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 have played plenty of AA games, chess and checkers mostly though.

Peregrine already admitted AA games have had problems with cheap activation units and needed special rules to limit them in games, and I'm assuming he's played some AA miniatures games.

You are in the 40K forums, if you want to discuss AA miniatures games with people who play AA miniatures games you and the 10 people who play them can go back to their sub-forum and stay there.

AA solves nothing about alpha strikes, Peregrine already admitted this. Having enough terrain to hide your important units out of line of sight on turn 1 solves the alpha strike issue, without that both AA and IGOUGO have serious problems. Staggered deployment makes it easier to keep units out of LOS since you have less of them on the board turn 1.

Current rules are good for regular plays. It is horrible for power plays.

GW needs to release "Advanced Rules" to tailor it to tourney style power plays.

AA is not the solution.

AA is the solution. It's the only solution. Everything else is a band aid fix that doesn't solve the real issue.

You are in the 40K forums, if you want to discuss AA miniatures games with people who play AA miniatures games you and the 10 people who play them can go back to their sub-forum and stay there.

I play 40k with AA actually, so you're point isn't valid. Most of my FLGS does, and it's much more fun. Maybe I'll write up some batreps for ya next time I'm down there.

I would be in favour of adding both staggered deployment and alternating activation.

With the model count bloating to where it is now and the tables not getting bigger (in most practical circumstances) movement and tactics have been steadily reduced in importance.

A version where only light scouting forces start on the table and the results of holding territory/objectives dictates what can come on each turn. Could have things cost their power level in objective points to bring in. Make it a choice between bringing in heavy hitters or more numerous weaker but faster units to dominate objective play and hinder your opponents reserves.

 Blackie wrote:

1) Actually yes. The ultimate proof is that almost everyone plays the current version of 40k.

2) If it doesn't, why so many people keep playing 40k? Trying to improve the game doesn't mean that the game is awful. It's certainly not perfect and proposed rules are useful to improve it but also to wishlist, which is something that some people like as well. ITC is basically for ultracompetitive and obsessed people that only want to prove how good they are on a tabletop game. 40k works well with the real rules, always have been, even in the infamous 7th edition. It all depends on what you want from it. For me it's competitive friendly gaming with realistic and WYSIWYG lists since things like 5 stormravens, 100 brimstone horrors, 30+ dark reapers, 6+ hive tyrants, 200 conscripts or 5+ plasma scions command squads don't really exist in real life. 40k is also open and narrative, plus all the hobby part, matched games are only a fraction of it. Toning up/down and list tailoring shouldn't be considered as bad things, after all it's just a game between friends or strangers that can become friends. There's no need of re-writing the whole game, just find a group of people with the right attitude. Without that there's not perfect set of rules that matters.

It's called "having actually opponents". It's pretty much irrelevant how good game is if nobody near you play. And lack of opponents makes it hard to introduce new players. Meanwhile even poor game with large amount of players has visibility and sheer ease of use. Pop up to store, play. No need to bring in 2 forces so you can loan up army for others hoping eventually it brings up enough players with own armies. Plenty of tournaments etc.

GW became big by having their own stores with gaming rooms and big marketing in '90's basically making themselves synonym for miniature games. They are still reaping benefits. Lots of good games with very small localized groups here and there. I have for example heard lots of praise for infinity for rules but it would be _pointless_ for me to start it. Whom I would play it with? Myself? That's going to be much fun...

Nah that's a bad example. Infinity is a different game with different miniatures. The example here is about the same game that you are able to play with just some different set of house rules. Try to propose those rules to your regular opponents. Everyone plays with house rules, even the index ban is an house rule.

If they don't like them or they think they're not interesting enough maybe it's because they enjoy the game as it is. If they like the new rules this different way to play 40k can become popular instead. Unless we're talking about people that should be locked into the asylum, no one is willing to play a GAME that doesn't enjoy.

 Blackie wrote:
Nah that's a bad example. Infinity is a different game with different miniatures. The example here is about the same game that you are able to play with just some different set of house rules. Try to propose those rules to your regular opponents. Everyone plays with house rules, even the index ban is an house rule.

If they don't like them or they think they're not interesting enough maybe it's because they enjoy the game as it is. If they like the new rules this different way to play 40k can become popular instead. Unless we're talking about people that should be locked into the asylum, no one is willing to play a GAME that doesn't enjoy.

Most people aren't willing to play with the homebrew needed for AA.

 Blackie wrote:
Nah that's a bad example. Infinity is a different game with different miniatures. The example here is about the same game that you are able to play with just some different set of house rules. Try to propose those rules to your regular opponents. Everyone plays with house rules, even the index ban is an house rule.

If they don't like them or they think they're not interesting enough maybe it's because they enjoy the game as it is. If they like the new rules this different way to play 40k can become popular instead. Unless we're talking about people that should be locked into the asylum, no one is willing to play a GAME that doesn't enjoy.

Oh so NOW you admit that everyone plays with house rules. So NOBODY is playing actual 40k, right? So how good of a game is it then that nobody wants to follow the actual rules?

 Lance845 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Nah that's a bad example. Infinity is a different game with different miniatures. The example here is about the same game that you are able to play with just some different set of house rules. Try to propose those rules to your regular opponents. Everyone plays with house rules, even the index ban is an house rule.

If they don't like them or they think they're not interesting enough maybe it's because they enjoy the game as it is. If they like the new rules this different way to play 40k can become popular instead. Unless we're talking about people that should be locked into the asylum, no one is willing to play a GAME that doesn't enjoy.

Oh so NOW you admit that everyone plays with house rules. So NOBODY is playing actual 40k, right? So how good of a game is it then that nobody wants to follow the actual rules?

None of us follow the rules since we allow pistol and assault weapons to fire right?

Sir Heckington wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Nah that's a bad example. Infinity is a different game with different miniatures. The example here is about the same game that you are able to play with just some different set of house rules. Try to propose those rules to your regular opponents. Everyone plays with house rules, even the index ban is an house rule.

If they don't like them or they think they're not interesting enough maybe it's because they enjoy the game as it is. If they like the new rules this different way to play 40k can become popular instead. Unless we're talking about people that should be locked into the asylum, no one is willing to play a GAME that doesn't enjoy.

Oh so NOW you admit that everyone plays with house rules. So NOBODY is playing actual 40k, right? So how good of a game is it then that nobody wants to follow the actual rules?

None of us follow the rules since we allow pistol and assault weapons to fire right?

Excuse me...

To get back on topic, 40k doesn't work with Staggered Deployment or AA without extreme rewrites. IGOUGO is broken but somewhat usable.

Personally I would like to see some sort of delayed casualty system where damage is only inflicted after both players get to take their turns, but that leads to issues with the player going 2nd having more information and the ability to recklessly use "dead" units, so it would have to be combined with alternating activation.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Nah that's a bad example. Infinity is a different game with different miniatures. The example here is about the same game that you are able to play with just some different set of house rules. Try to propose those rules to your regular opponents. Everyone plays with house rules, even the index ban is an house rule.

If they don't like them or they think they're not interesting enough maybe it's because they enjoy the game as it is. If they like the new rules this different way to play 40k can become popular instead. Unless we're talking about people that should be locked into the asylum, no one is willing to play a GAME that doesn't enjoy.

Oh so NOW you admit that everyone plays with house rules. So NOBODY is playing actual 40k, right? So how good of a game is it then that nobody wants to follow the actual rules?

None of us follow the rules since we allow pistol and assault weapons to fire right?

Excuse me...

To get back on topic, 40k doesn't work with Staggered Deployment or AA without extreme rewrites. IGOUGO is broken but somewhat usable.

Personally I would like to see some sort of delayed casualty system where damage is only inflicted after both players get to take their turns, but that leads to issues with the player going 2nd having more information and the ability to recklessly use "dead" units, so it would have to be combined with alternating activation.

Yeah, that'd be best. I think those would create a nice balance, or at least closer to actual balance. Though I worry having to count damage might be a bit annoying, counting how much damage a large conscript squad took would be annoying

I know 8th edition was written with the intention that the player can't add up three digit numbers, but I would assume that using a pad and pen to track how many dead models/wounds a unit has taken wouldn't be too difficult.

Fair. I wouldn't mind it, but it'd still lead to people using 'dead' troops recklessly, even in AA. And with AA, I'm not sure it's needed.

Alternate Activation, by phase, remove casualties after each phase. Somewhat more book keeping, but not that hard with the ability to write and hold a pen.

So, Movement phase, each take turns moving a unit. Psychic phase, more or less the same. Shooting phase, each take turns shooting with a unit - remove casualties at the end of the phase. Charge and Fight gets a bit complex, but I'm sure it could be done. Morale, pretty much the same as usual.
Every unit gets some chance to move/shoot/react; likely need some tokens to show who has done what, or just an attentive opponent to keep you honest, and would likely increase game time a little.

 Kcalehc wrote:
Alternate Activation, by phase, remove casualties after each phase. Somewhat more book keeping, but not that hard with the ability to write and hold a pen.

So, Movement phase, each take turns moving a unit. Psychic phase, more or less the same. Shooting phase, each take turns shooting with a unit - remove casualties at the end of the phase. Charge and Fight gets a bit complex, but I'm sure it could be done. Morale, pretty much the same as usual.
Every unit gets some chance to move/shoot/react; likely need some tokens to show who has done what, or just an attentive opponent to keep you honest, and would likely increase game time a little.

Doesn't work.

(Stolen from lance as example)

Tyranids move up to charge

My fire warriors pull back

They can never charge me, it doesn't work.

The version of AA we play works kinda like Xcom, where each unit gets 2 actions (Of course you cant shoot or fight twice), and it has certain restrictions.

Well, this thread got derailed completely, but I'm enjoying it and I think it's quite informative, so I'll roll with it.

As said, AA by phase won't work as movement is a key part, there's no fun in ambushing someone if they go "oh." and move away.

A rolling casualty system could work well with AA, and negate the fore-knowledge issue that BCB was concerned about, if you did it like this:

units take wounds, and they receive wound counters. At the end of your next activation, allocate wounds to models and remove them.

So you get a 1 activation grace period to use models before they die. It would force your hand a little, so you can't just use your dead units indiscriminately, and if you take casualties in multiple units you will be losing some without using them.

It would also add an element of choice to targeting: do you shoot something which already activated, so they will die without further activations? do you split your fire, to try and kill a few models from each unit? do you shoot a unit which hasn't activated yet, to try and make your opponent commit them next?

it would be quite easy to keep track of, and have a set "remove models" phase at the end of each activation, where you allocate the wounds and remove the models.

only issue I can see would be weapons with damage, but provided any weapons damage was capped at the wounds of the model, it would have little impact - so shooting terminators, a wound with damage 6 would add 2 wounds to the pool. 6 wounds with damage 1 would add 6. yes, it means the odd wound rolls over, but it's the simplest way I can see it working.

Would anyone who plays AA be up for trialling this in one of their games?

 Lance845 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Nah that's a bad example. Infinity is a different game with different miniatures. The example here is about the same game that you are able to play with just some different set of house rules. Try to propose those rules to your regular opponents. Everyone plays with house rules, even the index ban is an house rule.

If they don't like them or they think they're not interesting enough maybe it's because they enjoy the game as it is. If they like the new rules this different way to play 40k can become popular instead. Unless we're talking about people that should be locked into the asylum, no one is willing to play a GAME that doesn't enjoy.

Oh so NOW you admit that everyone plays with house rules. So NOBODY is playing actual 40k, right? So how good of a game is it then that nobody wants to follow the actual rules?

What's the problem with that? House rules could be small limitations, there's no need to change completely the mechanics of the game. House rules are also part of the game itself, I'm pretty sure that in any rulebook from older editions is clearly stated that players are encouraged to play with their own house rules. Since 40k is basically an excuse to play with the beautiful toys you painted, it's not a sport.

Even tournaments are forced to use house rules because games are designed to be quite long, and the time limitation is a very strong house rule since it completely changes list building. If you want to play a single friendly game you can definitely go RAW, but if you're interested in playing more games in a single day it's simply not possible.

I think you want something from 40k that you'll never get since this hobby wasn't designed to be a competitive game in which players are eager to prove how good they are on a tabletop. There's nothing to prove, just relax and have fun.

Now talking about AA, wouldn't it be better if a single unit was able to play an entire turn? I mean movement, psychic, shooting and charging. Then it comes the turn for a unit that belongs to the other player. A single action per unit would be extremely silly.

That just turns alpha strike from your whole army to a single tricked out unit.

also I imagine that it would affect the game a lot more than people suggest - though I have no experience playing 40k with AA.

AA will seriously affect all auras in the game - move the character forward and they are exposed to being shot. move the unit forwards first and they won't benefit from the aura. turns a unit which should be charging screaming at the enemy into a shuffling mob. Orks with a KFF, but who repeatedly move in and out of the KFF. Not a good plan.

Also, how would orders work for guard? issued at the start of the shooting phase, would it be only when the officer issuing the order is activated? This would change how they are used - you wouldn't issue FRFSRF! until a transport had been blown open by other units.

If a transport moves, then is blown up in the opponents activation, can you activate the unit which was inside it next, and so charge? Currently, they would have to wait until their next turn, or would have had to have gotten out before it moved. This could have massive effects on eldar tanks, which can move mighty quick, I believe!

If a trukk falls back from combat, then gets blown up and the boys get out, can they be activated and charge, as they are no longer embarked and so don't have restrictions applied to them?

I'm not convinced that AA can be applied to 40k without further overhauls.

I do, however, think that having the armies turning up as part of the battle would go some way to mitigating the perfectly set up to buff everything alpha strike aura nonsense which occurs nowadays, and make the game feel a bit more realistic than 2 armies suddenly noticing each other, lined up perfectly, about 100 yards apart. some of which brought intercontinental ballistic missiles to the front line

 some bloke wrote:
also I imagine that it would affect the game a lot more than people suggest - though I have no experience playing 40k with AA.

AA will seriously affect all auras in the game - move the character forward and they are exposed to being shot. move the unit forwards first and they won't benefit from the aura. turns a unit which should be charging screaming at the enemy into a shuffling mob. Orks with a KFF, but who repeatedly move in and out of the KFF. Not a good plan.

Also, how would orders work for guard? issued at the start of the shooting phase, would it be only when the officer issuing the order is activated? This would change how they are used - you wouldn't issue FRFSRF! until a transport had been blown open by other units.

If a transport moves, then is blown up in the opponents activation, can you activate the unit which was inside it next, and so charge? Currently, they would have to wait until their next turn, or would have had to have gotten out before it moved. This could have massive effects on eldar tanks, which can move mighty quick, I believe!

If a trukk falls back from combat, then gets blown up and the boys get out, can they be activated and charge, as they are no longer embarked and so don't have restrictions applied to them?

I'm not convinced that AA can be applied to 40k without further overhauls.

I do, however, think that having the armies turning up as part of the battle would go some way to mitigating the perfectly set up to buff everything alpha strike aura nonsense which occurs nowadays, and make the game feel a bit more realistic than 2 armies suddenly noticing each other, lined up perfectly, about 100 yards apart. some of which brought intercontinental ballistic missiles to the front line

Let Characters activate with a unit. It can be applied, it requires a bit of work, but it's worth it.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Other statements make no sense at all. Following the rules means playing RAI, not RAW.

This is the dumbest thing ever said on this forum. RAI is meaningless since RAI is debatable at BEST.

I love this argument because it's so easy to disprove. For the record, Blackie is right - the game works fine out of the box but could be better. It's certainly not some sort of hilarious broken dumpster fire. 12-year olds playing with their little brother can read the rules and, for the most part, play a proper game of 40k.

The issue is rules lawyers being dicks, which is what happens on this forum (despite the name).

GW released a set of rules, which included what Assault weapons do. Everyone read that rule and pretty much everyone in the world started playing it correctly (as in, what the rules designers intended). They successfully communicated their intent to 99.9% of people in the world who play the game, including little kids playing on their kitchen table.

Then someone points out that TECHNICALLY, if you follow the rules with forensic detail like examining contract law then TECHNICALLY the rules have a small sequence error in that TECHNICALLY stops you using Assault weapons. Thats a good thing to point out, because grammatical errors are annoying, and is sorted in a housekeeping FAQ.

But the idea that this means the game is BROKEN. impossible to play, a total mess, is a pile of rubbish. To be absolutely clear, 99.9% of people read the rules, understood correctly the intention, and played it correctly. It's only people trying to find exploits and prove themselves online that insist that, RAW, assault weapons do not work and think that this matters at all. Not even the most competitive tournamtents out there stopped people using assault weapons.

It's a clear case that RAI works, and it's only exploit-obsessed rules lawyers insisting everyone plays RAW because RAI is 'debatable' that have a problem. RAI > RAW.

Similar for fast-rolling.

My game group pretty much play using the basic rules. People tend not to bring deliberately broken Turn 1-win lists because they're adults and want both players to have a good time. They don't need ITC rules because they're not dicks to start with. They used Assault weapons correctly before the FAQ. They fast roll. They look up stuff in a FAQ only if they really have to, and most games don't have to. If you think that means that they're having to patch a broken game with house rules and 40k simply doesn't function without them, you're in the fething minority.

RaI my Marines have 600 wounds each, prove me wrong. /s RaI is meaningless because I can just claim anything I like is "RaI" and anything you like isn't "RaI".

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaI my Marines have 600 wounds each, prove me wrong. /s RaI is meaningless because I can just claim anything I like is "RaI" and anything you like isn't "RaI".

That's a bit extreme BCB - RAI only comes into play if the rules aren't clear on the subject. your marines have 1 wound because their profile has a wounds characteristic of 1. RAI = RAW if RAW is clear.

it's only if the rule can be read as meaning 2 things that the "intent" has to be considered - did they mean option A or option B? did they mean that assault weapons still can't shoot after advancing, or did they intend that the assault weapon rule allowed them to shoot?

Now, having seen what your posts are like, you doubtless have a rules interpretation which means that your marines do have 600 wounds each, as you're not one to throw out statements without strict RAW to back it up - so, can you quote the rule which calls into question whether the designers intended your marines have 1 wound or 600?

On the other hand rules should be written clearly so they dont have 2 meanings.

The vast majority of games produced do this no problems.

GW is bad at writing rules and 40k is no exception. Its not a well made game. Thats not debatable. GW has a very poorly made game that has way too much errata and faqs that wouldnt be needed if the rules were well written in the first place.

People can cry rules lawyers all you want. In the case of assault and pistals rai is pretty obvious. But for every assault rule there are a dozen that are nowhere near as clear.

*laughs in Necron*

So....99% of my army doesn't come on til the end.

Pass.

I like the idea of staggered deployment. I think it should be enforced though. So you have to have at least 1/4 points reserved for round 3, at least 1/4 points reserved for round 2 and the remaining points of the army start in deployment zones. You could have rules that faster units have to start in the first wave etc but I dont think that is necessary.

The idea OP presented was nice, but i feel armies like knights for exaplme already have huge movement, would start on board and would never face enemy artillery until round 3. Slow fire support units like mek guns, mortar teams, devastators would too hamstrung for my taste.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaI my Marines have 600 wounds each, prove me wrong. /s RaI is meaningless because I can just claim anything I like is "RaI" and anything you like isn't "RaI".

You can claim whatever you want. But, like with assault weapons, if everyone looking at the rules understands that marines have 1 wound that’s what you’ll be playing, or you won’t be playing at all. It really doesn’t matter what technicality you can bring up in the rules to support your statement - if the intent has been clearly communicated to the majority of the readership then that’s what is being played. RAI.

This argument is pointless, except for grammatical housekeeping and/or trying to be the current pointless timewasting rules-lawyer of YMDC (see; Stelek, Gwar, etc etc)

This reminds me of a few editions ago, when I had a thread on here of ‘reasons arguing RAW is stupid’ which featured such classics as Wraithguard not being able to shoot because the rules required judging line of sight from the eyes, and they don’t have any. Anyone arguing ‘I play only by RAW’ presumably didnt play Eldar.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaI my Marines have 600 wounds each, prove me wrong. /s RaI is meaningless because I can just claim anything I like is "RaI" and anything you like isn't "RaI".

You can claim whatever you want. But, like with assault weapons, if everyone looking at the rules understands that marines have 1 wound that’s what you’ll be playing, or you won’t be playing at all. It really doesn’t matter what technicality you can bring up in the rules to support your statement - if the intent has been clearly communicated to the majority of the readership then that’s what is being played. RAI.

This argument is pointless, except for grammatical housekeeping and/or trying to be the current pointless timewasting rules-lawyer of YMDC (see; Stelek, Gwar, etc etc)

This reminds me of a few editions ago, when I had a thread on here of ‘reasons arguing RAW is stupid’ which featured such classics as Wraithguard not being able to shoot because the rules required judging line of sight from the eyes, and they don’t have any. Anyone arguing ‘I play only by RAW’ presumably didnt play Eldar.

The rules aren't a democracy, they are what they are. You're free to play modifiers before re-rolls, but the rules are clear that this is not the case.

 Lance845 wrote:

People can cry rules lawyers all you want. In the case of assault and pistals rai is pretty obvious. But for every assault rule there are a dozen that are nowhere near as clear.

I’d suggest that for each thing that is GENUINELY unclear (like, not just someone being a dick online, genuine confusion requiring the FAQ to solve), there are 50 other things in any given book that work absolutely fine.

Textbooks have errors. Films have errors. Everything has errors. Video games have bugs and patches. Plenty of people play the game fine without ever needing the FAQs. This is not a broken game, it’s a regular number of small errors in a complex document and a tiny minority of the player base loudly overreacting.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The rules aren't a democracy, they are what they are. You're free to play modifiers before re-rolls, but the rules are clear that this is not the case.

They literally are a democracy. You are given permission to decide which ones to use and to modify them in the damn rules. This only causes problems in organised play (so, a small minority of play) or if you’re an online rules lawyer.

Please, in the interim between rulebook and faq, attempt to go and play with your reading of assault weapons. You won’t get a game. Therefore no problem occurs.


.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
Please, in the interim between rulebook and faq, attempt to go and play with your reading of assault weapons. You won’t get a game. Therefore no problem occurs.

I literally had a game not 3 hours ago. What's your point? I already said you're free to make up rules, and I am free to not make up rules.