Switch Theme:

More damage not less!  [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 ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






Rihgu wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
For myself, making tanks into what are effectively monstrous creatures that can shoot to the right from the left sponson and act as if they have no front or back sides is not immersive, doesn't represent what imagination expects, and makes the in-game experience less appealing.


Why does your imagination only expect this for vehicles? Why stop there? We could have troop facings! For immersion, of course, and appealing in-game experience. Make sure you rotate each of your gretchin appropriately! Don't want a nasty deep strike unit sneaking up on you!


Good argument bro.

Well, if we need stat differentiation between a lasgun and a volcano cannon, *scoff* why not just have three different stat lines for an autopistol, a laspistol and a grot blasta than? ThEyRe DiFfErEnT GunS after all, "muh immersion", a gun's a gun you loser why do you need special stats for YOUR gun.


I dunno, the fluff says there's a difference between a lasgun and a volcano cannon, so that makes sense. The fluff doesn't say that models on the tabletop 100% represent the facings, movements, etc of units. I don't see why a space marine shooting backwards is fine but a tank shooting backwards? that's completely ridiculous!

In my imagination, all these models are taking all of their different guns and like, moving around the battlefield. Ducking into cover, rotating turrets, etc. Not statically clutching their guns to their chest and slightly squatting.

edit: but yes, maybe autopistols, laspistols and grot blastas could do with just a single statline instead of 3. Light Pistol or something? Not sure we need to have 3 different rules that are all the exact same thing (S3 Ap- D1 12" range)


A grot can quickly turn around and shoot something in its back, a tracked tank cannot.
A grot comes in a squad of 10 minimum so giving them all facings would be a pain, a tracked tank (usually) comes alone

having facings on tracked vehicles would make sense. I'd even go further and have them forced to move forward, a rhino moving sideways makes zero sense. Movement like Star Wars legion has for vehicles is what would make most sense

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/14 13:06:17


 
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





Rihgu wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
For myself, making tanks into what are effectively monstrous creatures that can shoot to the right from the left sponson and act as if they have no front or back sides is not immersive, doesn't represent what imagination expects, and makes the in-game experience less appealing.


Why does your imagination only expect this for vehicles? Why stop there? We could have troop facings! For immersion, of course, and appealing in-game experience. Make sure you rotate each of your gretchin appropriately! Don't want a nasty deep strike unit sneaking up on you!


It's funny to me that you say this sarcastically but Warmachine does this and it makes manoeuvring super important and opens up a whole bunch of tactics involving pushing/pulling enemy models out of position so you can get advantage over them. It adds a lot of interesting depth and decisions to the game.

WHFB also had it, incidentally.
   
Made in ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 Sim-Life wrote:


It's funny to me that you say this sarcastically but Warmachine does this and it makes manoeuvring super important and opens up a whole bunch of tactics involving pushing/pulling enemy models out of position so you can get advantage over them. It adds a lot of interesting depth and decisions to the game.

WHFB also had it, incidentally.


Yeah, units having lanes of fire actually adds to the game (my experience with them is infinity)
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 Sim-Life wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
For myself, making tanks into what are effectively monstrous creatures that can shoot to the right from the left sponson and act as if they have no front or back sides is not immersive, doesn't represent what imagination expects, and makes the in-game experience less appealing.


Why does your imagination only expect this for vehicles? Why stop there? We could have troop facings! For immersion, of course, and appealing in-game experience. Make sure you rotate each of your gretchin appropriately! Don't want a nasty deep strike unit sneaking up on you!


It's funny to me that you say this sarcastically but Warmachine does this and it makes manoeuvring super important and opens up a whole bunch of tactics involving pushing/pulling enemy models out of position so you can get advantage over them. It adds a lot of interesting depth and decisions to the game.

WHFB also had it, incidentally.


I've never played Warmachine but I've always had the impression that it's more directly a model-to-model skirmish game with much smaller armies than 40k, which is a skirmish-formation company-ish level game?

WHFB had it because it was a rank'n'flank, with tight formations and all that. Skirmishers, which are analogous to every unit in 40k, and monsters, did not abide by this.

A grot can quickly turn around and shoot something in its back, a tracked tank cannot.

All things considered, and perhaps erroneously assuming a battle round in 40k is longer than like, 3 seconds, this tank doesn't have a super big problem turning on the spot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zk9B42r1UU

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Yeah, units having lanes of fire actually adds to the game (my experience with them is infinity)


And in Infinity I need to keep track of the facing of 10-20 models, not 120+.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/14 13:11:13


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

No one's asking you to keep track of 120+ lanes of fire. Just a few tanks.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Rihgu wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
For myself, making tanks into what are effectively monstrous creatures that can shoot to the right from the left sponson and act as if they have no front or back sides is not immersive, doesn't represent what imagination expects, and makes the in-game experience less appealing.


Why does your imagination only expect this for vehicles? Why stop there? We could have troop facings! For immersion, of course, and appealing in-game experience. Make sure you rotate each of your gretchin appropriately! Don't want a nasty deep strike unit sneaking up on you!


Good argument bro.

Well, if we need stat differentiation between a lasgun and a volcano cannon, *scoff* why not just have three different stat lines for an autopistol, a laspistol and a grot blasta than? ThEyRe DiFfErEnT GunS after all, "muh immersion", a gun's a gun you loser why do you need special stats for YOUR gun.


I dunno, the fluff says there's a difference between a lasgun and a volcano cannon, so that makes sense. The fluff doesn't say that models on the tabletop 100% represent the facings, movements, etc of units. I don't see why a space marine shooting backwards is fine but a tank shooting backwards? that's completely ridiculous!

In my imagination, all these models are taking all of their different guns and like, moving around the battlefield. Ducking into cover, rotating turrets, etc. Not statically clutching their guns to their chest and slightly squatting.

edit: but yes, maybe autopistols, laspistols and grot blastas could do with just a single statline instead of 3. Light Pistol or something? Not sure we need to have 3 different rules that are all the exact same thing (S3 Ap- D1 12" range)


That's true, but you also need to contend with the realities of how many models you need to track with a particular type of rule framework.

Facings for large units serve a role in the game, both in terms of increasing versimilitude - it 'feels more realistic' if a vehicle can't fire behind it unless it has a turret weapon - and in terms of putting up a sorely-needed barrier between what is a unit's "peak damage output" and what they actually get in the game.

40k is currently in an absolutely ABYSMAL state when it comes to that aspect of how wargames function. The only actually impactful modifiers that get imposed by the game board state currently are all or nothing (out of range = can't shoot, behind obscuring = can't shoot, engaged or target is engaged = cant shoot) and otherwise, all you have are the extremely low-impact and difficult to claim modifiers imposed by Light Cover and Dense Cover.

A model set up 2" away from a vehicle they have full view of is often exactly as likely or nearly exactly as likely to cause damage to it as they are to one at the absolute maximum edge of their range and with only a tiny fraction visible.

   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 the_scotsman wrote:

40k is currently in an absolutely ABYSMAL state when it comes to that aspect of how wargames function. The only actually impactful modifiers that get imposed by the game board state currently are all or nothing (out of range = can't shoot, behind obscuring = can't shoot, engaged or target is engaged = cant shoot) and otherwise, all you have are the extremely low-impact and difficult to claim modifiers imposed by Light Cover and Dense Cover.

A model set up 2" away from a vehicle they have full view of is often exactly as likely or nearly exactly as likely to cause damage to it as they are to one at the absolute maximum edge of their range and with only a tiny fraction visible.



I completely agree with this. Having core rules to limit effectiveness in poor conditions (long range, low visibility, etc) in addition to the terrain rules we have right now would be great. I just don't think a lack of vehicle facings are any more immersion breaking than infantry not having facings.

Facings for large units serve a role in the game, both in terms of increasing versimilitude - it 'feels more realistic' if a vehicle can't fire behind it unless it has a turret weapon - and in terms of putting up a sorely-needed barrier between what is a unit's "peak damage output" and what they actually get in the game.

So this is something that I can't reckon with. You're right - putting up barriers for peak damage output are good, and this is a pretty easy one for vehicles. If a theoretical 10th edition adds vehicle facings back, I think it'd be more immersion breaking/less verisimilitude for me to have that and not have anything else care about facing, so maybe there could be a "unit facing". Instead of posing each individual model for maximum coverage you point the leader in a direction and we say that the entire unit is facing that direction (models within can still shoot outside of that direction, counting as having moved, to represent their increased flexibility as individual soldiers)

So, you'd have a situation where there's a tank forward you want to shoot your missile launcher at, but genestealers just clawed out of the sewers to your flank. Your lasgun guys turn to shoot their small arms at the infantry threat (at no penalty, as lasguns have no penalties for moving) and your missile launcher guy maintains "proper" facing and fires at the enemy tank, not having counted as moving.


edit: The thing that I really want to avoid, that I find most distasteful about the idea, is having to consider my models' positions so carefully as to having overlapping fields of fire, 360 degree coverage, etc. I want to put my models in a movement tray and push them around the table for an hour and a half to three hours and roll some dice, not fiddle with individual models. Granted, I'm the only one actually suggesting unit/model facings outside of vehicles but, seriously! I can't be the only one who finds it breaking verisimilitude to have vehicles be totally static objects and not infantry?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/14 13:26:24


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






In warhammer 40,000 a model has different odds of success depending on whether they're firing a bolter, bolt rifle, bolt carbine, oculus bolt carbine, auto bolt rifle, stalker bolt rifle, storm bolter, Marksman Bolt Carbine, boltstorm gauntlet, bolt pistol, heavy bolt pistol, a thrown live tuna, heavy bolt rifle, executor bolt rifle, hellstorm bolt rifle, executioner bolt pistol, instigator bolt carbine, master-crafted boltgun, master-crafted bolt rifle, or an angelus boltgun, but if two different models can see 100% or 1% of their intended target it makes no difference at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rihgu wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:

40k is currently in an absolutely ABYSMAL state when it comes to that aspect of how wargames function. The only actually impactful modifiers that get imposed by the game board state currently are all or nothing (out of range = can't shoot, behind obscuring = can't shoot, engaged or target is engaged = cant shoot) and otherwise, all you have are the extremely low-impact and difficult to claim modifiers imposed by Light Cover and Dense Cover.

A model set up 2" away from a vehicle they have full view of is often exactly as likely or nearly exactly as likely to cause damage to it as they are to one at the absolute maximum edge of their range and with only a tiny fraction visible.



I completely agree with this. Having core rules to limit effectiveness in poor conditions (long range, low visibility, etc) in addition to the terrain rules we have right now would be great. I just don't think a lack of vehicle facings are any more immersion breaking than infantry not having facings.

Facings for large units serve a role in the game, both in terms of increasing versimilitude - it 'feels more realistic' if a vehicle can't fire behind it unless it has a turret weapon - and in terms of putting up a sorely-needed barrier between what is a unit's "peak damage output" and what they actually get in the game.

So this is something that I can't reckon with. You're right - putting up barriers for peak damage output are good, and this is a pretty easy one for vehicles. If a theoretical 10th edition adds vehicle facings back, I think it'd be more immersion breaking/less verisimilitude for me to have that and not have anything else care about facing, so maybe there could be a "unit facing". Instead of posing each individual model for maximum coverage you point the leader in a direction and we say that the entire unit is facing that direction (models within can still shoot outside of that direction, counting as having moved, to represent their increased flexibility as individual soldiers)

So, you'd have a situation where there's a tank forward you want to shoot your missile launcher at, but genestealers just clawed out of the sewers to your flank. Your lasgun guys turn to shoot their small arms at the infantry threat (at no penalty, as lasguns have no penalties for moving) and your missile launcher guy maintains "proper" facing and fires at the enemy tank, not having counted as moving.


It's just more of a tracking thing than anything else. So maybe it could work, but I'd rather just see all big models (including monsters) care at least somewhat about facing in some way, whether that's "theyre easier to damage" or "they can only choose targets in your front arc, so you can't fire your storm bolters at a target behind you while you fire your Heavy Shmazer at a target in front of you" I'd rather maintain just a little bit more abstraction in where infantry happen to be facing/how they happen to be posed on the battlefield rather than big huge monsters/vehicles.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/14 13:27:33


"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Terrifying Rhinox Rider




Rihgu wrote:


So, you'd have a situation where there's a tank forward you want to shoot your missile launcher at, but genestealers just clawed out of the sewers to your flank. Your lasgun guys turn to shoot their small arms at the infantry threat (at no penalty, as lasguns have no penalties for moving) and your missile launcher guy maintains "proper" facing and fires at the enemy tank, not having counted as moving.


edit: The thing that I really want to avoid, that I find most distasteful about the idea, is having to consider my models' positions so carefully as to having overlapping fields of fire, 360 degree coverage, etc. I want to put my models in a movement tray and push them around the table for an hour and a half to three hours and roll some dice, not fiddle with individual models. Granted, I'm the only one actually suggesting unit/model facings outside of vehicles but, seriously! I can't be the only one who finds it breaking verisimilitude to have vehicles be totally static objects and not infantry?


To me the point of infantry would be that while tanks are moving 8+” and shooting s9 blasts with no penalty, infantry would be the ones that are better able to switch targets with their little one shot missile launcher

I like facings and flanking, and having small arms be useful defensively like you describe.

I only think it isn’t an immediate contradiction for infantry to have 360 and tanks to have facings.
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

My problem with facings in tanks is that maybe it makes sense for imperial and ork vehicles but for Tau or Eldar extremely movile skimmer vehicles that can act at low altitudes like planes with hyperadvanced targetimg systems not being able to shoot at something because it is at 97º instead of less than 90º feels a little off.


Now I'll say, I prefer more granularity in my gameplay and I'm in favour of facings and weapon arcs etc... but I don't see them translating to 40k. They are historical mechanics applied to an loosely historical Imperium and then strained to cover much more esotheric xenos races and they stop working as well for those. (Like facings when you have metal bawkses vs strangely shaped eldar/tau/necron vehicles)


But in general the game should be much more lethal, it just makes for better gameplay when you can move and counter move. My friends always are surprised when they play shooting heavy MESBG lists and are like "OMG, I'm just killing like 1-2 orcs per turn!" and I'm like... "yeah, shooting is a support weapon, and basically free attacks, it shouldn't be more lethal"

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/10/16 09:19:52


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Necron vehicles are perhaps the most gratuitous offenders when it comes to not currently having weapon arcs - how is a Doomsday Ark's gauss array supposed to engage targets to the front, or the main cannon firing at targets to the rear?
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 Lord Damocles wrote:
Necron vehicles are perhaps the most gratuitous offenders when it comes to not currently having weapon arcs - how is a Doomsday Ark's gauss array supposed to engage targets to the front, or the main cannon firing at targets to the rear?

Forge a narrative, how was your army able to get within 50" without getting shot? Modern weapons measure range in kilometers, why not tens of kilometers in 40k? Why ever bring a Basilisk close to the enemy? 40k is abstract, it's not an accurate representation of how combat happenst and abstract mechanics and model sizes are part of that. Mechanically Doomsday Arks were less satisfying to me in 7th. The model was designed for an abstract wargame, otherwise, guns would point forward.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






The mechanics are so abstract that it matters whether your flamer was supplied by the Ministorum or not...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/17 04:26:54


 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







And yet so granular that every single faction picks 8-9 sub-faction powers from a list of about thirteen shared uniformly by all of them.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

 AnomanderRake wrote:
And yet so granular that every single faction picks 8-9 sub-faction powers from a list of about thirteen shared uniformly by all of them.


Shhhhh, stop pointing out the guy behind the curtain...
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 AnomanderRake wrote:
And yet so granular that every single faction picks 8-9 sub-faction powers from a list of about thirteen shared uniformly by all of them.

How does every single faction pick 9 sub-faction powers and what list of thirteen powers are you talking about? There are at least 50 unique chapter tactics.

Chapter Tactics are very abstract, IMO they aren't granular enough. Granularity would be saying that 2nd Company Salamanders are better at some things than 3rd Company Salamanders or that one Devastator Squad is better at some things than another squad from the same Chapter with the same equipment because of upgrades they can buy or something like that. I don't love every abstract mechanic, like ministorum flamers with their improved profile. A Sororitas or Salamanders player can feel good about their flamers without having to use special stats for them or using special abilities to buff their damage output in the Tactical Doctrine where their flamers already have superior stats compared to normal.

I'd argue that Space Marines dealing as much damage as they do with a chainsword vs a boltgun is abstract, Space Marines are armed with chainswords, so chainswords need to deal damage and be cool, boltguns cannot deal too much damage otherwise chainswords won't be cool. This is one of the times were abstract is good, because we need to be able to play a game and have fun with our models. Stratagems are an abstraction that I like in theory because it can introduce flavour and can create interesting gameplay dilemmas if implemented right.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: