Switch Theme:

Over complication slowing the game?  [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
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Don't get me wrong, I like LotR a lot, I just don't want to try and sell it to anyone as the perfect solution if they're grouchy about 40k buff-stacking shenanigans or combo play because that does still exist.

(Also I don't know why the writers decided that the only army special rule Mirkwood gets is giving Thranduil a buff aura.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Absolutely. I mean maybe it shows that despite what people say, they don't want a deep, narrow rules set that allows player skill to shine. Because that is what LOTR is, and it's not nearly as successful as AOS or 40k. Not even in the same ballpark.


Some of that is the setting (and armies). Its a different market, more similar to historicals (in that the game can make things happen wrong)


There's also the chicken/egg problem of GW not making a lot of plastic minis for the game, and the supply chain challenges of actually getting the minis. I'm still using pre-Hobbit-movies metal Thranduil because the newer resin one was completely unavailable for years.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/19 22:52:08


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 us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I think my criticism (which surely comes up about as common as the "40k is a shallow game/no it isn't) - is that resolving dice rolls seems to get longer.

GW seem to take a one step forward, two steps back approach to this. I really feel there should be a total prune of rerolls - but also this growing trend of having something happen if you roll a 6.

In a small skirmish scale sort of game these might just add a bit of flair, simulating critical hits etc. But when you have the buckets of dice in modern 40k, its just kind of annoying to have to fish out 1s and 6s.

Which isn't strictly about the game being complicated. I don't find it hard to remember "Blade Artisans" when playing DE for instance. But it does feel like artificial extension that just results in the above.
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

 Sim-Life wrote:
 DarkHound wrote:
In my last couple league games I've had to wait and jockey for board position, effectively conceding the objectives initially, while I calculate the opportune time to push to capture them. If I just pushed forward and tried to kill everything, I'd have been contested, ground down, and lost in the end game. Instead, I used terrain obstructions and maneuvered my army to make 2:1 engagements, overwhelming bits of their armies at a time. I calculated my expected attrition and decided when I needed to break for the objectives to catch up on score. And I went second both games, for the record.
Thats a complicated way to say you killed stuff then moved up to take objectives. You didn't actually refute my argument or back up yours.
Any wargame can be boiled down to "kill the enemy and take objectives" if you ignore all nuance. That's the nature of it being a wargame.
You said secondaries are more dynamic but scoring them is still just a matter of not being killed as much as the other guys. When I think of dynamic I think of stuff like pushing models out of zones or clever positioning and model combos to avoid/enable killing the warcasters in Warmachine or using fast models designed for speed and avoiding damage to place scheme markers in Malifaux. What use would a model that is fast bit can't do reliable damage in 40k have? Nothing. Because to score it needs to be able to kill whatever is standing near the objective. If it can't do that its worthless. Thats why every model in 40k is rated by "how well can this kill stuff?" or "how well can this makes stuff kill stuff better?" and sometimes "how well can this NOT be killed by stuff?" (usually the tie breaker if there are two units that kill stuff equally well) . There is almost no other metric because no other aim exists in 40k.
Everything you mention in other games is in current 40k. Good positioning matters. Controlling areas can literally be using giant base sized models to prevent enemies from getting on objectives, or it can be the projected threat of a unit's charge range preventing enemies from moving forward. Good combinations of attacks will break down nearby squads and expose characters to fire. Plenty of units are taken specifically so they can complete actions to score secondaries.

On that point, I don't know how you could play Matched Play games and come to this conclusion: "What use would a model that is fast bit can't do reliable damage in 40k have?" Just as the two most prominent examples, Engage on All Fronts and Deploy Scramblers were the go-to secondaries for most competitive armies, and virtually all competitive armies were designed to fall back on them. Lots of units and strategies say play specifically because they got into the right position and scored, even if they didn't do any damage to the enemy. Most armies try to avoid giving up any killing secondaries, and so a significant amount of the game revolves around non-killing strategies.
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Age is not a quality by itself. One of the worst players I know has been with the hobby for over 30 years. In addition, you have exactly zero advantage over any other person playing 9th, as you have never played with this kind of terrain ever before.

And even if you were omniscient gods of terrain placement who came down to earth to play 40k, there still is that other criterium I mentioned why your game was boring.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/731663.page

Here's a thread of batreps from 8th one of our group did. The level of terrain is still about the same for 9th but he hasn't be writing reports so much, feel free to critique our terrain set ups.
Since you invited critique of the terrain layouts, I checked and the boards are basically Planet Bowling Ball. There's virtually nothing blocking line of sight, and very little restricting movement. For comparison, here's a board I played on in one of the aforementioned games:

Even in this board, I'd prefer some more craters and barricades, but at least every model can be obscured and nothing can see clear across the board.

   
Made in ie
Pustulating Plague Priest





 DarkHound wrote:

Since you invited critique of the terrain layouts, I checked and the boards are basically Planet Bowling Ball. There's virtually nothing blocking line of sight, and very little restricting movement. For comparison, here's a board I played on in one of the aforementioned games:

Even in this board, I'd prefer some more craters and barricades, but at least every model can be obscured and nothing can see clear across the board.


I can only assume you're joking since that picture has about half the terrain we'd use and looks far more bare than most of our boards.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/20 06:38:53



 
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

 Sim-Life wrote:
 DarkHound wrote:
Since you invited critique of the terrain layouts, I checked and the boards are basically Planet Bowling Ball. There's virtually nothing blocking line of sight, and very little restricting movement. For comparison, here's a board I played on in one of the aforementioned games:

Even in this board, I'd prefer some more craters and barricades, but at least every model can be obscured and nothing can see clear across the board.
I can only assume you're joking since that picture has about half the terrain we'd use and looks far more bare than most of our boards.
Quantity alone is not a boon. The terrain layout defined how that game was played. Most of his army was untargetable, and the threat of his Thunderwolves' charge range through the central ruin kept my army back. Because I could not move forward, he was able to move to the bottom left ruin without getting shot. I had to use my Warglaives to run out to the edge of the board to get line of sight to the Thunderwolves, and in the mean time his assault units got into position on the left flank. His plan was to assault my army from ruin before my Warglaives could get back. I couldn't run away due to the mission objectives. Except for his Long Fangs on the rooftop, I didn't get to shoot his army with the bulk of mine until turn 3. It was a tough, maneuvering game where he pulled off a distraction and flanking maneuver to nullify my superior firepower.

Let's take a look at your examples with lots of terrain.

On this board, there's plenty of random barricades, but but only two obstructions and one has a big hole in it. The armies can shoot clear across to each other. There's no way to hide your armies either during deployment, or when they move forward. You just line up your armies and walk them forward and shoot at each other.


In here, again, one building in the middle (maybe two if you count the little cottage) and otherwise the sides of the board are open. Just line up your armies and shoot whomever.


This board is almost great, but all the board's buildings are on the edges where they don't do anything. The left side of the board seems interesting, with that big grey building in the way. However the right side is all open space again which ruins the rest of the board. Everything deployed on the right half can see clear across, and even into the left flank. If those buildings in the corners had been piled up in the open courtyard, and those barricades used in the streets, then you'd have an interesting board. You'd have to fight your way through the narrow streets, with the barricades both providing light cover, but also slowing movement. You'd have to find your best chance to break though by outmaneuvering your opponent and allocating more forces to a street than he can defend. Likewise, you'd have to delay his push through other streets with a smaller force.

   
Made in gb
Perfect Shot Black Templar Predator Pilot






 bullyboy wrote:
I don't want this to turn into a pseudo tabletop/card game.


Too late
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





yukishiro1 wrote:
GW likes width over depth, width sells new rules supplements and promotes churn.

If you look at the new AOS 3.0 rules, there's even more bookkeeping in the hero phase (their version of the command phase) than there is in 9th edition. It's clearly something they think is a positive, not a negative. Give the player a bunch of "choices" to make (that usually aren't really much of a choice at all as there is a clearly optimal choice in almost every circumstance) and it creates the illusion of depth, whether there actually is any or not.


It super interesting to see people championing these design decisions!

Thank you for your accurate synopsis of modern GW “Design techniques”.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 DarkHound wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
I can only assume you're joking since that picture has about half the terrain we'd use and looks far more bare than most of our boards.
Quantity alone is not a boon. The terrain layout defined how that game was played. Most of his army was untargetable, and the threat of his Thunderwolves' charge range through the central ruin kept my army back.
Both tables look relatively empty. Your table, Dark Hound, just has impressive tall pieces on it. It's still mostly open.

There's a picture I kept from years back as it shows off a bad set of terrain:

Replace each of those hills with a tall fancy looking building and it'd still be just as open.

Or maybe I just have a bias for my own stuff.

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

 
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

As I said, I'd have liked some barricades or craters to fill the open spaces, but those pieces have such a small impact as to almost be aesthetic. Again, my point is line of sight blocking terrain, congregated in the middle, is what makes for good boards. That's what creates fire lanes and demands decisive movement.

I think your boards are great. At worst, the third desert one is a little vacant in the middle. I'd have moved the buildings toward the middle and put the rock formations towards the sides, but it probably plays fine.

Here's the board I played on yesterday. We counted all terrain bases as obscuring ruins (imaging tremendous smog and dust kicked up by the machinery). The fact that these blocked line of sight is what created the opportunity for strategy. If none of the terrain had been obscuring, there'd be no way to make meaningful strategy, it'd just be a turkey shoot.


To bring this point back on topic, I think the additional complexity of the terrain rules has created huge opportunities for interesting gameplay.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 01:52:53


   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

The weird part about that table is that it has a decent spread of terrain everywhere... except on your side. The terrain basically stops where those Armigers are, leaving a big empty nothing between that line and the back edge.

Weird...

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

 
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

We set the terrain up for that game, and neither of us had any deepstrikers or outflankers, so putting terrain in the back wouldn't have mattered. His deployment zone is similar, with the terrain basically starting at its front edge. Still, that's good thing to point out, and I'll keep it in mind when setting up future boards.

   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut






When it comes to slowing the game, I think that the endless rolling is more of an issue. The other day I read something by a guy who was just rolling (without really looking anything up) for his 2k army (Dark Eldar, so not a massive horde or whatever) and timed himself for what all the attacks/shots for one turn would take.

And that added up to 30 minutes. For one turn. And if you assume that every unit gets to do it once, you get a whole hour of just rolling dice already. And none of that time is spent making any kind of decisions.

   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







In theory, shouldn't a player be making at least one decision per firing unit? More, if there are a mix of weapons with different preferred target profile?

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut






 Dysartes wrote:
In theory, shouldn't a player be making at least one decision per firing unit? More, if there are a mix of weapons with different preferred target profile?


There is, but most of that time is spend on the resolution, not on actual decision making. Once shots are declared, it's just a huge pile of dice that takes up quite a lot of time. Of course, that's a natural consequence of the whole bucket of dice philosophy the game runs on.

   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

From experience to the OP yes 9th edition drags, the constant re-rolls the gotcha card/strat combinations. getting a re-roll in the previous editions was a HUGE deal. not only did you pay extra for it, it was also a bit more rare. generally you rolled what you rolled and lived with it. On average for comparable 2K level games when players at our FLGS play 9th i can get through a full game of our hybrid 5th including both optional turns 6&7 while they are still on turn 3.

On the matter of terrain, the posted pics are a bit misleading for some. With the 9th ed rules for terrain based on vertical height causing blocking LOS terrain. the boards look sparse and are not very immersive.

Like H.B.M.C i have become rather obsessive about good looking tables, not only does the terrain have to do it's job of forcing tactical game play it also needs to look like it belongs.

Some examples of our tables (keep in mind these are 5th ed tables with hard cover saves or tables for DUST where all area terrain block LOS unless you are in them and within 4" of the facing edge...and this isn't even close to the amount of blocking LOS terrain needed for infinity tables).

Spoiler:


Spoiler:


Spoiler:


Spoiler:


Spoiler:





GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



London

The problem is that 40k is such a big, diverse setting that it's harder to distill universal actions. Not impossible, mind, but it would take a total rewrite. They're moving in a better direction with the introduction of actions. If we get Kill Team's rules scaled up, we could get Readied Shots and Overwatch as choices. I do agree it's an ideal to head towards.


Plenty of rulesets handle that diversity. At the end of the day it has what, 12? different armies with the rest being sub-groupings? Plenty of games have far more.

But GW sells models and the rules reflect that. You get lots of options because you can model lots of options. I was very disappointed in Apoc how much detail units had (modeling options so unit options) and how little differentiation there was where it mattered.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 10:44:07


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 DarkHound wrote:


To bring this point back on topic, I think the additional complexity of the terrain rules has created huge opportunities for interesting gameplay.


Addiitonal complexity compared to the bare minimum of 8th, but I've been playing with the far, far simpler system from AOS 3.0 recently and I've found it's actually even easier to handle and creates better decision matrices. I've modified it a bit to work with 9th 40k as opposed to AOS, and increased the beefiness a little bit to account for the increased shooting power and ranges of 9th 40k, but it provides in my opinion a better experience. Terrain feels more 'progressive' rather than binary you get it/you don't get it and it interacts with more of the game.

Basically there are three terrain 'types' which each convey their own benefits + the benefits of the previous levels

-basic cover. If you're wholly within 2" of it and its between you and the firer, or you're wholly on it, you get +1 to save rolls.

-dense cover (renamed from "Wyldwoods", lol). Blocks LOS if there's 3" or more of Dense Cover area between the firer and target, if there is <3" of dense between firer and target, firer gets -1 to hit. Note that unlike 9th there's no way to benefit from the -1 to hit from Dense and not suffer from it as well.

-defensible cover. If you start your turn wholly within 6" of it you can embark in it like it's a transport vehicle. LOS and range is now drawn from the terrain piece rather than the unit, and the unit gets -1 to hit them and +1 to their save, but the unit is now off the battlefield for the purposes of objectives, auras, stratagems, etc, so embarking within defensible cover has a cost as well as a benefit.

Personally it's my favorite terrain system for 40k so far. No crouching down and making a judgement call of what "Percentage" of a model is obscured for your opponent and you to argue about, significant enough benefits that shooting a well-protected unit they feel well-protected, and simple enough that once you get into the swing of remembering that, yes, Defensible is also Dense and is also basic Cover, determining who gets what cover and who can't shoot who is quick and easy.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 11:55:59


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

I like the idea of garrisoning a building, but damn do I hate that "doesn't technically exist" bollocks.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 kirotheavenger wrote:
I like the idea of garrisoning a building, but damn do I hate that "doesn't technically exist" bollocks.


it's an abstraction, but trade-offs are not a bad thing to build into the game, particularly when it comes to a game as offensively deadly as 9th ed. Multiple times both myself and my opponent were sitting there thinking "hmmm, I need this unit of Skitarii to survive but do I want to give up the character buffs/stratagems they can use..." and that's a much healthier decision point in my eyes than 'welp, I get +1 to my save and -1 to hit for doing this, and I lose nothing, so, guess I'd better plop all my units into buildings as fast as I can to take advantage of it and sit there for the whole game!'

I'll be honest though mostly I just love the "Wyldwood" system for dense cover way better than current dense cover, because it helps to reduce the stupid 'through a window past a unit and over a wall I can see the antenna of your tank sticking out' type of shots and it organically creates the opportunity for units to hide inside out of LOS, then move up to the edge of the terrain piece so that theyre still wholly on and getting standard Cover but they don't suffer the -1 to hit and they can launch their attacks at full effect. I'm a sucker for simple game systems like that that "organically" create moments that feel like a thing soldiers would do in a battle.

Similarly I like that they went back to the 8th ed style 'all or nothing' system for models within a unit claiming cover because it organically creates, but doesn't actually REQUIRE the player to allow the few straggling models in the unit that hadn't reached the safety of cover yet to get cut down first so that the remaining models gain the benefit to their saves. Always kind of liked that as a feature of 8th style terrain.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 12:18:10


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I like the idea of garrisoning a building, but damn do I hate that "doesn't technically exist" bollocks.


It used to exist in 5th edition and it wasn't an abstract.

Intact buildings were immobile vehicles with embarkation points as well as fire points and an armor value (bunkers were 14) you could target them and destroy them like any other vehicle but instead of exploding, destroying them just made them a ruin. this also led to related rules designed to breach fortifications like the old siege dreds from forgeworld.



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

It wasn't a big issue in 5th because units didn't rely on auras to get their full value, and what abilities were conferred were 'always on', none of this "my chaplain can't inspire his men because they're currently in the null dimension inside the landraider".
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






I remember there being quite some issues with models doing weird things while embarked because they were in range of some effect.

I do remember something about models falling back while inside transports?

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





I actually don't mind the gameplay of 9th. Couple that with good terrain and the need to play the objectives and you find that unless you are taking multiple characters, you can't have rerolls everywhere. If terrain forces you to move in order to get LOS on enemy, there is a good chance you fall out of the reroll aura. This is good.

My concern in the opening statement was the Command Phase. I like that you need to make a few decisions here as to which units get buffed, but I would much prefer if there was a limit to how many so it doesn't get out of hand. Heck, you could even tie this to Command Points. Use between 1 and 3 CPs at start of game and that's how many "Command" actions you can perform in the Command phase all game. Either that or just tie it to the size of the game. 0-1000pts 1 command, 1001-2000pts 2 commands, 2001+pts 3 commands. Probably better than expending CP since most armies don't have a meaningful command phase.
Or for best of both worlds....You can choose to gain a CP in the Command Phase or use Command actions.

Bottom line, the Command Phase should take no longer than a minute and should not overwhelm the opponent with targeted buffs that he probably can't remember.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 13:15:21


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 bullyboy wrote:
I actually don't mind the gameplay of 9th. Couple that with good terrain and the need to play the objectives and you find that unless you are taking multiple characters, you can't have rerolls everywhere. If terrain forces you to move in order to get LOS on enemy, there is a good chance you fall out of the reroll aura. This is good.

My concern in the opening statement was the Command Phase. I like that you need to make a few decisions here as to which units get buffed, but I would much prefer if there was a limit to how many so it doesn't get out of hand. Heck, you could even tie this to Command Points. Use use between 1 and 3 CPs at start of game and that's how many "Command" actions you can perform in the Command phase all game. Either that or just tie it to the size of the game. 0-1000pts 1 command, 1001-2000pts 2 commands, 2001+pts 3 commands. Probably better than expending CP since most armies don't have a meaningful command phase.
Or for best of both worlds....You can choose to gain a CP in the Command Phase or use Command actions.

Bottom line, the Command Phase should take no longer than a minute and should not overwhelm the opponent with targeted buffs that he probably can't remember.


Personally I think the targeted buffs are fine, it's the variable army-wide rules I despise. I really REALLY wish I didn't have to track stuff like turn-by-turn PFP, doctrines, doctrinas/canticles, Rites, etc on top of the mental real estate required to remember my subfaction trait.


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







So 40k has always had this problem, and to some extent it's always been a problem for wargaming in general.

It takes a truly elegant design to have a game run well and quickly while also including all the important elements (especially a game as diverse as Warhammer. It's easier with World War II, though even then complexity can overwhelm the system).

Now, some games turn slowness into an asset - it may take a while to adjudicate an action, but that adjudication process is fun, so it doesn't feel like a slog. A perfect example is Malifaux, which has quite a complex process for action adjudication that is a mini-card-game in and of itself. To adjudicate any given action (e.g. a single ability/shot/whatever from a model) may take 10 minutes of gameplay! But those 10 minutes are actually quite fun and tense, a little game played with a deck of cards beneath the actual gameplay of the minis on the board.

Malifaux of course is flawed in other ways, but I think 40k needs to take a lesson here. The problem isn't how long things take to adjudicate - it's a hobby game, after all, the time and game size can be adjusted and tailored to suit the needs (e.g. tournaments could go to 1k points or whatever). What's crucial is that the adjudication is worth the time it takes to execute - that is to say, that the amount of fun extracted from the process is worth the time spent.

I'm not sure how to do this off the top of my head, but I wanted to comment that the problem isn't really "time" in the abstract (lots of games take time to adjudicate actions" but rather "amount of fun per unit time".

EDIT: The special rules addendum!
So, there's a separate issue of rules bloat and special rules. I think this is where 40k is at its worst. This has also been a problem in every edition except early 3rd and Indexhammer 8th. I think this is because of a weakness in the core rules.

To elaborate, it is my personal opinion that what an army is good at (or bad at) should largely be determined by the statlines, which encompass the capabilities of the troops "in the raw" as it were. Statlines have all the information required for an adequate abstraction. Good leadership? A higher leadership value than someone who isn't as good. High strength? Well, strength. Good shooting? Ballistic skill and weapon statline, etc.

The problem is that 40k's core rules never really let statlines shine that well. The difference between, say, Ld 10 and Ld 9 wasn't ever that important, so being a "better leader" meant little. Thusly, you got rules like ATSKNF, which made Marine leadership MEAN something... but diminished the value of the core rules surrounding leadership even more.

If 40k's design team took effort into making statlines have greater significance, they could capture things like "extra durable" or "extra well led" or "extra good shooting" in statlines, though of course this would have to revamp the whole game. It isn't really a suggestion to fix 9th so much as it is an examination of how other games encapsulate faction differences in the gear/equipment/statlines available to each faction, rather than sheer special rules bloat.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/23 13:30:43


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





 the_scotsman wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
I actually don't mind the gameplay of 9th. Couple that with good terrain and the need to play the objectives and you find that unless you are taking multiple characters, you can't have rerolls everywhere. If terrain forces you to move in order to get LOS on enemy, there is a good chance you fall out of the reroll aura. This is good.

My concern in the opening statement was the Command Phase. I like that you need to make a few decisions here as to which units get buffed, but I would much prefer if there was a limit to how many so it doesn't get out of hand. Heck, you could even tie this to Command Points. Use use between 1 and 3 CPs at start of game and that's how many "Command" actions you can perform in the Command phase all game. Either that or just tie it to the size of the game. 0-1000pts 1 command, 1001-2000pts 2 commands, 2001+pts 3 commands. Probably better than expending CP since most armies don't have a meaningful command phase.
Or for best of both worlds....You can choose to gain a CP in the Command Phase or use Command actions.

Bottom line, the Command Phase should take no longer than a minute and should not overwhelm the opponent with targeted buffs that he probably can't remember.


Personally I think the targeted buffs are fine, it's the variable army-wide rules I despise. I really REALLY wish I didn't have to track stuff like turn-by-turn PFP, doctrines, doctrinas/canticles, Rites, etc on top of the mental real estate required to remember my subfaction trait.



I don't mind specific known variable rules like PFP and doctrines (except Deathwatch), it's the ones that players have to choose the order that I don't like. It's more book keeping to make sure he's not using one he already did earleir etc. If I'm playing vs regular marines, I know that we're going Dev, Tactical then Assault. That's not difficult.

As for my current Dark Angels force (and I'm having to grab my codex since I don't know this by heart yet), things I have to remember in each Command Phase (that isn't part of the normal phase such as gaining a CP, seeing how many objectives I have etc:

First Command phase I need to decide which Objective I'm going to use Stubborn Defiance
Talon Master has to decide which unit benefits from Brilliant Strategist
Talon Master has to decide which enemy unit in LOS is the target for No Escape
Sammael has to decide which unit gets full rerolls
Ancient has to decide which Deathwing unit is the target for Pennant of Remembrance
Luckily my current list doesn't have a Chaplain, but that would be another action to perform/remember.

The thing is, if I'm playing with buddies, I can stroll a nice 3-4 hour game and get all this right. But in a 2 1/2 hour time constraint game? Ouch.

edit: And yes, I do get that this becomes much easier if you're playing frequently, some of us just don't get that luxury.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 13:41:00


 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Gaming Tables are for wargames what custom cars are for racing entusiasts.

No one has them as good as yours.

 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 us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

 Galas wrote:
Gaming Tables are for wargames what custom cars are for racing entusiasts.

No one has them as good as yours.
That's definitely true, but it's also important to talk about because it so drastically effects the game. There's no standardization and that can lead to hugely disparate play experiences; we're often not talking about the same game at all. I think HBMC and Aphyon's boards are great examples of modern boards. Boards rolled over from earlier editions run into trouble because area terrain cover saves were sufficient, and lines of sight blocking wasn't as important. In older editions, everything was less lethal, less mobile, and basically every instance of cover (standing in terrain, near terrain, half out of LoS, intervening models, smoke launchers, etc. etc.) granted a 4+ invulnerable save. Standing in a crater in 5th halved damage received. Standing in a crater in 9th might not reduce damage at all. That's not an indictment of either system, but it does create a disparity of expectations.

I agree with the general sentiment that 40k takes so long principally because physically resolving anything takes a long time. Having trouble remembering rules because you don't get to practice enough is unfortunate, but not a priority for a game designer. You can mediate your experience by playing smaller games (I think 1k and 1500 on the 60x44 boards are ideal anyway).

Removing template weapons was a huge step in speeding up the game because you didn't have to spend ages fiddling with spacing (could you imagine template weapons in 9th?). Granted they then filled that extra time.

Re-rolls I'm of two minds about: on the one hand they improve the game by drastically smoothing out expected result curves, but on the other hand they take more time. Perhaps a solution is to limit re-rolls to smaller, important die rolls like special weapons. You don't really need to worry about the standard deviation of line infantry weapons because they roll a lot anyway so the variance is low. A Captain could have "each squad within 9" can re-roll two hit rolls" which is just enough for the special weapons (or use them on bolters if both weapons hit).

The other problem is repeatedly having to move the models between move, charge, pile-in, and consolidation. At least they folded running into advancing in the movement phase, it used to be a separate action in the shooting phase. I think the game would be better if charges were done in the movement phase, and pile-in was done immediately. Sure, you lose the opportunity to shoot big weapons, but having a trade-off isn't bad itself and pistols become important again (maybe you could let assault weapons fire on the turn you charge, like older editions when their perk was that you could charge after shooting them).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 15:53:52


   
Made in us
Boosting Black Templar Biker






 DarkHound wrote:

Removing template weapons was a huge step in speeding up the game because you didn't have to spend ages fiddling with spacing (could you imagine template weapons in 9th?). Granted they then filled that extra time.

Funny you mention that. 8th took away template to speed up the game where previously you could spend forever fiddling with spacing to make sure each troop is exactly this many inches apart thus making templates harder to use. Then 8th introduced Aura's to make movement all fiddly since you had to ensure your units are within X inches of an independent character. One step forward and one step backwards in my opinion.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 16:05:39


 
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

Ah, that's one different. I agree that was a problem in 8th. The introduction of the Core keyword limits the auras anyway so you don't have to worry about fitting the entire army within range of a Captain. It's not wholly within, so you just need to keep the edge of one model's base close enough. In practice, now it takes only a couple seconds to figure out.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: