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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

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

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

Did you play with that wording of the rules?

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

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

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

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

.

Bull gak.

Poker works fine with no confusion. Monopoly. Arkham Horror. Eldritch Horror. Magic the gathering.Legendary Encounters. So on and so forth.

Do you remember the tyranid rule in 6th ed that said when a Pyrovoe blew up it detonated the entire table RAW? Remember when they released the FAQ errata at the end of 7th and never updated that rule?

Don't make excuses for their gak job. They did and do a gak job. Call it what it is.

Unless you changed something about when deepstrikers arrive and I didn’t see it, this does nothing to my army. Militarum Tempestus, either aboard Valkyries or Taurox Primes. This makes it better, as I can pick and choose where and when to assault. I would love to play a scenario something like this in a match where there is a defender and an attacker (that has replenishing units) once my army is built. It would really put the STORM into stormtroopers.

 Lance845 wrote:
Poker works fine with no confusion. Monopoly. Arkham Horror. Eldritch Horror. Magic the gathering.Legendary Encounters. So on and so forth.

Do you remember the tyranid rule in 6th ed that said when a Pyrovoe blew up it detonated the entire table RAW? Remember when they released the FAQ errata at the end of 7th and never updated that rule?

Don't make excuses for their gak job. They did and do a gak job. Call it what it is.

Games with vastly less and way simpler rules....shock....are less likely to contain errors! Oh my god!

Again, big complex things have errors. Big complex things way more important than games have errors. Big complex things with tons more money to check have errors. 40k has errors. That's to be expected. Amazingly, most people can play it just fine anyway.

When the Pyrovore blew up, is that how everyone played it? Did everyone with a Pyrovore go 'oh well, you've killed one, game over I guess'? No? Then it's not a problem, is it? It would have been a good thing to FAQ, I agree, but it doesn't mean 'pyrovores are broken' unless there is genuine confusion over what should happen.


..

 ArbitorIan wrote:
Games with vastly less and way simpler rules....shock....are less likely to contain errors! Oh my god!

>Looks at the MTG Comprehensive Rulebook.

Are you reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally sure about that?

EVERY SINGLE GW produced book for 40k has errors. All of them. Not one book with less than 100 pages of rules works RAW and RAI. That is not an occasional error slips through the cracks. Thats sheer incompetence.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
Games with vastly less and way simpler rules....shock....are less likely to contain errors! Oh my god!

>Looks at the MTG Comprehensive Rulebook.

Are you reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally sure about that?

Yup. You picking out one example, amazingly, doesn't change the publication history of, say, textbooks, computer games, etc. Well done Wizards for putting together a particularly good example. GW could certainly do better.

But, yet again, to argue that the game is totally broken is insanely divorced from the reality, where most people (including little kids) play absolutely fine. The only people who have a seem to have a problem are this years Guardians Of The RAW, posting 'the game is broken!!' again and again in a forum entitled 'You Make The Call'.

If, in-game, your 'call' would be 'the game is broken' then, as a non-player, I'd suggest you stop giving advice.

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

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

Yeah, I think staggered deployment is great for purposes of the OP, it just doesn’t have to be staggered by speed. The original post stated three purposes: it’s dumb that armies somehow start 30” away from each other without having done any shooting, secondly starting everything on the board makes three really long turns followed by three fairly pointless turns, and then thirdly the alpha strike thing. As long as you stagger it somehow, the deployment becomes more believable and the interesting parts of the game get spread around more.


It doesn’t have to be speed though. I think force org and detachments are more useful. You could even say things like heavy support or unmounted troops start on the board, and other things have to walk on from the edge at deployment, or they start reserves rolls at deployment. Speed can give a bonus, sure, that’s what it’s for.

That sounds a bit like dawn of war deployment which lots of people hated, except they did a pretty poor job with that.

pelicaniforce wrote:

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

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

Yeah, I think staggered deployment is great for purposes of the OP, it just doesn’t have to be staggered by speed. The original post stated three purposes: it’s dumb that armies somehow start 30” away from each other without having done any shooting, secondly starting everything on the board makes three really long turns followed by three fairly pointless turns, and then thirdly the alpha strike thing. As long as you stagger it somehow, the deployment becomes more believable and the interesting parts of the game get spread around more.


It doesn’t have to be speed though. I think force org and detachments are more useful. You could even say things like heavy support or unmounted troops start on the board, and other things have to walk on from the edge at deployment, or they start reserves rolls at deployment. Speed can give a bonus, sure, that’s what it’s for.

That sounds a bit like dawn of war deployment which lots of people hated, except they did a pretty poor job with that.

I did think about using the force org to determine who arrives and in which order, but I also wanted to be realistic in that faster units will arrive earlier. An army is restricted by it's slowest models, and you might elect to drive your tanks slower to keep pace with infantry, but you can't expect your infantry to sprint to keep pace with the vehicles. I also wanted a bit more incentive to bring transports - after all, the reason you would put meganobs in a trukk is that if they walked to the battle, they would get there somewhere in turn 50, I think. Giving transports the ability to bring units in earlier in the game makes them much more useful, and will change how people play razorback and chimeras. Essentially, the transport is there to get you to the battlefield, as well as for driving you around it.

The main reason I don't want to use the force organisation is because some heavy support units are fast, and some elites or troops are slow. having meganobs turn up before an elder fire prism or a tau hammerhead because the tanks are "heavy support" isn't particularly realistic, I think.

I would adapt the rules so that the player has to deploy at least 1 unit from each bracket on the turn required as "outriders", so that the opponent has something to do if they are already on the board!

Yes I really like that. However whatever they’re fighting over, a reactor or orbital battery or strategic position, chances are one side has units, slow units, already close to it and that’s why they’re fighting over it in the first place. Using just primarily speed makes it seems like each army is all together in a camp some distance away from the other and they’ve chosen a spot in the middle that they’ve all set out to trundle toward. It sort of goes back to two armies lining up across from each other and charging forward

I think it makes just as much sense that the battle starts with slow artillery and some troop units guarding it already on the field and another army either are attacking it or bumping into it. Alternately two sets of light units encounter each other on patrol. Elite and Fast attack units arrive later because just by their nature they’re a response unit or a flanking unit. Even when heavy support units are a column of fast tanks they’ve got conspicuous footprints, they have to come down in heavy landers, stop for maintenance, and they get there either by clear routes or by bashing down the terrain. That makes them great candidates for deploying first where the enemy can see them.

Any detachment could have a ranking based on what force .org the majority of unites are in, what the slowest maximum speed of the units is, whether the warlord is in the detachment

I can see the reasoning behind having some units on the board to start with, as you rightly said this gives a reason for the two armies to converge.

I'm thinking of this more as a mission, rather than a blanket rule to cover all games, at this point.

I propose a combination, where a certain number of units (say, 3) start deployed on the board, and the rest arrive based on speed. Deployment would be alternating, without deployment zones, so first player deploys a unit anywhere, then second player deploys anywhere more than 24" from the other player, and so on until all 6 units are deployed.
Then players models will start arriving over turns 2 - 4 based on movement speed (11"+ turn 2, 7"-10" turn 3, all else turn 4) to represent the armies diverting to the position. Whoever deployed first goes second. Players arrive from the long board edges, so that slow units don't end up getting nowhere before the end of the game, as they would if they moved on from the short edges.

The game would last 7 or 8 turns, depending on which seems best on playtest, and there would be one, central objective with reasonable fortifications around it (aegis defence line, perhaps make the objective a bastion or something).

I think this sounds like fun...