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.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Killing stuff in a wargame is its own reward. Being given points for it means you're doubly rewarded for something you would do anyway

maybe for current 40k, not wargames in general

Sim-Life

You know i have an ongoing 18 page thread on this very topic-

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789567.page


Like what Mezmorki, AnomanderRake and many others have done is the ideal-take all the best bits of what 40K was rules wise (3rd-7th) and put them into the same edition.

Mezmorki goes a bit farther than i would by making his own rules. i just imported the best rules versions into the overall best core rules edition (5th)

Things like grenade throwing, snap fire and overwatch make 5th ed a better game. some rules in 5th were worse than other editions. wound allocation comes to mind and the vehicle assault rules (that were much better in 4th). 22 USRs work just fine in 5th, bloating them to 50+ in 7th was a mistake just like all the strats in 9th.

We have been playing this version of 5.5 at our FLGS for years now and we love it.

As for GW? they will never go back, so that type of game is out the window. in order to "fix" what has happened to the game would require a total reset.

They are totally set on sales and not on proper game development, but assuming they did while still wanting players to build armies with high model counts (for high profit margins) they will have to go away from the IGOUGO system and stratagems. they would also need to tone down the size of the factions on the game. there is no way bring it back under control otherwise. the topic on the stupid number/variant scything talons if a symptom of the problem.

The only hope i could see is if they hired Andy Chambers again as a freelance game designers to come in and use his experience over the last decade of working on his own combined with his 40K experience to find a happy solution.

 kodos wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Killing stuff in a wargame is its own reward. Being given points for it means you're doubly rewarded for something you would do anyway

maybe for current 40k, not wargames in general

In what wargames is killing not important?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Killing stuff in a wargame is its own reward. Being given points for it means you're doubly rewarded for something you would do anyway

maybe for current 40k, not wargames in general

In what wargames is killing not important?

not (double) rewarded =/= not important
in those were you have the option to keep them out of the game in other ways, and/or were having an engaged unit is better than removing it instantly

even once made the decision to keep the opponent in melee alive an option as it was an easy way to keep the unit out of play while at the same time kept your own unit save from enemy fire (and he needed to put some afford in to get his unit free again)
or looking he unit/fight in place so the it blocks LOS to a more important unit and so on

there are also games that are won only by objective, if the enemy is ahead of points and you kill the last of his units, he wins (and not like the 40k "this is still a los or draw in a tournament, he wins)

not all wargames are about killing the opponent fast and ignore everything else like current 40k (to is more or less a unique feature of 40k were killing fast instead of trying to get into tactical positions first is rewarded)

do not speak of "wargames" in general if you mean 40k, as I would not call 9th a wargame at all (a miniature game is fine, but for a wargame it misses the strategic and tactical depth)

 kodos wrote:

not (double) rewarded =/= not important
in those were you have the option to keep them out of the game in other ways, and/or were having an engaged unit is better than removing it instantly

even once made the decision to keep the opponent in melee alive an option as it was an easy way to keep the unit out of play while at the same time kept your own unit save from enemy fire (and he needed to put some afford in to get his unit free again)
or looking he unit/fight in place so the it blocks LOS to a more important unit and so on

there are also games that are won only by objective, if the enemy is ahead of points and you kill the last of his units, he wins (and not like the 40k "this is still a los or draw in a tournament, he wins)

not all wargames are about killing the opponent fast and ignore everything else like current 40k (to is more or less a unique feature of 40k were killing fast instead of trying to get into tactical positions first is rewarded)

do not speak of "wargames" in general if you mean 40k, as I would not call 9th a wargame at all (a miniature game is fine, but for a wargame it misses the strategic and tactical depth)

I'm not talking about tabling, i'm talking about weakening my opponent as much as possible so that they lose board presence and let me do the actual missions.

I've played 40k and Infinity (small sample size, i know) and sure, in infinity the game can just end if you kill too much stuff but most tournament games i've played, we would just try to drop the opponent as close as possible to that threshold and max out mission points. Thing is you weren't directly rewarded for killing your opponent, it just gave you more breathing room (and helps break up tiebreakers).

Sou you haven't played any wargames, but claim that what is the case in 40k must be the case in all wargames

got it

 kodos wrote:
Sou you haven't played any wargames, but claim that what is the case in 40k must be the case in all wargames

got it

Is there an example wargame where it’s usually better to not kill an opponent’s unit?

Not just “sometimes you can gain more benefit from leaving them alive” but where that’s the default.

 Blackie wrote:

 Hairesy wrote:
Go back to 6th Ed.

Which is universally considered the worst edition ever, even by GW which shelved it after just two years, lol.

Worked for me and my old group. Somehow the new "stand in an aura bubble and shoot" just didn't work for me. Then again I used to run Berzerkers in Rhinos, so really I should be used to things not working.

HH rules.

My extremely realistic and idealised version is the current game, but the GW app developers are competent and GW cease and desist lawyers are hyper efficient.

What this results in is the following:
An amazing app that is so good all players use it to play and record all their games of 9th edition 40k. Every single one.
The app has a built in forum for players to discuss the game called nu-dakkadakka.
The C&D lawyers then shut down this forum and all other forums/social media for the game. God, they are so hyper efficient the C&D letter arrives the day before you try to open a new forum!
All conversation is now "by law" forced onto the nu-dakkadakka forum.
Whenever you see a post from anyone on nu-dakkadakka you can inspect their profile which shows their app based gaming history.
This shows games played, win/loss and a host of other information (factions used, units used, per game scores).
By default the filter for nu-dakkadakka doesn't show posts from those who don't play the best game ever (9th edition 40k of couse). You would have to opt in to see their posts but no one ever does.

Wouldn't it be interesting to actually talk to people who play the game? I wonder how empty this thread would be?

And wouldn't it be fascinating when discussing one of your factions in their tactics thread and if a contrarion poster is (using a completely random made up example here) telling you that 10 Scarab Occult is not the way to play TSons, and you can see whether their win rate is better or worse than yours?

Finally it would be interesting if on this competent app you could also look up the profiles of the rules writers and see what they play and their win rates. And you can (and are in fact encouraged) to send them non threatening messages basically consisting of the flawless and perfect app data on Harlequin win rates with pictures of clowns and the words "you?" in comic sans at the bottom.

EightFoldPath wrote:
My extremely realistic and idealised version is the current game, but the GW app developers are competent and GW cease and desist lawyers are hyper efficient.

What this results in is the following:
An amazing app that is so good all players use it to play and record all their games of 9th edition 40k. Every single one.
The app has a built in forum for players to discuss the game called nu-dakkadakka.
The C&D lawyers then shut down this forum and all other forums/social media for the game. God, they are so hyper efficient the C&D letter arrives the day before you try to open a new forum!
All conversation is now "by law" forced onto the nu-dakkadakka forum.
Whenever you see a post from anyone on nu-dakkadakka you can inspect their profile which shows their app based gaming history.
This shows games played, win/loss and a host of other information (factions used, units used, per game scores).
By default the filter for nu-dakkadakka doesn't show posts from those who don't play the best game ever (9th edition 40k of couse). You would have to opt in to see their posts but no one ever does.

Wouldn't it be interesting to actually talk to people who play the game? I wonder how empty this thread would be?

And wouldn't it be fascinating when discussing one of your factions in their tactics thread and if a contrarion poster is (using a completely random made up example here) telling you that 10 Scarab Occult is not the way to play TSons, and you can see whether their win rate is better or worse than yours?

Finally it would be interesting if on this competent app you could also look up the profiles of the rules writers and see what they play and their win rates. And you can (and are in fact encouraged) to send them non threatening messages basically consisting of the flawless and perfect app data on Harlequin win rates with pictures of clowns and the words "you?" in comic sans at the bottom.

That sounds atrocious.

Like, say I'm a new player. I want to ask around, see what factions might fit me. But, because I don't have the app yet or have no games registered, I can't make a post anyone else sees.

I sincerely hope this post was sarcasm.

Edit: Also, I don't think a C&D would shut this forum down. There's no legal basis for that.

 kodos wrote:
Sou you haven't played any wargames, but claim that what is the case in 40k must be the case in all wargames

got it

40k and infinity aren't wargames? And can you name a game where killing has no benefit? not just "situationally no benefit". I'm legitimately curious.

EightFoldPath wrote:

An amazing app that is so good all players use it to play and record all their games of 9th edition 40k. Every single one.

This will never happen as long as I'm alive. I literally HATE doing computer things on my phone. Any screen less than 12" makes me physically uncomfortable, and I hate screen touch keyboards SOOOO much that I wish texting had never been invented.

Don't get me wrong- I still want GW to make an awesome app for those who will use one, and I believe that a digital model is essential to get the living ruleset and persistent edition that I want out of the game.

But don't expect me to use a phone as anything but a phone and possibly an MP3 player unless it is a dire emergency or I'm being paid to do it, because cellphone screens and keyboards are not, never have been, and never could be fun for me. If I can run the app on a windows laptop, we're good.

By the way: Get of my lawn! (LOL)

Go back to 5th edition. Sure it had issues, but if it had the same level of rule support we have today it would have been great.

All it needed was a good core rules FAQ to fix up things like multi-wound models. Then some point changes and FAQ's to tone down factions like GK and SW. In particularly the former.

Skirmish game that has either and interleaved turn structure, or some other turn structure that absolutely isnt UGOIGO, which uses a lot of granularity in how wide and vast the options are for building "army" or "warband" of "team" or whatever. Nothing more than 25ish models. Maybe 30 if youre playing a weenie horde warband. But that would be the exception, not the rule. Regardless, it's focused on low model counts and diversity and creativity of the team build to overcome the obstacles of the scenario.

A largely narrative game that relies on building scenarios to be played that uses mostly infantry type models, but does allow some wiggle room for vehicles and such.

It also introduces aggressive flora and fauna environmental effects, depending on the mission or some other random influence.

Basically, I want 40K Warcry, but with a lot better balanced fighter profiles, and more granularity when it comes to equipment.

It's a tough line to tight balance on, since I am asking for simplicity in gameplay resolution, with a wide variety of options to explore.

But then again, the primary focus is on narrative revelation, so it doesnt have to be a balanced game engine, but some thought in that regard would still be welcome.

And no, not killteam. Especially not with how fireteams are composed. Barf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EightFoldPath wrote:

Spoiler:

My extremely realistic and idealised version is the current game, but the GW app developers are competent and GW cease and desist lawyers are hyper efficient.

What this results in is the following:
An amazing app that is so good all players use it to play and record all their games of 9th edition 40k. Every single one.
The app has a built in forum for players to discuss the game called nu-dakkadakka.
The C&D lawyers then shut down this forum and all other forums/social media for the game. God, they are so hyper efficient the C&D letter arrives the day before you try to open a new forum!
All conversation is now "by law" forced onto the nu-dakkadakka forum.
Whenever you see a post from anyone on nu-dakkadakka you can inspect their profile which shows their app based gaming history.
This shows games played, win/loss and a host of other information (factions used, units used, per game scores).
By default the filter for nu-dakkadakka doesn't show posts from those who don't play the best game ever (9th edition 40k of couse). You would have to opt in to see their posts but no one ever does.

Wouldn't it be interesting to actually talk to people who play the game? I wonder how empty this thread would be?

And wouldn't it be fascinating when discussing one of your factions in their tactics thread and if a contrarion poster is (using a completely random made up example here) telling you that 10 Scarab Occult is not the way to play TSons, and you can see whether their win rate is better or worse than yours?

Finally it would be interesting if on this competent app you could also look up the profiles of the rules writers and see what they play and their win rates. And you can (and are in fact encouraged) to send them non threatening messages basically consisting of the flawless and perfect app data on Harlequin win rates with pictures of clowns and the words "you?" in comic sans at the bottom.

I always wondered how fascism is so alive and well, then I read stuff on the internet and am reminded quite quickly.

EightFoldPath wrote:
My extremely realistic and idealised version is the current game, but the GW app developers are competent and GW cease and desist lawyers are hyper efficient.

What this results in is the following:
An amazing app that is so good all players use it to play and record all their games of 9th edition 40k. Every single one.
The app has a built in forum for players to discuss the game called nu-dakkadakka.
The C&D lawyers then shut down this forum and all other forums/social media for the game. God, they are so hyper efficient the C&D letter arrives the day before you try to open a new forum!
All conversation is now "by law" forced onto the nu-dakkadakka forum.
Whenever you see a post from anyone on nu-dakkadakka you can inspect their profile which shows their app based gaming history.
This shows games played, win/loss and a host of other information (factions used, units used, per game scores).
By default the filter for nu-dakkadakka doesn't show posts from those who don't play the best game ever (9th edition 40k of couse). You would have to opt in to see their posts but no one ever does.

Wouldn't it be interesting to actually talk to people who play the game? I wonder how empty this thread would be?

And wouldn't it be fascinating when discussing one of your factions in their tactics thread and if a contrarion poster is (using a completely random made up example here) telling you that 10 Scarab Occult is not the way to play TSons, and you can see whether their win rate is better or worse than yours?

Finally it would be interesting if on this competent app you could also look up the profiles of the rules writers and see what they play and their win rates. And you can (and are in fact encouraged) to send them non threatening messages basically consisting of the flawless and perfect app data on Harlequin win rates with pictures of clowns and the words "you?" in comic sans at the bottom.

Yah, nobodies going to enter any false reports into this.....

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

40k and infinity aren't wargames? And can you name a game where killing has no benefit? not just "situationally no benefit". I'm legitimately curious.

current 40k is not a wargame, a miniatures game or mass-skirmish, Infinity is a skirmish game

and depending in the version of the original Kriegsspiel (Wargame), and other games were resources are a thing the opponent need to take care of damaged units (reinforcements, "healing" or similar, so you get the decision to kill the unit or let the opponent waste resources on it, also damaged/fleeing units have the chance to lower the moral of other units etc.)
Stargrunt needed you to invest way to much in killing other units that it more or less put you in a disadvantage if you focused in killing instead of pinning and outmaneuver

in Battlegroup, un-pinning a unit gives the same disadvantage as a killed unit, but it is way harder to kill something unless the opponent is doing something stupid, so trying to pin as many units as possible is the better option than trying to kill them.

in old versions of Warhammer you got the choice to let the opponents unit flee out of combat with the chance that it could get back or takes other units on the field with them (so not killing it was better as it could remove other units as well without putting your unit in an exposed position)

in 40k/AoS there is no alternative to killing a unit, or even the need to waste resources in doing it (not even situational)
so yeah, awarding additional points for killing the units is stupid here as there is no real other option anyway (but this is not a "wargame" thing)

Actually, I think that the ideal game will attract a different player base or at least encourage a different mindset amongst hobbyists who play the game a lot, enthusiastically… even so called competitively. In this ideal game, no one uses the word meta for example, or build, or so often talks about lists and win rates instead of collections and scenarios.

That and bring back templates, make the ranges and moves generally shorter, tables larger, forces smaller, make armor act like armor, facings, morale, crossfire, overwatch markers, … las pistols cannot hurt tanks, yada.

Forces, in terms of models, are already small for the standards of the history of 40k.

They're basically the same armies we had in 3rd edition in terms of quantity of models. If not less, since this edition pushes for elite armies and punishes hard any horde force.

It's creep size that is increased, now we see much bigger (and expensive) stuff, that's why people adapted higher formats to fit everything. So basically what is really higher than older edition is just the points format and the size of some models.

Armies are also getting smaller edition by edition.

An 8th army would hardly fit in 2000 point in 9th.

A 7th army would potentially not fit in 2500 now.

8th was an excpetion due to how CPs worked. The edition encouraged to spam cheap troops to get access to CPs. Even elite oriented armies fell into that trap, with tons of scouts or allied guardsmen for imperium forces. My orks were flat out unplayable without 90-150 troop models (which were only 15% to 35% of the points budget on a 2000 points list).

That what one of the biggest reasons why I didn't like 8th edition.

Thankfully that nonsense ended in 9th.

Yeah, points went up for lots of stuff but optimized lists in 9th are very different from optimized lists in 8th, and the latter would certainly have much more models. But in 7th pretty much every faction played with less models than 8th.

I'm talking about doing a model by model comparison.

My nid army from 7th edition would not fit with its current points for example.
Marines incredibly so, just consider how much changed the cost of vehicles, centurions and basic troops.
A 7th demi company would probably be 4000 points now!

Well, for me it would have to be AA instead of IGOUGO.

Other than that, I'd want it to support suppression and impactful morale rules, a turn or two of maneuvering before each side slams into the other, slimmed-down dice rolling and a typical battle size of around 4-5 squads + 1-2 vehicles; something that can easily be finished in an hour or two.

And a ruleset that can last 8-10 years without a major reboot.

Spoletta wrote:
I'm talking about doing a model by model comparison.

My nid army from 7th edition would not fit with its current points for example.
Marines incredibly so, just consider how much changed the cost of vehicles, centurions and basic troops.
A 7th demi company would probably be 4000 points now!

Fair, I was talking about optimized lists and common archetypes on average instead, comparing what was common to field in each edition rather than considering the same lists over multiple editions.

I was talking about the number of models factions use or used to get in each edition typically. And compared to older editions the number of models required to field optimized armies isn't higher, in fact I even think in several case it's even much lower, we just field more expensive stuff now. Things that once were much more limited or simply too expensive or ineffective to field in multiples.

Spoletta wrote:
A 7th demi company would probably be 4000 points now!

7th is a bad example because of all the free units you got, it was designed that way that people play with 4k points worth of models in a 2k point game

but looking back at 3rd/4th, a 2k point army would fit into a 1,5k point game of 9th

5th edition with points adjustments and a FAQ on multiwound models.
You could play a 2000 point game in 2hrs and that included setting up.

 kodos wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
A 7th demi company would probably be 4000 points now!

7th is a bad example because of all the free units you got, it was designed that way that people play with 4k points worth of models in a 2k point game

but looking back at 3rd/4th, a 2k point army would fit into a 1,5k point game of 9th

Yes, I was using an extreme exemple. But just compare the cost of drop pods and tactical marines. This will give you an idea.

yeah, when I started a Space Wolves Grey Hunter was 18 points, and a Rhino 50, which went down to 15 and 35 (and later 0), and than raised again.

Keep 9th's core rules.

Roll all faction rules back to where they were in May-July 2019 (after the Castellan/Ynnari slaying big FAQ and before Marines 2.0 nuked the edition).

Have a half way sensible CA to polish certain rough edges that existed and may be exacerbated by the change.

I guess the alternative if you liked some of the things in Psychic Awakening (and say Codex Necrons) is "roll things back to the first 6 months of 9th but Marines are just banned".

The net result is just 9th edition but with less lethality and rules bloat.

I think it's possible to make a good game somewhat within the constraints of the OP, I'd go about it like...

Reduce the capability of units to reduce lethality. By that I don't just mean reduce strength and AP, I mean everything. Reduce movement speeds across the board, say 5" for standard infantry, 9" for bikes and jump troops.
Reduce the manoeuvrability of weaponary, so returning to 5th edition rules for rapid fire, assault, heavy, etc. Also add a "basic" weapon that just doesn't do anything special.
Remove charge moves, they should just be an extension of normal movement. For the sake of working within the current system, I'd say charges can only be made if you didn't move, and are move+d6" or similar.

Strategems are cut down dramatically. There are perhaps 2 core strategems per phase, and they're all centered on commanders.

If we can't go AA, there should be a reaction system. Reactions that, if used, prevent you doing the action next turn to stop them being "bonus abilities".