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.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So essentially having a bunch of throwaway activations isn't a problem - alright, fair enough (it's worth noting that you could do it with 8 point units though). Earlier in the thread someone said that MSU spam was a common problem in AA games.

It is and can be depending on the actual system.

40k is so damn lethal though that it actually kind of takes care of that on it's own. In games where everyone is so much more durable MSU will survive most of the game so that waiting it out strategy can carry you through the entire game. But in 40k 1 20 model (mid sized) unit of termagants can probably kill of 3-4 single model units in a single activation depending on what exactly we are talking about here.

So... on your first turn you ate up a bunch of time and by turn 2 you have lost a pretty solid chunk of your activations to a stiff breeze.

So... then are deathstars a problem? 3 Baneblades can wipe out a good chunk of the opponents army before it gets to move, if they're only 3 activations to the opponents ~10 or whatever.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So essentially having a bunch of throwaway activations isn't a problem - alright, fair enough (it's worth noting that you could do it with 8 point units though). Earlier in the thread someone said that MSU spam was a common problem in AA games.

It is and can be depending on the actual system.

40k is so damn lethal though that it actually kind of takes care of that on it's own. In games where everyone is so much more durable MSU will survive most of the game so that waiting it out strategy can carry you through the entire game. But in 40k 1 20 model (mid sized) unit of termagants can probably kill of 3-4 single model units in a single activation depending on what exactly we are talking about here.

So... on your first turn you ate up a bunch of time and by turn 2 you have lost a pretty solid chunk of your activations to a stiff breeze.

So... then are deathstars a problem? 3 Baneblades can wipe out a good chunk of the opponents army before it gets to move, if they're only 3 activations to the opponents ~10 or whatever.

 Lance845 wrote:
Here is the list i just made. Everything comes stock.

3 malathropes for hqs

3 units of 20 GENESTEALERS

3 UNITS OF Hormagaunts, 2 30 models 1 29 models.

2 trygons

1 trygon prime.

1999 points. Your "alpha strike" would be compleyely negated shooting at hormagaunts and the real threats would eat you alive because you are incapable of reacting properly

A single baneblade stock has 2d6 + d3 + 8 shots (avg 14.5 shots). If they move vs those hormagaunts they will be hitting on 6s. If they don't they will still only be hitting on 5s. How many hormagaunts do you think they will kill before the trygons and genestealers start showing up and ripping chunks off them? Do you think 1 trygon, 7 attacks hitting on 3s, wounding on 5s, ap-3 d6 dmg could reasonably deal 6 wounds to a baneblade on it's own? Add in 20 rending claw genestealers. x 3 (except one of the trygons is a prime). This is a fight on marble world with no terrain (which is actually in the baneblades favor). The Baneblades wouldn't last past turn 3. The nids MIGHT, I emphasize, MIGHT loose a unit or 2.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So essentially having a bunch of throwaway activations isn't a problem - alright, fair enough (it's worth noting that you could do it with 8 point units though). Earlier in the thread someone said that MSU spam was a common problem in AA games.

It is and can be depending on the actual system.

40k is so damn lethal though that it actually kind of takes care of that on it's own. In games where everyone is so much more durable MSU will survive most of the game so that waiting it out strategy can carry you through the entire game. But in 40k 1 20 model (mid sized) unit of termagants can probably kill of 3-4 single model units in a single activation depending on what exactly we are talking about here.

So... on your first turn you ate up a bunch of time and by turn 2 you have lost a pretty solid chunk of your activations to a stiff breeze.

So... then are deathstars a problem? 3 Baneblades can wipe out a good chunk of the opponents army before it gets to move, if they're only 3 activations to the opponents ~10 or whatever.

 Lance845 wrote:
Here is the list i just made. Everything comes stock.

3 malathropes for hqs

3 units of 20 GENESTEALERS

3 UNITS OF Hormagaunts, 2 30 models 1 29 models.

2 trygons

1 trygon prime.

1999 points. Your "alpha strike" would be compleyely negated shooting at hormagaunts and the real threats would eat you alive because you are incapable of reacting properly

A single baneblade stock has 2d6 + d3 + 8 shots (avg 14.5 shots). If they move vs those hormagaunts they will be hitting on 6s. If they don't they will still only be hitting on 5s. How many hormagaunts do you think they will kill before the trygons and genestealers start showing up and ripping chunks off them? Do you think 1 trygon, 7 attacks hitting on 3s, wounding on 5s, ap-3 d6 dmg could reasonably deal 6 wounds to a baneblade on it's own? Add in 20 rending claw genestealers. x 3 (except one of the trygons is a prime). This is a fight are marble world with no terrain. The Baneblades wouldn't last past turn 3. The nids MIGHT, I emphasize, MIGHT loose a unit or 2.

Yes, but that's true in current modern 40k as well, so your point doesn't support or address mine at all?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't see how "Some armies are REALLY GOOD at killing baneblades" is a counter to "Wouldn't 3 baneblades in an AA system cripple or kill a few units before they could move?"

The difference is in current 40k, your 3 baneblades would be firing all at once. They can all 3 back out of combat with my trygons, turn their attention onto a single trygon (the prime probably to start) and turn it into paste. then widdle down the next without the nids having any chance to respond.

Your baneblade in AA would need to activate, back out, shoot at what it can because the others are tied up in combat, and then get recharged by me when I activate either the trygon or the genestealers next.

The end result is a pretty clear answer to your question.

Are Deathstars a problem? What happens with 3 Bane Blades who are all super killy?

They get out manuevered. If you have terrain you use it. You feed them targets to distract from real threats and then when they have no ability to respond you crush them.

Edit:
Ah, yes. They COULD cripple or kill off a unit when they activate. Maybe a couple. You know your opponents list before you deploy. Set up and maneuver your guys to deal with it. You will need to sacrifice some pawns to take the king but thats much more interesting.

 Lance845 wrote:
The difference is in current 40k, your 3 baneblades would be firing all at once. They can all 3 back out of combat with my trygons, turn their attention onto a single trygon (the prime probably to start) and turn it into paste. then widdle down the next without the nids having any chance to respond.

Your baneblade in AA would need to activate, back out, shoot at what it can because the others are tied up in combat, and then get recharged by me when I activate either the trygon or the genestealers next.

The end result is a pretty clear answer to your question.

Are Deathstars a problem? What happens with 3 Bane Blades who are all super killy?

They get out manuevered. If you have terrain you use it. You feed them targets to distract from real threats and then when they have no ability to respond you crush them.

Why would they back out? They can fire just fine in combat and fight at the end as well.

And I think you can use terrain just fine in the current 40k to protect your units, no? If 'outmaneuvering' deathstars is how you deal with them, then you maneuver. The way it works in current 40k, you have a good chance to go before them and move everything into cover. The way it would work in your system is you move one thing into cover, a Baneblade blasts another, you move another thing into cover, a Baneblade blasts a second thing, you move a third thing into cover, and a Baneblade blasts a third thing. Essentially I've gotten to go with my entire army after you moved only 3 units, and you got to go first.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The difference is in current 40k, your 3 baneblades would be firing all at once. They can all 3 back out of combat with my trygons, turn their attention onto a single trygon (the prime probably to start) and turn it into paste. then widdle down the next without the nids having any chance to respond.

Your baneblade in AA would need to activate, back out, shoot at what it can because the others are tied up in combat, and then get recharged by me when I activate either the trygon or the genestealers next.

The end result is a pretty clear answer to your question.

Are Deathstars a problem? What happens with 3 Bane Blades who are all super killy?

They get out manuevered. If you have terrain you use it. You feed them targets to distract from real threats and then when they have no ability to respond you crush them.

Why would they back out? They can fire just fine in combat and fight at the end as well.

And I think you can use terrain just fine in the current 40k to protect your units, no? If 'outmaneuvering' deathstars is how you deal with them, then you maneuver. The way it works in current 40k, you have a good chance to go before them and move everything into cover. The way it would work in your system is you move one thing into cover, a Baneblade blasts another, you move another thing into cover, a Baneblade blasts a second thing, you move a third thing into cover, and a Baneblade blasts a third thing. Essentially I've gotten to go with my entire army after you moved only 3 units, and you got to go first.

Im confused about what actual point your trying to make. 1) they cant bring their big guns to bare against the targets they would be most effective against while in melee with those targets. Thats why they would back out.

I didnt say you could not do it in current 40k. What point are you trying to make? That in the match up of nids vs baneblades the fight goes similarly in igougo vs aa?

Mezmorki wrote:Random thought on an approach, borrowing a bit from Battle Tech.

What if you did something like this for a turn structure:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TURN 1 (and odd turns)

- Player A moves entire force
- Player B moves entire force

- Player A shoots, charges, or runs with 1 unit
- Player B shoots, charges, or runs with 1 unit
- Repeat till all units have performed their actions

- Combined morale phase

TURN 2 (and even turns)

Same as Turn 1 except player B moves first and activates units first, as follows:


- Player B moves entire force
- Player A moves entire force

- Player B shoots, charges, or runs with 1 unit
- Player A shoots, charges, or runs with 1 unit
- Repeat till all units have performed their actions

- Combined morale phase

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The idea with this is that players make big sweeping unit advancements, and their opponent then makes their movements in response. Shooting is combined at the same step as close combat (since shooting and charging tends to be mutually exclusive). You get a little more granularity in the combat resolution systems and still have to be tactical about which units you choose to fire in which orders, but it's interspersed with what your opponent is doing during their step.

The above seems like it would be simple to implement without having to make any drastic changes to the rules.

One of the things I like about the Battletech Phased Turn structure is that damage doesn't apply till the end of the play.

For example, Tau and Marines blast at each other for a turn, but models (and their guns) aren't removed from play until the end of the Phase. One doesn't need special rules of "it can swing even if it dies" in those cases.

That's interesting. The only thing I could see being an issue with that type of system though would be that it would re-emphasize the alphastrike and put even more emphasis on incredibly long-range weapons, or non-LOS weapons. I do admittedly want to find a Battletech group in NY so I can learn it.

Because GW is pretty gak at anything other than ripping off others' IP, copyrighting made up words, losing in court, and overpricing their gak.

Mitochondria wrote:
Because GW is pretty gak at anything other than ripping off others' IP, copyrighting made up words, losing in court, and overpricing their gak.

I'm not a huge fan of GW in most ways, but this kind of post does beg the question - why are you even on a 40K based forum? Seems like you're aggravating yourself for no reason.

While the alpha-strike would still be present with Battletech's style of damage resolution, it does introduce the interesting twist of allowing both the first and second player to alpha-strike at the same time because, for all intents and purposes, their damage is resolved simultaneously. So, in that way at least, it makes it so that turn order only matters for the purpose of movement.

Of course doing that creates a bit of an odd situation for the second player: it's possible to end up with units that you know are very likely to die when the damage allocated to them resolves, which can affect what you do with them. For example, using them as the target for an ability that requires you to sacrifice a model, overcharging their plasma weapons, or casting without regard for Perils because you know that unit is going to die during the damage phase anyway.

Though I suppose the degree of randomness in unresolved damage will keep the level of certainty low most of the time, unless a unit is the target of some serious overkill. On the other hand, in allocating his shots your opponent will presumably be overkilling his targets, because he is seeking some level of certainty that they will die for his own reasons.

Isn't battle tech generally played on a much smaller scale with significantly more durable "units"?

 Lance845 wrote:
Isn't battle tech generally played on a much smaller scale with significantly more durable "units"?

Yes. On top of that shots are resolved simultaneously. So even if you take out a mech it will fire back this turn.

 Elbows wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
Because GW is pretty gak at anything other than ripping off others' IP, copyrighting made up words, losing in court, and overpricing their gak.

I'm not a huge fan of GW in most ways, but this kind of post does beg the question - why are you even on a 40K based forum? Seems like you're aggravating yourself for no reason.

I didn't see him complaining about 40K anywhere. Only the company that controls it.

 combatcotton wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Isn't battle tech generally played on a much smaller scale with significantly more durable "units"?

Yes. On top of that shots are resolved simultaneously. So even if you take out a mech it will fire back this turn.

It seems to me that the large scale field with much more being in/out of range coupled with the vastly more lethal mechanics changes the games at a very fundamental level that might make 40k unsuitable to mechwarriors turn structure without some pretty sever rebalancing/restructuring.

Lance845 wrote:Isn't battle tech generally played on a much smaller scale with significantly more durable "units"?

The standard game is, yes. It is far more simulator oriented than abstract. However, there is the Alpha Strike/Battleforce version which is far more abstract, where the mechs have armor closer to a Character's or Monstrous Creature's Wounds. This is intended for more Company v Company and larger engagements that are seen in the storylines rather than the Lance v Lance the more traditional game has as its target size.

Lance845 wrote:It seems to me that the large scale field with much more being in/out of range coupled with the vastly more lethal mechanics changes the games at a very fundamental level that might make 40k unsuitable to mechwarriors turn structure without some pretty sever rebalancing/restructuring.

Not really. If a 'Mech has ammunition, one hit against it can cause the unit to be written off after the end of the phase. The only things that would need to be rebalanced and restructured are those few abilities which care about when the model dying before it can Fight in that Phase. Indeed, it is far more compatible with 8th Edition than 7th Edition due to the dropping of the Initiative stat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
That's interesting. The only thing I could see being an issue with that type of system though would be that it would re-emphasize the alphastrike and put even more emphasis on incredibly long-range weapons, or non-LOS weapons. I do admittedly want to find a Battletech group in NY so I can learn it.

Actually the alpha strike, while still very good (and sometimes VERY painful to pull off when the ammo cooks off) loses its punch when compared to 40K, as the target you just struck can still alpha atrike you back. Heck, it may convince them TO alpha strike you back if he already knows the unit is going to die any way (heat doesn't bother a dead 'Mech too much).

---------------------

As a side note, within the Phase, it is an alternating activation, with the person who won the initiative deciding who moves first, and it is a proportional move, with someone who has a 2 model advantage activating 2 models when the opponent moves 1.

It may be old, but it is a turn set up which avoids a lot of problems that people have complained about in 40K.

I will refrain from stating whether the scenario I described is a good thing or a bad thing, as honestly it could probably be seen either way. On the one hand, you get to squeeze some use out of units that are going to die. On the other hand, you may find yourself using them in ways that would be unrealistic if you didn't already know they were going to die.

I'd really like to try a straight alternating activation translation of 40k. Activate one unit, run it all the way through, then your opponent goes.

 argonak wrote:
I'd really like to try a straight alternating activation translation of 40k. Activate one unit, run it all the way through, then your opponent goes.

There has been some people making a "Bolter Action" version of the game, and I think they have posted in the Proposed Rules. You may want to look them up and bring them up to your group to try out.

I was really hoping in 8th they would have used a more advanced version of iniativie and activiation. Such as, whatever model has the highest inaitative goes first per step; akin to the melee system, but for shooting only.

Both teams move, the first player moves all their stuff, the second player moves all their stuff. The shooting phase kicks in. Initiative step 10, all models with that number shoot. Such as, the person whos turn it it, activates one of these models/units. Then the other player (if they have anything at that step) and once all units with that number have gone, move to the next step of initiative. And so on and so forth until step 0 is reached.

This has the wonderful ability to mostly hamper the, "I got first turn and I blow you off the board" gameplay. More importantly it adds a new layer of strategy and army building. Infantry would always be faster than vehicles and things like speeder would be faster than tanks and so forth. And with a 10 step system (no reason it must be at that number just a place holder), you can add granularity. Predator tanks would be a step above a Leman Russ, and you could make vehicles and tanks heavier or lighter based on statlines and speed.

Its a super simple, and more importantly fast system.

Thats how my board game is going to work when I bother to properly make it!

 Tsol wrote:
I was really hoping in 8th they would have used a more advanced version of iniativie and activiation. Such as, whatever model has the highest inaitative goes first per step; akin to the melee system, but for shooting only.

Both teams move, the first player moves all their stuff, the second player moves all their stuff. The shooting phase kicks in. Initiative step 10, all models with that number shoot. Such as, the person whos turn it it, activates one of these models/units. Then the other player (if they have anything at that step) and once all units with that number have gone, move to the next step of initiative. And so on and so forth until step 0 is reached.

This has the wonderful ability to mostly hamper the, "I got first turn and I blow you off the board" gameplay. More importantly it adds a new layer of strategy and army building. Infantry would always be faster than vehicles and things like speeder would be faster than tanks and so forth. And with a 10 step system (no reason it must be at that number just a place holder), you can add granularity. Predator tanks would be a step above a Leman Russ, and you could make vehicles and tanks heavier or lighter based on statlines and speed.

Its a super simple, and more importantly fast system.

Thats how my board game is going to work when I bother to properly make it!

You are going to run into 2 major problems.

1) If the not Tau goes first then the Tau will use their move to take some steps back out of the first players range while still keeping the enemy within their own range. If first team moves then the other drastically favors longer range gun lines. Not to mention the second playing having preference for utilizing LoS blocking terrain while moving to negate the first players use of it.

2) If you are going to base your initiatives off traditional initiative values then you are fething over Orks and Necrons and Making Eldar and Nids the undisputed masters with their high initiatives they will be acting with almost their entire army first every time.

I was just swapping pints last night with a friend who was a big battle tech player back in the day (played in tournaments, etc.). I've played it a few dozen times myself. We were both talking about how much we liked the turn structure of the game, and it goes well beyond just the alternating but simultaneous turn structure of the game.

Specifically, during the shooting phase, players would alternate declaring targets for their shooting. Then, after all targets were assigned, the shots were resolved and damage applied simultaneously.

Having to declare firing targets (didn't 3rd edition do this? I can't recall now...) adds a significant level of skill and risk calculation to the game. The game shifts fundamentally from being a risk optimization exercise (i.e., shoot at the biggest / most pressing threat on the board sequentially until it's been neutered enough, then switch to the next target) to a game of making strategic gambits. How much fire do you do toss at the big threat to have a good enough probability of taking it out? If you put too much fire on it, you risk wasting shots. It also tends to make the gameplay more tense and dynamic.

Back when I was playing 3rd/4th edition, my group designed a set of custom skirmish / advanced rules for warhammer that brought this kind of mechanic back into play - and our games were a lot more exciting AND deep strategically. They were less about math-optimizing the most efficient attack order (which, lets be honest, isn't really all that exciting) and more about making big sweeping tough calls.

The idea of having shooting occur simultaneously with damage applying simultaneously would resolve the alpha strike issue nicely, in that both players can now simultaneously be alpha striking. Of course, declaring targets requires using numbered tokens to keep it all straight, especially in a competitive setting. But I don't see any reason why a similar system couldn't be adopted for WH40K.

Mezmorki wrote:
I was just swapping pints last night with a friend who was a big battle tech player back in the day (played in tournaments, etc.). I've played it a few dozen times myself. We were both talking about how much we liked the turn structure of the game, and it goes well beyond just the alternating but simultaneous turn structure of the game.

Specifically, during the shooting phase, players would alternate declaring targets for their shooting. Then, after all targets were assigned, the shots were resolved and damage applied simultaneously.

Having to declare firing targets (didn't 3rd edition do this? I can't recall now...) adds a significant level of skill and risk calculation to the game. The game shifts fundamentally from being a risk optimization exercise (i.e., shoot at the biggest / most pressing threat on the board sequentially until it's been neutered enough, then switch to the next target) to a game of making strategic gambits. How much fire do you do toss at the big threat to have a good enough probability of taking it out? If you put too much fire on it, you risk wasting shots. It also tends to make the gameplay more tense and dynamic.

Back when I was playing 3rd/4th edition, my group designed a set of custom skirmish / advanced rules for warhammer that brought this kind of mechanic back into play - and our games were a lot more exciting AND deep strategically. They were less about math-optimizing the most efficient attack order (which, lets be honest, isn't really all that exciting) and more about making big sweeping tough calls.

The idea of having shooting occur simultaneously with damage applying simultaneously would resolve the alpha strike issue nicely, in that both players can now simultaneously be alpha striking. Of course, declaring targets requires using numbered tokens to keep it all straight, especially in a competitive setting. But I don't see any reason why a similar system couldn't be adopted for WH40K.

You start to touch on why it wouldn't work. The sheer scale of the thing. Not only would you need a ton of numbered tokens to keep track of who was targetting what, but you would need some way of marking how many of what guns within a unit were targeting what. It's easy enough when my 30 termagants with devourers are shooting 10 models each at 3 targets, but what about a stormsurge that has 10+ weapons each better or worse then the others at hitting specific targets? What if that 10+ weapon stormsurge is shooting 3 targets? How do you indicate which weapons were declared to be going where?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Adapting the "BattleTech" turn structure for 40k:

At the start of each turn, determine initiative (roll 2d6). The player roles highest can choose to go first or second.

Movement Phase
The player going first moves a unit, then the other player moves a unit. Alternate moving units until all units have moved. Units can advance as part of their movement.

Psychic Phase
The player going first chooses a psyker unit to make an psychic power. Alternate between players until all psyckers have been used.

Shooting - Declare Targets Phase
The player going first chooses a unit and declares the target(s) it wishes to shoot at. Then the other player declares a target for one of their units. Alternate declaring targets until all units have declared a target or declined to fire.

Shooting - Resolve Shots Phase
All shooting is resolved simultaneously. The order doesn't matter, so do what's most expedient. Typically have one side (the first player) resolve all of their shots, and then switch to the other player.

Charge Phase
Starting with the first player, select a unit and declare a target for then to charge, moving them into melee range (and charged unit making overwatch fire as normal). Then the other player may select a unit to charge. Alternate charging units until all units have charged or declined to charge.

Fight Phase
Starting with the first player, players alternate selecting units that charged and declaring their intended target(s) / distribution of attacks. All charge attacks are resolved simultaneously. After all attacks from charging units have been resolved, players alternate declaring targets for non-charging units. All of these attacks are resolved simultaneously.

Morale Phase
As normal.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems like this would work pretty well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:


You start to touch on why it wouldn't work. The sheer scale of the thing. Not only would you need a ton of numbered tokens to keep track of who was targetting what, but you would need some way of marking how many of what guns within a unit were targeting what. It's easy enough when my 30 termagants with devourers are shooting 10 models each at 3 targets, but what about a stormsurge that has 10+ weapons each better or worse then the others at hitting specific targets? What if that 10+ weapon stormsurge is shooting 3 targets? How do you indicate which weapons were declared to be going where?

You might have to restrict the extent to which you can split fire for a unit. Coming from 4th edition 40K (where there wasn't any split fire at all) and being new to 8th edition, I don't how how often or wide spread people split their fire within a squad. For simplicity sake, you might cap squads to only being able to split fire between two separate targets at the max.

Playing battle tech, while you only had 4-6 mechs per side, each mech might have 4-5 weapon systems on it, which could all be independently targeted. Some how we managed to keep all that straight without needing tokens or other elaborate methods.

EDIT: If you skipped the target declaration phase, you could have units pick a target and fire in one step. Then you'd simply need toy keep track of how many wounds a unit received so at the end of the shooting phase you can remove them.

Again, this probably works better at a smaller skirmish scale (less than 1,000 points) compared to a big 2,000 point game.

EDIT 2: As far as kiting goes (e.g. backtracking with Tau to get out of range) I don't see that as a big problem, especially if you're playing any sort of objective based scenario. There is only so much board you can fall back across and if you keep walking away from an objective point you're going to lose the overall objective of the mission.

Oddly enough, we had and have that much record keeping for Morale...