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.

I think the biggest change in survivability was when cover was effectively an invuln save. It meant a lot of weaker units could survive a barrage just by getting behind cover.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Older games were not decided by turn 1 like they were in more recent editons, ranges were not nearly as long as they are now, 24" was pretty far I'm older editons.
Cover made a bigger difference, over watching worked different. It was a lot more infentey based less big toys, like seeing a LR on the table is what it's like to see someone field a bane blade, or Magnus/mortarian.
Also did not have all the wombo combo strats we see now

What does that have to do with designers showing of raw talent in a way they would not be allowed to these days?

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the biggest change in survivability was when cover was effectively an invuln save. It meant a lot of weaker units could survive a barrage just by getting behind cover.

I will argue until my dying breath that the only way cover mechanics make sense is a penalty to hit rolls. That's what cover does, especially in the 41st Millennium where basically every weapon is going through the wall.

I always saw cover saves like that being like the enemy doesn’t have a proper sight line onto a unit in cover, the bullets will go through the wall, they’re going to go where they’re aiming, the target just might not be there. An invuln type save also works better as some armies get penalized far more by minuses than others.

 Ordana wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Older games were not decided by turn 1 like they were in more recent editons, ranges were not nearly as long as they are now, 24" was pretty far I'm older editons.
Cover made a bigger difference, over watching worked different. It was a lot more infentey based less big toys, like seeing a LR on the table is what it's like to see someone field a bane blade, or Magnus/mortarian.
Also did not have all the wombo combo strats we see now

What does that have to do with designers showing of raw talent in a way they would not be allowed to these days?

You used to get crazy but fun and innovative rules that could be played very narratively. It all seems to read rules designed by comitee these days despite accusations of making up as they go along.

Sim-Life wrote:

Spoiler:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Thankfully this can be fixed, and I'm working on fixing it for my table.

Big. Los blocking. Centerpiece

Making a big 2x2 raised platform in the center board as like an imperial landing/check point that's got ramps on 2 sides and is tall Enlufh to block Los for knights. Fixes a LOT of turn one alpha strike

That's not fixing it though, that's slapping some duct tape on the problem and hoping it sorts itself out.

More of a fix than what GW's doing...

Dai wrote:

You used to get crazy but fun and innovative rules that could be played very narratively. It all seems to read rules designed by comitee these days despite accusations of making up as they go along.

On the other hand it was inconsistent.

Compare the 5th edition IG codex with the 5th edition Tyranid codex, both by Robbin Cruddace.

Older games were not decided by turn 1 like they were in more recent editons,

Game design over the past 10 years has centered on the experience lasting an hour or so. The generation of gamers from the 1990s and early 2000s were ok with playing games that took most of the afternoon. That was normal.

The generation that came after did not want to spend an entire afternoon on one game. They want to go to a game store and play multiple games in an afternoon.

Additionally tournaments. To cater to tournaments you need games that end fast so you can get as many rounds in as possible.

These things will not go away frankly because thats what current gen wants, and I'd argue current gen wants faster games than they are right now.

Conquest (the fantasy game) the designers stated goal are games that end in an hour to an hour and a half max. And those are full 2000 point games, so they want killy killy killy amped up to 11.

The last five or six projects I've been a part of, one of the constraints was gameplay could not last longer than 60 minutes. Thats just the new normal.

There are now games trying to crack 45 minutes of gameplay though involving many pieces.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Thankfully this can be fixed, and I'm working on fixing it for my table.

Big. Los blocking. Centerpiece

Making a big 2x2 raised platform in the center board as like an imperial landing/check point that's got ramps on 2 sides and is tall Enlufh to block Los for knights. Fixes a LOT of turn one alpha strike

I love this because I very much enjoy the commanders of the 41st millennia deciding that the best place to battle would be an area with a big honkin' piece of terrain in the center. A far cry from the olden days where people would look for open ground! This is the future after all, it can't have any similarities to the past.

Agreed, there is definitely a lot of market demand for faster gameplay in 40k and other tabletop games, 40k in 40 minutes for instance. That said I think you can have a faster game without being so killy, not every game needs to have most or all of an army wiped out.

There are still a lot of games coming out that are far longer than an hour but those have been cooperative style games.

I feel like the problem comes from comp doin 2k points honestly. I think having it so that a 750-1000 point match is an hour-3/2 hour thing, so that a big ol game can be 2-3 hours. Smaller but not miniature point values I think would also work well for comp, decreases the ability to just take everything.

 auticus wrote:

Older games were not decided by turn 1 like they were in more recent editons,

Game design over the past 10 years has centered on the experience lasting an hour or so. The generation of gamers from the 1990s and early 2000s were ok with playing games that took most of the afternoon. That was normal.

The generation that came after did not want to spend an entire afternoon on one game. They want to go to a game store and play multiple games in an afternoon.

Additionally tournaments. To cater to tournaments you need games that end fast so you can get as many rounds in as possible.

These things will not go away frankly because thats what current gen wants, and I'd argue current gen wants faster games than they are right now.

Conquest (the fantasy game) the designers stated goal are games that end in an hour to an hour and a half max. And those are full 2000 point games, so they want killy killy killy amped up to 11.

The last five or six projects I've been a part of, one of the constraints was gameplay could not last longer than 60 minutes. Thats just the new normal.

There are now games trying to crack 45 minutes of gameplay though involving many pieces.

There is a "simple" solution for 40K to make the games no longer than 45-75 minutes. And this is to drop hit-reroll-wound-reroll-save-reroll-fnp-reroll nonsense and insane number of dice rolled at once. 75% of the game time is dice rolling, then another 15% is moving models and then only 10% on top of that is actually playing a game and not resolving mechanics.

There is a board game (with a great mobile implementation) called Neuroshima Hex. It is a wargame, it has factions, movement, ranged, flanking, melee, special rules, even terrain of sorts, "auras" etc. It is IMHO the best example of how to abstract the rules of a wargame to the barebones and get an exciting, fast paced and deep game. Single game takes about 10-15 minutes on mobile and about 30 minutes IRL with two players. Now if the resolution of board pieces interactions would change to a GW model of rolling a hundred dice for every attack (I've actually made such experiment), the same game now takes about 2 hrs to resolve, with exactly the same number of decisions to make.

This was my first goal of my total rework of 40K and I managed to reduce the amount of dice for every test to a maximum of two, without sacrificing statistical distinction between squads and single model units. This change alone cuts the resolution time by more than a half and sticking to a strict no rerolls and no fnp philosophy cuts it by another half on top of that. That is 3/4th of wasted time saved and 4x decision making density even without switching from IGOUGO to AA.

40K doesn't require dumbing down to fit the focus span of modern audience, it requires optimising resolution time.

Toofast wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the biggest change in survivability was when cover was effectively an invuln save. It meant a lot of weaker units could survive a barrage just by getting behind cover.

I will argue until my dying breath that the only way cover mechanics make sense is a penalty to hit rolls. That's what cover does, especially in the 41st Millennium where basically every weapon is going through the wall.

Also makes template weapons and assault more efficient ways of clearing enemies out of cover - which is how it should work.

Regarding faster games....

One of my project's I'm starting to sketch out I'm calling "HexHammer"

The idea is to use hex-based battle maps (e.g. the size of an old school BattleTech map) to represent the battlefield.

Each hex would correspond approximately to a 3" x 3" area. The equivalent of a 6' x 4' board could fit on a 24" x 18" print out.

Units would occupy one or more hexes depending on their size. Every six models, or one vehicle could occupy a hex for example. The 3" hex would work well because you'd get things like difficult terrain tests (under classic 40k and ProHammer) working such that on a D6 roll of a 1-3, you'd only be able to move one hex through the terrain, and on a 4-6 could move two through, etc.

Units would just be represented by single models and/or tokens as players see fit. You'd have a unit roster card where you can track casualties and the like.

The edges of the hexs can denote difficult conditions, like barricades or lines of cover, or impassible terrain features. The hexes themselves can also denote open ground, area terrain/dense cover, and so on.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Thankfully this can be fixed, and I'm working on fixing it for my table.

Big. Los blocking. Centerpiece

Making a big 2x2 raised platform in the center board as like an imperial landing/check point that's got ramps on 2 sides and is tall Enlufh to block Los for knights. Fixes a LOT of turn one alpha strike

That's not fixing it though, that's slapping some duct tape on the problem and hoping it sorts itself out.

Well ductape can fix a lot of problems in my experience, but having big LOS blocking terrain pieces that help prevent turn 1 alpha strike is a lot better then just getting shot across the table.

 catbarf wrote:
Worth noting that Andy Chambers left GW specifically because 3rd Ed was successful and the suits wouldn't allow him to further iterate on the rules.

That was back in, what, 2005? And the game hasn't fundamentally changed since.

Thats not really true. While certain key core mechanics remain unchanged, many of the games fundamentals have changed entirely. Its incredible how just a few minor changes can produce a dramatically different experience on the tabletop. That being said, many of the games fundamentals can still be described as being dinosaurs of the past in need of a refresh.

Dai wrote:
Man the game(s) were far from perfect back then but the designers were allowed to show off raw talent in a way they never would be these days.

This is a joke, right? The designers "back in the day" really didn't show off any talent or really attempt to think outside the box, they mostly stuck to a very narrow vision of what the game was and how it should play. If anything 8th and 9th edition have shown a lot more risk taking and creative freedom than the editions prior.

Older games were not decided by turn 1 like they were in more recent editons, ranges were not nearly as long as they are now, 24" was pretty far I'm older editons.
Cover made a bigger difference, over watching worked different. It was a lot more infentey based less big toys, like seeing a LR on the table is what it's like to see someone field a bane blade, or Magnus/mortarian.
Also did not have all the wombo combo strats we see now

These are personal gripes, none of which speak to any sort of "raw talent" on the part of the designers or an enhanced degree of creative freedom.

You used to get crazy but fun and innovative rules that could be played very narratively. It all seems to read rules designed by comitee these days despite accusations of making up as they go along.

There was nothing in 40k that was mechanically innovative. Maybe back when 1st ed/rogue trader was released it was, but since 3rd edition at least the game has been fairly sterile and devoid of any sort of real innovation. If anything 8th and 9th have been far more innovative than any of the editions prior (short of the games original incarnation). al

 auticus wrote:

Older games were not decided by turn 1 like they were in more recent editons,

Game design over the past 10 years has centered on the experience lasting an hour or so. The generation of gamers from the 1990s and early 2000s were ok with playing games that took most of the afternoon. That was normal.

The generation that came after did not want to spend an entire afternoon on one game. They want to go to a game store and play multiple games in an afternoon.

Additionally tournaments. To cater to tournaments you need games that end fast so you can get as many rounds in as possible.

These things will not go away frankly because thats what current gen wants, and I'd argue current gen wants faster games than they are right now.

Conquest (the fantasy game) the designers stated goal are games that end in an hour to an hour and a half max. And those are full 2000 point games, so they want killy killy killy amped up to 11.

The last five or six projects I've been a part of, one of the constraints was gameplay could not last longer than 60 minutes. Thats just the new normal.

There are now games trying to crack 45 minutes of gameplay though involving many pieces.

Dota made a lot of changes a couple years ago with the same goal. People don't want to watch or play in 1hr+ games. It makes sense, when I get home from work and have time for a game of dota, I don't want a 3 hour epic battle. I want a 45 min game that still allows me to eat dinner, shower, and get to bed at a decent time.

Whats annoying is that is what a lot of people want, long epic battles, and thats how 40k used to be. Now if thats what you got into the hobby for, you basically are being told to go pound sand and get nothing to support the old play styles.

 auticus wrote:
I have to agree. The local game shops on average (five of them) had about 20 visible tournament players in each (some cross playing in different stores) - so say... there were about 60-80 regular tournament players of 40k in the city I left.

Each store owner would also mention that for those 20 visible tournament players, there were about 200-300 sales in a month from people you've never seen before or from the hobbyist guys that never played public games.

This is why the rules and whack balance can be as horrid as they are.

Ding, GW games have ALWAYS been carried by clubs and small groups of people who play garagehammer.

Now a days GW wants to be like "type2", "standard" magic block cycle where every new release you basically have to bin your old deck to remain 'competitive' in the new meta. They are TOTALLY going after that crowd. I agree 100% there. They want you to think that tournaments are the be all to end all and everyone should be on board for them. Of course they do, imagine having to buy a new $1000-$1500 army every three to six months. That is GW's wet dream.

Vancouver was the second GW in Canada behind Toronto. It opened up in late 1989 or early 1990 I believe ( I might be wrong on the dates). They opened at 205 carrell street right infront of the gassy jack statue. A few years later they opened up around the corner at #7 Water street. The store had 10 times the floor space and a huge downstairs for stock. It was great, it was like a battle bunker before they came up with that idea. Man I miss playing Epic back in those days. 2nd Edition epic was my favorite GW game.

Oh you are 100% right, GW is absolutely going for that magic marketing system. New series, new decks. Its honestly the worst part about MTG, and GW is selling it, and people are taking it hook line and sinker, and its blatantly obvious at this point.

This is why im saying that the tournament players are becoming if not already the new backbone of GWs money. Yeah you have garage hammer coming in every now and then and buying something here and there, but nothing like the tournament players coming in willing to drop hundreds and hundreds for the latest and greatest. every 6 months.

just my personal experience, but 40k did not become faster over time but slower

yes, also the points increased, while points per models were reduced, so there are a lot more models on the table now compared to 3rd

but the more "kill kill" of 40k, does not really compensate that and the game still takes longer even with GW trying to speed it up

Backspacehacker wrote:Whats annoying is that is what a lot of people want, long epic battles, and thats how 40k used to be. Now if thats what you got into the hobby for, you basically are being told to go pound sand and get nothing to support the old play styles.

Basically this.
If you have a permissive group that cooperates together, you'd be surprised what you can do with 9th.

Or say feth 40k and play Necromunda, Aeronautica, Titanicus(their best game), or any of the other multitude of games outside of the GW ecosphere.

You can attribute that to the fact that GW does not know how to speed up their game.
When 8th launched they put out the notion that OH we are working to make the games go faster by removing templates, scatter, needing to check WS vs WS, ect ect
But over time, because their current rule set did not allow for expansion and balance the time they saved just got added on in other places.
Things like, here let me add all my modifiers
Let me do all these rerolls
Let me use this strat so i can do this all over again

They just exchanged one set of problems for another.

I have to disagree with the idea that "GW as whole" is targeting tournament players, or that the 9th edition is the "tournament" edition.

GW is using MATCHED PLAY to target tournament players.

GW is using CRUSADE to target long-term narrative casuals.

GW is using OPEN PLAY, specialist/ smaller games and licensed products to target new/ young players.

All three demographics are important to the long term survival of the company for different reasons. All three have different spending profiles and different needs. And GW is simultaneously using multiple strategies to hit ALL of them.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Whats annoying is that is what a lot of people want, long epic battles, and thats how 40k used to be. Now if thats what you got into the hobby for, you basically are being told to go pound sand and get nothing to support the old play styles.

Apocalypse is pretty good for big, epic battles. Movement trays as a core part of the gameplay + very fast combat resolution + minimal interrupts (ie stratagems) makes for a quicker play experience.

It's not the scale that matters, it's complexity of mechanics. There's nothing stopping you from using the current 40K rules to play a 4K+ point game if you want more granularity (at the cost of far longer resolution time) than something like Apocalypse offers.

I have actually heard that apoc is really really good funny enough, because they made all the army rules at once.

Apocalypse is a great game but anything new since it's release doesn't have stats/rules.

In practice it's so stripped down that it takes longer to take out/put away minis than it does to actually play. I'm also not a big fan of the stratagem deck.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
In practice it's so stripped down that it takes longer to take out/put away minis than it does to actually play. I'm also not a big fan of the stratagem deck.

I feel like the old planetary onslaught named stratagems the best.
Both players got the same number of command points.
Most stratagems usually were best used to counter your opponents stratagems.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Apocalypse is a great game but anything new since it's release doesn't have stats/rules.

Do they do regular updates to incorporate new stuff either digitally or in print?