Switch Theme:

Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in ie
Ship's Officer





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

I didn't win until my 34th game.

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

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


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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/27 15:48:19



 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Fair enough- thanks for clarifying.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






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

I didn't win until my 34th game.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Checkmate, Atheists.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/27 15:52:05


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







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

I didn't win until my 34th game.

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

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


Because it isn't about winning or losing.

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

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




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

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

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

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


Anyway, the motivated can find more commentary elsewhere.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






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

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

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


He should learn how to properly hide his army, ofc

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in ca
Fresh-Faced New User




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

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

Rules for this smaller FFA style can be found here:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/801635.page
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Central Valley, California

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


He should learn how to properly hide his army, ofc


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

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

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

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


~ Shrap

Rolling 1's for five decades.
AoS * Warcry * LoTR SBG * Dust 1947 * Warmaster 10mm * 40K & Kill Team * Flames of '47 * Reign in Hell
 
   
Made in gb
Rampaging Khorne Dreadnought




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


He should learn how to properly hide his army, ofc


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

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

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

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



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

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




Vigo. Spain.

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


He should learn how to properly hide his army, ofc


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

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

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

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



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

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in pt
Journeyman Inquisitor with Visions of the Warp




It was clear to me at least!

Good luck in the next match OP

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/27 22:16:19


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Speaking of winning in one turn...



Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






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

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

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

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


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

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Tables don't have to be smaller...

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






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

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Central Valley, California

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


He should learn how to properly hide his army, ofc


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

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

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

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



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


No worries at all Galas and thanks Yoyoyo!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/28 01:58:20


~ Shrap

Rolling 1's for five decades.
AoS * Warcry * LoTR SBG * Dust 1947 * Warmaster 10mm * 40K & Kill Team * Flames of '47 * Reign in Hell
 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




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


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

It’s a bit of a pain. Possibly a smart move from GW.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





OKC, OK USA

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


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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/28 03:31:03


You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

GW wants them to, but they won't.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




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


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


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




San Jose, CA

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

Which is fething lame...
Thank god this cancer hasn't spread to our flgs yet.
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

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


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

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


 
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





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


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

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


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

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


 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

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

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

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


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

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

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







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

I'm sure it is the players'/TO's/dog's/venue's/lunch caterer's fault though, not GW.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






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


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

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


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

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

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

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

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


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

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


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






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

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


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

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


The vast majority of...

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

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

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: