Switch Theme:

Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K  [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
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Tawnis wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Can skilled tactical play change the result of aura/stratagem/chapter tactic stacking?

Can I outmaneuver the stratagem? No, it can be popped anywhere, anytime.

Can I outmaneuver the aura? Probably, but the only outmaneuver you can do is just "be out of LoS". There's no facing, no suppression, no other way to interact with a unit in an aura.

Can I outmaneuver the chapter tactic? Of course not.

So what does an opponent do to defeat that? What decision can they make at the table at game time?

The only thing I can do is execute my own aura/ct/stratagem stack into yours to see if I can smash enough of your lynchpins (to whatever pregame strategy your list does) before you smash too many of mine.


Agree on all except the chapter tactics. I mean, yes you're right that you obviously can't outmaneuver them but having to deal with multiple varieties of the same army adds more to your in game tactical decision making. You'll have to adjust your strategy based on if your facing Salamanders, Iron Hands, Ultramarines, ect. Not saying chapter tactics are perfect, but I think they are good conceptually.


But like, not really. My Marine-Killer Strategy functions irrespective of Chapter Tactics. There aren't many that would suddenly change the way they work. I mean heck, most Marine-Killer Strategies work against the new CSM as well, with the sole exception of Death Guard because their tactic directly affects the damage my units do -

- and guess what? It's a direct effect that I still can't outmaneuver or out-tactic. I just need to plan around 1 damage or 3 damage weapons instead of 2 damage weapons in my pre-game decision.


Well yeah, you're not facing a different army, just a different facet of it. They are meant to modify the army to emphasize their flavour/feel not change them completely. If Salamanders have a buff to their flamers, you may see them run more troops with that as appose to Imperial fists that would prefer gunlines because they are better with bolters. That's what I mean.


Right but none of that affects me. I'll have a plan to deal with them ahead of time. If I don't, that's not because it's impossible to do so, but rather because I simply didn't think of it. That's not the same thing as "in-game tactics" though, that's literally just "there's too many rules that if I knew, I could defeat, but I can't know them all"

which is bloat, in so many words.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 19:06:29


 
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The 5th edition book actually explained this super well.

Cover in those editions is a stand-in for "concealment" as much as anything else. Intervening friendly models weren't protecting your model by literally stopping the shot with their unfortunate bodies; instead, they were simply causing the shooter to hesitate or aim wide. Similarly, the save granted by terrain isn't necessarily "the lascannon bounced off the shrub" but rather "the lascannon's gunner couldn't see the target well and aimed wide, whereas such as shot would have been perfectly do-able in the open without that dang shrub."


A flat save was a terrible way to interpret that though, it would have made more sense for cover to be a modifier to BS, as it was affecting aiming.
   
Made in ca
Kroot Carnivore





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:


That's true. I didn't mind at all when playing at home with unlimited time, (as I said I loved how much more thematic it was) but when you only have a few hours to get in a game after work at a FLGS before closing time, it really sucked.


Play a smaller game (say, 500-750 pts) where people could bring 60 models instead of 200


Ture, but if you plan every game based around avoiding stupid things nobheads could do, you'd never get to play anything. I would actually like blast templates back, I was just saying that they did have their own issues.

15000 4000 3500 2500 :tyranid: 2500 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

Personally I would prefer 40k to move away from model based rules to unit based ones (like Apocalypse).

And the older blast rules were a quite bad example of model based rules. I would prefer blast weapons in which the point was hitting multiple units rather than multiple models.
   
Made in ca
Kroot Carnivore





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Can skilled tactical play change the result of aura/stratagem/chapter tactic stacking?

Can I outmaneuver the stratagem? No, it can be popped anywhere, anytime.

Can I outmaneuver the aura? Probably, but the only outmaneuver you can do is just "be out of LoS". There's no facing, no suppression, no other way to interact with a unit in an aura.

Can I outmaneuver the chapter tactic? Of course not.

So what does an opponent do to defeat that? What decision can they make at the table at game time?

The only thing I can do is execute my own aura/ct/stratagem stack into yours to see if I can smash enough of your lynchpins (to whatever pregame strategy your list does) before you smash too many of mine.


Agree on all except the chapter tactics. I mean, yes you're right that you obviously can't outmaneuver them but having to deal with multiple varieties of the same army adds more to your in game tactical decision making. You'll have to adjust your strategy based on if your facing Salamanders, Iron Hands, Ultramarines, ect. Not saying chapter tactics are perfect, but I think they are good conceptually.


But like, not really. My Marine-Killer Strategy functions irrespective of Chapter Tactics. There aren't many that would suddenly change the way they work. I mean heck, most Marine-Killer Strategies work against the new CSM as well, with the sole exception of Death Guard because their tactic directly affects the damage my units do -

- and guess what? It's a direct effect that I still can't outmaneuver or out-tactic. I just need to plan around 1 damage or 3 damage weapons instead of 2 damage weapons in my pre-game decision.


Well yeah, you're not facing a different army, just a different facet of it. They are meant to modify the army to emphasize their flavour/feel not change them completely. If Salamanders have a buff to their flamers, you may see them run more troops with that as appose to Imperial fists that would prefer gunlines because they are better with bolters. That's what I mean.


Right but none of that affects me. I'll have a plan to deal with them ahead of time. If I don't, that's not because it's impossible to do so, but rather because I simply didn't think of it. That's not the same thing as "in-game tactics" though, that's literally just "there's too many rules that if I knew, I could defeat, but I can't know them all"

which is bloat, in so many words.


You can only plan ahead of time for so many things, the more options an army has the more dynamic it can be and the less sure you are of a pre-game battle plan based on what army you are up against. Bloat is problematic for sure, there's a fine balance, but I'd have Chapter Tactics over something like Stratagems any day. Sure they are far from perfect, but I was talking about the concept of sub factions having modified playstyles being a good thing, not necessarily their current implementation.

15000 4000 3500 2500 :tyranid: 2500 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Tyran wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The 5th edition book actually explained this super well.

Cover in those editions is a stand-in for "concealment" as much as anything else. Intervening friendly models weren't protecting your model by literally stopping the shot with their unfortunate bodies; instead, they were simply causing the shooter to hesitate or aim wide. Similarly, the save granted by terrain isn't necessarily "the lascannon bounced off the shrub" but rather "the lascannon's gunner couldn't see the target well and aimed wide, whereas such as shot would have been perfectly do-able in the open without that dang shrub."


A flat save was a terrible way to interpret that though, it would have made more sense for cover to be a modifier to BS, as it was affecting aiming.

They had made the design decision to avoid modifiers in 3rd, 4th, and 5th. Plus modifiers to hit do have their own drawbacks as far as abstraction (eventually, the lascannon WILL take the shot, even if he can't clearly see...). the whole problem of -3 armies in 8th.

A flat cover save is at least simple and easy whilst still being adjustable for different terrain types.

Tyran wrote:Personally I would prefer 40k to move away from model based rules to unit based ones (like Apocalypse).

And the older blast rules were a quite bad example of model based rules. I would prefer blast weapons in which the point was hitting multiple units rather than multiple models.

I agree with this, actually. Rules should match the scale of the game.
   
Made in ca
Kroot Carnivore





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Tyran wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The 5th edition book actually explained this super well.

Cover in those editions is a stand-in for "concealment" as much as anything else. Intervening friendly models weren't protecting your model by literally stopping the shot with their unfortunate bodies; instead, they were simply causing the shooter to hesitate or aim wide. Similarly, the save granted by terrain isn't necessarily "the lascannon bounced off the shrub" but rather "the lascannon's gunner couldn't see the target well and aimed wide, whereas such as shot would have been perfectly do-able in the open without that dang shrub."


A flat save was a terrible way to interpret that though, it would have made more sense for cover to be a modifier to BS, as it was affecting aiming.

They had made the design decision to avoid modifiers in 3rd, 4th, and 5th. Plus modifiers to hit do have their own drawbacks as far as abstraction (eventually, the lascannon WILL take the shot, even if he can't clearly see...). the whole problem of -3 armies in 8th.

A flat cover save is at least simple and easy whilst still being adjustable for different terrain types.

Tyran wrote:Personally I would prefer 40k to move away from model based rules to unit based ones (like Apocalypse).

And the older blast rules were a quite bad example of model based rules. I would prefer blast weapons in which the point was hitting multiple units rather than multiple models.

I agree with this, actually. Rules should match the scale of the game.


On the first point, that only half explains things though. If it were really representing "concealment" then you would always get the save, not only when it would otherwise pierce your armour.

I think that the unit rules for Apoc fit Apoc well, but I like the individuality of 40k models. Like Unit said, the rules should match the scale of the game.

15000 4000 3500 2500 :tyranid: 2500 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

I agree that modern Warhammer has a lack of depth Gameplay and choices.
I disagree that old editions were better. The Gameplay was as shallow. Just diferent.

And It is fine to like different Game mechanics.

 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
Kroot Carnivore





 Galas wrote:
I agree that modern Warhammer has a lack of depth Gameplay and choices.
I disagree that old editions were better. The Gameplay was as shallow. Just diferent.

And It is fine to like different Game mechanics.


Yeah I totally agree. I feel like sometimes I'm the only one wo doesn't have an opinion on the "best edition." There are things I've liked and disliked about all of them and it feels like every time they implement something new I'm excited about, something else comes along that makes me groan. If anything, I'd say it's consistently inconsistent, but I still always find it enjoyable.

One of these days I'm going to find myself a copy of the old RT book and see how bonkers the really old stuff was.

15000 4000 3500 2500 :tyranid: 2500 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Im also in the "I like to Play all editions for different reasons and without the most op stuff" camp

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 20:21:48


 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 us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Galas wrote:
I agree that modern Warhammer has a lack of depth Gameplay and choices.
I disagree that old editions were better. The Gameplay was as shallow. Just diferent.

And It is fine to like different Game mechanics.


I think that 40k has never been the deepest game, but I don't think all editions are equally shallow. Some were deeper than others; others were shallower than others.

That leaves room for 40k to have a "best edition" even if it's never been the best game on the market.
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

IS hard to have a best edition when talking about subjetive mechanics evalúed by taste, feeling and fun.

IS easier to find the worst edition than the BEST one, ithink

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 20:33:22


 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 us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Yes, "best" is subjective, definitely, and I even think you might get disagreement on the worst edition (though I would agree with you if you said 7th).
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






PenitentJake wrote:

. . .
in what universe was that a) a pregame decision (Unit) or b) not risk vs. reward (Insectum)?
I honestly had trouble parsing what the scenario you're describing there. But I think there are a few key dimensions at play here.
1. The difference between "self harm" risk reward and "hurt opponent" risk reward.
2. The difference between universally available mechanics and army specific ones.
3. The amount of additional "bespoke"/unique mechanics deployable per list. (Includes stratagems)
4. The effectiveness of those mechanics.

Examples: (broad strokes)
In 4th, There was a maximum of 2 HQs in the FOC. Most characters had a limited number of unique mechanics, many of which were universal, and many of any special mechanics weren't really that effective in terms of raw lethality against opponents. Most "lethal" mechanics required CC (and therefore proximity, therefore maneuvering).

An exception to the above might be Eldar, with the psychic power Doom. Many people (marine players?) Hated Doom. It's a ranged, lethality boost power. But an Eldar army might only field one Farseer, and therefore only cast Doom once each turn.

These days it feels like every army has like 5 of their own particular versions of Doom, many of which eithrr require list choices/combos, or Stratagems to enact. (Exaggeration, I'm sure, but my attention is divided atm. Although I can think of several for Space Marines off the too of my head).

I'm not sure that's a full response to your question/challenge though, I think I veered away from what you were aiming at. I'm watching kids atm so am cognitively impaired. Apologies. I can try again in a bit


As for aura bunching (Insectum), most 9th ed dexes buff a single unit in aura range, not EVERY unit in aura range (that was an 8th ed thing, and for the most part, it is being changed as new dexes drop).
Captain and Lt Auras are still plenty prevalent, as are a number of Necron ones. There are gobs of "Character does X for units Y within Z distance". Damage buffs, resilience buffs, etc. These were far more limited in the earlier editions. Imo they've gotten wildly out of hand. In 4th they were much fewer and farther in between, and when they were used they were often either more subtle in effect (nearby units can use this models Ld for Morale tests) or very targeted design decisions for an army (ressurection Orb for Crons, uniquely encouraging "phalanx" play).


Blast weapons in 9th, with minimum hits based on enemy unit size are still frightening to a dude who takes a unit of 10+ in order to maximize the impact of the aura buff. Perhaps not "Terrifying" in the same way as in the example you cite- but again, funny how you'll champion lethality in a version of the game you like and spit roast 9th because it's too lethal. I mean, I get it- it's a case of one unit being particularly lethal vs. most units being more lethal than expected... But then does that mean internal balance (another common complaint) is off in the version you prefer, and more consistent in 9th?

The context of the larger game environment is hugely important here. In 4th, there's no way a Tactical Squad could get anywhere near as lethal at 12" inches, when compared to a double firing Intercessor Squad with rerolls at 32" today.

The "terrifying" impact of the potential Ordinance shell in 4th was partly there because it was unique in capability (FOC chart + unit choice rarity + terrain rules). And this uniqueness added more maneuver and counterplay opportunity.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 21:29:08


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 ca
Kroot Carnivore





 Insectum7 wrote:
Captain and Lt Auras are still plenty prevalent, as are a number of Necron ones. There are gobs of "Character does X for units Y within Z distance". Damage buffs, resilience buffs, etc. These were far more limited in the earlier editions. Imo they've gotten wildly out of hand. In 4th they were much fewer and farther in between, and when they were used they were often either more subtle in effect (nearby units can use this models Ld for Morale tests) or very targeted design decisions for an army (ressurection Orb for Crons, uniquely encouraging "phalanx" play).


Yeah, there isn't anything conceptually wrong with aura's but IMHO a character should be either an aura character OR a fighter character, not both. Now it seems like every character can do everything where back in the day they just felt like tougher regular guys.

15000 4000 3500 2500 :tyranid: 2500 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






I'm having trouble with finding a good phraseology atm, but there's some overarching theme of the balance between cognitive load during play, and the punishment for inadequately forseeing the impending opponent action. This is what makes a "gotcha" moment.

If you lose a unit because of something you feel you should have forseen, that's a feeling of self mistake. "Oh I should have seen that coming."

If you lose a unit because unit A combined with unit B combined with Strats C and D in some more obscure combination, that's more likely to cause exasperation.

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
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

Tawnis wrote:
 Galas wrote:
I agree that modern Warhammer has a lack of depth Gameplay and choices.
I disagree that old editions were better. The Gameplay was as shallow. Just diferent.

And It is fine to like different Game mechanics.


Yeah I totally agree. I feel like sometimes I'm the only one wo doesn't have an opinion on the "best edition." There are things I've liked and disliked about all of them and it feels like every time they implement something new I'm excited about, something else comes along that makes me groan. If anything, I'd say it's consistently inconsistent, but I still always find it enjoyable.

One of these days I'm going to find myself a copy of the old RT book and see how bonkers the really old stuff was.

The answer is.......BONKERS!!!!!

And fun as hell.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I missed PenitentJake's example in the changeover, but I think the example misses the point.

Did you have a plan when you put the DCA in your list? Was it to send them in with the arcos or do something else?

If it was to send them in together, do that. If it wasn't, don't do it.

This whole "plan" thing goes to your whole army (more than just DCA and one unit of Arcos) and a solution presents itself usually.

For my part, I would never use 5 DCA against more than 3 regular SM (they are unlikely to do much and very likely to die badly). So the obvious answer is "send them with the arcos" because if you don't, they will just get mulched by any number of the units facing them after killing about 3 marines
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





Did you have a plan when you put the DCA in your list? Was it to send them in with the arcos or do something else?

If it was to send them in together, do that. If it wasn't, don't do it.

This is absolutely incredible. I'm speechless at this.

"You should have made this in-game decision before the game, when you wrote the list."

What?

edit: "You have a transport, facing difficult terrain, but it's not equipped with a dozer blade. Do you risk immobilizing yourself on the terrain to be able to disgorge the infantry inside to claim the objective or do you take the long way 'round, possibly allowing the enemy to get their own infantry on the objective first."

"Well, since I didn't give it a dozer blade, the plan was never to enter terrain. So I'll go around. Dang, this game has no in-game decisions! That was planned before we even started!"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 22:53:48


 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Can skilled tactical play change the result of aura/stratagem/chapter tactic stacking?


No more or less than it can your dangerous terrain roll, which is fabulous tactics from your point of view, while stacking is not- that was the point about double standards. The decision making process relating to whether or not to use a strat/ which one to use was outlined in the example I provided.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Can I outmaneuver the stratagem? No, it can be popped anywhere, anytime.


Sort of: most strats have a phase in which they need to be used; each can only be used once per turn, and only if you have the CP; using any strat is a tactical choice, because it ALWAYS comes at an opportunity cost.

Can you counterplay? Sometimes: ie you can often play a defensive strat to offset the impact of an offensive one, but again, that's a tactical choice, because if you do it, it may prevent you from playing an offensive strat of your own on the following turn.

Either way, the tactical decision is still more involved than the crossing the trench example you praise: there's no limit to how many units can choose to cross the trench per turn; there's no limit to the amount of times that trench can be crossed per game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Can I outmaneuver the aura? Probably, but the only outmaneuver you can do is just "be out of LoS". There's no facing, no suppression, no other way to interact with a unit in an aura.


One way to suppress an aura is to kill or interfere with the dude who grants it. Abilities which shut down or modify auras themselves also exist- aura shut down is common enough- and interestingly enough, the source isn't always a strat- some unit's have it as a psychic power or datacard ability. Way more options for interfering than there are for forcing you to cross the trench if you don't want to or preventing it if you do.

Auras are also limited and diverse enough to provide capacity for stacking vs. coverage, and again often come at an opportunity cost.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Can I outmaneuver the chapter tactic? Of course not.


No, but as clearly stated in my example, not all units in any given army are going to have it. You'll counter by saying that's a list building choice, which it is, but it's also not, because assessing whether not a particular threat or other battlefield duty requires the unit with access to the tactic is
a decision at least as complex and "tactical" as deciding to cross a trench and take a penalty vs. take another route: in some cases I would argue it's even MORE of a tactical decision.


 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The only thing I can do is execute my own aura/ct/stratagem stack into yours to see if I can smash enough of your lynchpins (to whatever pregame strategy your list does) before you smash too many of mine.


But you're completely ignoring what is required to do that: positioning is critical to the process because both the offensive and defensive auras need to be in the proper position to achieve the desired effect, and you have to take risks and assess rewards to get them there; same can be said of tactics and strats as not all units in your army have access to them. Interactions from datacard abilities and psychic powers interact with these decisions too.

We both want different things from the games we play- I think both of us have acknowledged this before. Many people think something is tactical only if it's a base rule that is available to every army in a similar, universal way. Even people who hate strats often don't mind that BRB strats that are common to all armies. The ridiculousness comes from the assumption that either system is inherently more "tactical" or "deep" than the other.



   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Furthermore, terrain... should make each game unique and make it very difficult to build an army that algorithmically solves its way to victory through a combination of pre-identified factors.
Sadly we're seeing more and more symmetrical tables filled with L-shaped ruins.

It's sickening.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Side note, god I wish blasts still existed to combat aura mechanics. In an 4th edition a Demolisher Cannon could put the fear of god into anyone bunching up their models in the way that auras encourage.
But it also led to anal retentive players spending half their turns carefully measuring out 2" between all their models.

I like blast markers, but given the choice between that and the blast system we have now (GW's idiotic definition of a "horde" being 6+ models notwithstanding), I'll take what we have now.



This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/09/28 23:50:38


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

 
   
Made in ca
Charing Cold One Knight





 Galas wrote:

And It is fine to like different Game mechanics.


Agree wholeheartedly.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 23:28:36


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 H.B.M.C. wrote:


 Insectum7 wrote:
Side note, god I wish blasts still existed to combat aura mechanics. In an 4th edition a Demolisher Cannon could put the fear of god into anyone bunching up their models in the way that auras encourage.
But it also led to anal retentive players spending half their turns carefully measuring out 2" between all their models.

I like blast markers, but given the choice between that and the blast system we have no (GW's idiotic definition of a "horde" being 6+ models notwithstanding), I'll take what we have now.


Soo, yes, sort of. Terrain and edition context comes heavily into play here. In 4th when LOS was more likely to be blocked by area terrain and in paradigms where Ordinance (usually) could not be fired by tanks on the move, there was a more compelling decision process between bunching up your models (so they could be/remain out of LOS) and spreading them out to mitigate damage (Or even bunching them up in cover and hoping for a big miss from the incoming blast).

I think in the great "firepower inflation" (were Wyverns introduced in 5th?) and cover reducing TLOS mechanics of 5th, there's much more incentive to start spreading out your models maximally as a defensive measure. I (somewhat ashamedly) remember doing it a few times particularly once Helldrakes came out in 6th, because there was just no other defense.

It's one of those mechanics (like so many) where the greater environment determines how prevalent irritating secondary behaviors manifest.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Furthermore, terrain... should make each game unique and make it very difficult to build an army that algorithmically solves its way to victory through a combination of pre-identified factors.
Sadly we're seeing and more symmetrical tables filled with L-shaped ruins.

It's sickening.
Agree.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 23:28:56


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 ca
Charing Cold One Knight





Captain and Lt Auras are still plenty prevalent, as are a number of Necron ones. There are gobs of "Character does X for units Y within Z distance". Damage buffs, resilience buffs, etc. These were far more limited in the earlier editions. Imo they've gotten wildly out of hand. In 4th they were much fewer and farther in between, and when they were used they were often either more subtle in effect (nearby units can use this models Ld for Morale tests) or very targeted design decisions for an army (ressurection Orb for Crons, uniquely encouraging "phalanx" play).


Previous editions just had Deathstars which wasn't really fun.

Personally I think the auras are getting close to perfect for a lot of armies, and I consider 8th to be the height of Aurahammer.

I think the most egregious aura buffers now are similar to the large heroes in Godhammer(AoS). They tend to break regular aura limitations in the codex and makes the units often more popular because of that. Just happy we don't have Archaeon and Teclis level heroes in 40k.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Soo, yes, sort of. Terrain and edition context comes heavily into play here. In 4th when LOS was more likely to be blocked by area terrain and in paradigms where Ordinance (usually) could not be fired by tanks on the move, there was a more compelling decision process between bunching up your models (so they could be/remain out of LOS) and spreading them out to mitigate damage (Or even bunching them up in cover and hoping for a big miss from the incoming blast).
Actually I agree with you.

When I first encountered someone spacing out their models endlessly (an Eldar player in 7th no less, who blasted me off the table with Wave Serpents energy fields anyway, making the entire spacing affair 10 times more unnecessary), I remember thinking that this never used to be a thing. And, seeing what you wrote above, you're right, it didn't used to be a thing because the terrain rules meant it was easier to keep things out of LOS and some of the biggest 'pie plates' couldn't zoom around the table causing death to tightly packed clumps of infantry.

Worse is when you see someone who has a lovely gaming mat that they've hastily taped off all four edges to make the play area smaller and then filled it with a symmetrical L-shaped ruin set up.


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






 Eldarsif wrote:
Captain and Lt Auras are still plenty prevalent, as are a number of Necron ones. There are gobs of "Character does X for units Y within Z distance". Damage buffs, resilience buffs, etc. These were far more limited in the earlier editions. Imo they've gotten wildly out of hand. In 4th they were much fewer and farther in between, and when they were used they were often either more subtle in effect (nearby units can use this models Ld for Morale tests) or very targeted design decisions for an army (ressurection Orb for Crons, uniquely encouraging "phalanx" play).

Previous editions just had Deathstars which wasn't really fun.

Personally I think the auras are getting close to perfect for a lot of armies, and I consider 8th to be the height of Aurahammer.

I think the most egregious aura buffers now are similar to the large heroes in Godhammer(AoS). They tend to break regular aura limitations in the codex and makes the units often more popular because of that. Just happy we don't have Archaeon and Teclis level heroes in 40k.

I can't remember too many deathstars from 3rd and 4th ed, honestly. A couple chaos ones are all that come to mind and you paid through the nose for them. 5th started getting goofy because of wound allocation. 7th ed deathstars are another story altogether, but pre-8th has a giant range.

The whole "shoot harder" with marine auras, plus the time consuming reroll mechanics remain irritating, even though they're reduced a bit from 8th.

I've been playing Tyranids recently, and god is it refreshing to just roll once and have a result.

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.

3rd went to great lengths to remove the 'Hero-Hammer' of 2nd Ed, making character-led squads less of a "Death Star".

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:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Soo, yes, sort of. Terrain and edition context comes heavily into play here. In 4th when LOS was more likely to be blocked by area terrain and in paradigms where Ordinance (usually) could not be fired by tanks on the move, there was a more compelling decision process between bunching up your models (so they could be/remain out of LOS) and spreading them out to mitigate damage (Or even bunching them up in cover and hoping for a big miss from the incoming blast).
Actually I agree with you.

When I first encountered someone spacing out their models endlessly (an Eldar player in 7th no less, who blasted me off the table with Wave Serpents energy fields anyway, making the entire spacing affair 10 times more unnecessary), I remember thinking that this never used to be a thing. And, seeing what you wrote above, you're right, it didn't used to be a thing because the terrain rules meant it was easier to keep things out of LOS and some of the biggest 'pie plates' couldn't zoom around the table causing death to tightly packed clumps of infantry.

Worse is when you see someone who has a lovely gaming mat that they've hastily taped off all four edges to make the play area smaller and then filled it with a symmetrical L-shaped ruin set up.


My gag reflex just kicked in and I can taste a bit of bile.

God, the smaller tables thing. Feth me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
3rd went to great lengths to remove the 'Hero-Hammer' of 2nd Ed, making character-led squads less of a "Death Star".
That was really a nice move, honestly. I remember the shock looking at Marneus Calgar in the 3rd ed book, realizing that there were no wargear cards, he dindn't come with an invuln save, and a single Krak missile would just Instant Death him.

Then over the years we got more, better invulns, Eternal Warrior, etc, and now we have Primaris Captains that are more resilient than Carnifexes. :/

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/29 00:06:48


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.

I remember my dauntless Inquisitor Lord (and 4th Level Psyker), Dennifus Zentor, a man with a Nemesis Great Blade, Displacer Field, Terminator Armour and a Psycannon.

When backed up by his trusted compatriot, Commissar Jackson (who had a power fist and a jump pack, naturally), this guy could take on half an army by himself, and my attendant Guard might as well have not shown up for all the benefit they gave him.

It was fun, but I don't miss those hero-hammer days. The way 3rd handled characters was so much better, leaving the really cool stuff to some of the bigger things like 3.5 Chaos Lords.

Of course that meant that other things were kinda gakky, like Greater Daemons.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Then over the years we got more, better invulns, Eternal Warrior, etc, and now we have Primaris Captains that are more resilient than Carnifexes. :/
Rhinos are more resilient than Carnifexes.


This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/29 00:12:17


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






Lol I had nearly the same dude. Inquisitor Lord Euphrateus (Tigurius and Euphrateus . . . Get it?) With his Nemesis Force Weapon, Displacer and Level 4 Psyker. But my guy didn't use Terminator armor.

The Rhino to Carnifex thing is particularly maddening.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: