Switch Theme:

Why the desperate need to win?  [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
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






I've found alternate-by-phase systems to be a nice hybrid between IGUG and AA myself.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I've found alternate-by-phase systems to be a nice hybrid between IGUG and AA myself.


The only issue I have with them is the way that assault troops tend to get handled in situations like that - they move forward, jumping out of cover to assault the foe...and then time stops, and they get dunked on as if they were standing around in the open .

I know that's a feature for some, and the old "but muh realism" tends to get thrown about for why assault troops really SHOULD be bad in a game where guns exist... but if you came to 40k for realism you took a wrong turn somewhere and should probably figure out if some spooky scooby-doo villain spun a road sign around on you.

"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 ie
Ship's Officer





 the_scotsman wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I've found alternate-by-phase systems to be a nice hybrid between IGUG and AA myself.


The only issue I have with them is the way that assault troops tend to get handled in situations like that - they move forward, jumping out of cover to assault the foe...and then time stops, and they get dunked on as if they were standing around in the open .


Why? They shouldn't be standing in the open and if they're in melee they can't be targeted. If your assault troops are standing out in the open thats the players fault.


 
   
Made in ca
Hauptmann




Hogtown

 the_scotsman wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I've found alternate-by-phase systems to be a nice hybrid between IGUG and AA myself.


The only issue I have with them is the way that assault troops tend to get handled in situations like that - they move forward, jumping out of cover to assault the foe...and then time stops, and they get dunked on as if they were standing around in the open .

I know that's a feature for some, and the old "but muh realism" tends to get thrown about for why assault troops really SHOULD be bad in a game where guns exist... but if you came to 40k for realism you took a wrong turn somewhere and should probably figure out if some spooky scooby-doo villain spun a road sign around on you.


If we used 40k's turn segmentation to the letter. But there's no reason you couldn't have close quarters engagement happen - and even fully resolve - as part of your movement allowance with that unit before your opponent gets to move or shoot.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/25 20:37:43


Thought for the day
 
   
Made in us
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine




You could also apply ideas like suppression to apply negative modifiers or additional wounds to cover the advance of the assault troops into assault. Or what las said because it’s a simpler and requires less complexity which is probably a good thing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/26 01:25:50


Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I mean, Lord of the Rings has a "charge" as a special kind of regular move, so there's no "charge phase" per se.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Sim-Life wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I've found alternate-by-phase systems to be a nice hybrid between IGUG and AA myself.


The only issue I have with them is the way that assault troops tend to get handled in situations like that - they move forward, jumping out of cover to assault the foe...and then time stops, and they get dunked on as if they were standing around in the open .


Why? They shouldn't be standing in the open and if they're in melee they can't be targeted. If your assault troops are standing out in the open thats the players fault.


thats kind of a persistent problem across all 40k editions - GW loves to put temporal space between assault troops and arrival at the enemy where logically there would be no more space than there is between shooting units doing a similar thing.

I'm mostly commenting on the idea here of if we did alternating activations with the current phase order.

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

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







What 40k really needs to do is have "engagement range" be like 4" and just have melee be short and decisive.

4" is where the commander (you) loses control of your men as they fight for their lives.

You can choose to shoot (as if the enemy were at 4") or make melee attacks (whichever is strongest). Make melee troops get some bonus here (like free extra movement to position on objectives or better morale odds at the end or just straight up better punchination).

Resolve the melee then-and-there, fighting as many rounds as necessary until the end (with morale rules to make it not a huge PITA - like a side is basically guaranteed to break after 1 or 2 rounds). Notice I said in the morale rules "Break" rather than "wiped out". They should flee (like, physically on the table, not just removed-as-casualties) and leave their positions to the opponent... something like that.

Anyways, it's always been a source of great bemusement to me that combat in Chain of Command (a world war II game that doesn't emphasize melee) is short, sharp, and utterly decisive, while combat in 40k (where melee is AWESOME *rock riff*) feels like a terrible slog where Orks roll 1e52 dice against Khorne Berzerker's 1e50 better-quality dice, and then they just kinda sit there for like 4 rounds rolling progressively smaller numbers of dice. It's ESPECIALLY BAD in 9th, where morale is basically irrelevant. Lost 6 men in your Guardsmen Squad? No worries, you'll probably still have like 2 left to keep the enemy locked in combat while you feed the eternal meatgrinder of the slowest, least decisive melee resolution in wargaming.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/26 02:57:09


 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Are we playing the same game? If anything, an issue right now is 90% of the melee fights are resolved in the same turn you charge in, which makes a lot of rules irrelevant and the game too lethal.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Spoletta wrote:
Are we playing the same game? If anything, an issue right now is 90% of the melee fights are resolved in the same turn you charge in, which makes a lot of rules irrelevant and the game too lethal.


Well, yes, but that's just short-ranged shooting since the enemy doesn't get to reply.

I was thinking of the real melee combats, but you're right, there are plenty where a unit goes "I charge. I attack. You are dead." But that's essentially just the same interactivity as "I am in range. I shoot. You are dead." so I guess what I was saying in general is:

"Make melee not just absurdly short-ranged shooting, AND ALSO make it decisive (rather than having units be pillowfisted because that isn't the solution)"
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





 the_scotsman wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I've found alternate-by-phase systems to be a nice hybrid between IGUG and AA myself.


The only issue I have with them is the way that assault troops tend to get handled in situations like that - they move forward, jumping out of cover to assault the foe...and then time stops, and they get dunked on as if they were standing around in the open .


Why? They shouldn't be standing in the open and if they're in melee they can't be targeted. If your assault troops are standing out in the open thats the players fault.


I'm mostly commenting on the idea here of if we did alternating activations with the current phase order.


Then you're making your own problems. I mean I don't expect much from GW but if they shifted to alternating anything I'd assume they were competent enough to structure the game in such a way that melee units that charge not be allowed to be shot at before they got to attack.


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






I feel like if troops need to charge across open ground towards a gun line then yeah, that's gunna suck.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

 the_scotsman wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I've found alternate-by-phase systems to be a nice hybrid between IGUG and AA myself.


The only issue I have with them is the way that assault troops tend to get handled in situations like that - they move forward, jumping out of cover to assault the foe...and then time stops, and they get dunked on as if they were standing around in the open .

I thought that was what Overwatch largely did.

And if we're going that far, moving the Charge declaration to the Movement Phase isn't unheard of in Warhammer. It's what is done in Battletech, only there it carries a caveat that such movement/attacks can only be declared against units that have already moved.

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 au
Longtime Dakkanaut




Good terrain mechanics help close combat a lot, especially where infantry can enter and reinforce buildings and the best engagement is to send in close combat units.

Charging onto movement I think would be great, since can do a lot with simple rules there.

And possibly using a combat phase instead, where you pick ether your close combat attacks or shooting.
With close engagement hindering shooting rather than pulling players into a strict close combat.
Would need a rework, but I think it would be a start in this game where close combat has mostly felt like a dice rolling fetish.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Halifax

The Apocalypse rules have some handy terrain ideas.

So compound the game into:

Movement Phase
Player whose turn it is goes first with All charging units, then picks the first advancing unit, and alternates with the other player advancing, moving, and falling back. Tau Crisis suits can be activated twice, etc.
-Move
-Advance (move + 1D6)
-Charge (move + 2D6)
-Fall Back (move, limitations)
-Actions

Psychic Phase
Player whose turn it is casts first, players then alternate. Models that can cast multiple powers can activate multiple times.

Fight Phase
Player whose turn it is resolves charging units first, and then nominates an advancing unit to attack, and alternates activations with the other player. Players activate all advancing units, then all moving units, and then stationary units. Overwatch and similar (Supporting Fire) allows units to be activated like a charging unit.

So you alternate player turns, two for each round of the game, so that the big charges and so on are carried off and the essential structure is preserved. Then compress the phases into the essential three, and have alternating action within the phases with priority going to the player whose turn it is.

In combat models within an 1" can use close combat weapons, and models outside of 1" can use ranged weapons. Pistols still do both. Usual stuff applies, like heavy can't be used if you advance or charge, etc.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Does everyone want the need to win every game ? I'd say to that no. Does every player want to feel like they have a good chance to win regardless of army and opponent skill not withstanding ? I think yes.

People don't like one sided beat downs in a game for fun, they don't feel good on either side of it unless you love to punish and humiliate your opponent. The issue is some forces currently are so bad they feel more like a near auto loss against some match ups. No army should ever feel that way to run in the game.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Halifax

A close game with some back-and-forth is my holy grail of gaming, something that feels like it could have gone either way, and only after the fact and some discussion can you see what you should have done to win.

   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





 Nurglitch wrote:
A close game with some back-and-forth is my holy grail of gaming, something that feels like it could have gone either way, and only after the fact and some discussion can you see what you should have done to win.


This is why I switched to board games I think. They tend to be much closer feeling games and almost all games based on points have some kind of catch up mechanic that allows players falling behind to gain extra bonuses to help them and those that don't have great balance. Whenever my group reports on 40k games there is usually at least a 20-30pts difference in scores in "close" game (though most are more like 30-40vp in the difference) as opposed to something like War Of The Ring where even novice players will end up with only a few turns/moves from winning behind the other. When I taught a friend we both met our win conditions on the same round, despite me having enough games to give me an advantage in terms of strategy and the Shadow player having a bad start. I'm just lucky that Frodo dunking the ring takes presence over every other victory condition.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/10/28 12:44:26



 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Nurglitch wrote:
A close game with some back-and-forth is my holy grail of gaming, something that feels like it could have gone either way, and only after the fact and some discussion can you see what you should have done to win.


I've been playing both 4th edition games and 9th edition games lately.

My last 9th edition game was a stomp where every turn past turn 3 was executed only to score Agenda points (gotta get dat XP!) and were rather quite torturous.

My last 4th edition game (last night) was literally a draw with only about 50% of each army destroyed by the end of Turn 6. (we were within 150 VP of each other)
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I've been playing both 4th edition games and 9th edition games lately.

My last 9th edition game was a stomp where every turn past turn 3 was executed only to score Agenda points (gotta get dat XP!) and were rather quite torturous.

My last 4th edition game (last night) was literally a draw with only about 50% of each army destroyed by the end of Turn 6. (we were within 150 VP of each other)


I'm not sure you can generalize older editions as being better in this regard. My last older-edition game was 5th Ed Tyranids vs Elysians, and the 'Nids were eventually tabled on turn 5 with over half the Elysians remaining. As with anything else it depends on the matchup and the dice; and 40K in particular has always had an issue with snowballing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/29 13:53:04


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 catbarf wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I've been playing both 4th edition games and 9th edition games lately.

My last 9th edition game was a stomp where every turn past turn 3 was executed only to score Agenda points (gotta get dat XP!) and were rather quite torturous.

My last 4th edition game (last night) was literally a draw with only about 50% of each army destroyed by the end of Turn 6. (we were within 150 VP of each other)


I'm not sure you can generalize older editions as being better in this regard. My last older-edition game was 5th Ed Tyranids vs Elysians, and the 'Nids were eventually tabled on turn 5 with over half the Elysians remaining. As with anything else it depends on the matchup and the dice; and 40K in particular has always had an issue with snowballing.


The reason my group and I picked 4th is we all agree the lethality escalation started with IG in 5th edition, ironically. It's also really hard to snowball in 4th, since moving cripples your firepower unless you're a tank (in which case it reduces your firepower but does not eliminate it). But even a tank moving more than 6" could do nothing

It's telling that the problem army in 4th was the Eldar fast-skimmer spam because it was TOO DURABLE

The problem armies in 5th varied with the release schedule but tended to be things like Leafblower Guard (too lethal rather than too durable) or GK (same same with a weird durability bonus on Paladins due to 5th's inexplicable wound allocation changes)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/29 15:15:19


 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Halifax

It would be nice to have some ability to make up for a deficit of points. I really like the Without Number rule as a way to make up hordes, as opposed to having to buy 3x as many boxes as a SM player, for example, and a way to encourage a style of play that does not involve focusing down individual units.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: