Switch Theme:

What has GW done right?  [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 de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Board size has zero impact on how fast you reach your opponent or objectives.

The only thing larger tables do is make deep striking easier and create more space to evade slow and low ranged units.


Well, that's not fair. A 12' by 8' board with like 18" deployment zones would have an effect.


9th edition missions are written in a way that no-mans land always has the same width and objectives as well as deployment zones are always the same distance from the center.

So you really just get more space around the edges of the battlefield, the set-up in the middle remains the same.

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
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Jidmah wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Board size has zero impact on how fast you reach your opponent or objectives.

The only thing larger tables do is make deep striking easier and create more space to evade slow and low ranged units.


Well, that's not fair. A 12' by 8' board with like 18" deployment zones would have an effect.


9th edition missions are written in a way that no-mans land always has the same width and objectives as well as deployment zones are always the same distance from the center.

So you really just get more space around the edges of the battlefield, the set-up in the middle remains the same.


Well, yes. I assumed you'd change missions to meet the new board size, but yeah, if you don't you're just wasting time and space. That's true.
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






 VladimirHerzog wrote:
oh hell no. Eradicators are one of the most boring unit designed so far in the whole game (not even talking about powerlevel here).


So true, and it would have been so easy to make them more interesting by giving them anti-tank close combat weapons instead of just having them shoot twice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, yes. I assumed you'd change missions to meet the new board size, but yeah, if you don't you're just wasting time and space. That's true.


The missions tend to work not as good if you don't go with the suggest point levels because you either have too many units/too few to score primaries. Onslaught missions work surprisingly well on 4'x8' though, but at that level you are already playing old school apocalypse anyways.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/18 14:23:24


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 gb
Wicked Canoptek Wraith




UK

Yeah, Eradicators are the exact opposite of a well designed unit and you can see this even without the points cost.

If there was an impactful choice to be made with the double shoot then you might have something, or an extra CC option. Or just any kind of extra tricks or interesting drawbacks that expand the idea of the unit and give it some depth. Retributors kind of manage that but Eradicators certainly don't.

One thing GW got very right was doing a beta Codex for Sisters because the Sisters Dex is probably the most well-designed one in the entire game across multiple editions. So much of it is viable, fun to use, competitive and fluffy at the same time. It manages to hit everything for what a Codex should be. Sadly GW are probably never doing beta codexes again, even though it clearly worked spectacularly. The Necron 'dex is a pretty decent attempt but there's a far larger percentage of dud units and concept misfires, but overall it feels very balanced and still manages to capture what Necrons are like to face on the battlefield. The Marine ones are still gigantic fething messes though; full of endless trash on one hand and gamebreaking abusive gak on the other, sandwiching a series of armies that are still far too autopilot and easy to play for how obscenely strong they are. I'm not really sure it's ever going to be fixable for the sheer amount of stuff they have to design around though.
   
Made in us
Charging Dragon Prince





West Lafayette, IN

 Jidmah wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Board size has zero impact on how fast you reach your opponent or objectives.

The only thing larger tables do is make deep striking easier and create more space to evade slow and low ranged units.


Well, that's not fair. A 12' by 8' board with like 18" deployment zones would have an effect.


9th edition missions are written in a way that no-mans land always has the same width and objectives as well as deployment zones are always the same distance from the center.

So you really just get more space around the edges of the battlefield, the set-up in the middle remains the same.


Even with that being the case, nothing mandates a player to nose his entire force to the deployment line. Given that some weapons still have ranges that would cover the width of almost any table, I can't see how anyone would fail to get the options given by something as simple as the extra space to space out your forces.

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






 Just Tony wrote:
Even with that being the case, nothing mandates a player to nose his entire force to the deployment line. Given that some weapons still have ranges that would cover the width of almost any table, I can't see how anyone would fail to get the options given by something as simple as the extra space to space out your forces.


But isn't that essentially saying that you want melee to be bad outside exceptionally mobile units and prefer non-interacting long-range shooting?

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 ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 Jidmah wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
Even with that being the case, nothing mandates a player to nose his entire force to the deployment line. Given that some weapons still have ranges that would cover the width of almost any table, I can't see how anyone would fail to get the options given by something as simple as the extra space to space out your forces.


But isn't that essentially saying that you want melee to be bad outside exceptionally mobile units and prefer non-interacting long-range shooting?


Depends entirely upon your idea of interactivity. There's a meta and macro level to it.

The ability to allways Forcing an engagement is not neceserrily interactive, especially if your opponents have no option to disengage due to the board size.
Vice versa, having to seriously commit to force a CQC interaction, and allready having to forfeit due to attrition, is an issue of representation of sight lines and unit sizes, not least of the limited ammount of tactical options, e.g Smoke to cover an advance, or actual infiltrating units.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/19 10:21:36


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






An ork or a plague marine move 5" per turn and advance 8.5" on average. Models that are deployed 40" away from such models are essentially immune to close combat for the first three turns with little to no drawbacks if you have enough range on your weapons.

There is no way to make a unit immune to shooting for three turns without heavy penalties to that unit's usefulness.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/19 10:28:08


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 ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 Jidmah wrote:
An ork or a plague marine move 5" per turn and advance 8.5" on average. Models that are deployed 40" away from such models are essentially immune to close combat for the first three turns with little to no drawbacks if you have enough range on your weapons.

There is no way to make a unit immune to shooting for three turns.


Denial of sight lines in the form of smoke or dare i say, Chemical warfare?

but 2 options of player agency and interaction with the board that would allready partially resolve issues.

Another one is, to put it simply, make transports actually do their job successfully in combination of the above.

Further, it is high time that the killyness get's nocked down a notch, especially certain boltguns are bogus.

There's also 0 reason as to why an ork should 5 " movement, they never moved slower then any other faction and has solely to do with GW insiting that movement stat should compensate for initiative.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






I think we are missing each other here. I was talking about the drawbacks of increasing table sizes with the game we have right now, not about how we could make larger tables work better.

In my experience the smaller table is all upside, and my group unanimously agreed - and we rarely agree on anything ever.

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 ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 Jidmah wrote:
I think we are missing each other here. I was talking about the drawbacks of increasing table sizes with the game we have right now, not about how we could make larger tables work better.

In my experience the smaller table is all upside, and my group unanimously agreed - and we rarely agree on anything ever.


No, we aren't, i just see the issue remaining that GW has never done board or cover propperly. much less interactivity with it and agency

The smaller board is only an upside because the above happened and rule of cool dictates melee shall work within 40k.

Agency of the player though is lowered even more because the option to even attempt to avoid, disengage or god forbid feint, is 0 you can't by t2 your in melee if your opponent choses to do so without an investment really into such an all out strategy. Which is necessitated preciscly because GW has hiked killyness of firepower to a ludicrous degree and not compensated via terrain and board interactivity.




https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






"Avoid and disengage" is not player agency, it's just taking away all the agency from melee/low range and giving it to shooting. Feints have never been part of the game.

People didn't seem to have a problem with player agency when one side was just pulling models that were shot by the other.

Smaller tables and the new missions force people to play other parts of the game than the shooting phase, and clearly some don't like that.

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 ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 Jidmah wrote:
"Avoid and disengage" is not player agency, it's just taking away all the agency from melee/low range and giving it to shooting. Feints have never been part of the game.

Actually yes it is, but frankly the IGUOGU system also ties into this. As does the terrain as allready pointed out.

People didn't seem to have a problem with player agency when one side was just pulling models that were shot by the other.

As someone that played both archetypes, melee can be even worse depending on how derpy GW' decides consolidation and multi fights are.
And the shooting is just as much an issue again with terrain and interactivity with it, as it stands, most stuff can neither be destroyed nor interacted with

Smaller tables and the new missions force people to play other parts of the game than the shooting phase, and clearly some don't like that.


And whilest that is indeed the case the new missions are also highly unbalanced torwards first turn, instead of getting blown up we now have 60% first turn advantage, worsening massively depending upon faction so the smaller board resolved nothing.

Further you claim it forced people playing other parts, i say it forced the players into a mad dash torwards the circle of pts and pray their faction can even compete in such a scenario, even if it would go completely contrary to their inate design. Something GW for alot of factions messed up quite heavily.

Also to be really blunt, from a realistic wargame stanpoint, there is nothing tactical about it as harsh as that may sound.

Which goes to say nothing about the other editions were melee was virtually unviable, the other extreme, which is equally as tactically irrelevant.

I think overall the problems GW has especially with the core game need to be looked at hollistically in conjunction of cover, interactivity torwards it and design space gw want's factions to occupy.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/19 11:33:25


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: