Apologies to mods who think I'm flouting the rules, but this thread isn't about how to win with the various armies, but a generalized question about the current state of game play.
When I left the game 15 years or so ago, one of the reasons was that I felt that general tactics no longer applied. The proliferation of lists, and special rules meant that success could often by found by doing things that were totally counter-intuitive. For example, the emphasis on close combat meant that it was more important to get a clear shot for shooty armies than use cover, so I saw IG forces forming up in neatly-spaced lines to inflict maximum attrition as each squad was overrun.
I think it is, but I'm not really one to ask. I feel like what you're getting at has been my deterrent when attempting to learn 9th. That it feels more akin to Magic the Gathering than a strategy game of universal tactics, albeit with some frilly stuff for flavor.
Current 40k has one real tactic at play: Trade up.
The game is so incredibly lethal that anything intended to die will die. There are some trap-card esque shinanigens that can be pulled to make a unit survive a particular volley of fire, but this won’t save you from a shooting phase of sustained fire. Like wise melee units have had to be made mind-bogglingly dangerous on account of no-questions-asked fall back without consequences.
The result is a game where anything your enemy can draw los or charge range on is going to get deleted. So the only way to survive is to simply inflict more damage before they can.
Ergo trading up. With the understanding that any unit you expose will immediate evaporate, the tactical layer centers around trying to use your various units to eradicate or completely maim more expensive units before they’re wiped in the next turn.
morganfreeman wrote: Ergo trading up. With the understanding that any unit you expose will immediate evaporate, the tactical layer centers around trying to use your various units to eradicate or completely maim more expensive units before they’re wiped in the next turn.
Tell me more about how this works. In the old days, you had hidden units and overwatch, so a tactics across all armies was to "draw out" those units so that they could be smothered.
How does this work now? Is it a question of moving into LOS and delivering a volley, hoping that you did enough damage that the return fire won't matter?
Or is it the old "compression" model of play from WHFB 5th edition (for those greybeards who remember it): The side with the most points in the fewest models generally wins.
You have a Guard Player and an Eldar player. The Guard player moves a unit of Guardsmen through some ruins and on to an objective. Left to their own devices they will control it next turn. They want to do this because the Primary Objective is mostly about holding Objectives - and the Primary Objective has half the available Victory Points in the game.
The Eldar player doesn't want that to happen. So they send a fully blinged out squad of 10 Howling Banshees charging across the table to kill the Guardsmen squad and claim the objective for themselves. They unsurprisingly do this - in fact its massive overkill. Which isn't really surprising - as the Guardsmen are 65 points, and the Banshees are 190~.
But the Guard player can now go "great, there's a 190~ point of Banshees is out in the open. I can shoot it with other guardsmen squads, tanks etc" - which may well get better returns into Banshees than the 1/3 achieved above.
But then next turn, since the Guard player has moved units up and out from behind LOS-blocking terrain etc, to clear the Banshees and get another of their units on the objective, the Eldar player can respond again with their own units and so on.
So to go back to the above, the Eldar Player would (potentially at least) have been better using just a squad of 5 Banshees. They'd have still had a reasonable shot of clearing the Guard Squad (especially with some chip-fire from other sources etc) - and then there would be only 95 points worth for the Guard Player to jump on, rather than 190. The Eldar player would have had a "better trade" - and would have left the Guard player in a position to get a worse one when they jumped those 5 banshees. (But clearly it depends on everything else happening across the table, secondary objectives and so on.)
here's the best i've got for the one rule of thumb of the game these days.
deploy in cover preferably out of LOS, and hope you get to go first and go for an alpha strike.
in some cases this isn't true like with my last game of guard vs knights. he couldn't hide his knights, and focused my baneblade, and left it with only 5 or 6 wounds.
that was a pretty effective alpha strike since the degraded profile means that only about 1/3 of my shots hit the target.
he finished the baneblade off T2 then targeted my lascannon HWT and my heavy lascannon FOB, creating an effective beta strike.
meanwhile T1 i destroyed one of his big knights, not such an effective plan, rather than removing his smaller knights as much as possible since they were perfectly capable of wrecking all but 2 units i had on the table (baneblade and leman russ).
T2 i killed one of his little knights.
what i should have done was focus fire on the small knights and removed as much firepower from the table as possible.
morganfreeman wrote: Ergo trading up. With the understanding that any unit you expose will immediate evaporate, the tactical layer centers around trying to use your various units to eradicate or completely maim more expensive units before they’re wiped in the next turn.
Tell me more about how this works. In the old days, you had hidden units and overwatch, so a tactics across all armies was to "draw out" those units so that they could be smothered.
How does this work now? Is it a question of moving into LOS and delivering a volley, hoping that you did enough damage that the return fire won't matter?
That's always been the case. The only real difference is that here in modern 40k you can pretty much assure it. And you often get to re-roll dice that miss/fail to wound.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Or is it the old "compression" model of play from WHFB 5th edition (for those greybeards who remember it): The side with the most points in the fewest models generally wins.
No, that's generally a real quick way to lose. Because winning in todays game is about controlling objectives.
morganfreeman wrote: Ergo trading up. With the understanding that any unit you expose will immediate evaporate, the tactical layer centers around trying to use your various units to eradicate or completely maim more expensive units before they’re wiped in the next turn.
Tell me more about how this works. In the old days, you had hidden units and overwatch, so a tactics across all armies was to "draw out" those units so that they could be smothered.
You still "draw out" units by attemting to goad the adversary into exposing themselves to counterattack, it's just that the counterattack is in the form of your next turn rather than Overwatch fire. Controlling lanes of fire, comitting reserves against an attack and forming counterattacks are all still viable.
There's a bunch of utility that got turned into Strats though, which sucks.
There's nothing akin to real world tactics left, no. The game functions more like some sort of mobile game MOBA where the trick is to tap the screen at the right time to set off a special power that your opponent forgot you could use.
lord_blackfang wrote: There's nothing akin to real world tactics left, no. The game functions more like some sort of mobile game MOBA where the trick is to tap the screen at the right time to set off a special power that your opponent forgot you could use.
morganfreeman wrote: Ergo trading up. With the understanding that any unit you expose will immediate evaporate, the tactical layer centers around trying to use your various units to eradicate or completely maim more expensive units before they’re wiped in the next turn.
Tell me more about how this works. In the old days, you had hidden units and overwatch, so a tactics across all armies was to "draw out" those units so that they could be smothered.
You still "draw out" units by attemting to goad the adversary into exposing themselves to counterattack, it's just that the counterattack is in the form of your next turn rather than Overwatch fire. Controlling lanes of fire, comitting reserves against an attack and forming counterattacks are all still viable.
There's a bunch of utility that got turned into Strats though, which sucks.
Overwatch is an example of this - it is now a stratagem; which means it costs a command point (CP) to use, and also that you can only use it once per turn...
lord_blackfang wrote: There's nothing akin to real world tactics left, no. The game functions more like some sort of mobile game MOBA where the trick is to tap the screen at the right time to set off a special power that your opponent forgot you could use.
That's what I was wondering. The big reason I quit 5th ed. WHFB was that the characters and magic rendered realistic tactics completely moot.
lord_blackfang wrote: There's nothing akin to real world tactics left, no. The game functions more like some sort of mobile game MOBA where the trick is to tap the screen at the right time to set off a special power that your opponent forgot you could use.
That's what I was wondering. The big reason I quit 5th ed. WHFB was that the characters and magic rendered realistic tactics completely moot.
I was playing tomb kings in WHFB and I believe the intended tactics was pay money and hope.
For 40k we have strip out a lot, and added a bunch to the terrain rules.
But I think standard 40k as so much of its potential tactics stunted by the ability to press a stop that butten or a do it better butten on so many things.
I mean, that's pretty blatantly untrue. Force concentration, flanking, forcing breakthroughs are all still viable things to do. But unfortunately a good portion of the nitty-gritty tactics that were viable up through just a few years ago have been locked behind Strats, which is inorganic and incredibly dumb. As an Ultramarine player I still have things like a "fighting withdrawl" available to me without a Strat, which I like a lot.
Overwatch is an example of this - it is now a stratagem; which means it costs a command point (CP) to use, and also that you can only use it once per turn...
Overwatch is a good example. As a Marine player, here's another few that really bother me:
MeltaBombs: Used to be that Marines could all be using their Krak Grenades in combat against Vehicles. That's been taken away and pseudo-replaced with the Meltabombs Strat
Smoke Launchers: One thing I've done multiple times in earlier editions is drive a bunch of Rhinos/Razorbacks at the opposition and blown Smoke on all of them, just to mass-blitz the opponent with Marine bodies. Well I can't get the same protection anymore when Smoke Launchers are a Strat and can only be used on one vehicle. FU*****
Flakk Missile: Used to be a piece of Wargear I could buy for any Missile Launcher in defense against Aircraft. It's a Strat now.
Suppression Fire: Whirlwinds (Barrage weapons in general) used to cause Pinning checks against a unit. Strat now. :/
I think that some people expect from w40k, the depth they would only get if they were playing on 32x32 tables with 9-10k pts per side and the game lasting a few weeks.
GW games right now, try to emulate, as much as they can, mobile games. Strategy is something you do on the level of buying an army. Tactics is something you can actualy do on the table. But in case of good armies, they often play themselfs. Necrons and SoB in prior seson were like that . GSC are like that in the seson we have now. The only way to get an outlier to this, if GW intentionaly or not drops the pro verbial ball, and gives us an army which is too good for now. Often because it was tested and "balanced" against the armies that will come out in the next 6 months, which is all nice and good, if it wasn't for covid delays. And then we get funny moments when Custodes get changes to an unreleased codex or have eldar which are balanaced, but only against armies that will come out way in the future. Armies like Votan or the "fixed" marines.
Insectum7 wrote: I mean, that's pretty blatantly untrue. Force concentration, flanking, forcing breakthroughs are all still viable things to do. But unfortunately a good portion of the nitty-gritty tactics that were viable up through just a few years ago have been locked behind Strats, which is inorganic and incredibly dumb. As an Ultramarine player I still have things like a "fighting withdrawl" available to me without a Strat, which I like a lot.
But a lot has been lost, and it suuuuucks.
Maybe not entirely true, but if (as other posters wrote), first turn can essentially decide a game, that's pretty unrealistic. I mean a force isn't just going to stand their passively while getting shot to pieces.
Is a lot of terrain typically used? Does it actually do anything useful? Use of terrain I think is a key part of good tactics.
morganfreeman wrote: Ergo trading up. With the understanding that any unit you expose will immediate evaporate, the tactical layer centers around trying to use your various units to eradicate or completely maim more expensive units before they’re wiped in the next turn.
Tell me more about how this works. In the old days, you had hidden units and overwatch, so a tactics across all armies was to "draw out" those units so that they could be smothered.
You still "draw out" units by attemting to goad the adversary into exposing themselves to counterattack, it's just that the counterattack is in the form of your next turn rather than Overwatch fire. Controlling lanes of fire, comitting reserves against an attack and forming counterattacks are all still viable.
There's a bunch of utility that got turned into Strats though, which sucks.
hey now, i overwatched the hell out of two redepmtors today! killed one with the overwatch, next turn left the other with only 3 wounds, so he died soon after...overwatch is great.
Insectum7 wrote: I mean, that's pretty blatantly untrue. Force concentration, flanking, forcing breakthroughs are all still viable things to do. But unfortunately a good portion of the nitty-gritty tactics that were viable up through just a few years ago have been locked behind Strats, which is inorganic and incredibly dumb. As an Ultramarine player I still have things like a "fighting withdrawl" available to me without a Strat, which I like a lot.
But a lot has been lost, and it suuuuucks.
Maybe not entirely true, but if (as other posters wrote), first turn can essentially decide a game, that's pretty unrealistic. I mean a force isn't just going to stand their passively while getting shot to pieces.
Is a lot of terrain typically used? Does it actually do anything useful? Use of terrain I think is a key part of good tactics.
Competitive 40k has a standard terrain layout, a factor which was implemented to curb the prevelance of snooty alpha strike lists just annihilating any they pulled first turn on.
In terms of terrain itself, all that really matters are los blocking pieces; which have to be flagged as such, as it’s not based on actual view or anything.
Terrain can do a teeny bit more, such as +1 to armor save and such, but given the lethality of the game it doesn’t really matter. There’s also the bizarre factor of how walls and such can be casually walked and shot through, meaning that the only terrain based tactics are sticking your units behind the designated los pieces so they don’t get insta deleted.
Insectum7 wrote: I mean, that's pretty blatantly untrue. Force concentration, flanking, forcing breakthroughs are all still viable things to do. But unfortunately a good portion of the nitty-gritty tactics that were viable up through just a few years ago have been locked behind Strats, which is inorganic and incredibly dumb. As an Ultramarine player I still have things like a "fighting withdrawl" available to me without a Strat, which I like a lot.
But a lot has been lost, and it suuuuucks.
Maybe not entirely true, but if (as other posters wrote), first turn can essentially decide a game, that's pretty unrealistic. I mean a force isn't just going to stand their passively while getting shot to pieces.
Is a lot of terrain typically used? Does it actually do anything useful? Use of terrain I think is a key part of good tactics.
Terrain is huuuge for tactics, absolutely. And to be fair to 9th the terrain rules are probably better than they've been in a long time. There's more LOS blocking, and in fact there are specific reactionary (tactical?) actions one can take in certain terrain types too. I also think that the perceived first turn advantage is extremely contextual. Even way back in 2nd, setting up a poor table or going with certain army build choices could grant big advantages to whomever goes first. I've also seen it argued that, because of how closely the game is tied to objective scoring, going second is often advantageous in 9th.
The prescription for 9th favors a terrain-heavy board. But I'd also argue that an issue in 9th (or just generally in the past decade) is that the armies are big for the table. Model counts have gone up a bit, while tables in the last few years have shrunk a bit too, which doesn't help. A typical 9th ed Marine army for me is probably three times the size of a 2nd ed army. It's a little crowded.
Still, the biggest issue for me is the replacement of formerly organic choices with Strats. But if you killed Strats and played with fewer points on a well-terrained board, that can quickly put you in a much better game.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: When I left the game 15 years or so ago, one of the reasons was that I felt that general tactics no longer applied. The proliferation of lists, and special rules meant that success could often by found by doing things that were totally counter-intuitive. For example, the emphasis on close combat meant that it was more important to get a clear shot for shooty armies than use cover, so I saw IG forces forming up in neatly-spaced lines to inflict maximum attrition as each squad was overrun.
How is that counter-intuitive?
You realize in Napoleonic times infantry formed precise lines exactly because melee was an option the opponent will inevitably try, so you had to mass fire to repel them before they close in? And it's not like it's an outlier, English armies with their longbows or Spanish tercio long before Napoleon did the same thing, you seem to apply wrong era tactics/assumptions to the game. If anything, this is what IG does in fluff so seeing it replicated on table is a good thing.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Or is it the old "compression" model of play from WHFB 5th edition (for those greybeards who remember it): The side with the most points in the fewest models generally wins.
If you try "compression", especially as Imperial army, as these tend to have the worst units in the game, you will just eat a bucket of dice from broken xeno/chaos gak and your expensive unit will be instantly deleted having achieving nothing. If anything, people today do "decompression" - no vehicles or other big models without OP defences if they can help it (too easy to remove from table), use cheaper models that don't pay for useless stats (see orkstodes and sisters of battle being, funnily enough, way more durable than SM against minmaxed army because they don't spend points on useless defensive stats like Sv or T that most of the time don't matter these days), use minimal size units packing as little upgrades as possible, yes, there are armies that have good elites but by and large you see more chaff than ever...
lord_blackfang wrote: There's nothing akin to real world tactics left, no. The game functions more like some sort of mobile game MOBA where the trick is to tap the screen at the right time to set off a special power that your opponent forgot you could use.
This A) completely wrong, B) try finding actual opponent instead of tryhard WAAACer to play with if you experience this regularly, you will see how much more fun (and less of a chore) the game is that way. Or at least someone who likes to win on merit, not gotchas or cheese spam. Muchkin WAAACing is not the norm, no matter what certain posters on Dakka say, most of the people worth playing with want both sides to enjoy the time (or at worst, do not ruin any potential fun on purpose from the start).
Space having shrunk along with movement being crazy high seems to be a big deal. Even the units templates.are far bigger on a far smaller space now due to base size increases
You realize in Napoleonic times infantry formed precise lines exactly because melee was an option the opponent will inevitably try, so you had to mass fire to repel them before they close in? And it's not like it's an outlier, English armies with their longbows or Spanish tercio long before Napoleon did the same thing, you seem to apply wrong era tactics/assumptions to the game. If anything, this is what IG does in fluff so seeing it replicated on table is a good thing.
First off, that was not how Napoleonic armies formed up. While they used ranks, they absolutely did not space troops in such a way as to get one volley off before being overrun, line after line. No one did that.*
What is more, your examples involve archery and smoothbore flintlock muskets, not automatic weapons or laser cannon. That's why it was counter-intuitive.
But I don't want to digress into the sins (or virtues) of 3rd/4th edition, I'm more interested in how things are now.
*Okay, the American militia at Cowpens fired two volleys and ran, but they also expected (and did) escape alive. It was a one-off tactic.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Apologies to mods who think I'm flouting the rules, but this thread isn't about how to win with the various armies, but a generalized question about the current state of game play.
When I left the game 15 years or so ago, one of the reasons was that I felt that general tactics no longer applied. The proliferation of lists, and special rules meant that success could often by found by doing things that were totally counter-intuitive. For example, the emphasis on close combat meant that it was more important to get a clear shot for shooty armies than use cover, so I saw IG forces forming up in neatly-spaced lines to inflict maximum attrition as each squad was overrun.
I'm curious as to whether that still the case.
I just returned to the table after a very long break. I played a handful of games with Eldar in 7th but before that I played all of 3rd and 4th with a few games of 5th before stopping.
I loved 3rd. I still consider it the best 40k and I feel that most people who enjoy 8th/9th never played before 5th.
9th is not the 40k you knew or loved. It's is completely different. I would go as far as to say unrecognizable. I've played 3 games of 9th (1000, 1500, and 2000 points). I hate it. It's trash. It's boring, way too complicated and feels completely pointless when the game ends... On turn 1 or 2.
My friends and I have all been waiting for years for anything like 3rd to come back. 10th will determine if we pay attention to GW anymore and just use old systems.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Apologies to mods who think I'm flouting the rules, but this thread isn't about how to win with the various armies, but a generalized question about the current state of game play.
When I left the game 15 years or so ago, one of the reasons was that I felt that general tactics no longer applied. The proliferation of lists, and special rules meant that success could often by found by doing things that were totally counter-intuitive. For example, the emphasis on close combat meant that it was more important to get a clear shot for shooty armies than use cover, so I saw IG forces forming up in neatly-spaced lines to inflict maximum attrition as each squad was overrun.
I'm curious as to whether that still the case.
I just returned to the table after a very long break. I played a handful of games with Eldar in 7th but before that I played all of 3rd and 4th with a few games of 5th before stopping.
I loved 3rd. I still consider it the best 40k and I feel that most people who enjoy 8th/9th never played before 5th.
9th is not the 40k you knew or loved. It's is completely different. I would go as far as to say unrecognizable. I've played 3 games of 9th (1000, 1500, and 2000 points). I hate it. It's trash. It's boring, way too complicated and feels completely pointless when the game ends... On turn 1 or 2.
My friends and I have all been waiting for years for anything like 3rd to come back. 10th will determine if we pay attention to GW anymore and just use old systems.
I don't know what 10th will bring, but I'm fairly confidant in predicting that if you're pining for a return of 3e style game you'll be disappointed.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Apologies to mods who think I'm flouting the rules, but this thread isn't about how to win with the various armies, but a generalized question about the current state of game play.
When I left the game 15 years or so ago, one of the reasons was that I felt that general tactics no longer applied. The proliferation of lists, and special rules meant that success could often by found by doing things that were totally counter-intuitive. For example, the emphasis on close combat meant that it was more important to get a clear shot for shooty armies than use cover, so I saw IG forces forming up in neatly-spaced lines to inflict maximum attrition as each squad was overrun.
I'm curious as to whether that still the case.
I just returned to the table after a very long break. I played a handful of games with Eldar in 7th but before that I played all of 3rd and 4th with a few games of 5th before stopping.
I loved 3rd. I still consider it the best 40k and I feel that most people who enjoy 8th/9th never played before 5th.
9th is not the 40k you knew or loved. It's is completely different. I would go as far as to say unrecognizable. I've played 3 games of 9th (1000, 1500, and 2000 points). I hate it. It's trash. It's boring, way too complicated and feels completely pointless when the game ends... On turn 1 or 2.
My friends and I have all been waiting for years for anything like 3rd to come back. 10th will determine if we pay attention to GW anymore and just use old systems.
I don't know what 10th will bring, but I'm fairly confidant in predicting that if you're pining for a return of 3e style game you'll be disappointed.
I loved 3rd. I still consider it the best 40k and I feel that most people who enjoy 8th/9th never played before 5th.
I had a lot of fun with 2nd, 3rd and 5th; personally, 9th is my fave so far... But that's because I only play Crusade escalation campaigns, and because I personally prefer role-playing games to table-top wargames. Crusade from 25-50 PL has a real roleplaying feel to it- it is similar in some ways to the original Rogue Trader game which eventually became the 40k we all know and loved.
9th is not the 40k you knew or loved. It's is completely different. I would go as far as to say unrecognizable. I've played 3 games of 9th (1000, 1500, and 2000 points). I hate it. It's trash. It's boring, way too complicated and feels completely pointless when the game ends... On turn 1 or 2.
My friends and I have all been waiting for years for anything like 3rd to come back. 10th will determine if we pay attention to GW anymore and just use old systems.
I don't think I'm going to play 10th- I have gotten used to having all kinds of tools that I can use to build interesting campaign games, and 10th looks like it is going to be a full reset with indexes so that everyone can get playing right away. A lot of people who like table top wargames and common tactical options really like "Index Hammer" - it's usually not as bloated as playing with full codexes and campaign books. Perfectly valid opinion.
Personally, I think simple, streamlined games full of common tactics can be fun, but they don't give me as much to work with when I'm building campaigns, which means they're just stand alone games and I can take them or leave them. They might be fun every now and again, but I'm not compelled to play, and there isn't really a lot to get immersed in.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Apologies to mods who think I'm flouting the rules, but this thread isn't about how to win with the various armies, but a generalized question about the current state of game play.
When I left the game 15 years or so ago, one of the reasons was that I felt that general tactics no longer applied. The proliferation of lists, and special rules meant that success could often by found by doing things that were totally counter-intuitive. For example, the emphasis on close combat meant that it was more important to get a clear shot for shooty armies than use cover, so I saw IG forces forming up in neatly-spaced lines to inflict maximum attrition as each squad was overrun.
I'm curious as to whether that still the case.
Out of idle curiosity, when did you start playing?
The 3rd Edition Imperial Guard codex (circa 1999) has a section on Tactics (page 37). For both Attack and Defence it has the infantry in lines. It even recommends doing so and to avoid hugging cover. For the Defence Formation it advises us to have "picket lines of infantry spread thin...minimum of 4" between lines to avoid Sweeping Advances contacting the second line" etc. So the thing that drove you out of 40K was officially in place as tactics advice in 1999.
The 3rd Edition Imperial Guard codex (circa 1999) has a section on Tactics (page 37). For both Attack and Defence it has the infantry in lines. It even recommends doing so and to avoid hugging cover. For the Defence Formation it advises us to have "picket lines of infantry spread thin...minimum of 4" between lines to avoid Sweeping Advances contacting the second line" etc. So the thing that drove you out of 40K was officially in place as tactics advice in 1999.
I didn't say it was "the thing" I said it was "one of the things."
I initially liked 3rd, but over time it seemed less like a wargame and more of a collection of game hacks distributed among the armies. Add in the looming massive book buy to stay 'current' in 4th, and I decided to get out.
I posted because I was curious as to the current state of the game. I suppose I could do a "why I came to hate 3rd ed." thread, but I already wrote that many years ago. Seems a bit dated by now.
The 3rd Edition Imperial Guard codex (circa 1999) has a section on Tactics (page 37). For both Attack and Defence it has the infantry in lines. It even recommends doing so and to avoid hugging cover. For the Defence Formation it advises us to have "picket lines of infantry spread thin...minimum of 4" between lines to avoid Sweeping Advances contacting the second line" etc. So the thing that drove you out of 40K was officially in place as tactics advice in 1999.
I didn't say it was "the thing" I said it was "one of the things."
I initially liked 3rd, but over time it seemed less like a wargame and more of a collection of game hacks distributed among the armies. Add in the looming massive book buy to stay 'current' in 4th, and I decided to get out.
I posted because I was curious as to the current state of the game. I suppose I could do a "why I came to hate 3rd ed." thread, but I already wrote that many years ago. Seems a bit dated by now.
You're right, your hate of 40K is dated. But you do you!
In all seriousness, edition churn and associated fatigue is a real thing. I walked away for 7th but returned for 8th and really liked it. I think I am little burned out on 9th Ed right now, but I am not sure if I am looking forward to 10th or dreading another series of book buys.
That's how 40k has always been, people just don't want to acknowledge it. The game was legit not better written anywhere from 3rd to present, though many can argue 6th or 7th were the worst editions.
The current edition has eliminated a lot of what you call "universal tactics" and things related to position and maneuver. The "spatial tactics" have given way to an even bigger optimization puzzle masquerading as strategy. There are fewer "hard choices" and many things that seek to minimize risk and uncertainty. Many of the unexpected dramatic moments that defined thematic play are gone and replaced by endless special rules and stratagems and die roll modifiers.
That's my feeling anyway.
If you liked the older editions and have willing players, just go back and play the older editions.
I do want to emphasize other points made here that contribute to current edition woes. Faster movement, bigger armies, and smaller boards makes for a worse experience. Armies are too big with too much redundancies built in and too much opportunity for alpha strikes being able to knock out key units in an opponents army. Given a similar relative amount of terrain, bigger armies on smaller boards are going to be lethal and more about "trading up" as mentioned earlier. A more dense and crowded playing field means there are simply less viable places to move and less strategies that can stem from that.
As an onlooker, who does enjoy strat & tactics, who has watched the how-to-plays (but has no one to play with) and probably won't make a long drive to do it. I can relate to all the points being made here without first hand xp.
As has been said from numerous people who apparently have lots more xp than I, there is a complexity level/learning curve for newbs that means only the more driven will continue forward.
Now I'm sure many of you will say great that's how it should be, and that's understandable because you only really want to be playing with people who are dedicated to the love of the game.
But... this is the kind of thing I find at work too, where if you're not trained it's discouraging for some who would otherwise be highly trainable/adaptable with a mentor (consider the play vids where they pull someone who's never played before and guide them through the process.)
I've not given up, just can't personally play due to circumstance or I'd give it a shot and while OnePageRules sounds like something I would like, I also do enjoy a bit of role play. So hopefully there will be some flexibility with 10th that will allow you to play how you want? I'm only going off what I read/hear, and have witnessed in a very limited way.
That's how 40k has always been, people just don't want to acknowledge it. The game was legit not better written anywhere from 3rd to present, though many can argue 6th or 7th were the worst editions.
While "trade up" is always something you want to do in any game, saying it's always been the only game in town is objectively false.
To give you a stupidly simple example: Spacing was critical in 3rd and 4th edition due to Sweeping Advance. If you didn't space your squads, you'd wind up having tooled out melee sweep through them with impunity and 100% immunity to weapon's fire. This is no longer a factor: As you can march around as a tangled blob, have one squad get engaged, then shrug your shoulders as they freely walk out of combat on the next turn. Or, if that squad is cut down, the fearsome melee combatants simply stand there with teeth bared so you can leisurely blow them off the table in the subsequent turn.
And that's without even touching on a myriad other factors such as how previous terrain rules made positioning and maneuvering a huge factor for determining firing lanes, cross-fire (an actual rule that existed in 3rd edition - that's right, you were rewarded for pincering enemy units with guns!), and fall back & sweeping advance (another example of being rewarded for pincering).
I'm not trying to say 40k has ever been especially deep; GW has always used complexity to try and disguise the game's kiddie-pool depth. But 9th has traded in the kiddie pool for a gak-smeared puddle, and trying to pretend it's not noticeably more shallow than previous editions is either hugely ignorant or incredibly dishonest.
With the possible exception of GSC, who are the only arm actually rewarded for positioning in ways beyond getting to fire their guns or roll to try and charge. They're an example of what 40k could potentially look like if GW wanted to write some semi-competent rules on a few slightly larger napkins.
Mezmorki wrote: If you liked the older editions and have willing players, just go back and play the older editions.
Oh, I have. I'm building a new group of 2nd ed. players. Very exciting!
But I am curious as to the state of the current game. That's why I don't want to rehash 3rd ed. arguments, I want to hear what you all think.
I do want to emphasize other points made here that contribute to current edition woes. Faster movement, bigger armies, and smaller boards makes for a worse experience. Armies are too big with too much redundancies built in and too much opportunity for alpha strikes being able to knock out key units in an opponents army. Given a similar relative amount of terrain, bigger armies on smaller boards are going to be lethal and more about "trading up" as mentioned earlier. A more dense and crowded playing field means there are simply less viable places to move and less strategies that can stem from that.
What is an "average" game look like in terms of models? Point values have radically changed over the years so that means nothing to me. There seems to be an alternate system as well (power level?).
Anyhow, by way of example, in my last game the point value was 1,500 points and I fielded 16 Chaos Marines, 3 Rhinos, a Predator, and six bikes. The Eldar player had a grav tank, dreadnought, 6 jetbikes, 2 Vypers and about 20 infantry. The board was pretty open because we were doing a meeting engagement in the wilderness, but there were lots of trees and hills to cut LOS and provide cover.
How does that stack up now? How much bigger are the model counts for a quick game?
Mezmorki wrote: If you liked the older editions and have willing players, just go back and play the older editions.
Oh, I have. I'm building a new group of 2nd ed. players. Very exciting!
But I am curious as to the state of the current game. That's why I don't want to rehash 3rd ed. arguments, I want to hear what you all think.
I do want to emphasize other points made here that contribute to current edition woes. Faster movement, bigger armies, and smaller boards makes for a worse experience. Armies are too big with too much redundancies built in and too much opportunity for alpha strikes being able to knock out key units in an opponents army. Given a similar relative amount of terrain, bigger armies on smaller boards are going to be lethal and more about "trading up" as mentioned earlier. A more dense and crowded playing field means there are simply less viable places to move and less strategies that can stem from that.
What is an "average" game look like in terms of models? Point values have radically changed over the years so that means nothing to me. There seems to be an alternate system as well (power level?).
Anyhow, by way of example, in my last game the point value was 1,500 points and I fielded 16 Chaos Marines, 3 Rhinos, a Predator, and six bikes. The Eldar player had a grav tank, dreadnought, 6 jetbikes, 2 Vypers and about 20 infantry. The board was pretty open because we were doing a meeting engagement in the wilderness, but there were lots of trees and hills to cut LOS and provide cover.
How does that stack up now? How much bigger are the model counts for a quick game?
If one of those 16 chaos marines is the Lord HQ...
960 points for Chaos.
930 points of Eldar (adding a Farseer for an HQ).
There's some differences in force org positions.
Wraithlords are an elite choice now.
Chaos would get absolutely stomped in this match up in 9th.
That's how 40k has always been, people just don't want to acknowledge it. The game was legit not better written anywhere from 3rd to present, though many can argue 6th or 7th were the worst editions.
While "trade up" is always something you want to do in any game, saying it's always been the only game in town is objectively false.
To give you a stupidly simple example: Spacing was critical in 3rd and 4th edition due to Sweeping Advance. If you didn't space your squads, you'd wind up having tooled out melee sweep through them with impunity and 100% immunity to weapon's fire.
How is that any different from spacing your squad out to avoid getting engaged in melee after a Consolidation move? 9th has way more movement agency than editions before 7th, which also means there are more opportunities to outplay your opponent in the Charge and Fight phase and ways to mitigate your opponent's opportunities by using good positioning in the Movement phase.
Crossfire might have been more well-designed because it wasn't as wide but compared to the depth of Stratagems and Secondaries I doubt it compares. It might be interesting to run some games of each of the first four editions that I missed. How many games would I need to experience the best of what each of those editions has to offer?
That's how 40k has always been, people just don't want to acknowledge it. The game was legit not better written anywhere from 3rd to present, though many can argue 6th or 7th were the worst editions.
While "trade up" is always something you want to do in any game, saying it's always been the only game in town is objectively false.
To give you a stupidly simple example: Spacing was critical in 3rd and 4th edition due to Sweeping Advance. If you didn't space your squads, you'd wind up having tooled out melee sweep through them with impunity and 100% immunity to weapon's fire.
How is that any different from spacing your squad out to avoid getting engaged in melee after a Consolidation move? 9th has way more movement agency than editions before 7th, which also means there are more opportunities to outplay your opponent in the Charge and Fight phase and ways to mitigate your opponent's opportunities by using good positioning in the Movement phase.
In 9th combat doesn't pin you in the way that it did in 3-7. A unit could "hide in close combat" by advantageously sweeping through squads. In 9th a unit can consolidate into a new unit, but the unit can just move away and the assaulter can then be shot. There were particulars that changed from edition to edition, but I forget the details.
I don't see how the positioning in 9th is more sophisticated than in 3-4(5?). For one, the fixed charge distance in those editions mean that your careful maneuvering couldn't get blindsided by a lucky 10" charge, or fail by rolling double 1s. There was also a whole sub-game involving CC optimization via Initiative and casualty removal.
vict0988 wrote: Crossfire might have been more well-designed because it wasn't as wide but compared to the depth of Stratagems and Secondaries I doubt it compares. It might be interesting to run some games of each of the first four editions that I missed. How many games would I need to experience the best of what each of those editions has to offer?
The what?
Okaaay. Technically they do provide new options, but they're cumbersome af, inorganic, and a pita.
Crossfire was really simple. If a unit was forced to fall back, but could not do so because enemy models blocked the path, the unit was wiped out. (iirc)
Whether you actually got to hide in combat was up to randomness, because there was no guarantee the enemy would run away, it was all down to the programming of the game, that's anti-depth.
I don't think inorganic rules are a problem, as long as the gameplay effect feels fluffy. Rules are just there to make the game fun and fluffy, how you make BA better in melee shouldn't be determined by what is most organic. If one rule feels very organic but it turns BA into a gunline or makes them only spam Sanguinary Guard and never take Predators then I'd prefer a rule that is wholly inorganic but makes BA play like they should.
There's a lot to criticize about 9th edition, but CC is far superior to 5th to 7th, because of alternations and things you as a player can do. Maneuvering in CC is very important while in prior editions it was just: roll according to initiative until you're dead or the game ends.
vict0988 wrote: Whether you actually got to hide in combat was up to randomness, because there was no guarantee the enemy would run away, it was all down to the programming of the game, that's anti-depth.
I don't think inorganic rules are a problem, as long as the gameplay effect feels fluffy. Rules are just there to make the game fun and fluffy, how you make BA better in melee shouldn't be determined by what is most organic. If one rule feels very organic but it turns BA into a gunline or makes them only spam Sanguinary Guard and never take Predators then I'd prefer a rule that is wholly inorganic but makes BA play like they should.
All wargames are supposed to be something of a simulation. At the most abstract you have games like Go or Chess and at the other end things like Advanced Squad Leader. What I called "universal tactics" are things that I guess you would describe as "organic" insofar as people with any knowledge of the military art already know them, i.e. turning flanks is always a good idea. Same with catching a lightly-armored unit in the open with superior firepower.
So within my original question is the notion that the system is plausible. Does it reflect what we'd expect in an environment of high-tech weapons? Is it consistent with the fluff?
Melee combat is particularly difficult at the "large skirmish" scale. If a unit can just leave a melee, how would that work out in the real world? Do they just call a time out and stroll away? I assume most of us visualize them dropping their tails and running away in a panic. Is there any penalty for leaving a melee?
It is clear that 40k in its current form is not really recognizable to me.
Yeah, Marines used to have a rule to leave melee much safer specifically to show how skilled and hard-fighting they were (I preferred the earlier versions where they could still take casualties when caught when being overwhelmed by the enemy, but less than a normal unit would take). Likewise for units with hit and run having (usually) superb manoeuvrability to escape combat safely.
Other units risked being outright destroyed unless they were much more agile than the opponent, which makes sense.
Haighus wrote: Yeah, Marines used to have a rule to leave melee much safer specifically to show how skilled and hard-fighting they were (I preferred the earlier versions where they could still take casualties when caught when being overwhelmed by the enemy, but less than a normal unit would take). Likewise for units with hit and run having (usually) superb manoeuvrability to escape combat safely.
Other units risked being outright destroyed unless they were much more agile than the opponent, which makes sense.
Having something like that actually makes sense. Logically we can agree that it's a "universal rule" that getting stuck in melee combat is hard to get out of, but if you are super-agile or have this jet pack, it's easier.
Haighus wrote: Yeah, Marines used to have a rule to leave melee much safer specifically to show how skilled and hard-fighting they were (I preferred the earlier versions where they could still take casualties when caught when being overwhelmed by the enemy, but less than a normal unit would take). Likewise for units with hit and run having (usually) superb manoeuvrability to escape combat safely.
Other units risked being outright destroyed unless they were much more agile than the opponent, which makes sense.
Having something like that actually makes sense. Logically we can agree that it's a "universal rule" that getting stuck in melee combat is hard to get out of, but if you are super-agile or have this jet pack, it's easier.
So that's no longer the case?
Anything can just "walk out" of melee in 8th/9th. Just another reason it's a rules system.
vict0988 wrote: Whether you actually got to hide in combat was up to randomness, because there was no guarantee the enemy would run away, it was all down to the programming of the game, that's anti-depth.
I don't think inorganic rules are a problem, as long as the gameplay effect feels fluffy. Rules are just there to make the game fun and fluffy, how you make BA better in melee shouldn't be determined by what is most organic. If one rule feels very organic but it turns BA into a gunline or makes them only spam Sanguinary Guard and never take Predators then I'd prefer a rule that is wholly inorganic but makes BA play like they should.
All wargames are supposed to be something of a simulation. At the most abstract you have games like Go or Chess and at the other end things like Advanced Squad Leader. What I called "universal tactics" are things that I guess you would describe as "organic" insofar as people with any knowledge of the military art already know them, i.e. turning flanks is always a good idea. Same with catching a lightly-armored unit in the open with superior firepower.
So within my original question is the notion that the system is plausible. Does it reflect what we'd expect in an environment of high-tech weapons? Is it consistent with the fluff?
Melee combat is particularly difficult at the "large skirmish" scale. If a unit can just leave a melee, how would that work out in the real world? Do they just call a time out and stroll away? I assume most of us visualize them dropping their tails and running away in a panic. Is there any penalty for leaving a melee?
It is clear that 40k in its current form is not really recognizable to me.
Do you think the inability to flee from melee felt organic, hoping the AI would enable you to stay in melee? The penalty for falling back in 9th is doing nothing else that turn unless you're TITANIC and maybe even spending CP to escape encirclement. Here's a basic military tactic that I used last game, my opponent split his army in two during Movement, I focussed my army on one half and won the game. Placing units in position where they cannot be shot, but present an indirect threat to disincentivise trying to control objectives or take them back. Using terrain to protect your flanks and prevent your units from being overwhelmed. You can take out enemy units surrounding a CHARACTER to single out the CHARACTER. You can fall back from a position in the hopes your opponent will overextend and you can make a counterattack. You can use Reinforcements to encircle the enemy or to keep your valuable troops safe. Use high ground to get better line of sight. Use skirmishers to scout out enemy unit movements. Shock tactics and targeting enemy action monkeys. Raiding with elite troops. You can send small numbers of troops to delay an enemy advance instead of fighting them head-on. In a game with perfect information you can't have the same depth of tactics you'd otherwise have, but that was true for 5th as well. Adding overwatch, suppressive fire and meaningful morale mechanics are really good ideas. Curbing or removing Stratagems is a really good idea. I think saying 9th has no universal tactics is silly.
Haighus wrote: Yeah, Marines used to have a rule to leave melee much safer specifically to show how skilled and hard-fighting they were (I preferred the earlier versions where they could still take casualties when caught when being overwhelmed by the enemy, but less than a normal unit would take). Likewise for units with hit and run having (usually) superb manoeuvrability to escape combat safely.
Other units risked being outright destroyed unless they were much more agile than the opponent, which makes sense.
Having something like that actually makes sense. Logically we can agree that it's a "universal rule" that getting stuck in melee combat is hard to get out of, but if you are super-agile or have this jet pack, it's easier.
So that's no longer the case?
The only related general rule is that Aircraft can fall back and shoot, all units with jetpacks and hover vehicles were able to do it in 8th, but that's a pain in the butt to play against with a melee army, now the only benefit from having FLY is that you can jump out from an encirclement without having to spend the command point resource. Do you want units with FLY to act like melee screen or do you want the the main benefit of FLY to be mobility across terrain features? GW could change fall back and shoot to being for all fast units, but fast units can already move further while falling back, getting to safety or setting up for future action.
vict0988 wrote: I think saying 9th has no universal tactics is silly.
It's interesting hearing the various opinions on it. I think part of the discussion centers on things one could do, that one now can't do. If you operate under the assumption that a certain play style matches your idea of reality and incorporates the fluff properly, any deviation becomes a problem.
This may sound strange coming from a guy who plays a game with templates that scatter on a miss and has all manner of detail, but it sounds like the current version is a lot more complicated. Org tables, stratagems, special rules and three times as many factions has got to make it hard to wrap one's arms around.
vict0988 wrote: Whether you actually got to hide in combat was up to randomness, because there was no guarantee the enemy would run away, it was all down to the programming of the game, that's anti-depth.
Well no, it wasn't random. It was up to dice rolls, but because you can bring factors to bear on the rolls, it's not random. If you outnumbered or out-killed the opponent. If you purposefully witheld full contact in the CC phase. If you brought certain wargear to the fight to adjust Ld, etc. Those options provide the depth.
I don't think inorganic rules are a problem, as long as the gameplay effect feels fluffy. Rules are just there to make the game fun and fluffy, how you make BA better in melee shouldn't be determined by what is most organic. If one rule feels very organic but it turns BA into a gunline or makes them only spam Sanguinary Guard and never take Predators then I'd prefer a rule that is wholly inorganic but makes BA play like they should.
Some amount of "inorganic" is fine. Layers upon layers is less fine. "Organic" in this case meaning, I would say, arising from interactions between well-understood core mechanics. Everybody understands the groundwork of the core mechanics, and minor alterations for flavor should be ok. There are few "gotchas" because everybodys mechanics are similar enough, even if balanced very differently.
But when you get special rules on top of special rules, exceptions to the exceptions, you gotta be real careful about how you're implementing things.
Do you think the inability to flee from melee felt organic, hoping the AI would enable you to stay in melee? The penalty for falling back in 9th is doing nothing else that turn unless you're TITANIC and maybe even spending CP to escape encirclement.
It makes sense to be unable to flee close assault without serious repricussions. And as I understand it, in historic times the most casualties were inflicted when one party breaks cohesion and runs. Pre-8th editions reflect this.
Here's a basic military tactic that I used last game . . .
I for one would not say basic tactics don't exist in modern 40k.
I would say, however, that many previously available, more "organic" tactics have been removed in favor of Strats. I can't assault Vehicles with Krak grenades. I can't fire out of vehicles or take cover behind wrecks. I can't blow Smoke accross all my transports as I rush-assault the opponent.
And there are fewer hard decisions to make. If I can move and fire with Heavy weapons with little penalty, or fire Rapid Fire weapons and Assault freely afterwards, it at once makes my decisions easier, but at the same time reduces differentiating characteristics between units, effectively shrinking the design space.
That decision making has been shifted to "What Strat do I use when?", and "What Strats do I expect my opponent to use?" Which feels to be a layer removed from the capabilities of the units themselves.
"no holding back!" - 5th edition core rules on assaulting, but maybe I'm forgetting something or you're talking about 3rd and/or 4th only. I think we agree on a lot of things, I don't want 40k to have 500 Stratagems or for melta bombs to deal mortal wounds at the cost of CP.
I don't think Daemon saves are more stupid than Grey Knights having tonnes of instant death, which Tyranids but not Daemons were susceptible to. I wonder if Daemon saves were tested or if it was implemented based on bull-headed designer fiat.
vict0988 wrote: "no holding back!" - 5th edition core rules on assaulting, but maybe I'm forgetting something or you're talking about 3rd and/or 4th only.
Iirc, the move arose from the fixed charge distance anyways. You could just move one or two models within the 6" charge distance in the Movement Phase so only a few models would connect and swing in the Fight Phase.
I think we agree on a lot of things, I don't want 40k to have 500 Stratagems or for melta bombs to deal mortal wounds at the cost of CP.
I don't think Daemon saves are more stupid than Grey Knights having tonnes of instant death, which Tyranids but not Daemons were susceptible to. I wonder if Daemon saves were tested or if it was implemented based on bull-headed designer fiat.
I confess I don't know what this is about. Are "Daemon Saves" a new thing?
vict0988 wrote: "no holding back!" - 5th edition core rules on assaulting, but maybe I'm forgetting something or you're talking about 3rd and/or 4th only.
Iirc, the move arose from the fixed charge distance anyways. You could just move one or two models within the 6" charge distance in the Movement Phase so only a few models would connect and swing in the Fight Phase.
I think we agree on a lot of things, I don't want 40k to have 500 Stratagems or for melta bombs to deal mortal wounds at the cost of CP.
I don't think Daemon saves are more stupid than Grey Knights having tonnes of instant death, which Tyranids but not Daemons were susceptible to. I wonder if Daemon saves were tested or if it was implemented based on bull-headed designer fiat.
I confess I don't know what this is about. Are "Daemon Saves" a new thing?
Daemon saves are invulnerable saves that cannot be ignored by things that ignore invulnerable saves, except for that one Grey Knight WL trait which I think they updated to ignore Daemon saves. The value is also different between ranged and melee attacks to make Daemons less vulnerable to shooting.
vict0988 wrote: Do you think the inability to flee from melee felt organic, hoping the AI would enable you to stay in melee?
Characterizing the inherent randomness of a dice game as 'AI' or 'programming' seems weird. It's like asking if it feels organic when the 'AI' doesn't let my troops shoot the enemy (ie, I flubbed my to-hit dice). Yeah, sometimes the dice don't go your way and the thing you wanted doesn't happen- you have control over the odds, not the outcomes. As far as whether it was organic, well, having greatly limited control over units in hand-to-hand combat and, as the commander, basically having to just hope for the best seemed reasonable to me.
Worth noting that 3rd Ed actually had a provision for a unit to shoot at an enemy that Sweeping Advanced into them in a prior turn. It was clunky, but an acknowledgment that the 'hiding in melee' idea was more an artifact of the discrete IGOUGO turn system than a desirable/realistic mechanic. I wouldn't have been opposed to a voluntary fallback mechanic, but the ability in 9th to simply walk away with no consequence other than not being able to shoot/charge that turn does not feel like an organic mechanic.
vict0988 wrote: Here's a basic military tactic that I used last game, my opponent split his army in two during Movement, I focussed my army on one half and won the game. Placing units in position where they cannot be shot, but present an indirect threat to disincentivise trying to control objectives or take them back. Using terrain to protect your flanks and prevent your units from being overwhelmed. You can take out enemy units surrounding a CHARACTER to single out the CHARACTER. You can fall back from a position in the hopes your opponent will overextend and you can make a counterattack. You can use Reinforcements to encircle the enemy or to keep your valuable troops safe. Use high ground to get better line of sight. Use skirmishers to scout out enemy unit movements. Shock tactics and targeting enemy action monkeys. Raiding with elite troops. You can send small numbers of troops to delay an enemy advance instead of fighting them head-on.
My issue isn't that these concepts don't exist. It's that they feel borderline irrelevant. You put your troops in a cannot-be-shot position, and the next turn your opponent drops some deep strike troops with 100% reliable accuracy in the perfect position to smoke them, or just walks a unit into LOS and nukes them before they can respond because opportunity fire doesn't exist. You put a unit on the high ground, then your opponent waltzes out, pops a stratagem to boost firepower, and wipes it out because controlling the military ridge provides no defensive benefit. You use terrain to protect your flanks, but it doesn't impede enemy movement and your sergeant's outstretched arm is visible over the wall so the whole unit gets shot anyways.
I question the applicability of some of those, too. Scouting isn't a thing. Shock tactics amounts to stacking casualties against units that suffer from the lose-more morale system. The delaying actions I perform would be unrecognizable to a real-world commander, since they're not about forcing the enemy to slow an advance with fixing fire, but rather putting units physically in the way of the enemy so that the turn structure forces the enemy to waste their movement before they have a chance to shoot the sacrificial unit.
I 100% agree that saying that 40K has no universal tactics is silly. It's just I find the strongest universal tactics are 'gamey' gimmicks like tri-pointing, turn structure shenanigans, casualty removal, melee positioning, deep strike positioning (and screening), character (aura) positioning, conga-lining, exploiting consolidation moves, or optimizing force-multiplier special abilities; not the concepts you describe. The really crucial skills are artifacts of 40K's rules rather than universal military tactics.
Daemon saves are invulnerable saves that cannot be ignored by things that ignore invulnerable saves, except for that one Grey Knight WL trait which I think they updated to ignore Daemon saves. The value is also different between ranged and melee attacks to make Daemons less vulnerable to shooting.
Oh yeah, those. Ugh. Yeah that's prime exceptions to exceptions territory.
catbarf wrote: The really crucial skills are artifacts of 40K's rules rather than universal military tactics.
That's a bingo, although I'd take it a step further because you could master the games "rules artifacts" and still be blindsided by a wombo-combo intersection of Strat+special rule.
vict0988 wrote: Whether you actually got to hide in combat was up to randomness, because there was no guarantee the enemy would run away, it was all down to the programming of the game, that's anti-depth.
I'm only going to address this point, because it displays (another) fundamental lack of understanding for reality - or at least 40k as it has existed in reality - and therefor invalidates everything else you've tried to say.
First things first: In previous editions (3rd, 4th, and IIRC 5th), you couldn't "walk out" of combat. If a unit was exiting combat (either by failing a moral check or by choice) both players rolled 2d6 and compared the results, + the initiative of the units, to determine what happened. If the "fleeing" party had the higher roll they moved that many inches away towards their deployment zone board edge. If the "pursuing" party rolled higher then the "fleeing" unit was simply removed, having been caught and slaughtered to a man.
This is important for two reasons.
For starters, if a unit charged another and the unit receiving the charge didn't fall-back (nor did the attacker), then you spent the entire next turn hiding in combat. This meant that charging in your turn, not slaughtering the enemy unit, and then mopping up during your opponent's turn was advantageous to your melee guys. It was often times preferable to charge sub-optimal targets, even with sub-optimal chargers, just to avoid your enemy's shooting.
Secondly, Sweeping Advance. Sweeping Advance allowed a unit to roll 1d6 and move that many inches in any direction, including into base to base contact with enemy units. The caveat was that a unit could only perform a sweeping advance when they completely wiped out an opposing unit in combat, either killing them all in the combat itself or "catching" them when they tried to fall back and wiping them out.
This meant that spacing your units was absolutely critical even for assault armies. Poor positioning could result not only in being charged and 'tagged' via multi charges (which we literally have now), but also having melee run rampant through your poorly constructed lines being unshootable, preventing you from shooting, and denying you the ability to charge via advancing into your own melee units. Not factoring this in and playing around it was a fantastic way to almost immediately lose a game.
This is what I mean when I say that you can simple tool around in a "big tangle" in 9th. It is laughably easy to deny your opponent multi charges by incredibly basic positioning (bubble wrap). To the point where it's often ideal to have a weak unit that's sure to die soak the charge, as it denies your opponent the ability to consolidate into you at the end. But even if a player shows up with a critical deficiency of braincells and fails to do this, they can perform a consequence-free fall back in the next turn, with many armies / chapter tactics / stratagems even allowing that retreated unit to turn around and shoot.
To flatly address the rest of the points you've brought up: Stratagems, re-rolls, and the myriad other "gotcha" trap cards in modern 40k are no more tactics than putting together an army list. Having your shooty unit be extra-good at shooting for a turn is not a tactic. Having your fighty unit fight twice is not a tactic. Having a unit be harder to wound for a turn is not a tactic. These are math problems, simply resulting in a unit doing what it does but better at the cost of currency.
Meanwhile, spacing your army in such a way as to not allow the enemy to rip through you safely - or taking advantage of an opportunity to do that - is a tactic. Flanking enemy units and forcing moral checks, thereby allowing you to wipe them out for free, is a tactic. Choosing to tie units down with in-ideal targets - ergo tarpitting several carnifex's with a bunch of conscripts and a commissar - is a tactic. And those are all elements which 40k has had stripped away from it, piece by piece, until we're playing the gak-show of the modern game. Where "My unit is extra special better at what it did anyway, because I tapped my mana!" is considered a tactical play, and moral itself has been reduced to a "KEEL MOAR" mechanic.
Scouting out means DS denial, shock tactics means moving your army aggressively forwards to scare the enemy into a defensive playstyle. Morale is a joke, the game is too lethal, I am not a 9th edition fanboy.
morganfreeman wrote: both players rolled 2d6 and compared the results, + the initiative of the units
I'm only going to address this point because it displays (another) fundamental lack of understanding for reality - or at least 40k as it has existed in reality - and therefore invalidates everything else you've tried to say, each player rolled 1D6 + Initiative
First things first: In previous editions (3rd, 4th, and IIRC 5th), you couldn't "walk out" of combat. If a unit was exiting combat (either by failing a moral check or by choice) both players rolled 2d6 and compared the results, + the initiative of the units, to determine what happened. If the "fleeing" party had the higher roll they moved that many inches away towards their deployment zone board edge. If the "pursuing" party rolled higher then the "fleeing" unit was simply removed, having been caught and slaughtered to a man.
Which I personally thought was a terrible system for several reasons:
a) it implies that skilled combatants aren't capable of tactical retreat, that even when the choose to leave a fight rather than flee it's always a route and never a tactical disengagement, or that it's never a valid strategy to fall back; in D&D, they call that the Disengage Action and no one has ever claimed it was unrealistic or unfluffy.
b) 2d6 are so swingy that all but the most extreme initiative differences are mitigated
c) it kills me that people complain about morale causing deaths to attrition in 9th but fully endorse the all or nothing, wipe-out-an-entire-unit alternative
For starters, if a unit charged another and the unit receiving the charge didn't fall-back (nor did the attacker), then you spent the entire next turn hiding in combat. This meant that charging in your turn, not slaughtering the enemy unit, and then mopping up during your opponent's turn was advantageous to your melee guys. It was often times preferable to charge sub-optimal targets, even with sub-optimal chargers, just to avoid your enemy's shooting.
And this never seemed gamey to you? Like, two cops are walking a beat; one gets jumped before he has the chance to draw his weapon. Does he a) engage in a Michael Jackson style knife fight while tied to his opponent to prevent a disengagement, or b) shove the prick as hard as he can and back away with his guard up so that his partner, who has had plenty of time to prep the shot can simply shoot him in the face?
The answer is b) EVERY TIME. It's realistic, it's good strategy, it's tactical and it is exactly what I'd do... And any system that doesn't allow it to happen is immersion breaking, stupid and gamey. It may have been fun as hell in its day, and you may have preferred it, and that's perfectly valid... But let's not pretend it's objectively better or more fluffy.
Secondly, Sweeping Advance. Sweeping Advance allowed a unit to roll 1d6 and move that many inches in any direction, including into base to base contact with enemy units. The caveat was that a unit could only perform a sweeping advance when they completely wiped out an opposing unit in combat, either killing them all in the combat itself
Sweeping advance still exists since you can consolidate into engagement range, the difference is that the person you are engaged with can do what any sane and rational person would do- step away while defending yourself so your friends with guns can wipe them out in a volley.
It is now necessary for a melee attacker to use skill, strategy, cover and coordination with other units rather than relying on a gamey mechanic that allows them to hop from one unit to another like a checker skating from one side of the board to the other to declare "king me" upon reaching the other side.
This meant that spacing your units was absolutely critical even for assault armies. Poor positioning could result not only in being charged and 'tagged' via multi charges (which we literally have now), but also having melee run rampant through your poorly constructed lines being unshootable, preventing you from shooting, and denying you the ability to charge via advancing into your own melee units. Not factoring this in and playing around it was a fantastic way to almost immediately lose a game.
It's sounds like you're praising two things that 9th is frequently criticized for- gotcha moments and immediately losing a game. And worse, this is a mistake that a player only makes once- positioning a unit 6.1" away from every other allied unit doesn't really take as much tactical acumen as you seem to think it does. So the whole argument kinda comes across as "Yeah, I liked the game better when the rules prevented you from doing what anyone would do in a real fight because it was easier to tool up the gun lines of newbs with a single squad of Marines (who never fail morale) or Eldar (the Initiative gods)."
This is what I mean when I say that you can simple tool around in a "big tangle" in 9th. It is laughably easy to deny your opponent multi charges by incredibly basic positioning (bubble wrap).
Bubble wrapping takes WAY more skill, tactical acumen and requires far more "Hard Choices" than simply assuring that every unit is 6.1" from every allied unit, which is the very epitome of "incredibly basic positioning."
To the point where it's often ideal to have a weak unit that's sure to die soak the charge, as it denies your opponent the ability to consolidate into you at the end.
Again, it doesn't because you can consolidate into engagement range- giving you a guaranteed 3.9" sweeping advance instead of a random 1-6" sweeping advance; the difference is now there's no artificial rule preventing the engaged squad from doing the tactically wise thing- backing away from you so that their friends can punish you for bringing knives to a gun fight.
So they use strategy including positioning, sacrificial units, cover, aura effects and strats to make it challenging for you to assault them and you use strategy including multi-charges, multi-unit coordination, cover, aura effects and strats to face that challenge.
they can perform a consequence-free fall back in the next turn, with many armies / chapter tactics / stratagems even allowing that retreated unit to turn around and shoot.
The fall back isn't consequence free; it either prevents the retreating unit from shooting/charging, limits them to one or the other, or forces them to burn a limited resource in order to act in an extraordinary manner and do something that they couldn't typically do.
The greater problem for you is your opponent's OTHER units, which DON'T face consequences for the tactical retreat of their allied units. This is why it is incumbent upon you as an attacker to actually mitigate the potential for those units to retaliate as part of your strategy, rather than simply exploit a tar-pit rule to tool up a newb who doesn't yet know the 6.1" rule.
To flatly address the rest of the points you've brought up: Stratagems, re-rolls, and the myriad other "gotcha" trap cards in modern 40k are no more tactics than putting together an army list.
Command points are a limited resource, and more importantly each strat can only be used once in a turn. Your newb-slaying tar-pit gotcha on the other hand can be used (exploited?) by every unit in your army. And in terms of resource usage, consider that strats are best saved for purposes related to victory conditions. Attacking isolated units via deep strike, reinforcements, hit and run or other tactics to bait an opponent into using a strat prematurely and denying that ability to the units holding objectives or performing actions, or depleting their CP pool is WAY more tactical than "Nuh-uh! My base touches yours, so every gun in your army is useless..."
Having your shooty unit be extra-good at shooting for a turn is not a tactic. Having your fighty unit fight twice is not a tactic.
It is when you have to choose whether to do it in order to mitigate the effectiveness of the bubble-wrap counter shooters when a unit retreats from your melee specialists, or to achieve an objective, or to defend yourself against an incoming melee threat... Because you can use it to do ONE of those things per turn but not all three.
Having a unit be harder to wound for a turn is not a tactic.
Really? Because it looks to me like it could be a valuable part of your strategy to survive when a unit you've assaulted retreats so their friends can shoot you.
These are math problems, simply resulting in a unit doing what it does but better at the cost of currency.
The limit to a single use of a particular buff per use has far greater tactical/ strategic impact that than the resource cost. In fact, it's one of those hard choices I keep hearing 9th doesn't include.
Meanwhile, spacing your army in such a way as to not allow the enemy to rip through you safely - or taking advantage of an opportunity to do that - is a tactic.
What's tactical about either of these things? Anyone can do them under any circumstances, without any cost or thought because always makes sense to do both of them. I mean, even if I accepted the premise that strats and command points are a math problem (and I don't), at least they would involve some thought. By contrast, these two "tactics" are things that every player learns to do in their very first game, and then just does them every game thereafter.
Flanking enemy units and forcing moral checks, thereby allowing you to wipe them out for free, is a tactic. Choosing to tie units down with in-ideal targets - ergo tarpitting several carnifex's with a bunch of conscripts and a commissar - is a tactic. And those are all elements which 40k has had stripped away from it, piece by piece, until we're playing the gak-show of the modern game. Where "My unit is extra special better at what it did anyway, because I tapped my mana!" is considered a tactical play, and moral itself has been reduced to a "KEEL MOAR" mechanic.
You do realize that saying "forcing moral checks, thereby allowing you to wipe them out for free, is a tactic." and "moral itself has been reduced to a "KEEL MOAR" mechanic." in the same paragraph is problematic, right? Especially when it so favoured two particular armies- marines, because they seldom break, and eldar because they win the initiative contest. And not just some units, and not just once per turn. Just "I'm always better at scaring whole squads to death than you because of the army I choose to play".
Now look, I may have been a bit more agro than intended- I do take your point. It is true that strats do make the game feel like a CCG, and I get how that's not as fun for folks who prefer wargames. It's true that the learning curve is steeper due to the amount of bespoke content. It's true that rule-stacking/ combination plays feel gamey. Preferring earlier editions is a perfectly valid point of view.
I do, however, take exception to the idea that one version is objectively "better" (what a vague, unmeasurable term) than the other, or that using bubble wrap vs. 6.1" spacing is more or less organic or tactical. And I very specifically disagree that a moral system that allows you to destroy an entire unit is superior to one in which a few extra models are destroyed, especially when it's just inherently easier for some armies to do and inherently harder to do it to some armies. To say that one of these systems is more KEEL MOAR than the other is certainly of base. The truth is that the systems are similar in a lot of ways, and neither is particularly good.
Models just disappearing to morale feels super bad video gamey. Seeing them potentially run off the board or rally was a much cooler and more immersive rule imo
Deleting units exists anyway, the level of lethality in modern 40k makes running a unit down after a good run of combat pretty unremarkable.
That said i think there is room for a system more like old morale AND options to voluntarily retreat from combat with the right penalties.
You don't want GW to go in to making Ld an important stat though. It would end with majority of the factions getting some rules or interactions GW thinks are cool, but which will be more like time wasters in reality, and a sprinkle of armies, which would get some "cool" rules that would just outright break the game giving them a Ld impacting sub phase, the size of 1ksons or GK psychic phases.
Would be better, if GW got some simpler stuff down, like do they want LoS to be like in skirmish game or do they want it to be simulation. With all the consequances to how size of models, terrain etc works in the game.
You do realize that saying "forcing moral checks, thereby allowing you to wipe them out for free, is a tactic." and "moral itself has been reduced to a "KEEL MOAR" mechanic." in the same paragraph is problematic, right? Especially when it so favoured two particular armies- marines, because they seldom break, and eldar because they win the initiative contest. And not just some units, and not just once per turn. Just "I'm always better at scaring whole squads to death than you because of the army I choose to play".
Now look, I may have been a bit more agro than intended- I do take your point. It is true that strats do make the game feel like a CCG, and I get how that's not as fun for folks who prefer wargames. It's true that the learning curve is steeper due to the amount of bespoke content. It's true that rule-stacking/ combination plays feel gamey. Preferring earlier editions is a perfectly valid point of view.
I do, however, take exception to the idea that one version is objectively "better" (what a vague, unmeasurable term) than the other, or that using bubble wrap vs. 6.1" spacing is more or less organic or tactical. And I very specifically disagree that a moral system that allows you to destroy an entire unit is superior to one in which a few extra models are destroyed, especially when it's just inherently easier for some armies to do and inherently harder to do it to some armies. To say that one of these systems is more KEEL MOAR than the other is certainly of base. The truth is that the systems are similar in a lot of ways, and neither is particularly good.
"Melee/ CQC", ALWAYS, is and still was the most lethal phase of any combat irl and a lot of modern doctrines center around breakthrough/ Schwerpunkt etc..
At the end of the day 40k WAS a wargame. It should represent above. Right now it doesn't.
The core problem as you pointed out however, was there were always haves/Have not armies, which gw in general fails to understand for balance reasons. That is nothing new.
Lots of interesting stuff to sift through here. Two points got my attention.
Insectum7 wrote: Well no, it wasn't random. It was up to dice rolls, but because you can bring factors to bear on the rolls, it's not random.
Have to disagree. Dice are randomizers. Modifiers simply shift the range of results, but it is still random.
A non-random system for 40k would be interesting. When I was a military planner, we used various methods to adjudicate combats and some of them were non-random.
I will also say that using finite resources (whether they be CPs or Strats) is as much a part of tactics as positioning forces or choosing targets.
It's clear that GW continues to wander around, trying to figure how to handle melee combat and balance it with shooting. Ironically, I think that was something they originally got right and have since screwed up, but YMMV.
The randomness is an abstraction of friction, and there should be tools for players to reduce friction - however, the total elimination of friction is undesirable.
PenitentJake wrote:And this never seemed gamey to you? Like, two cops are walking a beat; one gets jumped before he has the chance to draw his weapon. Does he a) engage in a Michael Jackson style knife fight while tied to his opponent to prevent a disengagement, or b) shove the prick as hard as he can and back away with his guard up so that his partner, who has had plenty of time to prep the shot can simply shoot him in the face?
The answer is b) EVERY TIME. It's realistic, it's good strategy, it's tactical and it is exactly what I'd do... And any system that doesn't allow it to happen is immersion breaking, stupid and gamey. It may have been fun as hell in its day, and you may have preferred it, and that's perfectly valid... But let's not pretend it's objectively better or more fluffy.
Can you give a historical example where a unit, engaged in melee against a superior foe, was able to voluntarily fall back with no casualties and without pursuit so that the rest of the army could shoot the offending unit?
Not abstract thought experiment examples using individuals instead of formations of troops (and implying some very optimistic assumptions about how easy it is to shrug off someone in hand-to-hand distance, see: 21-foot rule); I mean actual instances where the thing you're saying is 'realistic, good strategy, tactical, and exactly what I'd do' actually happened in real life warfare.
Because I gotta say, the idea of a unit being stuck in combat, because turning your back and running comes at severe risk of morale failure and being wiped out, tracks an awful lot closer to what I've read of real-life warfare than the current system. Calling it immersion breaking and gamey because, uh, you can imagine a cop shoving a perp away, seems kinda silly.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The randomness is an abstraction of friction, and there should be tools for players to reduce friction - however, the total elimination of friction is undesirable.
^This.
There's a distiction between probabilistic outcomes and absolute randomness. Absolute randomness means decisions leading up to the point of rolling the dice don't matter. There's nothing I can do to influence the outcome of a coin flip, right? But for Morale checks, in this case, I've got a number of tools to influence that eventual outcome, my decisions matter here in a way that they don't in a coin flip.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I will also say that using finite resources (whether they be CPs or Strats) is as much a part of tactics as positioning forces or choosing targets.
Absolutely. But in many cases strats implement that in a lousy way, and Smoke Launchers are a prime example. Previously they were a limited resource by being one-use per vehicle, but I could use them on any number of vehicles at once. This allowed for an actual "universal tactic" where I could advance with many vehicles, each behind it's own smoke cover. The Strat implementation has made that impossible, by limiting me to only firing Smoke with one vehicle a turn, imposing an artificial limit and removing a tactical option.
I'm not against any kind of Strat, it's just that their implementation is lousy, and unfortunately they have an over-weighted impact on the game where one would prefer those "universal tactics" to be a greater factor.
And this never seemed gamey to you? Like, two cops are walking a beat; one gets jumped before he has the chance to draw his weapon. Does he a) engage in a Michael Jackson style knife fight while tied to his opponent to prevent a disengagement, or b) shove the prick as hard as he can and back away with his guard up so that his partner, who has had plenty of time to prep the shot can simply shoot him in the face?
The answer is b) EVERY TIME. It's realistic, it's good strategy, it's tactical and it is exactly what I'd do... And any system that doesn't allow it to happen is immersion breaking, stupid and gamey. It may have been fun as hell in its day, and you may have preferred it, and that's perfectly valid... But let's not pretend it's objectively better or more fluffy.
I've feel like seen more body cam videos where this situation ends up in a brawl, honestly. Guy grabs assaults cop, cop can't get away, other cop has to help. Or a pistol in drawn while in contact. But also one should recognize that in 40k the CC phase doesn't just represent contact fisticuffs, and also involves close quarters gunfighting, hence why pistols counted as a second melee weapon for many editions.
Edit: Yah the cop scenario is just a bad example anyways because they're not supposed to be straight murdering attackers anyways.
Yeah, the hypothetical of one cop shoving off the perp so that the other can shoot him was already accounted for in the melee system: Two WS3 S3 attacks.
9th's disengaging from melee is more like the two cops, one of whom is already in a life-or-death hand-to-hand struggle, turning and running while the perp obediently stands rooted to the spot until the police sniper can take him out.
If you could voluntarily fall back from combat, but the enemy could give chase and possibly catch you and stab you in the back as you run- some sort of advance that might have a chance of sweeping your unit- that would be a lot less immersion-breaking.
Insectum7 wrote: Or two cops get jumped by 6 guys, can the cops separate themselves?
Of course. So long as the guys are approaching the cops from a single direction, they are powerless to give chase as the cops casually backpedal ten feet to provide a shot opportunity.
Unless the six arrange themselves to individually surround the cops, exactly three to each, though. Then the cops can't escape and are stuck...
...Unless they chose not to bring armor-piercing ammunition in their sidearms, in which case they will still have a reserve of Nebulous Resource they can call upon to incorporeally phase through the attackers, carrying them the requisite ten feet so that the sniper can engage.
If I've got say, three squads relatively close to each other, and an enemy melee unit charges one of those 3 units.
As soon as it happens, the other two units start trying to draw a bead on any enemy combatant they can see, and they are also free to communicate with each other to declare who they are covering.
Which means that each person defending in the melee has to create enough distance between them and the enemy they are fighting for any of the guns that are already actively seeking that enemy get the split second opening they need to take the shot.
The units covering the melee don't need two seconds to draw their weapons (a central premise of the 21 foot rule), nor do the engaged defenders have to create a 21 foot distance between them and the enemy for their allies to fire.
Assuming all squads involved are 5 man MSU, every single melee attacker has two guns trained on him from two different angles. The defender can literally kneel or go prone to create an opening for either of those two guns.
Sure that creates an advantage in melee for the attacker, but the point is, he's already dead. Remember that the unit doing the retreating/ dodging/ ducking is focusing entirely on creating that gap, sacrificing their own capacity to inflict harm for an increased chance of creating the necessary distance.
In a real battle, a squad of five guys won't charge another five guys when they know there are two other squads on either side of them with guns at the ready. The person to whom I was responding is pissed that he can no longer perform without any fear whatsoever an action which I think any fighter would perceive as too risky to try.
In any war recent enough to include relatively reliable guns with reasonable clip sizes, more people have been killed by guns than melee weapons. Now that doesn't mean melee isn't deadly, or even that a melee unit is at a disadvantage against a single armed enemy unit of equal size.
But what it absolutely does mean is that the deadliness of guns wielded by multiple units prevent melee attacks in real wars from being as common or as successful as they are in even 9th ed 40k.
Either way, let's not lose sight of the main point:
The person I am responding to is arguing a system where a single melee unit can use a combination of hiding in melee, sweeping advance and morale-based automatic execution of entire units to single handedly roll up a multi-unit gunline, leading to an almost guaranteed loss for the defender is inherently and objectively more realistic, more tactical, more fun, less gamey and overall superior to the current system.
I'm saying it's perfectly valid for the person to prefer the old system... which has does have a lot of merit and was fun enough in its time.
I'm just disagreeing with the idea that it is inherently and objectively less gamey, more tactical or more realistic than the current version.
And that's where the mechanics need to find a place in between "real world" and the fact that the mentality and situations of many of the combatants in 40k has is VERY different. How do the cops fight daemons? Are Orks worried about the squads behind the target? Do hive-mind controlled genestealers give a damn, and could these "cops" have even a hope of escaping them?
I'm just disagreeing with the idea that it is inherently and objectively less gamey, more tactical or more realistic than the current version.
Given that the older system aknowledged differences in morale, lethality, outnumbering, speed (initiative) for Falling Back mechanics, I'm gonna say that it was objectively a better representation. Were there gamey aspects? Sure there were. But heck yeah it was better. Slower troops were caught by faster ones. Fearless troops wouldn't fall back. Outnumbered troops were more likely to be wiped out. Awesomesauce.
As for nearby support from squads, it's definitely something to be considered. And it specifically reminds me of "Assaults" in Epic (which were specifically described as being an entire 40k battle happening in this phase). In that system, when one formation assaulted another, nearby formations would count as "supporting" and modifiers would be added to the Assault to adjust the outcomes.
If I've got say, three squads relatively close to each other, and an enemy melee unit charges one of those 3 units.
As soon as it happens, the other two units start trying to draw a bead on any enemy combatant they can see, and they are also free to communicate with each other to declare who they are covering.
Which means that each person defending in the melee has to create enough distance between them and the enemy they are fighting for any of the guns that are already actively seeking that enemy get the split second opening they need to take the shot.
The units covering the melee don't need two seconds to draw their weapons (a central premise of the 21 foot rule), nor do the engaged defenders have to create a 21 foot distance between them and the enemy for their allies to fire.
Assuming all squads involved are 5 man MSU, every single melee attacker has two guns trained on him from two different angles. The defender can literally kneel or go prone to create an opening for either of those two guns.
Sure that creates an advantage in melee for the attacker, but the point is, he's already dead. Remember that the unit doing the retreating/ dodging/ ducking is focusing entirely on creating that gap, sacrificing their own capacity to inflict harm for an increased chance of creating the necessary distance.
In a real battle, a squad of five guys won't charge another five guys when they know there are two other squads on either side of them with guns at the ready. The person to whom I was responding is pissed that he can no longer perform without any fear whatsoever an action which I think any fighter would perceive as too risky to try.
In any war recent enough to include relatively reliable guns with reasonable clip sizes, more people have been killed by guns than melee weapons. Now that doesn't mean melee isn't deadly, or even that a melee unit is at a disadvantage against a single armed enemy unit of equal size.
But what it absolutely does mean is that the deadliness of guns wielded by multiple units prevent melee attacks in real wars from being as common or as successful as they are in even 9th ed 40k.
Either way, let's not lose sight of the main point:
The person I am responding to is arguing a system where a single melee unit can use a combination of hiding in melee, sweeping advance and morale-based automatic execution of entire units to single handedly roll up a multi-unit gunline, leading to an almost guaranteed loss for the defender is inherently and objectively more realistic, more tactical, more fun, less gamey and overall superior to the current system.
I'm saying it's perfectly valid for the person to prefer the old system... which has does have a lot of merit and was fun enough in its time.
I'm just disagreeing with the idea that it is inherently and objectively less gamey, more tactical or more realistic than the current version.
The old version wasn't totally realistic.
But it WAS *more* realistic. I agree those units flanking the melee unit should get involved somehow, probably by using their guns. In fact, most of the more realistic games I play allow them to (or at least allow them the potential to).
So the solution to the earlier edition problem you mention was to IMPROVE THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE PLAYERS, THEIR UNITS, AND THE GAMESTATE, not just throw up your hands and say "feth it, let's not bother modeling anything at all and just make this into a board game."
If I've got say, three squads relatively close to each other, and an enemy melee unit charges one of those 3 units.
As soon as it happens, the other two units start trying to draw a bead on any enemy combatant they can see, and they are also free to communicate with each other to declare who they are covering.
Which means that each person defending in the melee has to create enough distance between them and the enemy they are fighting for any of the guns that are already actively seeking that enemy get the split second opening they need to take the shot.
The units covering the melee don't need two seconds to draw their weapons (a central premise of the 21 foot rule), nor do the engaged defenders have to create a 21 foot distance between them and the enemy for their allies to fire.
Assuming all squads involved are 5 man MSU, every single melee attacker has two guns trained on him from two different angles. The defender can literally kneel or go prone to create an opening for either of those two guns.
Sure that creates an advantage in melee for the attacker, but the point is, he's already dead. Remember that the unit doing the retreating/ dodging/ ducking is focusing entirely on creating that gap, sacrificing their own capacity to inflict harm for an increased chance of creating the necessary distance.
In a real battle, a squad of five guys won't charge another five guys when they know there are two other squads on either side of them with guns at the ready. The person to whom I was responding is pissed that he can no longer perform without any fear whatsoever an action which I think any fighter would perceive as too risky to try.
In any war recent enough to include relatively reliable guns with reasonable clip sizes, more people have been killed by guns than melee weapons. Now that doesn't mean melee isn't deadly, or even that a melee unit is at a disadvantage against a single armed enemy unit of equal size.
But what it absolutely does mean is that the deadliness of guns wielded by multiple units prevent melee attacks in real wars from being as common or as successful as they are in even 9th ed 40k.
Either way, let's not lose sight of the main point:
The person I am responding to is arguing a system where a single melee unit can use a combination of hiding in melee, sweeping advance and morale-based automatic execution of entire units to single handedly roll up a multi-unit gunline, leading to an almost guaranteed loss for the defender is inherently and objectively more realistic, more tactical, more fun, less gamey and overall superior to the current system.
I'm saying it's perfectly valid for the person to prefer the old system... which has does have a lot of merit and was fun enough in its time.
I'm just disagreeing with the idea that it is inherently and objectively less gamey, more tactical or more realistic than the current version.
The old version wasn't totally realistic.
But it WAS *more* realistic. I agree those units flanking the melee unit should get involved somehow, probably by using their guns. In fact, most of the more realistic games I play allow them to (or at least allow them the potential to).
I think applying the term realistic to any system that has one side acting while the other side watches is rather ridiculous. So complaining about one sides ability to dance out of close combat range isn't very valid if the same system allowed the other unit in that melee to close from 18" away without worrying about any form of defensive fire on the part of its target and the units in the general vicinity. I guess this is why 40K is a war-game and not a combat-simulation.
So the solution to the earlier edition problem you mention was to IMPROVE THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE PLAYERS, THEIR UNITS, AND THE GAMESTATE, not just throw up your hands and say "feth it, let's not bother modeling anything at all and just make this into a board game."
Well, that depends on what you want from your game. I'm sure the community can handle both broad simplification like 9th Ed 40K and robust action/reactions like Infinity.
40k isn't a wargame, even. It is a game that is about as relevant to warfare as it is to baking.
There are even games better than 40k at being wargames while preserving IGOUGO. Try that same situation described above in the Horus Heresy when the enemy has three reactions in their pocket and just see whether or not those supporting units get to use their guns on the opponent - and that's just staying within the GW "sphere".
There are very few modern game designs left where one side sits idle and the other side does their stuff without interaction. It's just that 40k's solution is gamey and stupid by comparison (Stratagems are about as "realistic" as just waltzing out of combat like you're on a Sunday stroll)
alextroy wrote: I think applying the term realistic to any system that has one side acting while the other side watches is rather ridiculous.
I won't entirely disagree, but I would say that theres are degrees of difference to be aknowledged.
The old system of having Initiative determine who fights first, for example, is more realistic than players simply alternating fights across the table. Why does my squad on one side of the table determine the fate of my squad on the other side of the table?
Yes it's a game, but yes we can also reduce artifacts of "gaminess".
Clearly it is because we don't want to be here all day counting down 10 to 1 Initiative for every single set of close combats on the board.
Barring that option there are only two real choices left: simultaneous combat or some system of picking units to fight sequentially.. GW when for sequential.
alextroy wrote: Clearly it is because we don't want to be here all day counting down 10 to 1 Initiative for every single set of close combats on the board.
Barring that option there are only two real choices left: simultaneous combat or some system of picking units to fight sequentially.. GW when for sequential.
Who's this "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket? I quite like Initiative, myself. Beats the gamey mess that 8th/9th edition melee is any day, IMO.
alextroy wrote: Clearly it is because we don't want to be here all day counting down 10 to 1 Initiative for every single set of close combats on the board.
Barring that option there are only two real choices left: simultaneous combat or some system of picking units to fight sequentially.. GW when for sequential.
Who's this "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket? I quite like Initiative, myself. Beats the gamey mess that 8th/9th edition melee is any day, IMO.
We being the majority of gamers who prefer the game have less niche rules and be resolved faster than in the old days of 3-7th edition. Emperor knows the game is not lessor for avoiding, "you attack at your Initiative, unless you are charging into cover (in which case it is I1), unless you have Assault Grenades (in which case it is normal), unless you are using an Unwieldly weapon (in which case it is I1)".
alextroy wrote: Clearly it is because we don't want to be here all day counting down 10 to 1 Initiative for every single set of close combats on the board.
Barring that option there are only two real choices left: simultaneous combat or some system of picking units to fight sequentially.. GW when for sequential.
Yes, GW did choose to go sequential...
...for reasons I can't fathom. What is wrong with simultaneous again?
alextroy wrote: Clearly it is because we don't want to be here all day counting down 10 to 1 Initiative for every single set of close combats on the board.
Barring that option there are only two real choices left: simultaneous combat or some system of picking units to fight sequentially.. GW when for sequential.
Who's this "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket? I quite like Initiative, myself. Beats the gamey mess that 8th/9th edition melee is any day, IMO.
alextroy wrote: Clearly it is because we don't want to be here all day counting down 10 to 1 Initiative for every single set of close combats on the board.
Barring that option there are only two real choices left: simultaneous combat or some system of picking units to fight sequentially.. GW when for sequential.
Who's this "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket? I quite like Initiative, myself. Beats the gamey mess that 8th/9th edition melee is any day, IMO.
We being the majority of gamers who prefer the game have less niche rules and be resolved faster than in the old days of 3-7th edition. Emperor knows the game is not lessor for avoiding, "you attack at your Initiative, unless you are charging into cover (in which case it is I1), unless you have Assault Grenades (in which case it is normal), unless you are using an Unwieldly weapon (in which case it is I1)".
'Units attack alternately. Unless they charged. Unless they have a special rule which makes them fight first/the enemy strike last. Unless they have a strategem which makes them strike first/the enemy strike last. Unless they're fighting twice.' is so much better.
alextroy wrote: We being the majority of gamers who prefer the game have less niche rules and be resolved faster than in the old days of 3-7th edition.
a simple, "those people who don't play 40k" would have said all
9th is on a similar level of niche rules and "slow play" as 6-7th and 8th was ahead of 3-4th for this
the fastest and "cleanest" version of 40k is still 3rd and if you want a "modern" 40k game, it is either Beyond the Gates of Antares or Grimdark Future
GW itself tried to fix Codex balance by changing the core rules, which never worked because they added more and more niche rules to add "flavour", they never tried to make a "game" after 3rd
I've always played nids, I wanted to play the "alien swarms coming to tear you apart" that was described in the fluff. Sending in only a few models into b2b on the charge so you can wipe the opponent in their turn seemed pretty much the exact opposite of what I'd imagined, it always felt really gamey.
Then came the "ok this was fun, bye now" method of just walking away, followed by tri-pointing and all the rest; not what I'd call progress tbh.
Old melee vs new melee is more of a bad vs worse choice imo. I'd take the old system but I wouldn't exactly be thrilled about it.
shortymcnostrill wrote: I've always played nids, I wanted to play the "alien swarms coming to tear you apart" that was described in the fluff. Sending in only a few models into b2b on the charge so you can wipe the opponent in their turn seemed pretty much the exact opposite of what I'd imagined, it always felt really gamey.
Then came the "ok this was fun, bye now" method of just walking away, followed by tri-pointing and all the rest; not what I'd call progress tbh.
Old melee vs new melee is more of a bad vs worse choice imo. I'd take the old system but I wouldn't exactly be thrilled about it.
Isn't that pretty much GW standard at this point?
I'd rather play R&H than CSM (especially with a lord i am not even allowed to field on the front page of the dex) but i am strapped with the CSM dex if i want to field cultists.
shortymcnostrill wrote: I've always played nids, I wanted to play the "alien swarms coming to tear you apart" that was described in the fluff. Sending in only a few models into b2b on the charge so you can wipe the opponent in their turn seemed pretty much the exact opposite of what I'd imagined, it always felt really gamey.
Then came the "ok this was fun, bye now" method of just walking away, followed by tri-pointing and all the rest; not what I'd call progress tbh.
These are great examples of what I call counterintuitive rules. A universal tactic is to establish overwhelming numerical superiority at the point of attack. The notion of bringing only some troops to the fight in order to drag it out in order to manipulate the turn sequence is pretty awful.
It would be interesting to see how 40k would function using an orders system. Joint planning phase at the start of the turn where orders are generated and then simultaneous implementation and resolution. Depending on the edition, it could be a one-turn game.
alextroy wrote: Clearly it is because we don't want to be here all day counting down 10 to 1 Initiative for every single set of close combats on the board.
Barring that option there are only two real choices left: simultaneous combat or some system of picking units to fight sequentially.. GW when for sequential.
Who's this "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket? I quite like Initiative, myself. Beats the gamey mess that 8th/9th edition melee is any day, IMO.
We being the majority of gamers who prefer the game have less niche rules and be resolved faster than in the old days of 3-7th edition. Emperor knows the game is not lessor for avoiding, "you attack at your Initiative, unless you are charging into cover (in which case it is I1), unless you have Assault Grenades (in which case it is normal), unless you are using an Unwieldly weapon (in which case it is I1)".
Do you have a source that shows that it's a "majority" that agrees with you? Otherwise, it's just your opinion, just like preferring Initiative is just my opinion. Others will obviously have their own opinions.
We can debate the specifics though. Looking at your example, I see three simple questions that need to be answered to resolve the interactions: Are you charging through terrain? Yes/no? If "Yes", do you have Frag grenades or equivalent equipment? Yes/no? And finally: Are any models armed with Unwieldly weapons? Yes/no? Not complicated.
Meanwhile, the Fights First/Fights Last system of 9th is so confusing that they actually had to release a designer's commentary (with pictures/diagrams) explaining how the rules interact with each other. That system definitely isn't simpler, IMO. But, YMMV.
As for 8th/9th being "faster", this is 100% anecdotal, but I've found that I can play a 3000 point game of HH in less time than I could a 2000 point game of 8th/9th. Again, completely anecdotal, and YMMV.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: It would be interesting to see how 40k would function using an orders system. Joint planning phase at the start of the turn where orders are generated and then simultaneous implementation and resolution. Depending on the edition, it could be a one-turn game.
You might want to check out the thread in my signature. Among some armybooks you will find an alternate activation core rules system where each unit needs to receive an order at the beginning of the turn and can only act according to that order when activated.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Meanwhile, the Fights First/Fights Last system of 9th is so confusing that they actually had to release a designer's commentary (with pictures/diagrams) explaining how the rules interact with each other. That system definitely isn't simpler, IMO. But, YMMV.
As for 8th/9th being "faster", this is 100% anecdotal, but I've found that I can play a 3000 point game of HH in less time than I could a 2000 point game of 8th/9th. Again, completely anecdotal, and YMMV.
Another vote for: Handling Initiative steps from 10 to 1 isn't any slower than the current implementation. I would even say that it is faster than the current mini-game where you have to decide which combat to resolve first or in which order.
Well, this inspired me to pick up an old copy of the 3rd edition rulebook to look for myself.
I really like the tone and lore from 3rd edition, the tenure of Andy Chambers is my favourite era of GW lore and rules content. The codices are fantastically flavourful, but also come with lore-friendly restrictions and choices. They weren't amazingly well balanced, but that is a solvable issue.
There is some varity. Some armies after they jump don't care what happens, because they just maxed their primaries and secondaries. Other armies trade up a lot better, then others, so they don't need to counter something with two or three jumps, they still can do it with one.
a_typical_hero wrote: You might want to check out the thread in my signature. Among some armybooks you will find an alternate activation core rules system where each unit needs to receive an order at the beginning of the turn and can only act according to that order when activated.
Interesting. I wish I'd retained more of the six years of German I took in school than the cuss words.
The concept of orders/execution is that it all happens at once. So once you enter execution, units will slam into each other, or sideswipe, etc. From the sound of it, both sides could kill each other on turn 1 using the present system.
Stormonu wrote: Forgive me, but it sounds like 40K has become a game of checkers.
One person exposes their piece and gets jumped. Counter with 2 jumps, which then leads to 3 counter jumps.
That's a pretty apt analogy.
Modern 40k has a couple of genuinely good ideas (the combat selection choice is a good direction for the overly-statistic driven assault phase, which was then thoroughly mauled by all the fight first / fight last shenanigan's) that'd be worth keeping. But by and large 40k is objectively worse than it was 15-ish years ago.
Stormonu wrote: Forgive me, but it sounds like 40K has become a game of checkers.
One person exposes their piece and gets jumped. Counter with 2 jumps, which then leads to 3 counter jumps.
That's a pretty apt analogy.
Modern 40k has a couple of genuinely good ideas (the combat selection choice is a good direction for the overly-statistic driven assault phase, which was then thoroughly mauled by all the fight first / fight last shenanigan's) that'd be worth keeping. But by and large 40k is objectively worse than it was 15-ish years ago.
That would mean that it has universal tactics. Unless one wants to argue that the differentiation between 40k factions/units renders all the tactics specific to that faction/unit.
rules system.
