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.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Was it good for more standard point size too?

Better than normal 40k if you make some tweaks to the rules, primarily to the detachment size so that each army has multiple detachments. I'd probably also consider doubling the attacks and wounds of everything so you even out the RNG spikes a bit, with only a standard army on each side a couple bad rolls can too easily decide a game. Double both attacks and wounds and you keep all the offense to defense ratios the same but have a few more dice involved to give a better bell curve. And I'd probably give some thought to how well the stratagem system scales or if you want to include it at all. But overall it's at least a good foundation for a game and it's unfortunate that GW dumped it as soon as they released it.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Was it good for more standard point size too?

Better than normal 40k if you make some tweaks to the rules, primarily to the detachment size so that each army has multiple detachments. I'd probably also consider doubling the attacks and wounds of everything so you even out the RNG spikes a bit, with only a standard army on each side a couple bad rolls can too easily decide a game. Double both attacks and wounds and you keep all the offense to defense ratios the same but have a few more dice involved to give a better bell curve. And I'd probably give some thought to how well the stratagem system scales or if you want to include it at all. But overall it's at least a good foundation for a game and it's unfortunate that GW dumped it as soon as they released it.

I guess GW didn't want to cannibalize their 40K sales so they marketed the whole thing for players with huge collections and/ or huge models. Iirc the rulebook says the standard game is supposed to be 250 PL (5000points!) on a 4x8 table...

Thanks for those replies, seems sad that GW didn't care to actually build it further.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:Do they use the full value of it, though? GW uses a D6 but then uses them in such a way that the range of results exists between 40 and 60 percent. Way back in the day when building out Conqueror, I noticed that all of GW's re-rolls, save, modifers, etc. really gave you extreme granularity in a narrow range.

Going out to d12 only makes sense if it's being fully used. I think d12s are generally a poor choice for dice. They are larger, more expensive, more prone to rolling under something and easier to be cocked and require re-rolling.

Since I don't play the game, I don't know, so these are honest questions.

Yes, actually- and not only does the game use the full range of the D12, it also rolls to hit on D6s and keeps numbers of shots to a reasonable level, so you're rarely ever having to roll more than 3-4 D12s at a time. When you take armor saves, the mechanic by which 2 D12 rolls consolidate into a single D6 roll means you're never rolling more than one D12 for saves at a time.

It's the sort of elegant design that shows that the designers actually played it and made concessions for playability, rather than something that works on paper but is hard to actually play in real life. Looking at you, ka'tah flowchart.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:If desired, GW could do all the fires on a table, aggregating the weapons of squads on a matrix. Roll a die, apply the result.

On that note, are you familiar with Battlefleet Gothic? It uses a gunnery table that while daunting at first glance, is able to take a starting firepower value and adjust for target size, target bearing, range, intervening obstacles, and really any other modifier. You figure out the total and then roll the dice once against the target's armor value (no roll to hit), re-rolling fails if you're on Lock-On special orders, and that's it. It's an elegant system that avoids buckets of dice or needing successive rolls to resolve a basic attack.

In a similar vein, Dust Warfare gives each unit a target class (type + number- Infantry 2, Vehicle 4, etc), and then each weapon has a firepower rating for each different target type. So a unit that might get 6 dice shooting up unarmored infantry only gets one die against a tank, and if that shot hits (on a 5+, because everything in the game succeeds on a 5+) then the target still gets an armor save. Quick, elegant, and maybe more importantly makes it very easy for the designers to tweak performance against specific target types without unanticipated consequences.

The 40K system of successive rolls to simulate every step of shooting may be more modern than Avalon Hill style CRTs, but not by much, and there are more elegant ways to do it.

Dudeface wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
I'll eagerly believe that in a game of such variety as 40k, having D12 for granularity sounds good to me. Too bad I didn't heard about these rules before!

Was it good for more standard point size too?

It was based off detachment activations, so if you're 2k army could be split into multiple detachments you're fine, might be a bit weird if not.

IIRC the Apocalypse detachments are the same as 8th Ed detachments, but with the crucial tweak of one fewer HQ requirement. So it is much easier to make smaller detachments to comprise an army, and having 3-4 at what would be a 2000pt 40K game is quite doable.

 catbarf wrote:
On that note, are you familiar with Battlefleet Gothic? It uses a gunnery table that while daunting at first glance, is able to take a starting firepower value and adjust for target size, target bearing, range, intervening obstacles, and really any other modifier. You figure out the total and then roll the dice once against the target's armor value (no roll to hit), re-rolling fails if you're on Lock-On special orders, and that's it. It's an elegant system that avoids buckets of dice or needing successive rolls to resolve a basic attack.

Yes, still have the books but sold the minis due to lack of opponents. That was sort of what I was thinking of, actually.

The 40K system of successive rolls to simulate every step of shooting may be more modern than Avalon Hill style CRTs, but not by much, and there are more elegant ways to do it.

Agreed.

They Poxyclipse rules didn't interest me because when they came out, I was only marginally following GW and the notion of filling a board with models struck me as a very tedious thing to do - akin to moving fantasy armies without movement trays.

When I was a young bachelor I did crazy stuff like that, mega-battles over the course of a weekend, but now I prefer more less time commitment.

It assume the Higher Ups allowed this rival system to exist because the insane model count required caused them to swoon with visions of people buying "starter armies" that would clean out a store.

 catbarf wrote:
...On that note, are you familiar with Battlefleet Gothic? It uses a gunnery table that while daunting at first glance, is able to take a starting firepower value and adjust for target size, target bearing, range, intervening obstacles, and really any other modifier. You figure out the total and then roll the dice once against the target's armor value (no roll to hit), re-rolling fails if you're on Lock-On special orders, and that's it. It's an elegant system that avoids buckets of dice or needing successive rolls to resolve a basic attack...

Some friends and I reverse-engineered it once. It's a lookup table for how many hits you'd expect on X d6s hitting on (y+), and left/right column shifts are +1/-1 to hit.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Some friends and I reverse-engineered it once. It's a lookup table for how many hits you'd expect on X d6s hitting on (y+), and left/right column shifts are +1/-1 to hit.

GW is particularly opaque in allowing you to calculate the odds. The old Avalon Hill boardgames and the like were at least up front with what the odds were: if you get to 3:1, no risk of Attacker Eliminated. At 2:1, 1 in 6 chance.

As part of designing Conqueror, I broke down the Fantasy system by percentages and then figured out a way to do it with less dice that also had larger range of outcomes. A lot of the old special rules were attempts to paper over their relatively inconsequential differences in core stats (the numbers looked big, but the percentage shifts were small).

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:They Poxyclipse rules didn't interest me because when they came out, I was only marginally following GW and the notion of filling a board with models struck me as a very tedious thing to do - akin to moving fantasy armies without movement trays.

When I was a young bachelor I did crazy stuff like that, mega-battles over the course of a weekend, but now I prefer more less time commitment.

I hear that. Apocalypse is expressly designed to be played with five-model or ten-model movement trays, and it does sensible things to facilitate it, like not making the individual positioning of your dudes matter. I find it really cuts down on the tedium of movement, and with the alternating activation system there's a lot less downtime than 40K proper.

Really, it's a lot like playing Epic with 28mm models- not at all like the earlier incarnations of Apocalypse, which were geared towards those weekend-long games.

But I'll admit I haven't played much Apocalypse in the last two years, because I really like NetEA (Epic:Armageddon plus fan-maintained content) for the big games, while Grimdark Future scratches that 'simpler 40K' itch.

 catbarf wrote:
But I'll admit I haven't played much Apocalypse in the last two years, because I really like NetEA (Epic:Armageddon plus fan-maintained content) for the big games, while Grimdark Future scratches that 'simpler 40K' itch.

An unanticipated side effect of churn is that it has created editions that various discrete groups of players prefer and want to stick with.

I like 2nd because I feel it was close to being finished, has a low model count, and was very closely aligned with the fluff at the time. There is no reason for me to "get current," especially when it's a given that the rules will change in less than 3 years.

Playing an out of print edition also frees one from the in-edition changes and upgrades. In a weird way, it's easier to recruit new players because the rules won't be updated - they know what they are getting into.

Gunnery type tables have been a feature of many wargames for years, ways of boiling a lot of dice rolling down to one or two rolls per unit.

it makes a lot of sense but GW seem to think each dice rolled adds to the fun, its just a different approach

One benefit of the "buckets of dice" approach is you can get the Law of Large Numbers with flat dice probabilities that can shift and change.

The only other good way to replicate this effect is a triangular probability generated by rolling multiple dice and adding them together (e.g. 2d6).

Otherwise, a big set of flat probabilities is very swingy and unpredictable (which may be your design goal!).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Otherwise, a big set of flat probabilities is very swingy and unpredictable (which may be your design goal!).

It can be - but there are ways around it which 40k also employs.
I mean, if you are hitting or wounding on 2s rerolling 1s, you don't need a bucket of dice to be fairly confident on the number of hits you are going to get.

I feel the bucket of dice problem is more GW accounting backwards.
So you have unit X costing 100 points. Against its preferred target it hits on 3s and wounds on 3s.
Then in another faction you have unit Y in a different faction. Also 100 points. Against its preferred target, its hitting on 5s and wounding on 5s. Because this is very fluffy.
But to balance, we now need to give unit Y around 4 times as many shots as unit X. (9*2/3*2/3=4. 36*1/3*1/3=4). If unit X had 10 shots, unit Y needs to be rolling 40.

Its the same as "we've buffed Marines to make them tough because that fits our vision". "Okay but now basic troops of other factions with low S no AP guns are functionally useless into marines." "Okay give them rules so they aren't useless. Buff their S, AP, attack count, give lots of rerolls or whatever it takes." "But then Marines aren't tough any more?"

See also "10th has buffed vehicle durability because they were too easy to kill last edition, odds are they don't die as quickly now" and "melta sucks now, it needs to be buffed so it's as statistically likely to kill vehicles as last edition."

Its this tension between "the game as a simulation" vs "the game as a game". Its not obvious it can ever be resolved - and is another stimulus to churn.

Tyel wrote:

See also "10th has buffed vehicle durability because they were too easy to kill last edition, odds are they don't die as quickly now" and "melta sucks now, it needs to be buffed so it's as statistically likely to kill vehicles as last edition."

Thing is melta has always been a dedicated anti-tank weapon with a big downside, it wounding heavy tanks on 5+ is ridiculous.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Tyel wrote:

See also "10th has buffed vehicle durability because they were too easy to kill last edition, odds are they don't die as quickly now" and "melta sucks now, it needs to be buffed so it's as statistically likely to kill vehicles as last edition."

Thing is melta has always been a dedicated anti-tank weapon with a big downside, it wounding heavy tanks on 5+ is ridiculous.

They're fairly damn close to getting it right, if Melta was simply anti vehicle/monster 4+ or even +2S, it'd be dong much better than it is now. The problem being that it's not that hard to spam melta and get close, admittedly it's harder to get into that melta range, which is why I think it's fine as is apart from the half range rule not adding enough reward.

Tyel wrote:
Its this tension between "the game as a simulation" vs "the game as a game". Its not obvious it can ever be resolved - and is another stimulus to churn.

I don't think GW's inability to strike good balance compromises arises from the tension between verisimilitude and gameplay. Rather it's their inability to execute to a coherent design vision, unwillingness to extensively playtest before release, and use of a system with so many moving parts that making tweaks is like playing Jenga with blocks made of Jello.

Players and GW getting overly invested in the fantasy of certain factions doesn't help, though.

Dudeface wrote:

They're fairly damn close to getting it right, if Melta was simply anti vehicle/monster 4+ or even +2S, it'd be dong much better than it is now. The problem being that it's not that hard to spam melta and get close, admittedly it's harder to get into that melta range, which is why I think it's fine as is apart from the half range rule not adding enough reward.

yeah but right now its a weird anti-elite gun, and for some reason grav is the new anti-tank one.

Melta X should add X STRENGHT and damage when in half range

I think dudeface idea to be anti X +4 at half range would be enough. It would also be a nice differential between melta and lascanons. Lascanons have the range, the strenght, but melta will +4 wound even something with t16 or t8, you just have to get within 3-6-12".

But who knows which one of that math equasions GW would find harder for their players to deal with +X to strenght or always wound on +4.

 catbarf wrote:
I don't think GW's inability to strike good balance compromises arises from the tension between verisimilitude and gameplay. Rather it's their inability to execute to a coherent design vision, unwillingness to extensively playtest before release, and use of a system with so many moving parts that making tweaks is like playing Jenga with blocks made of Jello.

Players and GW getting overly invested in the fantasy of certain factions doesn't help, though.

Indeed, and that vision would include an idea of how the fluff is supposed to work. That's also somewhat fluid. Is 40k combat modeled on future-modern so shooting is very important and only dedicated units (like assault marines) can cross the beaten ground to achieve melee combat?

Or is the heart of the game a melee scrum punctuated by long-range fire? Do vehicles advance at a walking pace, or thunder across the tabletop in a single turn?

Historical games don't have these problems because the players will sniff out problems. If a Sherman is capable of hitting 60 MPH at scale, people will point it out. If you can take down a Panther simply by firing enough Grease Guns into it, people will have a problem.

Obviously, 40k is fictional, but other systems are far more consistent on capabilities, even as the IP moves around between publishers (see Star Wars, LotR, etc.).

And on top of it all, you have constantly-expanding product lines, so the pressure is there to create not just new factions, but new units and vehicles within existing factions, and all of these need design space to differentiate themselves. If they can't, the design has to be altered so that they can.

Well, at least that's how GW sees it. Battle Tech is remarkably stable and while it has some issues, I'm confident I could sit down to a game after 20 years away and be up to speed in no time, especially if I'm using the old mechs of my youth.

The problem with GW's churn is that I have no idea what tactical marines even do now.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
The problem with GW's churn is that I have no idea what tactical marines even do now.

Great news! GW will be removing them soon so you won't have to worry about this question and can focus on what really matters: buying new primaris marines.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I don't think GW's inability to strike good balance compromises arises from the tension between verisimilitude and gameplay. Rather it's their inability to execute to a coherent design vision, unwillingness to extensively playtest before release, and use of a system with so many moving parts that making tweaks is like playing Jenga with blocks made of Jello.

Players and GW getting overly invested in the fantasy of certain factions doesn't help, though.

Indeed, and that vision would include an idea of how the fluff is supposed to work. That's also somewhat fluid. Is 40k combat modeled on future-modern so shooting is very important and only dedicated units (like assault marines) can cross the beaten ground to achieve melee combat?

Or is the heart of the game a melee scrum punctuated by long-range fire? Do vehicles advance at a walking pace, or thunder across the tabletop in a single turn?

Historical games don't have these problems because the players will sniff out problems. If a Sherman is capable of hitting 60 MPH at scale, people will point it out. If you can take down a Panther simply by firing enough Grease Guns into it, people will have a problem.

Obviously, 40k is fictional, but other systems are far more consistent on capabilities, even as the IP moves around between publishers (see Star Wars, LotR, etc.).

And on top of it all, you have constantly-expanding product lines, so the pressure is there to create not just new factions, but new units and vehicles within existing factions, and all of these need design space to differentiate themselves. If they can't, the design has to be altered so that they can.

Well, at least that's how GW sees it. Battle Tech is remarkably stable and while it has some issues, I'm confident I could sit down to a game after 20 years away and be up to speed in no time, especially if I'm using the old mechs of my youth.

The problem with GW's churn is that I have no idea what tactical marines even do now.

Fully agree. The variety of medias and frequent changes to the rules of the game blurs it all. Inconsistencies in BL books are not helping in that regard either I suppose.

What is silly is not that we can't figure it as players though, but that GW itself seems to have entirely lost track of what they intended their IP and lore to be. Even if established earlier this probably is a strategy to market their products, it definitely looks like random ork biker stunts and not like a carefully devised marketing plan.

Ambiguous world-building is pretty neat IMO, there are plenty of sci-fi settings where everything is made available and clear. But 40k does not have any authoritative sources like Startrek has its federation, that's part of the grimdark appeal.

There's a lot of give when it comes to game design, which should make things easier as there are a lot of right answers in terms of lore, so you can move things around to fit gameplay. Do Assault Marines need hammer of wrath? No. Does it make no sense for them to have hammer of wrath? No. Should they have hammer of wrath? Maybe, that comes down to which is more fun hammer of wrath or no hammer of wrath.

I also like the fact that not everything is outright stated and that you have got more than enough rooms to make your custom stories and armies, that's the primary interest of 40k to me.

But when it translates to how the rules are handled, and over a couple of years, that brings baffling effects as you wonder what the heck they where thinking about this time.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I don't think GW's inability to strike good balance compromises arises from the tension between verisimilitude and gameplay. Rather it's their inability to execute to a coherent design vision, unwillingness to extensively playtest before release, and use of a system with so many moving parts that making tweaks is like playing Jenga with blocks made of Jello.

Players and GW getting overly invested in the fantasy of certain factions doesn't help, though.

Indeed, and that vision would include an idea of how the fluff is supposed to work. That's also somewhat fluid. Is 40k combat modeled on future-modern so shooting is very important and only dedicated units (like assault marines) can cross the beaten ground to achieve melee combat?

Or is the heart of the game a melee scrum punctuated by long-range fire? Do vehicles advance at a walking pace, or thunder across the tabletop in a single turn?

Historical games don't have these problems because the players will sniff out problems. If a Sherman is capable of hitting 60 MPH at scale, people will point it out. If you can take down a Panther simply by firing enough Grease Guns into it, people will have a problem.

Obviously, 40k is fictional, but other systems are far more consistent on capabilities, even as the IP moves around between publishers (see Star Wars, LotR, etc.).

And on top of it all, you have constantly-expanding product lines, so the pressure is there to create not just new factions, but new units and vehicles within existing factions, and all of these need design space to differentiate themselves. If they can't, the design has to be altered so that they can.

Well, at least that's how GW sees it. Battle Tech is remarkably stable and while it has some issues, I'm confident I could sit down to a game after 20 years away and be up to speed in no time, especially if I'm using the old mechs of my youth.

The problem with GW's churn is that I have no idea what tactical marines even do now.

Fully agree. The variety of medias and frequent changes to the rules of the game blurs it all. Inconsistencies in BL books are not helping in that regard either I suppose.

What is silly is not that we can't figure it as players though, but that GW itself seems to have entirely lost track of what they intended their IP and lore to be. Even if established earlier this probably is a strategy to market their products, it definitely looks like random ork biker stunts and not like a carefully devised marketing plan.

It doesn't help the entire tone and approach to the setting post-gathering storm is so overwhelmingly different, that it makes it so you can't even look at previous methods and use that as direct evidence. Do we need rhinos to be a 10-man transport? In a world of primaris marines and hovering pickup-trucks? Especially after the eventual death of the last firstborn marines? What about the razorback? The predator in a world of gladiators?

So much has changed since Gathering Storm the calculus of these things has changed a lot.

 vict0988 wrote:
Ambiguous world-building is pretty neat IMO, there are plenty of sci-fi settings where everything is made available and clear. But 40k does not have any authoritative sources like Startrek has its federation, that's part of the grimdark appeal.

There's a lot of give when it comes to game design, which should make things easier as there are a lot of right answers in terms of lore, so you can move things around to fit gameplay. Do Assault Marines need hammer of wrath? No. Does it make no sense for them to have hammer of wrath? No. Should they have hammer of wrath? Maybe, that comes down to which is more fun hammer of wrath or no hammer of wrath.

Assault marines with 1 melee weapon, no range special weapons very much need hammer of wrath style damage buff. If they don't have it, then they are not worth playing. Not a problem if someone doesn't like them, but if you like jump pack units or they are the core unit in your army it is not very fun. It is like termintors, do they need +4inv , do they need an inv at all , why not just tell people to L2p better with a multi wound +2sv model?

You need AP4 + for termis invuln to be worth it.... (or AP3 and ignore cover).

And you don't need hammer of wrath for assault intercessors to be playable.

Karol wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Ambiguous world-building is pretty neat IMO, there are plenty of sci-fi settings where everything is made available and clear. But 40k does not have any authoritative sources like Startrek has its federation, that's part of the grimdark appeal.

There's a lot of give when it comes to game design, which should make things easier as there are a lot of right answers in terms of lore, so you can move things around to fit gameplay. Do Assault Marines need hammer of wrath? No. Does it make no sense for them to have hammer of wrath? No. Should they have hammer of wrath? Maybe, that comes down to which is more fun hammer of wrath or no hammer of wrath.

Assault marines with 1 melee weapon, no range special weapons very much need hammer of wrath style damage buff. If they don't have it, then they are not worth playing. Not a problem if someone doesn't like them, but if you like jump pack units or they are the core unit in your army it is not very fun. It is like termintors, do they need +4inv , do they need an inv at all , why not just tell people to L2p better with a multi wound +2sv model?

What would it take for you to change your mind? You show me a model with a 2+Sv datasheet from 10th that wouldn't be OP at 1 point per model and I will agree with you.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I don't think GW's inability to strike good balance compromises arises from the tension between verisimilitude and gameplay. Rather it's their inability to execute to a coherent design vision, unwillingness to extensively playtest before release, and use of a system with so many moving parts that making tweaks is like playing Jenga with blocks made of Jello.

Players and GW getting overly invested in the fantasy of certain factions doesn't help, though.

Indeed, and that vision would include an idea of how the fluff is supposed to work. That's also somewhat fluid. Is 40k combat modeled on future-modern so shooting is very important and only dedicated units (like assault marines) can cross the beaten ground to achieve melee combat?

Or is the heart of the game a melee scrum punctuated by long-range fire? Do vehicles advance at a walking pace, or thunder across the tabletop in a single turn?

Historical games don't have these problems because the players will sniff out problems. If a Sherman is capable of hitting 60 MPH at scale, people will point it out. If you can take down a Panther simply by firing enough Grease Guns into it, people will have a problem.

Obviously, 40k is fictional, but other systems are far more consistent on capabilities, even as the IP moves around between publishers (see Star Wars, LotR, etc.).

And on top of it all, you have constantly-expanding product lines, so the pressure is there to create not just new factions, but new units and vehicles within existing factions, and all of these need design space to differentiate themselves. If they can't, the design has to be altered so that they can.

Well, at least that's how GW sees it. Battle Tech is remarkably stable and while it has some issues, I'm confident I could sit down to a game after 20 years away and be up to speed in no time, especially if I'm using the old mechs of my youth.

The problem with GW's churn is that I have no idea what tactical marines even do now.

Fully agree. The variety of medias and frequent changes to the rules of the game blurs it all. Inconsistencies in BL books are not helping in that regard either I suppose.

What is silly is not that we can't figure it as players though, but that GW itself seems to have entirely lost track of what they intended their IP and lore to be. Even if established earlier this probably is a strategy to market their products, it definitely looks like random ork biker stunts and not like a carefully devised marketing plan.

It doesn't help the entire tone and approach to the setting post-gathering storm is so overwhelmingly different, that it makes it so you can't even look at previous methods and use that as direct evidence. Do we need rhinos to be a 10-man transport? In a world of primaris marines and hovering pickup-trucks? Especially after the eventual death of the last firstborn marines? What about the razorback? The predator in a world of gladiators?

So much has changed since Gathering Storm the calculus of these things has changed a lot.

To be fair, yes, one more instance of GW not knowgin where exactly it is steering its boat.

Don't know how the change from 2nd to 3rd went as far as tone change, but clearly the gathering storm one didn't go that clean and smooth I think.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I don't think GW's inability to strike good balance compromises arises from the tension between verisimilitude and gameplay. Rather it's their inability to execute to a coherent design vision, unwillingness to extensively playtest before release, and use of a system with so many moving parts that making tweaks is like playing Jenga with blocks made of Jello.

Players and GW getting overly invested in the fantasy of certain factions doesn't help, though.

Indeed, and that vision would include an idea of how the fluff is supposed to work. That's also somewhat fluid. Is 40k combat modeled on future-modern so shooting is very important and only dedicated units (like assault marines) can cross the beaten ground to achieve melee combat?

Or is the heart of the game a melee scrum punctuated by long-range fire? Do vehicles advance at a walking pace, or thunder across the tabletop in a single turn?

Historical games don't have these problems because the players will sniff out problems. If a Sherman is capable of hitting 60 MPH at scale, people will point it out. If you can take down a Panther simply by firing enough Grease Guns into it, people will have a problem.

Obviously, 40k is fictional, but other systems are far more consistent on capabilities, even as the IP moves around between publishers (see Star Wars, LotR, etc.).

And on top of it all, you have constantly-expanding product lines, so the pressure is there to create not just new factions, but new units and vehicles within existing factions, and all of these need design space to differentiate themselves. If they can't, the design has to be altered so that they can.

Well, at least that's how GW sees it. Battle Tech is remarkably stable and while it has some issues, I'm confident I could sit down to a game after 20 years away and be up to speed in no time, especially if I'm using the old mechs of my youth.

The problem with GW's churn is that I have no idea what tactical marines even do now.

Fully agree. The variety of medias and frequent changes to the rules of the game blurs it all. Inconsistencies in BL books are not helping in that regard either I suppose.

What is silly is not that we can't figure it as players though, but that GW itself seems to have entirely lost track of what they intended their IP and lore to be. Even if established earlier this probably is a strategy to market their products, it definitely looks like random ork biker stunts and not like a carefully devised marketing plan.

It doesn't help the entire tone and approach to the setting post-gathering storm is so overwhelmingly different, that it makes it so you can't even look at previous methods and use that as direct evidence. Do we need rhinos to be a 10-man transport? In a world of primaris marines and hovering pickup-trucks? Especially after the eventual death of the last firstborn marines? What about the razorback? The predator in a world of gladiators?

So much has changed since Gathering Storm the calculus of these things has changed a lot.

To be fair, yes, one more instance of GW not knowgin where exactly it is steering its boat.

Don't know how the change from 2nd to 3rd went as far as tone change, but clearly the gathering storm one didn't go that clean and smooth I think.

I definitely of the opinion that the Gathering storm was an aborted 40k end times. Due to how poorly the other one went they pulled back from a full reset of the game but the lore damage had been done and the game overhaul still happened. you can argue for better or worse but it's very obvious they were ready to hit the reset button but never quite finished.

agreed

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Overread wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


At least with IGOUGO you know you are actually getting a turn. Half your army will be dead, but you will get a turn.

Unless its AoS then your opponent gets another turn and you're left with 1/8th of your army

unironically skill issue if you can't deal with the double turn. Prepping for it and mitigating its impact is part of the skill of the game

Who cares? Having to do a push-up contest to see who gets to go first at the start of each game would also be a contest of skill, that doesn't make it good game design or enjoyable to some people (but it would mean that I win every game). "but it adds to the depth" is never a good argument in favor of a game mechanic.