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.

Mobility isn't the issue, as much as the cargo is trash. If marines could clear screens without IG help, turn 2 pods would be just fine. Well, that and something worthwhile to put in the pods.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^There are ways to mitigate 1st turn strike within IGOUGO, one of them is more terrain to block LOS (and/or better terrain rules), or allow/force armies to bring on reserves in a more volountary fashion.

Having both armies fully deploy on boards without much LOS blocking terrain is a sure fire way to make going first more important.

I want good terrain rules too. But I also don't want it to be required to build 2-3 giant walls of terrain in order for the game to work. The game should allow for a mix of different mixes of terrain for a variety of different circumstances and still have the game be playable. IGOUGO is the problem. Patching it with walls of LOS blocking terrain is just that. A patch. The crack still exists.

The game doesn't work if you're playing a napoleonic stand off. You NEED terraine to play the game properly. What's lacking is a fleshed out rule set that accomodates them.

The game should work with and without terrain. Empty battlefields are a thing.

The fact that you are referencing battles that ACTUALLY happened as a reason that fictional battles can't work is amazing.

Martel732 wrote:
The game should work with and without terrain. Empty battlefields are a thing.

The fact that you are referencing battles that ACTUALLY happened as a reason that fictional battles can't work is amazing.

What actually happened historically has 0 bearing on what the game should be.

They didn't have giant mahines of war in the particulat battle referenced. If you limited the game so just infantries and heavy weapons on infantries and few horseback, yeah it would work. Sadly, that's not what this game is.

Agree with Martel.

Again, your using terrain to cover up the problem.

Fix the problem.

Hell, fix both problems, terrain and the turn structure.

Giant machines that would probably be neutralized with air power or by the navy.

Heavy infantry and armor in particular should not need terrain to survive. If they do, they are not a valid concept with the available technology. In 40K WWI in the future or not?

Terrain is random and can't be counted on since GW trashed those rules after 5th.

 Lance845 wrote:
Agree with Martel.

Again, your using terrain to cover up the problem.

Fix the problem.

Hell, fix both problems, terrain and the turn structure.

Why bother with TLOS as a core rule if you had vision across the entire battlefield? The fact of the matter is that the game requires you to obscure your units as primary means of defense.

 skchsan wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Agree with Martel.

Again, your using terrain to cover up the problem.

Fix the problem.

Hell, fix both problems, terrain and the turn structure.

Why bother with TLOS as a core rule if you had vision across the entire battlefield? The fact of the matter is that the game requires you to obscure your units as primary means of defense.

Requires is a pretty strong word.

Martel732 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Agree with Martel.

Again, your using terrain to cover up the problem.

Fix the problem.

Hell, fix both problems, terrain and the turn structure.

Why bother with TLOS as a core rule if you had vision across the entire battlefield? The fact of the matter is that the game requires you to obscure your units as primary means of defense.

Requires is a pretty strong word.

It's a pretty straight forward binary condition - you attack if you see it, you can't if you don't.

But there are few select units who don't live off this. Like plague crawlers, for example. And IKs.

Martel732 wrote:
But there are few select units who don't live off this. Like plague crawlers, for example. And IKs.

And many units that do?

Exactly. So it's entirely possible to have system that accurately represents hard targets and doesn't rely on terrain. It's even possible in this system.

But talking about terrain as a fix just lets GW off the hook, imo.

Martel732 wrote:
Exactly. So it's entirely possible to have system that accurately represents hard targets and doesn't rely on terrain. It's even possible in this system.

But talking about terrain as a fix just lets GW off the hook, imo.

I'd agree with that if 40k was a card game with dice.

Positioning is a core element of the game.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^There are ways to mitigate 1st turn strike within IGOUGO, one of them is more terrain to block LOS (and/or better terrain rules), or allow/force armies to bring on reserves in a more volountary fashion.

Having both armies fully deploy on boards without much LOS blocking terrain is a sure fire way to make going first more important.

In general I think each side needs 2 LOS blockers in the deployment zone. However - if there is so much terrain that you can hide more than half of your army you have too much terrain. Too much terrain is a lot worse than too little. With automatic hide your whole army terrain - you can design armies that can't lose.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^There are ways to mitigate 1st turn strike within IGOUGO, one of them is more terrain to block LOS (and/or better terrain rules), or allow/force armies to bring on reserves in a more volountary fashion.

Having both armies fully deploy on boards without much LOS blocking terrain is a sure fire way to make going first more important.

In general I think each side needs 2 LOS blockers in the deployment zone. However - if there is so much terrain that you can hide more than half of your army you have too much terrain. Too much terrain is a lot worse than too little. With automatic hide your whole army terrain - you can design armies that can't lose.

There should be rules on "terrain deployment" and allowed terrain type/number depending on the mission.

For example, Eternal War plays with 3 Large obscuring terrain (~8"x8") and 5 medium LOS blocking terrain (~2"x4"). Players roll off to see who goes first in placing a terrain. Terrain must be deployed in full before players' armies can be deployed.
No terrain feature can be placed within 9" from the center of the battlefield. No part of 'large terrain' can be within 12" of another terrain. No part of 'medium terrain' can be within 9" of another terrain.

Regardless, terrain is a separate problem that does need fixing but is not the fix for all the first turn problems. It certainly mitigates them. But mitigation is not repair.

I'd be fine with letting drop pods break the turn 1 rule. It's fluffy and would get iconic models back on the table

 Lance845 wrote:
Regardless, terrain is a separate problem that does need fixing but is not the fix for all the first turn problems. It certainly mitigates them. But mitigation is not repair.

And overhauling the entire game system is a replacement, not a repair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cynista wrote:
I'd be fine with letting drop pods break the turn 1 rule. It's fluffy and would get iconic models back on the table

Turn 1 deepstrikes wouldn't be such an issue if theire offensive capabilities were curtailed. Deepstrike offensive adds too much fire power in comparison to the defensive benefits it provides to the units entering via deepstrike.

The current incarnation of deepstrike and its limitations allow at least 1 full round of action for both sides before the poop hits the fan.

I'd be in favor of disallowing deepstrike only to the first player's first turn with unbiased roll off to see who goes first. This could bring in an interesting dynamic where each player needs to think about how much of their forces they planned on 'putting into reserve' need to start on board.

I'm for battle round 1 deepstriking of drop pods. They enter on t1 or t2, then disembark in the following round. The cargo shoots and more easily charges BR2, the opponent can try to kill the pod before it acts but who cares, it's a distraction that blocks movement and los. Hardly different than an advancing rhino.

Edit: after checking the profile I see the "drop pod assault" rule that makes this complicated. Remove it. That'll give an extra layer of unique in that the embarked unit can stay protected into t4. Tactics!

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
I'm for battle round 1 deepstriking of drop pods. They enter on t1 or t2, then disembark in the following round. The cargo shoots and more easily charges BR2, the opponent can try to kill the pod before it acts but who cares, it's a distraction that blocks movement and los. Hardly different than an advancing rhino.

If they disembarked the turn after they arrive I think it can work.

 skchsan wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Regardless, terrain is a separate problem that does need fixing but is not the fix for all the first turn problems. It certainly mitigates them. But mitigation is not repair.

And overhauling the entire game system is a replacement, not a repair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cynista wrote:
I'd be fine with letting drop pods break the turn 1 rule. It's fluffy and would get iconic models back on the table

Turn 1 deepstrikes wouldn't be such an issue if theire offensive capabilities were curtailed. Deepstrike offensive adds too much fire power in comparison to the defensive benefits it provides to the units entering via deepstrike.

The current incarnation of deepstrike and its limitations allow at least 1 full round of action for both sides before the poop hits the fan.

I'd be in favor of disallowing deepstrike only to the first player's first turn with unbiased roll off to see who goes first. This could bring in an interesting dynamic where each player needs to think about how much of their forces they planned on 'putting into reserve' need to start on board.

It is a repair if the core game system is the problem.

Look i get that you like igougo for whatever reason. But hanging onto it for no good reason is just dumb. It makes way too many problems.

 Lance845 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Regardless, terrain is a separate problem that does need fixing but is not the fix for all the first turn problems. It certainly mitigates them. But mitigation is not repair.

And overhauling the entire game system is a replacement, not a repair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cynista wrote:
I'd be fine with letting drop pods break the turn 1 rule. It's fluffy and would get iconic models back on the table

Turn 1 deepstrikes wouldn't be such an issue if theire offensive capabilities were curtailed. Deepstrike offensive adds too much fire power in comparison to the defensive benefits it provides to the units entering via deepstrike.

The current incarnation of deepstrike and its limitations allow at least 1 full round of action for both sides before the poop hits the fan.

I'd be in favor of disallowing deepstrike only to the first player's first turn with unbiased roll off to see who goes first. This could bring in an interesting dynamic where each player needs to think about how much of their forces they planned on 'putting into reserve' need to start on board.

It is a repair if the core game system is the problem.

Look i get that you like igougo for whatever reason. But hanging onto it for no good reason is just dumb. It makes way too many problems.

AA is not a true non-IGOUGO. IGOUGO will always exist in a board game where you take turns performing actions.

I'm of the opinion that stuff that aren't allowed to charge T1 should be allowed to deepstrike T1. Stuff like Mawlocs that just pop out, do their thing and then die. Drop pods could be the same and in turn deny T1 charges from the units that are inside of them. So you can bring down that psyker to blast a unit or a squad of plasma devs, but that's really not much worse than what is already happening with units that can fly 60" and shoot the crap out of everyone.

 skchsan wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Regardless, terrain is a separate problem that does need fixing but is not the fix for all the first turn problems. It certainly mitigates them. But mitigation is not repair.

And overhauling the entire game system is a replacement, not a repair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cynista wrote:
I'd be fine with letting drop pods break the turn 1 rule. It's fluffy and would get iconic models back on the table

Turn 1 deepstrikes wouldn't be such an issue if theire offensive capabilities were curtailed. Deepstrike offensive adds too much fire power in comparison to the defensive benefits it provides to the units entering via deepstrike.

The current incarnation of deepstrike and its limitations allow at least 1 full round of action for both sides before the poop hits the fan.

I'd be in favor of disallowing deepstrike only to the first player's first turn with unbiased roll off to see who goes first. This could bring in an interesting dynamic where each player needs to think about how much of their forces they planned on 'putting into reserve' need to start on board.

It is a repair if the core game system is the problem.

Look i get that you like igougo for whatever reason. But hanging onto it for no good reason is just dumb. It makes way too many problems.

AA is not a true non-IGOUGO. IGOUGO will always exist in a board game where you take turns performing actions.

thats a misrepresentation of what igougo means.

Segmenting it into individual activations makes for a huge granularity in decision making and consequence.

You might as well argue that chess is igougo so why not have white move every piece and then have black move all of theirs.

 Lance845 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Regardless, terrain is a separate problem that does need fixing but is not the fix for all the first turn problems. It certainly mitigates them. But mitigation is not repair.

And overhauling the entire game system is a replacement, not a repair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cynista wrote:
I'd be fine with letting drop pods break the turn 1 rule. It's fluffy and would get iconic models back on the table

Turn 1 deepstrikes wouldn't be such an issue if theire offensive capabilities were curtailed. Deepstrike offensive adds too much fire power in comparison to the defensive benefits it provides to the units entering via deepstrike.

The current incarnation of deepstrike and its limitations allow at least 1 full round of action for both sides before the poop hits the fan.

I'd be in favor of disallowing deepstrike only to the first player's first turn with unbiased roll off to see who goes first. This could bring in an interesting dynamic where each player needs to think about how much of their forces they planned on 'putting into reserve' need to start on board.

It is a repair if the core game system is the problem.

Look i get that you like igougo for whatever reason. But hanging onto it for no good reason is just dumb. It makes way too many problems.

AA is not a true non-IGOUGO. IGOUGO will always exist in a board game where you take turns performing actions.

thats a misrepresentation of what igougo means.

Segmenting it into individual activations makes for a huge granularity in decision making and consequence.

You might as well argue that chess is igougo so why not have white move every piece and then have black move all of theirs.

This is kind of spiraling out of topic, but as concurrently being discussed on the other post, the crux of the issue of IGOUGO in 40k is the escalation of lethality in the game.

In the past editions, alpha strikes were strong but no where near the level that it is now where you can literally cripple an army to 1/3 of its starting strength or more in the first turn of the first round.

If there were measures implemented (i.e. making LOS more scarce via concrete terrain rule) it could help the mess that is 1st turn of 40k.

Good deflection from getting called out on your bad argument.

Sure. Lets be on topic.

Drop pods have problems.

First turn deepstriking is a no go because its a problem in a game that uses igougo turn structure (by the actual definition of igougo not the one you tried to pass off). Fixing that could give the drop pod a new lease on life if some of its other issues were also addressed.

Terrain rules suck and everyone agrees. They are not however a fix for core game issues.

Past editions were less lethal. So we either start cutting specific models and wargear from play or you deal with the reality of the lethality of 40k.

Alpha strikes are a problem. And they are caused by igougo.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Flyrants ruined your fun.

I don't want it to be game-winning or anything, just a little extra something to potentially help me seize battle initiative, first strike, position or make the opponent be a bit more defensive if they go first.

sounds like you want an advantage others dont get = wanting to be gamewinning to me.

Im surpised people didint loose their colective gak that vehicles lost bolter rules. It made storm bolters auto take for everything which is just boring when anythings so good its autotake and kind of makes it obvious its a bit too much.

SM are not that bad. Despite what everyone sems to say. I get that everyone wants their army to be auto win and bad ass and SM players seem to feel more entitled than others and GW pandering to the imperium fanboy crowd does not help... Yeah I Went there.

My eldar very often struggle being outnumbered Vs SM. Hellblasts with chapter ancient cpt/liuetanant is just plain Fudgin nasty... Intercessors as troops are insanely good. I always question peoples tactics when I come up against them and dont see them being put into cover.. Ohh you dont want that 2+ save and then moan about surviavibility??? Why are imperium players complaining aboput spsykers where you can just take a couple of assasins. A warlock has 2 wounds. 2!!! thats as much as an intercessors and hes a friggin HQ...

FYI I play eldar and dont flyer spam or soup(not that souping makes any sense to space elfs anymore).

SM are fine as they are and will only get more units and stuff because GW... So just wait 6months and you'll get some new OP shiny while the rest of us are pushing 15+ year old model scultps around..

 Lance845 wrote:
Good deflection from getting called out on your bad argument.

Sure. Lets be on topic.

Drop pods have problems.

First turn deepstriking is a no go because its a problem in a game that uses igougo turn structure (by the actual definition of igougo not the one you tried to pass off). Fixing that could give the drop pod a new lease on life if some of its other issues were also addressed.

Terrain rules suck and everyone agrees. They are not however a fix for core game issues.

Past editions were less lethal. So we either start cutting specific models and wargear from play or you deal with the reality of the lethality of 40k.

Alpha strikes are a problem. And they are caused by igougo.

AA is not the panacea to the game nor was my last comment a "deflection to a call out on my bad argument." Your chess analogy is false equivalence because chess is actually indeed a IGOUGO game with more restrictions on how many actions you can take per turn. There is no restriction on moving the same piece on your next turn. I can choose to move my knight however many times without being required to cycle through my other pieces before I can move my knight again.

We all know where your fanaticism for AA takes a post (as exemplified by 2 other posts you're ranting about how AA is the cureall for game) and it was merely to steer away from making this post another one of your "MAKE 40K AA AND ALL IS SOLVED" post.

Alpha strike is indeed the issue, and it is primarily caused by the escalated lethality (particularly during shooting phase) that pervades the game. This is further exacerbated by deep strikes.

Your argument of "terrain isn;t going to solve a problem of IGOUGO, only AA will" has no basis on discounting the effect of terrain in the game and shrugging it off as "that's a different issue". If things don;t have line of sight, it cannot shoot against the target. This effectively cuts the lethality/power creep in the game, just like how the scariest melee unit doesn't mean a thing if it can't get within melee range.

I never once called it a cureall. I called it what it is. The fix to the games most glaring root problem from which many symptoms emerge.

The game has a lot of problems. Just a lot of them can be traced back to its turn structure. Many of them however cannot.

"Your argument of "terrain isn;t going to solve a problem of IGOUGO, only AA will" has no basis on discounting the effect of terrain in the game and shrugging it off as "that's a different issue". If things don;t have line of sight, it cannot shoot against the target. This effectively cuts the lethality/power creep in the game, just like how the scariest melee unit doesn't mean a thing if it can't get within melee range."

Unless you are facing IG artillery battery. Then terrain completely backfires on you.