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.

BanjoJohn wrote:
One interesting thing is that it says Squats hate orks, but doesn't describe how that manifests in the game's rules, also for some reason squats have Strength 4 lasguns because their lasers are stronger

Luv me trike. Luv me lasers. 'Ate Eldar. 'Ate Orks. Simple as.

 Kagetora wrote:

Yes Hits did. That's why the Space Marine Lord wasn't part of a squad. Just standing out there a foot or more in front of everything else, tanking all the hits until the player somehow got stupidly unlucky on a save or two. By then, your army was mostly gone. Behind him was another character in Termie Armor with the next best field save stacked on top of it..

Thing is, because of the huge damage potential of heavy weapons in 2nd edition, this would not have been a reliable strategy. One of my regular gaming opponents was very excited the first time he fielded Abaddon when the model was released, anticipating some lovely carnage to come... and I dropped him in the first turn with a lascannon to the head.

Characters running around by themselves, even with fields, tended to not last long when you made them priority targets.

BanjoJohn wrote:
For anyone interested, I recently discovered that one of the managers of the Spain branch of GW made a 3rd edition squat army list, I suppose by no means official, but an interesting triviality of history that seems worth being aware of. One interesting thing is that it says Squats hate orks, but doesn't describe how that manifests in the game's rules, also for some reason squats have Strength 4 lasguns because their lasers are stronger

Are they only equipped with lasguns?

They were equipped with either lasguns or bolters in 2nd, so maybe he just collapsed that into a unique squat lasguns instead. 3rd Ed was the edition that each army got it's equipment differentiated from everyone else's. Orks bolters went to shootas for example. Plasma cannons to starcannons etc.

Maybe this was his equivalent

 insaniak wrote:

 Kagetora wrote:

Yes Hits did. That's why the Space Marine Lord wasn't part of a squad. Just standing out there a foot or more in front of everything else, tanking all the hits until the player somehow got stupidly unlucky on a save or two. By then, your army was mostly gone. Behind him was another character in Termie Armor with the next best field save stacked on top of it..

Thing is, because of the huge damage potential of heavy weapons in 2nd edition, this would not have been a reliable strategy. One of my regular gaming opponents was very excited the first time he fielded Abaddon when the model was released, anticipating some lovely carnage to come. j
1. and I dropped him in the first turn with a lascannon to the head.

Characters running around by themselves, even with fields, tended to not last long when you made them priority targets.

Some of those Chaos Lords got pretty gnarly. 2++ Power Field, then a rerollable 2+ on 2D6 in Terminator armor. I feel like there was some other thing you could stack on there . . . Can't remember.

 Hellebore wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:
For anyone interested, I recently discovered that one of the managers of the Spain branch of GW made a 3rd edition squat army list, I suppose by no means official, but an interesting triviality of history that seems worth being aware of. One interesting thing is that it says Squats hate orks, but doesn't describe how that manifests in the game's rules, also for some reason squats have Strength 4 lasguns because their lasers are stronger

Are they only equipped with lasguns?

They were equipped with either lasguns or bolters in 2nd, so maybe he just collapsed that into a unique squat lasguns instead. 3rd Ed was the edition that each army got it's equipment differentiated from everyone else's. Orks bolters went to shootas for example. Plasma cannons to starcannons etc.

Maybe this was his equivalent

I have some of those fun codexes on PDF including a compilation for an arbities force-from the intro page

In early 2001 Tim Huckelbery of Games Workshop US decided to put some
serious efforts into his version in order to make it Chapter Approved for
WH40k 3rd Ed. At the same time similar ideas was nurished by Jeff Wiertalla
and Magnus Johansson. Jeff contacted Tim and they formed a Yahoo-group
(http://groups.yahoo.com/adeptus_arbites_garrison) and invited playtesters.
Magnus focused on compiling all written material about the Arbitrators
(including other rules and roleplaying stuff) he could find on the internet,
trying to put together a solid background for the army.
One part of this work was to give the Codex a more official look, mimicing
the layout of the official Games Workshop© publications, making this PDF.
He (I) also implemented many of the ideas that came up through the group.
Racing side-by-side with the Yahoo-Arbies was Games Workshops own
Codex team - although this was unknown to the Tim-group until May 2001.Not
wanting to clash with GW, the work ceased. Later the same year it became
clear that GW wouldn´t produce an Arbie Codex themselves and the group
continued their work, greatly inspired by master fluffist Robey Jenkins.
In 2002, Magnus left the Yahoo group and focused in bringing what he
thought were the best ideas together. The result is this Unofficial Codex

i think my favorite is the all grot army lists to go with the Kromlech minis.

 Hellebore wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:
For anyone interested, I recently discovered that one of the managers of the Spain branch of GW made a 3rd edition squat army list, I suppose by no means official, but an interesting triviality of history that seems worth being aware of. One interesting thing is that it says Squats hate orks, but doesn't describe how that manifests in the game's rules, also for some reason squats have Strength 4 lasguns because their lasers are stronger

Are they only equipped with lasguns?

They were equipped with either lasguns or bolters in 2nd, so maybe he just collapsed that into a unique squat lasguns instead. 3rd Ed was the edition that each army got it's equipment differentiated from everyone else's. Orks bolters went to shootas for example. Plasma cannons to starcannons etc.

Maybe this was his equivalent

I'm dont really understand spanish that well, but looking at the troops choice of a squad squad, they have laser pistols, and can be upgraded to laser rifles, and have upgrade options for meltagun, plasma rifle, etc.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I feel like there was some other thing you could stack on there . . . Can't remember.

Daemonic aura - a 4+ invulnerable that stacked with everything else.

Characters capable of casting from the librarian power set could also stack up an extra 4++, and an extra 3++(rolled per wound), and rerolls on everything, and toughness 10, and even a 4+ damage reflecting save vs melee attacks borrowed from the inquisition set.

No surprise that swooping hawk wings and vortex grenades were popular combinations. And the 'look out, sir - Aaargh!' card to no-sell it entirely...

Until it was FAQ’d you could have multiple Fixed Saves, but only ever rely on one per attack.

A.T. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I feel like there was some other thing you could stack on there . . . Can't remember.

Daemonic aura - a 4+ invulnerable that stacked with everything else.

Characters capable of casting from the librarian power set could also stack up an extra 4++, and an extra 3++(rolled per wound), and rerolls on everything, and toughness 10, and even a 4+ damage reflecting save vs melee attacks borrowed from the inquisition set.

No surprise that swooping hawk wings and vortex grenades were popular combinations. And the 'look out, sir - Aaargh!' card to no-sell it entirely...

Ahh "Daemonic Aura" that must have been it. And yep, vague memories for everything else listed, too.

My go-to was the Chaplain with Vortex Grenade, but some tournaments didn't allow the Vortex nade. A cheap and entertaining tactic against the tanky Lord was to throw a Blind grenade on him. Oh look, my army can't see your shot-blocker. I guess I have to shoot past him!

I was pretty happy when 3rd came around and most units only got one save, and characters could be Instant-Deathed with a Krak Missile or Lascannon equivalent. Those 2nd ed shennanigans were fun but tiresome.

 Kagetora wrote:
Bear in mind two things...

This was nearly 30 years ago, and all I remember for 100% sure is the bitter taste that some of that crap left.

Also, I was new to the game (although I'd been playing WFB and Battletech previously), so I may not have been the best player standing at a 40k tabletop.

I'll also point out that being able to turn a model so they can see 1-degree past an enemy model to something behind it isn't really a strong argument for the rules being good...just even more stupid.

You have a right to your own opinion, of course, but how much of the "stupid" was rampant rules abuse? In addition to getting targeting wrong, the character violated the FAQ that limited field saves.

A.T. wrote:

Characters capable of casting from the librarian power set could also stack up an extra 4++, and an extra 3++(rolled per wound), and rerolls on everything, and toughness 10, and even a 4+ damage reflecting save vs melee attacks borrowed from the inquisition set.

I mean, yes, in theory... but in practice, you were never actually going to have all of those in effect at once, even if you managed to draw those four specific powers for the psyker.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I was pretty happy when 3rd came around and most units only got one save, and characters could be Instant-Deathed with a Krak Missile or Lascannon equivalent. Those 2nd ed shennanigans were fun but tiresome.

There were a lot of players with a very thin grasp of the rules who pushed things into absurdity, and unfortunately that's what many people think 2nd was.

I initially welcomed 3rd because it was streamlined, faster and allowed bigger games, but all it really did was replace old cheats with new ones. Codex creep was still a thing, and then came the beginning of rules churn.

Going back to a "dead" edition allows a lot of the slop to be cleared out and gives one a more stable set of rules. Most if not all of the excesses were cleared away by the FAQs and a single page of clarifications.

Also, characters could be instant-deathed with Krak missiles and Lascannons in 2nd edition... Krak missiles did up to 10 wounds, and lascannons did up to 12.

 insaniak wrote:
Also, characters could be instant-deathed with Krak missiles and Lascannons in 2nd edition... Krak missiles did up to 10 wounds, and lascannons did up to 12.

Multi-meltas were 2d12! Even heavy bolters did d4, or d6 if using Hellfire. Assault cannon were d10 per hit, so you could really shred some stuff.

 insaniak wrote:
Also, characters could be instant-deathed with Krak missiles and Lascannons in 2nd edition... Krak missiles did up to 10 wounds, and lascannons did up to 12.

I think the point was more that those weapons could roll low enough to not kill the character. Conversely a lascannon could roll high enough to one shot a bloodthirster - having a heavy weapon with a damage output so varied seems pretty weird.

Their high damage was pretty much for armour penetration which really skewed their design.


3rd ed went for less gradation and more binary yes now - saves yes or no, dead yes or no. I have plenty of issues with the 3rd ed rules, but an anti tank weapon instantly killing an infantry model isn't one of them.

 Hellebore wrote:
Conversely a lascannon could roll high enough to one shot a bloodthirster ...

...and the fact that it wasn't guaranteed was precisely what made it so exciting.

It's already had 2 layers of uncertainty to get to the damage roll, plus the responding Saves, adding a fourth seems gratuitous, especially for something that takes up such large % of your army. Having it threatened so readily from easily accessible weapons, but 'balancing' it with a high randomness isn't that satisfying to me.

 insaniak wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Conversely a lascannon could roll high enough to one shot a bloodthirster ...

...and the fact that it wasn't guaranteed was precisely what made it so exciting.

Yeah, I'm normally with you on a lot of things Insaniak... But not here.

Randomness isn't bad or undesirable entirely, but excessive randomness isn't good for a game.

Sure. Which just makes it a matter of where you draw the line on 'excessive'. For me, all of the randomness of 2nd edition was what made the game what it was. The unpredictable nature of it all meant that every game was different, even if you used the exact same armies each time, and outcomes were more uncertain even if armies weren't entirely balanced.

With so much of that stripped out, games became much more samey and predictable, as often the likely outcome could be predicted just by looking at the army lists.

If I want to play Chess, I'll play Chess. If I want to see a mighty hero shrug off certain death from heavy weapons fire before leaping off a building, laying waste to a horde of enemy troops and ripping the turret off an enemy tank with his bare hands... that's what 2nd edition 40K is for.

Seems more of an in theory than a practically happens scenario though. You can't plan that, you can only look back on the game and notice that those unlikely events happened in a sequence, if they happened at all.

But 3rd ed allows those things to happen too - the character is wounded on a 1 so ignores the hit, or uses their invulnerable save to tank the shot, or gets missed entirely, jumps off difficult terrain and charges a tank in the rear to cause an explosion and charges into a squad, getting 6 attacks on the charge, killing half, winning combat and running the rest down.

In 2nd ed a marine captain will be losing combat by the 4th or 5th consecutive opponent. I used to love charging them gretchin and stabbing them with the 5th and 6th grotz, inflicting damage from sheer outnumbering.


I enjoy 2nd ed and have fond memories of various random aspects, but I also have very unfun memories of different random aspects. Nothing wrong with randomness and fluff flavour, I just like to be sensibly applied.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Kagetora wrote:
Bear in mind two things...

This was nearly 30 years ago, and all I remember for 100% sure is the bitter taste that some of that crap left.

Also, I was new to the game (although I'd been playing WFB and Battletech previously), so I may not have been the best player standing at a 40k tabletop.

I'll also point out that being able to turn a model so they can see 1-degree past an enemy model to something behind it isn't really a strong argument for the rules being good...just even more stupid.

You have a right to your own opinion, of course, but how much of the "stupid" was rampant rules abuse? In addition to getting targeting wrong, the character violated the FAQ that limited field saves.

Well, TBH, I'm not sure, as I said. 30 years and a n00b and all that. I have no idea if that FAQ had dropped or not. What I remember about those days is pretty simple...

--Battletech was fun until you realized there was really just one tactic, maximizing your chance to hit while minimizing your opponent's, then letting the dice do their work. I played it enough that it began to feel like tic-tac-toe.
--3rd edition WFB was an absolute blast once you realized you had to restrict some things (a few spells, some item abilities), and campaigns of it moving banners around a map and fighting battles when they met was my first "real" introduction to wargaming, and one that I still miss a bit. 7th edition was the height of WFB for me, but there'll always be a soft spot in my heart for 3rd.
--2nd edition 40k was where I started earnestly collecting and painting minis because I was out of college and had a job, and didn't need to proxy some things for WFB or look at my hideously painted Mechs anymore. When I started seeing some of the absolute garbage on the board (unkillable characters, Pulsa Rokkits, Virus Grenades, etc.), the sheen of newness wore off very quickly. I have zero fond memories of 2nd edition, but since I had an army and it was painted reasonably well, I dove head-first into 3rd and 3.5. Won some RT's, played a lot of games, and then when I got fed up with picking up a third of my army before I moved a model if I didn't go first, I swapped back into WFB in a big way. RT's, GT's, my army is even pictured in the 2004-2005 Catalogue and Hobby Reference (the "big blue book" GW used to publish).

I'm literally looking through a 2nd edition rulebook right now. I can see how it could be fun, just like 3rd WFB, with some restrictions and gentlemanly conduct. I was not privileged to receive such in the 90's, and as such, 2nd, for me, is a ludicrous set of rules where you can go full ham on your opponent. Feels bad, man.

But, yes, this is just my subjective opinion based on my experiences.

Yeah, fun in 2nd edition very much relied on playing with like-minded people. The Ork Pulsa Rokkit army, the Wolf Guard Terminator army, the Blood Claw all-chainsword/powerfist army, the all-flying-high and pop-up attack Eldar army... they were all problematic if you weren't expecting them.

The groups I played with varied over the years between deliberately avoiding anything too nasty, and deliberately trying to make the worst lists we could. Either way worked, so long as both players were showing up to the table with the same expectations.

 insaniak wrote:
Also, characters could be instant-deathed with Krak missiles and Lascannons in 2nd edition... Krak missiles did up to 10 wounds, and lascannons did up to 12.

It's the combo of multiple saves plus damage roll that's the bugger of 2nd. 3rd Insta Death meant often, no save, no damage roll. Sorry Calgar, that Lascannon caught you in the open. Remove from table.

If I had it my way a 1 wouldn't auto fail to wound either. That's a similar sort of unpleasantness as rolling a 2 or 3 on your charge roll. Beyond a certain threshold of S vs. V auto-wound is justified imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Sure. Which just makes it a matter of where you draw the line on 'excessive'. For me, all of the randomness of 2nd edition was what made the game what it was. The unpredictable nature of it all meant that every game was different, even if you used the exact same armies each time, and outcomes were more uncertain even if armies weren't entirely balanced.

With so much of that stripped out, games became much more samey and predictable, as often the likely outcome could be predicted just by looking at the army lists.

If I want to play Chess, I'll play Chess. If I want to see a mighty hero shrug off certain death from heavy weapons fire before leaping off a building, laying waste to a horde of enemy troops and ripping the turret off an enemy tank with his bare hands... that's what 2nd edition 40K is for.

I don't think randomness made 2nd. It was more the crunchy detail of it which brought a ton of character and really helped illustrate this fantastical world of 40k. The extra detail could be cumbersome, but it also did a great job of bringing it to life.

The detail also brought a whole bunch of interesting tactics with it. . . . Once you got past your typical power army plays. I dunno if the Pulsa-Rokkit army counts as "interesting".

 Kagetora wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Kagetora wrote:
Bear in mind two things...

This was nearly 30 years ago, and all I remember for 100% sure is the bitter taste that some of that crap left.

Also, I was new to the game (although I'd been playing WFB and Battletech previously), so I may not have been the best player standing at a 40k tabletop.

I'll also point out that being able to turn a model so they can see 1-degree past an enemy model to something behind it isn't really a strong argument for the rules being good...just even more stupid.

You have a right to your own opinion, of course, but how much of the "stupid" was rampant rules abuse? In addition to getting targeting wrong, the character violated the FAQ that limited field saves.

Well, TBH, I'm not sure, as I said. 30 years and a n00b and all that. I have no idea if that FAQ had dropped or not. What I remember about those days is pretty simple...

--Battletech was fun until you realized there was really just one tactic, maximizing your chance to hit while minimizing your opponent's, then letting the dice do their work. I played it enough that it began to feel like tic-tac-toe.
--3rd edition WFB was an absolute blast once you realized you had to restrict some things (a few spells, some item abilities), and campaigns of it moving banners around a map and fighting battles when they met was my first "real" introduction to wargaming, and one that I still miss a bit. 7th edition was the height of WFB for me, but there'll always be a soft spot in my heart for 3rd.
--2nd edition 40k was where I started earnestly collecting and painting minis because I was out of college and had a job, and didn't need to proxy some things for WFB or look at my hideously painted Mechs anymore. When I started seeing some of the absolute garbage on the board (unkillable characters, Pulsa Rokkits, Virus Grenades, etc.), the sheen of newness wore off very quickly. I have zero fond memories of 2nd edition, but since I had an army and it was painted reasonably well, I dove head-first into 3rd and 3.5. Won some RT's, played a lot of games, and then when I got fed up with picking up a third of my army before I moved a model if I didn't go first, I swapped back into WFB in a big way. RT's, GT's, my army is even pictured in the 2004-2005 Catalogue and Hobby Reference (the "big blue book" GW used to publish).

I'm literally looking through a 2nd edition rulebook right now. I can see how it could be fun, just like 3rd WFB, with some restrictions and gentlemanly conduct. I was not privileged to receive such in the 90's, and as such, 2nd, for me, is a ludicrous set of rules where you can go full ham on your opponent. Feels bad, man.

But, yes, this is just my subjective opinion based on my experiences.

I have kind of formed the opinion that the 2nd edition codex's would have worked pretty good in the 3rd edition rules. And maybe you could have kept AP reducing armor saves, and instead of cover providing its own cover save, cover could have reduced AP of weapons based on how lighty or heavy the cover was. And maybe terminator armor should have been 3+ save rolling 1d12 instead of 2d6, and maybe invulnerable saves should have just been something where you roll 1d12 for the invuln save but AP still applies to it

 insaniak wrote:
Sure. Which just makes it a matter of where you draw the line on 'excessive'.

Being a dice game there is always the chance of a string of 1s or the like, but I think 'excessive' - at least for me - is when the swing of luck exceeds reasonable precaution.

i.e. deciding whether or not to dedicte an extra unit to a task because one unit might reasonably fail 1/6th of the time. You might not need it, you might fail regardless, but it is the kind of randomness where you feel like you have some control.

Compared to the early mission card implementation for example, where you'd randomly draw the twelve labours of hercules as your objects while the opponent would score six points on the first turn for having units in their own deployment zone.

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, fun in 2nd edition very much relied on playing with like-minded people. The Ork Pulsa Rokkit army, the Wolf Guard Terminator army, the Blood Claw all-chainsword/powerfist army, the all-flying-high and pop-up attack Eldar army... they were all problematic if you weren't expecting them.

The groups I played with varied over the years between deliberately avoiding anything too nasty, and deliberately trying to make the worst lists we could. Either way worked, so long as both players were showing up to the table with the same expectations.

I think that is true of any game that requires social interaction, even more so with 40K even including editions i like most. 3rd-5th still required players to not be "that guy". to me the attitude most desired is what GW used to put in all the books-remember that the game should be fun for both players-

That's why, for me, thematic play always tops "balanced" play when it comes to 40k or WHFBs i am doing epic GAK in the 40K setting for LOLs with my friends. we can talk GAK to each other or inter-factionally about our boyz and see where the dice take us. and when i look at the table i can clearly see i am facing some white scars, bad moons or Iyanden craftworld forces because of the army composition.

A.T. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Sure. Which just makes it a matter of where you draw the line on 'excessive'.

Being a dice game there is always the chance of a string of 1s or the like, but I think 'excessive' - at least for me - is when the swing of luck exceeds reasonable precaution.

i.e. deciding whether or not to dedicte an extra unit to a task because one unit might reasonably fail 1/6th of the time. You might not need it, you might fail regardless, but it is the kind of randomness where you feel like you have some control.

Compared to the early mission card implementation for example, where you'd randomly draw the twelve labours of hercules as your objects while the opponent would score six points on the first turn for having units in their own deployment zone.

It's a matter of how much randomness you want in a game. Chess, or Craps? Or somewhere in-between?

I can literally beat any odds. Personal story time warning. I was at an RT at an LGS down in San Diego in the early 2000's. I brought my Eldar, all on foot, and had two squads of Dark Reapers with Exarchs and Quick Shot. I was playing Tyranids. My opponent had a Lictor pop-up in a flank (I don't even remember the rules for Lictors 25 years ago), threatening them with a charge next turn. It shouldn't have been a problem, despite one squad being down two Reapers.

I picked up four dice for the normal Reapers. Hit on 3's, wound on 3's, Lictor has 3 wounds. I proceed to roll four 1's. My shoulders sag and I sigh. Ok, Exarch time. 2 shots hitting on 2's, wounding on 2's, auto-kill because it's twice the Lictor's toughness. I roll two more 1's.

Ok, darn. Now I have to commit the other squad. I pick up eight more dice for the Reapers. Eight 1's. Yes, seriously. We're up to fourteen 1's in a row now. I just look at the player across from me. Even they can't believe it. Sighing, I pick up the Exarch's dice. A 1 and a 2. Praise to the dead Eldar Gods, I hit once! A single 2 to wound, and I'm golden. I roll a 1.



Sixteen 1's out of seventeen dice. Anyone want to calculate the odds of that single Lictor's survival? It proceeded to charge, do some damage to the full squad in his turn, finish them off and consolidate in my turn, then delete the damaged squad in their next turn. Cost me the game.

I grabbed my dice when we were done, walked out the front door, and hurled them across the parking lot into the road beyond. Went back in and donated to my LGS for new dice to keep going.

Why do I share this painful story? Besides the hilarity of it all?

You can never predict "when the swing of luck exceeds reasonable precaution." We're rolling dice. Swings happen. I defy anyone to tell of a worse (better?) one than mine, but it happens. We're not playing chess, at best we're playing backgammon. You can tune the rules to eliminate randomness, or enhance it.

Which would you rather play? Remember, others might feel different. There's a balance to strike, but where do you want to move the needle to?

 Kagetora wrote:

Sixteen 1's out of seventeen dice. Anyone want to calculate the odds of that single Lictor's survival?

Assuming completely fair dice, 0.000,000,000,5%, which is one in 200 billion.

Which is quite beyond what most people would call reasonable, even if as you experienced still possible.

 Kagetora wrote:
Which would you rather play? Remember, others might feel different. There's a balance to strike, but where do you want to move the needle to?

I'm ok with being able to play well or play conservatively to stack the deck in my favour and then getting unlucky.

I'm not fond of deus-ex-machina where the big random table in the sky is more statistically significant than my choices - something like bad weather in bloodbowl where I can switch up my style to adapt is fine, something like a fireball being randomly tossed onto the field every turn on the other hand is completely unearned.

Similarly when the odds or unit capabilities become too variable to predict in any meaningful way. If you take an 80% shot and fail then ok, if you take a ??% shot and ?? ?? ?? - it just makes it difficult to enjoy your success when you weren't much of a part of it. At least for me.

Agreed, I find games where I feel like the win/loss was my choices during the game are more engaging and easier to learn and play than those where

1) The unit choices are so swingy that taking the wrong army leads to an auto win/loss situation. Within reason of course, each game has to have some ground fundamentals for building an army up that players should learn

2) The dice rolls are the win-loss. This is a reason I hate the AoS Duel Turn mechanic because its such an insanely swingy aspect of the game state and its a single dice roll.
It doesn't actually end up feeling cinematic but like an auto win/loss punishment on the game.

Cinematic is when two evenly matched generals are facing off in a duel where either one could win and each dice roll is them trading blows where they could win or die; but similarly that's just one part of the battle in itself not the whole game.