Switch Theme:

Warhammer 40k – A System that is breaking under its own weight and inconsistancies  [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 us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba





 Xenomancers wrote:
Tyel wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Being in a real battle isn't fun but pretending to control armies in war like situations is a blast for me. How do you end up playing a wargame if you don't find that fun? I get 40k isnt a war sim but it has always been more like a wargame than a board game - just a little less complicated.


I think my major clash with what I'm going to call the "verisimilitude" wing of the forum is that no, I don't really find 40k to be a wargame. It doesn't, hasn't and never will simulate what real war is like.

Its a game. Its a game you can think deeply about (whatever people say) and a game with cool models, with fluff and everything else - but its still a game.

I guess I can relate a bit. I used to think WHFB did have a degree of verisimilitude. Part of the draw (going back to the 90s though, when special rules and so on were far rarer beyond hero-hammer) was the idea that this is what medieval style battles would be like, but if you had wizards and monsters etc too. I think the game eventually imploded in part because that fiction was impossible to maintain. By 8th edition I feel there was nothing approaching a real battle - instead it was "dance out of charge arcs with your flying wizard while 6 dicing dwellers". Having multiple immaculately painted blocks of infantry with banners and musicians became actively *bad*.

But I never felt that with 40k. Maybe its just the lack of imagination - but "how would genetically modified super humans really fight undead robots" just produces a "???" response.
There is perhaps an itch of "this should represent the fluff" - but you have the inevitable problem of "if everything is awesome nothing is".

If 40k was *realistic* it would largely just consist of "due to superior logistics I've concentrated 3 times as many forces against you. Do you want to fight this doomed position or run away? Okay you run away. Do you manage to get away or are you forced to surrender? Now, repeat this process dozens of times and determine how that bit of the campaign went".

You'd never roll a dice to fire a boltgun in anger. It would all be a formality.

It wouldn't be fun if the scales weren't balanced. Or youd have to make special scenarios with different objectives for each side. Survive the meat grinder for 5 turns and you win (starship troopers style). Or Break through...get a particular unit through an ambush. That kind of stuff. Even armies meeting on the field is just fun though. In general historically armies that weren't well matches wouldn't fight - so it make sense that we only battle in more even situations.

Anyways - my point remains the same. The game has too many silly rules and game design elements fighting to make melee viable while ignoring the fact melee is fundamentally inferior to range. It's why battleships fell to aircraft carriers. It's why the gun made the sword irrelevant. This game literally declares that battleships and carriers will fight within 15 miles of each other and the battleship gets to have twice the movement speed...just because. It fundamentally breaks any real strategy for what should be effective.


You are quite literally going to have to go and make your own wargame from scratch if you want to remove the melee from 40k.

I would hazard to say roughly 1/2 of the units in the game are melee focused or have at least some mixed capability.

Your solution here is effectively "Well, I think a third to a half of people who play the game should have their stuff be either deleted or actively bad on purpose" and it's just not gonna happen my dude, I'm sorry that you're mad that it isn't a game of napoleonic line up your cannons and shoot each other from across the board. 40k is never going to be that. Want it all you like.

"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
Ancient Chaos Terminator




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Xenomancers wrote:I agree with the OP about his 3rd point. Guns vs melee equation in real world isn't - I shoot at you with one burst and then you are on me with a sword. That is what Napoleonic wars were like even in that scenario every unit on the field had a freaking gun. Anyways - units move speed has been inflated to insane levels to keep melee viable. The issue is it's overpowering shooting at this point and not by a little - by a lot.

Can walk through walls - but can't shoot through them. Units taking fire - their movement isn't hindered in any way. You get bonus move for making a charge? Forced to fight every battle like the siege of berlin? Only way to score objectives is to overrun in melee? Melee stops units from shooting but the units that just flew across the table swinging giant axes - they are ready for another round of melee before I get to shoot again. Like...can we stop with this? Melee's issue has always been that it's weapons cost too much. However now with the ability to start the game in melee practically - they clearly cost too little.


Xenomancers wrote:
Tyel wrote:
You know when people say 40k is a shallow game all about mathhammer and nothing else? They are referring to two players bringing gunline castles on planet bowling ball. The idea this is desirable is crazy.
Sounds like a real battle to me.

These opinions are not shocking. You know, there's a reason Ultramarines and Tau are both blue right?
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






I never said melee should be removed. Far from it - melee can be an important aspect. It can't overly inflated like it is now opposed to ranged. You don't make melee viable by nerfing range and forcing all battles to be fought in a city fight. You don't make melee viable by changing how objectives are scored. You fix melee by making it cheaper or something. Plus - if this isn't a Napoleonic type battle why do we line up in deployment zones that look like battle lines? It's not like melee didnt exist in those times. Calvary was a huge part of those armies - they even used swords.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Possibly because suppression doesn't exist and if you want to interact with a model in Warhammer the only way to do that is to kill it?

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267 
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut




There are several in universe reasons why melee is prevalent.

- Several opponents will swarm you (Tyranids, Cultists, Orks).
- Battles are fought in the narrow corridors of space ships. Boarding actions are a thing.
- Weapon technology on average isn't all that impressive, compared to the armor that most armies are issuing to their troops. Think about it. Before the weapon revamp of 8th edition, even the mighty Bolter would just penetrate basic flak armor of renegade militia. Everything a little bit more armored is well protected against these rocket propelled mini grenades. Terminator armor would withstand everything except plasma, melta and lascannons.

On the other side a humble power weapon of any sort (pre AP change) cuts open any kind of armor. Even now a power sword is much more adapt to kill a Terminator or even a tank, than most of the guns.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






a_typical_hero wrote:
There are several in universe reasons why melee is prevalent.

- Several opponents will swarm you (Tyranids, Cultists, Orks).
- Battles are fought in the narrow corridors of space ships. Boarding actions are a thing.
- Weapon technology on average isn't all that impressive, compared to the armor that most armies are issuing to their troops. Think about it. Before the weapon revamp of 8th edition, even the mighty Bolter would just penetrate basic flak armor of renegade militia. Everything a little bit more armored is well protected against these rocket propelled mini grenades. Terminator armor would withstand everything except plasma, melta and lascannons.

On the other side a humble power weapon of any sort (pre AP change) cuts open any kind of armor. Even now a power sword is much more adapt to kill a Terminator or even a tank, than most of the guns.


I've always thought about it in nearly exactly these same terms.

Generally speaking too, the fielded of battle is pretty crowded with a lot of terrain and things move through it all relatively quickly all considered. The frantic nature of battle, explosions going off, the close quarters, the limited sight distances etc. are also contributing factors for why ranged combat isn't more deadly. Plus, you know, even the most basic guard unit probably juiced up on all sorts of crazy meds.

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer 40k: Enhanced 5th Edition... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in se
[DCM]
δ³Σx²





a_typical_hero wrote:
There are several in universe reasons why melee is prevalent.

- Several opponents will swarm you (Tyranids, Cultists, Orks).
- Battles are fought in the narrow corridors of space ships. Boarding actions are a thing.
- Weapon technology on average isn't all that impressive, compared to the armor that most armies are issuing to their troops. Think about it. Before the weapon revamp of 8th edition, even the mighty Bolter would just penetrate basic flak armor of renegade militia. Everything a little bit more armored is well protected against these rocket propelled mini grenades. Terminator armor would withstand everything except plasma, melta and lascannons.

On the other side a humble power weapon of any sort (pre AP change) cuts open any kind of armor. Even now a power sword is much more adapt to kill a Terminator or even a tank, than most of the guns.


I would also add how fast everything probably is. SMs are super fast, eldar are super fast, nids, orks, crons ...etc ... fast. And those who arn't (gaurd and tau) not so good in the melee . I think the idea is there is a lot of arms dodging as well. I wonder if modern warfare would still see line battles if soldiers were able to just dodge bullets all the time XD ... (I have been playing a lot of Holdfast lately ... XD line battles are silly but do in fact make a difference in that game)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/11/10 22:21:17


As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
 
   
Made in au
Rookie Pilot




Brisbane

Nurglitch wrote:

Yeah, incidentally that is what I hate about Knights. You can slow them down, and maybe reduce their speed and WS/BS slightly, but you're not going to be able to remove firepower like you can with infantry, and they're such a big lump of points you lose a lot of the granularity of the infantry-based game. Like, if you could shoot weapons off them, or even force them to make fall back moves, or basically do anything interesting with them except hope to kill them first.


A couple of weeks ago my friends and I tried reviving the flavour of 3E by adding an 'Elected Vehicle Damage System'. Essentially the EVDS added wounds to the weapons on a vehicle - you could shoot the hull, no problems there, but say you wanted to shut down a Leman Russ' Punisher Cannon and didn't want to have to blast your way through 12W to do that, you could attempt to take out the specific weapon. We designed this system to get around the so called 'Catachan Abuse' of Heavy Flamers and Track Guards, (such as double HF Chimeras) thereby completely ignoring vehicle damage charts, and adding bonus rerolls to shot counts.

EVDS:

-2 to hit (independant of the +/- 1 modifier cap) this is to signify the army having to aim for small components on a somewhat smaller target.
+1 T and +1 Save versus the target's hull (basic profile)
1W for basic weapons/additional weapons outside of the profile (not including 'replace X with Y), so things like Heavy Stubbers or Storm Bolters
+1W for Heavy
+1W for Turret/Arm Weapons
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 13W
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 20W
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 30W
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 45W

So a Leman Russ Exterminator would have the following: 12W, T8, 3+
It's hull Lascannon would have: 2W, T9, 2+
It's Exterminator Autocannon would have 3W, T9, 2+

An Ork Trukk would have just 1W, T7, 3+ on its' Big Shoota.

Wounds inflicted on weapons would not carry over to the hull. So that adds a choice: Do you try to incapacitate the vehicle at a cost of being unable to damage it further, or do you simply shoot the Hull and take it out?

The system worked quite well, and at one point we had a Basilisk sniping a Deathstrike's missile off it before it could fire.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/11/11 00:18:47


I will not rest until the Tabletop Imperial Guard has been reduced to complete mediocrity. This is completely reflected in the lore. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 VladimirHerzog wrote:

yes, and even this isnt opressive because some of the more advanced-tech faction's elite units have goggles that can see through various type of grenades (basic smoke, nanomachine smokes, etc)


Actually with the new edition every faction has the ability to see through it, albeit with a notable penalty.
   
Made in se
[DCM]
δ³Σx²





 Slayer6 wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:

Yeah, incidentally that is what I hate about Knights. You can slow them down, and maybe reduce their speed and WS/BS slightly, but you're not going to be able to remove firepower like you can with infantry, and they're such a big lump of points you lose a lot of the granularity of the infantry-based game. Like, if you could shoot weapons off them, or even force them to make fall back moves, or basically do anything interesting with them except hope to kill them first.


A couple of weeks ago my friends and I tried reviving the flavour of 3E by adding an 'Elected Vehicle Damage System'. Essentially the EVDS added wounds to the weapons on a vehicle - you could shoot the hull, no problems there, but say you wanted to shut down a Leman Russ' Punisher Cannon and didn't want to have to blast your way through 12W to do that, you could attempt to take out the specific weapon. We designed this system to get around the so called 'Catachan Abuse' of Heavy Flamers and Track Guards, (such as double HF Chimeras) with rerolls to shot counts thereby completely ignoring vehicle damage charts.

EVDS:

-2 to hit (independant of the +/- 1 modifier cap) this is to signify the army having to aim for small components on a somewhat smaller target.
+1 T and +1 Save versus the target's hull (basic profile)
1W for basic weapons/additional weapons outside of the profile (not including 'replace X with Y), so things like Heavy Stubbers or Storm Bolters
+1W for Heavy
+1W for Turret/Arm Weapons
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 13W
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 20W
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 30W
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 45W

So a Leman Russ Exterminator would have the following: 12W, T8, 3+
It's hull Lascannon would have: 2W, T9, 2+
It's Exterminator Autocannon would have 3W, T9, 2+

An Ork Trukk would have just 1W, T7, 3+ on its' Big Shoota.

Wounds inflicted on weapons would not carry over to the hull. So that adds a choice: Do you try to incapacitate the vehicle at a cost of being unable to damage it further, or do you simply shoot the Hull and take it out?

The system worked quite well, and at one point we had a Basilisk sniping a Deathstrike's missile off it before it could fire.


I like the idea of this.
Reminds me a bit of battletech.
However, I think this goes against the streamlining and simplifications GW aims for since 8th edition.
I would totally love to play with this though.
I also really miss vehicle wrecks, its nice having game events change the battlefield. As a slight segue XD scatter dice were cool too, but i do understand how they increased game length in terms of extra measurement steps and potential debates.

As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Halifax

 Slayer6 wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:

Yeah, incidentally that is what I hate about Knights. You can slow them down, and maybe reduce their speed and WS/BS slightly, but you're not going to be able to remove firepower like you can with infantry, and they're such a big lump of points you lose a lot of the granularity of the infantry-based game. Like, if you could shoot weapons off them, or even force them to make fall back moves, or basically do anything interesting with them except hope to kill them first.


A couple of weeks ago my friends and I tried reviving the flavour of 3E by adding an 'Elected Vehicle Damage System'. Essentially the EVDS added wounds to the weapons on a vehicle - you could shoot the hull, no problems there, but say you wanted to shut down a Leman Russ' Punisher Cannon and didn't want to have to blast your way through 12W to do that, you could attempt to take out the specific weapon. We designed this system to get around the so called 'Catachan Abuse' of Heavy Flamers and Track Guards, (such as double HF Chimeras) thereby completely ignoring vehicle damage charts, and adding bonus rerolls to shot counts.

EVDS:

-2 to hit (independant of the +/- 1 modifier cap) this is to signify the army having to aim for small components on a somewhat smaller target.
+1 T and +1 Save versus the target's hull (basic profile)
1W for basic weapons/additional weapons outside of the profile (not including 'replace X with Y), so things like Heavy Stubbers or Storm Bolters
+1W for Heavy
+1W for Turret/Arm Weapons
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 13W
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 20W
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 30W
+1W if the Vehicle has more than 45W

So a Leman Russ Exterminator would have the following: 12W, T8, 3+
It's hull Lascannon would have: 2W, T9, 2+
It's Exterminator Autocannon would have 3W, T9, 2+

An Ork Trukk would have just 1W, T7, 3+ on its' Big Shoota.

Wounds inflicted on weapons would not carry over to the hull. So that adds a choice: Do you try to incapacitate the vehicle at a cost of being unable to damage it further, or do you simply shoot the Hull and take it out?

The system worked quite well, and at one point we had a Basilisk sniping a Deathstrike's missile off it before it could fire.

I figured something like a combination of the 5th edition rules and T/Sv+/W, so each time your vehicle/monster/character takes a wound they roll 1D6 with the following

1 - Shaken, must pass leadership to shoot
2 - Stunned, must pass leadership to move or shoot
3 - Immobilized, +1 if already immobilized
4 - Weapon Destroyed, +1 if all weapons destroyed
5 - Instant Death
6 - Instant Death - Explodes xDy mortal wounds

That's assuming most infantry would have W1.

   
Made in ca
Mysterious Techpriest






 Type40 wrote:


However, I think this goes against the streamlining and simplifications GW aims for since 8th edition.


i think this is the core of why modern 40k feels so lackluster compared to other less popular wargames.
Evidently GW's business strategy is to bring in as many new players as possible , and its working very well. This coupled with the inertia the company has by being the wargaming company means its gonna keep being popular as it is.

This means that sadly we have to sacrifice any real depth the game could have and all these interesting suggestions that we have seen will be relegated to homebrews.

Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in se
[DCM]
δ³Σx²





 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Type40 wrote:


However, I think this goes against the streamlining and simplifications GW aims for since 8th edition.


i think this is the core of why modern 40k feels so lackluster compared to other less popular wargames.
Evidently GW's business strategy is to bring in as many new players as possible , and its working very well. This coupled with the inertia the company has by being the wargaming company means its gonna keep being popular as it is.

This means that sadly we have to sacrifice any real depth the game could have and all these interesting suggestions that we have seen will be relegated to homebrews.


I can totally relate to this perspective.
I guess in my mind, I have just filed current 40k in a category of "casual simplified table top army game" v.s. games like WM/H as "competitive precise table top game" v.s. games like battletech "highly detailed, high depth, battlefield simulation game"

I just kind of feel like,,, if I feel like playing the other kind of game,,, I'll play one of those other games... then when I feel like playing something a bit more casual or social that feels a bit less 'intense' and forgiving, I play current 40k.

I do get where your coming from though. I understand not wanting to lose the depth the game used to have. But I will be honest, I got back into 40k v.s. exclusively playing more indie tabletops because it fit a more casual, narrative and social category that those other games just weren't hitting for me.

So to me, the direction GW took the game has, for better or for worse, carved out a bit of a niche separate from the next most popular table top games, IMO.

I like the fine details and higher level granularity 40k used to have (and the cool features of the game that came with that like scatter dice, vehicles wrecks and etc)... but I also like the direction they are going in ...

I think there is room in the gaming world for all kinds of games, including current 40k... But I do understand the sentiment that you don't want 40k, the game you are most invested in(I assume), to go in a direction you didn't sign up for.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/11/11 01:58:23


As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man




Astonished of Heck

SecondTime wrote:Giving players like you hope is actually a nerf to bolters. Just introducing the idea that its going to get something done opens up more poor choices for the player. In other words, I WANT you shooting bolters at my tough stuff even though its mathematically superior to previous editions.

I prefer to look at it as the Bolters will have a use even when there normal prey isn't available. The really bad part is that from 3rd through 7th, if you have an anti-Vehicle weapon in a squad, the Bolters were pretty much useless if you wanted/needed the AT to do its job. Now that they can all shoot in any direction they want is the time they can possibly hurt the Vehicles. GW implementation at its finest.

Xenomancers wrote: Never played warmachine except a few times just jacking around. It is known in that game that shooting is pretty weak from what I have been told. Could be worse isn't an excuse IMO.

Cute pun.

Could be worse is just a statement to counter a complaint. I rather disagree on the concept that the effective range of advanced firepower is within charge range. It rather defeats the purpose of ranged weaponry in the first place. For the most part I think 40K's ranges are in a good place. It isn't in the Charge range (for most weapons) but it isn't in Infinity's range where a lot of the weapons would be easier to just say "table".

Xenomancers wrote:
Tyel wrote:
You know when people say 40k is a shallow game all about mathhammer and nothing else? They are referring to two players bringing gunline castles on planet bowling ball. The idea this is desirable is crazy.
Sounds like a real battle to me.

Not to me. The closest we've had in modern warfare involves tank maneuvers in the deserts of North Africa and Asia Minor. Americans found out the hard way about how dangerous it is on a field with pre-modern weaponry, which lead to the trench warfare of WW1. And no field or desert is truly flat. Natural folds in the earth can provide a surprising amount of cover for infantry to maneuver with to say nothing about forest and cities.

Xenomancers wrote:What if you both have good models then what is it? Like a fight? I bet tactics and positioning will come in handy then.

A lot of that comes in with what is called "scenario play", where taking and holding areas and points is more useful than grinding the army or assassinating their lead character. The terrain is pretty sparse, though. Closer to Age of Sigmar than 40K. Playing a WMH scenario on an Infinity table would provide a lot more interesting concepts in positioning.

Of course the spells and Feats the Warcasters and Warlocks are the focus of those tactics.

Hecaton wrote:Infinity has a really interesting mechanic with "smoke grenades" that allow players to change the LoF of the table by leaving smoke clouds in places.

WMH has them, too, in both mechanical and magical sources. It does make one wonder why GW has not implemented that. Would work remarkably well for Daemons, Knornates, and the like.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Charistoph wrote:
...
Hecaton wrote:Infinity has a really interesting mechanic with "smoke grenades" that allow players to change the LoF of the table by leaving smoke clouds in places.

WMH has them, too, in both mechanical and magical sources. It does make one wonder why GW has not implemented that. Would work remarkably well for Daemons, Knornates, and the like.


Shhh. They'll make smoke AOE minis at $35/model and you'll have to use true line of sight to see whether they actually block line of sight to anything.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/11 05:08:54


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
...
Hecaton wrote:Infinity has a really interesting mechanic with "smoke grenades" that allow players to change the LoF of the table by leaving smoke clouds in places.

WMH has them, too, in both mechanical and magical sources. It does make one wonder why GW has not implemented that. Would work remarkably well for Daemons, Knornates, and the like.


Shhh. They'll make smoke AOE minis at $35/model and you'll have to use true line of sight to see whether they actually block line of sight to anything.


XD I'm fething dying over here.
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






Well, it's not like these things aren't exactly that for AoS.

Another thing I feel like it's underused is mines. There quite a few units which can lay mines, but doing so always feels like a waste of time.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/11 08:42:28


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man




Astonished of Heck

 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
...
Hecaton wrote:Infinity has a really interesting mechanic with "smoke grenades" that allow players to change the LoF of the table by leaving smoke clouds in places.

WMH has them, too, in both mechanical and magical sources. It does make one wonder why GW has not implemented that. Would work remarkably well for Daemons, Knornates, and the like.


Shhh. They'll make smoke AOE minis at $35/model and you'll have to use true line of sight to see whether they actually block line of sight to anything.

Which only makes it MORE amazing that they haven't implemented it in two forms. "Grenade" form where it is thrown out to block and the "Smoke Launchers" version that has been on numerous editions of Imperium Vehicles over the years.

Maybe it's just because they KNOW people will use it, but substitute stretched out cotton swabs in their place. At most all they'll get is base sales out of it.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in it
Been Around the Block




 Xenomancers wrote:
I never said melee should be removed. Far from it - melee can be an important aspect. It can't overly inflated like it is now opposed to ranged. You don't make melee viable by nerfing range and forcing all battles to be fought in a city fight. You don't make melee viable by changing how objectives are scored. You fix melee by making it cheaper or something. Plus - if this isn't a Napoleonic type battle why do we line up in deployment zones that look like battle lines? It's not like melee didnt exist in those times. Calvary was a huge part of those armies - they even used swords.

I think to have understood what you mean (correct me, if I'm worng): you would want a more credible game (credible, not realistic), in which the close combat phase doesn't seems artificially added "frustrating" the shooting phase, but intelligently integrated in the game system, "playing" with the possibility that the sci-fi setting of W40k gives us. For example one way to achieve that could be take advantage of the possibility to teleport a terminator squad directly in the middle of the enemy troops, another could be to give the infiltration to the assault squad, because in these way the assault troops could engage a close combat avoiding the enemy fire; obviously it should be necessary give to the various army the possibility to defend themselves by these kind of attacks.
Unfortunately you might achieve this result only getting rid of the GW's rules and create a new set of rules from scratch, because the W40k's mechanics aren't compatible with that kind of evolution of the game: you should also make other changes (like revolutionize the movement phase and/or use the Epic miniatures) and I have the feelings the W40k's gamers aren't interested in a so radical change.
If I'm right, it would be a kind of evolution that I would love to see.

P.S & O.T. Am I wrong or in the Imperial Guard Codex (eighth edition) there aren't Attilian Rouge Riders?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/11 19:22:53


If the Imperial Truth were right, the Gods of Chaos shouldn't exist, but this means that they shouldn't had been able to corrupt Horus, so his heresy shouldn't had happened. But because the Horus Heresy happened, the Gods exist, then the Emperor of Mankind is truly our God, so he is infallible and this prove that the Imperial Truth is true. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Halifax

Something I thought would be good would be to combine the shooting phase and the close combat phase, so that players pick a unit (player whose turn it is picks first, etc) to attack, either piling in with close combat or shooting, and sorting it out like that.

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Build the scenarios and table set up to allow the viability of melee.

Planet bowling ball? Shooting paradise.

Claustrophobic hive Warren? dark passages, dead ends, sharp turns, limited visibility, plenty places to hide and spring an ambush? Perfect. The kind of territory where pistols, knives, knuckledusters shotguns and the occasional stubber have more value than a titan that can vaporise a city from twelve miles distance.

Tbf probably works better for necromunda or kill team than the 'army games'.

greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






It's not like GW didn't put pictures of how they expect tables to look into the rulebook...

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Jidmah wrote:
It's not like GW didn't put pictures of how they expect tables to look into the rulebook...


True, but those photos are not rules.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






Nurglitch wrote:
Something I thought would be good would be to combine the shooting phase and the close combat phase, so that players pick a unit (player whose turn it is picks first, etc) to attack, either piling in with close combat or shooting, and sorting it out like that.
Movement/shooting/ and assault should just be one phase. Units should have x number of action points they can use in this phase. Say 2 on average. You can move and make a shooting action - stay still and shoot twice - move and make an assault action - make 2 fight actions - ect. There should be no free actions.

Assault weapons for example should be able to make shooting actions during a move action with a -1 to hit.
Heavy weapons could take 2 action points to make a shooting action. Say a unit like centurions can make shooting actions with heavy weapons for 1 action point.
Units with close combat weapons should be able to make assault actions after 2 move actions for free (they can fight but they don't get free movement)
Something like this would work way better than what we have now.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Hammerer





washington state USA

Blastaar wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
It's not like GW didn't put pictures of how they expect tables to look into the rulebook...


True, but those photos are not rules.


There were actually rules for it. section the table off into quarters, fill 1/4 of the table with a mix of area and blocking LOS terrain then spread it across the entire table.


Movement/shooting/ and assault should just be one phase. Units should have x number of action points they can use in this phase. Say 2 on average. You can move and make a shooting action - stay still and shoot twice - move and make an assault action - make 2 fight actions - ect. There should be no free actions.


Hi, welcome to DUST (just add in alternating activation and a reaction mechanic).

Apparently Andy Chambers already beat you to the punch when he made the rules for dust



 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 aphyon wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
It's not like GW didn't put pictures of how they expect tables to look into the rulebook...


True, but those photos are not rules.


There were actually rules for it. section the table off into quarters, fill 1/4 of the table with a mix of area and blocking LOS terrain then spread it across the entire table.


Movement/shooting/ and assault should just be one phase. Units should have x number of action points they can use in this phase. Say 2 on average. You can move and make a shooting action - stay still and shoot twice - move and make an assault action - make 2 fight actions - ect. There should be no free actions.


Hi, welcome to DUST (just add in alternating activation and a reaction mechanic).

Apparently Andy Chambers already beat you to the punch when he made the rules for dust



I think its the natural progression when you break things down. Too many phases in this game. OP touched on it.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut




 Jidmah wrote:
It's not like GW didn't put pictures of how they expect tables to look into the rulebook...


Tbh I remeber (since 2nd ed.and I've been an avid WD reader for a few editions of WH40K) most White Dwarf battle reports being along those lines:
Spoiler:






i.e. no LOS-blocking terrain, armies deploy opposite each other and run at each other screaming and rolling dice, with someone, occasionally, getting the cover bonus in some crater. Which was never a good approach to playing this game.
   
Made in ca
Mysterious Techpriest






Or you could have units have either actions with different costs to them

movement action.
short action.
long action.

then allow each activation to do either a long action or 2 (in any combination) short/movement action.
then have it so your opponent can react everytime you activate a unit to do stuff like shoot back, dodge or even try and hack your robots.


Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut




 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Or you could have units have either actions with different costs to them

movement action.
short action.
long action.

then allow each activation to do either a long action or 2 (in any combination) short/movement action.
then have it so your opponent can react everytime you activate a unit to do stuff like shoot back, dodge or even try and hack your robots.



Ahh, Warzone and Chronopia... such neat systems with amateurish balance that made them unplayable But the action system was really good, expecially in Chronopia. I believe it may have had direct influence on Warmachine, which just improved and tidied up the idea.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Halifax

 Xenomancers wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
Something I thought would be good would be to combine the shooting phase and the close combat phase, so that players pick a unit (player whose turn it is picks first, etc) to attack, either piling in with close combat or shooting, and sorting it out like that.
Movement/shooting/ and assault should just be one phase. Units should have x number of action points they can use in this phase. Say 2 on average. You can move and make a shooting action - stay still and shoot twice - move and make an assault action - make 2 fight actions - ect. There should be no free actions.

Assault weapons for example should be able to make shooting actions during a move action with a -1 to hit.
Heavy weapons could take 2 action points to make a shooting action. Say a unit like centurions can make shooting actions with heavy weapons for 1 action point.
Units with close combat weapons should be able to make assault actions after 2 move actions for free (they can fight but they don't get free movement)
Something like this would work way better than what we have now.

Epic Armageddon does this. It's kind of neat to see how it's between 1 and 3 actions, with a test to see if a unit can do a 2-3 action or is limited to a 1-action due to enemy actions. It's a very engaging system.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: