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.

Had first game. 3000 points a side so a smallish game and plenty of terrain.

I think the game looks amazing and it is a lot more fun than Titannicus because you have all those interactions between infantry, tanks, aircraft and titans.

Fighting over buildings and to get LOS is very tactical and can be very interesting. It adds a very welcome mechanic and having that force multiplier for infantry means the board becomes very interesting and fun.

March mechanics and vehicles mean you have a lot of mobility and this can lead to some dramatic moves. We were on a 6x4 board and infantry triple marching or Rhinos could easily get where they needed to go. On paper you can get stuck into combat very quickly and it’s very brutal.

So overall was very fun and engaging in terms of just selling you on these two giant armies fighting. It is a lot of fun having your Titan shoot down a Thunderhawk only to have another Thunderhawk drop a Contemptor talon to sweep away a tank company.

However, we only got a single turn and a bit done after six hours.

Alternating activation in each phase of the game might be okay in Necromunda or Titannicus where you only have six units to worry about. But you’ve got thirty different units to activate and manage across movement, combat and shooting phases it really slowed everything down and with the best will in the world you get a lot of dithering. Even though when we got to fire things were being killed quickly it just didn’t offset how much time it takes having to constantly have this chess approach. It should be that your movement phase only takes a couple minutes and it took far too long because of alternating activations.

It was first battle but I didn’t feel like we spent that much time in the rulebook at all really. It was more simply the act of alternating activation is a massive drain in time and in a social game you can’t force somebody to take their action promptly.

In addition they’ve added lots of extra mechanics such as secondary objectives, issuing secrets orders and then revealing them to units. Building in trap mechanics where your charges don’t lock people in combat unless they already had their move order. It all piles up to slow everything down. You feel as if the game was written with the assumption you only have six big bricks to worry about and there’s very little consideration for how long it would take in terms of time. Like as I said, we played a small game and mostly had expensive tanks and aircraft. If you just took lots of detachments and units it could get a lot more messy.

So yeah I had a lot of fun but I’d like to be able to finish a game in three hours and not have to call it early. I think the rules are not matched up well with the number of units you have to manage. I don’t think it has much to do with rules familiarity. Even if you knew the game inside out you’ll end up spending five minutes deciding where each individual unit moves.

its worth playing smaller games to get the hang of the mechanics, though its worth noting the first turn tends to be brutal and following turns get a lot faster.

also its well worth not waiting until its your turn to work out where a single unit goes, but to have groups of units working together and have an idea where they are meant to go - e.g. the infantry screen working with armour - seriously reduces your workload if you can get your force down to 5-6 "things" where each is a collection of units working together.

do agree though, first time I played was 750 points a side, and that also took ages referencing the various rules, still get stuff wrong and I thing a reference sheet thats not all rules, just all the ones your force needs to care about is worth while - and sorted with a few cross referencing notes is worthwhile.

the activation stuff takes a bit of getting used to and it seems to usually matter more when something activates more than what it actually does - plus needing to be aware what your opponent has, what it can do etc.

does require a mentality of not dithering and that especially won't suit all players, but be distinct between dithering because dithering and dithering because not sure of the rules.. one gets better, the other tends to get worse and can be a problem in many games.

This game does play to dithering being an issue though, can't disagree on that

Yeah I mean my plan is to just bulk out all of my units so I only have six to ten blocks to worry about. I think that will be a much better play experience than having thirty little units.

We really didn’t spend all that much time in the book and apart from some confusion ov. In fact that first turn most unit just triple advanced into the centre and so didn’t fire. Issue is you can’t plan your turn out because the situation constantly changes. I am honestly not sure where all the time went.

Basically each time your opponent moves you’re encouraged to think, okay he’s done that, look at all your units and decide which to move and then decide where. Whilst in 40K you can start planning your move phase out as they’re wrapping things up at the end of their turn and do that in a few minutes. It’s just inherently going to take more time, interrupts planning your turn out and I don’t think the game wants you to just blindly move things forward as quickly as you can. It is more engaging and more to think about; but unless you’re wired at a Tournament and encouraging your opponent to stick to the clock; no chit chat. Then you aren’t getting that game done.

agree totally, without a doubt alternating activation systems take more time and a lot more thinking, can work quite well but it is a style of play you have to get used to - I approach it from the other way having played a lot of alternating activation type games and games where you never quite know how much you will get to act with

leopard wrote:
its worth playing smaller games to get the hang of the mechanics, though its worth noting the first turn tends to be brutal and following turns get a lot faster.

Here 1st turn usually ISN'T that bloody. Lots of stuff marching and of course hiding behind LOS blocking terrain is smart idea if not in range. Add to that infantry not even having much of ranges.

Today's game first turn...3 sentinel, 1 SA lasgun stand, 3 ogryns, 1 kratos, 4 rhino, 1 tactical.

Okay just 1500 pts but still. Pretty much entire marine army had to march to get in ranges and of course because I'm marching I'm heading behind terrain to hide.

We played game today in under 2 hours plus time it took to set up. Note this was with guy to whom game was first game and only cursory glance of rules before. And with adhoc list made on the spot

If you don't spend ages agonizing over every decision premeasuring everything to everything and couple alternates it goes quite fast.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Yeah I mean my plan is to just bulk out all of my units so I only have six to ten blocks to worry about. I think that will be a much better play experience than having thirty little units.

We really didn’t spend all that much time in the book and apart from some confusion ov. In fact that first turn most unit just triple advanced into the centre and so didn’t fire. Issue is you can’t plan your turn out because the situation constantly changes. I am honestly not sure where all the time went.

Basically each time your opponent moves you’re encouraged to think, okay he’s done that, look at all your units and decide which to move and then decide where. Whilst in 40K you can start planning your move phase out as they’re wrapping things up at the end of their turn and do that in a few minutes. It’s just inherently going to take more time, interrupts planning your turn out and I don’t think the game wants you to just blindly move things forward as quickly as you can. It is more engaging and more to think about; but unless you’re wired at a Tournament and encouraging your opponent to stick to the clock; no chit chat. Then you aren’t getting that game done.

I would seriously recommend limiting number of formations to max 2 per 1500 points (basically having the max number double the minimum number).

That will massively reduce book-keeping, and should also limit the number of detachments to activate.

No offense, but I think you started playing the game with a way too large army. I'd personally keep the first few games to around 1000 pts max, perhaps even less. Only progress to full size games after the general ebb and flow of the basic gameplay (using most typical units) has been committed to muscle memory and you find yourself not having to skim the rulebook every five minutes.

If you're running 100% Marine or Solar lists, then you can easily dial down to 2000 points.

One of the reasons for 3000 points is to allow for the use of a Warmaster titan, the largest unit in the game at 750 points. You'd have 150 points left over for the allied budget, but for some players there might be the need to eat into that for the primary force budget - wiggle room.

This is one quick way to decide on how large a battle you wish to fight, by deciding which single titan(with a little wiggle room) you'd like to bring as support...

1250 points = Warhound(330)
1750 points = Reaver(415)
2250 points = Warlord(600)
3000 points = Warmaster(750)

another option is to take the titan points and imbalance out of the equation, have a points budget and then add a set titan chassis on top of that. means both sides have a titan, and can buy another if they want, but means neither side can say no and bring more tanks with the points

I think you've nailed it OP, there is an inherent issue with alternating activation fatigue and a big part of that as well is the game seems in a big hurry to get everyone fighting but the cadence is sorta off. Especially with planes being there from turn one onward and total choice of when to bring in deep strikers and out flankers, the game is too top weighted as points go up.

The movment phase does start to drag way too much at scale because it can often feel like inordinate amount of overwatch in addition to movement. One aspect I hope they FAQ is taking away overwatch from advance order and only allowing it on first fire. What we're seeing happen currently in game is advance and charge, followed my march are common orders but first fire a rarity without this change. The other problem is advance is too much of a super order, and also happens to be the default order if a player forgets to order a unit.

Reserves, the scenarios need to start forcing people to put some stuff in reserve. I also am a bit concerned at scale with outflankers and deep strikers getting choice of when to come in, the concern is it all just get top weighted to turn two. The game sorta wants the battle to start at 10 and peter out and I'd rather the cadence of the battle sorta had time to ramp up but right now with progressive scoring everyone is in such a rush to get on objectives that the scoring can also lead to run away scoring leads no one likes.

I think end game scoring still has a place for scenarios.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


Alternating activation in each phase of the game might be okay in Necromunda or Titannicus where you only have six units to worry about. But you’ve got thirty different units to activate and manage across movement, combat and shooting phases it really slowed everything down and with the best will in the world you get a lot of dithering. Even though when we got to fire things were being killed quickly it just didn’t offset how much time it takes having to constantly have this chess approach. It should be that your movement phase only takes a couple minutes and it took far too long because of alternating activations.

Yeah I feel like GW or someone needs to come up with an indexing system for detachment sizes and point levels because the swing in units size and complete lack of any limitations on formations can lead to either a big difference in activation economy or simply both sides have so many activations the game sorta falls apart/grinds down to snails pace. Add to that the variance in what an activation can even mean, it can be a single 4 base detachment like moving 5 inches to hide behind a wall, it can 4 bombers or a 750pt titan firing everything. You almost get the feeling at scale it really would run better turn based to your point than alternating.




We're at the point where it sounds more appealing to play 3k with 2 1500pt armies each, one deployed and one entirely kept in reserve. Benefits would be fewer models/activations at any one time to deal with, perhaps still a long game but the cadence/tempo of battle will hopefully mean 5 fully engaging turns and maybe even a close game as opposed to what we often see now as we scale up, which is people tapping out turn 2-3. AT has this problem at its core as well, obviously AT is much more involved, but every mega titan battle I've ever seen seems to last a whole weekend and get about 2-3 turns in if that, and I never got the appeal of that as a game.

.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:
another option is to take the titan points and imbalance out of the equation, have a points budget and then add a set titan chassis on top of that. means both sides have a titan, and can buy another if they want, but means neither side can say no and bring more tanks with the points

Ya I agree balance wise that tends to work a lot better. We had a 2k game game the other weekend where one side had a 600pt warlord and they got totally swamped. Would have been cooler to watch 2k + warlord each for sure. I think it's actually good sign that the warlord ended up being more of a liability than an asset, would have been a bit bummed if it blew everything away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SamusDrake wrote:
If you're running 100% Marine or Solar lists, then you can easily dial down to 2000 points.

One of the reasons for 3000 points is to allow for the use of a Warmaster titan, the largest unit in the game at 750 points. You'd have 150 points left over for the allied budget, but for some players there might be the need to eat into that for the primary force budget - wiggle room.

This is one quick way to decide on how large a battle you wish to fight, by deciding which single titan(with a little wiggle room) you'd like to bring as support...

1250 points = Warhound(330)
1750 points = Reaver(415)
2250 points = Warlord(600)
3000 points = Warmaster(750)

Everyone is in a rush to 3k, but its worth considering, space marine 2nd editions suggested point level was 1500, and so far the game at around 1k to 1500 seem to run the best, the more we creep up to high levels the more its felt like a top weighted slog than a fun lengthy back and forth battle.

Six hours for a turn and a half is either your guys gaming between smashing back beers, or you one of you needs to see a doctor for possible issues.

stratigo wrote:
Six hours for a turn and a half is either your guys gaming between smashing back beers, or you one of you needs to see a doctor for possible issues.

The game has zero controls for activation, I just made a 3k list that has almost 80 activations. Sometimes it isn't the players, sometimes it is the game.

80 lsn't that much when game is fast. 2 things make it fly fast:

A) pass finnish school system
B) don't spend too much time on every move. Average player figures out couple 1st decision while setting up orders. And when opponent does his action you can decide on your next. No need to shut off brain while opponent does. If you need to think what to do when your turn comes you just need to not shut off brain when opponent does his thing.

For the most part I don't like alternating activations as it becomes too gamey for my liking, my favourite system might be Epic 40k where it's IGOUGO but on a per-phase basis rather than a per-turn basis (so maybe you gain initiative and move first, but lose initiative and shoot second).

Alternating activations, especially when each phase is broken down into alternating activations, becomes a real pain in the arse with a slower opponent though. I have played with someone who doesn't start thinking about what he's going to do until I've finished my activation, so a turn takes bloody forever. As soon as he's finished an activation my hand is moving towards the table to move my model, or my dice are in my hand ready to roll, but I have to wait 10 to 30 seconds each time before he does anything and so a game with 30 activations per turn is torture.

the way Middle Earth does it works quite nicely, thats got the "per phase "IGOUGO stuff

its not the game though, its the player - now you could argue the game needs to be defensive against slower players, I tend to disagree - I'd rather have a better game over a faster one.

do see that others think differently, but at the moment the solution to "oh gods Fred.. Fred is soooo slow" is to play smaller games v Fred.

also I see little need to limit activations, couple of reasons

- more activations tends to mean smaller, more fragile units
- one you have 2-3 more than your opponent there is minimal further benefit
- fewer activations means your opponent will get the bulk of their firepower down first
- once your opponent is out of stuff to activate you will have the rest of yours in what amounts to one big activation anyway

same as how yes you can have a lot of micro formations, but its tactically better not to generally, perhaps a side case with SA infantry where two large detachments and a commander is good to have, but you may not want more than three-four detachments per commander for flexibility.

leopard wrote:


its not the game though, its the player - now you could argue the game needs to be defensive against slower players, I tend to disagree - I'd rather have a better game over a faster one.

I'd rather have the overall time used feel well spent, hard to argue a frontloaded 5-6 hour 2 turn game feels like time well used. I agree though that I'd rather dedicate more time to a game than feel it need always fit into a certain speed, but to me its more of a tempo thing. LI went and got itself in a big damn hurry and that really scales up terribly.

I'd much rather play 3k, with 2 1500pt lists each, one of which both players is forced to put into reserve, planes and all if it contains them. And the end result would be a longer game, but one where the overall amount of activations at any one time is hopefully kept down by the nature of having to put half of one's points in reserve. I'd even go so far as to say, for the army in reserve it would roll detachment by detachment from turn 2 onward and hopefully lead to a trickling out of reserves over the course of the battle and not just all of it coming on turn 2.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:


also I see little need to limit activations, couple of reasons

- more activations tends to mean smaller, more fragile units
- one you have 2-3 more than your opponent there is minimal further benefit
- fewer activations means your opponent will get the bulk of their firepower down first
- once your opponent is out of stuff to activate you will have the rest of yours in what amounts to one big activation anyway

same as how yes you can have a lot of micro formations, but its tactically better not to generally, perhaps a side case with SA infantry where two large detachments and a commander is good to have, but you may not want more than three-four detachments per commander for flexibility.

I think it's more like, we all need to realize army construction has very few limits, and this is a problem from unlimited formation count, right down to each detachment often having a big variance in possible size, 4-12 or 4-16 sizes infantry detachments, super heavy detachments that are 1-6, plane detachments that are 1-3/1-4. That's a hell of a lot of variance. Limit just sounds like an arbitrary number need be found, i think no matter what too limits are easy to perceive as arbitrary or actually can be quite arbitrary. But at some point players strugging just find li boxes in stores vs ones able to print any single model endlessly is goin to come to a head, because if he only limit is supply/access to units, and nothing else, we're bound to see a lot of absurdity.

So I would say while there may not be any inherent reason to have 77 activations in a 3k game, nor would by any stretch be a guarantee of anything other than a massive slog. With each round having 2 phases of activation, that's still just a lot activations. Especially when considering point defense, overwatch, complicated activations like combat/charging.

But the lack of limits permeates a lot more than jut activation economy, as I mentioned, the players stuck hunting for legions boxes won't be able to find some models/boxes in the numbers that those un-encumbered by such searches who produce models through other means are able to, they have literally no limits (printer go brrrr). You really can field 48 bases of missile launchers in one formation if you have the models. And while there may be no direct incentive to only build an army for maximum activations, there's certainly an unquestionable incentive to build ones army from only the best/most cost effective units, the one's in addition often barely limited by formations. And that's not unique to the printing side, on the plastic side no one is exactly thrilled with having to deal with obvious duds like kheres dreads vs las ect.

 Crablezworth wrote:


Everyone is in a rush to 3k, but its worth considering, space marine 2nd editions suggested point level was 1500, and so far the game at around 1k to 1500 seem to run the best, the more we creep up to high levels the more its felt like a top weighted slog than a fun lengthy back and forth battle.

Its a similar thing to Adeptus Titanicus, where we had all been expected to rush out and buy the Grandmaster edition and a third Warlord titan. They were telling us that it was their "most expensive" game to date...

But in reality a Reaver and a pair of Hounds was more like it...

SamusDrake wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:


Everyone is in a rush to 3k, but its worth considering, space marine 2nd editions suggested point level was 1500, and so far the game at around 1k to 1500 seem to run the best, the more we creep up to high levels the more its felt like a top weighted slog than a fun lengthy back and forth battle.

Its a similar thing to Adeptus Titanicus, where we had all been expected to rush out and buy the Grandmaster edition and a third Warlord titan. They were telling us that it was their "most expensive" game to date...

But in reality a Reaver and a pair of Hounds was more like it...

Ya that's a very apt comparison honestly, the AT games i remember fondly tended to be mostly reaver/hound with maybe 1 warlord, and generally not towards the higher end point wise in terms of game size. Was never a fan of maniples as an army construction mechanic, the idea of 3 warlrods always seemed a bit silly to me, and not terribly fun.


It's also a bit easier to track the small to mid sized games of LI because there's still some economy there in terms of combined arms and not being able to necessarily get everything in, as point scale up you really can end up seeing basically the same list only "bigger" as in almost identical composition just bigger detachments, or simply more of the stronger units as to be expected. But I guess my point is, the fewer duplications of any one unit type/detachment type the easier it is to track from turn to turn as an observer. Some of the larger units also can look a bit absurd if too many are fielded, a perfect neutral example is tarantulas. In one game between myself and skimask mohawk i think we had like 32 on the board, half las half AA. It just looked a little silly, to see so many "sam sites" ala command and conquer like base to base in conga lines. Big units of heavy or super heavy tanks can also start to look a bit absurd, as can large units of dreadnoughts, the latter being the worst offender imo for breaking immersion.

OMG speaking of Command & Conquer; I'm surprised that's not been made into a tabletop game yet. Dune 2: The Building of a Dynasty should definitely be a thing!

To whoever has such rights; "Just do it up!"

 Crablezworth wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Six hours for a turn and a half is either your guys gaming between smashing back beers, or you one of you needs to see a doctor for possible issues.

The game has zero controls for activation, I just made a 3k list that has almost 80 activations. Sometimes it isn't the players, sometimes it is the game.

If you ever took six hours to do a single turn you are probably taking the piss to try and make a point about the game

There’s no world where the game takes six hours for a turn

stratigo wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Six hours for a turn and a half is either your guys gaming between smashing back beers, or you one of you needs to see a doctor for possible issues.

The game has zero controls for activation, I just made a 3k list that has almost 80 activations. Sometimes it isn't the players, sometimes it is the game.

If you ever took six hours to do a single turn you are probably taking the piss to try and make a point about the game

There’s no world where the game takes six hours for a turn

It was a first game from my understanding played at a casual pace, with enough activations over a combined 10 phases 5 turns with move and combat not to mention indecision during order phase, can easily take hours, especially if this is someone's first game at this scale.

It can take hours. It can’t take six. A slow game will be wrapped in 4 unless you are spending a lot of time not actually gaming. But that ain’t against the game

And if you are drinking a goofing off, that’s fine. If you legitimately can’t figure out the rules so much one turn takes six hours, that is a real concern and you should get a check up. If you are grumpy about the game and slow playing and complaining and playing by slow, then that would be kinda miserable.

Nope, not really. It absolutely can take six hours, with not much of a problem.

Indecisiveness, too much stuff, reassessing each and every one it's your turn to activate a detachment, fussing over what's what, fussing over what is it that stuff does beause you don't remember and it has a feth ton of special rules, not knowing the game by heart... yeah, I can see it perfectly well, without needing to go watch the superbowl while you're at it.

Assuming that if a game takes six hours "is a real concern and you should get a check up" is, simply put, stupid, insulting and overblown. And worst of all, wildly unrealistic.

 Albertorius wrote:
Nope, not really. It absolutely can take six hours, with not much of a problem.

Indecisiveness, too much stuff, reassessing each and every one it's your turn to activate a detachment, fussing over what's what, fussing over what is it that stuff does beause you don't remember and it has a feth ton of special rules, not knowing the game by heart... yeah, I can see it perfectly well, without needing to go watch the superbowl while you're at it.

Assuming that if a game takes six hours "is a real concern and you should get a check up" is, simply put, stupid, insulting and overblown. And worst of all, wildly unrealistic.

Not to mention our first playthrough we didn't fully realize till later that it helps to keep order token down and just flip them if they're still relevant for the next phase. So that realization greatly cut down time because both of us could look down and see what is left to activate and just go reductively as opposed to relying on memory.

a tip found here that may be useful, though I dare say others have thought of it

place the order counter behind the unit it relates to, then when the unit moves move the counter to be in front of the unit it relates to

avoids wasting time with "has that moved yet?"

also a marker of some sort for "has conducted defensive fire with secondary weapons" saves time

SamusDrake wrote:
OMG speaking of Command & Conquer; I'm surprised that's not been made into a tabletop game yet. Dune 2: The Building of a Dynasty should definitely be a thing!

To whoever has such rights; "Just do it up!"

Agreed. I even thought on doing it myself but I have zero 3D design skills.

 Albertorius wrote:
Nope, not really. It absolutely can take six hours, with not much of a problem.

Indecisiveness, too much stuff, reassessing each and every one it's your turn to activate a detachment, fussing over what's what, fussing over what is it that stuff does beause you don't remember and it has a feth ton of special rules, not knowing the game by heart... yeah, I can see it perfectly well, without needing to go watch the superbowl while you're at it.

Assuming that if a game takes six hours "is a real concern and you should get a check up" is, simply put, stupid, insulting and overblown. And worst of all, wildly unrealistic.

If you are a particularly slow player, I can see maybe an entire game taking 6 hours.

I do not see a turn taking six hours. Sorry, this is just people trying to hyperbolize to make the game look worse.

stratigo wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Nope, not really. It absolutely can take six hours, with not much of a problem.

Indecisiveness, too much stuff, reassessing each and every one it's your turn to activate a detachment, fussing over what's what, fussing over what is it that stuff does beause you don't remember and it has a feth ton of special rules, not knowing the game by heart... yeah, I can see it perfectly well, without needing to go watch the superbowl while you're at it.

Assuming that if a game takes six hours "is a real concern and you should get a check up" is, simply put, stupid, insulting and overblown. And worst of all, wildly unrealistic.

If you are a particularly slow player, I can see maybe an entire game taking 6 hours.

I do not see a turn taking six hours. Sorry, this is just people trying to hyperbolize to make the game look worse.

Or you taking their experience personally as some slight against the game when it can, in fact, be both players and the game. The game isn't perfect though, far from it.

I'm not jumping in on the "how long does a turn take" discussion, but without having played any big games, the rules just don't seem like they'd scale well to big games.

think the rules will be fine at larger points if both players understand the units they have. the moment you are looking stuff up it falls over

e.g. if as a marine player you want two armoured companies, unless you have a good reason not to, pick a tank chassis and standardise on it