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.

Models just disappearing to morale feels super bad video gamey. Seeing them potentially run off the board or rally was a much cooler and more immersive rule imo

Deleting units exists anyway, the level of lethality in modern 40k makes running a unit down after a good run of combat pretty unremarkable.

That said i think there is room for a system more like old morale AND options to voluntarily retreat from combat with the right penalties.

You don't want GW to go in to making Ld an important stat though. It would end with majority of the factions getting some rules or interactions GW thinks are cool, but which will be more like time wasters in reality, and a sprinkle of armies, which would get some "cool" rules that would just outright break the game giving them a Ld impacting sub phase, the size of 1ksons or GK psychic phases.

Would be better, if GW got some simpler stuff down, like do they want LoS to be like in skirmish game or do they want it to be simulation. With all the consequances to how size of models, terrain etc works in the game.

PenitentJake wrote:

You do realize that saying "forcing moral checks, thereby allowing you to wipe them out for free, is a tactic." and "moral itself has been reduced to a "KEEL MOAR" mechanic." in the same paragraph is problematic, right? Especially when it so favoured two particular armies- marines, because they seldom break, and eldar because they win the initiative contest. And not just some units, and not just once per turn. Just "I'm always better at scaring whole squads to death than you because of the army I choose to play".

Now look, I may have been a bit more agro than intended- I do take your point. It is true that strats do make the game feel like a CCG, and I get how that's not as fun for folks who prefer wargames. It's true that the learning curve is steeper due to the amount of bespoke content. It's true that rule-stacking/ combination plays feel gamey. Preferring earlier editions is a perfectly valid point of view.

I do, however, take exception to the idea that one version is objectively "better" (what a vague, unmeasurable term) than the other, or that using bubble wrap vs. 6.1" spacing is more or less organic or tactical. And I very specifically disagree that a moral system that allows you to destroy an entire unit is superior to one in which a few extra models are destroyed, especially when it's just inherently easier for some armies to do and inherently harder to do it to some armies. To say that one of these systems is more KEEL MOAR than the other is certainly of base. The truth is that the systems are similar in a lot of ways, and neither is particularly good.

"Melee/ CQC", ALWAYS, is and still was the most lethal phase of any combat irl and a lot of modern doctrines center around breakthrough/ Schwerpunkt etc..
At the end of the day 40k WAS a wargame. It should represent above. Right now it doesn't.
The core problem as you pointed out however, was there were always haves/Have not armies, which gw in general fails to understand for balance reasons. That is nothing new.

Lots of interesting stuff to sift through here. Two points got my attention.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well no, it wasn't random. It was up to dice rolls, but because you can bring factors to bear on the rolls, it's not random.

Have to disagree. Dice are randomizers. Modifiers simply shift the range of results, but it is still random.

A non-random system for 40k would be interesting. When I was a military planner, we used various methods to adjudicate combats and some of them were non-random.

I will also say that using finite resources (whether they be CPs or Strats) is as much a part of tactics as positioning forces or choosing targets.

It's clear that GW continues to wander around, trying to figure how to handle melee combat and balance it with shooting. Ironically, I think that was something they originally got right and have since screwed up, but YMMV.

The randomness is an abstraction of friction, and there should be tools for players to reduce friction - however, the total elimination of friction is undesirable.

PenitentJake wrote:And this never seemed gamey to you? Like, two cops are walking a beat; one gets jumped before he has the chance to draw his weapon. Does he a) engage in a Michael Jackson style knife fight while tied to his opponent to prevent a disengagement, or b) shove the prick as hard as he can and back away with his guard up so that his partner, who has had plenty of time to prep the shot can simply shoot him in the face?

The answer is b) EVERY TIME. It's realistic, it's good strategy, it's tactical and it is exactly what I'd do... And any system that doesn't allow it to happen is immersion breaking, stupid and gamey. It may have been fun as hell in its day, and you may have preferred it, and that's perfectly valid... But let's not pretend it's objectively better or more fluffy.

Can you give a historical example where a unit, engaged in melee against a superior foe, was able to voluntarily fall back with no casualties and without pursuit so that the rest of the army could shoot the offending unit?

Not abstract thought experiment examples using individuals instead of formations of troops (and implying some very optimistic assumptions about how easy it is to shrug off someone in hand-to-hand distance, see: 21-foot rule); I mean actual instances where the thing you're saying is 'realistic, good strategy, tactical, and exactly what I'd do' actually happened in real life warfare.

Because I gotta say, the idea of a unit being stuck in combat, because turning your back and running comes at severe risk of morale failure and being wiped out, tracks an awful lot closer to what I've read of real-life warfare than the current system. Calling it immersion breaking and gamey because, uh, you can imagine a cop shoving a perp away, seems kinda silly.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The randomness is an abstraction of friction, and there should be tools for players to reduce friction - however, the total elimination of friction is undesirable.

^This.

There's a distiction between probabilistic outcomes and absolute randomness. Absolute randomness means decisions leading up to the point of rolling the dice don't matter. There's nothing I can do to influence the outcome of a coin flip, right? But for Morale checks, in this case, I've got a number of tools to influence that eventual outcome, my decisions matter here in a way that they don't in a coin flip.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I will also say that using finite resources (whether they be CPs or Strats) is as much a part of tactics as positioning forces or choosing targets.

Absolutely. But in many cases strats implement that in a lousy way, and Smoke Launchers are a prime example. Previously they were a limited resource by being one-use per vehicle, but I could use them on any number of vehicles at once. This allowed for an actual "universal tactic" where I could advance with many vehicles, each behind it's own smoke cover. The Strat implementation has made that impossible, by limiting me to only firing Smoke with one vehicle a turn, imposing an artificial limit and removing a tactical option.

I'm not against any kind of Strat, it's just that their implementation is lousy, and unfortunately they have an over-weighted impact on the game where one would prefer those "universal tactics" to be a greater factor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:

And this never seemed gamey to you? Like, two cops are walking a beat; one gets jumped before he has the chance to draw his weapon. Does he a) engage in a Michael Jackson style knife fight while tied to his opponent to prevent a disengagement, or b) shove the prick as hard as he can and back away with his guard up so that his partner, who has had plenty of time to prep the shot can simply shoot him in the face?

The answer is b) EVERY TIME. It's realistic, it's good strategy, it's tactical and it is exactly what I'd do... And any system that doesn't allow it to happen is immersion breaking, stupid and gamey. It may have been fun as hell in its day, and you may have preferred it, and that's perfectly valid... But let's not pretend it's objectively better or more fluffy.

I've feel like seen more body cam videos where this situation ends up in a brawl, honestly. Guy grabs assaults cop, cop can't get away, other cop has to help. Or a pistol in drawn while in contact. But also one should recognize that in 40k the CC phase doesn't just represent contact fisticuffs, and also involves close quarters gunfighting, hence why pistols counted as a second melee weapon for many editions.

Edit: Yah the cop scenario is just a bad example anyways because they're not supposed to be straight murdering attackers anyways.

Yeah, the hypothetical of one cop shoving off the perp so that the other can shoot him was already accounted for in the melee system: Two WS3 S3 attacks.

9th's disengaging from melee is more like the two cops, one of whom is already in a life-or-death hand-to-hand struggle, turning and running while the perp obediently stands rooted to the spot until the police sniper can take him out.

If you could voluntarily fall back from combat, but the enemy could give chase and possibly catch you and stab you in the back as you run- some sort of advance that might have a chance of sweeping your unit- that would be a lot less immersion-breaking.

Or two cops get jumped by 6 guys, can the cops separate themselves?

Lol, or they're attacked by a tiger.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Or two cops get jumped by 6 guys, can the cops separate themselves?

Of course. So long as the guys are approaching the cops from a single direction, they are powerless to give chase as the cops casually backpedal ten feet to provide a shot opportunity.

Unless the six arrange themselves to individually surround the cops, exactly three to each, though. Then the cops can't escape and are stuck...

...Unless they chose not to bring armor-piercing ammunition in their sidearms, in which case they will still have a reserve of Nebulous Resource they can call upon to incorporeally phase through the attackers, carrying them the requisite ten feet so that the sniper can engage.

It's just common sense.

The situation isn't one of pursuit.

If I've got say, three squads relatively close to each other, and an enemy melee unit charges one of those 3 units.

As soon as it happens, the other two units start trying to draw a bead on any enemy combatant they can see, and they are also free to communicate with each other to declare who they are covering.

Which means that each person defending in the melee has to create enough distance between them and the enemy they are fighting for any of the guns that are already actively seeking that enemy get the split second opening they need to take the shot.

The units covering the melee don't need two seconds to draw their weapons (a central premise of the 21 foot rule), nor do the engaged defenders have to create a 21 foot distance between them and the enemy for their allies to fire.

Assuming all squads involved are 5 man MSU, every single melee attacker has two guns trained on him from two different angles. The defender can literally kneel or go prone to create an opening for either of those two guns.
Sure that creates an advantage in melee for the attacker, but the point is, he's already dead. Remember that the unit doing the retreating/ dodging/ ducking is focusing entirely on creating that gap, sacrificing their own capacity to inflict harm for an increased chance of creating the necessary distance.

In a real battle, a squad of five guys won't charge another five guys when they know there are two other squads on either side of them with guns at the ready. The person to whom I was responding is pissed that he can no longer perform without any fear whatsoever an action which I think any fighter would perceive as too risky to try.

In any war recent enough to include relatively reliable guns with reasonable clip sizes, more people have been killed by guns than melee weapons. Now that doesn't mean melee isn't deadly, or even that a melee unit is at a disadvantage against a single armed enemy unit of equal size.

But what it absolutely does mean is that the deadliness of guns wielded by multiple units prevent melee attacks in real wars from being as common or as successful as they are in even 9th ed 40k.

Either way, let's not lose sight of the main point:

The person I am responding to is arguing a system where a single melee unit can use a combination of hiding in melee, sweeping advance and morale-based automatic execution of entire units to single handedly roll up a multi-unit gunline, leading to an almost guaranteed loss for the defender is inherently and objectively more realistic, more tactical, more fun, less gamey and overall superior to the current system.

I'm saying it's perfectly valid for the person to prefer the old system... which has does have a lot of merit and was fun enough in its time.

I'm just disagreeing with the idea that it is inherently and objectively less gamey, more tactical or more realistic than the current version.

PenitentJake wrote:

In a real battle. . .

In any war recent enough. . .

And that's where the mechanics need to find a place in between "real world" and the fact that the mentality and situations of many of the combatants in 40k has is VERY different. How do the cops fight daemons? Are Orks worried about the squads behind the target? Do hive-mind controlled genestealers give a damn, and could these "cops" have even a hope of escaping them?

I'm just disagreeing with the idea that it is inherently and objectively less gamey, more tactical or more realistic than the current version.

Given that the older system aknowledged differences in morale, lethality, outnumbering, speed (initiative) for Falling Back mechanics, I'm gonna say that it was objectively a better representation. Were there gamey aspects? Sure there were. But heck yeah it was better. Slower troops were caught by faster ones. Fearless troops wouldn't fall back. Outnumbered troops were more likely to be wiped out. Awesomesauce.

As for nearby support from squads, it's definitely something to be considered. And it specifically reminds me of "Assaults" in Epic (which were specifically described as being an entire 40k battle happening in this phase). In that system, when one formation assaulted another, nearby formations would count as "supporting" and modifiers would be added to the Assault to adjust the outcomes.

PenitentJake wrote:
The situation isn't one of pursuit.

If I've got say, three squads relatively close to each other, and an enemy melee unit charges one of those 3 units.

As soon as it happens, the other two units start trying to draw a bead on any enemy combatant they can see, and they are also free to communicate with each other to declare who they are covering.

Which means that each person defending in the melee has to create enough distance between them and the enemy they are fighting for any of the guns that are already actively seeking that enemy get the split second opening they need to take the shot.

The units covering the melee don't need two seconds to draw their weapons (a central premise of the 21 foot rule), nor do the engaged defenders have to create a 21 foot distance between them and the enemy for their allies to fire.

Assuming all squads involved are 5 man MSU, every single melee attacker has two guns trained on him from two different angles. The defender can literally kneel or go prone to create an opening for either of those two guns.
Sure that creates an advantage in melee for the attacker, but the point is, he's already dead. Remember that the unit doing the retreating/ dodging/ ducking is focusing entirely on creating that gap, sacrificing their own capacity to inflict harm for an increased chance of creating the necessary distance.

In a real battle, a squad of five guys won't charge another five guys when they know there are two other squads on either side of them with guns at the ready. The person to whom I was responding is pissed that he can no longer perform without any fear whatsoever an action which I think any fighter would perceive as too risky to try.

In any war recent enough to include relatively reliable guns with reasonable clip sizes, more people have been killed by guns than melee weapons. Now that doesn't mean melee isn't deadly, or even that a melee unit is at a disadvantage against a single armed enemy unit of equal size.

But what it absolutely does mean is that the deadliness of guns wielded by multiple units prevent melee attacks in real wars from being as common or as successful as they are in even 9th ed 40k.

Either way, let's not lose sight of the main point:

The person I am responding to is arguing a system where a single melee unit can use a combination of hiding in melee, sweeping advance and morale-based automatic execution of entire units to single handedly roll up a multi-unit gunline, leading to an almost guaranteed loss for the defender is inherently and objectively more realistic, more tactical, more fun, less gamey and overall superior to the current system.

I'm saying it's perfectly valid for the person to prefer the old system... which has does have a lot of merit and was fun enough in its time.

I'm just disagreeing with the idea that it is inherently and objectively less gamey, more tactical or more realistic than the current version.

The old version wasn't totally realistic.

But it WAS *more* realistic. I agree those units flanking the melee unit should get involved somehow, probably by using their guns. In fact, most of the more realistic games I play allow them to (or at least allow them the potential to).

So the solution to the earlier edition problem you mention was to IMPROVE THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE PLAYERS, THEIR UNITS, AND THE GAMESTATE, not just throw up your hands and say "feth it, let's not bother modeling anything at all and just make this into a board game."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoiler:

PenitentJake wrote:
The situation isn't one of pursuit.

If I've got say, three squads relatively close to each other, and an enemy melee unit charges one of those 3 units.

As soon as it happens, the other two units start trying to draw a bead on any enemy combatant they can see, and they are also free to communicate with each other to declare who they are covering.

Which means that each person defending in the melee has to create enough distance between them and the enemy they are fighting for any of the guns that are already actively seeking that enemy get the split second opening they need to take the shot.

The units covering the melee don't need two seconds to draw their weapons (a central premise of the 21 foot rule), nor do the engaged defenders have to create a 21 foot distance between them and the enemy for their allies to fire.

Assuming all squads involved are 5 man MSU, every single melee attacker has two guns trained on him from two different angles. The defender can literally kneel or go prone to create an opening for either of those two guns.
Sure that creates an advantage in melee for the attacker, but the point is, he's already dead. Remember that the unit doing the retreating/ dodging/ ducking is focusing entirely on creating that gap, sacrificing their own capacity to inflict harm for an increased chance of creating the necessary distance.

In a real battle, a squad of five guys won't charge another five guys when they know there are two other squads on either side of them with guns at the ready. The person to whom I was responding is pissed that he can no longer perform without any fear whatsoever an action which I think any fighter would perceive as too risky to try.

In any war recent enough to include relatively reliable guns with reasonable clip sizes, more people have been killed by guns than melee weapons. Now that doesn't mean melee isn't deadly, or even that a melee unit is at a disadvantage against a single armed enemy unit of equal size.

But what it absolutely does mean is that the deadliness of guns wielded by multiple units prevent melee attacks in real wars from being as common or as successful as they are in even 9th ed 40k.

Either way, let's not lose sight of the main point:

The person I am responding to is arguing a system where a single melee unit can use a combination of hiding in melee, sweeping advance and morale-based automatic execution of entire units to single handedly roll up a multi-unit gunline, leading to an almost guaranteed loss for the defender is inherently and objectively more realistic, more tactical, more fun, less gamey and overall superior to the current system.

I'm saying it's perfectly valid for the person to prefer the old system... which has does have a lot of merit and was fun enough in its time.

I'm just disagreeing with the idea that it is inherently and objectively less gamey, more tactical or more realistic than the current version.

The old version wasn't totally realistic.

But it WAS *more* realistic. I agree those units flanking the melee unit should get involved somehow, probably by using their guns. In fact, most of the more realistic games I play allow them to (or at least allow them the potential to).

I think applying the term realistic to any system that has one side acting while the other side watches is rather ridiculous. So complaining about one sides ability to dance out of close combat range isn't very valid if the same system allowed the other unit in that melee to close from 18" away without worrying about any form of defensive fire on the part of its target and the units in the general vicinity. I guess this is why 40K is a war-game and not a combat-simulation.

So the solution to the earlier edition problem you mention was to IMPROVE THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE PLAYERS, THEIR UNITS, AND THE GAMESTATE, not just throw up your hands and say "feth it, let's not bother modeling anything at all and just make this into a board game."

Well, that depends on what you want from your game. I'm sure the community can handle both broad simplification like 9th Ed 40K and robust action/reactions like Infinity.

40k isn't a wargame, even. It is a game that is about as relevant to warfare as it is to baking.

There are even games better than 40k at being wargames while preserving IGOUGO. Try that same situation described above in the Horus Heresy when the enemy has three reactions in their pocket and just see whether or not those supporting units get to use their guns on the opponent - and that's just staying within the GW "sphere".

There are very few modern game designs left where one side sits idle and the other side does their stuff without interaction. It's just that 40k's solution is gamey and stupid by comparison (Stratagems are about as "realistic" as just waltzing out of combat like you're on a Sunday stroll)

 alextroy wrote:
I think applying the term realistic to any system that has one side acting while the other side watches is rather ridiculous.

I won't entirely disagree, but I would say that theres are degrees of difference to be aknowledged.

The old system of having Initiative determine who fights first, for example, is more realistic than players simply alternating fights across the table. Why does my squad on one side of the table determine the fate of my squad on the other side of the table?

Yes it's a game, but yes we can also reduce artifacts of "gaminess".

Clearly it is because we don't want to be here all day counting down 10 to 1 Initiative for every single set of close combats on the board.

Barring that option there are only two real choices left: simultaneous combat or some system of picking units to fight sequentially.. GW when for sequential.

 alextroy wrote:
Clearly it is because we don't want to be here all day counting down 10 to 1 Initiative for every single set of close combats on the board.

Barring that option there are only two real choices left: simultaneous combat or some system of picking units to fight sequentially.. GW when for sequential.

Who's this "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket? I quite like Initiative, myself. Beats the gamey mess that 8th/9th edition melee is any day, IMO.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Clearly it is because we don't want to be here all day counting down 10 to 1 Initiative for every single set of close combats on the board.

Barring that option there are only two real choices left: simultaneous combat or some system of picking units to fight sequentially.. GW when for sequential.

Who's this "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket? I quite like Initiative, myself. Beats the gamey mess that 8th/9th edition melee is any day, IMO.

We being the majority of gamers who prefer the game have less niche rules and be resolved faster than in the old days of 3-7th edition. Emperor knows the game is not lessor for avoiding, "you attack at your Initiative, unless you are charging into cover (in which case it is I1), unless you have Assault Grenades (in which case it is normal), unless you are using an Unwieldly weapon (in which case it is I1)".

 alextroy wrote:
Clearly it is because we don't want to be here all day counting down 10 to 1 Initiative for every single set of close combats on the board.

Barring that option there are only two real choices left: simultaneous combat or some system of picking units to fight sequentially.. GW when for sequential.

Yes, GW did choose to go sequential...

...for reasons I can't fathom. What is wrong with simultaneous again?

 alextroy wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Clearly it is because we don't want to be here all day counting down 10 to 1 Initiative for every single set of close combats on the board.

Barring that option there are only two real choices left: simultaneous combat or some system of picking units to fight sequentially.. GW when for sequential.

Who's this "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket? I quite like Initiative, myself. Beats the gamey mess that 8th/9th edition melee is any day, IMO.

We being the majority of gamers

Source?

 alextroy wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Clearly it is because we don't want to be here all day counting down 10 to 1 Initiative for every single set of close combats on the board.

Barring that option there are only two real choices left: simultaneous combat or some system of picking units to fight sequentially.. GW when for sequential.

Who's this "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket? I quite like Initiative, myself. Beats the gamey mess that 8th/9th edition melee is any day, IMO.

We being the majority of gamers who prefer the game have less niche rules and be resolved faster than in the old days of 3-7th edition. Emperor knows the game is not lessor for avoiding, "you attack at your Initiative, unless you are charging into cover (in which case it is I1), unless you have Assault Grenades (in which case it is normal), unless you are using an Unwieldly weapon (in which case it is I1)".

'Units attack alternately. Unless they charged. Unless they have a special rule which makes them fight first/the enemy strike last. Unless they have a strategem which makes them strike first/the enemy strike last. Unless they're fighting twice.' is so much better.

 alextroy wrote:
We being the majority of gamers who prefer the game have less niche rules and be resolved faster than in the old days of 3-7th edition.

a simple, "those people who don't play 40k" would have said all
9th is on a similar level of niche rules and "slow play" as 6-7th and 8th was ahead of 3-4th for this

the fastest and "cleanest" version of 40k is still 3rd and if you want a "modern" 40k game, it is either Beyond the Gates of Antares or Grimdark Future

GW itself tried to fix Codex balance by changing the core rules, which never worked because they added more and more niche rules to add "flavour", they never tried to make a "game" after 3rd

I've always played nids, I wanted to play the "alien swarms coming to tear you apart" that was described in the fluff. Sending in only a few models into b2b on the charge so you can wipe the opponent in their turn seemed pretty much the exact opposite of what I'd imagined, it always felt really gamey.

Then came the "ok this was fun, bye now" method of just walking away, followed by tri-pointing and all the rest; not what I'd call progress tbh.

Old melee vs new melee is more of a bad vs worse choice imo. I'd take the old system but I wouldn't exactly be thrilled about it.

shortymcnostrill wrote:
I've always played nids, I wanted to play the "alien swarms coming to tear you apart" that was described in the fluff. Sending in only a few models into b2b on the charge so you can wipe the opponent in their turn seemed pretty much the exact opposite of what I'd imagined, it always felt really gamey.

Then came the "ok this was fun, bye now" method of just walking away, followed by tri-pointing and all the rest; not what I'd call progress tbh.

Old melee vs new melee is more of a bad vs worse choice imo. I'd take the old system but I wouldn't exactly be thrilled about it.

Isn't that pretty much GW standard at this point?

I'd rather play R&H than CSM (especially with a lord i am not even allowed to field on the front page of the dex) but i am strapped with the CSM dex if i want to field cultists.

shortymcnostrill wrote:
I've always played nids, I wanted to play the "alien swarms coming to tear you apart" that was described in the fluff. Sending in only a few models into b2b on the charge so you can wipe the opponent in their turn seemed pretty much the exact opposite of what I'd imagined, it always felt really gamey.

Then came the "ok this was fun, bye now" method of just walking away, followed by tri-pointing and all the rest; not what I'd call progress tbh.

These are great examples of what I call counterintuitive rules. A universal tactic is to establish overwhelming numerical superiority at the point of attack. The notion of bringing only some troops to the fight in order to drag it out in order to manipulate the turn sequence is pretty awful.

It would be interesting to see how 40k would function using an orders system. Joint planning phase at the start of the turn where orders are generated and then simultaneous implementation and resolution. Depending on the edition, it could be a one-turn game.

 alextroy wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Clearly it is because we don't want to be here all day counting down 10 to 1 Initiative for every single set of close combats on the board.

Barring that option there are only two real choices left: simultaneous combat or some system of picking units to fight sequentially.. GW when for sequential.

Who's this "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket? I quite like Initiative, myself. Beats the gamey mess that 8th/9th edition melee is any day, IMO.

We being the majority of gamers who prefer the game have less niche rules and be resolved faster than in the old days of 3-7th edition. Emperor knows the game is not lessor for avoiding, "you attack at your Initiative, unless you are charging into cover (in which case it is I1), unless you have Assault Grenades (in which case it is normal), unless you are using an Unwieldly weapon (in which case it is I1)".

Do you have a source that shows that it's a "majority" that agrees with you? Otherwise, it's just your opinion, just like preferring Initiative is just my opinion. Others will obviously have their own opinions.

We can debate the specifics though. Looking at your example, I see three simple questions that need to be answered to resolve the interactions: Are you charging through terrain? Yes/no? If "Yes", do you have Frag grenades or equivalent equipment? Yes/no? And finally: Are any models armed with Unwieldly weapons? Yes/no? Not complicated.

Meanwhile, the Fights First/Fights Last system of 9th is so confusing that they actually had to release a designer's commentary (with pictures/diagrams) explaining how the rules interact with each other. That system definitely isn't simpler, IMO. But, YMMV.

As for 8th/9th being "faster", this is 100% anecdotal, but I've found that I can play a 3000 point game of HH in less time than I could a 2000 point game of 8th/9th. Again, completely anecdotal, and YMMV.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
It would be interesting to see how 40k would function using an orders system. Joint planning phase at the start of the turn where orders are generated and then simultaneous implementation and resolution. Depending on the edition, it could be a one-turn game.

You might want to check out the thread in my signature. Among some armybooks you will find an alternate activation core rules system where each unit needs to receive an order at the beginning of the turn and can only act according to that order when activated.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Meanwhile, the Fights First/Fights Last system of 9th is so confusing that they actually had to release a designer's commentary (with pictures/diagrams) explaining how the rules interact with each other. That system definitely isn't simpler, IMO. But, YMMV.

As for 8th/9th being "faster", this is 100% anecdotal, but I've found that I can play a 3000 point game of HH in less time than I could a 2000 point game of 8th/9th. Again, completely anecdotal, and YMMV.

Another vote for: Handling Initiative steps from 10 to 1 isn't any slower than the current implementation. I would even say that it is faster than the current mini-game where you have to decide which combat to resolve first or in which order.

Well, this inspired me to pick up an old copy of the 3rd edition rulebook to look for myself.

I really like the tone and lore from 3rd edition, the tenure of Andy Chambers is my favourite era of GW lore and rules content. The codices are fantastically flavourful, but also come with lore-friendly restrictions and choices. They weren't amazingly well balanced, but that is a solvable issue.

Forgive me, but it sounds like 40K has become a game of checkers.

One person exposes their piece and gets jumped. Counter with 2 jumps, which then leads to 3 counter jumps.