Switch Theme:

Target Priority and Leadership Tests  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





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

Bring it back.

   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





To speed things up and make the game less of a simulation and more of a game.

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

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


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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/05 02:07:59


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




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

Bring it back.



What? Was this like...a 5th edition rule? Because it wasn't in 6th or 7th either.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





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

Bring it back.



What? Was this like...a 5th edition rule? Because it wasn't in 6th or 7th either.


Earlier than 5th, but not sure exactly how far back. I want to say 3rd.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Target Priority was introduced in 4th edition.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




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

Bring it back.



It hasn't existed since third or fourth because it's clunky and abusable. Take 30 ork boyz or 20 valorous heart SoB and pop them out front and congrats! Half your guns are useless! It also disproportionally affects low leadership units. Necrons would basically ignore the rule but exocrines would never be able to shoot.

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

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Because if it existed we'd have another set of warlord traits, relics, psychic powers and strats in every book (along with innate bespoke unit special rules and/or equipment upgrades) that would allow you to ignore it, re-roll it, get bonuses to avoiding it, force opponents to always be stuck using it, and everything in between.

That's why.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/05 02:48:56


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

 
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




Rihgu wrote:
To speed things up and make the game less of a simulation and more of a game.

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

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


I'd argue that its MORE of a flowchart, but you rolls tons and tons of unnecessary dice. Its just the flowchart is needlessly hinky.

(Though templates are something that I will never miss, no matter how stupid 'roll a d6 for how many d6s you roll' is as a replacement)

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Why was the mechanic of taking a leadership test in order to carefully select targets over shooting at the closest threat removed from the game. Obvious answer: "to speed things up".


Nope.

It was because having to pass a roll to even be able to ATTEMPT doing what you actually want to do is the stupidest idea I've ever heard, and bringing it back would be the worst mistake GW or any other company could make.

Sorry, don't mean to be crass- you obviously liked the rule, so I shouldn't be an @55hole and call something you liked stupid. But I have a hard time understanding why anyone would want a system where you might not even get to try doing what you want to do. I mean, I don't mind failing at the attempt, as long as the thing I'm attempting is what I actually want to do.

And I find it strange that anyone might think the change was made for any reason other than giving players more agency.




   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





PenitentJake wrote:
 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Why was the mechanic of taking a leadership test in order to carefully select targets over shooting at the closest threat removed from the game. Obvious answer: "to speed things up".


Nope.

It was because having to pass a roll to even be able to ATTEMPT doing what you actually want to do is the stupidest idea I've ever heard, and bringing it back would be the worst mistake GW or any other company could make.

Sorry, don't mean to be crass- you obviously liked the rule, so I shouldn't be an @55hole and call something you liked stupid. But I have a hard time understanding why anyone would want a system where you might not even get to try doing what you want to do. I mean, I don't mind failing at the attempt, as long as the thing I'm attempting is what I actually want to do.

And I find it strange that anyone might think the change was made for any reason other than giving players more agency.






It is very common for rules to limit player choice and limit what units can and cannot do. Most historical wargames (and most wargames that strive for realism) have some sort of command and control mechanic that makes it impossible for the player to do exactly what he wants, when he wants to do it. In general I like those sorts of rules, so long as they are simple and elegant. Bolt Action's activation dice, L'Art de la Guerre's command dice, and Battlefleet Gothic's order dice are good examples of well-designed command and control rules. 40K could use some more rules like that, I reckon.

Madness is however an affliction which in war carries with it the advantage of surprise - Winston Churchill 
   
Made in nl
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

Rihgu wrote:
To speed things up and make the game less of a simulation and more of a game.
Spoiler:

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

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


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

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



Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote:
 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Why was the mechanic of taking a leadership test in order to carefully select targets over shooting at the closest threat removed from the game. Obvious answer: "to speed things up".


Nope.

It was because having to pass a roll to even be able to ATTEMPT doing what you actually want to do is the stupidest idea I've ever heard, and bringing it back would be the worst mistake GW or any other company could make.
Spoiler:


Sorry, don't mean to be crass- you obviously liked the rule, so I shouldn't be an @55hole and call something you liked stupid. But I have a hard time understanding why anyone would want a system where you might not even get to try doing what you want to do. I mean, I don't mind failing at the attempt, as long as the thing I'm attempting is what I actually want to do.


And I find it strange that anyone might think the change was made for any reason other than giving players more agency.


More what? Freedom to live in snowflake point and click land where Gretchen always point their guns at the smart target from the point of view of the battlefield general? Or do you mean agency to quit using gw rules because of the bait and switch from simmy war game to CCG-esque board game? Or maybe you mean agency as in I can do what I want when I want regardless of coherency and consistency and any other constraint?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Saber wrote:
Spoiler:
PenitentJake wrote:
 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Why was the mechanic of taking a leadership test in order to carefully select targets over shooting at the closest threat removed from the game. Obvious answer: "to speed things up".


Nope.

It was because having to pass a roll to even be able to ATTEMPT doing what you actually want to do is the stupidest idea I've ever heard, and bringing it back would be the worst mistake GW or any other company could make.

Sorry, don't mean to be crass- you obviously liked the rule, so I shouldn't be an @55hole and call something you liked stupid. But I have a hard time understanding why anyone would want a system where you might not even get to try doing what you want to do. I mean, I don't mind failing at the attempt, as long as the thing I'm attempting is what I actually want to do.

And I find it strange that anyone might think the change was made for any reason other than giving players more agency.






It is very common for rules to limit player choice and limit what units can and cannot do. Most historical wargames (and most wargames that strive for realism) have some sort of command and control mechanic that makes it impossible for the player to do exactly what he wants, when he wants to do it. In general I like those sorts of rules, so long as they are simple and elegant. Bolt Action's activation dice, L'Art de la Guerre's command dice, and Battlefleet Gothic's order dice are good examples of well-designed command and control rules.
40K could use some more rules like that, I reckon.

I think so too. Exalted.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/05 04:51:45


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Because if it existed we'd have another set of warlord traits, relics, psychic powers and strats in every book (along with innate bespoke unit special rules and/or equipment upgrades) that would allow you to ignore it, re-roll it, get bonuses to avoiding it, force opponents to always be stuck using it, and everything in between.

That's why.



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

Maybe 40k could use more simple and elegant game mechanics. Target priority, like it existed previously, isn't either of those in practice.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Why was the mechanic of taking a leadership test in order to carefully select targets over shooting at the closest threat removed from the game.
There were a few aspects of early editions where you would make a choice and then had to tick off a number of boxes otherwise the game would tell you 'no, your choice is wrong'.

Target priority was one of these. You'd have a big squad of devastators wanting to shoot into a big squad of nobz... but no, that gretchin standing half an inch closer has to die first apparently.
   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut




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

Bring it back.



Yes, because this game needs more instances of random dice rolls overriding player decisions...

Oh, wait...
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Rihgu wrote:
To speed things up and make the game less of a simulation and more of a game.

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

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


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


Perfect answer. /thread

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jeff white wrote:
More what? Freedom to live in snowflake point and click land where Gretchen always point their guns at the smart target from the point of view of the battlefield general? Or do you mean agency to quit using gw rules because of the bait and switch from simmy war game to CCG-esque board game? Or maybe you mean agency as in I can do what I want when I want regardless of coherency and consistency and any other constraint?


Player agency is a term that can be googled, you know?

40k hasn't been a simulation war game since at least 5th. You just kept believing GW's lies ("forge the narrative!") that it was.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/05 11:46:24


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
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!






Rule would never work now, games are too big, and as HMBC said GW would feel the need to bend over backwards do dole out several exceptions for each faction with various similar but slightly different wordings to make it hard to follow.

It was a nice rule that I am rather fond of - it gave Leadership a reason to exist, meant screening actually could protect you from ranged fire to an extent, and it also showed in a game play manner how an elite unit can be better than a generic trooper without giving them extra killiness to their weaponry. Though if my weak memory serves, even back then GW spent as much time as they could folding in exemptions.
   
Made in us
Ork Boy Hangin' off a Trukk





It was a rule that makes logical sense in the chaos of battle, directly impacts model placement and targeting strategies, and further distinguishes more elite armies from less disciplined armies. Yes, it was more time consuming, but it added more realism to a game that was trying to become a tabletop wargame versus the more mathhammer "gotcha" card game with models we have now. Minus a few excessive rules like Rending on a 6 to hit (changed to 6 to wound in 5th edition) and Eldar skimmer vehicle defensive upgrades working too well, 4th edition had a lot of good things going for it.

Apocalypse/40K: Orks, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Space Wolves, Necrons
AOS: Sons of Behemat (Mantic and D&D giants)
Blood Bowl: Skaven, Humans, Orcs, Goblins, Dark Elves, Wood Elves, Dwarves, Chaos Dwarves, Undead, Necromantic, Snotlings, Vampires, Lizardmen, Chaos, Amazons 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Having to roll each time you want for a unit to do a basic fuction like shooting at what the players want to shot instead of the game forcing it is horrible.

But I'm not surprised many people look at it with nostalgia. Just like the old combat rules with Initiative. All stuff that basically made the game play itself and a pointless exercise of rolling dice to see how things play out with minimal player input.

"In old editions the lists mattered more because if you didn't bring the proper units you were screwed! Antitank was needed for tanks and anti infantry for infantry" and other gak.

Oh yeah thats phenomenal in a game where you take 2k points of units and you cannot change a single damm thing in the whole game or the whole tournament.

I want a restricted FOC that basically forces me to pick always the same configuration of an army. And then I want to roll on tables each time I shoot at a vehicle to see what the feth happens. And I want for a whole phase of the game, the meele one, to be automatically resolved with literally no relevance in what the players did (With the only relevant part of meele combat being what characters did you put into your units in the list creation). Man do I really miss old warhammer. It was so interactive.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/05 14:30:26


 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 ie
Pustulating Plague Priest





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

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

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


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

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


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


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





This rule is just about the worst rule I've ever heard of. Glad I didn't play back then, and now I know why I kept hearing so many people quit 40k to play xwing and other tabletop games back in the day. You know, GAMES, where the players decisions matter.

What I think some grognards can't get over is that they are the extreme minority when it comes to their point of view regarding rules like this. A niche within a niche of a niche. If you're THAT beholden to that kind of stuff, and it's actually popular (it isn't) , it wouldn't be hard to find a large swathe of folks to play old editions regularly.

I also have stuff that I ike that isn't really done anymore because it's not popular, but I don't crap on what other people like because I'm not getting what I want.

I think people who talk about 40k getting boardgame like tendencies are kind of funny, because old 40k has a lot in common with old dice rolling ameritrash board games, and newer 40k is becoming more Euro-like. (That is, random vs deterministic design philosophy--and yes I know both have randomness)

People who want to "just let the dice tell the story" can absolutely do that with current 40k anyway. Just don't use all of the optional rerolls and stratagems. If that point of view is so popular you shouldn't have any trouble finding other people to do the same, and you won't need to get on forums to complain.
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!






Galas wrote:Having to roll each time you want for a unit to do a basic fuction like shooting at what the players want to shot instead of the game forcing it is horrible.


Well the idea of the rule is that when you have a squad of Space Marines advancing on you, Guardsman Goosey with the Lascannon might be a bit anxious and rather shoot the direct threat to *him* than the Predator farther down the line that is a more direct threat to the army as a whole. Its essentially the same idea as 8th/9th edition bubblewrapping vehicles from charges out of deep strike, except it actually put a limit on ranged combat instead of just melee. Or more apt, a limited version of character protection of 8th/9th as you can overcome it with a leadership check.

More elite units with high leadership had a really good chance of just following their orders to a T, while less elite armies tended to be able to simply throw more units into the fray in order to get the results they wanted.

Would it work now? Hell no, the games are in general too big with too many moving pieces. Remember, armies were also smaller back then - I recently did a 1500 point Guard list from the old 3.5 edition book that had a total of 6 squads of infantry (Including command squads) mounted in chimera, and two tanks.

Quasistellar wrote:This rule is just about the worst rule I've ever heard of. Glad I didn't play back then, and now I know why I kept hearing so many people quit 40k to play xwing and other tabletop games back in the day. You know, GAMES, where the players decisions matter.


As far as I know, it was the trash fire that was 6th/7th that really drove people away. 4th Edition ended in like 2008 or the like.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Savannah

It sounds nice in a simulation-y sort of way, when you think about it in the abstract, but in practice it ended up in ridiculous situations all the time. Without an adjudicator, there's not really a good method for sorting through what is "reasonable" for a model to "think".

Why would the trooper manning a lascannon care that there was a singular gretchin between him and a unit of meganobz? Especially if there are five squads of his compatriots between him and said grot? There's no threat to his person in this situation (and even if there was, the meganobz are obviously way more dangerous to him, despite the slightly greater distance), it's just the game choking on itself.

It could work in a more constrained scale, where anything on the board was a danger to anything else, but not in 40k, where a solitary grot can share the field with an emperor titan. Mordheim? Sure, a lone goblin is a threat to most of the other relatively human sized models, even if not a huge one. It's got a knife, after all, and you've got kidneys right at stabbing height. BFG? Again, even a small ship carried weapons that could annihilate a city and punch holes in your cruiser. Individual bombers and similar craft were organized into attack wings, rather than being represented individually, and even then were normally stacked in multi-wing "units" (that you could still choose to ignore because they were so tiny).

A bit of an aside, but I've always found it odd that people use phrases like "board game with expensive chits" as an insult. You do realize that all models in wargames are just expensive chits, right? They just (hopefully) look better than the carboard cutouts or labeled poker chits that could replace them. Heck, I showed someone how to play WFB (I think it was 5th?) with 100x100mm and 125x50mm rectangles of plain printer paper with "Goblins" and "Chaos Warriors", respectively, written on them. Worked fine, it just looked terrible.
   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut




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

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

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


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

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


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


I don't get it either. Board game design feel so state-of-the-art in comparison with 40k, with board games being in their golden age right now. Light years away compared to the outdated, tedious and boring design of GW games. There are plenty of games that are so incredibly smart, elegant and deep, while 40K is neither. If anything GW should strive to reach these heights of intelligent design instead of keeping one foot stubbornly in the 80's, in the land of "Players are needed in the game, because they have hands that can roll dice. Otherwise - not really."

Yesterday I finally played some A Song Of Ice And Fire and it is really amazing what an experienced board game designer (Eric Lang: Blood Rage, Rising Sun, Chaos in the Old World, The Others, Warhammer:Invasion) can do with a miniature wargame. It was such a smooth, multi-faceted experience, loaded with thinking, but with lightning-fast resolution. We spent some time discussing the game afterwards, and my opponent, who is much more forgiving in his sentiment towards WH40K than I am admitted that it's just a whole another world of smart game design.
   
Made in us
Frothing Warhound of Chaos




This is one of the worse rules ever written by the developers.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Moorecox wrote:
This is one of the worse rules ever written by the developers.


That's a strong statement. Worse than Flickerjump? The 7e Markerlight table? Instinctive Behaviour? ATSKNF, making a huge chunk of the game ignore one of the core mechanics? Look Out, Sir? Anything to do with the Artillery type? D-strength Distortion weapons, bringing the power of Titan main guns to your sub-200pt plastic infantry? 8e/9e Reserves, presenting an invincible risk-free alpha-strike box you can't interact with in any way? 8e's reroll/modifier interaction flowchart? The sidebar in the 8e FW Index where they said "We haven't actually squatted Corsairs, honest, you can still use your HQ models as sergeants!"? The Horde rule in 8e WHFB? Leaving Guess range weapons in 8e WHFB while also allowing pre-measuring? The whole of at-launch AoS? The Solar Auxilia command squad banner (I still don't know what that rule actually means, everyone I've ever played with/asked thinks it does something slightly different)? WHFB 7th Daemons? The 40k Daemons books where you bought a roll on a table instead of an actual upgrade? End Times Alarielle? The Banner of the World Dragon? Any time they try to write anything that triggers on 1s or 6s? 8e/9e blast weapons? The pre-nerf 7e/30k quad-mortar? Randomly selected psychic powers? The 9e Deathwatch Chapter Tactics? Psykers in Kill Team? The Shadow Warriors warband in Mordheim? 6e Jink? 8th/9th "bombs"? Shattered Legions? CP per detachment? Anything to do with the closest-target character thing? Any non-Vindicare/Exodus "sniper" in any edition? The gibberish that is "only the plastic kit assembly instructions allowed" datasheets? The Stormcast +1 save bubble warlord trait? BFG Holofields? 4e/5e Holofields? Any Seer Council implementation post-3rd? The Biel-Tan 3e army list? Most versions of Dark Reapers? No unit size caps in WHFB? BS to scatter distance, thereby requiring you to roll scatter dice while also making it barely matter when firing blast weapons?

(I should go to sleep or I'll just keep coming up with more.)

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/06/06 07:17:17


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 au
Longtime Dakkanaut





Target priority prevented a unit from doing something the way the player wanted, which is exactly the same as having to roll for BS or any other dice based rule in the game.

How is saying that it's bad you can't automatically choose the best target to shoot at any different from saying it's bad you can't automatically choose the best outcome of your shooting?

The game uses plenty of rules that prevents it turning out exactly like the player wants and they are apparently fine - why would my marine with lascannon ever not kill the thing they shot at? They're good shots and are firing an anti-tank gun.


Any one making a claim that it's objectively worse is entirely blinkered by status quo rules structures that are invisible by their normalisation.


Target priority had its imperfections, but that's what tweaking and updating is for, in the same way that all the other existing 'rules that remove player agency' have gone through.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/07 05:32:46


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Marines ignored Targeting Priority because 4th Ed Space Marine Captains had a rule called 'Rites of Battle'.

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

 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Marines ignored Targeting Priority because 4th Ed Space Marine Captains had a rule called 'Rites of Battle'.


They rolled against Ld10 because of Rites of Battle, so they ignored Target Priority as much as the Necrons (Ld10 across the board all the time) did.

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 gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Target Priority was great in principle but terrible in execution. The idea that your units may not always respond exactly how you might like is fairly common across many wargames and boardgames, at least in some fashion. Whether it's semi-random activation order like Bolt Action or needing to pass command checks or setting orders before you have full knowledge of the board state, these rules are designed to simulate the fog of war or the chaos of the battlefield. The problem with GW's implementation was it was clunky and largely pointless.

Too many armies had Ld 9 or 10, making the dice rolls largely pointless and even the supposedly unruly armies didn't fail often enough for it to matter in most cases. The fail state was also pretty punishing, making the infrequent failures very annoying when they did happen. I think 40k would greatly benefit from more restrictions on targeting or split fire in order to reduce lethality and introduce more decision making into the game but I don't think the old Target Priority mechanic does that and it's a net benefit that it was removed.
   
Made in gb
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Because if it existed we'd have another set of warlord traits, relics, psychic powers and strats in every book (along with innate bespoke unit special rules and/or equipment upgrades) that would allow you to ignore it, re-roll it, get bonuses to avoiding it, force opponents to always be stuck using it, and everything in between.

That's why.



Just the base leaderships of the game saw to that. Similar to how pinning never really worked that well.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Pfizer vaccine administered 13:40pm 18 Feb 21. Still no second head. Second jab 13:35pm 6 May 2021. At the Masonic Hall. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: