a lot of battlefield situations. As long as game is symmetric in that regard, so that tripod mounted guns have visibility restrictions both ways, once as a boon, once as a hindrance then all is good. But I have to stress here - I prefer simulation wargames and I understand perfectly, that 40k never really was one, and this is my personal preference. I have given up on 40k being made to my liking a long time ago, so I'm not advocating for such rules in it anyhow.
Can you reference any example rules paradigms from TLOS simulationist games that address the two generic concerns in catbarf's post? Which are (at least as I read them):
1. Utilizing single models for individual fighters can never adequately represent (simulate) the range of poses/stances/gaits/etc. those fighters would assume in reality
2. Miniature terrain (at least at the scales games are played at) can never adequately represent the complexity of terrain in reality
I'm curious what the solutions to those problems are in the systems you say you prefer.
As I wrote above "more abstraction than necessary". Your post suggests, that there are only two states, full abstraction or full simulation. As to mechanics - all sorts of cover modifiers, where you start with TLOS and then alter the result, like proximity cover for example to represent ducking behind or along a wall, squad based visibility with modifiers by head count, posture markers/modifiers, hiding mechanics, even 40k had "Go to ground" implemented once. Depends on the scale of the game really. Of course wherever this is feasible, area cover rules are usually also there, but restricting terrain rules to just area/full block/full LoS is throwing baby out with the bathwater and can produce such idiotic situations like Knights toe-dipping in area terrain. There are also placement conventions or aids for things like tripod mounted weapons behind low walls etc. I never had a problem resolving such situations, but that is because I play with players of the same mindset. As I wrote in my opening post - it is quantifying terrain rules in wargames that is a difficult problem. Even hex/square board wargames tend to have ambiguous LoS situations and all sorts of solutions and wordings are implemented to limit that, but never achieve perfect unambiguity. A problem as simple as elevation obscuration is really hard to account for without some sort of TLoS or heavy abstraction and corner passing in board RPGLoS systems is a reason why e.g. Tannhauser has map based, predefined LoS paths. Real life situations however, tend to have very straightforward answers as long as your goal is not to win a tournament, but to achieve verisimilitude of real life battle.
In Infinity, you have Silhouettes, which you can draw LoS to and from at any point of the Silhouette. If you go prone, the Silhouette is the size of your base. It's not perfect, but it is decent, and works well enough.
w40k could have the same. Infantry size 1, nobz/termintors/bikes size 2, dreads/kans size 3, tanks size 4, knights and land raiders size 5.
and then really small stuff like nurglings, reaper bases, grots etc could have some rule that represents how small they are. Maybe they get better cover, maybe they are harder to hit over certain range etc.
Then terrain could have sizes. If you are the same size standing behind it or in it, you get cover. If it is bigger you can't see over something. And then to help high cost stuff like LR or Knights something that is 2+ higher, can see over certain high of terrain. so no hidding behind a size 2 ruin from a knight when you are infantry. At the same time a knight or LR can be smacked from range too.
All the problems with shoting swords, banners, dynamic models etc are gone. Need of L shaped terrain everywhere is gone. A ruin, building, rubble etc can be any shape because the size is fixed and the blocking is checked from the terrain pice base etc. Ah and even better it has even a plus for melee. because unlike right now, you can't remove the walls from the base, with everything having a set size True LoS is not needed so units can be placed in melee and there is no problems what happens if have to balance a huge base on a wall to reach melee etc.
I will readily admit that I'm being a bit unfair by using 40K's handling of TLOS, but there are some fundamental issues that come with applying a literalist interpretation of line of sight to models and terrain that, by the nature of being physical and static models, are at least somewhat abstracted to begin with.
Like, the fact that sniper modeled in a crouching pose can't see over the wall of his vantage point is not something I am willing to brush off with 'well it goes both ways, he can't be seen either'. A lovingly-built rendition of a WW1-esque trenchline is impractical to actually play if the LOS rules mean your heavy weapons can't actually shoot from their sandbag emplacements. An urban cityscape becomes silly if you're deciding which squad to put in a building based on how many models are actually standing and thus able to see out the windows. And a jungle-heavy board might as well be open terrain unless you are willing to invest a lot of time and effort to make actually dense, completely obscuring foliage, but then you can't enter it because your models physically won't fit.
I've played a number of TLOS-based games that resolve these issues, but the answer is always to kludge in an abstracted system of determining LOS that ignores the physical models and table. And it makes me wonder why, if we're drawing LOS from imaginary cylinders or defining terrain such that it always or never blocks LOS, we're maintaining the pretense of TLOS as a mechanic to begin with. It especially bugs me because virtually all the TLOS games I've played have area terrain anyways- it's just relevant to movement, rather than shooting. We set an arbitrary boundary where the woods start and the models get half movement or take difficult terrain tests or some other abstract effect on movement, but when the same unit shoots through the same woods, then we care about the exact position of every tree. It's inconsistent, and projecting a laser pointer through the trees is way too nitpicky for a game with 100+ models on the table.
For mass-battle games I much prefer to decouple the gameplay from the physical representation of the terrain. At the very least, it makes it a lot easier to build functional terrain, like woods areas with removable trees so models can fit, or multi-story buildings that don't actually need staircases to traverse internally. The smaller the game the more I'm willing to accept literal representations of terrain.
What you just described is exactly how it worked in 3rd and 4th ed 40k. Models and terrain had size/height values. For some unfathomable reason this was discarded in the change to 5th and the game has been poorer for it ever since.
I will readily admit that I'm being a bit unfair by using 40K's handling of TLOS, but there are some fundamental issues that come with applying a literalist interpretation of line of sight to models and terrain that, by the nature of being physical and static models, are at least somewhat abstracted to begin with.
Like, the fact that sniper modeled in a crouching pose can't see over the wall of his vantage point is not something I am willing to brush off with 'well it goes both ways, he can't be seen either'. A lovingly-built rendition of a WW1-esque trenchline is impractical to actually play if the LOS rules mean your heavy weapons can't actually shoot from their sandbag emplacements. An urban cityscape becomes silly if you're deciding which squad to put in a building based on how many models are actually standing and thus able to see out the windows. And a jungle-heavy board might as well be open terrain unless you are willing to invest a lot of time and effort to make actually dense, completely obscuring foliage, but then you can't enter it because your models physically won't fit.
I've played a number of TLOS-based games that resolve these issues, but the answer is always to kludge in an abstracted system of determining LOS that ignores the physical models and table. And it makes me wonder why, if we're drawing LOS from imaginary cylinders or defining terrain such that it always or never blocks LOS, we're maintaining the pretense of TLOS as a mechanic to begin with. It especially bugs me because virtually all the TLOS games I've played have area terrain anyways- it's just relevant to movement, rather than shooting. We set an arbitrary boundary where the woods start and the models get half movement or take difficult terrain tests or some other abstract effect on movement, but when the same unit shoots through the same woods, then we care about the exact position of every tree. It's inconsistent, and projecting a laser pointer through the trees is way too nitpicky for a game with 100+ models on the table.
For mass-battle games I much prefer to decouple the gameplay from the physical representation of the terrain. At the very least, it makes it a lot easier to build functional terrain, like woods areas with removable trees so models can fit, or multi-story buildings that don't actually need staircases to traverse internally. The smaller the game the more I'm willing to accept literal representations of terrain.
In all wargames you have to have LoS rules that start with "draw an imaginary straight line" and then proceed from there. Even if your table is flat and only have some impassable, fully obscure blocks sticking out and effectively playing a 2D game, then you still have to define a minimum percentage of a visible model/base that creates actionable LoS, because you have side to side partial obscuration at the edge of the block. And it doesn't matter if you set this percentage to "full base" or "a pinky is enough", you will still get edge cases, even on grids. You are focusing on 40k mess of "can you lit a left pinky with a laser" and call it TLOS, while in all seriousness it is a spectrum of increasing abstraction. You are fine with area/full block/full LoS, some people wan't a bit more detail, some will use differently posed models in a skirmish game to use as realistic TLOS as possible. Some games have area terrain with penetration depth, some will have binary inside-outside only, some will have full TLOS rules for area terrain, etc.
Basically, it is the old discussion of "should it be a wargame or should it be a war themed game".
@ 4th ed style height brackets: everything is fine and clear as long as both models are on the same elevation level or near the edges of a hill. As soon as they are not you have to use TLOS to see if this hill in between is high enough to block LoS, or you're throwing height advantage out of the game that is supposedly a wargame. This is a basic problem with grid based wargames.
If someone wants rules for opening doors and elevation in their games they should play RPGs, Stuff like that or the hight on which a model is only burdens the game, which works much better which would work a lot better, if it is abstract.
Or if the rules really have to be used. Then give the models on elevation a +1 to size, or their size is treated as the size of a building. So if you decide to plant yourself on the 4th floor or a tier 5 building you are now size 5 and everyone sees you, just the same way you see everyone not hidden behind a size 5 building.
40K would be a more robust, well rounded game if it took a page from battletech and alpha strike. Both of those games focus on a core set of rules that serve their intended purposes and then offer extended optional rules to add weather effects, mine fields, hidden units, electronic warfare, campaign progression and more. What is even cooler is that these two rulesets are designed to serve two different types of players or levels of engagement.
40k has turned itself into this constraining and increasingly unknowable leviathan that all must subject themselves toward lest they break the social contract. I don't care for the current rules philosophy on a core level, and neither do I have any official options to change the game to suit my purposes. I don't like stratagems, I don't like how aircraft are implemented at all. The official board size is far too small. The igougo system is fundamentally flawed, and I'd like to see a positional flanking mechanic added. Battletech and Alpha Strike either have options to change activations, implement scenario special rules, multiple ways of calculating damage, and dealing with aircraft, artillery, etc.
40k by comparison is a bloated mess spread across tons of books with nothing of substance in them.
Of course i'm going to prefer to use community rules. Gw hasn't provided me anything that allows me to play the way i want to. Instead I MUST play a certain way.
Sledgehammer wrote: 40K would be a more robust, well rounded game if it took a page from battletech and alpha strike. Both of those games focus on a core set of rules that serve their intended purposes and then offer extended optional rules to add weather effects, mine fields, hidden units, electronic warfare, campaign progression and more. What is even cooler is that these two rulesets are designed to serve two different types of players or levels of engagement.
40k has turned itself into this constraining and increasingly unknowable leviathan that all must subject themselves toward lest they break the social contract. I don't care for the current rules philosophy on a core level, and neither do I have any official options to change the game to suit my purposes. I don't like stratagems, I don't like how aircraft are implemented at all. The official board size is far too small. The igougo system is fundamentally flawed, and I'd like to see a positional flanking mechanic added. Battletech and Alpha Strike either have options to change activations, implement scenario special rules, multiple ways of calculating damage, and dealing with aircraft, artillery, etc.
40k by comparison is a bloated mess spread across tons of books with nothing of substance in them.
Of course i'm going to prefer to use community rules. Gw hasn't provided me anything that allows me to play the way i want to. Instead I MUST play a certain way.
in GW's defence that's a community problem as much as it is GW's. I remember GW releasing new ways to play a fair bit, things like death from the skies planet strike etc, where all released and resoundedly ignored by the player base whose mantra seemed to be "TOURNY RULES ONLY DUDE!"
If the 40k community started playing battletech they'd buy total warfare and have no further intreast in rules books.
now granted in a lot of cases te books gw provides don't give new optional rules that can be slotted in selectively.
Sledgehammer wrote: 40K would be a more robust, well rounded game if it took a page from battletech and alpha strike. Both of those games focus on a core set of rules that serve their intended purposes and then offer extended optional rules to add weather effects, mine fields, hidden units, electronic warfare, campaign progression and more. What is even cooler is that these two rulesets are designed to serve two different types of players or levels of engagement.
40k has turned itself into this constraining and increasingly unknowable leviathan that all must subject themselves toward lest they break the social contract. I don't care for the current rules philosophy on a core level, and neither do I have any official options to change the game to suit my purposes. I don't like stratagems, I don't like how aircraft are implemented at all. The official board size is far too small. The igougo system is fundamentally flawed, and I'd like to see a positional flanking mechanic added. Battletech and Alpha Strike either have options to change activations, implement scenario special rules, multiple ways of calculating damage, and dealing with aircraft, artillery, etc.
40k by comparison is a bloated mess spread across tons of books with nothing of substance in them.
Of course i'm going to prefer to use community rules. Gw hasn't provided me anything that allows me to play the way i want to. Instead I MUST play a certain way.
in GW's defence that's a community problem as much as it is GW's. I remember GW releasing new ways to play a fair bit, things like death from the skies planet strike etc, where all released and resoundedly ignored by the player base whose mantra seemed to be "TOURNY RULES ONLY DUDE!"
If the 40k community started playing battletech they'd buy total warfare and have no further intreast in rules books.
now granted in a lot of cases te books gw provides don't give new optional rules that can be slotted in selectively.
Apocalypse was very popular when it was initially released. City Fight was as well if I recall. But both of those released during more popular editions unlike Death From The Skies (7th) and Planetstrike (6th). Its nothing to do with the community and everything to do with the foundations. If you don't have a good base for a game adding additional stuff on top is not going to work.
Sim-Life wrote: Apocalypse was very popular when it was initially released. City Fight was as well if I recall. But both of those released during more popular editions unlike Death From The Skies (7th) and Planetstrike (6th). Its nothing to do with the community and everything to do with the foundations. If you don't have a good base for a game adding additional stuff on top is not going to work.
oni wrote: Planetstrike and subsequently Planetary Onslaught are the best supplements ever released that no one played.
There has been a crusade version of those rules, sadly they are horribly balanced so it's no fun playing them. The attacker simply always wins, the defender doesn't stand a chance. Fortifications simply aren't durable enough compared to the weapons armies bring.
Sledgehammer wrote: 40K would be a more robust, well rounded game if it took a page from battletech and alpha strike. Both of those games focus on a core set of rules that serve their intended purposes and then offer extended optional rules to add weather effects, mine fields, hidden units, electronic warfare, campaign progression and more. What is even cooler is that these two rulesets are designed to serve two different types of players or levels of engagement.
40k has turned itself into this constraining and increasingly unknowable leviathan that all must subject themselves toward lest they break the social contract. I don't care for the current rules philosophy on a core level, and neither do I have any official options to change the game to suit my purposes. I don't like stratagems, I don't like how aircraft are implemented at all. The official board size is far too small. The igougo system is fundamentally flawed, and I'd like to see a positional flanking mechanic added. Battletech and Alpha Strike either have options to change activations, implement scenario special rules, multiple ways of calculating damage, and dealing with aircraft, artillery, etc.
40k by comparison is a bloated mess spread across tons of books with nothing of substance in them.
Of course i'm going to prefer to use community rules. Gw hasn't provided me anything that allows me to play the way i want to. Instead I MUST play a certain way.
in GW's defence that's a community problem as much as it is GW's. I remember GW releasing new ways to play a fair bit, things like death from the skies planet strike etc, where all released and resoundedly ignored by the player base whose mantra seemed to be "TOURNY RULES ONLY DUDE!"
If the 40k community started playing battletech they'd buy total warfare and have no further intreast in rules books.
now granted in a lot of cases te books gw provides don't give new optional rules that can be slotted in selectively.
So that's a lie. Look at Crusade and Matched, two good game modes serving different interests, some people like one or the other and some people like both.
oni wrote: Planetstrike and subsequently Planetary Onslaught are the best supplements ever released that no one played.
There has been a crusade version of those rules, sadly they are horribly balanced so it's no fun playing them. The attacker simply always wins, the defender doesn't stand a chance. Fortifications simply aren't durable enough compared to the weapons armies bring.
What book are they in? I'd like to try fixing them for fun.
Jidmah wrote: There has been a crusade version of those rules, sadly they are horribly balanced so it's no fun playing them. The attacker simply always wins, the defender doesn't stand a chance. Fortifications simply aren't durable enough compared to the weapons armies bring.
Good match to the original planetstrike then. You had to negotiate the game with your opponent in advance to balance things out - we tried throwing planetstrike games into a tournament once and it was ugly. Army-wide charge from deepstrike with melta blood angels and that kind of stuff.
Aside from one hilarious game where the defender took bad sportsmanship to the most extreme level possible (think the walls of the Imperial Palace, an impassible terrain trench, and then about four feet of barren killing field). But he hadn't read the rules for deployment as it's the attacker rather than the defender that chooses their table edge...
Any game system that requires long time arguments what can or can not be done durning the game are both a hallmark of a bad game, and what we call "magic" happening durning the game.
What book are they in? I'd like to try fixing them for fun.
It was the Octarius Campaign. The missions are in the Crusade Mission Packs. It may also be helpful to have the hardback books, because Fortifications can earn battle honours, which might address some of the balance issues mentioned. I have both campaign books from Octarius, but neither of the mission packs.
If you go to Goonhammer and do a search for Octarius, they have detailed reviews of all the mission packs and campaign books that tell you exactly what is in each book so that you can make an informed decision about which books you might like to get a look at.
It's also worth mentioning that the books are no longer available from the GW webstore, so it might take some creativity to find what you're looking for.
oni wrote: Planetstrike and subsequently Planetary Onslaught are the best supplements ever released that no one played.
There has been a crusade version of those rules, sadly they are horribly balanced so it's no fun playing them. The attacker simply always wins, the defender doesn't stand a chance. Fortifications simply aren't durable enough compared to the weapons armies bring.
What book are they in? I'd like to try fixing them for fun.
They are in Crusade Mission Pack: Containment - in fact, there is little else in that book. All the missions, stratagems, warlord traits and battle honors are related to planet strike. It's bummer that the rules are as bad as they are.
If you want to rebalance them, I'd probably start by taking away the firestorm and forcing the attacker to reserve everything.
Jidmah wrote: There has been a crusade version of those rules, sadly they are horribly balanced so it's no fun playing them. The attacker simply always wins, the defender doesn't stand a chance. Fortifications simply aren't durable enough compared to the weapons armies bring.
Good match to the original planetstrike then. You had to negotiate the game with your opponent in advance to balance things out - we tried throwing planetstrike games into a tournament once and it was ugly. Army-wide charge from deepstrike with melta blood angels and that kind of stuff.
It's really not a matter of competitive play or armies being too strong. A bastion or even a fortress of redemption simply isn't going to survive the first shooting phase, period. And that's the only thing the defender has going for them, the attacker gets guaranteed first turn, a preliminary bombardment that can cause a ton of mortal wounds with good rolls, free deep strikes on many units and can deploy from almost any edge guaranteeing first turn charges for any but the slowest units.
I did an entire chapter in may campaign with planet strike only missions (you know, because it was the chapter of the invaders landing on the planet) using rules as written, and it was a complete disaster. Six out of seven games were decided after turn 1 and tabled or conceded turn 2. The one game that didn't go completely south was me with a heavily tuned down list vs a very good player who only managed to have a single character left after my third turn and was tabled T4 anyways.
And I'm not talking about competitive lists or great players here, the game mode is just off by that much.
Sledgehammer wrote: 40K would be a more robust, well rounded game if it took a page from battletech and alpha strike. Both of those games focus on a core set of rules that serve their intended purposes and then offer extended optional rules to add weather effects, mine fields, hidden units, electronic warfare, campaign progression and more. What is even cooler is that these two rulesets are designed to serve two different types of players or levels of engagement.
40k has turned itself into this constraining and increasingly unknowable leviathan that all must subject themselves toward lest they break the social contract. I don't care for the current rules philosophy on a core level, and neither do I have any official options to change the game to suit my purposes. I don't like stratagems, I don't like how aircraft are implemented at all. The official board size is far too small. The igougo system is fundamentally flawed, and I'd like to see a positional flanking mechanic added. Battletech and Alpha Strike either have options to change activations, implement scenario special rules, multiple ways of calculating damage, and dealing with aircraft, artillery, etc.
40k by comparison is a bloated mess spread across tons of books with nothing of substance in them.
Of course i'm going to prefer to use community rules. Gw hasn't provided me anything that allows me to play the way i want to. Instead I MUST play a certain way.
in GW's defence that's a community problem as much as it is GW's. I remember GW releasing new ways to play a fair bit, things like death from the skies planet strike etc, where all released and resoundedly ignored by the player base whose mantra seemed to be "TOURNY RULES ONLY DUDE!"
If the 40k community started playing battletech they'd buy total warfare and have no further intreast in rules books.
now granted in a lot of cases te books gw provides don't give new optional rules that can be slotted in selectively.
So that's a lie. Look at Crusade and Matched, two good game modes serving different interests, some people like one or the other and some people like both.
oni wrote: Planetstrike and subsequently Planetary Onslaught are the best supplements ever released that no one played.
There has been a crusade version of those rules, sadly they are horribly balanced so it's no fun playing them. The attacker simply always wins, the defender doesn't stand a chance. Fortifications simply aren't durable enough compared to the weapons armies bring.
What book are they in? I'd like to try fixing them for fun.
The problem with crusade is that it is built on a poor foundation to start with, and truly offers very little additional value except for spending and gaining rp.
In addition their "campaign" books are not written with a specific goal in mind and come across as schizophrenic throw away bloat that primarily is used for just a couple of pages by the community at large. To top it off its all going to go in the dumpster in the next year when the next edition comes out.
By contrast 5th edition proved to be a much better foundation. One that actually allowed for all of the forge world books to persist until 7th edition along with planet strike and apocalypse.
What book are they in? I'd like to try fixing them for fun.
It was the Octarius Campaign. The missions are in the Crusade Mission Packs. It may also be helpful to have the hardback books, because Fortifications can earn battle honours, which might address some of the balance issues mentioned. I have both campaign books from Octarius, but neither of the mission packs.
If you go to Goonhammer and do a search for Octarius, they have detailed reviews of all the mission packs and campaign books that tell you exactly what is in each book so that you can make an informed decision about which books you might like to get a look at.
It's also worth mentioning that the books are no longer available from the GW webstore, so it might take some creativity to find what you're looking for.
So in other words it was literally a throw away afterthought and not intended as a tool for the community to use.
GW can say there are two or three ways to play all they want, but if they don't make the tools, what the hell is the community going to use? The answer is the ones they provide (tournament matched play) or community rules.
vict0988 wrote: So that's a lie. Look at Crusade and Matched, two good game modes serving different interests, some people like one or the other and some people like both.
It's not a lie. Crusade exists, meanwhile the matched and specifically the tournament side of things is what everything else revolves around.
Do we have giant threads to discuss the latest crusade campaign book or mission set, or do we have threads that go on forever discussing the latest "balance" dataslate?
9th is Tournament Edition 40k. Has been since the start. It's nice that Crusade is there, and I'm glad GW have almost managed to release every Codex without abandoning it completely, but in the grand calculus of the multiverse, the "tournament" side of 40k is what's steering the game. And it's why, in the past, things like Cities of Death, Planet Strike and other similar things - as much as you or I may love them - have never caught on in a big way.
vict0988 wrote: So that's a lie. Look at Crusade and Matched, two good game modes serving different interests, some people like one or the other and some people like both.
It's not a lie. Crusade exists, meanwhile the matched and specifically the tournament side of things is what everything else revolves around.
Do we have giant threads to discuss the latest crusade campaign book or mission set, or do we have threads that go on forever discussing the latest "balance" dataslate?
9th is Tournament Edition 40k. Has been since the start. It's nice that Crusade is there, and I'm glad GW have almost managed to release every Codex without abandoning it completely, but in the grand calculus of the multiverse, the "tournament" side of 40k is what's steering the game. And it's why, in the past, things like Cities of Death, Planet Strike and other similar things - as much as you or I may love them - have never caught on in a big way.
So just a heads up: we're all going to end up agreeing to disagree, and I don't bear anyone any ill will- but you guys know that trash talking Crusade is the verbal component for the second level "Summon PenitentJake" spell, right?
The problem with crusade is that it is built on a poor foundation to start with, and truly offers very little additional value except for spending and gaining rp.
I won't bother with the first part of the sentence - I know not everyone likes 9th- especially here: but I would say the second part is way off- the territory rules in the DE dex, for example, create a whole new minigame. My favourite part of the Sisters dex is the Penitent/ Redemption agenda cycle. And even without those rules, I'd still say XP are more fun than RP... And you don't get those without Agendas, so those tie-in too.
In addition their "campaign" books are not written with a specific goal in mind and come across as schizophrenic throw away bloat that primarily is used for just a couple of pages by the community at large. To top it off its all going to go in the dumpster in the next year when the next edition comes out.
If this is true, it's even more true of Matched Play Mission Packs- only the current GT pack is ever played- including at tournaments. If anything, Crusade packs have MORE longevity- if you want Planetstrike, the Crusade Mission Pack is where you find it, and that is going to be true no matter what season it is. Ditto for the rules for multiplayer games. Matched Play packs, on the other hand, have no theme to the missions they contain, and therefore, nothing to keep them relevant once the next set of generic MP missions arrive.
And ALL books "go in the dumpster" when a new edition drops- the BRB, the Dexes... All of it. That ain't a Crusade issue, nor is it any worse for Crusade than it is for anything else that gets dumped... Which, again, is EVERYTHING.
By contrast 5th edition proved to be a much better foundation.
You might prefer it, and that's a valid opinion. But love it or hate it, 9th ed's symbiosis between its core rules and its progression system is far greater than the symbiosis between the core rules and any of the afterthought progression systems provided with any previous edition. Progression directly impacts almost all of the rules for the game itself, whether that's strats, unit types, unit identities, game size, detachment limits... it goes on and on. You might prefer armour facings, going to ground mechanics, blast templates, and maybe most importantly: diverse equipment and load out options for every unit- that's certainly valid... but the interaction between those rules and any previous attempt at a progression system is nowhere near as great as the numerous layers of interactions with relics, strats and datacards.
One that actually allowed for all of the forge world books to persist until 7th edition along with planet strike and apocalypse.
Just like all the other 8th edition stuff can still be used with 9th. When 10th comes, I don't think it'll be a full reset either... Though I suppose it could be.
I never read any of the FW campaign books, though I don't think I've heard anyone say a bad thing about them. I won't argue that current campaign books couldn't be improved- we certainly don't need 5 per season. The limited time availability of them is certainly problematic as well.
So in other words it was literally a throw away afterthought and not intended as a tool for the community to use.
GW can say there are two or three ways to play all they want, but if they don't make the tools, what the hell is the community going to use? The answer is the ones they provide (tournament matched play) or community rules.
I agree, limited time availability on some products is problematic. I very much advocate for a "Big Book of Campaign Play" and / or a "Big Book of Crusade", and that would be a perfect place for more generic (and hopefully improved) Planetstrike and Multiplayer rules. It's likely the approach they'll take in 10th if they decide to refine rather than reboot. And yes, it would have been better if they had done that from the start.
I still want to pick up the Vigilus Campaign books, though once again, I'll be skipping the mission packs., and I know the time to do so is running out.
PenitentJake wrote: So just a heads up: we're all going to end up agreeing to disagree, and I don't bear anyone any ill will- but you guys know that trash talking Crusade is the verbal component for the second level "Summon PenitentJake" spell, right?
I wouldn't trash talk Crusade. I like Crusade. Waited a very long time to get my Tyranid and Chaos Crusade rules, now I just need the Guard ones and I can finally work out how I want to use that game style.
I will trash-talk the way GW has dealt with Crusade, splitting up the rules between tons of (now OOP) campaign books, but that's not a mark against Crusade as a concept*. And, at the same time, I'm not going to pretend that Crusade is a major focus of 9th Edition, or that tournaments aren't the main focus of 9th Edition.
*But that's a classic GW problem - great concepts, bad execution - not a Crusade problem.
PenitentJake wrote: I won't bother with the first part of the sentence - I know not everyone likes 9th- especially here: but I would say the second part is way off- the territory rules in the DE dex, for example, create a whole new minigame. My favourite part of the Sisters dex is the Penitent/ Redemption agenda cycle. And even without those rules, I'd still say XP are more fun than RP... And you don't get those without Agendas, so those tie-in too.
The problem is those minigams are just solitaire, not a real narrative thing. Look at the Tau crusade rules. Great concept in theory, conquer a system and bring it into the Greater Good. But the rules are completely divorced from anything going on in the actual games. It's literally impossible to fail to conquer a system, no matter how many games you lose, because you can never lose military or diplomatic progress. The other players can never do anything outside of winning games (which they are already trying to do for their own reasons) to have any effect on your conquest. And you don't even need to be fighting against the theoretical owners of the system, you can conquer an Imperial system by winning a bunch of games against Orks and Necrons and losing every game against Imperial players. So why should anyone who cares about the story have any real interest in it? The non-Tau players certainly don't, and even for the Tau player it's mostly just extra bookkeeping to deal with before cashing in the final bonus to the on-table forces. Instead of telling a story you're grinding points until you reach the arbitrary total and start the next grind.
In short: decent idea, absolutely horrid execution.
If this is true, it's even more true of Matched Play Mission Packs- only the current GT pack is ever played- including at tournaments. If anything, Crusade packs have MORE longevity- if you want Planetstrike, the Crusade Mission Pack is where you find it, and that is going to be true no matter what season it is. Ditto for the rules for multiplayer games. Matched Play packs, on the other hand, have no theme to the missions they contain, and therefore, nothing to keep them relevant once the next set of generic MP missions arrive.
The difference is that competitive play is designed to be seasonal and frequently updated. Narrative games aren't. If you're a competitive player you expect that there will be frequent minor adjustments to the rules as the developer works to maintain balance and an interesting meta. But if you're a narrative player you would usually prefer if, for example, the wars of faith supplement isn't promptly ignored as soon as it's time to bring in a new book about fighting on space hulks. It's a needlessly fragmented mess of the wargame equivalent of one-shot RPG sessions and none of the content ever has time to grow. You just play through the scripted list of stuff one time (at most!) before you're on to the next micro-story.
(And sucks to be you if your army doesn't fit this season's narrative. You can sit on the sidelines and watch while everyone else plays the one-shot and hope that next season's theme is a better fit.)
Progression directly impacts almost all of the rules for the game itself, whether that's strats, unit types, unit identities, game size, detachment limits... it goes on and on.
Entanglement is not a good thing! Yes, Crusade's progression system involves more elements than in the past but that's only a good thing if that involvement happens in an interesting and well-designed way. And "you can't play 100 PL games until you and your opponent agree to spend 10 RP on 'increase game size' to unlock them" fails that test. The game would be much better if Crusade didn't interact with game size and you were free to choose the appropriate game size as required by the story.
So yes, I absolutely agree that previous editions, with better on-table representation of story events and character actions, were better for narrative gaming. A shallow on-table game with a bolted-on bookkeeping system is not a good narrative game.
I never read any of the FW campaign books, though I don't think I've heard anyone say a bad thing about them.
You really should, especially the very first ones from 4th edition and earlier where you had very specific forces (down to exact equipment choices) provided, asymmetrical and open-ended victory conditions, etc. Once you see how GW used to do a much better job of supporting narrative gaming I doubt you'll have such a favorable opinion of 9th edition's "play a tournament game except with a buff table for your units" effort.
PenitentJake wrote: So just a heads up: we're all going to end up agreeing to disagree, and I don't bear anyone any ill will- but you guys know that trash talking Crusade is the verbal component for the second level "Summon PenitentJake" spell, right?
I wouldn't trash talk Crusade. I like Crusade. Waited a very long time to get my Tyranid and Chaos Crusade rules, now I just need the Guard ones and I can finally work out how I want to use that game style.
I will trash-talk the way GW has dealt with Crusade, splitting up the rules between tons of (now OOP) campaign books, but that's not a mark against Crusade as a concept*. And, at the same time, I'm not going to pretend that Crusade is a major focus of 9th Edition, or that tournaments aren't the main focus of 9th Edition.
*But that's a classic GW problem - great concepts, bad execution - not a Crusade problem.
and as I said it's not even purely a GW problem, when those new crusade books come out, no one talks about them here, they're COMPLETELY ignored.
Likewise, a sourcebook comes out with story stuff... ignored.
the ONLY conversations that seem to be had about the game are "How is matched play broken and does it benifit me?"
which is why as I said earlier 40k as a community would not respond positively at all if GW approcuhed 40k more like Battletech. could you imagine how dakkadakka would respond to Tamar rising?
"it's USELESS! THERE'S NO RULES! NO NEW MECHS! JUST SOME CRAPPY FLUFF AND SOME DUMB CAMPAIGN RULES!"
Jidmah wrote: There has been a crusade version of those rules, sadly they are horribly balanced so it's no fun playing them. The attacker simply always wins, the defender doesn't stand a chance. Fortifications simply aren't durable enough compared to the weapons armies bring.
To be fair, it's about time the attacker gets to auto-win after so many years of the original Planetstrike rules where the defender automatically wins unless they decide to give the attacker a chance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: Basically, it is the old discussion of "should it be a wargame or should it be a war themed game".
You seem to have a very narrow definition of "wargame". If you want to complain about "war-themed games" then the target should be the stratagem mechanic turning 40k into a pseudo-CCG, not with abstraction in LOS. Wargames work just fine with highly abstracted LOS rules even if those rules don't suit your personal tastes.
@ 4th ed style height brackets: everything is fine and clear as long as both models are on the same elevation level or near the edges of a hill. As soon as they are not you have to use TLOS to see if this hill in between is high enough to block LoS, or you're throwing height advantage out of the game that is supposedly a wargame. This is a basic problem with grid based wargames.
Why do you need to use TLOS? Just have all terrain features have height brackets as well. If two models are at level 3 then a level 3 hill between them blocks LOS while a level 2 hill doesn't. And TBH wargames need this level of abstraction in practice anyway. If you need flat levels for models to sit on you might as well have them at neat bracket-height intervals to make everything clear. Same thing with "ambiguous" ruins, etc. Those diorama-style ruins/forests/etc look great in a painting contest but they're terrible in practice since you'll struggle to fit bases into them. Functional wargame terrain needs flat surfaces, clearly defined walls, etc, to represent the terrain without getting in the way of playing a game with physical miniatures.
PenitentJake wrote: So just a heads up: we're all going to end up agreeing to disagree, and I don't bear anyone any ill will- but you guys know that trash talking Crusade is the verbal component for the second level "Summon PenitentJake" spell, right?
I wouldn't trash talk Crusade. I like Crusade. Waited a very long time to get my Tyranid and Chaos Crusade rules, now I just need the Guard ones and I can finally work out how I want to use that game style.
I will trash-talk the way GW has dealt with Crusade, splitting up the rules between tons of (now OOP) campaign books, but that's not a mark against Crusade as a concept*. And, at the same time, I'm not going to pretend that Crusade is a major focus of 9th Edition, or that tournaments aren't the main focus of 9th Edition.
*But that's a classic GW problem - great concepts, bad execution - not a Crusade problem.
and as I said it's not even purely a GW problem, when those new crusade books come out, no one talks about them here, they're COMPLETELY ignored.
Likewise, a sourcebook comes out with story stuff... ignored.
the ONLY conversations that seem to be had about the game are "How is matched play broken and does it benifit me?"
which is why as I said earlier 40k as a community would not respond positively at all if GW approcuhed 40k more like Battletech. could you imagine how dakkadakka would respond to Tamar rising?
"it's USELESS! THERE'S NO RULES! NO NEW MECHS! JUST SOME CRAPPY FLUFF AND SOME DUMB CAMPAIGN RULES!"
And thats why I said people don't use those rules because the foundation is crap. 40k is already a bloated, aimless mess and bolting more rules on to its unfortunate carcass isn't going to help the situation. I'll reiterate what I said, people were on board when the original Apocalypse and City Fight came out. People were ready to play and excited for what Psychic Awakening (and WHFB: End Times come to think of it) promised to be, then it just turned out to be a big bunch of blech that just added more book keeping and people stopped caring. That didn't seem to discourage GW though who just keep nailing more bits onto their Chaos spawn and hoping it'll become a real daemon prince some day.
Sim-Life wrote: I'll reiterate what I said, people were on board when the original Apocalypse and City Fight came out.
Exactly. Was Apocalypse competitive? Hell no. It was a degenerate mess and barely even a game at all once you got above the very smallest level. But people loved it because it was a glorious spectacle. You saw the pictures of huge armies, models the size of a small child, etc, and you wanted to play that game. Maybe you didn't talk about it on forums very much because there wasn't much to say besides "MOAR MODELS PLEASE" but every time I saw a store or group advertise an Apocalypse game it drew a crowd.
People don't care about 9th edition narrative content because it's yet another D6 table tacked onto a game that already struggles with rules bloat. There's no heart in it, nothing to inspire you and make you want the new content. You just play a normal matched play game, except you roll a D6 each turn to see how many D3s worth of mortal wounds each of D6+1 units take because of "weather effects". Which is supposed to be different and exciting because the previous expansion had D3 units take D6 mortal wounds because of "carnivorous plants". Oh, and I guess you can roll a D6 to decide which buff effect your unit gets to have, most of which are already things you can do in the core game. I can't imagine why nobody really wants to talk about these games...
PenitentJake wrote: I won't bother with the first part of the sentence - I know not everyone likes 9th- especially here: but I would say the second part is way off- the territory rules in the DE dex, for example, create a whole new minigame. My favourite part of the Sisters dex is the Penitent/ Redemption agenda cycle. And even without those rules, I'd still say XP are more fun than RP... And you don't get those without Agendas, so those tie-in too.
The problem is those minigams are just solitaire, not a real narrative thing. Look at the Tau crusade rules. Great concept in theory, conquer a system and bring it into the Greater Good. But the rules are completely divorced from anything going on in the actual games. It's literally impossible to fail to conquer a system, no matter how many games you lose, because you can never lose military or diplomatic progress. The other players can never do anything outside of winning games (which they are already trying to do for their own reasons) to have any effect on your conquest. And you don't even need to be fighting against the theoretical owners of the system, you can conquer an Imperial system by winning a bunch of games against Orks and Necrons and losing every game against Imperial players. So why should anyone who cares about the story have any real interest in it? The non-Tau players certainly don't, and even for the Tau player it's mostly just extra bookkeeping to deal with before cashing in the final bonus to the on-table forces. Instead of telling a story you're grinding points until you reach the arbitrary total and start the next grind.
In short: decent idea, absolutely horrid execution.
You've perfectly encapsulated the problem I've had with Crusade but have been unable to fully put my finger on until now. I'd sum up Crusade's problems in one word: detached. Everything you do in the game feels detached from what happens post-game, in the sense that my opponent rarely interacts with it. Yes, the game result changes how many resources I may get post-game, but I rarely get the sense there's a coherent campaign going on with Crusades. It's just a bunch of post-hoc justification for what happened on the table that my opponent has no incentive to care about.
Compare that with the original Necromunda's campaign system. Most of that was also solitaire-esque but there were a few elements that really helped drive interaction between players. Some scenarios allowed you to steal territory from your opponent. You could have rivalries between individual fighters or gangs that had in-game effects. "Winning " the scenario was often not the main goal for some gangs, especially if they were outclassed by their opponents.
Slipspace wrote: Compare that with the original Necromunda's campaign system. Most of that was also solitaire-esque but there were a few elements that really helped drive interaction between players. Some scenarios allowed you to steal territory from your opponent. You could have rivalries between individual fighters or gangs that had in-game effects. "Winning " the scenario was often not the main goal for some gangs, especially if they were outclassed by their opponents.
This is exactly what Crusade lacks. Which of the following scenarios provides a more compelling story:
Shas'O Farsight, desperate to turn the tide of the war for Vorlioc II, launches an audacious deep strike assault (1500 points vs. 2000 points of defenders) on the Imperial HQ. Sadly, the assault fails. Farsight barely escapes as his bodyguard gives their lives to buy him time to fall back to friendly territory, and he mourns the loss of even more friends to the hated foe. Even with their beloved hero still commanding the Tau forces the Imperial counter-attack pushes the Tau to the brink of annihilation. Only a single foothold remains and the encircling regiments of the Imperial Guard are closing in.
or
Shas'O Farsight needs three more military points to capture Vorlioc II from the Imperium and fights some local Dark Eldar pirates to gain them. Sadly, the battle is lost and no progress is made towards seizing the planet. Farsight waits for another opponent to emerge, meanwhile somewhere deep in the webway and completely unknown to the Tau a territory changes hands and the Dark Eldar leader plots his next raid against the Tyranids.
I think the answer here is pretty obvious. I will grant that decoupling Crusade advancement from a particular set of opponents is useful for avoiding real-world scheduling issues but if you're going to strip down the victory tracking elements into such a minimal thing why even have them at all? Cut the bookkeeping and remove the off-table stuff entirely.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I wouldn't trash talk Crusade. I like Crusade. Waited a very long time to get my Tyranid and Chaos Crusade rules, now I just need the Guard ones and I can finally work out how I want to use that game style.
I will trash-talk the way GW has dealt with Crusade, splitting up the rules between tons of (now OOP) campaign books, but that's not a mark against Crusade as a concept*. And, at the same time, I'm not going to pretend that Crusade is a major focus of 9th Edition, or that tournaments aren't the main focus of 9th Edition.
*But that's a classic GW problem - great concepts, bad execution - not a Crusade problem.
Yeah, that's why in the end, I didn't quote you. I had planned too, but while there were pieces of your post I disagreed with, in the context of the whole post... Our attitudes aren't as different as they seem on some of the small details. I just define what determines an edition's focus differently than you do. This edition, there has been more material published with Crusade content than without; there is also, at any given time, more active Crusade content than Matched content; and while matched gets frequent updates, very few of them impact Crusade. Given all that, I can't bring myself to define this as a tournament edition. Obviously, your criteria for determining what the focus of an edition is are different than mine, and that's okay- we generally align when it comes to Crusade itself.
The problem is those minigams are just solitaire, not a real narrative thing.
Certainly another area for improvement. The Drukhari mini-game is the best because it does allow territories to be lost as well as gained. Certainly, the Tau rules you cite could be improved- in fact, I've taken matters into my own hands on that front, creating rules to harmonize the conquest rules for Tau, GSC and Tyranids. I'll post them in the rules section soon- just finishing the formatting.
My point is that, given what we have to work with from Crusade, it's easy to create what is needed. The afterthought progression systems of previous editions didn't give us a system for the Tau to conquer systems AT ALL, so rather than merely tweaking the rules we've got by adding mechanics for losing diplomacy or military points, we'd have to build the ENTIRE system. It's the same way building an eldar Path for Pilots is easier in 9th because we have the paths of the Warrior, Seer and Outcast to use as exemplars... But if we go back in time to 4th or 5th, we have NO paths, and we'd have to build ALL of them.
*Cityfight, Planetstrike and Planetary Empires did give us a bunch of tools to work with, of course, but they were add-ons rather than being integrated into the BRB and Dexes the way so much of the Crusade content is.
So why should anyone who cares about the story have any real interest in it? The non-Tau players certainly don't, and even for the Tau player it's mostly just extra bookkeeping to deal with before cashing in the final bonus to the on-table forces. Instead of telling a story you're grinding points until you reach the arbitrary total and start the next grind.
In short: decent idea, absolutely horrid execution.
I think that in order to get the most out of Crusade, you are best off playing in a campaign with a GM, and when you do, it's the GM's role to organize the tools GW gives us in order to create a story. Again, the point I'm making is that previous editions didn't provide as many tools, so creating a similar experience in any of those versions would have meant building EVERYTHING from scratch, because the entire progression system was 3 battle honour charts that applied to every army in the game, and an extremely simplified single way for every army in the game to earn those honours (basically by winning or killing).
The difference is that competitive play is designed to be seasonal and frequently updated. Narrative games aren't. If you're a competitive player you expect that there will be frequent minor adjustments to the rules as the developer works to maintain balance and an interesting meta. But if you're a narrative player you would usually prefer if, for example, the wars of faith supplement isn't promptly ignored as soon as it's time to bring in a new book about fighting on space hulks.
As I'm sure you say from my initial post, you and I (and HBMC) are all on the same page here- the Planetstrike and multiplayer missions should never have been burried in a limited time only campaign book. A "Big Book of Campaigns" would have been a perfect place for rules like these, and such a book could continue to be available for the entire edition, as it would be disconnected from any particular campaign setting.
It's a needlessly fragmented mess of the wargame equivalent of one-shot RPG sessions and none of the content ever has time to grow. You just play through the scripted list of stuff one time (at most!) before you're on to the next micro-story.
(And sucks to be you if your army doesn't fit this season's narrative. You can sit on the sidelines and watch while everyone else plays the one-shot and hope that next season's theme is a better fit.)
Well... sort of. Again, there's certainly room for improvement, but I don't think it's as bad as this quote implies.
In my RPG group, our GM incorporates modules into his original work all the time. So that one-off or three-session arc forms a part of the history of the party. Crusade campaigns are similar: let's say I'm working on the story of a particular Preceptory of SoB. They might have sent a detachment or two to both Charadon and Octarius. Later, when I'm bringing that Preceptory to a home brew campaign set in the Pacificus Sector, there's no reason the Preceptory can't send the detachments that previously participated in Octarius, or Charadon, or even both.
What you call Micro-stories, other players might call Episodes, or Chapters.
Entanglement is not a good thing! Yes, Crusade's progression system involves more elements than in the past but that's only a good thing if that involvement happens in an interesting and well-designed way. And "you can't play 100 PL games until you and your opponent agree to spend 10 RP on 'increase game size' to unlock them" fails that test. The game would be much better if Crusade didn't interact with game size and you were free to choose the appropriate game size as required by the story.
So yes, I absolutely agree that previous editions, with better on-table representation of story events and character actions, were better for narrative gaming. A shallow on-table game with a bolted-on bookkeeping system is not a good narrative game.
I do think a paragraph added to the BRB Crusade rules that allows explicitly allows you to begin Crusading in Medias Res would be an excellent addition to the game. It's really, really easy to do... But it might have been nice for GW to include the option in order to make it official. It isn't just the size of the Order of Battle that could start in progress- you could also do it with a base experience level:
"Okay guys, for this campaign, we're going to start with 100PL of Blooded units."
I also really, really have to push back against this "Better representation of story events and battlefield action" piece.
The only editions of this game I skipped were 6th and 7th- other than that hiatus, I've been playing since '89. If actions existed in any edition before 9th, I certainly don't remember them. Agendas, detachments, battlefield actions are now WAY more developed than they ever have been. Agendas facilitate dynamic battles by adding objectives that are unrelated to victory conditions- which is an absolutely groundbreaking addition to narrative gaming. Battlefield actions are another cool innovation, and they are often linked with agendas which multiplies the narrative potential. Detachments allow a player additional ways to express the character of their army by creating different chains of command within the force.
As for the parenthical conclusion to this quote, hang on to that for a second, because...
I never read any of the FW campaign books, though I don't think I've heard anyone say a bad thing about them.
You really should, especially the very first ones from 4th edition and earlier where you had very specific forces (down to exact equipment choices) provided, asymmetrical and open-ended victory conditions, etc.
So how can you condemn Crusade because some forces might not be as included in a particular story arc, while simultaneously praising a previous edition for telling you not only which armies you must use in order to participate, but also which specific units and load outs from those armies? I mean, that is what you just did right? Or am I missing something?
I mean, I can happily direct you to 100 or more pages of digital rage about how one dude in an army isn't allowed to take a jump pack anymore. Why would anyone who is as pissed about that as they are ever want to play a game where their unit choices and load-outs were beyond their control?
Armies of Renown sound like a far better way to achieve a similar but less restrictive objective.
Once you see how GW used to do a much better job of supporting narrative gaming I doubt you'll have such a favorable opinion of 9th edition's "play a tournament game except with a buff table for your units" effort.
People have said this to me before, but I think they don't really understand my preferences when it comes to gaming.
Long story short: if FW campaign books don't allow a BSS unit to swear a Penitent Oath and become Repentia and then redeem themselves and become an elite unit; if they don't allow a DE play to acquire territory in Commorragh which they can then use to support units who would most benefit from those territories; if I can't infiltrate planetary institutions so that I can exploit those resources in future games...
Well, if you don't give me the rules to do those things, all the campaign maps, well-written fluff, and force designations in the world aren't going to make up for that loss. I'll stick to Crusade, any day of the week. Especially since a) those FW campaign books are now even more out of date than Octarius Mission Packs and b) even in their peak availability, they could only be obtained by mail order at prices higher than GW's. The relative inaccessibility of Forge World material has always been a barrier to its use.
Not saying I wouldn't read one if it fell into my hands- I could learn a lot about ways to improve the fluff parts of my campaigns- but I doubt that any of the crunch would appeal to me the way Crusade crunch does. Same way I'll always prefer D&D 3.5 to D&D 5.0.
PenitentJake wrote: My point is that, given what we have to work with from Crusade, it's easy to create what is needed. The afterthought progression systems of previous editions didn't give us a system for the Tau to conquer systems AT ALL, so rather than merely tweaking the rules we've got by adding mechanics for losing diplomacy or military points, we'd have to build the ENTIRE system. It's the same way building an eldar Path for Pilots is easier in 9th because we have the paths of the Warrior, Seer and Outcast to use as exemplars... But if we go back in time to 4th or 5th, we have NO paths, and we'd have to build ALL of them.
This isn't really an advantage. By the time you've written an interesting and engaging planetary conquest system where all players have agency, defeat is possible, battle outcomes are related to the on-table events, etc, you've written a new system with very little, if anything, of the original rules left. And TBH having the existing rules makes it harder, not easier. Instead of starting from a blank slate you have all the baggage of the solitaire bookkeeping game holding you back. And because rules exist you have the issue of people preferring to use the official rules because they are official, where with a blank slate at least everyone has to agree that the players need to create something beyond the official rules.
I think that in order to get the most out of Crusade, you are best off playing in a campaign with a GM, and when you do, it's the GM's role to organize the tools GW gives us in order to create a story. Again, the point I'm making is that previous editions didn't provide as many tools, so creating a similar experience in any of those versions would have meant building EVERYTHING from scratch, because the entire progression system was 3 battle honour charts that applied to every army in the game, and an extremely simplified single way for every army in the game to earn those honours (basically by winning or killing).
First of all, needing a GM is a major problem. The one thing Crusade did well was to decouple your individual army from any specific group, in the process eliminating all of the real-life scheduling and commitment issues that derailed the majority of previous campaign attempts. Needing a GM throws that away entirely.
Second, who cares about those "tools"? A D6 table of buff effects has pretty much zero value. Even if you want one in your games a decent GM can throw it together in 5-10 minutes. And it's maybe 5% at most of a genuine GM-run narrative campaign. The GM is still going to be doing virtually all of the work they'd be doing in previous editions, except now they have the baggage of the existing half-finished system to work around.
In my RPG group, our GM incorporates modules into his original work all the time. So that one-off or three-session arc forms a part of the history of the party. Crusade campaigns are similar: let's say I'm working on the story of a particular Preceptory of SoB. They might have sent a detachment or two to both Charadon and Octarius. Later, when I'm bringing that Preceptory to a home brew campaign set in the Pacificus Sector, there's no reason the Preceptory can't send the detachments that previously participated in Octarius, or Charadon, or even both.
Sure, that's fine if you fit the narrative for that. But what if my army isn't thematically appropriate for Charadon? What if I'm playing Tyranids that have no thematic place in a war of faith campaign? What if my Charadon army isn't thematically appropriate for Octarius, or I just want to finish the story in Charadon before moving on to something else? The fragmentation encourages you to make a new army for each story, and then discard it a game or three later because next season's book is something completely different.
I do think a paragraph added to the BRB Crusade rules that allows explicitly allows you to begin Crusading in Medias Res would be an excellent addition to the game. It's really, really easy to do... But it might have been nice for GW to include the option in order to make it official. It isn't just the size of the Order of Battle that could start in progress- you could also do it with a base experience level:
That's an easy solution but it undermines your point about the virtues of entangled rules. If tying things like game size to the progression mechanic requires an explicit option to by pass the progression mechanic and set game size independent from progression why have it tied in the first place?
The only editions of this game I skipped were 6th and 7th- other than that hiatus, I've been playing since '89. If actions existed in any edition before 9th, I certainly don't remember them. Agendas, detachments, battlefield actions are now WAY more developed than they ever have been. Agendas facilitate dynamic battles by adding objectives that are unrelated to victory conditions- which is an absolutely groundbreaking addition to narrative gaming. Battlefield actions are another cool innovation, and they are often linked with agendas which multiplies the narrative potential. Detachments allow a player additional ways to express the character of their army by creating different chains of command within the force.
Asymmetrical objectives and objectives other than "claim objective 3" or "claim more than half the objectives" existed long before Crusade was a thing. Meanwhile the simulation aspect of the on-table story has been absolutely gutted. Want to have your unit fire suppressing shots to pin the enemy in place? Nope. Want to flank the enemy and ambush them from an unexpected direction? Nope. Want to terrify the enemy into falling back? Nope (but you can do D3 extra mortal wounds). Unless you have a specific stratagem for one (and only one) unit per turn to do the thing forget it. All units can do is move, roll attack dice, and occasionally do a generic mission action.
So how can you condemn Crusade because some forces might not be as included in a particular story arc, while simultaneously praising a previous edition for telling you not only which armies you must use in order to participate, but also which specific units and load outs from those armies? I mean, that is what you just did right? Or am I missing something?
Different games, different expectations. IA3 and its campaign material represent a specific historical campaign and the rules are appropriate for this. You're playing the Taros campaign, a historical event involving the Imperial counter-attack on a recently claimed Tau world. So of course you have specific forces and missions appropriate for that story. Crusade, on the other hand, is supposed to be an open-ended system for a wide variety of stories and forces.
And I praise the FW books for their creativity in narrative mechanics, not the specific implementation of those mechanics. They are an example of what is possible when you think outside the box of "play a tournament game, but with a D6 upgrade table", something Crusade fails to do.
Same way I'll always prefer D&D 3.5 to D&D 5.0.
Seriously? You're a narrative player in 40k, but in D&D you like the game that gets hopelessly bogged down in a million character optimization choices? I don't think I've ever seen anyone prefer 3.5e to 5e who isn't a hardcore min/max-er playing a 3.5e character with +40 to their best skills at level 1 because some obscure combination of items/feats/etc in a long-forgotten supplement book allows it. All of the story-focused players I've talked to have moved on to 5e, a game that is more about roleplaying than character optimization.
PenitentJake wrote: So just a heads up: we're all going to end up agreeing to disagree, and I don't bear anyone any ill will- but you guys know that trash talking Crusade is the verbal component for the second level "Summon PenitentJake" spell, right?
The problem with crusade is that it is built on a poor foundation to start with, and truly offers very little additional value except for spending and gaining rp.
I won't bother with the first part of the sentence - I know not everyone likes 9th- especially here: but I would say the second part is way off- the territory rules in the DE dex, for example, create a whole new minigame. My favourite part of the Sisters dex is the Penitent/ Redemption agenda cycle. And even without those rules, I'd still say XP are more fun than RP... And you don't get those without Agendas, so those tie-in too.
In addition their "campaign" books are not written with a specific goal in mind and come across as schizophrenic throw away bloat that primarily is used for just a couple of pages by the community at large. To top it off its all going to go in the dumpster in the next year when the next edition comes out.
If this is true, it's even more true of Matched Play Mission Packs- only the current GT pack is ever played- including at tournaments. If anything, Crusade packs have MORE longevity- if you want Planetstrike, the Crusade Mission Pack is where you find it, and that is going to be true no matter what season it is. Ditto for the rules for multiplayer games. Matched Play packs, on the other hand, have no theme to the missions they contain, and therefore, nothing to keep them relevant once the next set of generic MP missions arrive.
And ALL books "go in the dumpster" when a new edition drops- the BRB, the Dexes... All of it. That ain't a Crusade issue, nor is it any worse for Crusade than it is for anything else that gets dumped... Which, again, is EVERYTHING.
By contrast 5th edition proved to be a much better foundation.
You might prefer it, and that's a valid opinion. But love it or hate it, 9th ed's symbiosis between its core rules and its progression system is far greater than the symbiosis between the core rules and any of the afterthought progression systems provided with any previous edition. Progression directly impacts almost all of the rules for the game itself, whether that's strats, unit types, unit identities, game size, detachment limits... it goes on and on. You might prefer armour facings, going to ground mechanics, blast templates, and maybe most importantly: diverse equipment and load out options for every unit- that's certainly valid... but the interaction between those rules and any previous attempt at a progression system is nowhere near as great as the numerous layers of interactions with relics, strats and datacards.
One that actually allowed for all of the forge world books to persist until 7th edition along with planet strike and apocalypse.
Just like all the other 8th edition stuff can still be used with 9th. When 10th comes, I don't think it'll be a full reset either... Though I suppose it could be.
I never read any of the FW campaign books, though I don't think I've heard anyone say a bad thing about them. I won't argue that current campaign books couldn't be improved- we certainly don't need 5 per season. The limited time availability of them is certainly problematic as well.
So in other words it was literally a throw away afterthought and not intended as a tool for the community to use.
GW can say there are two or three ways to play all they want, but if they don't make the tools, what the hell is the community going to use? The answer is the ones they provide (tournament matched play) or community rules.
I agree, limited time availability on some products is problematic. I very much advocate for a "Big Book of Campaign Play" and / or a "Big Book of Crusade", and that would be a perfect place for more generic (and hopefully improved) Planetstrike and Multiplayer rules. It's likely the approach they'll take in 10th if they decide to refine rather than reboot. And yes, it would have been better if they had done that from the start.
I still want to pick up the Vigilus Campaign books, though once again, I'll be skipping the mission packs., and I know the time to do so is running out.
Like others have said crusade offers NOTHING in the form of fostering a shared narrative experience. It is wholly confined to the specific army and codex that you are playing, and some haven't even gotten a codex (guard). A fundamentally solitary narrative experience is antithetical the very nature of a narrative campaign. Crusade comes down to a book keeping exercise where neither player is invested in or fighting over shared goals or objectives. It defeats the purpose of a narrative campaign.
Never played or GM'd a crusade (hoping to change that soonish), but I could see having the existing rules to act as a starting point being a handy crutch for those who aren't sure where to start with making custom rules. For anyone that feels sufficiently confident in their abilities to start from scratch, I could see existing rules being something tht could muddy the waters.
Also, I'll say that I'm not a hardcore min/max'er and I do prefer 3.5e, but I also really like 5e. That said, in 3.5 I tended to min/max towards the character idea I had in mind. I always like to play an incarnate golem War Hulk so I'd have stupidly high strength, then I'd grapple enemies and use them as clubs (not the most effective of weapons, but it was fun). I wouldn't call that hardcore min/max, but if you do you can ignore this heh. Either way...they did a great job with capturing a lot of the spirit of 3.5e in 5e. I mostly miss all the prestige classes, not that I can't have just as much fun without them.
+1 for not understanding why 3.5 is brought up when talking about player freedom or narrative design - when I think of creating a character concept in 3.5, I think "OK, I'm going to need to get these items and take these feats in this order or my character simply won't function mechanically (and might not function until partway through the campaign anyways) and I'm probably going to get outclassed by a Cleric/Druid/Wizard regardless"
waefre_1 wrote: +1 for not understanding why 3.5 is brought up when talking about player freedom or narrative design - when I think of creating a character concept in 3.5, I think "OK, I'm going to need to get these items and take these feats in this order or my character simply won't function mechanically (and might not function until partway through the campaign anyways) and I'm probably going to get outclassed by a Cleric/Druid/Wizard regardless"
And most of the time that character you made was a cookie cutter copy of everyone else's build, because the only way to find anything in the thousands of pages of rules bloat was to carefully follow someone else's build guide. Ignore the guide and oops, you missed the fact that you need some obscure feat from a random supplement to make the feat chain work and now you're spending three levels multiclassing into something else to try to get back on track. For all its supposed content 3.5e, in practical terms, is no deeper than 5e.
Slipspace wrote:You've perfectly encapsulated the problem I've had with Crusade but have been unable to fully put my finger on until now. I'd sum up Crusade's problems in one word: detached. Everything you do in the game feels detached from what happens post-game, in the sense that my opponent rarely interacts with it. Yes, the game result changes how many resources I may get post-game, but I rarely get the sense there's a coherent campaign going on with Crusades. It's just a bunch of post-hoc justification for what happened on the table that my opponent has no incentive to care about.
Compare that with the original Necromunda's campaign system. Most of that was also solitaire-esque but there were a few elements that really helped drive interaction between players. Some scenarios allowed you to steal territory from your opponent. You could have rivalries between individual fighters or gangs that had in-game effects. "Winning " the scenario was often not the main goal for some gangs, especially if they were outclassed by their opponents.
This is exactly why Unit and I have criticized Crusade as a progression system but not really a campaign system. It's got the mechanical hooks there to reward unit and army progress, but no context to link the battles into any kind of cohesive whole. Throw in the fact that your army wholly regenerates after each battle exactly as it was even if it was killed to a man, and there's no real consequence to a battle one way or the other.
And don't get me wrong, I like Crusade and I prefer that it exists, but a progression system bolted onto a tournament-focused edition isn't really giving me the narrative or gameplay experience I want. My buddies and I tried a map-based campaign system using Crusade for unit progression, but ultimately we've been having more fun playing through the Imperial Armour campaigns in 5th Ed instead.
Instead of 3.5, we could use GURPS. I can make a character much clearer to my vision of them in GURPS than I could in any RPG I've played, and they'll function mechanically how I want them to.
If I could make a force in 40k function how I envision them, I might play again. But, Infinity provides me a better narrative structure than 40k can, and I can just use 40k models if I really want to.
waefre_1 wrote: +1 for not understanding why 3.5 is brought up when talking about player freedom or narrative design - when I think of creating a character concept in 3.5, I think "OK, I'm going to need to get these items and take these feats in this order or my character simply won't function mechanically (and might not function until partway through the campaign anyways) and I'm probably going to get outclassed by a Cleric/Druid/Wizard regardless"
That's completely different than my experience.
Why would you even use a guide to make a d&d character? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of making your own character? Regardless, if that was your experience then glad they came out with 5e. It's a good edition.
Either way, I just realized I actually have had some experience with a 5th edition 40k homebrew crusade. Died relatively quickly because the leaders weren't well balanced (that was part of the homebrew is we all had special rules leaders). But it was a cool concept that bridged 40k and battlefleet gothic.
nou wrote: Basically, it is the old discussion of "should it be a wargame or should it be a war themed game".
You seem to have a very narrow definition of "wargame". If you want to complain about "war-themed games" then the target should be the stratagem mechanic turning 40k into a pseudo-CCG, not with abstraction in LOS. Wargames work just fine with highly abstracted LOS rules even if those rules don't suit your personal tastes.
@ 4th ed style height brackets: everything is fine and clear as long as both models are on the same elevation level or near the edges of a hill. As soon as they are not you have to use TLOS to see if this hill in between is high enough to block LoS, or you're throwing height advantage out of the game that is supposedly a wargame. This is a basic problem with grid based wargames.
Why do you need to use TLOS? Just have all terrain features have height brackets as well. If two models are at level 3 then a level 3 hill between them blocks LOS while a level 2 hill doesn't. And TBH wargames need this level of abstraction in practice anyway. If you need flat levels for models to sit on you might as well have them at neat bracket-height intervals to make everything clear. Same thing with "ambiguous" ruins, etc. Those diorama-style ruins/forests/etc look great in a painting contest but they're terrible in practice since you'll struggle to fit bases into them. Functional wargame terrain needs flat surfaces, clearly defined walls, etc, to represent the terrain without getting in the way of playing a game with physical miniatures.
Now answer this: does a lvl 2 hill blocks LoS between a height 1 shooter on lvl 3 and a height 1 target on lvl 1. If you don’t immediately understand why you need TLOS for that, take your time. I’m not talking any heresy here, only simple geometry. TLOS is the only way to test that and every miniatures wargame designer knows this. If you abstract this fundamental problem away from your game you are approaching chess levels of „terrain” abstraction and no longer talking about miniatures wargame as historically defined and commonly understood.
The sheer number of options makes having a build guide necessary for most players. Good luck even getting a normal person to read all of those rules. And only a tiny minority of hardcore character optimizers are going to be able to keep track of it all, evaluate the options, and make an informed choice about how to build their characters. For everyone else you either use a build guide that at least narrows down the options to a handful of key choices or you end up with a broken character that flails impotently while the players who used build guides are trashing everything with +20 to hit, +50 on every skill roll, and spells with 100D6 damage.
This is why it's so funny that someone who is a devoted Crusade fan and narrative player in 40k would pick the min/max optimizer's paradise system over one that simplifies away all the clutter, eliminates the need for build guides, and lets the game be about roleplaying instead of figuring out that chapter 47, section E, paragraph (ii)(a)(2.1) gives you a +100 to hit and instant death on anything but a 1.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: As I predicted when I started, agree to disagree has arrived. Peace out.
That didn't take long to go from "Crusade is awesome and necessary" to "I can't defend Crusade against valid criticism".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: Now answer this: does a lvl 2 hill blocks LoS between a height 1 shooter on lvl 3 and a height 1 target on lvl 1.
Nope. Level 3 is above the level 2 terrain and so the terrain is ignored.
Alternatively, maybe you have a rule that terrain one level lower provides partial cover, in which case the target is visible but gets a benefit for being obscured. Either way this is not a difficult question.
TLOS is the only way to test that and every miniatures wargame designer knows this. If you abstract this fundamental problem away from your game you are approaching chess levels of „terrain” abstraction and no longer talking about miniatures wargame as historically defined and commonly understood.
This is precisely what I mean about having a very narrow idea of what a wargame is. Does doing the exact trig calculation to determine the small range where the hill blocks line of sight and the elevated position isn't enough to see over it add any meaningful strategy? Does it even matter in a game where the hill is an approximation of a real hill and has flat steps instead of smooth slopes so miniatures can be placed on it? Does it even matter in a game at the scale of 40k, where you can assume that miniature positions and exact poses are somewhat of an approximation and the "real" troops are moving to appropriate spots to either take cover or get a clear shot?
The answer to all of these questions, IMO, is a solid "no". But even if you disagree that hardly means that TLOS is essential to the very concept of a wargame. It's just the mechanic you personally prefer.
The sheer number of options makes having a build guide necessary for most players. Good luck even getting a normal person to read all of those rules. And only a tiny minority of hardcore character optimizers are going to be able to keep track of it all, evaluate the options, and make an informed choice about how to build their characters. For everyone else you either use a build guide that at least narrows down the options to a handful of key choices or you end up with a broken character that flails impotently while the players who used build guides are trashing everything with +20 to hit, +50 on every skill roll, and spells with 100D6 damage.
This is why it's so funny that someone who is a devoted Crusade fan and narrative player in 40k would pick the min/max optimizer's paradise system over one that simplifies away all the clutter, eliminates the need for build guides, and lets the game be about roleplaying instead of figuring out that chapter 47, section E, paragraph (ii)(a)(2.1) gives you a +100 to hit and instant death on anything but a 1.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: As I predicted when I started, agree to disagree has arrived. Peace out.
That didn't take long to go from "Crusade is awesome and necessary" to "I can't defend Crusade against valid criticism".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: Now answer this: does a lvl 2 hill blocks LoS between a height 1 shooter on lvl 3 and a height 1 target on lvl 1.
Nope. Level 3 is above the level 2 terrain and so the terrain is ignored.
Alternatively, maybe you have a rule that terrain one level lower provides partial cover, in which case the target is visible but gets a benefit for being obscured. Either way this is not a difficult question.
TLOS is the only way to test that and every miniatures wargame designer knows this. If you abstract this fundamental problem away from your game you are approaching chess levels of „terrain” abstraction and no longer talking about miniatures wargame as historically defined and commonly understood.
This is precisely what I mean about having a very narrow idea of what a wargame is. Does doing the exact trig calculation to determine the small range where the hill blocks line of sight and the elevated position isn't enough to see over it add any meaningful strategy? Does it even matter in a game where the hill is an approximation of a real hill and has flat steps instead of smooth slopes so miniatures can be placed on it? Does it even matter in a game at the scale of 40k, where you can assume that miniature positions and exact poses are somewhat of an approximation and the "real" troops are moving to appropriate spots to either take cover or get a clear shot?
The answer to all of these questions, IMO, is a solid "no". But even if you disagree that hardly means that TLOS is essential to the very concept of a wargame. It's just the mechanic you personally prefer.
Sorry, but you just threw away any meaningfull terrain interaction out of the game. Lvl 2 hill between shooter on lvl 3 vs target on lvl 0 obscures the target along half of the whole range. If you call that tactically meaningless then I don’t really have anything else to say. It is not me who has narrow definition of a miniatures wargame, it is you who has it too broad. Can a CCG represent a war in a game? Hell yes, my favourite „wargame” is Neuroshima Hex, a mix breed of CCG and hex map. Would using miniatures instead of card tokens turn it into miniatures wargame? Obviously not.
nou wrote: Sorry, but you just threw away any meaningfull terrain interaction out of the game.
Now I know I don't need to take you seriously. If you think this one scenario not being handled exactly the way you want removes all meaningful terrain interaction then you're either completely lacking in imagination or deliberately trolling. Even ignoring the vertical element entirely there are a lot of meaningful terrain interactions.
Lvl 2 hill between shooter on lvl 3 vs target on lvl 0 obscures the target along half of the whole range.
And you're also bad at geometry. How much a hill obscures depends on the slope of the hill, among other things. There is no single answer like "half of the range" that applies to every possible situation. In many cases a level 2 hill will obscure none of the range, and in most cases the region where the hill obscures TLOS but the model isn't standing on the hill (and therefore subject to area terrain rules) is relatively small.
It is not me who has narrow definition of a miniatures wargame, it is you who has it too broad. Can a CCG represent a war in a game? Hell yes, my favourite „wargame” is Neuroshima Hex, a mix breed of CCG and hex map. Would using miniatures instead of card tokens turn it into miniatures wargame? Obviously not.
There is an immense difference between playing a CCG with miniatures and playing a wargame that doesn't use the specific terrain and LOS rules that you prefer. The reality is that the approximation of levels instead of TLOS is no worse of an approximation than the many approximations you are already using. If a game is still a wargame despite having static model poses, hills with steps, forests with 1-2 trees, etc, a game is still a wargame even if it uses levels and top-down lines instead of TLOS.
The sheer number of options makes having a build guide necessary for most players. Good luck even getting a normal person to read all of those rules. And only a tiny minority of hardcore character optimizers are going to be able to keep track of it all, evaluate the options, and make an informed choice about how to build their characters. For everyone else you either use a build guide that at least narrows down the options to a handful of key choices or you end up with a broken character that flails impotently while the players who used build guides are trashing everything with +20 to hit, +50 on every skill roll, and spells with 100D6 damage.
I'm very aware of the sprawl of 3.5e (I have a very large folder of downloaded books that I would peruse while coming up with and building new characters). Part of the fun for me is that there's always some new feat or spell that you missed or haven't encountered yet. If you are only going to play a single character ever, then I guess you would need to make sure you knew everything so you didn't miss out on something. But for most folks, there's (almost) always the option of swapping out a character mid campaign (permanently or temporarily), playing a short campaign (a single adventure sort of thing), or just the natural turnover in campaigns dying out and a new campaign starting up again.
If you've got an experienced DM, they will work to curtail excessively powerful builds without sacrificing the fun that min/maxers have in min/maxing their characters. My personal favorite that I've seen is limiting players to the core books plus a certain number of additional books (usually one or two) of their choice that that player can use to build their characters. Less experienced DM might opt to simply limit the book selection to everyone using the same limited set (shouldn't be a problem if they're up front about it).
A really amazing DM can also craft an adventure where entire sessions are largely dominated by roleplay rather than roll-play (see what I did there... I'm not ashamed to laugh at my own joke). I'm blessed to know multiple people that have that sort of skill (and doubly blessed to be playing in one of their campaigns). There's a balance of course, because some prefer the combat and rolling while others prefer the roleplay and still others are in between those two.
Also, I've played in a 5e adventure where I was waaaay underpowered compared to everyone else (I played straight up barbarian). Still had a lot of fun playing my character who had a loud excited "I'm confident in my own strength carrying me through any challenge" personality despite the fact that he would have almost certainly lost to any other character if they fought one on one. It's role playing. So what if you aren't The Best Character (tm).
Finally, why is it a problem if someone reaches for different games to scratch different itches? We're not 1D memes, we're people.
waefre_1 wrote: +1 for not understanding why 3.5 is brought up when talking about player freedom or narrative design - when I think of creating a character concept in 3.5, I think "OK, I'm going to need to get these items and take these feats in this order or my character simply won't function mechanically (and might not function until partway through the campaign anyways) and I'm probably going to get outclassed by a Cleric/Druid/Wizard regardless"
That's completely different than my experience.
Why would you even use a guide to make a d&d character? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of making your own character?...
It does. However, 3e/3.5e/PF is fairly notorious for being designed in a way that character classes (and thus character concepts) fall into tiers ranging from "can do anything really well, even the things it's not supposed to" to "can barely do the thing it's supposed to be good at". This meant that it was possible (sometimes downright trivial) to make a character that struggled to meaningfully contribute to the party when it came down to mechanical interactions, even when run in a group that didn't include any powergamers, and could have knock-effects that made the game less enjoyable for everyone. It wasn't an every-table every-session every-time thing, to be sure, but once burned, twice check-every-character-concept-is-even-feasible-before-bringing-it-to-the-table.
From what I've heard, that doesn't map 1:1 with Crusade's issues, but I'd wonder if there's a shared underlying cause (some combination of poor writing and inconsistent balance, perhaps? Something about unintended haves and have-nots, where some players can bring the character/army they want and have a good time where others can't, due to the character/army not being capable or perhaps not even existing (cf. complaints about the Crusade Paths from the Eldar book)?)
Well, +1 to Catbarf and Shas'O Ky'huas, basically, on both discussions. Carry on.
EDIT to actually add content:
My opinion on why Crusade doesn't work is how little it has to interface with. The actual gameplay of 40k is so shallow that a character getting a concussion is abstracted in the same way as an entire squad becoming "disgraced" (whatever that means for Tyranids, lol).
IMHO in order to have successful narrative campaigns, you also need to have thematic rules. Even if they're heavily abstracted, as long as the abstractions are consistently applied, you can have narratively consistent gameplay.
GW has been developing a problem with this since the middle of 5th, if not earlier. Here is an example:
"This guy charges goodly" in 4th (and 5th iirc) was Furious Charge
In 6th (7th?) they added Hammer of Wrath, which essentially was "this guy charges goodly, also, but different, because reasons"
In 9th now they have Shock/Hateful Assault, Avalanche of Muscle, Hammer of Wrath (but the stratagem, now, not a rule), Red Thirst (a rule), Fury Within, Hunters Unleashed, Born Heroes, Whirlwind of Rage... and I run out of feths to give in terms of listing all the rules that boil down to "this guy charges goodly"
DeadliestIdiot wrote: If you are only going to play a single character ever, then I guess you would need to make sure you knew everything so you didn't miss out on something.
It's not that you'd miss out on something you'd enjoy doing, it's that if you aren't really experienced with 3.5e it's an intimidating wall of text just to make your first level 1 character. There are tons of options, most of them are bad, and if you want a viable build beyond level 1 you have to plan everything in advance so you don't fall behind the power curve. So what feat do you take at level 1? Good luck making that choice without a build guide.
If you've got an experienced DM, they will work to curtail excessively powerful builds without sacrificing the fun that min/maxers have in min/maxing their characters.
Bolded the important part. A good DM can make up for a lot of stuff but the rules shouldn't need a good DM to compensate for their flaws. 5e does a much better job of being playable out of the box, without needing a DM who is a master of the system and can handle all of the math issues.
My personal favorite that I've seen is limiting players to the core books plus a certain number of additional books (usually one or two) of their choice that that player can use to build their characters. Less experienced DM might opt to simply limit the book selection to everyone using the same limited set (shouldn't be a problem if they're up front about it).
And now that you're throwing away all of the depth of options that people cite as 3.5e's strong point why not play 5e instead?
So what if you aren't The Best Character (tm).
There's a difference between not being The Best Character and not having a viable character. It's not a big deal if you're 10% less effective than someone else's character, it's a big deal if your character literally never accomplishes anything because you made bad dice math choices and any roll you can succeed at will be effortless for the other party members. It stops being fun when your wizard has +3 to Knowledge: Arcana while the fighter who has never seen a spell in his entire life has +25 (and +50 to all his main skills). Or when your fighter needs a 19-20 to hit with one attack per round and the wizard hits on an 11-20 with three attacks per round doing twice as much damage, and the wizard is using his crossbow instead of spells because the DM asked the player to please stop AoE "save or die" nuking every encounter with a save DC that god himself couldn't pass.
Finally, why is it a problem if someone reaches for different games to scratch different itches? We're not 1D memes, we're people.
It's not a problem, it's just an interesting observation. If he wants to min/max 3.5e and see what stupid overpowered builds he can come up with I'm not stopping him.
nou wrote: Lvl 2 hill between shooter on lvl 3 vs target on lvl 0 obscures the target along half of the whole range.
And you're also bad at geometry. How much a hill obscures depends on the slope of the hill, among other things. There is no single answer like "half of the range" that applies to every possible situation. In many cases a level 2 hill will obscure none of the range, and in most cases the region where the hill obscures TLOS but the model isn't standing on the hill (and therefore subject to area terrain rules) is relatively small.
Aren't you the one who is arguing for not using geometry? Whether it obscures half the range depends on how you define a height level and the exact size of the miniatures. You basically have to create zones around the hill that grant different levels of obscurement to different height levels of models, or we could just continue with TLOS.
https://imgur.com/a/SUYxweU
That didn't take long to go from "Crusade is awesome and necessary" to "I can't defend Crusade against valid criticism".
It isn't that I can't defend Crusade, it's that I've done it all before so many times, that I recognize that neither of us is ever going to move the other's point of view at all. I spoke up, I voiced my opinion once for the thread. If you've seen any of my previous posts about Crusade, it should be pretty obvious that you aren't going to change my mind. I certainly know nothing I can say will change your mind, or Unit's, or CB's. And I'm okay with that- you don't have to like what I like, and I don't have to like what you like.
As for the "valid criticism" piece, reread the parts of my posts that you didn't quote- I acknowledge many of those faults myself. Nowhere have I ever claimed Crusade is a perfect system; I prefer it to previous systems, for reasons that I've already explained here and elsewhere.
So, since no one is going to change anyone's mind, I've said everything I needed to say about Crusade.
waefre_1 wrote: +1 for not understanding why 3.5 is brought up when talking about player freedom or narrative design - when I think of creating a character concept in 3.5, I think "OK, I'm going to need to get these items and take these feats in this order or my character simply won't function mechanically (and might not function until partway through the campaign anyways) and I'm probably going to get outclassed by a Cleric/Druid/Wizard regardless"
That's completely different than my experience.
Why would you even use a guide to make a d&d character? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of making your own character?...
It does. However, 3e/3.5e/PF is fairly notorious for being designed in a way that character classes (and thus character concepts) fall into tiers ranging from "can do anything really well, even the things it's not supposed to" to "can barely do the thing it's supposed to be good at". This meant that it was possible (sometimes downright trivial) to make a character that struggled to meaningfully contribute to the party when it came down to mechanical interactions, even when run in a group that didn't include any powergamers, and could have knock-effects that made the game less enjoyable for everyone. It wasn't an every-table every-session every-time thing, to be sure, but once burned, twice check-every-character-concept-is-even-feasible-before-bringing-it-to-the-table.
From what I've heard, that doesn't map 1:1 with Crusade's issues, but I'd wonder if there's a shared underlying cause (some combination of poor writing and inconsistent balance, perhaps? Something about unintended haves and have-nots, where some players can bring the character/army they want and have a good time where others can't, due to the character/army not being capable or perhaps not even existing (cf. complaints about the Crusade Paths from the Eldar book)?)
The way it maps to Crusade's issues is that some armies are dramatically worse than others, and it's no fun for, say, the AdMech player to lose all the time, which is what happened in the last Crusade league I was in, with the Tyranid player just beating everyone forever.
vict0988 wrote: Aren't you the one who is arguing for not using geometry? Whether it obscures half the range depends on how you define a height level and the exact size of the miniatures. You basically have to create zones around the hill that grant different levels of obscurement to different height levels of models, or we could just continue with TLOS.
https://imgur.com/a/SUYxweU
Your images show a wall, not a hill. A hill has a slope and a hill in that position would be unlikely to block much LOS. A wall would, but a wall is also appropriate for rules like "any model within 2" of a wall has cover", representing the fact that even if a model in a static pose is not obscured the real soldiers would be capable of ducking behind the wall and using it for protection.
Also, a wargame is not required to duplicate every single feature and edge case of TLOS to be a valid wargame. A certain level of abstraction is assumed, just like a game with TLOS makes certain abstractions that do not match reality.
Until next time you are, as you said, summoned to defend it. Hopefully next time you remember this discussion and the fact that, for many of us, Crusade is a deeply flawed and disappointing system that fails miserably when you attempt to use it for anything but a very specific type of story. I'm glad you enjoy that one story, but it's pretty sad to see narrative players defending a system that tells most of us "screw you, your stories aren't worth telling".
nou wrote: Lvl 2 hill between shooter on lvl 3 vs target on lvl 0 obscures the target along half of the whole range.
And you're also bad at geometry. How much a hill obscures depends on the slope of the hill, among other things. There is no single answer like "half of the range" that applies to every possible situation. In many cases a level 2 hill will obscure none of the range, and in most cases the region where the hill obscures TLOS but the model isn't standing on the hill (and therefore subject to area terrain rules) is relatively small.
Aren't you the one who is arguing for not using geometry? Whether it obscures half the range depends on how you define a height level and the exact size of the miniatures. You basically have to create zones around the hill that grant different levels of obscurement to different height levels of models, or we could just continue with TLOS.
https://imgur.com/a/SUYxweU
What? Why?
There are systems out there now that use a height system for models and terrain perfectly fine, without resorting to geometry and without needing TLOS. GW used to use one. There's no reason why you can't simply draw a line between two bases, determine the heights of each model versus the heights of any intervening terrain and determine LoS systetmatically. The exact angle of elevation doesn't need to be modelled.
What you just described is exactly how it worked in 3rd and 4th ed 40k. Models and terrain had size/height values. For some unfathomable reason this was discarded in the change to 5th and the game has been poorer for it ever since.
100% categorically false. Every single edition has used TLOS. The sole exception was 4th's area terrain rules, which had height categories. All other terrain used TLOS.
3rd ed. Rulebook page 36- "Sometimes it may be hard to tell if a LOS is blocked or , so players must stoop over the table for a "model's eye view". This is the best way to see if LOS exists...
Enemy models and all vehicles, friend or foe, do block a unit's LOS if they are in the way, just like buildings and other terrain. enemy models will block the LOS to other models up to twice their height."
2nd ed. rulebook page 26- "However in some cases it will be difficult to tell if a LOS is blocked or not, and players must stoop over the table for a model's eye view. This is always the best way to determine if LOS exists- some players even use small periscopes or mirrors to check the views from their models!..."
Now answer this: does a lvl 2 hill blocks LoS between a height 1 shooter on lvl 3 and a height 1 target on lvl 1. If you don’t immediately understand why you need TLOS for that, take your time. I’m not talking any heresy here, only simple geometry. TLOS is the only way to test that and every miniatures wargame designer knows this. If you abstract this fundamental problem away from your game you are approaching chess levels of „terrain” abstraction and no longer talking about miniatures wargame as historically defined and commonly understood.
No. Why would they block LoS, if you are on a pice of terrain your hight is that of the tier you are on. So if you are on a tier 3 building shoting at a tier 1 target, and the terrain being shot through is not tier 2 or higher, the target is visible and there for open to be shot at. No TLoS needed.
The sheer number of options makes having a build guide necessary for most players. Good luck even getting a normal person to read all of those rules. And only a tiny minority of hardcore character optimizers are going to be able to keep track of it all, evaluate the options, and make an informed choice about how to build their characters. For everyone else you either use a build guide that at least narrows down the options to a handful of key choices or you end up with a broken character that flails impotently while the players who used build guides are trashing everything with +20 to hit, +50 on every skill roll, and spells with 100D6 damage.
I'm very aware of the sprawl of 3.5e (I have a very large folder of downloaded books that I would peruse while coming up with and building new characters). Part of the fun for me is that there's always some new feat or spell that you missed or haven't encountered yet. If you are only going to play a single character ever, then I guess you would need to make sure you knew everything so you didn't miss out on something. But for most folks, there's (almost) always the option of swapping out a character mid campaign (permanently or temporarily), playing a short campaign (a single adventure sort of thing), or just the natural turnover in campaigns dying out and a new campaign starting up again.
If you've got an experienced DM, they will work to curtail excessively powerful builds without sacrificing the fun that min/maxers have in min/maxing their characters. My personal favorite that I've seen is limiting players to the core books plus a certain number of additional books (usually one or two) of their choice that that player can use to build their characters. Less experienced DM might opt to simply limit the book selection to everyone using the same limited set (shouldn't be a problem if they're up front about it).
A really amazing DM can also craft an adventure where entire sessions are largely dominated by roleplay rather than roll-play (see what I did there... I'm not ashamed to laugh at my own joke). I'm blessed to know multiple people that have that sort of skill (and doubly blessed to be playing in one of their campaigns). There's a balance of course, because some prefer the combat and rolling while others prefer the roleplay and still others are in between those two.
Also, I've played in a 5e adventure where I was waaaay underpowered compared to everyone else (I played straight up barbarian). Still had a lot of fun playing my character who had a loud excited "I'm confident in my own strength carrying me through any challenge" personality despite the fact that he would have almost certainly lost to any other character if they fought one on one. It's role playing. So what if you aren't The Best Character (tm).
Finally, why is it a problem if someone reaches for different games to scratch different itches? We're not 1D memes, we're people.
yeah if someone's looking at build guides for D&D, I'm suspecting he's not playing for the reason I am.
Why on earth would you use a build guide for dnd? I haven't played dnd since AD&D 2nd and would ridicule someone non-stop if they resorted to "outside help" building a character. If this is how "modern" dnd is like, I'm glad I ditched it decades ago.
Racerguy180 wrote: Why on earth would you use a build guide for dnd? I haven't played dnd since AD&D 2nd and would ridicule someone non-stop if they resorted to "outside help" building a character. If this is how "modern" dnd is like, I'm glad I ditched it decades ago.
You use a build guide in D&D to avoid building a helplessly useless character.
While I haven't played must 5th Edition, both 3rd, 3.5, and 4th Edition had so many choices that it was easy to make bad choices that yielded a character far less powerful than their level would indicate. At the same time, it was possible to make characters (especially in 3.5) that were far more powerful than their peers. Build guides helped you avoid the trap mistakes that were far too easy to make because they looked cool.
Racerguy180 wrote: Why on earth would you use a build guide for dnd? I haven't played dnd since AD&D 2nd and would ridicule someone non-stop if they resorted to "outside help" building a character. If this is how "modern" dnd is like, I'm glad I ditched it decades ago.
You use a build guide in D&D to avoid building a helplessly useless character.
While I haven't played must 5th Edition, both 3rd, 3.5, and 4th Edition had so many choices that it was easy to make bad choices that yielded a character far less powerful than their level would indicate. At the same time, it was possible to make characters (especially in 3.5) that were far more powerful than their peers. Build guides helped you avoid the trap mistakes that were far too easy to make because they looked cool.
And those guides are complete crap as far as doing pretty much anything other than MOAR DAMAGE is concerned. They cannot take into account what type of game you're actually in nor any actual character development that might occur storywise.
Any good guide will tell you what is good for what and what is just all around bad. It is up to you to decide if you want to worship at the idol of MOAR DAMAGE or make a more rounded character. Which is the better decision also depends on the nature of the game you play. Taking skills is good if the GM has lots of skill checks in the game, but is a bad decision if you are mostly smashing monsters.
I still don't get it but to each their own. You seem pretty convinced you need a guide to successfully build a character. I've just never run into that problem at any time during my years of playing d&d. Sure, I've built characters that weren't able to pull their own weight, but I didn't feel like they were "bad" characters. The only "bad" character I can think of was the time I built a paladin prestige class and the only reason he was bad was that we had a necromancer in the party and I fell into the jerk paladin trope. I ditched the character after a couple sessions and made a new character that was a lot more fun (I think they were a true necromancer prestige class actually... whichever was the one that switched your familiar for an undead minion)
Automatically Appended Next Post: So I just tallied it up and here's the breakdown of my characters by edition/system
3.5e: 19 (a couple of those the campaigns fell apart before the first session or I came up with another idea and wanted to play that more for whatever reason)
4e: 1
5e: 4
D20 modern/future: 4
Dark Heresy: 1
Orpheus: 1 (we all built ourselves in 10 years...it was kind of fun)
GURPS: 1
(Edit: also 1 in the werewolf system)
And like I said, only one character in that batch was bad and that's because of how I played him interacting with our necromancer, tbh. The class was Shadowbane Inquisitor, btw.
Racerguy180 wrote: Why on earth would you use a build guide for dnd? I haven't played dnd since AD&D 2nd and would ridicule someone non-stop if they resorted to "outside help" building a character. If this is how "modern" dnd is like, I'm glad I ditched it decades ago.
The 3.x DnD system was very fun and there was a lot of freedom in character builds. You could make quirky or interesting setups and there was the oportunity for creativity in *mechanics* as well as story.
Oh, here's the character that I changed what I wanted to do with her multiple times. She started off as a rogue tiefling (she was a thief) who escaped from the underdark with a drow who was exiled or something and neither knew how to speak common. Sadly I kept rolling absurdly high on my intelligence checks to learn common and that funny obstacle went away by the end of the first session (I was hoping it'd last until the end of the first adventure at least). Then she took a level of sword sage, and then she took four levels of wizard (illusionist). Then the party got wiped when a party member ticked off a dragon in human form that was supposed to be the big bad later on or something (except for my character thanks to her being able to teleport a short distance once per turn from using her level of sword sage)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and here's the character that I was planning on taking every single form of rage I could. He'd rage at the start of combat and when his rage stop he'd collapse unconscious due to having several levels of exhaustion lol. That campaign didn't last long enough for me to finish the build sadly (I moved before we could get there)
alextroy wrote: Any good guide will tell you what is good for what and what is just all around bad. It is up to you to decide if you want to worship at the idol of MOAR DAMAGE or make a more rounded character. Which is the better decision also depends on the nature of the game you play. Taking skills is good if the GM has lots of skill checks in the game, but is a bad decision if you are mostly smashing monsters.
I've read the good & the best guides you people follow. My opinion of them is low (at best). You are better off thinking for yourselves.
Because, as I said when I mentioned build guides the first time, 3.5e is a horribly bloated game. The "flexibility" people like to talk about comes in the form of an immense amount of content scattered across dozens of books, and the only reason the game is playable at all is that third-party sites have taken advantage of the generous licensing terms WOTC used to offer and posted the entire rules into compiled reference sites. But even there you're still looking at an intimidatingly large list of options to choose from, with many builds involving sequences of choices where if you don't pick the right feat/class/etc at the right time you miss the prerequisites for something else later on. And 3.5e is a system that is heavy on math optimization, so if you don't make the right choices your dice math isn't good enough and you have a helpless failure of a character (or the DM drops the difficulty to accommodate you and everything becomes trivial for the rest of the party). A very dedicated player with a long history of playing RPGs can deal with these problems without guides, but for casual or new players the only way they're going to be successful is by using a build guide to cut down the number of options to something more manageable.
Contrast this with 5e, a game which doesn't need build guides. The list of options is much shorter and a lot more things are packaged together into single choices. Instead of planning out a whole chain of feats and prestige class levels you just pick which variant of a class you're going to play and start the game. Feats are rarer, almost never have other build choices as prerequisites, and TBH are often less useful than just putting +2 into your primary stat. Spells have damage scale with level instead of needing to carefully plan your metamagic feats to make anything but your highest-level spells relevant. And bonuses are much more binary instead of stacking with no limit. You mostly either apply your proficiency bonus (one single bonus for every character of that level) or don't, and very rarely apply double your proficiency bonus if it's something you're particularly good at. There's no more searching through dozens of books trying to find another +10 to a skill because +15 isn't good enough (while anyone who didn't optimize their build for that skill has a +3 bonus). Pretty much anyone can get an intro game to learn the basic rules, pick a class out of the core PHB, and start the game.
In short: 5e is a game for roleplaying, 3.5e is a character optimization exercise with a roleplaying game tacked on at the end.
In short: 5e is a game for roleplaying, 3.5e is a character optimization exercise with a roleplaying game tacked on at the end.
Nonsense. They're both RPGs. 5e pulls back on system mastery and eye for detail, but pulls back on player choice as well (there simply aren't as many player facing choices), and is much more dependent on the dice roll (because the player has less influence over modifiers)
Neither is less of an RPG, just a matter of preference for how you want to get there.
Either way (system heavy or system light), good roleplaying is entirely separated from mechanics.
In short: 5e is a game for roleplaying, 3.5e is a character optimization exercise with a roleplaying game tacked on at the end.
Nonsense. They're both RPGs. 5e pulls back on system mastery and eye for detail, but pulls back on player choice as well (there simply aren't as many player facing choices), and is much more dependent on the dice roll (because the player has less influence over modifiers)
Neither is less of an RPG, just a matter of preference for how you want to get there.
Either way (system heavy or system light), good roleplaying is entirely separated from mechanics.
I think he is right. They are both RPGs, but how much ROLE-playing and how much ROLL-playing you do is greatly different between the two systems. 5e is much more about the player decisions and less about what choices you made on your character sheet. Anyone can do almost anything in 5e, but if you didn't spend your skill points correctly in 3.5e you shouldn't even bother rolling the dice.
Voss wrote: Either way (system heavy or system light), good roleplaying is entirely separated from mechanics.
In theory, yes. In practice, no. In reality people have a finite amount of attention and energy to spend on a game and the more of it is taken up by dice math and character optimization the less they have to spend on roleplaying. 3.5e games often get bogged down in the details of exactly how to interpret Section 37, Paragraph 4, Line 2a(3)(b) in the grappling rules. You decide what your character is going to do but then you have to figure out how the mechanics work and figure out enough roleplaying rationalizations for why you deserve enough bonuses to have a reasonable chance of success (usually with the whole group collaborating to figure out exactly how to stack as much stuff as possible). In 5e, on the other hand, the simpler mechanics make it easier to just declare what your character is doing and then roll the appropriate dice. Less time on dice math, more time available to do things like describe the details of an attack, narrate a full conversation instead of a checklist of +2 bonuses to apply, etc.
To bring this back to 40k, this is the major problem 40k has. The bloat is so bad that there's no room left for anything else. Even a narrative game gets bogged down too easily in trying to figure out how the rules work, and GW's primary narrative mode is little more than "play a tournament game but add another layer of buffs to everything". 40k is trying to out-bloat 3.5e when it should be taking lessons from 5e.
Voss wrote: Either way (system heavy or system light), good roleplaying is entirely separated from mechanics.
In theory, yes. In practice, no. In reality people have a finite amount of attention and energy to spend on a game and the more of it is taken up by dice math and character optimization the less they have to spend on roleplaying. 3.5e games often get bogged down in the details of exactly how to interpret Section 37, Paragraph 4, Line 2a(3)(b) in the grappling rules. You decide what your character is going to do but then you have to figure out how the mechanics work and figure out enough roleplaying rationalizations for why you deserve enough bonuses to have a reasonable chance of success (usually with the whole group collaborating to figure out exactly how to stack as much stuff as possible). In 5e, on the other hand, the simpler mechanics make it easier to just declare what your character is doing and then roll the appropriate dice. Less time on dice math, more time available to do things like describe the details of an attack, narrate a full conversation instead of a checklist of +2 bonuses to apply, etc..
Bollocks. CharOp and bonuses are something you can do away from the table. It doesn't eat into 'roleplaying time' The 2-3 hours for a single combat for 5e, on the other hand... that can be a real problem for table time.
interpret Section 37, Paragraph 4, Line 2a(3)(b) in the grappling rules
And if you think this is how 3e books are laid out, you're repeating tales from the 4e/5e edition war against earlier editions, and don't have much experience with the game itself.
In short: 5e is a game for roleplaying, 3.5e is a character optimization exercise with a roleplaying game tacked on at the end.
Nonsense. They're both RPGs. 5e pulls back on system mastery and eye for detail, but pulls back on player choice as well (there simply aren't as many player facing choices), and is much more dependent on the dice roll (because the player has less influence over modifiers)
Neither is less of an RPG, just a matter of preference for how you want to get there.
Either way (system heavy or system light), good roleplaying is entirely separated from mechanics.
I think he is right. They are both RPGs, but how much ROLE-playing and how much ROLL-playing you do is greatly different between the two systems. 5e is much more about the player decisions and less about what choices you made on your character sheet. Anyone can do almost anything in 5e, but if you didn't spend your skill points correctly in 3.5e you shouldn't even bother rolling the dice.
That's not really true. 3.X has more mechanics, but not any less roleplaying than 5e. The choice between the systems has more to do with how much mechanical fuckery you like in your games; there's just as much mechanic support for roleplaying in 3.X.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shas'O Ky'husa wrote: 3.5e games often get bogged down in the details of exactly how to interpret Section 37, Paragraph 4, Line 2a(3)(b) in the grappling rules.
I just played with smart people and everything worked out. It also gatekept out the soulless drama nerd types who think talking in a funny voice and being obnoxiously extroverted counts as roleplaying.
This whole 5e vs 3.5e argument is very relevant to original topic of this thread, now that I'm thinking of it.
Disclaimer: as I've said before, I really enjoy 5e, but my personal favorite is still 3.5e, I don't really want this to turn into a "which is better" argument. That disclaimer said 5e is missing certain rules that 3.5e had (some of which I actually used). It's a natural and necessary part of trimming down and streamlining the rules. For example, using only the rules as written I can no longer bull rush. And this is where the relevance to the thread topic comes in. In D&D, you don't need to have a house rule that says "we added bull rush back into 5e and it works like this" because your DM should decide on the fly how best to arbitrate the actions that you want to attempt. In the case of the bull rush in 5e, maybe your DM asks you to make an attack roll with advantage/disadvantage based on the size comparison between you and your target (i.e., small, medium, large, etc). D&D was designed from the start to allow you to attempt to do literally anything. All you need is a willing DM to arbitrate what you need to roll to attempt that action (even the stupidly absurd...wanna spontaneously grow some rabbit ears? roll me 3d20, if you get 3 20's we'll call it divine intervention and your chosen deity will bestow on you your very own set of rabbit ears). D&D is, ultimately, a game of improv. The best DMs tend to say "yes" more than "no" (the classic improv "yes, but" comes to mind). The idea of writing rules to cover every situation that could arise in such a game is ludicrous and D&D was designed with that in mind.
40k doesn't have a DM. It doesn't typically need one since it's not designed to let you do anything, it's designed to be a tactical game where two (or more) armies fight each other. Unfortunately, that means that there's no one to arbitrate actions on the fly beyond "4+ it", which only really works to settle a disagreement on the rules without wasting excessive amounts of time or to resolve uncertainties. Outside of specially arranged events, any customization of the rules HAS to be based on agreement between the two players (rather than a third party). If two or more people play with one another regularly enough, these agreements can become the accepted community rules for that community. Adding an outside person into the mix doesn't change things, the rules still have to be agreed upon between the players. That might mean that mistakes get made due to assumed rules if the two sides aren't diligent about talking over any desired customization of the rules. If everyone is being reasonable, the players come to an agreement on how to resolve the issue and move on (ending the game early might be the result).
I'll also add, GW has officially said we can choose how we play so long as we come to an agreement on it with our opponent. The Content Validity document says in the first paragraph: "As always, you and your opponent can play using whichever rules you agree on, but we recommend using the most up-to-date rules for your faction as indicated below."
And, finally, to revisit the original post: the question was asked "Is the mood out there such that people are ready to make house or local are flexible rules arrangements or … something besides chasing the corporate meta?" Based on the thread so far, I think the answer is solidly "it varies from person to person"
DeadliestIdiot wrote: This whole 5e vs 3.5e argument is very relevant to original topic of this thread, now that I'm thinking of it.
Disclaimer: as I've said before, I really enjoy 5e, but my personal favorite is still 3.5e, I don't really want this to turn into a "which is better" argument. That disclaimer said 5e is missing certain rules that 3.5e had (some of which I actually used). It's a natural and necessary part of trimming down and streamlining the rules. For example, using only the rules as written I can no longer bull rush. And this is where the relevance to the thread topic comes in. In D&D, you don't need to have a house rule that says "we added bull rush back into 5e and it works like this" because your DM should decide on the fly how best to arbitrate the actions that you want to attempt. In the case of the bull rush in 5e, maybe your DM asks you to make an attack roll with advantage/disadvantage based on the size comparison between you and your target (i.e., small, medium, large, etc). D&D was designed from the start to allow you to attempt to do literally anything. All you need is a willing DM to arbitrate what you need to roll to attempt that action (even the stupidly absurd...wanna spontaneously grow some rabbit ears? roll me 3d20, if you get 3 20's we'll call it divine intervention and your chosen deity will bestow on you your very own set of rabbit ears). D&D is, ultimately, a game of improv. The best DMs tend to say "yes" more than "no" (the classic improv "yes, but" comes to mind). The idea of writing rules to cover every situation that could arise in such a game is ludicrous and D&D was designed with that in mind.
40k doesn't have a DM. It doesn't typically need one since it's not designed to let you do anything, it's designed to be a tactical game where two (or more) armies fight each other. Unfortunately, that means that there's no one to arbitrate actions on the fly beyond "4+ it", which only really works to settle a disagreement on the rules without wasting excessive amounts of time or to resolve uncertainties. Outside of specially arranged events, any customization of the rules HAS to be based on agreement between the two players (rather than a third party). If two or more people play with one another regularly enough, these agreements can become the accepted community rules for that community. Adding an outside person into the mix doesn't change things, the rules still have to be agreed upon between the players. That might mean that mistakes get made due to assumed rules if the two sides aren't diligent about talking over any desired customization of the rules. If everyone is being reasonable, the players come to an agreement on how to resolve the issue and move on (ending the game early might be the result).
I'll also add, GW has officially said we can choose how we play so long as we come to an agreement on it with our opponent. The Content Validity document says in the first paragraph: "As always, you and your opponent can play using whichever rules you agree on, but we recommend using the most up-to-date rules for your faction as indicated below."
And, finally, to revisit the original post: the question was asked "Is the mood out there such that people are ready to make house or local are flexible rules arrangements or … something besides chasing the corporate meta?" Based on the thread so far, I think the answer is solidly "it varies from person to person"
You... You know you can Shove in 5E, which is basically the exact same thing as a Bull Rush, right?
*sigh* that's not the point...fine, you can shove. But even if you couldn't, the system is designed such that it doesn't matter. Your DM can arbitrate how you can attempt to do whatever you want via rolls.
DeadliestIdiot wrote: *sigh* that's not the point...fine, you can shove. But even if you couldn't, the system is designed such that it doesn't matter. Your DM can arbitrate how you can attempt to do whatever you want via rolls.
How does it not matter that you can knock an enemy backwards and prone? The specific dice mechanics are not identical to 3.5e but the concept is exactly the same.
Wait... you're trolling me, right? It doesn't matter to the point I was making. Your the one who was criticizing me for not reading the entire 5e book, but you apparently didn't read the post I made that was being referred to in the post you were quoting...go back and read it. Whether shove or bull rush are the same or similar or whatever is irrelevant to the greater point I was trying to make.
DeadliestIdiot wrote: Wait... you're trolling me, right? It doesn't matter to the point I was making. Your the one who was criticizing me for not reading the entire 5e book, but you apparently didn't read the post I made that was being referred to in the post you were quoting...go back and read it. Whether shove or bull rush are the same or similar or whatever is irrelevant to the greater point I was trying to make.
Your post:
For example, using only the rules as written I can no longer bull rush. And this is where the relevance to the thread topic comes in. In D&D, you don't need to have a house rule that says "we added bull rush back into 5e and it works like this" because your DM should decide on the fly how best to arbitrate the actions that you want to attempt. In the case of the bull rush in 5e, maybe your DM asks you to make an attack roll with advantage/disadvantage based on the size comparison between you and your target (i.e., small, medium, large, etc)
While it is technically true that RAW you can no longer bull rush in 5e it's only because "bull rush" is now called "shove". You don't need house rules to add it back in. And you can complain that despite your error the rest of the post is still valid but that doesn't mean we can't laugh at yet another instance of someone making a claim about what 5e "can't do" that is obviously false.
I'm sorry you feel the need to laugh at people for not knowing everything I guess then...*shrug*
My original point still stands even with my oversight. (And in that paragraph I wasn't saying that you need house rules to add bull rush in, I was saying that you don't NEED house rules at all in D&D to do something that the rules don't cover, like growing bunny ears if you want an example that is definitely missing from the rules of both editions. The DM has the tools to arbitrate anything)
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I've lost where the D&D conversation is going. Can someone catch me up? I'm not sure how any of this relates to the conversation at hand.
I attempted to pull the conversation back on topic... I seem to have failed. You really haven't missed much, tbh.
DeadliestIdiot wrote: Wait... you're trolling me, right? It doesn't matter to the point I was making. Your the one who was criticizing me for not reading the entire 5e book, but you apparently didn't read the post I made that was being referred to in the post you were quoting...go back and read it. Whether shove or bull rush are the same or similar or whatever is irrelevant to the greater point I was trying to make.
Your post:
For example, using only the rules as written I can no longer bull rush. And this is where the relevance to the thread topic comes in. In D&D, you don't need to have a house rule that says "we added bull rush back into 5e and it works like this" because your DM should decide on the fly how best to arbitrate the actions that you want to attempt. In the case of the bull rush in 5e, maybe your DM asks you to make an attack roll with advantage/disadvantage based on the size comparison between you and your target (i.e., small, medium, large, etc)
While it is technically true that RAW you can no longer bull rush in 5e it's only because "bull rush" is now called "shove". You don't need house rules to add it back in. And you can complain that despite your error the rest of the post is still valid but that doesn't mean we can't laugh at yet another instance of someone making a claim about what 5e "can't do" that is obviously false.
................ ya know what they call when a GM makes a ruling like that on the fly?
a house rule. you're literally arguing "there's no need for house rules because your GM can just house rule it"
I've played both D&D 3.5 and D&D 5E and both can be abused by roll play obsessed people looking to break the game rather then play a character.
If you're playing D&D as a roleplaying game you don't need a fething "net guide to character optimization"
I've always viewed a house rule as something established ahead of time as agreed upon by all the players and the DM (and thus the equivalent of the community rules that is the overarching topic of debate) rather than something that the DM comes up with on the fly. Otherwise, every DC check the DM comes up with would be a house rule, which doesn't make sense to me.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I think it's more that the spawning ears out of nowhere requiring rolls being the house rule.
Agreed, all the players at my Warhammer club can spontaneously spawn ears. Except me, I'm a robot beep boop. We are talking about 40k right? If not maybe we should try to get back on the topic of 40k.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I think it's more that the spawning ears out of nowhere requiring rolls being the house rule.
Agreed, all the players at my Warhammer club can spontaneously spawn ears. Except me, I'm a robot beep boop. We are talking about 40k right? If not maybe we should try to get back on the topic of 40k.
Specifically bunny ears, but only on character models with fewer than 8 wounds, we wouldn't want it to be overpowered. Did I mention the bunny ears let you ignore invulns regardless of what any other rule says?
And if everyone playing is okay with that, I see no problem... although I do see where it might exacerbate issues already inherent in modern 40k rules...but everyone playing agreed on it, so that's their problem to deal with
JNAProductions wrote: You... You know you can Shove in 5E, which is basically the exact same thing as a Bull Rush, right?
Lol. It's always funny when people say "5e can't do this" without reading the book to know that yes, 5e can in fact do it.
In 3.5, movement as a result of a bullrush provoked attacks of opportunity. In 5 it does not. This weakens the utility of the attack. I used to bull rush in 3.5 all the time. Now it's only really useful if there's a hazzard to push someone into.
Grapple in 5th is similar limited in its usefulness compared to 3.5. Trip and disarm are now tied to classes rather than just being feats anyone could take.
5th's skill system is ridiculous, and barely better than the skill system of AD&D, which might as well not have existed. The proficiency bonus off/on method doesn't allow you to create the kind of nuanced skill set that a real person might possess. Sure, there are a handful of feats and conditions that can lead to "Add double your proficiency bonus" so skill scores can only be 0, PB or PBx2. Proficiency bonus does too much- when it was used to govern combat, fine... And in those glorious days, it didn't go up at the same rate for everyone either, because SURPRISE fighters are better at fighting than Wizards... It's why they call them fighters.
But now, combat and non-combat skills improve at the same fixed rate, regardless of your character's class or what you actually do in the game. Simple and elegant... But rock-stupid in terms of allowing someone to create a character on paper that is a product of the things they actually did in the game. Of all the over-simplifications and little atrocities that killed the spirit of D&D , this is the most egregious to me. And it's odd, because in early D&D, the skill system was inadequate as well- it's like they got it right for a short period of time in the middle of the games lifespan. What we have now is better than early AD&D, but far less nuanced and interesting than what we had in 3.5.
Advantage and disadvantage are interesting mechanics, but target modifiers actually achieve the objective (making a roll harder or easier) better. For example, if you need a 20 to succeed, a +2 circumstance bonus gives you a slightly better chance than advantage. Circumstance bonuses can also be strong or weaker- sometimes you might get a +5. It's storytelling tool too, because often you'd do different things to get different bonuses. Now, once you've got advantage, you just stop thinking/ and storytelling, because no matter what else you add to your idea, you're not going to be able to improve it's odds of success any more than you already have.
We've also lost a lot of campaign worlds. It looks like Dragonlance is and even Spelljammer are on deck, but Shadowsun, Oriental Adventures and Rokugan are lost.
5e was designed to be simple. If you like things that are simple, you'll like it. And for the record, simple can be good- it just, doesn't give me a lot to work with.
If you WANT your game to have enough complexity to do more interesting things that actually have a consistent and predictable impact on the game rather than relying on the whimsy of your GM to add an effect based on whimsy every now and again to keep things interesting, 5th pales in comparison to 3.5.
JNAProductions wrote: You know you can trip too, right? You can Shove someone prone.
Disarming is in the DMG also.
Well, better that you can than that you can't....
But why was disarm in a separate book instead of being in the combat actions section of the PH like everything else, and what is the benefit of class abilities that let you do these things if anyone can do them? I mean sure, when a fighter does it, they do damage (superiority dice) in addition to disarming or tripping, and sure, when a Monk does it, they get additional strikes (Flurry of Blows), so they're better at it. But it doesn't seem as special as it did when I thought only they could do it.
I liked it best when they were feats, because you could play a wizard or who can trip or disarm, but you still have to put some effort and resources into developing the ability. I didn't know anyone could just do it, so obviously, that's on me... But I still feel like the previous system provided a more nuanced way to make it happen, which increased character diversity. Moving the goalposts? Perhaps... My bad.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I think it's more that the spawning ears out of nowhere requiring rolls being the house rule.
Agreed, all the players at my Warhammer club can spontaneously spawn ears. Except me, I'm a robot beep boop. We are talking about 40k right? If not maybe we should try to get back on the topic of 40k.
Methinks it's a lost cause.
To be fair, I think the original topic of the conversation has been thoroughly answered
PenitentJake wrote: In 3.5, movement as a result of a bullrush provoked attacks of opportunity. In 5 it does not. This weakens the utility of the attack. I used to bull rush in 3.5 all the time. Now it's only really useful if there's a hazzard to push someone into.
I once again find it amusing that you're so concerned with narrative play in 40k but when it comes to D&D your focus is on roll-playing and a thing isn't worth doing unless it gives you character optimization advantages. Meanwhile the role-player doesn't care if shoving/tripping someone gives 10% less action economy efficiency than a normal attack, if it seems like the thing their character would do they do it.
Also, you seem to be really hung up on the exact details of implementing a mechanic. Obviously mechanics aren't going to be identical between games but who cares? A system isn't better or worse because it gives +1 to hit instead of re-roll 1s, and a story doesn't depend on having all of the dice math be executed in the exact same way.
The proficiency bonus off/on method doesn't allow you to create the kind of nuanced skill set that a real person might possess.
But, again, how much does that really matter? Does the difference between +3 to a skill and +4 to a skill really matter when the die result is between 1 and 20, meaning random luck has significantly more to do with whether your character is capable of something than the subtle nuances between their skills? I suppose it matters for hardcore min/maxers that they extract every possible 5% advantage, but from a roleplaying point of view it doesn't matter one bit.
Advantage and disadvantage are interesting mechanics, but target modifiers actually achieve the objective (making a roll harder or easier) better. For example, if you need a 20 to succeed, a +2 circumstance bonus gives you a slightly better chance than advantage. Circumstance bonuses can also be strong or weaker- sometimes you might get a +5. It's storytelling tool too, because often you'd do different things to get different bonuses. Now, once you've got advantage, you just stop thinking/ and storytelling, because no matter what else you add to your idea, you're not going to be able to improve it's odds of success any more than you already have.
Exactly. You stop thinking, and that's the entire point. 3.5e degenerates into flipping through the book trying to find every possible +2 you can stack on a roll because otherwise you have little or no hope of success (or the encounter is balanced around not having bonus stacking, in which case you stack bonuses to auto-win). And it encourages obsessing over exactly what number to assign to a situation and lobbying the DM to make the number bigger. In 5e, on the other hand, you're encouraged to stop getting bogged down in the details of dice math and consider the big picture of what the net result of all the various positive and negative circumstances is. Is it positive, negative, or neutral. Done. Roll the dice, describe your actions, and keep the story moving.
We've also lost a lot of campaign worlds. It looks like Dragonlance is and even Spelljammer are on deck, but Shadowsun, Oriental Adventures and Rokugan are lost.
Why are they lost? Did WOTC lobotomize that knowledge out of your brain and destroy every copy of the books? Because let's be honest here, 99% of the value of those settings was in the deep and interesting lore of the world. Hardly any of it was in having the stat lines for NPCs, that part is trivially easy to create in a different system if you want to play in that world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: I liked it best when they were feats, because you could play a wizard or who can trip or disarm, but you still have to put some effort and resources into developing the ability.
When were they feats? Maybe they were in 2e or earlier but it certainly wasn't in 3.5e. In 3.5e trip/disarm/bull rush were all core combat actions that any character could do. Improved trip/disarm/bull rush, ranged disarm, etc, were all feats that made those actions more effective but literally any character with the appropriate body shape could do them in 3.5e. Which seems very much like how, in 5e, a wizard who hasn't put any effort into developing their wrestling abilities is going to have a hard time winning the opposed Strength (Athletics) vs. Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) roll to do anything other than flail uselessly.
Shas'O Ky'husa wrote: Exactly. You stop thinking, and that's the entire point. 3.5e degenerates into flipping through the book trying to find every possible +2 you can stack on a roll because otherwise you have little or no hope of success (or the encounter is balanced around not having bonus stacking, in which case you stack bonuses to auto-win). And it encourages obsessing over exactly what number to assign to a situation and lobbying the DM to make the number bigger. In 5e, on the other hand, you're encouraged to stop getting bogged down in the details of dice math and consider the big picture of what the net result of all the various positive and negative circumstances is. Is it positive, negative, or neutral. Done. Roll the dice, describe your actions, and keep the story moving.
Nah. Asking your GM if you can do something isn't "thinking."
3.X also selected for players who were invested in the game, and who actually read the books, as opposed to soulless nothings whose knowledge of ttrpgs starts and stops at CR and 5e.
Nah. Asking your GM if you can do something isn't "thinking."
Asking if you can do something isn't. Spending 15 minutes going back and forth on exactly how to arrange every possible positive modifier on a roll is, and that's what 3.5e encourages. More time and energy spent on roll-playing, less time and energy available for role-playing.
3.X also selected for players who were invested in the game, and who actually read the books, as opposed to soulless nothings whose knowledge of ttrpgs starts and stops at CR and 5e.
Invested in the game =/= invested in the specific rules. I would much rather play against someone who spends their time and energy on their character and story ideas than someone who can always calculate the perfect answer to every character optimization question.
Much as I hate to get further into the D&D subtopic, but you *can* disarm and trip with any character.
Take the Martial Adept Feat, and you can pick the Disarming Attack and Trip Attack maneuvers (not that you really need Trip Attack, as Shove pretty much does the same thing, but with less damage).
Wait too long calculating modifiers, and the character stands there, mouth agape, apparently counting in mental dreamland, while the bugbear puts a halberd through his/her/its guts...
Wait too long calculating modifiers, and the character stands there, mouth agape, apparently counting in mental dreamland, while the bugbear puts a halberd through his/her/its guts...
were clearly getting off topic but thats my main gripe with DnD, its painfully slow while everyone does his thing.
Racerguy180 wrote: Why on earth would you use a build guide for dnd? I haven't played dnd since AD&D 2nd and would ridicule someone non-stop if they resorted to "outside help" building a character. If this is how "modern" dnd is like, I'm glad I ditched it decades ago.
I remember seeing 3.5 giving rise to this MMO-like min-maxing "build" garbage. Just people theorycrafting how to break the game with 100% optimized builds assuming you start at level 20 and can buy any magic item, all this sort of bullgak that doesn't belong in D&D. At least a lot were obvious just theorycrafting and nobody had any desire to actually play them, just show what you could do by mixing half a dozen books together. But for all the ones that were there were people looking to make some uber-character and play the game solo basically while relegating the rest of their party to henchmen.
D&D doesn't need "balance" because you have a DM/GM to tailor things. Yet there's this mindset you need to try and "win" with a super character. It's actually disgusting.
Racerguy180 wrote: Why on earth would you use a build guide for dnd? I haven't played dnd since AD&D 2nd and would ridicule someone non-stop if they resorted to "outside help" building a character. If this is how "modern" dnd is like, I'm glad I ditched it decades ago.
I remember seeing 3.5 giving rise to this MMO-like min-maxing "build" garbage. Just people theorycrafting how to break the game with 100% optimized builds assuming you start at level 20 and can buy any magic item, all this sort of bullgak that doesn't belong in D&D. At least a lot were obvious just theorycrafting and nobody had any desire to actually play them, just show what you could do by mixing half a dozen books together. But for all the ones that were there were people looking to make some uber-character and play the game solo basically while relegating the rest of their party to henchmen.
D&D doesn't need "balance" because you have a DM/GM to tailor things. Yet there's this mindset you need to try and "win" with a super character. It's actually disgusting.
Nice to see the "if you aren't playing the game my way you're having fun the wrong way and should feel bad" attitude works just as well in D&D as it does in 40k, but you're completely missing the point of why I brought up build guides. It's not for min/maxing every possible advantage, it's to cut down the list of options to something an average player is capable of making informed choices about. Even without getting into perfect optimization a build guide will tell you which 3-4 feats out of 500 are relevant to you and warn you that the cool thing you want to do at level 7 requires making specific choices at previous levels to set up the prerequisites.
As much as I love DnD, 5E has made everyone into a special snowflake. Which as a DM is extremely boring. Everyone seems to spend 1-3 minutes describing their character swinging their axe at the baddie like it's a scene from Transformers, or some Bruckheimer flick. Honestly, it's just a d6 sword attack, not a Tolkein Novella. Just tell me your attack roll, and I'll tell you if you get to roll damage.
Things about current DnD that piss me off as a DM:
Everyone is stupidly OP at start and it just gets worse. Ice Knife and spells like it make planing fights lasting more than 2 turns pointless.
Everyone gets a try at the obstacle. I'm sick of saying the guard doesn't believe you when you try to deceive him, or you fail to unlock to door, and suddenly everyone gets a roll. We shouldn't be able to do things we aren't proficient in. The Barbarian with 8 intelligence and 6 Charisma doesn't get a shot at seducing the guard. NO. The Goblin with the Theives tools is the only on in the party that gets to TRY to pick the lock. I'm sick of everyone being able to do everything.
Healing is broken. Remember when the magic user could literally die with a bad slip and fall? 4HP. Then it's death saves. I would love for them to institute a permanent wound system, where you can't sprint anymore since that arrow to the knee, or you can't wield two handers, since that shark ate your left hand. MAKE PLAYERS DEAL WITH THEIR DECISIONs.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: As much as I love DnD, 5E has made everyone into a special snowflake. Which as a DM is extremely boring. Everyone seems to spend 1-3 minutes describing their character swinging their axe at the baddie like it's a scene from Transformers, or some Bruckheimer flick. Honestly, it's just a d6 sword attack, not a Tolkein Novella. Just tell me your attack roll, and I'll tell you if you get to roll damage.
What does that have to do with 5e? Not getting bogged down in min/maxing dice math optimization doesn't mean spending excessive amounts of time describing mundane things.
Everyone is stupidly OP at start and it just gets worse. Ice Knife and spells like it make planing fights lasting more than 2 turns pointless.
This sounds like a DM problem, not a system problem. If having a spellcaster doing non-negligible damage in combat makes things too easy then add enemies to absorb the alpha strike. If nothing else you can always use NPCs with player character stats, so anything the players can do is fair game for the NPCs.
(Also, ice knife isn't even all that great. You have slightly more damage than magic missile and a situational small AoE but you have to roll to hit with the base damage and the splash damage allows a save to negate entirely. It's worth considering but it's hardly an auto-take and TBH most of the time I'd rather have magic missile for the greater reliability.)
The Barbarian with 8 intelligence and 6 Charisma doesn't get a shot at seducing the guard.
Why not? They're incredibly unlikely to succeed and the consequences will be bad, so why not let them make the attempt? Lacking explicit character rules for persuasion doesn't mean your character is literally unable to speak the words "your hot lets do it" and make a crude gesture, it means you aren't very good at doing a thing and the rules represent this.
So let's look at this objectionable scenario.
The barbarian at 6 charisma is rolling 1d20-2 for all social interactions (-2 ability score, no proficiency bonus).
If you rule that the guard is merely indifferent, having never seen the barbarian before, it is a DC 20 check to do as asked with a minor risk or sacrifice (with abandoning guard duty being at least a minor risk) and the guard will not accept a significant risk or sacrifice. That's impossible for the barbarian. A DC 10 result will have the guard do as asked as long as no risk is involved, so if we interpret the request as "continue the conversation and become friendly" the barbarian needs a 13+ on the die, with failure at least having the guard tell the barbarian to leave.
If you rule that the guard is actively hostile (as a guard on duty likely is) then it's a 13+ to merely avoid having the guard stay neutral and not take action against the barbarian and rolling "continue the conversation" is not possible. Add in disadvantage (trying to seduce an on-duty guard is obviously absurd) and it gets even worse. The most likely outcome by far is that the barbarian completely fumbles the attempt and would be better off staying silent.
The Goblin with the Theives tools is the only on in the party that gets to TRY to pick the lock. I'm sick of everyone being able to do everything.
Why? It's not like anyone else is going to have a reasonable chance of success and the only penalty for failing is not making progress. Unless the goblin isn't present in the scene (in which case why do you have the party screwing around with a lock they can't get through) there's no reason for anyone else to make the attempt.
Healing is broken. Remember when the magic user could literally die with a bad slip and fall?
3.5e falling damage: 1d6 per 10'.
5e falling damage: 1d6 per 10'.
Technically a wizard has a starting HP of 6 instead of 4 but you didn't die instantly at 0 HP in either system, you were unconscious and it was trivially easy for someone to revive you. Having a character die to a mere fall (other than falling off a cliff, which will kill you in both systems) may have technically happened one time to someone just because of the sheer number of D&D games played but it's an incredibly unlikely event.
I would love for them to institute a permanent wound system, where you can't sprint anymore since that arrow to the knee, or you can't wield two handers, since that shark ate your left hand. MAKE PLAYERS DEAL WITH THEIR DECISIONs.
If that's the kind of game you want then why are you playing D&D, a high-magic system where healing is trivial and even death is a mere GP tax?
Shas'O Ky'husa wrote: Asking if you can do something isn't. Spending 15 minutes going back and forth on exactly how to arrange every possible positive modifier on a roll is, and that's what 3.5e encourages. More time and energy spent on roll-playing, less time and energy available for role-playing.
If it takes 15 minutes you're playing with people who haven't read the rules, *and* a GM who isn't willing to just give a fast solution to keep things moving. That's not the rules' fault.
If you're playing 5e with normies they're still going to not understand the rules, and you'll *still* have 15 minute breakdowns while people look things up unless the GM moves it along.
Invested in the game =/= invested in the specific rules.
Sure, but what I said is still true.
Shas'O Ky'husa wrote: I would much rather play against someone who spends their time and energy on their character and story ideas than someone who can always calculate the perfect answer to every character optimization question.
I find that in general the kind of people who can answer optimization questions quickly tend to be the kind who put effort into their character and story lines, as they're invested in DnD in general. What I see with the people who are phobic of rules systems like 3.X is a limited view on roleplaying that basically ends at attention-seeking behavior and funny voices, a lack of interest in the settings, and an anti-narrative sense where they don't like making characters grow or have arcs, just be how they are.
Hecaton wrote: If it takes 15 minutes you're playing with people who haven't read the rules, *and* a GM who isn't willing to just give a fast solution to keep things moving. That's not the rules' fault.
It's the rules' fault when the GM has to step in and say "I know you are still trying to figure out the rules but I'm tired of waiting". Good systems do not have this problem.
If you're playing 5e with normies they're still going to not understand the rules, and you'll *still* have 15 minute breakdowns while people look things up unless the GM moves it along.
Having played both systems with the same group of "normies" this is not true at all. The 3.5e games get bogged down in rule questions at least once per session, the 5e games almost never do. And this is a group where 3.5e is the primary system and the 5e games are the occasional side thing, so if the familiarity factor favors one system it's 3.5e.
But I think it's very informative that you talk about "normies" as if RPGs are still some kind of niche hobby that needs to be gatekept against anyone who isn't a loser nerd. Sorry, but it isn't 1995 anymore.
I find that in general the kind of people who can answer optimization questions quickly tend to be the kind who put effort into their character and story lines, as they're invested in DnD in general. What I see with the people who are phobic of rules systems like 3.X is a limited view on roleplaying that basically ends at attention-seeking behavior and funny voices, a lack of interest in the settings, and an anti-narrative sense where they don't like making characters grow or have arcs, just be how they are.
Then you and I have very different experiences. In my experience the character optimizers are the ones who see D&D as a tabletop ARPG where build optimization and combat strategy matter more than anything else and the roleplaying is an awkward list of cliches stapled together to justify the character optimization choices. And the majority of people I've talked to about the subject have similar experiences.
Racerguy180 wrote: Why on earth would you use a build guide for dnd? I haven't played dnd since AD&D 2nd and would ridicule someone non-stop if they resorted to "outside help" building a character. If this is how "modern" dnd is like, I'm glad I ditched it decades ago.
I remember seeing 3.5 giving rise to this MMO-like min-maxing "build" garbage. Just people theorycrafting how to break the game with 100% optimized builds assuming you start at level 20 and can buy any magic item, all this sort of bullgak that doesn't belong in D&D. At least a lot were obvious just theorycrafting and nobody had any desire to actually play them, just show what you could do by mixing half a dozen books together. But for all the ones that were there were people looking to make some uber-character and play the game solo basically while relegating the rest of their party to henchmen.
D&D doesn't need "balance" because you have a DM/GM to tailor things. Yet there's this mindset you need to try and "win" with a super character. It's actually disgusting.
Fun fact, but originally the point of D&D was basically to win.
Old School D&D was basically just a game you played via pen and paper around a table, but the GM / DM and the players were very much intended to "win" at the expense of the other party. This is clear not only from the original design of the game and monsters (particularly the absurdly brutal gotcha monsters) but other forms of what was basically 'competitive' D&D. The progression from being a massive-scaled "boardgame" into being a much lighter and more forgiving system meant to facilitate RP has been a fairly natural progression and one which is far from bad, but it's not the "original" intent of the system.
A very similar progression can be seen in MMO video games but also video games at large. Early video games were all in the "game" part, being entertaining by way of being brutally challenging and presenting little to no story or anything else. This, again, gradually shifted away from video games existing purely as a "game" medium and more into one which encouraged creativity and was meant to foster stories (both player made and in the games themselves).
I bring this up because, while you may not like it, min / maxing characters is very much in the original "spirit" of D&D. You're entitled to like what you like, but belitting those who enjoy their min / maxing and power builds is like trash talking anyone who enjoys Darksouls or some of the brutally difficult Mario Maker custom maps. It's ignorant at best and says significantly more about you than it does them.
I don't think that RSL, CS:GO, FIFA or LoL are about the story. Even MMOs are mostly either about farming and making money through boosts and reselling stuff or the main goal is getting top gear and fastest clear times, then everyone else.
I mean some people do RP in MMOs, but those are mostly those sex crazed wierdos.
Racerguy180 wrote: Why on earth would you use a build guide for dnd? I haven't played dnd since AD&D 2nd and would ridicule someone non-stop if they resorted to "outside help" building a character. If this is how "modern" dnd is like, I'm glad I ditched it decades ago.
I remember seeing 3.5 giving rise to this MMO-like min-maxing "build" garbage. Just people theorycrafting how to break the game with 100% optimized builds assuming you start at level 20 and can buy any magic item, all this sort of bullgak that doesn't belong in D&D. At least a lot were obvious just theorycrafting and nobody had any desire to actually play them, just show what you could do by mixing half a dozen books together. But for all the ones that were there were people looking to make some uber-character and play the game solo basically while relegating the rest of their party to henchmen.
D&D doesn't need "balance" because you have a DM/GM to tailor things. Yet there's this mindset you need to try and "win" with a super character. It's actually disgusting.
Fun fact, but originally the point of D&D was basically to win.
Old School D&D was basically just a game you played via pen and paper around a table, but the GM / DM and the players were very much intended to "win" at the expense of the other party. This is clear not only from the original design of the game and monsters (particularly the absurdly brutal gotcha monsters) but other forms of what was basically 'competitive' D&D. The progression from being a massive-scaled "boardgame" into being a much lighter and more forgiving system meant to facilitate RP has been a fairly natural progression and one which is far from bad, but it's not the "original" intent of the system.
A very similar progression can be seen in MMO video games but also video games at large. Early video games were all in the "game" part, being entertaining by way of being brutally challenging and presenting little to no story or anything else. This, again, gradually shifted away from video games existing purely as a "game" medium and more into one which encouraged creativity and was meant to foster stories (both player made and in the games themselves).
I bring this up because, while you may not like it, min / maxing characters is very much in the original "spirit" of D&D. You're entitled to like what you like, but belitting those who enjoy their min / maxing and power builds is like trash talking anyone who enjoys Darksouls or some of the brutally difficult Mario Maker custom maps. It's ignorant at best and says significantly more about you than it does them.
I learned from the old blue basic box about, hummm, 40 years ago. Played for ... until maybe mid 90s. Won RPGA awards. Stopped and moved to GW40k, Fantasy, BFG, space hulk, necromunda... but I NEVER got the feeling tha the idea was to win except for once, at a convention, when some murderous doosh used the excuse that his character was low Int and a half orc to murder party member and steal their stuff so that, he "won" but only because by the end, he was the only one left alive. Yeah... i did not enjoy that at all, and if it were the object of D&D, i never would have played it twice. So, no. You are wrong about this, maybe it is your experience, but I feel sad for you and wonder why you ever played the game more than once... sounds toxic and jusy nasty. Ick...
The Barbarian with 8 intelligence and 6 Charisma doesn't get a shot at seducing the guard.
Why not? They're incredibly unlikely to succeed and the consequences will be bad, so why not let them make the attempt?
That's it though- in 5E they aren't a lot less likely to succeed. In the ridiculously over simplified skill rules of 5e, the only difference between someone who is trained to do a skill and someone who isn't is your proficiency bonus, which is negligible, especially at level 1-4.
In 3.5, they were a lot more likely to fail, because they needed to buy ranks in skills, and cross-class skills couldn't be as high as class skills.
But Fez, I wouldn't say 5th makes everyone snowflakes, rather, I'd say it makes everyone "good, but samey." The amount of spells which became concentration significantly reduce the spell abilities of casters, but they are now as good in combat as anyone else. Rogues aren't as skillful as they once were.
Karol wrote: I don't think that RSL, CS:GO, FIFA or LoL are about the story. Even MMOs are mostly either about farming and making money through boosts and reselling stuff or the main goal is getting top gear and fastest clear times, then everyone else.
I mean some people do RP in MMOs, but those are mostly those sex crazed wierdos.
Well LoL is picking up on the lore front with Arcane to be fair.
I see something similar in 40K... everything and everyone is expected to do everything and anything, with enough command points and right unit selections ... factions lose flavor and all samey because snowflakey players seem unable to fathom that dedication and specialization make a real world difference, with consequences being enter the wrong situation without adequate proficiency, end up dead.
jeff white wrote: I see something similar in 40K... everything and everyone is expected to do everything and anything, with enough command points and right unit selections ... factions lose flavor and all samey because snowflakey players seem unable to fathom that dedication and specialization make a real world difference, with consequences being enter the wrong situation without adequate proficiency, end up dead.
agreed with the message but i don't see what's so snowflakey about the players that want every faction to do everything? i feel like you're using the word as a way to describe everyone you disagree with
jeff white wrote: I see something similar in 40K... everything and everyone is expected to do everything and anything, with enough command points and right unit selections ... factions lose flavor and all samey because snowflakey players seem unable to fathom that dedication and specialization make a real world difference, with consequences being enter the wrong situation without adequate proficiency, end up dead.
agreed with the message but i don't see what's so snowflakey about the players that want every faction to do everything? i feel like you're using the word as a way to describe everyone you disagree with
I'd also point out that there's complimentary sameyness when everyone who plays a certain faction/character plays it the same way because other builds don't work on some level. Sure, my halfling might not be as good a Barbarian as your dwarf, but I don't see what we lose by allowing halflings to be at least decent as Barbarians (if in slightly different ways to dwarves).
PenitentJake wrote: That's it though- in 5E they aren't a lot less likely to succeed.
That's simply not true. I gave the math in that post, it is literally impossible for the barbarian to succeed in one shot and unlikely for the barbarian to gradually seduce the guard with a series of easier rolls. The most likely outcome is failure with severe consequences. But again, why does it matter? One of two things is going to happen in this scenario:
1) The party stays together. Even if the barbarian can technically succeed at the seduction attempt he's less likely to succeed than the bard with 16 CHA and proficiency in every social skill. The party only gets one attempt (since failure makes the guard hostile, or at least so suspicious of any further attempt that success is impossible) so it's obviously going to be the character with the best chance of success. The fact that the barbarian could make the roll is irrelevant because he never will.
or
2) The party splits up and the barbarian is on his own. The barbarian, being a melee-focused brawler with little concern for subtle social events, almost certainly has a better way around the obstacle than a seduction attempt. And if circumstances mean that seduction is the only possible solution why is it a problem that he can try? Do you really think the better answer in that specific situation is that success of any kind is literally impossible and the presence of the guard promptly ends that chapter of the story?
In 3.5, they were a lot more likely to fail, because they needed to buy ranks in skills, and cross-class skills couldn't be as high as class skills.
Yes, "impossible to succeed" is certainly a lot more likely to fail. But this is not a good thing! When you have a 20+ point difference in skill bonuses between characters that focus on a skill and characters that don't it makes encounter design a nightmare. Anything that is even a slight challenge for the character focused on that skill is an impossible obstacle for anyone else, and anything that is possible for the rest of the party is effortless for the focused character. Consider something as basic as sneaking:
If you set the perception skill of the NPCs based on the rogue's stealth skill you have a relevant challenge for the rogue but it doesn't matter because the rest of the party will be automatically spotted. The only way for the party to succeed is to split up and play the rogue solo game while everyone else takes a dinner break.
If you set the perception skill of the NPCs based on the rest of the party they have a relevant challenge but it's impossible for an NPC to ever spot the rogue. The rest of the party is technically invited to play, but everyone knows the correct strategy is to split up and send the rogue in alone because that way success is guaranteed.
If you wait to see if the party splits up or stays together before setting the perception skill of the NPCs you remove player agency. Congratulations party, nothing you do matters because the DM will change the numbers to always make you have a 50% chance of success.
5e absolutely made the correct choice by closing the gap between good skills/saves/etc and bad ones.
But Fez, I wouldn't say 5th makes everyone snowflakes, rather, I'd say it makes everyone "good, but samey." The amount of spells which became concentration significantly reduce the spell abilities of casters, but they are now as good in combat as anyone else. Rogues aren't as skillful as they once were.
As opposed to 3.5e, where a full spellcaster is the only viable character build because they can do anything another class can do? At least in 5e other characters have a use, instead of having a party of a wizard, cleric, and druid (or some supplement book variant class that is wizard +1, cleric +1, or druid +1) where the wizard has trap detection/lock picking/etc spells to also be a rogue, the druid has shapeshifting and summon spells to also be the fighter, and the cleric is the paladin but with 90% of a wizard's spellcasting. If you want to see "samey" just play a non-spellcaster in 3.5e and know that whatever your character can do can be done better by the wizard. And then tear up your character sheet and build a wizard/cleric/druid like everyone else.
