Switch Theme:

The extreme quantity of layered rules is a reaction to the stat squish in 8th  [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 ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





I think that GW's motivation for layering rules is to facilitate player choice for various purposes.

First, layered rules support 3 modes of play. Open uses the fewest layers, Crusade uses the most and Matched is in the middle.

But being layers, we do have the option of incorporating some and not others even outside the intended parameters of three types of play- a common example is people who play Open, but still choose to battleforge, or people who play Crusade but still use points.

This would be harder to achieve without a layer approach, I think.

Layers also function to allow a player to limit source material. You don't NEED to include Theatre of War rules if you don't feel like buying White Dwarf, and you don't NEED armies of renown or subfaction supplements if you don't feel like buying campaign books.

Finally, layers serve a purpose in game too. I'm firing at grots? Great, don't need a strat or an aura, just shoot. Firing at marines? I can throw a strat OR an aura into this, but probably don't need both. Firing at a Titan? Okay, lets stack a strat AND an aura on that.

We can argue about how well this is actually achieved- that's somewhat subjective. I'm not necessarily saying that it's executed as well as it could be. But I think that these are likely the core motivations for this design.

Profit motive has a piece of it too, obviously. But I think it's an oversimplification to assume that is the only motivation.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






An argument could be made that the layered rules promote engagement outside of the game. Special rules make tactics conversation easy, because you're talking about named interactions between models or for list building. But actual table-space tactics are much harder to talk about, as written language isn't great for detailed discussions about interacting vectors and volumes. You wind up needing detailed diagrams instead of plain language.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

 catbarf wrote:
Blackie wrote:Catbarf, I'm very relieved it's not you who makes the rules for 40k. About orks in particular .

If anything if you really want to stick with fluff make marines average/mediocre at everything. After all they're the jack of trades, master of none, right? Not a super coordinated special forces . Those are something like custodes or aledari elites, and primaris/gravis shouldn't exist.


Galas wrote:I can understand Blackie.

As someone that played greenskins in fantasy, the amount of "But Animosity is just SO orky!" I did get from Imperial or High Elves players was just jarring.

I love me some orcs or orks. But I'm tired of all their faction rules being straight up negative because "lool thats how orks are in the fluff".

LOTR orcs are less reliable than warhammer ones and you don't see them with all that crap bolted into their rules. And still, they play and feel like an orc horde should in MESBG.

Those rules work if they have other stuff that balances it. But in fantasy and 40k they never had it. If you want joke factions bloodbowl is a better game, and even there, with the tier system, they are being honest about what you should expect of any faction you play.


If you guys are saying that Orks are actually super coordinated in the lore and should never have rules that represent them being less organized than other factions, I would suggest you go re-read your codex. I specifically said that I wouldn't ever expect to see something like activation rolls come back as a means of representing C&C, but I would like to see something that represents the difference between an unruly Ork horde held together by the Warboss versus a Marine force with individual-level comms. I'm about as far from a Marine fanboy as you can get, this is just basic lore.

If you think I'm suggesting Orks should just be plain bad and have no other advantages to offset that lack of coordination, I would respectfully request you stop trying to mind-read. Orks were a devastating sledgehammer in Epic with plenty of firepower to compensate for their poor C&C. Marines were a scalpel that could easily get overwhelmed if not played well. Orks could, pound-for-pound, out-fight Marines- as they should.

Also, on the subject of 'I don't like people who don't play my faction telling me negative rules are good'- I've been playing Tyranids since 3rd Ed, when Tyranids had a special rule that let their opponents ignore target priority tests, and losing Synapse meant losing control of your army as Ld5 critters suddenly stop doing anything useful. I'm very familiar with negative rules, thanks. GW stripping out the consequences of Synapse has turned it from a core mechanic that shapes how the faction plays to a largely ignorable bit of rules detritus that at best exists as a nod to the fluff. Having weaknesses or being bad at certain things is important to characterization, and it's fine as long as they're balanced elsewhere. If you can't tolerate your faction having weaknesses, you're only going to get bland rules.

Poor C&C in Epic is no different from having poor BS in 40K. It's just a low stat, balanced out by advantages elsewhere. Simply not being as good at something as everyone else is a legitimate form of characterization.


Oh, I dont dislike factions having weakness and strong points.
Actually, Im in the Camp of "Factions are more defined by what they lack than what they are good at" as design ethos.
I never played Epic so probably overreacted based in my experience in fantasy, for that I apologize.
I get a little too triggered when someone puts negative rules orks had as an example of something they want back, because at least in my opinion, historically, GW has defined some Factions by how good they are by fluff (eldars, marines, high elves, etc) but others are defined by what makes them bad (orks, greenskins, tyranids, etc...)

 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
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Galas wrote:
Oh, I dont dislike factions having weakness and strong points.
Actually, Im in the Camp of "Factions are more defined by what they lack than what they are good at" as design ethos.
I never played Epic so probably overreacted based in my experience in fantasy, for that I apologize.
I get a little too triggered when someone puts negative rules orks had as an example of something they want back, because at least in my opinion, historically, GW has defined some Factions by how good they are by fluff (eldars, marines, high elves, etc) but others are defined by what makes them bad (orks, greenskins, tyranids, etc...)


Presumably that comes from designing to the average.

If the average are humans, then Eldar, Marines, and High Elves are better in most ways, whilst Orks are stronger but of lower organization, Greenskins are just orks, and Tyranids make hordes of subhuman bugs (while their elites, i.e. Warriors, were stronger than humans in every way).
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

I was thinking more in the "Omg of course elves are super like fast so they always strike fist and are inmune to morale and are super magical and are super best swordsman and archers ever" vs "lol greenskins like, fight a lot. And also goblins and orcs hate each other lmao"

And that could work if points were balanced but...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/25 17:50:54


 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
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Galas wrote:
I was thinking more in the "Omg of course elves are super like fast so they always strike fist and are inmune to morale and are super magical and are super best swordsman and archers ever" vs "lol greenskins like, fight a lot. And also goblins and orcs hate each other lmao"

And that could work if points were balanced but...


One could say "Elves are super fast, super-skilled and good at killing things, but they're flimsy and not particularly numerous" but GW has a really, really hard time figuring out how to nail that formula down lol. Theyve had literally 9 editions, and they somehow always simultaneously fail in two directions simultaneously with Eldar and Dark Eldar

One always ends up super murderously damaging AND ALSO weirdly durable

and the other always ends up hilariously pillow fisted AND ALSO crazy fragile.

Someday, someone will point out to GW that:

1) in an IGOUGO system where you tank all your opponent's damage on the chin, the best way to do 'fast glass cannon' is by using once-per-game durability boosts flavored as 'speedy matrix dodges'

2) if you flavor durability as 'speedy matrix dodges' but it's just...always on, then you've just made a unit that is durable.

3) if literally every army can blow up literally every other army in 3 turns, making your 'glass cannon army' that can blow up an enemy army in one turn is going to feel somewhat stupid.

"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
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Galas wrote:
I was thinking more in the "Omg of course elves are super like fast so they always strike fist and are inmune to morale and are super magical and are super best swordsman and archers ever" vs "lol greenskins like, fight a lot. And also goblins and orcs hate each other lmao"

And that could work if points were balanced but...


Part of the problem is that the things that could be used to balance out these factions, and better represent their fluff, have often been poorly represented in the tabletop.

Marines in Epic weren't the 'everything you can do, I can do better' that they are in 40K; C&C was their chief strength. Marines in Epic weren't optimal at gunline slugfests, but they could redeploy in a hurry to concentrate force on the weakest point of your force. If you managed to pin them down and bring in heavy armor, they didn't fare well, but if you couldn't do that you'd be constantly on the back foot trying to respond. They got inside your OODA loop through speed, surprise, and violence of action. Meanwhile in 40K, they're just beatsticks with big guns.

Orks were able to punch above their weight in Epic because poor C&C was a balancing factor. For the points, they were both strong and tough, and in a straight fight would butcher through their points of Guard or Marines. Meanwhile in 40K they've often been glass hammers (which for Orks is just weird) because they're priced around their high offensive ability and don't have those 'soft' factors to offset their strength and bring the cost down.

Or take Eldar. They're supposed to rely on speed as a defense and run circles around their confused enemies. Well, 40K has no modeling of speed as defense, and no activation or C&C system that might make Eldar particularly able to outmaneuver the enemy, so go figure it's never really worked well and Eldar have typically either been infuriatingly tough to kill (through special rules to provide durability) or made of tissue paper.

The inability of the core rules to represent the things that differentiate these factions in the background is why we need an avalanche of special rules to clumsily patch in differences, to varying degrees of success, and ultimately everything still interacts within a narrow kill/hold objectives paradigm.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/25 19:01:26


   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 catbarf wrote:
Spoiler:
 Galas wrote:
I was thinking more in the "Omg of course elves are super like fast so they always strike fist and are inmune to morale and are super magical and are super best swordsman and archers ever" vs "lol greenskins like, fight a lot. And also goblins and orcs hate each other lmao"

And that could work if points were balanced but...


Part of the problem is that the things that could be used to balance out these factions, and better represent their fluff, have often been poorly represented in the tabletop.

Marines in Epic weren't the 'everything you can do, I can do better' that they are in 40K; C&C was their chief strength. Marines in Epic weren't optimal at gunline slugfests, but they could redeploy in a hurry to concentrate force on the weakest point of your force. If you managed to pin them down and bring in heavy armor, they didn't fare well, but if you couldn't do that you'd be constantly on the back foot trying to respond. They got inside your OODA loop through speed, surprise, and violence of action. Meanwhile in 40K, they're just beatsticks with big guns.

Orks were able to punch above their weight in Epic because poor C&C was a balancing factor. For the points, they were both strong and tough, and in a straight fight would butcher through their points of Guard or Marines. Meanwhile in 40K they've often been glass hammers (which for Orks is just weird) because they're priced around their high offensive ability and don't have those 'soft' factors to offset their strength and bring the cost down.

Or take Eldar. They're supposed to rely on speed as a defense and run circles around their confused enemies. Well, 40K has no modeling of speed as defense, and no activation or C&C system that might make Eldar particularly able to outmaneuver the enemy, so go figure it's never really worked well and Eldar have typically either been infuriatingly tough to kill (through special rules to provide durability) or made of tissue paper.

The inability of the core rules to represent the things that differentiate these factions in the background is why we need an avalanche of special rules to clumsily patch in differences, to varying degrees of success, and ultimately everything still interacts within a narrow kill/hold objectives paradigm.
Another exalt for catbarf.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

And they removed the Initiative stat...

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

 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And they removed the Initiative stat...
Initiative plus their later versions of the Battle Focus rules were so much better than +1 movement speed.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Tyel wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I am scratching my head to understand why someone would play a faction that they don't like the lore for (or rather actively hate the lore for).


I think the issue is that people have very different interpretations of the lore.

Which is sort of why a "lore based ruleset" is unlikely to satisfy.


This.

There are people who consider orks a comic relief while I despise funny orks. Or even hooligan orks. To me orks are just mad max style raiders, brutal and scary. Sometimes even cunning . That's 100% lore based.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And they removed the Initiative stat...


Initiative in 40k was one of the most annoying things IMHO. Basically my orks never fought first and boyz were just used as meat shields to let the lone nob with a pk, who had a weapon with "fight last" rule anyway, strike and do the damage.

Initiative could have been great if it was handled like in fantasy, where chargers got to strike first regardless of the initiative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 catbarf wrote:


If you guys are saying that Orks are actually super coordinated in the lore and should never have rules that represent them being less organized than other factions, I would suggest you go re-read your codex. I specifically said that I wouldn't ever expect to see something like activation rolls come back as a means of representing C&C, but I would like to see something that represents the difference between an unruly Ork horde held together by the Warboss versus a Marine force with individual-level comms. I'm about as far from a Marine fanboy as you can get, this is just basic lore.



Except it's not. Orks aren't just hordes of stupid dudes. There are also speedfreaks or dread mobz armies, with lots vehicles and not that many dudes. The may be less organized but orks live for killing the enemy so forgetting about the war to squabble with each other is just plain stupid. If anything they should be, and they actually are, more vulnerable to morale, that's how their being "less organized" is portrayed on the battlefield. A warboss that kills a couple of dudes to make a unit rally is fluffy, a unit that does nothing for a whole turn because it fails some test isn't.

Also, if you really want to stick with the lore, SM lists should field like 20-30 guys at 2000 points.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/10/26 07:08:42



 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Tend to think initiative was a terrible rule that's never worked.

Because as said - if I always get to attack before you do, either that's going to be massively overpowered (because I'm just going to kill you - see Elves, 8th edition WHFB) or I'm so pillowfisted I do no damage and you cut me to bits (lots of Eldar options through the editions) - or you put lots of barriers in place to get around this (oh look, I have no grenades and I'm navigating a shrub, so I'm both more likely to fail the charge and attack last despite having triple your initiative.)

If you make chargers always fight first... you just make the stat pointless the majority of time.

Which I think explains the real problem with stat squishes. GW try to come up with rules to make armies different - but then they start writing rules because form follows function.

I.E. to be a successful close combat unit in 40k you need a functional delivery system (i.e. lots of movement special rules), and to basically delete anything you connect with (i.e. getting your points back in one assault phase). If you don't have this and don't have something else to compensate (i.e. "vastly disproportional toughness") you probably just have a bad unit which doesn't work.

So these units all tend to end up looking quite similar to each other - and its hard to see how you'd meaningfully differentiate.

In the same way once you reduce shooting to maths, there's marginal difference to having say 3 shots at a certain strength/AP at BS3+, and say 6 shots at the same strength/AP at BS5+. (The later is more vulnerable to minuses to hit - but its unclear that's meant to represent something in the fluff, and more just a function of the maths.)
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





This thread is full of a lot of "I don't like X because it never worked" when the only time they encountered it was 40k.

It feels like a lot of peoples problems with certain rules isn't that they don't work its that GW never made them work and rather than trying to tweak the rule to fix it, they just changed it or removed it outright.


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Sim-Life wrote:
This thread is full of a lot of "I don't like X because it never worked" when the only time they encountered it was 40k.

It feels like a lot of peoples problems with certain rules isn't that they don't work its that GW never made them work and rather than trying to tweak the rule to fix it, they just changed it or removed it outright.


Can you offer up a good counter example then?
   
Made in at
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Sim-Life wrote:
This thread is full of a lot of "I don't like X because it never worked" when the only time they encountered it was 40k.

It feels like a lot of peoples problems with certain rules isn't that they don't work its that GW never made them work and rather than trying to tweak the rule to fix it, they just changed it or removed it outright.


I can't tell you how much I love this comment. I hate this black and white mentality you describe. As I said in my inital post, the old WS/BS system was far from optimal, same with initiative, but I strongly believe that it could have been tweaked by GW to be better than what we have now.
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





Tyel wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
This thread is full of a lot of "I don't like X because it never worked" when the only time they encountered it was 40k.

It feels like a lot of peoples problems with certain rules isn't that they don't work its that GW never made them work and rather than trying to tweak the rule to fix it, they just changed it or removed it outright.


Can you offer up a good counter example then?


Of initative working in a game that isn't Warhammer and thus totally irrelevant? Why? So you can derail the thread talking about why that particular system wouldn't work in 40k?

The changes discussed could ALL work, but it would need to be part of a cohesive ruleset. You can't just shoehorn in broad changes like AA or Initiative systems into the system we have and expect it to work, especially in a game as big as 40k.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/26 10:23:53



 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Sim-Life wrote:
Of initative working in a game that isn't Warhammer and thus totally irrelevant? Why? So you can derail the thread talking about why that particular system wouldn't work in 40k?

The changes discussed could ALL work, but it would need to be part of a cohesive ruleset. You can't just shoehorn in broad changes like AA or Initiative systems into the system we have and expect it to work, especially in a game as big as 40k.


I don't really understand your reasoning.
I say initiative hasn't worked in 40k (or WHFB) and offer a reason as to why its never worked.
You say that's just because GW have never made it work and the only time you've encountered it is in 40k.
I then say "okay, has anyone else managed in any other games?" to which you claim that's irrelevant and trying to derail the thread.

The problem with initiative is that its a hard binary. Do I get to go before you - yes or no. If yes, does me getting to go before you matter, i.e. do I have a reasonable chance of inflicting meaningful damage - yes or no.

If you answer "no" to either the stat is more or less worthless. If you answer yes to both it is almost certainly overpowered and not fun to play against. You can't really escape this problem.
   
Made in at
Longtime Dakkanaut




Tyel wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Of initative working in a game that isn't Warhammer and thus totally irrelevant? Why? So you can derail the thread talking about why that particular system wouldn't work in 40k?

The changes discussed could ALL work, but it would need to be part of a cohesive ruleset. You can't just shoehorn in broad changes like AA or Initiative systems into the system we have and expect it to work, especially in a game as big as 40k.


I don't really understand your reasoning.
I say initiative hasn't worked in 40k (or WHFB) and offer a reason as to why its never worked.
You say that's just because GW have never made it work and the only time you've encountered it is in 40k.
I then say "okay, has anyone else managed in any other games?" to which you claim that's irrelevant and trying to derail the thread.

The problem with initiative is that its a hard binary. Do I get to go before you - yes or no. If yes, does me getting to go before you matter, i.e. do I have a reasonable chance of inflicting meaningful damage - yes or no.

If you answer "no" to either the stat is more or less worthless. If you answer yes to both it is almost certainly overpowered and not fun to play against. You can't really escape this problem.


Why does it have to be binary? You could just say charging unit always fights first. You could also implement a caveat to that saying charging unit always fights first unless defending units highest initiative exceeds charging units initiative by X.
I'm not claiming that this would be the optimal solution, my point is that there could be nuance in this depending on how the rules around initative are written.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/26 11:22:56


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







You could have both units fight simultaneously.

You know, like tons of other games.

0r real life.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Tiberias wrote:
Why does it have to be binary? You could just say charging unit always fights first. You could even implement a caveat to that saying charging unit always fights first unless defending units highest initiate exceeds charging units initiative by X.
I'm not claiming that this would be the optimal solution, my point is that there could be nuance in this depending on how the rules around initative are written.


Its a binary because it either "works" (i.e. I get to fight first and inflict meaningful damage) or it doesn't (i.e. I don't).

Its incredibly difficult to put a points value on that.

Its a similar issue with old WS. Everything else being equal, it stands to reason if a unit with WS3 costs X, then a unit with WS4 should cost X+Y.
But what about a unit with WS5? Its superior to the WS4 unit, so it should cost X+Y+Z. But it gains no more advantage versus the WS3 (and the WS3 unit is no worse off) than again the WS4 unit, so logically it should also be X+Y. So we have a scenario where the WS5 unit should cost zero or more points - and whichever you choose is going to result in the unit being under or overcosted depending on the opposition.
   
Made in at
Longtime Dakkanaut




Tyel wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Why does it have to be binary? You could just say charging unit always fights first. You could even implement a caveat to that saying charging unit always fights first unless defending units highest initiate exceeds charging units initiative by X.
I'm not claiming that this would be the optimal solution, my point is that there could be nuance in this depending on how the rules around initative are written.


Its a binary because it either "works" (i.e. I get to fight first and inflict meaningful damage) or it doesn't (i.e. I don't).

Its incredibly difficult to put a points value on that.

Its a similar issue with old WS. Everything else being equal, it stands to reason if a unit with WS3 costs X, then a unit with WS4 should cost X+Y.
But what about a unit with WS5? Its superior to the WS4 unit, so it should cost X+Y+Z. But it gains no more advantage versus the WS3 (and the WS3 unit is no worse off) than again the WS4 unit, so logically it should also be X+Y. So we have a scenario where the WS5 unit should cost zero or more points - and whichever you choose is going to result in the unit being under or overcosted depending on the opposition.


I don't get your point. It surely depends on the context of whether you get to fight first or not and that is where nuance would havd to be written into the rules around initiative.

The old WS comparison charts had big problems, you never could hit on 2+ no matter how high your WS was and there was no clause that unmodified 6s always hit, which made for (very rare) scenarios where very low WS units could not even hit.
Secondly the distribution and variety of higher WS across units and factions was badly implemented. Most things ranged from 3-5 and then there were extreme outliers like bloodthirsters with WS10 which didn't provide much benefit because you couldn't hit better than 3+ anyway. The range of WS from 6-8 was never used for units.
They could have expanded the chart to allow for 2+ to hit and say that unmodified 6s always hit and expand the range of WS given to units so there would be some with WS 6 or 7 that would fit into that category like howling banshees for example.

As to your last point about what the unit should cost, I don't agree because you can't make that assessment in a vacuum. Higher WS does not necessarily equal +X point cost because you would have to take other rules and stats into account that particular unit has.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Blackie wrote:
The may be less organized but orks live for killing the enemy so forgetting about the war to squabble with each other is just plain stupid.


Which is why Epic gave them a conditional bonus to their activation rolls so long as you were using orders that get them into combat. Their reliability only dropped when you tried to, say, put them onto Overwatch, or perform stationary sustained fire. If you failed an activation roll, they didn't 'squabble'. They could still move or shoot.

Are you actually reading the thread or just grinding your axe about Animosity rules? Epic's command system didn't make units suddenly drop everything and squabble amongst themselves, it modeled command and control failures that produce friction in the Clausewitzian sense, allowing units to still act but not to perform advanced maneuvers. Orks specifically got special rules so that as long as you're getting them into a fight, you don't have to worry nearly as much about C&C.

Orks wanting to get into battle doesn't mean the Warboss has a radio to every Nob that lets him signal them all to withdraw from combat in unison and execute a sweeping flank maneuver, and they will obey at a moment's notice in perfect synchronized coordination. That's not how Orks work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote:The problem with initiative is that its a hard binary. Do I get to go before you - yes or no. If yes, does me getting to go before you matter, i.e. do I have a reasonable chance of inflicting meaningful damage - yes or no.

Tyel wrote:Its a similar issue with old WS. Everything else being equal, it stands to reason if a unit with WS3 costs X, then a unit with WS4 should cost X+Y.
But what about a unit with WS5? Its superior to the WS4 unit, so it should cost X+Y+Z. But it gains no more advantage versus the WS3 (and the WS3 unit is no worse off) than again the WS4 unit, so logically it should also be X+Y. So we have a scenario where the WS5 unit should cost zero or more points - and whichever you choose is going to result in the unit being under or overcosted depending on the opposition.


This is what Sim-Life was talking about; you're discussing these mechanics solely in the context of their historical 40K implementation.

Other ways you could handle Initiative:
-Chargers strike first, then use Initiative order.
-Units with multiple attacks strike at multiple Initiative steps rather than all at once, so there's some back-and-forth.
-Having a higher Initiative only allows some of your attacks to be resolved first, and then the remainder are simultaneous, depending on the difference in I value.
-Higher I makes you harder to hit and combat is resolved simultaneously.

Similarly, the issue of WS5 being no better than WS4 against WS3 could be addressed a number of ways:
-Re-work the WS table so that WS3 is hitting WS5 on 5+.
-Re-work the WS table so that WS5 hits WS3 on 2+.
-Use opposed rolls as in 2nd, so any increment of WS is valuable.
-Use different-faceted dice to increase the granularity of opposed values.

I mean, at the very least just making Initiative only apply to non-chargers and 'steepening' the WS table a bit (IMO, WS3 vs WS5 really should be 5+ vs 3+) would soften the impact of Initiative without gutting it entirely and make all increments of WS valuable.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/10/26 14:02:17


   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Tyel wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Why does it have to be binary? You could just say charging unit always fights first. You could even implement a caveat to that saying charging unit always fights first unless defending units highest initiate exceeds charging units initiative by X.
I'm not claiming that this would be the optimal solution, my point is that there could be nuance in this depending on how the rules around initative are written.


Its a binary because it either "works" (i.e. I get to fight first and inflict meaningful damage) or it doesn't (i.e. I don't).


Only if you assume you're using the same system GW used in the past. You're missing Sim-Life's point, while inadvertently illustrating it quite well. Initiative could be used in many different ways. It could be used as some sort of evasion stat. It could allow models to always make some portion of their attacks even if they're killed. Higher Initiative might allow a unit to ignore the first wounding hit they take in close combat.

The specifics aren't too important. The point is all these options are available but so many people, like yourself, only view things through the lens of GW's past failures.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





We still use Initiative and it works just fine. We've adjusted the WS table and units that get bonus attacks for charging resolve those attacks at the highest initiative level.

Subsequent attacks are resolved in initiative order. This isn't rocket science.
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!






If we are complaining about the Initiative stat being a hard binary, couldn't it just be altered to an opposed check before combat? Each player rolls 1d6+i, higher roll goes first (tie goes to higher i stat). Super simple change, makes it no longer higher stat always goes first, but more likely to go first still.
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

I believe if something like Initiative exist it should be something given by unit basis and not faction or raced based outside some weird cases.

In 40k instead of "I should try to pair my high initiative units against your low ones" tactical play was a case of "so I'm playing agaisnt your army? Ok you have higher initiative than me everywhere"

 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 dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 Galas wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I am scratching my head to understand why someone would play a faction that they don't like the lore for (or rather actively hate the lore for).


Less that and more "When you read the lore of a faction and all you can come up with is negative rules screw you"

Orcs and Goblins animosity came with a downside on a 1 and an upside on a 6, you cannot really say that all the writer came up with were negative rules. The unpredictability of either being totally useless or relatively fast was really Orcy. It might not be 40k Orky, but it fit WHFB Orcs and Goblins and I think the randomness was an advertised selling point. It sounds like you picked the wrong army, Ogre Kingdoms were similarly brutish but lacked the lol-random element.

Lol-random elements can never be too strong or the game loses a focus on strategy and becomes all about who rolls better for animosity. In the same manner, having an army that is very reliable be too strong is also bad because it means you cannot even hope that lady luck gives you a chance of winning because the faction beats yours even on your good days.

I do think random rules should be designed as something awesome happens but you also suffer a setback or something awful happens but at you get this benefit, that or you get one of these bad results results that actually impact what happens, not just the magnitude of what happens, like WHFB misfire which was IIRC just a question of how many turns you weren't going to shoot, this turn/this turn and the next/the rest of the game, instead it should be something like can't shoot next turn/half range for the rest of the game/lower Strength for the rest of the game. But WHFB was not designed that way, the highs were high and the lows were low, I just wanted to point out Orcs and Goblins did have highs.

Orks should absolutely have random elements, like guns which are randomly anti-infantry one turn and anti-tank the next (before choosing targets). Orks should also have more important single dice rolls like rolling 1 D3 for the number of shots in a whole unit of Lootas instead of rolling for the individual model which would lead to getting a mediocre number of hits more often.
 Galas wrote:
I believe if something like Initiative exist it should be something given by unit basis and not faction or raced based outside some weird cases.

In 40k instead of "I should try to pair my high initiative units against your low ones" tactical play was a case of "so I'm playing agaisnt your army? Ok you have higher initiative than me everywhere"

Same thing with WS, most armies were WS 3 across the board or WS 4 across the board. Matching WS 4 units against WS 4 units to draw out combat and WS 4 units to WS 3 units to quickly take out a flank is interesting, getting +1 to hit against the entire enemy army in melee isn't. Initiative should be represented by fight first or fight last abilities or fight in death where appropriate, being hard to hit in melee should be represented by abilities where appropriate, through USRs, not a stat that every unit in the game has.

If anything the stats in 7th were squished in a system that really required them to be more spread out. Terminators having the same WS and Initiative as Havocs was just kind of a joke, rather than a meaningful core mechanic.
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 vict0988 wrote:


Orks should absolutely have random elements, like guns which are randomly anti-infantry one turn and anti-tank the next (before choosing targets). Orks should also have more important single dice rolls like rolling 1 D3 for the number of shots in a whole unit of Lootas instead of rolling for the individual model which would lead to getting a mediocre number of hits more often.


I disagree. Rules shouldn't be random, and I'm glad that the whole SAG, lootas random shots, etc are finally gone. In fact those rules were so bad that these units were either overpowered and spammed (lootas in 5th or with the 25 man combo in 8th, relic SAG and regular SAGs in 8th) or completely useless. Let alone weapons like Bubblechukka that was exactly like you said: sometimes anti infantry, sometimes anti tank, and in fact no one was ever using it, not even in the lowest casual friendly games. Now they all found some middle ground at least.

It's the dice rolling that should provide randomness. So less amount of dice rolled and less ways to fix the result are the way to do, not through some odd rules. It's the game of averages (or above averages) that should be countered at all costs.

Orks unrealiabibilty comes to the fact that they have BS5+ or BS4+ at most, bad morale stats and low armour saves on average.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/27 07:59:38



 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

 vict0988 wrote:
 Galas wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I am scratching my head to understand why someone would play a faction that they don't like the lore for (or rather actively hate the lore for).


Less that and more "When you read the lore of a faction and all you can come up with is negative rules screw you"

Orcs and Goblins animosity came with a downside on a 1 and an upside on a 6, you cannot really say that all the writer came up with were negative rules. The unpredictability of either being totally useless or relatively fast was really Orcy. It might not be 40k Orky, but it fit WHFB Orcs and Goblins and I think the randomness was an advertised selling point. It sounds like you picked the wrong army, Ogre Kingdoms were similarly brutish but lacked the lol-random element..


Nah man. Skaven were proper lol-random made right. Risk-reward, most of the time chosen by the player. Orks have always been all the risk for stupidly weak rewards (You just said it: Risk: Being completely useless. Reward: A minor buff to movement). Thats no bueno. I'm not agaisnt random, I play ogres and vampires in bloodbowl FFS. And I always play the low scum hordes in nearly any game I can. Greenskins rules have always been crap from a design point of view in fantasy. I cannot talk for 40k, I never played orks in 40k because they lacked the goblin element.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/27 12:40:31


 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
Exalted Beastlord




I never played orks in 40k because they lacked the goblin element.

What now?

/Suspiciously eyes multiple units and lore bits written from the grot point of view./

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/27 14:39:15


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: