Switch Theme:

Target Priority and Leadership Tests  [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 us
Longtime Dakkanaut







The huge problem with target priority was that it was a single die roll that determined whether an entire unit's shooting would be wasted or not. The same way that the old version of falling back from combat was a single die roll that determined the fate of an entire unit.

Imagine if target priority was "If you're not shooting at the most threatening/nearby/whatever target unit, you suffer a -1 to hit due to being distracted. When a unit declares attacks, they can try to make a Ld roll to avoid this penalty, subject to the following restrictions: ...."

You've still got your simulationist mechanic, and leadership is still important, but one die roll doesn't decide an entire unit's shooting.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

I still wouldn't want the rule at all, but that at least makes more sense than "Your Devastators got freaked out by that lone Grot. Guess those Meganobz live to fight another day!"

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

 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 solkan wrote:
Don't forget the better part: Because everyone is allowed to split fire in this edition, the target priority rules will have to be based on individual models (or groups) and not units.

For what it's worth, that's how it worked in 2nd edition. Each model had to fire at the closest target in its line of sight (which depended on which way it was facing) and could ignore closer targets in favour of vehicles or mission objectives.

 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Fun Is Subjective
Let's see you say that when you fail a big swathe of tests, your army can't do anything, and you get blasted off the table the next turn.


...This is already pretty much my experience of playing 9th with all of its vaunted deterministic player-choice-driven mechanics.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

As a greenskin player in fantasy that HATED animosity rules, I wouldn't even play 40k with a rule like this.

Like fear and morale rules, they just DON'T make sense in warhammer universe.

90% armies of the game just shouldn't be afected by morale or this kind of rules. And as everytime that a rule like this exist, they only exist to punish imperial guardsmen and orks. And maybe Tau.

But even imperial guardsmen (Not conscripts) are by today standards fething navy seals. I mean, even Cadian White Shields were trained from YOUTH to become soldiers. Our "modern profesional military" would be planteary PDF. All this rules that threat them as unskilled militiamen are derived from warhammer fantasy. But IG infantry squads are not at the same tier than fantasy state troops.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/09 01:56:34


 Crimson Devil wrote:

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

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

 
   
Made in nl
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

 Sim-Life wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
To speed things up and make the game less of a simulation and more of a game.
Spoiler:

Same reasons why leadership doesn't have models running around, flamers don't use templates, combat phase doesn't run on initiative.

Gives players more choices and makes the game less of a flowchart where you occasionally roll dice.


edit: Almost every rule in 9th is one of two categories:
1) A player choice. Whether this be a stratagem, a "pick a unit to give a buff to", picking which unit to fight, etc.
2) A flavor upgrade to make a model "feel" like it's supposed to in the fluff (Ultramarines are disciplined, so they get bonuses to make their units feel more disciplined. Blood Angels are bloodthirsty, so they get rules to make their units feel more bloodthirsty)

I think that this single statement is correct, about sims v games. Now we have a board game played with cards and expensive chits.


Why insult board games like that? Most good games have much better gameplay than 9th,


Apologies for the delayed exalt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 insaniak wrote:
 solkan wrote:
Don't forget the better part: Because everyone is allowed to split fire in this edition, the target priority rules will have to be based on individual models (or groups) and not units.

For what it's worth, that's how it worked in 2nd edition. Each model had to fire at the closest target in its line of sight (which depended on which way it was facing) and could ignore closer targets in favour of vehicles or mission objectives.


This is the way that the game should be played, model facings and all. As it is, the models are increasingly unnecessary. Chits and cards could do it all. I am not even sure that dice are necessary any longer. Just mathhammering stated actions should suffice. Then the opposing player might play a gotcha card or two, and those would make adjustments to the math hammer. So understood, the current game might be played with a set of look up tables, some cards, and a maybe a calculator for lazy people.

At least with rules like these in older editions, the models themselves INCLUDING player agency expressed by model facings and other realistic aspects of the miniatures medium really make a difference.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/09 04:54:15


   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 jeff white wrote:

This is the way that the game should be played, model facings and all. As it is, the models are increasingly unnecessary. Chits and cards could do it all. I am not even sure that dice are necessary any longer. Just mathhammering stated actions should suffice. Then the opposing player might play a gotcha card or two, and those would make adjustments to the math hammer. So understood, the current game might be played with a set of look up tables, some cards, and a maybe a calculator for lazy people.

At least with rules like these in older editions, the models themselves INCLUDING player agency expressed by model facings and other realistic aspects of the miniatures medium really make a difference.

Including model facing doesn't actually make the models any more necessary, though. Square or rectangular chits, or circular ones with arc of sight markers would do just as well.

Ultimately, the models are never actually necessary in a miniatures game. People just use miniatures because miniatures look cool.


Also worth pointing out that the end result of the 2nd ed LOS and target priority rules was model micro-management, as people carefully positioned the models in their units so that the heavy weapon troops could only see the enemy units that they wanted to shoot at. You ended up in situations where the lascannon guy was deliberately standing with his back to the unit three inches away that the rest of his squad was shooting at, so that he could shoot at the unit way over the other side of the board.

Something more like what we have in MEdge, where the models have a front and back arc and the unit shoots at whatever the squad leader is looking at results in much less gaminess, while still allowing facing to matter.

 
   
Made in us
Frothing Warhound of Chaos




I’m glad they don’t make rules like this anymore now.
   
Made in ca
Heroic Senior Officer





Krieg! What a hole...

 Gnarlly wrote:
Unless you have received significant training and firearms discipline in the military, my money's on you shooting at the closest charging target.


What, training like Guardsmen would have?

Member of 40k Montreal There is only war in Montreal
Primarchs are a mistake
DKoK Blog:http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/419263.page Have a look, I guarantee you will not see greyer armies, EVER! Now with at least 4 shades of grey

Savageconvoy wrote:
Snookie gives birth to Heavy Gun drone squad. Someone says they are overpowered. World ends.

 
   
Made in us
Ork Boy Hangin' off a Trukk





 Bobthehero wrote:
 Gnarlly wrote:
Unless you have received significant training and firearms discipline in the military, my money's on you shooting at the closest charging target.


What, training like Guardsmen would have?


No, I would use Space Marines as a better example. The troops of the Imperial Guard are generally fresh recruits to add to the meat grinder that is the Imperium in 40k; a sledgehammer compared to the scalpel of truly more disciplined and trained troops like Space Marines. Guard troops really need their officers and commissars to help maintain discipline.
The writers of 40k over the years have attempted to glamorize certain regiments like the Catachans, Cadians, Vostroyans, etc. as hard, disciplined troops, but in game the reality is that Guard regiments are about as bad as Orks when it comes to discipline and morale.

https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Astra_Militarum
After being raised, the regiment is shipped to its posting; they receive their training during the voyage. Their posting can be directly into the heart of a warzone, or it may be to garrison or outpost duty.
If any regiment survives for long enough, it can eventually receive reinforcement from children born to the Guardsmen who have been raised inside the regiment and can normally be expected to join it upon reaching the required age.




Apocalypse/40K: Orks, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Space Wolves, Necrons
AOS: Sons of Behemat (Mantic and D&D giants)
Blood Bowl: Skaven, Humans, Orcs, Goblins, Dark Elves, Wood Elves, Dwarves, Chaos Dwarves, Undead, Necromantic, Snotlings, Vampires, Lizardmen 
   
Made in ca
Heroic Senior Officer





Krieg! What a hole...

I know my lore well enough. Guardsmen are all over the spectrum as far as training goes. Kriegers actually fight against those who failed to be up to standard, Cadians are trained from birth. That's before getting into either Stormtroopers or all sorts of Veteran units the Guard features, who are certainly ''significantly trained'' and do not need to be babysitted

Member of 40k Montreal There is only war in Montreal
Primarchs are a mistake
DKoK Blog:http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/419263.page Have a look, I guarantee you will not see greyer armies, EVER! Now with at least 4 shades of grey

Savageconvoy wrote:
Snookie gives birth to Heavy Gun drone squad. Someone says they are overpowered. World ends.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

ERJAK wrote:It's also an utterly miserable mechanic to live with because of how it just rips away player agency. If you have a low leadership army or are just unlucky with dice it completely removes you as the player from the game. Nothing like needing to roll a 7+ to see if you get to play warhammer today.


Jidmah wrote:You also understand a lot of the veterans complains much better if understand that they are looking for a simulation that takes the result of the game out of their hands, while most modern players are looking for a game, where such things have no place.


Is random charge rolls also a 'simulation' mechanic that has no place in a 'game', something that 'takes the result of the game out of your hands', and 'completely removes you as the player from the game- nothing like needing to roll a 7+ to see if you get to play warhammer today'?

Even by Dakka standards this is melodramatic.

This is a dice game. You won't always pass your rolls, and the decision-making lies in how you adjust those odds in your favor. Like employing maneuver, positioning, and sequencing so that you can guarantee you can shoot the target when you need to, rather than having to settle for only probably being able to shoot the target. If you can handle random charges, you can handle target priority.

Edit: And I'm not even a huge fan of how it was originally implemented, but it is downright disingenuous how many people in this thread are describing it as 'you fail a dice roll and your unit does nothing'. It was always that if you failed the dice roll you still got to shoot, it just had to be at the closest unit. In 40K, a game where all your shooting comes immediately after your movement (something you have total control over), with no opportunity for the enemy to interrupt it, so you have complete freedom to redeploy as needed before having to make that check. And you could ignore infantry if you wanted to target vehicles or monsters. And even if you did end up having to take that big bad test, even Guardsmen were still passing it 58% of the time. Most units were passing 72% of the time or more- better odds than charging out of deep strike with a re-roll in 9th, something that actually does leave you sitting there doing nothing if you fail.

If you were playing 4th Ed and regularly had troops wasting their fire by shooting at targets they couldn't hurt, you had to be doing something seriously wrong as a general. It was a mechanic that was stripped out for the sake of speed of play and because most armies didn't actually care about it all that much, not because it was some inescapable randomness that arbitrarily screwed over entire armies through a couple of bad rolls.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/15 22:47:05


 
   
Made in nl
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

 insaniak wrote:
 jeff white wrote:

This is the way that the game should be played, model facings and all.
Spoiler:
As it is, the models are increasingly unnecessary. Chits and cards could do it all. I am not even sure that dice are necessary any longer. Just mathhammering stated actions should suffice. Then the opposing player might play a gotcha card or two, and those would make adjustments to the math hammer. So understood, the current game might be played with a set of look up tables, some cards, and a maybe a calculator for lazy people.

At least with rules like these in older editions, the models themselves INCLUDING player agency expressed by model facings and other realistic aspects of the miniatures medium really make a difference
.

Including model facing doesn't actually make the models any more necessary, though. Square or rectangular chits, or circular ones with arc of sight markers would do just as well.

Ultimately, the models are never actually necessary in a miniatures game. People just use miniatures because miniatures look cool.
Spoiler:


Also worth pointing out that the end result of the 2nd ed LOS and target priority rules was model micro-management, as people carefully positioned the models in their units so that the heavy weapon troops could only see the enemy units that they wanted to shoot at. You ended up in situations where the lascannon guy was deliberately standing with his back to the unit three inches away that the rest of his squad was shooting at, so that he could shoot at the unit way over the other side of the board.

Something more like what we have in MEdge, where the models have a front and back arc and the unit shoots at whatever the squad leader is looking at results in much less gaminess, while still allowing facing to matter
.


Not unless you have chits that are an inch and a half tall that are fun to paint and look as cool next to a fake tree as the real deal.

And sure, rules can be poorly conceived, but simply offering an example of someone gaming the system to ruin the experience, purposefully interpreting for advantage rather than in goodwill, does not speak negatively of the rules and rather of those with whom one may choose to share them.

House rules with friendly colleagues can fix a lot. Besides, I like the micro model facing and move measures down to the minute fraction including model facings etc.

Myself, I am looking forward to the new 30k release to at least recover blast templates...

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/06/15 22:21:57


   
Made in us
Frothing Warhound of Chaos




Blast template is another bad rule being able to target multiple units and incidental units can’t jink. Super #badfeels

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/21 14:52:35


 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

I don't like random charge ranges either. It feels very much the same "you rolled a little badly once? feth you, that's your lot". Nor is it particularly realistic, one turn my unit will trip over their shoelaces and fail to move a measly 3", the next they'll find the rocket boosters and launch an extra 12", outpacing a fast recon skimmer.
   
Made in gb
Perfect Shot Black Templar Predator Pilot






 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Why was the mechanic of taking a leadership test in order to carefully select targets over shooting at the closest threat removed from the game. Obvious answer: "to speed things up". But given the plethora of rules and mechanics 9th is raining upon us, this seemed to be a rather interesting part of gameplay that added more value to the leadership/morale aspect of the stat line.

Bring it back.



Of all the rules from 4th this is one of the few I don't miss. I remember a lot of the time at my store people would just not bother because it was boring and open to abuse.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







If your objective was "I want a way to simulate a squad disobeying orders to shoot at what it thinks is the most immediate threat, instead of what it was ordered to shoot at", why on Earth would you want the previous edition's "If you fail your leadership test, you just don't shoot anything at all" rule?

And that's before getting into the inevitable consequence of that sort of rule existing in 40k:
* The use of convenient box shaped tanks to block line of fire to inconvenient closer targets so that the models can just see what you wanted them to shoot at, rendering the command check irrelevant.

Yeah. People remember how that edition played.
   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut




 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't like random charge ranges either. It feels very much the same "you rolled a little badly once? feth you, that's your lot". Nor is it particularly realistic, one turn my unit will trip over their shoelaces and fail to move a measly 3", the next they'll find the rocket boosters and launch an extra 12", outpacing a fast recon skimmer.


Oh, don't get me started on rolling for charges. Awful, thing. This single change made me stop playing Warhammer Fantasy in 8th ed.
   
Made in ie
Monstrous Master Moulder





Cyel wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't like random charge ranges either. It feels very much the same "you rolled a little badly once? feth you, that's your lot". Nor is it particularly realistic, one turn my unit will trip over their shoelaces and fail to move a measly 3", the next they'll find the rocket boosters and launch an extra 12", outpacing a fast recon skimmer.


Oh, don't get me started on rolling for charges. Awful, thing. This single change made me stop playing Warhammer Fantasy in 8th ed.


Like the 0.5" Shuffle was any better?


 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




Oh, don't get me started on rolling for charges. Awful, thing. This single change made me stop playing Warhammer Fantasy in 8th ed.


I wish you could make an auto charge up to half your movement characteristic (minimum 3 inch - maximum 7 inch).
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

On the subject of charges, it occurred to me recently how weird and unintuitive movement is in 40k.

First we have a movement phase where models can move or run. If they move, they move up to their Movement characteristic. Makes sense. If they run, they can move their Movement Characteristic + 1d6. Huh. Oh and models moving in the movement phase can't move into contact with enemy models. There's no explanation as to why this is the case. Possibly if they try it a German voice shouts at them "Nein! You must do zat in ze designated phase!"

But whatever. We then move onto the psychic phase and then onto the shooting phase. Okay.

And then we get onto the second movement phase. Except that this one can only be used to make contact with enemy models. You can't use this movement phase to, for example, move away from the enemy after shooting (even if you didn't move at all in the first movement phase). Also, it's fine to charge after you spent time shooting but (usually) not if you ran (clearly those advancing vehicles are just too tired to move any further this turn).

When you move in this second movement phase, your movement characteristic ceases to matter and you only ever go 2d6". This time you are not only allowed to move into contact with enemy models you must move into contact with them. Not only that, but a unit wishing to move must declare any and all targets in advance. Should it fail to make contact with even a single one of those targets, fate will intervene and reverse time such that that unit never actually moved at all.

Oh, and despite units being too tired to charge after moving an extra 1d6", units that didn't move that 1d6" are not remotely tired after moving 2d6" and so will move an extra 3" to pile in and then another 3" after attacking to consolidate.

When I see how other wargames do movement I can't help but see the above as being unbelievably clunky for a game that's currently in its 9th iteration.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

I agree, the turn sequence of 40k is extremely contrived and not even in a way that's positive for the game.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 vipoid wrote:
On the subject of charges, it occurred to me recently how weird and unintuitive movement is in 40k.

First we have a movement phase where models can move or run. If they move, they move up to their Movement characteristic. Makes sense. If they run, they can move their Movement Characteristic + 1d6. Huh. Oh and models moving in the movement phase can't move into contact with enemy models. There's no explanation as to why this is the case. Possibly if they try it a German voice shouts at them "Nein! You must do zat in ze designated phase!"

But whatever. We then move onto the psychic phase and then onto the shooting phase. Okay.

And then we get onto the second movement phase. Except that this one can only be used to make contact with enemy models. You can't use this movement phase to, for example, move away from the enemy after shooting (even if you didn't move at all in the first movement phase). Also, it's fine to charge after you spent time shooting but (usually) not if you ran (clearly those advancing vehicles are just too tired to move any further this turn).

When you move in this second movement phase, your movement characteristic ceases to matter and you only ever go 2d6". This time you are not only allowed to move into contact with enemy models you must move into contact with them. Not only that, but a unit wishing to move must declare any and all targets in advance. Should it fail to make contact with even a single one of those targets, fate will intervene and reverse time such that that unit never actually moved at all.

Oh, and despite units being too tired to charge after moving an extra 1d6", units that didn't move that 1d6" are not remotely tired after moving 2d6" and so will move an extra 3" to pile in and then another 3" after attacking to consolidate.

When I see how other wargames do movement I can't help but see the above as being unbelievably clunky for a game that's currently in its 9th iteration.


IIRC this additional "movement phase" for charging was introduced in 3rd edition where the Assault phase came after the shooting phase. In 2nd edition charging happened in the movement phase and were the same as running was at that time - double the movement stat.

I find it quite unintuitive too, but I speculate that it was introduced to increase the lethality of the game so you could shoot a target prior to charging in for melee.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/22 12:42:04


 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

Killteam uses a charge during the movement phase.
TBH I think it works very poorly, but that's mostly due to how Killteam handles the movement phase in general, as a concept it's a lot better and it's how a lot of other games treat it as well.

I agree that it was presumably done to allow a unit to shoot before charging. Over the editions the amount of damage any given can do in a turn has just increased and increased.

When I started you couldn't even move and fire a heavy weapon, even rapid fire weapons were very limited.
Now though, you can move and fire a heavy weapon with only a minor penalty, and then even charge straight after!
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Movement should be to move your movement stat, run to be +1/2 your movement stat, and if you touch an enemy unit with your movement it counts as a charge.

Is a problem that even a humble ork boy can move 5" advance d6" charge 2d6" (Normally with bonuses) and then normally pile in 3" and maybe even consolidate 3". Thats a ton of movement for infantry in just a single phase, and slingshoting units with charges is some of the stuff that makes proper, fast units feel too... meh.

And thinking about rules, I tought how better Challenges would be if it just ported over MESBG duel rules. We'll try it in my group for HH.

Both players roll a number of dice equal fo the number of attacks of his character. The one that gets the biggest dice wins the duel (so max 6). If they are tied, the one with the biggest WS wins. If they are tied in WS they roll a dice, 1-3 for one, 4-6 for the other. And the character with the highest Initiative can reroll one duel roll.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

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

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

 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

Aash wrote:

IIRC this additional "movement phase" for charging was introduced in 3rd edition where the Assault phase came after the shooting phase. In 2nd edition charging happened in the movement phase and were the same as running was at that time - double the movement stat.

I find it quite unintuitive too, but I speculate that it was introduced to increase the lethality of the game so you could shoot a target prior to charging in for melee.


I do get why it was introduced. But given that that was 6 editions ago, I'd have thought it might have become a little more refined since.


That said, it also seems to tie into this aspect of 40k models increasingly being able to do everything at full effect with no tradeoff.

In other games, models usually have a limited number of actions (or similar restrictions). So that a model might be able to move and shoot or move and cast a spell (or use some other action/ability) or maybe not move and instead shoot twice, but not all of these things at once.

Contrast that with 40k, where a model can potentially move and then cast any number of spells, then shoot any number of weapons, and then move again and then fight. Obviously not all models have this capacity but it seems that the game has been designed so that the models who can do this must be able to do so without penalty or trade-off. Psykers, for example, have limits on the number of powers they can use but casting these powers doesn't inhibit their ability to do anything else (they don't have to cast a spell instead of shooting a weapon or making melee attacks).

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

I'll say that when you can only play 5 turns, having a unit just do 2 actions in a game feels a little meh.

If this was like Infinity were games are shorter, and YOU are the one that decides how many actions any of your units does, is different. But in 40k with 2-3 hour games it doesnt feel right.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/22 13:05:59


 Crimson Devil wrote:

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

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

 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

I play Star Wars Legion, that's 5 turns with units taking 2 actions a turn. Not only that, but often units can't even take both of their actions due to being suppressed!

Yet I prefer it. You have to play smarter rather than just yeeting your assault unit across the board.

When I play 40k, my only strategy is really what do I delete?
In Legion there's a lot more.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 Galas wrote:
Movement should be to move your movement stat, run to be +1/2 your movement stat, and if you touch an enemy unit with your movement it counts as a charge.

Is a problem that even a humble ork boy can move 5" advance d6" charge 2d6" (Normally with bonuses) and then normally pile in 3" and maybe even consolidate 3". Thats a ton of movement for infantry in just a single phase, and slingshoting units with charges is some of the stuff that makes proper, fast units feel too... meh.

And thinking about rules, I tought how better Challenges would be if it just ported over MESBG duel rules. We'll try it in my group for HH.

Both players roll a number of dice equal fo the number of attacks of his character. The one that gets the biggest dice wins the duel (so max 6). If they are tied, the one with the biggest WS wins. If they are tied in WS they roll a dice, 1-3 for one, 4-6 for the other. And the character with the highest Initiative can reroll one duel roll.


Your proposed method is remarkably similar to 40k’s 2nd edition’s close combat system. Back then 40K was much more a skirmish game so this system was mostly fine, but even then it was pretty time consuming when whole squads were involved! I wouldn’t fancy it for a 2000pt game if 9th edition!!
[Thumb - AE0A6BE6-C980-4CA7-9762-E0EDA28BF06B.jpeg]
2nd edition close combat

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 solkan wrote:
why on Earth would you want the previous edition's "If you fail your leadership test, you just don't shoot anything at all" rule?


This has never been a rule in 40K and nobody is asking for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vipoid wrote:
On the subject of charges, it occurred to me recently how weird and unintuitive movement is in 40k.


Very good post, and I would point out that the random advance and charge distances are at odds with what is otherwise a, aside from dice rolls, very deterministic game. You can position your troops to be exactly 31" from the enemy and know for certain that they cannot move up and shoot, but the only safe distance against charging is where the enemy cannot even possibly roll high enough to contact you.

The 'everyone does everything in every phase' approach is a legacy of 80s/90s game design, while more modern games tend to use an action-based system like Kiro pointed out. One action to move, both actions to run or charge is a pretty common paradigm, as is having the run/charge distance just be double the basic movement. Spend one action to shoot, spend both actions to perform sustained fire (with a bonus or re-roll or whatnot). And then you can also spend actions for unique abilities or interacting with the battlefield... kind of like what 40K is now doing with objectives.

Sometimes, in systems that emphasize friction, basic movement will be random as well, but typically not in beer-and-pretzels wargames along the same lines as 40K.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/22 13:40:37


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: