Switch Theme:

Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from?  [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 pl
Longtime Dakkanaut





How to spot salty people mad far better mechanics replaced ancient gak that made no sense - the thread

 Geifer wrote:
Random dice rolls may bear the barest resemblance to that in result, but you're leaving out the part where a single shell can explode a lone character six times, while on the other end you can't ever splatter more than six Boyz no matter how large or packed the mob is. Random number of shots is a replacement for templates, but a poor one.

Did you miss the elementary first grade bit of characters (and monsters) having more wounds than a boy?

The fact that artillery piece FINALLY can threaten characters and monsters instead of being single damage whiff is a colossal improvement. It makes sense from realism standpoint, too, a shell that lands directly on a carnifex SHOULD tear it to shreds, the one that lands somewhat farther will just wound it with shrapnel. Which is what we have now, instead of that tickling, 1 wound max on a headshot from an Earthshaker gak of old editions...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) on table positioning no longer matters. Spreading out to 2" for horde units in my 4th edition and HH games has serious positioning consequences (pretty much all drawbacks/disadvantages) on the table. It's hardly "automatic." I will ruthlessly exploit the numerous tactical drawbacks of spreading out if someone does so against me thoughtlessly. In 9th? Whatever, everyone in single file or in a massive clump, doesn't matter.

Yes, gak mechanic that forced players of horde armies to move each unit 30 minutes spreading it to take 0.01 wounds less, wasting colossal amounts of time for very little reason (to say nothing of arguments if the template hit 2 or 3 models depending on how you squinted) and contributing absolutely nothing to the game is gone. And only in a Flat Earthdition imaginary world this is somehow a bad thing

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Only the foolish think that a unit is free to take up as much space on table as it wishes with no drawbacks.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/23 18:30:09


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Blast should hit scatter a point and hit ALL models in EVERY unit with at least ONE model within X" of the point.
Holy non-scaling rules, Batman! What a fething terrible idea!

Yeah, you definitely want blast weapons to be theoretically capable of hitting every model on the table because blast = auto-hit every model in the unit. That sounds like a great idea.

Holy gak DD. Between this and the "GW should force people to play as they've painted!" comment from the other thread, I'd forgotten what it was like to have you around.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/23 01:36:50


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

 
   
Made in tw
Fresh-Faced New User




i'd extend your break until 10th edition and in the meantime play something good like grimdark future, rules are free can at least give it a try. the more advanced rules for 9th are dense enough and complicated that i dont want to even bother, for basic stripped modern 40k there is the superior grimdark future.

there is beloved 2nd edition and other incarnations of old hammer for you to play. 4th with 3.5 codexes is a very nice experience. there are also community projects like prohammer, which is based/inspired from 3rd-5th.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/01/23 07:37:39


 
   
Made in de
Powerful Ushbati






 Irbis wrote:
 Geifer wrote:
Random dice rolls may bear the barest resemblance to that in result, but you're leaving out the part where a single shell can explode a lone character six times, while on the other end you can't ever splatter more than six Boyz no matter how large or packed the mob is. Random number of shots is a replacement for templates, but a poor one.

Did you miss the elementary first grade bit of characters (and monsters) having more wounds than a boy?

The fact that artillery piece FINALLY can threaten characters and monsters instead of being single damage whiff is a colossal improvement. It makes sense from realism standpoint, too, a shell that lands directly on a carnifex SHOULD tear it to shreds, the one that lands somewhat farther will just wound it with shrapnel. Which is what we have now, instead of that tickling, 1 wound max on a headshot from an Earthshaker gak of old editions...


Or you could just use a weapon's damage stat to see how much damage it does to multi-wound models.

sandor1988 wrote:
i'd extend your break until 10th edition...


Realistically 10th ed is too early to come back if you're not happy with the current rules. Give GW another edition or two before they have fully driven the 8th ed framework into the ground and need a reset.

Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone? 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Tampa,FL USA

 Geifer wrote:
Realistically 10th ed is too early to come back if you're not happy with the current rules. Give GW another edition or two before they have fully driven the 8th ed framework into the ground and need a reset.


So what, another 12-15 years? It took GW ~20 years to break out of the basic 3rd Ed framework.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/23 15:57:26


You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in de
Scuttling Genestealer




This is the least random 40k we have ever had.
It boggles my mind how this thread somehow comes to the opposite conclusion.

1) More dice means less random(!), not more...
The more dice you throw, the more often your result will be close to the expected average. We are now throwing literally hundreds of dice for a lot of things, spending several minutes on this manual task, only to get a 1% off average result. yay

2) Rerolls, Buffs, Stratagems
Back in the day your expensive SM lasercannon had a 33% chance to just miss entirely.
Now you can stack buffs, rerolls and stratagems to ensure that your outcome will almost always be somewhat consistent when it matters.
If something outrages happens, like your important character failed that 2+ save? No problem, just fix it with an arbitrary reroll for 1CP.
Your unit missed and failed to kill the target they absolutely had to? No problem, pay a couple CP and have them shoot again.
And so on and so on.

3) Most of the worst randomizers have been completely removed from the game (or lessened by distributing them over more dice, see above).
Things like scatter, random movements, random weapon effects, real impact of moral, and really anything important that you did not have a CP reroll for in the past, is no more.
There are only few high impact single rolls that even remain. I think the worst still is the roll-off who goes first...
   
Made in us
Trustworthy Shas'vre





Cobleskill

HMint wrote:
This is the least random 40k we have ever had.
It boggles my mind how this thread somehow comes to the opposite conclusion.

1) More dice means less random(!), not more...
The more dice you throw, the more often your result will be close to the expected average. We are now throwing literally hundreds of dice for a lot of things, spending several minutes on this manual task, only to get a 1% off average result. yay

2) Rerolls, Buffs, Stratagems
Back in the day your expensive SM lasercannon had a 33% chance to just miss entirely.
Now you can stack buffs, rerolls and stratagems to ensure that your outcome will almost always be somewhat consistent when it matters.
If something outrages happens, like your important character failed that 2+ save? No problem, just fix it with an arbitrary reroll for 1CP.
Your unit missed and failed to kill the target they absolutely had to? No problem, pay a couple CP and have them shoot again.
And so on and so on.

3) Most of the worst randomizers have been completely removed from the game (or lessened by distributing them over more dice, see above).
Things like scatter, random movements, random weapon effects, real impact of moral, and really anything important that you did not have a CP reroll for in the past, is no more.
There are only few high impact single rolls that even remain. I think the worst still is the roll-off who goes first...

If you want less random, why have people roll dice at all?

'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!'
Racerguy180 wrote:
rules come and go, models are forever...like herpes.
 
   
Made in de
Scuttling Genestealer




I don't know that.
I do not like the direction this game is going. Ask GW.
   
Made in de
Powerful Ushbati






 Platuan4th wrote:
 Geifer wrote:
Realistically 10th ed is too early to come back if you're not happy with the current rules. Give GW another edition or two before they have fully driven the 8th ed framework into the ground and need a reset.


So what, another 12-15 years? It took GW ~20 years to break out of the basic 3rd Ed framework.


Right now we can reliably expect editions to last for three years. 10th ed in 2023, 11th ed in 2026, and so forth. Some people like to speculate that Covid will push 10th ed back, but that's against GW's SOP and I'll believe it when I see it. They push out a new edition when scheduled, not when it's ready.

Worth keeping in mind that the general state of the game is not going to drive a reset directly, but how dissatisfaction with the rules impacts sales. If people keep buying regardless, it doesn't really matter how big a mess the game is or if the designers have some clever ideas for when the rule framework is reset. If it's successful, the economic need for a reset isn't there and GW won't take the chance that a reset decreases popularity. So it's going to be more of a question of how long enough customers stay on board rather than what the rules designers do, even if those things are connected.

Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone? 
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






 JohnHwangDD wrote:
7E onward is specifically designed for bad players who want bad armies to be "good".

This is especially true in 9E with a host of random things that allow a poor player snatch victory from the jaws of a well-deserved defeat.

GW is deliberately engineering a rule system where a player can expect the smallest possible likelihood of victory. That is, GW has been shifting 40k toward "narrative" games were surprising things happen. This means that the world's best players might win, at most, 70% of their games against absolute novices, simply because the game introduces RNG elements that can potentially turn the game on its head. These "surprises" create stories and "excitement".


They hated this man because he spoke the truth.

Also blast weapons and templates should have just been brought back as they were in the past. there was no need to remove them. If anything the small blast should have been made slightly bigger.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/23 20:32:42


To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 carldooley wrote:
HMint wrote:
This is the least random 40k we have ever had.
It boggles my mind how this thread somehow comes to the opposite conclusion.

1) More dice means less random(!), not more...
The more dice you throw, the more often your result will be close to the expected average. We are now throwing literally hundreds of dice for a lot of things, spending several minutes on this manual task, only to get a 1% off average result. yay

2) Rerolls, Buffs, Stratagems
Back in the day your expensive SM lasercannon had a 33% chance to just miss entirely.
Now you can stack buffs, rerolls and stratagems to ensure that your outcome will almost always be somewhat consistent when it matters.
If something outrages happens, like your important character failed that 2+ save? No problem, just fix it with an arbitrary reroll for 1CP.
Your unit missed and failed to kill the target they absolutely had to? No problem, pay a couple CP and have them shoot again.
And so on and so on.

3) Most of the worst randomizers have been completely removed from the game (or lessened by distributing them over more dice, see above).
Things like scatter, random movements, random weapon effects, real impact of moral, and really anything important that you did not have a CP reroll for in the past, is no more.
There are only few high impact single rolls that even remain. I think the worst still is the roll-off who goes first...

If you want less random, why have people roll dice at all?


I don't know, many players are already using dice apps and I woulnd't be surprised if a large portion of players would just use the averages, rolling a single dice just to round the average up or down in the near future. Or maybe at some point GW will abandon the dice system entirely, replacing it with a system based on expected results instead.

No need to waste lots of time rolling buckets of dice for everything, getting expected results. At this point there are so many rolls in a game that can bypass randomness that this isn't really a real dice based game anymore.

HMint got it right, I share the same feeling. And that's basically the only thing I don't like about modern 40k.

 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Are you aware that in the real world the vast majority of 40k players don't go to tournaments and they can be considered as fluff players?
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

psipso wrote:
Are you aware that in the real world the vast majority of 40k players don't go to tournaments and they can be considered as fluff players?


Including me. Never attended a single tournament in my life. We still play with the exact same datasheets and sets of rules though, codexes and rulebooks are the same for both fluff and competitive players.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/24 09:39:36


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






psipso wrote:
Are you aware that in the real world the vast majority of 40k players don't go to tournaments and they can be considered as fluff players?


I wouldn't agree on the "fluff player" part - the most common type of player I've encountered over the years are those which own 1-2 units of stuff they like for various reasons and then try to build a somewhat decent army out of that collection. While fluff is often one driving force, it isn't always a primary concern - they usually still are trying their best to win a game.

To me fluff players are those who put fluff first and everything else second, including army composition and gameplay. And those are quite rare, even more so than tournament players.

On a hilarious anecdote, on of our club's fluff players recently frustrated a competitive player to no end, because their mission required the fluff player's custodes force to successfully flee the battle for VP. He declared that custodes would never flee from the likes of daemons and charged head first into them instead. Despite wiping out all the daemons, he lost the game, but he didn't care one bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the dice app - I use an app whenever I need to roll more than 30 dice, primarily playing crusade these days. Anything else is just a waste of valuable hobby time.

The app I use even has physical dice flying around and makes rolling noises, that's good enough for me

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/24 09:47:53


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in ca
Dour Wolf Priest with Iron Wolf Amulet






Canada

 Irbis wrote:
How to spot salty people mad far better mechanics replaced ancient gak that made no sense - the thread

 Geifer wrote:
Random dice rolls may bear the barest resemblance to that in result, but you're leaving out the part where a single shell can explode a lone character six times, while on the other end you can't ever splatter more than six Boyz no matter how large or packed the mob is. Random number of shots is a replacement for templates, but a poor one.

Did you miss the elementary first grade bit of characters (and monsters) having more wounds than a boy?

The fact that artillery piece FINALLY can threaten characters and monsters instead of being single damage whiff is a colossal improvement. It makes sense from realism standpoint, too, a shell that lands directly on a carnifex SHOULD tear it to shreds, the one that lands somewhat farther will just wound it with shrapnel. Which is what we have now, instead of that tickling, 1 wound max on a headshot from an Earthshaker gak of old editions...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) on table positioning no longer matters. Spreading out to 2" for horde units in my 4th edition and HH games has serious positioning consequences (pretty much all drawbacks/disadvantages) on the table. It's hardly "automatic." I will ruthlessly exploit the numerous tactical drawbacks of spreading out if someone does so against me thoughtlessly. In 9th? Whatever, everyone in single file or in a massive clump, doesn't matter.

Yes, gak mechanic that forced players of horde armies to move each unit 30 minutes spreading it to take 0.01 wounds less, wasting colossal amounts of time for very little reason (to say nothing of arguments if the template hit 2 or 3 models depending on how you squinted) and contributing absolutely nothing to the game is gone. And only in a Flat Earthdition imaginary world this is somehow a bad thing


I have to agree with this. I bristled at the idea of losing templates when I went from 7th to 9th ed, but I prefer the situation so much more.

Positioning matters less? Good, I always felt that the game lacked enough abstraction in 6th and 7th ed with TLOS, position-based wound allocation, etc - your troops aren't actually, exactly where they are on the table, so I don't mind that we can be looser with that now. Similarly, not having to be so worried about exact positioning makes the movement phase go a lot faster, I basically just have to be worried about LOS and being in range of objectives and auras. As has been said, it makes blast weapons better against monsters and vehicles than they were too and, when you actually think about it, scatter was also random and caused lots of arguments so the results of the system are the same just much faster.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







It isn't good that positioning matters less. This is a wargame, not a card game. Abstract positioning is undesirable and obviates the need to use miniatures.

If an abstraction at some level is required of position, there are ways to do that in a miniatures game - plenty of games abstract the "precise position of the soldiers" away from where they are on the table. This culminates in games like Flames of War, where multiple soldiers are on a single base. This is because what matters in that rule-set is the team of guys, not the individual guys. Such a game requires designing thusly from the ground up.

But 40k isn't designed that way. If you don't want model position to matter, don't write rules like "every model within 1/2" of a friendly model within 1/2" of an enemy model or just within 1" of the enemy model or 5" vertically can fight".

Either model position matters, or unit position matters. Don't make models matter sometimes, and units matter other times, or you end up with absurd situations like the efficacy of a fragmentation shell being dependent on what the precise squad-level organization of the troopers in its blast radius are.

"The doomsday particle cannon hit Billy square in the face while he was hugging me! It was horrible!"
"That's impossible, you're completely unharmed. Not even muddy!"
"What? No, of course I'm fine. Billy's in Squad 2 of Platoon 1 and I'm in the Command Squad. Idiot."

The interaction between wanting to be concentrated for force concentration and especially close-combat and wanting to be spread out for templates and blasts was a fascinating dynamic. Knowing when to contract and when to expand was a skill - if you got it wrong, you'd lose the game. Getting 3 models of a 50 man unit in combat because they're all spread out 2" apart is a recipe for loss in 4th - but so is packing everyone into a base-to-base phalanx. It's a tactical decision on the board how big or little (in terms of space, not numbers) your units need to be.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/01/24 18:30:20


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






I like to imagine the rules for 40K depicted as a gauntlet of pendulums all lined up. Each pendulum reflects some aspect of the ruleset. Any given edition of 40K has pendulums swinging wildly all over the place.

When it comes to these questions about randomness, I don't think the newer game is really any more or less random than older versions. Its just that were the randomness is each time is different.

Prior to 6th edition you didn't roll 2D6 for charge distances, they were all fixed. After 6th (and still in 9th) is a random 2D6 roll.

Prior to 8th, deep strike could scatter 2D6". Now its a fixed 9" from enemies.

Prior to 8th, there were vehicle damage tables and hull points, which created one random gradient for destroying vehicles. Now we have weapons doing variable damage with vehicles with dozens of wounds.

Prior to 8th blast weapons scattered, now they do a random number of hits based on the size of the target.

It's pointless to argue about whether edition X or Y is inherently more random. But one can assert a preference for "where" they do or don't want their randomness. And the randomness does have a bearing on the simulation fidelity of the rules (e.g. Blasts make more intuitive sense in how they function, even if still random, compared to how they work in 9th, which is more abstracted).






Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Positioning matters less? Good, I always felt that the game lacked enough abstraction in 6th and 7th ed with TLOS, position-based wound allocation, etc - your troops aren't actually, exactly where they are on the table, so I don't mind that we can be looser with that now.
It isn't good that positioning matters less. This is a wargame, not a card game. Abstract positioning is undesirable and obviates the need to use miniatures are.


I think this (implied) exchange is the crux of people's engagement with the 8th/9th edition paradigm or not. I'm with Unit on this - that positioning is the THING I WANT TO MATTER THE MOST. It's why I play a tactical miniature game and not a hex-based wargame (which I also play, but for different reasons).

You can trace sooo much back this single difference in preference. Everything people complain about related to positioning (vehicle facings and armor values, True LoS, model positions, wound allocations, blast weapons scattering, model spacing, etc) are exactly the kinds of things I WANT out of the game.

In the process of stripping out many of the things that led to depth of play related to positioning, they've added meat to the game in many non-positional related areas - mainly stratagems, auras, etc.. It's less about positioning and more about resource management and combo building. This is NOT what I want out of a tactical miniatures game. If I wanted that, I'd play a strategy boardgame or CCG or something else.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/24 17:02:45


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




I'd hope they'd ditch it in 10th edition.

I find it interesting how when GW was doing their hearts and minds Sister's beta codex one of the recognitions was "yeah, turns out everyone hates the Exorcist being D6 shots because on top of D6 damage that means its output is all over the place. We've done something to change that..." (ignore current state of Exorcist viability etc).

But then... this information doesn't seem to have fed through to every other comparable gun in the game.

If you want blast to still be a thing (and there are questions about that tbh), just say "this gun gets 3 or 4 shots normally, and 6 shots if there are more than 10 models in a targeted unit." Then balance accordingly, done.
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





I agree about positioning. I WANT positioning to matter, it's one of the most important things in warfare. I liked vehicle facings. I liked blast templates. I liked non-random charges, they should be a fixed stat like movement. Honestly I really miss 7th other than random warlord/psychic powers.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




I want positioning and facing to matter. Thats why I play wargames and not card games.

But that writing has been on the wall for years now and is why I dropped 40k and just watch it from a distance to see if it ever turns back around or continues down the path of more abstraction .
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Just remember - if you're able to convince some-like minded people to play an older version - there's nothing stopping you. 40K is at it's best when a group of players make it what they want it to be, rather than settling for the status quo of whatever GW shovels out the door.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/24 17:52:40


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




I came from a very competitive region. There was no playing something that wasn't tournament standard there without having to go through a very very painful politic session that wasn't worth it in the end.

Its just vastly easier and less damaging (at least in that community - your mileage may vary) to play by official live rules in whatever ruleset you are using so find a ruleset that is current that matches what you are after.
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 Mezmorki wrote:
Just remember - if you're able to convince some-like minded people to play an older version - there's nothing stopping you. 40K is at it's best when a group of players make it what they want it to be, rather than settling for the status quo of whatever GW shovels out the door.


Most of my games are tournaments or one/both players preparing for a tournament. We play whatever the current rules, missions, and table sizes are. I had a decent group for 30k at home when I lived in Alabama but haven't been able to find the same in Florida.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




New Jersey, State of Perfection

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
7E onward is specifically designed for bad players who want bad armies to be "good".
This is especially true in 9E with a host of random things that allow a poor player snatch victory from the jaws of a well-deserved defeat.
GW is deliberately engineering a rule system where a player can expect the smallest possible likelihood of victory. That is, GW has been shifting 40k toward "narrative" games were surprising things happen. This means that the world's best players might win, at most, 70% of their games against absolute novices, simply because the game introduces RNG elements that can potentially turn the game on its head. These "surprises" create stories and "excitement".


Honestly if this were true it would be awesome - but my own experience suggests otherwise (either that or I am just an exceptionally awful player - I have yet to win a game of 9th edition, though that is arguably because I play mostly fluffy/non-competitive lists from 8th edition armies into 9th edition competitive WAAC lists). If anything, 9th feels like the most skill-intensive edition of the game I've played (been in since 4th), with the caveat that the primary skills in 9th are knowing how to optimize your listbuilding to maximize the benefits of the multi-layered special rules and abilities that armies have access to, as well as knowing how to abuse the hell out of strategems.

 Tawnis wrote:
Toofast wrote:
Seriously I want to meet the person that said "You know what 40k REALLY needs? MORE dice rolling to see what happens and MORE random!" If I paid 150 points for a model and 25 points for a weapon upgrade, why can my opponent pay the same amount of points for something potentially 6x more effective? What does this add to the game besides slowing it down for unnecessary dice rolls that lead to feel-bad moments? They said they were going to listen to tournament players and create a more competitive version of 40k. I used to play tournaments religiously and tournament players HATED the amount of randomness that was present in the game. I remember people taking a specific librarian because he had invis and everyone else had to roll for it so they only had 1/6 chance of getting the power they actually wanted. People HATED it. Now they make it even worse by making rare and expensive weapons that potentially have less damage output than the bolter held by your 19 point tac marine. So who was asking for this? Fluff players?

So the D3 or D6 to hit replaced Blast Templates. This reduced all the measuring and scatter, and spacing out models exactly 2", and arguing over if a model was under the template with a single dice roll. For damage, originally, it replaced the vehicle damage table. Instead of a penetrating hit blowing you up or just rocking the boat, you take light to serious damage. Both of these things had always had a random element to determining what they did.
I'm still a big fan of the former as it speeds the game up a whole bunch, even though I do thematically miss the blast templates. As for the latter, I liked it at first, but with all the multi-wound models and D6+3 + X amount of mortals, it's gotten more than a little out of hand.


Biggest problem with the change though was that weapon effectiveness became multiplicative. I.E. whereas before the blast template could only hit the tank once, now the d6 hit system allows that blast weapon to potentiall hit that vehicle 6 times, each of which will do x damage (which is itself potentiall randomized, giving a huge possible spread of damage output). This kind of renders the old "blast" weapons to being disproportionately more effective at attacking vehicles/monsters than infantry and the softer targets they were intended for.

 Geifer wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Spoiler:
Toofast wrote:
Seriously I want to meet the person that said "You know what 40k REALLY needs? MORE dice rolling to see what happens and MORE random!" If I paid 150 points for a model and 25 points for a weapon upgrade, why can my opponent pay the same amount of points for something potentially 6x more effective? What does this add to the game besides slowing it down for unnecessary dice rolls that lead to feel-bad moments? They said they were going to listen to tournament players and create a more competitive version of 40k. I used to play tournaments religiously and tournament players HATED the amount of randomness that was present in the game. I remember people taking a specific librarian because he had invis and everyone else had to roll for it so they only had 1/6 chance of getting the power they actually wanted. People HATED it. Now they make it even worse by making rare and expensive weapons that potentially have less damage output than the bolter held by your 19 point tac marine. So who was asking for this? Fluff players?

Do you remember when you used to place a template down on the board and roll scatter dice, and sometimes it would get like 4 hits, and sometimes it would scatter and miss entirely?
.....yep.

Random dice rolls may bear the barest resemblance to that in result, but you're leaving out the part where a single shell can explode a lone character six times, while on the other end you can't ever splatter more than six Boyz no matter how large or packed the mob is. Random number of shots is a replacement for templates, but a poor one.
Incidentally around the same time GW introduced this nonsense the designers of Bolt Action decided to dump random hits for explodey weapons in favor of templates for a more immersive and all around better game experience.


Yep, it was humorous when it occurred, though while the templates are more immersive I wouldn't say they provide a better overall experience - I personally hate the templates and the arguments they create as well as how they encourage certain ways of playing such as spreading your dudes out to the maximum extent possible in order to minimize the potential harm your opponent can inflict upon you - it renders the game down into an exercise in tedium.

 Blackie wrote:
7th was much more random overall even in terms of damage.
We might have random damage now, but also lots of ways to fix the dice rolls and to increase damage, combined with units firing way more shots that before.
A razorback with twin linked lascannon in 7th fired a single re-rollable shot, instant killed T4 but only caused 1W on T5 multiwounds models. Now the same platform fires two shots with high BS, which can be re-rolled somehow, can get better AP for free (stupid doctrines), and also damage can be re-rolled. That razorback is now way more effective in killing stuff even if its weapon has a damage characteristic of D6.
That's a massive improvement to remove randomness, not the opposite. And that's true for any other unit in the game, and any other mechanic that involved the dice rolling.
GW is definitely trying to turn 40k into the game of expected results rather than a proper dice based game. Which IMHO is terrible thing and actually the only thing, other than rules bloat and some massive models, that I dislike about this edition.


This kinda begs the question, why didn't GW reinvent "Instant Death" to mean that if the weapons strength is more than double your toughness the attack does the maximum damage (if variable) or double damage (if fixed - or maybe just double damage for all)?

The damage change fixed the problem of "this superpowerful cannon mounted to this massive tank will paste your multiwound infantry model in a single shot, but if hes riding a bike the cannon is just as effective as a flashlight carried by an infantryman", but created a new problem where the same weapons damage output is equally effective against a lumberings steel behemoth as it is an infantryman. The ability of weapons to cause more than a single point of damage is a big boon to gameplay in terms of making some weapons feel more powerful/effective than others, but once a weapon strength reaches double a targets toughness you only get a bonus to your roll to wound and nothing else, a S8 weapon against a T4 marine is just as effective as a S14 weapon with the same AP/Damage stat, which just incentivizes GW to go overboard with the AP/Damage stats if they want to represent the increase in killing power of these weapons. It would be cool if the damage scaled a bit with the weapons strength relative to the targets toughness - this might encourage GW to scale down the innate lethality of some weapons as well (which might be contrary to their actual goals), as something like a S8 Battlecannon could be left at D1 or D2 (instead of D6), and when you fire it at a unit of S3 or S4 infantry the damage is doubled or whatever, making it more effective at pasting infantry, but against a higher toughness target or a vehicle the damage is played straight, meaning those anti-personnel blast weapons are no longer necessarily effective tank-hunting weapons, etc. unless you fire the anti-armor krak round instead of the anti-infantry frag round.

You could potentially even go the other way with this as well and say that damage from weapons with a strength less than half of the targets toughness do half damage (to a minimum of zero).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The biggest things in the templates vs non-templates to me is:
1) on table positioning no longer matters. Spreading out to 2" for horde units in my 4th edition and HH games has serious positioning consequences (pretty much all drawbacks/disadvantages) on the table. It's hardly "automatic." I will ruthlessly exploit the numerous tactical drawbacks of spreading out if someone does so against me thoughtlessly. In 9th? Whatever, everyone in single file or in a massive clump, doesn't matter.
2) the administrative division of the enemy force affects how effective my explosive shells are:
"Sir, 30 men standing shoulder to shoulder in the open on the objective!"
"Ready the mortars!"
"BUT SIR! Intel suggests they are in 6 units of five; the mortars won't be effective!"
"...."


This has an easy fix:

"Each unit within X" of the target unit suffers Y hits from this weapon." Where X and Y can be basically anything, you can go fixed distances or variable distances for X, Y can be fixed value, variable, identical to the base profile of the weapon, or variably higher/lower than the base profile, creating design space for blast weapons that are able to impact a wider area of the board than others, etc.

For me, as someone who appreciates a healthy amount of abstraction but still wants there to be some logical verisimilitude towards what I perceive as realism, I don't much care if a mortar or a howitzer should theoretically be more effective against a squad that has clumped up than one which has spread out. The tedium that comes with properly spacing out the minis simply isn't worth it. But what I do care about is basically the scenario you presented, where a whole bunch of units are clumped up on top of one another and my weapons are no more effective against that concentration of mass. I can abstract the idea that the model placement represents a snapshot in time and the moment my howitzer shell lands on a unit they may be more or less spaced out than what I see presented by the miniatures - but the positional relationship between units on the board is a somewhat different story as it generally presents a much higher relevance to overall gameplay (relative positioning between separate units matters for auras, psychic abilities which provide buffs, and a number of different rules interactions for things like strategems, etc. whereas relative positioning of models within one unit rarely if ever matter for any purpose other than in the charge/fight phase and the arbitrary coherency rules that exist to prevent you from conga-lining a unit across the table).

It would make a lot of sense to counterbalance the benefits of auras and such with the risks that come from clustering too tightly together. Having weapons iwth different "X" ranges to effect other units also disincentives players from trying to optimally space their units, some weapons might be able to hit adjacent units from 3" away, while others might be 6" and yet other less common weapons might be able to make a big bada-boom happen out to 12" or something, with all that variability your opponent will basically just have to decide on acceptable levels of risk and go by their gut rather than trying to space everything "just so".

And if you really did care about the impact of spacing within the unit, you can abstract that out easily enough so that each unit has a "formation state" which you would select during the movement phase:

-Tight: Double hits
-Standard: Straight number of hits
-Loose: Half hits (rounding up)

Then link Tight and Loose to a number of passive pros/cons, example Tight formation gives you +1 to LD and +1 to hit in the fight phase, whereas loose formation gives you -1 to LD and -1 to hit in the shooting phase or something. All what the formation state would be is essentially a status marker that you place next to the unit, no need to measure the spacing between minis in the squad, etc.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
So the D3 or D6 to hit replaced Blast Templates. This reduced all the measuring and scatter, and spacing out models exactly 2", and arguing over if a model was under the template with a single dice roll.

Indeed. What should have happened is that Flamer should automatically hit ALL models in the target unit within 12". Blast should hit scatter a point and hit ALL models in EVERY unit with at least ONE model within X" of the point. No arguing, no rolling. Just auto-hit every model regardless of how the unit is spaced out. If it's a giant Conga line, too bad. LOL


Certainly another way of doing it (though I would simply do it as roll X many hits against each unit within Y range of the marker for the scalability reasons HBMC indicated), I prefer the use of a marker to the use of a template myself, though I prefer the way I suggested previously to both.

HMint wrote:

1) More dice means less random(!), not more...
The more dice you throw, the more often your result will be close to the expected average. We are now throwing literally hundreds of dice for a lot of things, spending several minutes on this manual task, only to get a 1% off average result. yay


Yes and no. More dice rolls in a system of dependent probability means a regression towards the mean, which is - as you said - a decrease in randomness and an outcome that adheres more closely to the probability distribution. More dice rolls in a system of independent probability however just means the opposite.

I.E. Rolling 10d6 and adding the results together 100 times will give you a very nice bell curve and a less random result than if you only rolled it once. Likewise rolling 1d6 100 times will give you a nice uniform distribution and a less random result than if you only rolled it once. But if you're only making a single roll, rolling 1d6 once will give you a more predictable result than if you rolled 10d6 and added them together.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

If an abstraction at some level is required of position, there are ways to do that in a miniatures game - plenty of games abstract the "precise position of the soldiers" away from where they are on the table. This culminates in games like Flames of War, where multiple soldiers are on a single base. This is because what matters in that rule-set is the team of guys, not the individual guys. Such a game requires designing thusly from the ground up.
But 40k isn't designed that way. If you don't want model position to matter, don't write rules like "every model within 1/2" of a friendly model within 1/2" of an enemy model or just within 1" of the enemy model or 5" vertically can fight".


Nail on the head. The fundamental problem with 40k is that its a skirmish game in a tactical/battle games clothing (or something, you get where I'm trying to go with the analogy). The focus on indvidual model placement with regards to certain rules is a holdover to the games past in the Rogue Trader era where each player fielded a dozen or so models that each had their own name, unique wargear, abilities, and skills, and acted independently of the rest of the force. If 40k was being designed from scratch today instead of evolving out of another game, it probably would not have these types of considerations.

 Mezmorki wrote:

You can trace sooo much back this single difference in preference. Everything people complain about related to positioning (vehicle facings and armor values, True LoS, model positions, wound allocations, blast weapons scattering, model spacing, etc) are exactly the kinds of things I WANT out of the game.


I think you'll find that the majority complaining about these issues aren't doing so because these concepts are bad, they are doing so because GW implemented them poorly or because they have no place in a game of this scale.

-Vehicle facings and armor values failed not because its a bad idea, but because there was no effective standardization/guidance on how to resolve facings in a fair and balanced way for anything other than box shaped vehicles (I've been in my fair share of arguments with people disagreed on what constituted front/side rear on something that lacked 4 distinct and discernable equidistant corners, etc.). Armor values in particular were a problem from a design standpoint because it requires its own unique resolution mechanic in order to work which carries with it additional mental overhead and unnecessary complexity (and most experienced game designers would point to it as an example of poor design). Putting that aside, the system also suffered from the strict limit of weapon strength topping out at 10 (the later introduction of Strength D notwithstanding), which necesstiated AV to vary between 10 and 14, combined with the fact that weapon strength wasn't split between anti-personnel and anti-materiel stats (which made certain lower strength weapons more effective at killing vehicles than higher strength weapons because they tended to fire more shots than higher strength weapons and you could take disprorportionately more of them for the same points value).

The system could have been somewhat saved had they introduced standard arc templates of some sort that would clearly define the boundaries of front/side/rear to prevent arguments. I would have gone a step further though, split weapon Strength into "Anti-Personnel" and "Anti-Materiel" ratings (i.e. Use the anti-materiel stat against vehicles and maybe monsters, anti-personnel against everything else), replaced AV with the Toughness stat and armor save stat (so each vehicle would have a different T and Sv rating on Front/Side/Rear) and otherwise use the same wounds system as everything else instead of the various damage charts. If you wanted to retain the damage charts I would have tied them to a "critical" mechanic somehow (perhaps on a 6+ to hit or to wound roll, depending on the weapon(?) you roll an additional effect on the damage table, perhaps with a few simple modifiers (i.e. +/-1 for each point of difference between weapon strength and toughness or something like that).

-True LOS major failure is due to the removal of concepts like area terrain (which provided degrees of necessary abstraction where you can't adequately represent terrain density on the table without impacting playability by allowing things to get cover or be obscured from line of sight for being too far into/behind particularly dense terrain) and the insistence that all line of sight was based on the posing of the model (which leads to "modeling for advantage" and the silliness that a model dynamically posed to be standing heroically on a pile of skulls is suddenyl more exposed than the same model sat squarely on themodels base) rather than on some system of standardization such as the use of silhouettes or size ratings, etc. The system also gets bogged down with the whole "individual miniatures matter" concept necessitating complex rules clauses about what to do if more/less than some arbitrary fraction of the target unit is visible by some arbitrary fraction of the active unit attempting to target it. The system also somewhat falls apart with those models that don't have bases, which is at this point thankfully limited mostly to older vehicles.

Solution is simple - use a silhouette system or give models a size rating that standardizes and abstracts the models height in terms of a number of inches. I.E. a model on a 40mm base with size rating 3 occupies the volume of a cylinder 40mm in diameter and 3" in height. Simple. If you can draw a line between the firing unit and the target models base that isn't obstructed by anything that falls between the table surface and 3" in height, then you can see it. If there is an obstruction in there, but you can still draw the line at some height between 0" and 3" above the table surface, you can shoot it but it gets a save. If its completely obstructed from 0"-3" above table surface, i.e. you cannot draw any line from firing unit to the models base whatsoever within that height range, then you simply can't shoot it. I would go a step further (although admittedly it isn't really true LOS anymore at this point) and say that rather than having to check model to model for the whole unit, the entire process can be simplified as true line of sight to/from the squad leader for the unit, as we accept the abstraction that the positions of the models on the table are a snapshot in time and not necessarily the same snapshot as the moment when they actually open fire, etc. In this sense the squad leader provides a reasonable "anchor" that we can assume to not simply be a temporal abstraction but a more definitive hard reference point for the unit as a whole, allowing you to quickly and definitively determine cover/line of sight for both units in a single check rather than needing to perform a more comprehensive verification on a model-to-model basis for each and every model in both units and then determine what fraction of the target unit is partially/fully obstructed from view of the firing unit and what that means for how the attack is resolved.

-Model positions largely wont matter within the construct of the game as it currently exists unless you do a fairly significant rewrite to the rules so that all models (not just vehicles) have facings/vision arcs, etc. and such things matter for the purposes of mechanical resolution - which mainly means that all attacks need to be resolved on a model by model basis rather than a unit by unit basis, which would be a major slog and likely necessitate a complete rewrite of the existing hit/wound/save resolution system, as you would need to make far too many dice rolls to resolve combat between units otherwise (and probablistically speaking the system is designed to work principally by rolling large numbers of dice a small number of times to resolve interactions between units, rathe than small numbers of dice a large number of times). You are better served playing warmachine or another game that is designed to model smaller scale encounters and clashes in which you can dedicate the time to resolve interactions on a model by model basis where position can really matter, otherwise at the scale 40k operates you're adding between 1-2 hours of additional playtime to a ~3 turn game at 2000 points in order to accommodate this level of detail. IN essence, square peg meet round hole. Yes, past editions of 40k (and even the current edition) have tried various attempts at compromise towards the two ends of the spectrum on this, none of which have really been satisfactory to anyone and basically amounted to unnecessary complexity and additional pages of rules that created a lot of feelsbadman and not a lot of "oh that was epic".

If you really want to push this, you can build off my suggestion of the unit leaders as "anchors" concept in my previous bullet point - use the squad leads position and facing to set the position and facing of the entire unit, the other models in the squad essentially become markers for the number of wounds remaining in the unit and the number of attacks the unit can generate, etc. Its the only real way to preserve the scale of conflict 40k simulates while being able to resovle more detailed positional gameplay in a reasonable amount of time sans a significant rewrite to streamline the resolution mechanics to shorten the amount of time spent rolling dice. Otherwise, theres not really a lot of value add to spending the time figuring out that model x in my unit can hit 2 out of 5 models in your unit, model y in my unit can hit 4 out of 5 models in your unit, and model z can hit 1 out of 5 models in your unit, etc. and then rolling each of those models attacks individually to ensure that only the models in your unit that area actually physically placed within sword-striking range of the models in my unit get removed.

-Wound allocation is another square peg/round hole issue. You can't adequately model this in a game where half the factions in the game show up to the table with 80-200 minis (and as of this edition an increasingly large number of them have multiple wounds) and expect to be able to play a full game within a reasonable 2-3 hour timeframe. For the most part it doesn't matter as most models in most units will be armed identically, and you lose a lot (as we learned form 6th and 7th edition) by trying to create rules that aren't horrendously exploitable in order to account for the typically ~20-25% of distinct models in any given unit or the 20-25% of units that have a higher degree of distinction between models.

To me the adequate implementation within the context of the existing game is to have a "torrent of fire" type rule (IIRC thats what it was called circa 5th edition) that allows you to to allocate specific attacks to specific models if you cause more wounds than their are models in the unit, as well as a "sniper" type rule that allows certain models/units to allocate their attack against a specific model within the target unit. Otherwise for everything else, in order to keep the game moving, allocating wounds to models already wounded until they die, etc. is sufficient. I am in no mood to return to the days where every model in a unit with 2 wounds each needed to take a wound before the first model would die, at that point each additional wound that a unit of multiwound models has becomes an effective survivability multiplier rather than the linear increase in survivability one would expect or desire it to be. If you really want wound allocation to matter you really need to play a game designed to simulate smaller scale engagements like Warmachine or nu-Kill Team, both of which handle this much better than what can be achieved in a game of 40ks scale.

-Blast weapons scattering and spacing are two topics I described solutions to earlier in my post so I won't spend a lot of time detailing it here. Ultimately the issues with templates and model spacing themselves comes down to one of parallax error, unless you're very tall or playing on a very short table arguments over what models are/are not within the blast area become common. Another source of argument is what I call "unsteady hand syndrome" (especially common when you're trying to reach the center of the table), where its impossible to hold the template truly perpendicular to the table surface, resulting in arguments because your unsteady hand causes you to shift the angle of the template relative to the table, thereby shortening the two-dimensional area of effect of the table relative to the environment and resulting in models right on the edge of the template being perceived as falling outside by one or both parties. Usually the player placing the template is acutely aware of this and a better judge of whats in/out, but troublesome opponents will often try to take advantage of this to say that some minis are just outside etc. These issues are exacerbated by the presence of tall terrain features which require the tempalte to be held a higher distance off thet able surface, thus skewing perception of what falls under the template and what doesn't (related to parallax error).

Using a positional marker of some sort and then measuring a distance off of that to *units* rather than individual models allows for much finer definition of what falls within the blast area, as does the "units within x" of the target unit suffer y hits" solution I detailed previously, while also accounting for the fact that in the "real world" there is not a fixed lethality range for these things, nor is there a hard boundary at which a weapon producing a blast effect ceases to be lethal. Its entirely possible, dependent on a variety of circumstances, for an individual standing in the open 5 feet from a grenade to be unharmed while another individual 25 feet away is torn to shreds - you have to remember that the ground isn't actually flat and the grenade could have landed in a shallow ditch or behind a small rock that happens to deflect the concussive force/fragmentation away from certain areas. IRL, conventional explosive/"blast" weapons usually break down to a lethal radius, and a casualty radius, both of which are based on the % probability of an individual suffering the effect (iirc the standard is 90% probability) within that distance of the explosive epicenter. Beyond that there is a broader "area of harm" or suppression radius (various terms for it exist) in which the probability of death or severe injury is substantially lower but still present. A grenade with a 5 meter lethal radius and a 15 meter casualty radius could still potentially kill someone 150-250 meters away, as that is the distance at which the blast produced can theoreticaly eject shrapnel with lethal force. For various reasons, we like to imagine these three areas as being concentric circles, but in reality its more like a venn diagram where the lethal radius and the casualty radius are centered around two different points, sometimes with a lot of overlap between them and sometimes with no overlap whatsoever. Getting back to my point, the reason I bring this up, is because a blast template essentially creates a lot of complexity for not a lot of reality, whereas rolling randomized hits against a number of units within a distance of an abstracted epicenter (be it a marker or a target unit) actually produces results that are closer to reality while being very simple. And by adding that additional layer of "formation status", you create a much more tactically deep experience for the player with meaningful decisions for them to make in terms of how they approach combat and gameplay.

In the process of stripping out many of the things that led to depth of play related to positioning, they've added meat to the game in many non-positional related areas - mainly stratagems, auras, etc.. It's less about positioning and more about resource management and combo building. This is NOT what I want out of a tactical miniatures game. If I wanted that, I'd play a strategy boardgame or CCG or something else.


You do make a solid point here, not so much that a tactical game can't feature combo building or resource management, just that the focus of 40k is somewhere other than on positional mechanics (arguably because their past attempts at figuring out positional gameplay has been exceptionally poor).

If you want blast to still be a thing (and there are questions about that tbh), just say "this gun gets 3 or 4 shots normally, and 6 shots if there are more than 10 models in a targeted unit." Then balance accordingly, done.


They tried that with the "blast" rule, instead that just incentivized people not to take units larger than 5 minis. Thats the problem with setting a fixed non-scalable standard for mechanical interactions in games, everyone will play to the standard. They really should have done Blast (X) where X was the number of models in the unit above which the weapon would do max hits. You could have weapons that are blast(5), weapons that are blast(10), etc. and players would have to figure out what acceptable levels of risk and exposure to such things are during their listbuilding.

This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




I've said it many times over many years and I'll say it again.

I've sat in untold dozens of design meetings on a variety of games, tabletop and PC, where one of the main design considerations was outlined on a whiteboard that said:

"how can we emulate a game like magic the gathering along with its massive success and put it in tabletop form"

What you are seeing and have been seeing out of 40k since roughly the end days of 5th edition has been a march right into that direction.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It isn't good that positioning matters less. This is a wargame, not a card game.


Exactly. If physical positioning didn't matter, then why are we bothering to collect and paint miniatures to play upon the tabletop?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 auticus wrote:
"how can we emulate a game like magic the gathering along with its massive success and put it in tabletop form"


It's simply not possible due to the inherent contradiction of disposable cards taking virtually zero time or space per dollar spent vs. ever-embiggened models taking increasingly more time and space per dollar spent.

That is, Magic regularly sees spend $1,000s on cards and instantly 100% playable the next day, whereas $1,000s of GW miniatures and rules take a lot longer to paint and digest. Non-modular / non-swappable model parts create further WYSIWYG challenges. And then there's the space issue, where GW minis simply take up more physical space than stacks of cards, both for storage and for gameplay. A card game only needs 3x3 per match, whereas 40k assumes a 4x6 battlefield. Worse, it actively encourages against the increasingly baroque centerpiece models that GW has been pushing out.

Trying to make 40k (or any other tabletop miniatures wargame) like Magic is a doomed proposition from the beginning.

What GW should be doing is to lean into their centerpieces, and push a strategy where each player is compelled to collect and play 1 of each shiny new thing that GW makes, rather than the Rule of 3 that dominated mass purchases of fodder.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/25 00:21:18


   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


What GW should be doing is to lean into their centerpieces, and push a strategy where each player is compelled to collect and play 1 of each shiny new thing that GW makes, rather than the Rule of 3 that dominated mass purchases of fodder.


I like highlander style armies but basically herohammer? Bleah.... to me the appropriate centerpieces would be units like a dread or a battlwagon . Not the massive new (ugly) stuff.

 
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




People must be playing a different 9th edition than I do. Movement still matters:
Do I spread out to prevent deepstriking?
Do I move close for melta(or rapid fire) and risk being charged?
Do I move through terrain and get slowed down, but get cover?
Do I place the unit right on the first or second level, risking not having a good shot when my opponent moves out of los? Do I place my vehicle behind terrain and then have to move around for two turns?
Do I place my army at the deployment line (and have more shots in the first turn) or in the back (and prevent charges)?
How do I maximize attacks in CC, measuring half-inches?
How do I place units to not lose them to morale after casualties?
Do I use transports at all?
Where the hell do I place my characters properly to allow:
a) use of auras
b) charging with the characters
c) protecting the chars in case of a bad charge roll
d) use psychic powers how I want
e) charging enemy characters
f) hit the most units with exploding strats like bombardment or Nurgle's rot

I admit there are two problems in 9th which solve too many of these questions: FLY and movement values being too high. Both have nothing to do with blast, since blasts in the past where too unreliable to really be a consideration. But I think most movement values could be reduced by 2-4 inches. I haven't really used rhinos since 8th, since my Plague Marines can easily just walk across the board now and reach CC in 2nd or 3rd turn.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/25 10:02:06


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 Blackie wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:


What GW should be doing is to lean into their centerpieces, and push a strategy where each player is compelled to collect and play 1 of each shiny new thing that GW makes, rather than the Rule of 3 that dominated mass purchases of fodder.


I like highlander style armies but basically herohammer? Bleah.... to me the appropriate centerpieces would be units like a dread or a battlwagon . Not the massive new (ugly) stuff.


Massive centerpieces are what GW has been making, because nobody else has the technical ability or sales volumes to do so.

20+ years ago, Dreads and Land Raiders were the massive centerpiece models of the day.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: