Switch Theme:

Games Workshop talks Rules Intent  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Crimson wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
If we get an AA system I sincerely want Apoc's where casualties tally at end of turn.

I really don't like that. It removes a lot of potential for targeting priority tactics.



It also pushes the game even more to offensive output. If I know that no matter what my opponent does, every unit will get at least one round of being able to do stuff then that further pushes either a unit that is stupid durable or as cheap as possible with enough bite vs point cost.
   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain




On the Internet

 Crimson wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
If we get an AA system I sincerely want Apoc's where casualties tally at end of turn.

I really don't like that. It removes a lot of potential for targeting priority tactics.

On the other hand it flattens out first activation benefits a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
HoundsofDemos wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
If we get an AA system I sincerely want Apoc's where casualties tally at end of turn.

I really don't like that. It removes a lot of potential for targeting priority tactics.



It also pushes the game even more to offensive output. If I know that no matter what my opponent does, every unit will get at least one round of being able to do stuff then that further pushes either a unit that is stupid durable or as cheap as possible with enough bite vs point cost.

So the same things people build for already with cheap chaff or units that can out weather the opponent to deal with alpha strikes or other tactics that wipe units out wholesale?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/17 02:06:43


 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut




Alright slayer, you didn't acknowledge it when I wrote it out in detail, so here's the TLDR.

IGOUGO feels like American football or baseball, with the same rhythm and ebb. You do an offensive drive, I defend; we switch.

AA is like soccer or basketball- it's pure adrenalin, go go go.

I bet you like soccer or hockey more than baseball or American football. I'm cool with that. You're not wrong- those are great games.

I prefer American football and baseball. Like you, I am not wrong or crazy, because both of these sports are also great games.

I am literally stunned at your refusal to see that some people can like things that you don't, and that their reasons for liking what they like are their own.

I'm not asking you to change you point of view, because it's valid to prefer AA for your own reasons, whatever they are. I'm asking you to extend others the same courtesy.

If you argued that we should make football or baseball more like soccer, or if I argued that we should make soccer or basketball more like football and baseball, both of us would be crazy, because we'd be depriving the world of variety.

Now I'm trying to be pretty peacemaker/ kumbaya about this, but I just can't help but point out that 40k has always been and IGOUGO game, and despite that, I can't think of a single game system that has the same combination of popularity and longevity. And that means that literally millions of people have loved IGOUGO enough to spend hundreds of millions of dollars over more than three decades. D&D changed ownership and design philosophy quite starkly over it's history, whereas 40k has stayed far more consistent. I'm not sure if any of the other rpgs around in 87 are still on the market with current releases. 40k is older than any collectible card game on the market.

We can't all be crazy, right? And we can't all have no good reasons to feel the way we so obviously do.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/17 03:21:01


 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Cutting stuff up and bunging it back together in new and interesting ways.






Under the couch

 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
If we get an AA system I sincerely want Apoc's where casualties tally at end of turn.

I really don't like that. It removes a lot of potential for targeting priority tactics.

On the other hand it flattens out first activation benefits a bit.

So does having decent rules for terrain, combined with having a proper amount of cover on the board.

   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain




On the Internet

 insaniak wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
If we get an AA system I sincerely want Apoc's where casualties tally at end of turn.

I really don't like that. It removes a lot of potential for targeting priority tactics.

On the other hand it flattens out first activation benefits a bit.

So does having decent rules for terrain, combined with having a proper amount of cover on the board.

Aye, but despite 30 years of gameplay we can't seem to nail that on our own so at this point I'd rather the rules address it.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






 ClockworkZion wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
If we get an AA system I sincerely want Apoc's where casualties tally at end of turn.

I really don't like that. It removes a lot of potential for targeting priority tactics.

On the other hand it flattens out first activation benefits a bit.

So does having decent rules for terrain, combined with having a proper amount of cover on the board.

Aye, but despite 30 years of gameplay we can't seem to nail that on our own so at this point I'd rather the rules address it.

I don't see why, it really doesn't take too much effort to make reasonable terrain. Better terrain rules would help too, but seriously, foamcore and styrofoam go a long way.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain




On the Internet

 Insectum7 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
If we get an AA system I sincerely want Apoc's where casualties tally at end of turn.

I really don't like that. It removes a lot of potential for targeting priority tactics.

On the other hand it flattens out first activation benefits a bit.

So does having decent rules for terrain, combined with having a proper amount of cover on the board.

Aye, but despite 30 years of gameplay we can't seem to nail that on our own so at this point I'd rather the rules address it.

I don't see why, it really doesn't take too much effort to make reasonable terrain. Better terrain rules would help too, but seriously, foamcore and styrofoam go a long way.

You should look at tournament photos. So many mostly empty cities, forests and planet bowling balls.
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







 ClockworkZion wrote:
...Aye, but despite 30 years of gameplay we can't seem to nail that on our own so at this point I'd rather the rules address it.


The fact that every edition makes it easier to move and fire, gives weapons longer range, adds higher rate-of-fire to all weapons and more rerolls, etc. has nothing to do with it, I suppose.

Victoria est autem vita.

Stories at https://knightofthegrey.wordpress.com/
Game-related musings at https://thescenicdetour.wordpress.com/
Both updated irregularly 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






 ClockworkZion wrote:

You should look at tournament photos. So many mostly empty cities, forests and planet bowling balls.


Oh I've seen 'em. It's a horrorshow. That doesn't mean terrain making is hard, though. It's a readily surmountable issue.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

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




 Insectum7 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:

You should look at tournament photos. So many mostly empty cities, forests and planet bowling balls.


Oh I've seen 'em. It's a horrorshow. That doesn't mean terrain making is hard, though. It's a readily surmountable issue.


I agree with this. Large tournaments, for understandable reasons can't put together that much terrain, especially if they want every table to look more or less identical. Players are traveling from far and wide and expecting them to drag a box of terrain as well isn't realistic.

This is one of many reasons I've never really enjoyed a tournament with more than maybe a dozen players. Terrain suffers and that effects way to much in game, since planet bowling ball leads to a far less interesting game than one that requires a lot of movement to either get a full units shot off or to set up a reliable charge.
   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain




On the Internet

 Insectum7 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:

You should look at tournament photos. So many mostly empty cities, forests and planet bowling balls.


Oh I've seen 'em. It's a horrorshow. That doesn't mean terrain making is hard, though. It's a readily surmountable issue.

And yet I have seen and heard of story after story of people playing on tables just like those or worse for years.

To make it worse some players actually prefer tables with little to no terrain.

So yeah, we need to flatten first activation advantage so we don't have to rely on terrain to balance the game.

@AnomanderRake that definitely has made the problem more pronounced and is why I feel one of the big rebalancing points in the game is a real fix to preventing whomecer goes fordt each turn from having an advantage.
   
Made in us
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'




Douglasville, GA

To be fair, there IS such a thing as too much terrain, as well as too little. I think, for many players, finding the "perfect balance" is too difficult, so they just plop a few pieces down and call it a day.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




To address the above, I don't disagree that the game shouldn't entirely be balanced around having a certain percentage of terrain on the board. That said terrain is the cheapest part of this hobby. All it has to do really is provide either a way to get a better angle for a shot or an assault, block LOS, or slow down movement.

You can spend 1000's to get various kits to do that and make a truly beautiful table. Alternatively, go grab some books to make a building or two. Same way to make a hill, and most hobby stores will sell Styrofoam that with a bit of elbow grease can be made into almost anything.

Not having enough terrain on the board is a personal choice and I don't get people who want to fight with guns and artillery (outside of a very specific narrative mission) ignoring the third player in the game.

My ideal board will have asymmetrical terrain that forces real choices on what side you want based on the army you brought and what the missions is.
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







 ClockworkZion wrote:
...@AnomanderRake that definitely has made the problem more pronounced and is why I feel one of the big rebalancing points in the game is a real fix to preventing whomecer goes fordt each turn from having an advantage.


First turn advantage wasn't a serious issue in Warmachine because the game was heavily melee-focused and models didn't deploy in range to attack. First turn advantage is serious in 40k because everything is a giant cannon capable of blasting models three tables away. Blaming the issue on the turn order and trying to overcomplicate the game further isn't going to solve the issue if you keep letting people deploy armies capable of wiping each other off the table in a turn or two of shooting in range to shoot each other.

Adding extra stuff to the game without addressing the actual problems (because it'd be too hard and require undoing some of the things in the army books you've sold people) is exactly the mistake that GW makes that leads to excess bloat, wild imbalance, and constant edition changes.

Victoria est autem vita.

Stories at https://knightofthegrey.wordpress.com/
Game-related musings at https://thescenicdetour.wordpress.com/
Both updated irregularly 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Trasvi wrote:
Karol wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Karol wrote:
But the point difference isn't big enough for anyone to ever take ogryns, unless someone plays some weird point armies and not 2000.

1750 is pretty common in Europe.
1500 aswell
1000 doubles and single also.


1750 is only for tournaments, never seen or heard anyone playing 1500pts. And for doubles you need someone who would want to play on your side. And that is not always the case.


Thats unfortunate, around my area 2000pts is maybe the most common but still less than half, many tournaments are run anywhere between 750 and 1850. I think lower points is actually tonnes of fun.
pas

@Ogryn vs Bullgryn.
The response from Insaniak was: You can't say that bullgryn are ALWAYS BETTER ALL THE TIME than Ogyrns, because Ogryns are better in one aspect (points). Yes, they're not cheaper enough to be justified in most situations, but it is still a possibility of game space that can be explored.
The really abysmal options in the game are ones where they have literally no redeeming features. Like when you find that Disintegrators do better damage vs every target in the game than Dark Lances, while being cheaper.
Thankfully those are few and far between, and much more common are the Ogryn vs Bullgryn debates, where one is clearly better.

The problem I have with those kind of debates, where one unit is clearly outperforming for its points cost, is that they are very easy to tell. And this gets back to the Rules writers's job - if Joe Random on the internet can pick up a codex and identify the best options with ease, why can't the designers do that? Its literally their job.




I'm glad you see my point, but I still don't think Ogryns would see any time even if you couldn't afford Bullgryns, their cost difference is still such they are pointless aside from a very casual list or taking as a handicap unit against a less experienced player. You'd simply fill the points cost with more troop squads and guns, as they won't survive in CC or to get to CC with any numbers to make any reasonable difference.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:

You should look at tournament photos. So many mostly empty cities, forests and planet bowling balls.


Oh I've seen 'em. It's a horrorshow. That doesn't mean terrain making is hard, though. It's a readily surmountable issue.

And yet I have seen and heard of story after story of people playing on tables just like those or worse for years.

To make it worse some players actually prefer tables with little to no terrain.

So yeah, we need to flatten first activation advantage so we don't have to rely on terrain to balance the game.

@AnomanderRake that definitely has made the problem more pronounced and is why I feel one of the big rebalancing points in the game is a real fix to preventing whomecer goes fordt each turn from having an advantage.


40K leaves at least some responsibility to the players to ensure they get the sort of experience they want. I've seen players play 'slophammer' since 2nd edition, where they line up 4000 points on either side of a barren table and just start rolling dice. Yeah, I know it happens.

GW used to provide articles on how to make terrain, and rules for how to set up terrain, now they provide more terrain options to buy. TO's I guess don't want to cart around a bunch of high-volume pieces (or more than they feel they have to), and tables with less terrain make the game go faster, generally speaking. So there are reasons why they don't pack it up to densely.

But still, you should be able to make the game that you want, and part of that is taking responsibility for the tables you play on.

That said, GW should really (REALLY) bring back the old forest rules, where forests were effectively templates that flat out blocked LOS through them. Apparently that was too cognitively challenging, or something.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

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




 Agamemnon2 wrote:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
It's tragic sad that after all this time they've been around they've been bad. Couldn't they just figure out some imagine role for ogryns ? Maybe they have another special rule ? Give their ripper gun more capability ? Increase their movement for the lighter armor ? A number of other things could be done. They give lip service to the dream of balance.


It is particularly tragic when you consider the fact that Ogryns have never been good. Not even by accident. They're always been overcosted, susceptible to Instant Death, unable to reliably reach their targets, crippled by Ld 6, etc, depending on edition and codex. The best they did was probably in 2nd edition, and that's highly conjectural given the scarcity of anecdotes, nevermind data. It was something of a pastime of mine in the 4th / 5th edition days to houserule different ways to make the unit worth taking, but they never were.

In the end, I began to wish for them to be removed from the codex instead, to have them put out of their misery (because short ranged shock assault troops seemed contrary to how the IG list of the time was built, it was questionable if they should have had a place within it). And I felt that way not out of malice, but despair. I own 15 Ogryns which I've never been able to field all at once, because they cost as much as a Baneblade, yet could not reliably handle a squad of Dire Avengers worth maybe 20% of their points (and fared even worse against anything harder-hitting than that). They were a joke back then. I was actually laughed at for fielding them, doubly so since I'd spent so much time customizing my own squad with what I naively thought were good sculpting and painting efforts (they weren't, my entire army still looks like dogshit).


That is such a sad story and I relate. Yes, they've never managed to by accident be good. I have 16 Ogryns, love the idea, the models, hate how they are constantly left to do absolute crap. They feel so fun, but perform so poorly they struggle to hurt or let alone destroy anything and that is just shameful for what they are there to do.

Also, don't bash your modeling/painting skills, you tried and thats all any of us can do, I'm sure they are nicer than perhaps you think they are. I'm sure they are cool looking at least.

Edit: I actually miss some elements of old terrain depth in the rules as well I really liked it when fortifications entered the scene just as a way to make sure your army had terrain to hide behind or use. I don't know what most thoughts on it were but I see how it would be a points sink but cheaper bits of terrain just felt good to know you wouldn't be left out to dry no matter how the table was set up.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/17 04:52:16


 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Cutting stuff up and bunging it back together in new and interesting ways.






Under the couch

 ClockworkZion wrote:

To make it worse some players actually prefer tables with little to no terrain..

...and will then complain about getting tabled by shooty armies in the first turn.


To be fair, it's not unreasonable to want game rules that allow for as broad a range of terrain types as possible, and that should include being able to play on a mostly bare table. But 40K has always worked better with large amounts of terrain on the table, and with a good amount of that being full LOS-blocking. A lot of people have just never got that memo.




 flandarz wrote:
To be fair, there IS such a thing as too much terrain, ...

Heresy!





   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




HoundsofDemos wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:

You should look at tournament photos. So many mostly empty cities, forests and planet bowling balls.


Oh I've seen 'em. It's a horrorshow. That doesn't mean terrain making is hard, though. It's a readily surmountable issue.


I agree with this. Large tournaments, for understandable reasons can't put together that much terrain, especially if they want every table to look more or less identical. Players are traveling from far and wide and expecting them to drag a box of terrain as well isn't realistic.

This is one of many reasons I've never really enjoyed a tournament with more than maybe a dozen players. Terrain suffers and that effects way to much in game, since planet bowling ball leads to a far less interesting game than one that requires a lot of movement to either get a full units shot off or to set up a reliable charge.


If GW where to put in rules out for more interesting city buildings, i could see that working out better for tables. If the rules where set up well you could use cheap boxes. to represent the city buildings, that block line of sight and maybe even hide units and objectives in them. Would do a hell of a lot of for the meta.

one of 40k big issue with its turn structure is its weapon reach and damage, so anything to disrupt that with terrain would be great. And city fights look good for photos as well.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




PenitentJake wrote:
Alright slayer, you didn't acknowledge it when I wrote it out in detail, so here's the TLDR.

IGOUGO feels like American football or baseball, with the same rhythm and ebb. You do an offensive drive, I defend; we switch.

AA is like soccer or basketball- it's pure adrenalin, go go go.

I bet you like soccer or hockey more than baseball or American football. I'm cool with that. You're not wrong- those are great games.

I prefer American football and baseball. Like you, I am not wrong or crazy, because both of these sports are also great games.

I am literally stunned at your refusal to see that some people can like things that you don't, and that their reasons for liking what they like are their own.

I'm not asking you to change you point of view, because it's valid to prefer AA for your own reasons, whatever they are. I'm asking you to extend others the same courtesy.

If you argued that we should make football or baseball more like soccer, or if I argued that we should make soccer or basketball more like football and baseball, both of us would be crazy, because we'd be depriving the world of variety.

Now I'm trying to be pretty peacemaker/ kumbaya about this, but I just can't help but point out that 40k has always been and IGOUGO game, and despite that, I can't think of a single game system that has the same combination of popularity and longevity. And that means that literally millions of people have loved IGOUGO enough to spend hundreds of millions of dollars over more than three decades. D&D changed ownership and design philosophy quite starkly over it's history, whereas 40k has stayed far more consistent. I'm not sure if any of the other rpgs around in 87 are still on the market with current releases. 40k is older than any collectible card game on the market.

We can't all be crazy, right? And we can't all have no good reasons to feel the way we so obviously do.

You're not serious are you?
American Football and Baseball is NOTHING like IGOUGO because Defense is actively DOING something. They don't set their players up in formation and then stand around doing diddly, wait for the Quarterback to throw, and then act when the receiver caught the ball and is several yards ahead.

You make absolutely NO sense.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain




On the Internet

 AnomanderRake wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
...@AnomanderRake that definitely has made the problem more pronounced and is why I feel one of the big rebalancing points in the game is a real fix to preventing whomecer goes fordt each turn from having an advantage.


First turn advantage wasn't a serious issue in Warmachine because the game was heavily melee-focused and models didn't deploy in range to attack. First turn advantage is serious in 40k because everything is a giant cannon capable of blasting models three tables away. Blaming the issue on the turn order and trying to overcomplicate the game further isn't going to solve the issue if you keep letting people deploy armies capable of wiping each other off the table in a turn or two of shooting in range to shoot each other.

Adding extra stuff to the game without addressing the actual problems (because it'd be too hard and require undoing some of the things in the army books you've sold people) is exactly the mistake that GW makes that leads to excess bloat, wild imbalance, and constant edition changes.

40k will never be WMH as it is too shooting heavy and thus has to address things differently.

And turn priority has always been a complaint, it's just no one can agree how to balance it.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Format issue...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
...@AnomanderRake that definitely has made the problem more pronounced and is why I feel one of the big rebalancing points in the game is a real fix to preventing whomecer goes fordt each turn from having an advantage.


First turn advantage wasn't a serious issue in Warmachine because the game was heavily melee-focused and models didn't deploy in range to attack. First turn advantage is serious in 40k because everything is a giant cannon capable of blasting models three tables away. Blaming the issue on the turn order and trying to overcomplicate the game further isn't going to solve the issue if you keep letting people deploy armies capable of wiping each other off the table in a turn or two of shooting in range to shoot each other.

Adding extra stuff to the game without addressing the actual problems (because it'd be too hard and require undoing some of the things in the army books you've sold people) is exactly the mistake that GW makes that leads to excess bloat, wild imbalance, and constant edition changes.

And turn priority has always been a complaint, it's just no one can agree how to balance it.

It's already been pointed out EXACTLY how to fix this but yeah sure.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/17 05:20:57


CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




IGOYGO main issue with GW seems to be the reach and damage potential of most army. The first turn can be a bloodbath you cannot return from on just luck.
And even some army seem to be designed entirly around doing just that.

Its benefits are that it can shift momentum back from side to side, and you can respond and then get counter on a bigger scale.

I would like to see more response mechanics for a start from 40k.
Have overwatch as a choice during a turn, and let it fire at units after they have moved. Every unit can overwatch on 6+ can be left.
Orks allways overwatch on a 5+ could be a special ork rule.

You could do a lot here with psychic powers, or even special wargear, offering choice for players in both unit makeup and how the game plays.
So players are putting units into overwatch as a choice, giving up shooting. Things like that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/17 05:28:06


 
   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain




On the Internet

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It's already been pointed out EXACTLY how to fix this but yeah sure.

A manner left solely in the hands of players to fix is not a fix.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 ClockworkZion wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It's already been pointed out EXACTLY how to fix this but yeah sure.

A manner left solely in the hands of players to fix is not a fix.

Then we as players demand change. Simple as that.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in dk
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot






First turn advantage doesn't need to be a thing, it can be balanced in a lot of different ways. A lot of competitive tournament winning players will sometimes say taking first turn is a trap, especially against certain armies. A mission rule like first blood, for example, is completely stupid and should not be part of any missions. Mission rules that benefit the player going second are much better, control and to some degree kill more in ITC. Missions that require that you control objectives also helps the player going second assuming one player or the other hasn't been wiped. You can also create mission rules like night fight or hailstorm where in the first battle round you subtract 6-18" from range, subtract 1 from hit rolls or reduce BS by 1.

Creating more defensive Stratagems like Quantum Deflection, Lightning Fast Reflexes or Prepared Positions, nerfing offensive Stratagems like Showin Off and Endless Cacophony would also help the player going second have a more fun game as fewer players will lose more than 20% of their army, a number I think is about as high as damage should go for the player going first.

I think UGOIGO is a problem, but there are a million other solutions for every problem it creates other than AA. AA would be pretty awkward for aura characters and would benefit players that can make one activation count for a lot versus players that need more activations to get through their army. Some rules like auras just work, while other players would have to activate all their support characters first before they'd be able to get around to their units that are getting buffed. Oh you MWBD that unit? Yeah, I'm going to point my hellblasters at them before they get to shoot, now your MWBD is wasted.

Not to mention the time aspect, you'd probably be best off playing Apoc if you want AA since it has that vastly simplified unit and weapon system, so just play tiny Apoc games instead of 40k if you want AA. You can modify Stratagems, WL traits etc for Apoc if you don't like the native Apoc systems, that seems less involved than trying to fit 40k into the AA system and then either ignore any balance issues.

I'm not really buying that AA is the only way to make a turn-based game work, especially not when professional 40k teachers are saying that there are benefits to going second. I played in a wacky mission set a couple of months back and 2/3 missions vastly favoured the player going second between nerfing T1 shooting and end of battle round centric missions. The missions even favoured foot-slogging Necrons and melee if you'd believe it.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Cutting stuff up and bunging it back together in new and interesting ways.






Under the couch

Apple fox wrote:

Have overwatch as a choice during a turn, and let it fire at units after they have moved. Every unit can overwatch on 6+ can be left.
Orks allways overwatch on a 5+ could be a special ork rule.

Once upon a time, Overwatch was something you did instead of shooting in your own shooting phase, allowing you to interrupt your opponent's movement (and later expanded to any time in the opponent's turn) to shoot at units as they moved into sight or range. A return to something like that would have been vastly better than the version that was introduced in 6th edition.

   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







 ClockworkZion wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
...@AnomanderRake that definitely has made the problem more pronounced and is why I feel one of the big rebalancing points in the game is a real fix to preventing whomecer goes fordt each turn from having an advantage.


First turn advantage wasn't a serious issue in Warmachine because the game was heavily melee-focused and models didn't deploy in range to attack. First turn advantage is serious in 40k because everything is a giant cannon capable of blasting models three tables away. Blaming the issue on the turn order and trying to overcomplicate the game further isn't going to solve the issue if you keep letting people deploy armies capable of wiping each other off the table in a turn or two of shooting in range to shoot each other.

Adding extra stuff to the game without addressing the actual problems (because it'd be too hard and require undoing some of the things in the army books you've sold people) is exactly the mistake that GW makes that leads to excess bloat, wild imbalance, and constant edition changes.

40k will never be WMH as it is too shooting heavy and thus has to address things differently.

And turn priority has always been a complaint, it's just no one can agree how to balance it.


Let me rephrase.

You cannot fix Warhammer by introducing alternating activations unless you're prepared to burn the whole thing and start over. I've tried. Basic assumptions about having a movement, shooting, charge, and fight phase are ingrained into how units are designed, the whole concept of being 'engaged in melee', all the sort of conceptual bases of the game.

You might fix Warhammer by correcting the power creep that creates trap options, alpha-strike advantage, and the target priority game where the movement phase is an irrelevant afterthought because your army can sweep all enemies off the table without moving.

And we know exactly how you'd build Warhammer with alternating activations, because Rick Priestley went off and built Antares. Which is Warhammer with alternating activations. As written by the people who invented Warhammer.

Victoria est autem vita.

Stories at https://knightofthegrey.wordpress.com/
Game-related musings at https://thescenicdetour.wordpress.com/
Both updated irregularly 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 insaniak wrote:
Apple fox wrote:

Have overwatch as a choice during a turn, and let it fire at units after they have moved. Every unit can overwatch on 6+ can be left.
Orks allways overwatch on a 5+ could be a special ork rule.

Once upon a time, Overwatch was something you did instead of shooting in your own shooting phase, allowing you to interrupt your opponent's movement (and later expanded to any time in the opponent's turn) to shoot at units as they moved into sight or range. A return to something like that would have been vastly better than the version that was introduced in 6th edition.

Which was only ever used when both opponents had maybe one unit left and everyone was on indefinite Overwatch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vict0988 wrote:
Spoiler:
First turn advantage doesn't need to be a thing, it can be balanced in a lot of different ways. A lot of competitive tournament winning players will sometimes say taking first turn is a trap, especially against certain armies. A mission rule like first blood, for example, is completely stupid and should not be part of any missions. Mission rules that benefit the player going second are much better, control and to some degree kill more in ITC. Missions that require that you control objectives also helps the player going second assuming one player or the other hasn't been wiped. You can also create mission rules like night fight or hailstorm where in the first battle round you subtract 6-18" from range, subtract 1 from hit rolls or reduce BS by 1.

Creating more defensive Stratagems like Quantum Deflection, Lightning Fast Reflexes or Prepared Positions, nerfing offensive Stratagems like Showin Off and Endless Cacophony would also help the player going second have a more fun game as fewer players will lose more than 20% of their army, a number I think is about as high as damage should go for the player going first.

I think UGOIGO is a problem, but there are a million other solutions for every problem it creates other than AA. AA would be pretty awkward for aura characters and would benefit players that can make one activation count for a lot versus players that need more activations to get through their army. Some rules like auras just work, while other players would have to activate all their support characters first before they'd be able to get around to their units that are getting buffed. Oh you MWBD that unit? Yeah, I'm going to point my hellblasters at them before they get to shoot, now your MWBD is wasted.

Not to mention the time aspect, you'd probably be best off playing Apoc if you want AA since it has that vastly simplified unit and weapon system, so just play tiny Apoc games instead of 40k if you want AA. You can modify Stratagems, WL traits etc for Apoc if you don't like the native Apoc systems, that seems less involved than trying to fit 40k into the AA system and then either ignore any balance issues.

I'm not really buying that AA is the only way to make a turn-based game work, especially not when professional 40k teachers are saying that there are benefits to going second. I played in a wacky mission set a couple of months back and 2/3 missions vastly favoured the player going second between nerfing T1 shooting and end of battle round centric missions. The missions even favoured foot-slogging Necrons and melee if you'd believe it.

We literally have a Strat that basically Grant's everyone +1 to their save.

You can pretend there are advantages to going second (there are VERY few), but first turn basically dictates how the game goes.

Also the fact you decided to drop Footcrons as viable in certain missions is one of the most hilarious things I've ever read. Go tell everyone in the Necron Tactica thread about your "finding". I'll get the popcorn.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/17 06:55:47


CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Cutting stuff up and bunging it back together in new and interesting ways.






Under the couch

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Which was only ever used when both opponents had maybe one unit left and everyone was on indefinite Overwatch.

Your experience of 2nd edition was apparently vastly different to mine, and that of every other person I've discussed it with in the last 20 years...

Overwatch was extremely widely used, particularly by Guard and more shooty-styled Marine armies. If anything, the complaint was that it was used too much.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: