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.

So, a lot of you have probably been seeing threads regarding the ever increasing lethality of the game. Or maybe you've seen a few threads regarding that one Socal game and then calls to nerf freebootaz or ork Buggies.

I'm going to be honest and I think it's because over the editions a lot of things that stopped you from doing things were phased out. Once upon a time you couldn't fire at a target that wasn't the closest without passing a LD check, or fire a rapid fire gun unless you stayed stationary or were in half range, heavy weapons couldn't be fired on the move by infantry and vehicles could only fire 1 str6+ weapon on the move and a few str5 or lower as well. Running/advancing wasn't a thing, charge rolls were static ranges.

As the editions went on new things were brought in, old restrictions were loosened or dropped and mechanics like stunned/shaken vehicles or fleeing infantry vanished completely. In exchange a lot of weapons amped up their damage output rapidly amped up even during an addition.

Yes, sometimes it feels bad to have a unit that can't perform it's roll at any given time. But if all your units can perform then it reduces the impact your enemy can have on your army. Things are either dead or killing, no in between as before where a unit was in some form of CC.

Are there core rules that you can think of that would improve the chances of both armies having stuff on the table by T5? Things GW could implement without having to change the army books?

Shaken / stunned are still here in the form of damage tables. Weapon destroyed is effectively ( using the term loosely ) there for vehicles that lose BS or attacks where dreadnoughts are concerned.

Being forced to take leadership tests on LD7 as an Ork from losing 3 models from a 10 man ( or 1in a 3 man unit ) results in a unit that is running away 42% of the time and making them totally useless the next turn if they recover. Now it is a 33% chance to lose 1 and on average another model. A unit that has two less models, but can still act is way more useful than a unit that ran away from an objective by 2D6 inches. Heaven forbid you fallback to the table edge or flee in combat and get overrun.

When a pie plate from a battlecannon landed it did a S8 hit on every single model beneath it. So 10 models? 10 hits. S8 and AP3, which means even marines don't get a save. That would mean 8 marines would die ( or 4 in cover ). In the same scenario now -- you might kill 3 ( or less than 2 in cover ) with a double firing LRBT. The same scenario versus Orks gives us 8 and 4 again versus 8 and 8. So there's a disparity. Which is better? The one where elite models die at the same rate as hordes or the one where a roughly equal amount of points got killed?

Anti-tank guns were also considerably more capable of scoring a devastating blow. Your ordnance weapons would even get a 2D6 pen roll. A lucky set of rolls will see you off from a single shot. The same is no longer possible. You want no move and fire infantry? Then we'll see only vehicles.

Rapid fire bolters are not what's wrong with the game. Remember when marines could fire one shot in 8th and marines were pretty awful and then we got beta rules?
Vehicles weapons and facings are not what's wrong with the game ( unless you want to make the case that aircraft are fixed by making them face what they want to shoot, but then they'd be pretty useless ).

Is 40K deadly? Yes.
Are restrictions good? You bet.
Can more be done to make 40K better? Absolutely.

But we have a problem where people basically ignore the pieces they didn't like from the old editions to make this one the most savage. They pretend that low terrain tables now are more lethal than low terrain tables then. And remember how special characters were banned for literal editions at a time?

40K has issues. There are good suggestions and valid gripes out there and I'm not going to bother going through all of that again. But the community also has an issue where it's incapable of dealing with change and that's been a problem through every edition.

I feel like the previous post needs to be taken with a high degree of salt.

Like sure, Rapid fire bolters aren't a problem. . . But maybe Rapid Fire bolters after moving, with 32" range and -2 are indicative of something? Just maybe?

 Insectum7 wrote:
I feel like the previous post needs to be taken with a high degree of salt.

Like sure, Rapid fire bolters aren't a problem. . . But maybe Rapid Fire bolters after moving, with 32" range and -2 are indicative of something? Just maybe?

If you moved you get one shot generally, but certainly 15" is easier than 12". AP2 is only turns 2 and maybe 3. And how many of these units are you seeing? Maybe 3? 15 models are shaping the game?

The old Aggressors were way more stupid than that. gak even without double tap they're probably better on efficiency.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Shaken / stunned are still here in the form of damage tables. Weapon destroyed is effectively ( using the term loosely ) there for vehicles that lose BS or attacks where dreadnoughts are concerned.

This isn't the same and there are plenty of ways around the damage table (like repairs, that previously could not repair shaken and stunned results)

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Being forced to take leadership tests on LD7 as an Ork from losing 3 models from a 10 man ( or 1in a 3 man unit ) results in a unit that is running away 42% of the time and making them totally useless the next turn if they recover. Now it is a 33% chance to lose 1 and on average another model. A unit that has two less models, but can still act is way more useful than a unit that ran away from an objective by 2D6 inches. Heaven forbid you fallback to the table edge or flee in combat and get overrun.

Totally useless is the point. That reduces lethality from that unit for the next turn.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
When a pie plate from a battlecannon landed it did a S8 hit on every single model beneath it. So 10 models? 10 hits. S8 and AP3, which means even marines don't get a save. That would mean 8 marines would die ( or 4 in cover ). In the same scenario now -- you might kill 3 ( or less than 2 in cover ) with a double firing LRBT. The same scenario versus Orks gives us 8 and 4 again versus 8 and 8. So there's a disparity. Which is better? The one where elite models die at the same rate as hordes or the one where a roughly equal amount of points got killed?

The one where the anti-elite gun kills elites efficiently and hordes less efficiently? Do the same math with a 4th edition Leman Russ Exterminator with HB sponsons (the anti-ork one that doesn't kill Marines well) and get back to me. This is like asking "is it good if an AP2 weapon kills terminators and Orks equally?"

Well, yes, because that means it is efficient against terminators and not against Orks.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Anti-tank guns were also considerably more capable of scoring a devastating blow. Your ordnance weapons would even get a 2D6 pen roll. A lucky set of rolls will see you off from a single shot. The same is no longer possible. You want no move and fire infantry? Then we'll see only vehicles.

Which is why 4th edition (that had these rules) was a vehicular terror and vehicles in 4th definitely aren't remembered mostly for being deathtraps...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Rapid fire bolters are not what's wrong with the game. Remember when marines could fire one shot in 8th and marines were pretty awful and then we got beta rules?
Vehicles weapons and facings are not what's wrong with the game ( unless you want to make the case that aircraft are fixed by making them face what they want to shoot, but then they'd be pretty useless ).

Insectum's point speaks for itself.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Is 40K deadly? Yes.
Are restrictions good? You bet.
Can more be done to make 40K better? Absolutely.

But we have a problem where people basically ignore the pieces they didn't like from the old editions to make this one the most savage. They pretend that low terrain tables now are more lethal than low terrain tables then. And remember how special characters were banned for literal editions at a time?

40K has issues. There are good suggestions and valid gripes out there and I'm not going to bother going through all of that again. But the community also has an issue where it's incapable of dealing with change and that's been a problem through every edition.

Perhaps modifying older editions is a better way to go than redefining from the ground up every now and again. GW can't do this well though

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Perhaps modifying older editions is a better way to go than redefining from the ground up every now and again. GW can't do this well though

Maybe. I'm not going to sit here and say I didn't enjoy old editions. GW certainly didn't have the discipline to rework things well. They might still not, but I think they're at least a bit more aware.

Hmmm.
Not really a fan.

I think the issue is that people just got around these rules.

I.E. a vehicle couldn't move and shoot effectively? Okay, they just never moved.
Units couldn't split fire? Okay, you just never took guns on units such that you'd ever really want to. Overkill gives rise to MSU but if everyone embraces that, whatever.

I personally think the rules today are better - its just things need less damage output. GW is in control of these stats - you don't need get a 40% return on shooting infantry into infantry. You don't need to average a 100% return because you targeted a tank with an anti-tank gun, or charged a melee unit into basically anything. Those are decisions they've made.

The right kinds of restrictions are good.

Restrictions need to be based on creating interesting choices for the players. Not being able to shoot isn't an interesting choice. You are either in range or you are not. Being able to move and shoot is a good thing. Facings were always a bad thing. Not because they couldn't be made to work, but because the models were never built to work with the rules. Dumb gak like the Necron Ghost Ark having arrays that only fire out a side so it needs to act like a pirate ship.

That is pretty indicative of 40k across the board. Bad restrictions because nobody takes into consideration all the elements of the game. Models built because they look neat, not because they fit with any of the rules.

If a vehicle has to sit still to perform then it's sacrificing something to be at full output. We see that in one unit (Doomsday ark) and it looks pathetic by comparison when another vehicle can move at full speed and still act freely.

At the moment it feels like you have to make less decisions. You can simply rock up, point and click. Yes there's less frustration in that "I can't do this or that" But could that be us as gamers being a bit spoilt?

Yes the lethality has amped up in a lot of areas. As someone mentioned, once upon a time a single gauss weapon had the chance to blow up a landraider. But there was also cases when a massive amount of weapons in the game simply could not even glance said raider.

A boltgun would chop through 5+sv due to how AP worked, but now a guardsmen could get a 6+ which is nice. But on the other hand cover only really affected light infantry. An ork boy would go from a 6+ to a 4+ by sitting behind a barricade. But a marine would only care if being hit by a lascannon.

So many little things have been tweaked over the years that gradually it's built into 40K as we know it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I feel like the previous post needs to be taken with a high degree of salt.

Like sure, Rapid fire bolters aren't a problem. . . But maybe Rapid Fire bolters after moving, with 32" range and -2 are indicative of something? Just maybe?

If you moved you get one shot generally, but certainly 15" is easier than 12". AP2 is only turns 2 and maybe 3. And how many of these units are you seeing? Maybe 3? 15 models are shaping the game?

The old Aggressors were way more stupid than that. gak even without double tap they're probably better on efficiency.

As a UM player (the poster subfaction of the poster faction) I move and rapid fire happily.

But it's beside the point, I'm not saying it's "shaping the game", I'm saying it's indicative of the current paradigm vs. The past.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I feel like the previous post needs to be taken with a high degree of salt.

The previous post is yet another example of him trying to argue that 40k isn't any more lethal today than it was back in previous editions.

I mean, his own posts defeats itself in the morale section alone, where old morale reduced the effectiveness of a unit without actually killing additional models, whereas the current "morale" system straight up murders whole models without interfacing with any of the standard methods we use to determine casualties (toughness, armour saves, damage, wounds, etc.). As I've said before, it's a "lose more" mechanic that only adds to the lethality of the game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I feel like the previous post needs to be taken with a high degree of salt.

The previous post is yet another example of him trying to argue that 40k isn't any more lethal today than it was back in previous editions.

I mean, his own posts defeats itself in the morale section alone, where old morale reduced the effectiveness of a unit without actually killing additional models, whereas the current "morale" system straight up murders whole models without interfacing with any of the standard methods we use to determine casualties (toughness, armour saves, damage, wounds, etc.). As I've said before, it's a "lose more" mechanic that only adds to the lethality of the game.

I mean I wasn't gonna just go straight at it like that, but yeah.

Tbf the CC resolution and morale mechanics in previous editions could be devastating. . . But at least there was some jockeying for position involved.

 Lance845 wrote:
Restrictions need to be based on creating interesting choices for the players. Not being able to shoot isn't an interesting choice. You are either in range or you are not. Being able to move and shoot is a good thing.

Having to balance maneuver to optimize positioning against offensive output is one of the most fundamental decisions in most wargames, and 40K nowadays is notable in not using it as a mechanic. I can't imagine what sort of interesting choices you can come up with if even that basic choice is off the table. Did you have anything in mind?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Tbf the CC resolution and morale mechanics in previous editions could be devastating. . . But at least there was some jockeying for position involved.

It also vacillated between "Caught" and "Caught and instantly wiped out!" between editions, and it was never a good rule. It, too, did away with all the structure of removing/causing casualties, and it was a bad rule then, so of course it's a bad rule now.

I'm of the phylosophy than in games, options are more defined by what they can't do than by what they can do.

You'll always have your all-rounder option. Thats a given. Your Mario. Not great at anything. But most people will always gravitate towars something that lacks what they don't want and leans heavier in something they really like.

Restrictions have to come always with the intention of forcing players to take meaningfull choices, to take risks, and to feel the rewards, and the failures. And always without being too lose in your ivory tower of game design, and forgot that under all of this, the game must be fun to play.

But I would not put any edition of warhammer both fantasy or 40k as any example of restrictions made right, TBH. Both games have always been a ton of "rolls dice to see what happens" and players trying to navigate the chaos that ensured. That made for some crazy moments but most of the actual player agency was removed.

Now, most of that stuff has dissapeared. And we have been left with a game where players can control everything, but theres nothing worthy to control.

 catbarf wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Restrictions need to be based on creating interesting choices for the players. Not being able to shoot isn't an interesting choice. You are either in range or you are not. Being able to move and shoot is a good thing.

Having to balance maneuver to optimize positioning against offensive output is one of the most fundamental decisions in most wargames, and 40K nowadays is notable in not using it as a mechanic. I can't imagine what sort of interesting choices you can come up with if even that basic choice is off the table. Did you have anything in mind?

Yeah. Ditching IGOUGO.

None of that stuff matters because your entire army is one massive club that you take turns swinging with your opponent. You don't need to restrict what units can and cannot do based on arbitrary facings. You need to force the PLAYER into decision making by choosing when, what, and to what effect he is using the resources at his disposal in a way that has consequences.

 Lance845 wrote:


Yeah. Ditching IGOUGO.

How would you go about it? Keep the general concept and enable the opponent to react to your actions, similar to how Infinity does it? Or is there any other system around that does away with player turns completely?

I still don't know if AA is the panacea people think it is, or if IGOUGO really is the root of 40k's problems.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Tbf the CC resolution and morale mechanics in previous editions could be devastating. . . But at least there was some jockeying for position involved.

It also vacillated between "Caught" and "Caught and instantly wiped out!" between editions, and it was never a good rule. It, too, did away with all the structure of removing/causing casualties, and it was a bad rule then, so of course it's a bad rule now.

I'll disagree with that. I felt it was a pretty good mechanic fundamentally speaking. Issues arose out of the way modifiers were applied/ignored, but imo 4th handled it best.

 BertBert wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


Yeah. Ditching IGOUGO.

How would you go about it? Keep the general concept and enable the opponent to react to your actions, similar to how Infinity does it? Or is there any other system around that does away with player turns completely?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/801680.page

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/801429.page

IGOUGO is a poison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I still don't know if AA is the panacea people think it is, or if IGOUGO really is the root of 40k's problems.

It's less that AA is a panacea. But it really is that IGOUGO is the root of SO MANY (not all, but many) of 40ks problems.

So much of what 40k is comes out of it's turn structure. Other solutions are band aids on the symptoms instead of addressing the root cause.

I am not saying going AA will fix everything. The problems with GWs designs are far too wide spread for that. But going AA addresses many problems, and provides a solid foundation to move forward from. Even just playing Apoc at 150ish PL (roughly equal to 2k points in 8th) is a huge step up for the game.

Whether it really is the root of 40K's problems or not, I will absolutely concede to Lance that some flavor of AA would add a lot more decision-making to the game. Choosing what to activate and when is a big element of strategy in AA games.

But, I still think part of the problem is lack of meaningful decision-making at the individual unit level, and that requires trade-offs. I think it'd be better if you not only had to decide what unit to activate, but also what you are activating that unit to do, since they wouldn't be capable of doing everything at once.

Since he brought up Apoc, I'd put that forward as a good example- each formation is given an order that dictates what its units can do when it activates. You can move+shoot, stay stationary but shoot at +1 to hit, or move double and/or fight in melee. That's a simple tradeoff between mobility and combat that emphasizes positioning and forces tough decisions. Since you allocate an order to each formation before you start activating formations (and in secret from your opponent), it also means you have to plan ahead, and then make the most of the orders you've already issued even if the battlefield situation is making them no longer relevant.

That's the sort of decision-making that makes for a more engaging experience than just 'I move everything that wants to move, and then everything shoots at full strength, and then I charge everything that wants to charge'. It's not that AA fixes everything, it's that AA meshes with other decision-making elements to produce a deeper play experience.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I feel like the previous post needs to be taken with a high degree of salt.

The previous post is yet another example of him trying to argue that 40k isn't any more lethal today than it was back in previous editions.

I mean, his own posts defeats itself in the morale section alone, where old morale reduced the effectiveness of a unit without actually killing additional models, whereas the current "morale" system straight up murders whole models without interfacing with any of the standard methods we use to determine casualties (toughness, armour saves, damage, wounds, etc.). As I've said before, it's a "lose more" mechanic that only adds to the lethality of the game.

It also vacillated between "Caught" and "Caught and instantly wiped out!" between editions, and it was never a good rule. It, too, did away with all the structure of removing/causing casualties, and it was a bad rule then, so of course it's a bad rule now.

And the old morale system can straight up murder whole units and if not makes them pretty useless. 4th allowed a regroup check when charged and destroyed you if you failed. 5th was an initiative check. And hopefully you rolled a 7+ on that 2D6 and still have half or more of your unit or otherwise you don't even get a chance to regroup.

Unless your army just ignores morale.

You don't get to cherry pick what you like and don't like. Low terrain in 9th? Low terrain in 5th. What happens?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I feel like the previous post needs to be taken with a high degree of salt.

The previous post is yet another example of him trying to argue that 40k isn't any more lethal today than it was back in previous editions.

I mean, his own posts defeats itself in the morale section alone, where old morale reduced the effectiveness of a unit without actually killing additional models, whereas the current "morale" system straight up murders whole models without interfacing with any of the standard methods we use to determine casualties (toughness, armour saves, damage, wounds, etc.). As I've said before, it's a "lose more" mechanic that only adds to the lethality of the game.

It also vacillated between "Caught" and "Caught and instantly wiped out!" between editions, and it was never a good rule. It, too, did away with all the structure of removing/causing casualties, and it was a bad rule then, so of course it's a bad rule now.

And the old morale system straight up murders whole units and if not makes them pretty useless. 4th allowed a regroup check when charged and destroyed you if you failed. 5th was an initiative check. And hopefully you rolled a 7+ on that 2D6 and still have half or more of your unit or otherwise you don't even get a chance to regroup.

Unless your army just ignores morale.

You don't get to cherry pick what you like and don't like. Low terrain in 9th? Low terrain in 5th. What happens?

Why do I care what happened in 5th if my favorite edition was 4th?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why do I care what happened in 5th if my favorite edition was 4th?

Same problem. It's an IGOUGO system. If you don't have adequate terrain the person who goes first has a huge advantage.

This gotcha crap with editions is exhausting. No one wants to sit around and figure out what the efficiency of units were in 3rd or 4th or 5th and depending on which friggin' book was available so it makes it super simple to obfuscate and say things are just hunky dory in old hammer land.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You don't get to cherry pick what you like and don't like.

It doesn't stop you, so why shouldn't the rest of us?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
If you don't have adequate terrain the person who goes first has a huge advantage.

But it's worse now. Demonstrably so. Why don't you get that?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This gotcha crap with editions is exhausting.

Not as much as your "both/same" apologetics.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'll disagree with that. I felt it was a pretty good mechanic fundamentally speaking. Issues arose out of the way modifiers were applied/ignored, but imo 4th handled it best.

The game allowed a near full-strength unit of Chosen Terminators to fall back and be instantly wiped out because an errant Grot was in their way.

I'm sorry, but no. Getting caught/sweeping advanced/wiped out/no retreat was not a good mechanic.

Alternating Activations would certainly be interesting in 40K. But would you need to scrap the phase system? Or would it be AA in each phase?

Giving each unit a move and an aggressive action per turn would be interesting. And let some factions get special rules. Such as elder getting some nonsense or another.

cody.d. wrote:
Alternating Activations would certainly be interesting in 40K. But would you need to scrap the phase system? Or would it be AA in each phase?

Giving each unit a move and an aggressive action per turn would be interesting. And let some factions get special rules. Such as elder getting some nonsense or another.

The basic version that works is just the unit you activate goes through all 4 phases when you activate it. There are a ton of different systems that have been proposed and most work more or less to some extent or the other. But the basic version requires the least work and no modification of the codexes or units. Which, in terms of getting people to play seems to be really important. You can grab the codex as is and just play with the new core rules.

I think a lot could be done for the current version of 40K if you moved restrictions into the army building phase of the game. It's often been said games of 40K are won or lost in the army construction phase. I don't think that is strictly true, but it's not a 0% factor either. The current ruleset basically allows so much freedom that you a well constructed army is so much more powerful than a thematic army in most cases.

But imagine what a difference it would make to the game played if more restrictions or requirements were made for army composition along with better designed points valuations? I'm talking things like:

Less min-maxing detachment options

Point Values that actually include the value of unit leaders and MSU unit selections

Requirements to take more then just minimum-sized units

Points value that encourage unit upgrades rather than bare-bone tax units

 alextroy wrote:
I think a lot could be done for the current version of 40K if you moved restrictions into the army building phase of the game. It's often been said games of 40K are won or lost in the army construction phase. I don't think that is strictly true, but it's not a 0% factor either. The current ruleset basically allows so much freedom that you a well constructed army is so much more powerful than a thematic army in most cases.

But imagine what a difference it would make to the game played if more restrictions or requirements were made for army composition along with better designed points valuations? I'm talking things like:

Less min-maxing detachment options

Point Values that actually include the value of unit leaders and MSU unit selections

Requirements to take more then just minimum-sized units

Points value that encourage unit upgrades rather than bare-bone tax units

You cannot possibly fix the game play issues of 40k by changing things that do not take place during the game.

If you want to devalue the list building you need to increase the value of player choices. There needs to be more tactical depth.

That being said, I think 30k did really interesting things with list building. Including Rites of war changing which FOC slots a unit can fill and flat costs for unit wide upgrades regardless of the size of the unit to create an efficiency of points to counteract the value of MSU (if jump packs costs 10 points whether it's a 5 man unit or a 15 man unit than you want a 15 man unit to get your best bang for your buck).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It doesn't stop you, so why shouldn't the rest of us?

If you say so.

But it's worse now. Demonstrably so. Why don't you get that?

You have no data to demonstrate this. All you have is vague feelings from a game you played regularly more than 10 years ago and I have anecdotes of horribly broken armies. And the kind of people playing oldhammer now aren't the type to go around making crazy lists, either.

The horse has left the barn. We have flyers and knights now and people aren't going to give those up any more than Unit will give up his superheavies.

There's stuff that we'll agree that could be done to make the game better, but this endless crusade of "it isn't the old 40K" just makes me feel like we're at a political rally full of octogenarians than think the 50s were best for everyone.

Anyway, I can feel myself getting into trouble again so I'll step out.