Switch Theme:

Does 9e Feel Like a Game of Chicken?  [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 pt
Fireknife Shas'el




Lisbon, Portugal

 Sledgehammer wrote:
This is entirely a product of the turn system. If it was alternating activation this wouldn't be nearly as bad.


This.

40k, AI & BFG: / SW Legion & X-Wing: CIS / MCP: X-Force, X-Men, Brotherhood of Mutants, Avengers

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"FW is unbalanced and going to ruin tournaments."
"Name one where it did that."
"IT JUST DOES OKAY!"

 Shadenuat wrote:
Voted Astra Militarum for a chance for them to get nerfed instead of my own army.
 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Larger boards help with speed mattering and choices mattering more. Just my opinion as well but GW disagrees but then I also kind of miss when vehicle facing mattered.


Why? To my knowledge, GW gives no upper limits for board size, just a minimum recommendation below which the game probably doesn't work well.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






Sunny Side Up wrote:
 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Larger boards help with speed mattering and choices mattering more. Just my opinion as well but GW disagrees but then I also kind of miss when vehicle facing mattered.


Why? To my knowledge, GW gives no upper limits for board size, just a minimum recommendation below which the game probably doesn't work well.


This is a REALLY great point. The rulebook clearly says the new dimensions are a MINIMUM even for matched play. No reason that people couldn't continue to use 6x4 or whatever larger size they wanted. I'd wholly welcome a change back to the larger standard.

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Halifax

Yeah, reading about 9th for a while now and it's weird to see how people are thinking of the measurements given as a standard rather than a minimum.

Racism is the little things - Twitter thread by Eric Lang
TITANOMACHINA Now on Tabletop Simulator in Steam. FREE. Armour Piercing Pi, my Titanomachina Development Blog 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Nurglitch wrote:
Yeah, reading about 9th for a while now and it's weird to see how people are thinking of the measurements given as a standard rather than a minimum.


Its because there's a large contingent of people who use "tournament standard" as a byline for "I don't have to feel bad about breaking every other unspoken rule of interpersonal conduct that prevails in normal society" so they're verrrrrry invested in making sure every single game is played exactly how it would be played in an organized tournament event where prize money is on the line.


"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
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

the_scotsman wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
Yeah, reading about 9th for a while now and it's weird to see how people are thinking of the measurements given as a standard rather than a minimum.


Its because there's a large contingent of people who use "tournament standard" as a byline for "I don't have to feel bad about breaking every other unspoken rule of interpersonal conduct that prevails in normal society" so they're verrrrrry invested in making sure every single game is played exactly how it would be played in an organized tournament event where prize money is on the line.


So just don't play games with those people. If they can't get games their attitudes may change.
   
Made in ch
One Canoptek Scarab in a Swarm




Switzerland

Can anyone explain "alternating activation"?

would it be both armies shoot at the same time?
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




My buddy and I feel the same. It's almost like games of 9e are more or less decided by the end of Turn 2, with an incredible advantage going over to Player 1.

How much terrain are you guys running? Are there examples of good 9e boards I could see (from tournaments maybe)? How beefy are your Obscuring pieces (it seems like squads can generally see and be seen around anything smaller than 6x6x5'' pretty easily making Obscuring terrain not that useful.

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
Can anyone explain "alternating activation"?

would it be both armies shoot at the same time?


Kind-of-sort-of-not-really?

The idea is something along the lines of:

Player 1 activates Unit A
Player 2 activates Unit B
Player 1 activates Unit C
Player 2 activates Unit D
etc until all units have been activated.

There are a lot variations to Alternating Activation, but they're all rooted in a hatred of the You-Go-I-Go design that 40k runs, where one player gets to take his entire turn and unload 2k points of dakka before his opponent gets to do anything.

I have no love for You-Go-I-Go, but I also have no interest in trying to houserule an entire system.

   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Manchild 1984 wrote:
Can anyone explain "alternating activation"?

would it be both armies shoot at the same time?


there are many many many ways to accomplish AA, but basically the general idea is to structure the game in such a way that both players are participating at all times, as opposed to having 'my turn' and 'your turn.'

40k already has some elements of this - you can use stratagems in your opponent's turn, you can participate in the combat phase, and you can perform heroic interventions. The problem is, that isn't much. Most combat is decided by the 'charger always goes first' rule, heroic interventions are only 3" of movement, and most stratagems are used in your turn rather than your opponent's turn.

The problem you have with AA is that it becomes basically a game of individual units, coordinating grand strategies with your whole army is much less satisfying. My favorite aa systems are just minor tweaks to I-go-you-go to allow you to break up the rigid turn structure.

Apocalypse, for example, uses alternating detachments - i go with a chunk of my army, you go with a chunk of yours - and all damage happens at the end of the battle round. So if I shoot you with my guns, I roll to hit, I roll to wound, then we STOP, and you only take saves and remove models at the end of the turn.

Because you haven't taken your saves yet, there's an element of uncertainty - I can't do exactly enough damage to kill you, I have to kind of make a bet on how much I NEED to hit your unit to make sure it's definitely gone. or, I could go wide, and deal like 1 damage to all your units, which maximises the damage I'm going to do, but makes it very uncertain what's actually going to die.

"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
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Gadzilla666 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
Yeah, reading about 9th for a while now and it's weird to see how people are thinking of the measurements given as a standard rather than a minimum.


Its because there's a large contingent of people who use "tournament standard" as a byline for "I don't have to feel bad about breaking every other unspoken rule of interpersonal conduct that prevails in normal society" so they're verrrrrry invested in making sure every single game is played exactly how it would be played in an organized tournament event where prize money is on the line.


So just don't play games with those people. If they can't get games their attitudes may change.
^It's a good sentiment but sometimes difficult to do. Deciding to be the odd man out for whatever reason can get you fewer games. One of the best things about 40k is that it's easy to find pick up games. In order to make that easy many follow the tourney format because it brings a standardization to expectations. So if tourneys play on X, many communities follow.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






Terrain just determines what armies are going to be the strongest. Like...I imagine an army that has a baseline rule that all their units move through terrain like its not there...Don't you think that army is going to do well in a game where you are fighting in city streets?

The problem is the idea that every table needs to have a certain amount of terrain. This is completely backwards. Battlefields should be completely random or it is going to favor a certain type of army.

Personally - I think all terrain should be destructible. Units inside of destroyed terrain should take damage like they were in a destroyed transport. It would ad an interesting dynamic. If your only tactic is to stand behind walls and wait for your opponent to move into the open first - I think this would fix that problem.

Also the game needs a random table generator. Some parts should be open - some parts cluttered.


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





the_scotsman wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
Yeah, reading about 9th for a while now and it's weird to see how people are thinking of the measurements given as a standard rather than a minimum.


Its because there's a large contingent of people who use "tournament standard" as a byline for "I don't have to feel bad about breaking every other unspoken rule of interpersonal conduct that prevails in normal society" so they're verrrrrry invested in making sure every single game is played exactly how it would be played in an organized tournament event where prize money is on the line.



I don't play minimum, because of prize money. I play minimum, because it changes how the game plays.

   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

Putting the minimum into your games, nets you the minimum IN your games.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




If you play on bigger tables, the points values won't be right (ok, ok, the points values already aren't right, but they'd be even more skewed).

They claim it's only a minimum, but table size has a massive impact on the relative value of certain units, so it's simply not possible to balance across a range of table sizes. So the more you stray from the standard size, the more overpowered or underpowered certain units are going to become.
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

Nothing that can't be worked out between players.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






yukishiro1 wrote:
If you play on bigger tables, the points values won't be right (ok, ok, the points values already aren't right, but they'd be even more skewed).

They claim it's only a minimum, but table size has a massive impact on the relative value of certain units, so it's simply not possible to balance across a range of table sizes. So the more you stray from the standard size, the more overpowered or underpowered certain units are going to become.


Yeah, I tend to like the increased value you get from things like

-model positioning
-movement speed
-range
-alternate deployment

and I think there's a lot more potential for a game in which it goes all 5 turns, terrain is impactful, units get to take multiple actions before being destroyed, and victory conditions meaningfully matter on table sizes larger than the minimum.

The minimum size changes the game - I disagree that it changes the game in a positive way. The theoretical boogeyman of the stationary uninteractive gunline is still just as weakened by the core mechanics of 9th on a big table as opposed to a minimum sized one. I'm not talking "72" of no mans land between the armies" here, I'm talking about preserving no-mans land and adding additional backfield to either side.


"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







I mean, half the reason armies like Slaanesh Daemons are doing well is the smaller table size (not because the deployment zones are closer together, but because the opponent has WAY less space to hide in in general. Horizontal space matters).

The other half of the reason is really two quarters:
1) Objectives that the opponent has to come out and get (so melee is inevitable if there are places to hide)
2) Being an anti-melee melee army that specializes in destroying other melee fighters.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Right, but the point is regardless of how you feel about that, the appropriate points value for a unit changes based on the board size. This is a big part of the reason that smaller points value games - anything that uses the smaller board sizes, especially 500 points - are so laughably unbalanced.

In particular, 36" range weapons are worth a lot more on the smaller boards than on the old boards, and conversely anything over 36" is worth a lot more on an old board. A similar thing happens with movement ranges relative to distance to objectives; certain ranges become less valuable, certain ranges become more valuable.

That doesn't mean you can't use a bigger board, but it does mean that that choice unbalances point costs and results in undercosted and overcosted units (even more than GW's usual).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/12 17:54:06


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






yukishiro1 wrote:
Right, but the point is regardless of how you feel about that, the appropriate points value for a unit changes based on the board size. This is a big part of the reason that smaller points value games - anything that uses the smaller board sizes, especially 500 points - are so laughably unbalanced.

In particular, 36" range weapons are worth a lot more on the smaller boards than on the old boards, and conversely anything over 36" is worth a lot more on an old board. A similar thing happens with movement ranges relative to distance to objectives; certain ranges become less valuable, certain ranges become more valuable.

That doesn't mean you can't use a bigger board, but it does mean that that choice unbalances point costs and results in undercosted and overcosted units (even more than GW's usual).


...I'm honestly not sure how you could possibly go about proving that.

I would claim conversely that nearly every army sitting near the bottom of the totem pole right now (with the exception of 'screwed by secondaries' armies like knights and tsons, maybe not GK though as they have lots of deep strike) would benefit from playing on a larger-than-minimum board, and nearly every army sitting near the top would be nerfed by it.

In my opinion (and it is a matter of opinion, because you have zero data to back up that playing 9th on greater than minimum tables would be more imbalanced) playing on 6x4 or slightly larger tables without changing any other variable makes the game more balanced, and also generally more interesting.

The new terrain rules provide all the nerfs to long-range weaponry you need, the min tables were purely based on marketing (GW wanting to include foldup battlemats with their boxes. The new table size is a multiple of their standard box packaging, which is determined by geometric optimization calculus, not by a desire to make the best possible game)

"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
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






I mean, yeah. . . board size and amount of terrain is going to change how units stack up against each other. That should be obvious. That's what I'd expect to happen and is in fact wholly appropriate.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I think the point is though that people assume that GW is balancing points-as-a-measure-of-effectiveness around the stated table size (which happens to be the minimum).

So, if you want a balanced game, play the minimum board size.

To unpack the assumptions, though:
1) GW is honestly trying to balance the game
2) Points costs are actually balanced (or are even intended to be balanced)
3) The game is progressing towards a "balanced" state (as opposed to just lumbering drunkenly about) as GW makes changes, therefore changing the external variables (e.g. table size) less means games will be more balanced in the long run
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block





I'm not really complaining about all this. It's just an observation of the effect of the new terrain rules.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 the_scotsman wrote:
The new table size is a multiple of their standard box packaging, which is determined by geometric optimization calculus, not by a desire to make the best possible game)


Are you being sarcastic?

   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Really, if you look at a minimum sized Strikeforce board, what we've lost is 6 inches on each flank, and 2 inches which would either be a part of each deployment Zone, or could theoretically be applied to no man's land if you tried to reproduce the maps in such a way that measurements are given from the outside in rather than inside out as is done to accommodate the "recommended size" approach to design.

I don't have as much actual game play experience as most posters on Dakka, so I'm a poor judge of such things, but when you say it that way- six inches on two sides and two inches on the others- it really doesn't sound like as much of a difference.

Admittedly though, in combination with range increases, loosened restrictions on rapid fire, etc. the effect of those changes is magnified.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I'm not sure that the difference between 6'x4' and 60"x44" is overly significant.

Really think its the missions that change things. You can't very easily castle up your whole army in a corner for 3 turns - or well I guess you can, but you risk your opponent racking up the primary while you get nothing. So you don't. So most people have some stuff going into the middle, which unsurprisingly is in range.

It might be interesting to think how the meta would look if units were generally slower with shorter range - but I'm not sure it would necessarily be more fun. (And really assault is probably good enough as it is.)
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







The extra foot off the long axis is a huge deal. I mean the table basically lost 4 square feet of space that it used to have (1x4).

Plus, minis have been getting larger (I remember when Space Marine heavy infantry were on 25mms) which means they take up more space as well. Check all the units going to 28mm like the banshees or 32mm like the new Sisters. Knights are a thing now, and Dreadnoughts went from 60mm to 90mm with the Redemptor, etc.

So less surface area combined with each model taking up more surface area = less maneuver space.

Additionally, when it comes to things like charging (though this is talking about melee), in earlier editions you had to get into Base to Base. Now you only need to get within an inch, which also has an effect on the frontage the enemy presents to your melee units that you can touch.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/12 19:10:55


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Tyel wrote:
I'm not sure that the difference between 6'x4' and 60"x44" is overly significant.

Really think its the missions that change things. You can't very easily castle up your whole army in a corner for 3 turns - or well I guess you can, but you risk your opponent racking up the primary while you get nothing. So you don't. So most people have some stuff going into the middle, which unsurprisingly is in range.

It might be interesting to think how the meta would look if units were generally slower with shorter range - but I'm not sure it would necessarily be more fun. (And really assault is probably good enough as it is.)


It's 25% smaller and most of that comes from the DZ. It greatly reduces deepstrike and reserve space.

   
Made in nl
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

What may be useful is a ratio of points to square foot. Roughly 50 to 100 per. For a 4x6 table, that would mean 1200 points to 2400. My pref would be 1200 ... but maybe different people like busier crowded games with less opportunity for development.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




The board size has a significant impact on pretty much every aspect of the game. Even stuff like secondary objectives would be impacted in fundamental ways, with stuff like engage becoming quite a bit more difficult, while conversely something like scramblers becomes much easier, as it's far more difficult to screen out deep-strikers from your deployment zone on the old boards. Deep strike becomes far more valuable, while strategic reserves and outflank become less valuable for delivering short-ranged threats but more valuable for delivering longer-ranged ones (as it's harder to reach the objectives from the edges, but easier to find space to come in in the first place), etc etc. When you really start getting into it there is very little that isn't significantly impacted by the change in board size.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/12 20:08:14


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Daedalus81 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
The new table size is a multiple of their standard box packaging, which is determined by geometric optimization calculus, not by a desire to make the best possible game)


Are you being sarcastic?


No. Having done packaging engineering before, the mystery behind the bizarre new board size vanished for me the second I saw that the new 40k command edition came with a cardboard mat for combat patrol games.

The new board size is based on the packaging size. 100%.

"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 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: