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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I'm not convinced you increase the number of "hard choices" (or... choices) by taking options away from the player.

Having meaningful choices (i.e. choices that lead to greatly different potential board states) is predicated on having distinct options available to the player. I'd argue that the older system presented the player with distinct options - whereas 8th/9th eliminated those distinct options. If anything, 8th/9th was the edition that took choices away from the player by eliminating an entire decision decision point in the first place.

Meaningful choices are good, but forcing squads into situations where they're deciding between lousy choices that feel artificial . . . not so good. I say this as someone who thinks 4th ed was peak 40K too. Giving up all the bolter fire in order to fire the single Lascannon, while there are merits to that design, still always felt 'off'.

This is particularly the case when you're teaching the game to new people, which in my case was often kids. 40K is the first wargame of many people, and learning that their little dudes with guns and clear LOS to viable targets can't fire because of one model always felt awkward.

One of the things that would work from 4th and now is to make the LD stat matter. If I recall, you had to take a LD test to fire at something not the closest. Something of that nature would be acceptable.

^Imo that was a great mechanic. That also coupled with the Marine Captain's ability which granted his Ld to every Marine on the table, giving them excellent fire discipline but without requiring them to be comically close to the Captain like todays aura abilities.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Imo that was a great mechanic. That also coupled with the Marine Captain's ability which granted his Ld to every Marine on the table, giving them excellent fire discipline but without requiring them to be comically close to the Captain like todays aura abilities.

My favorite part was that loyalists needed their captain to maintain that discipline, but CSM didn't, because they were already all L9-10. If their boss got ganked, they didn't care, and there was a new opportunity for advancement.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Imo that was a great mechanic. That also coupled with the Marine Captain's ability which granted his Ld to every Marine on the table, giving them excellent fire discipline but without requiring them to be comically close to the Captain like todays aura abilities.

My favorite part was that loyalists needed their captain to maintain that discipline, but CSM didn't, because they were already all L9-10. If their boss got ganked, they didn't care, and there was a new opportunity for advancement.

The difference between loyalists and CSM was fantastic then. Loyalists had more discipline and generally better equipment, but were more rigid in their organization. CSM had lower discipline (no ATSKNF), but WAY more freedom in their unit arrangements, and way more ways to pump their power levels (to sometimes ridiculous levels). Soo good.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Imo that was a great mechanic. That also coupled with the Marine Captain's ability which granted his Ld to every Marine on the table, giving them excellent fire discipline but without requiring them to be comically close to the Captain like todays aura abilities.

My favorite part was that loyalists needed their captain to maintain that discipline, but CSM didn't, because they were already all L9-10. If their boss got ganked, they didn't care, and there was a new opportunity for advancement.

The difference between loyalists and CSM was fantastic then. Loyalists had more discipline and generally better equipment, but were more rigid in their organization. CSM had lower discipline (no ATSKNF), but WAY more freedom in their unit arrangements, and way more ways to pump their power levels (to sometimes ridiculous levels). Soo good.

Oh yeah, completely agreed. But don't forget about Veteran Skills. A basic CSM could have more than an actual loyalist Veteran. More skill, less discipline. Now it's just "more spikes".

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Oh yeah, completely agreed. But don't forget about Veteran Skills. A basic CSM could have more than an actual loyalist Veteran. More skill, less discipline. Now it's just "more spikes".

Well, sorta.

CSM could freely choose from Veteran Skills. Loyalists could choose Chapter Traits though, many of which allowed Veteran skills. They could be "equally veteran" in that way, but it was also thematically poigniant because loyalists were more regimented in their veterancy, bound by their chapter. Chaos got to choose willy-nilly, because they weren't inherently bound to any organization. (Then they could throw Marks on top of that). Iirc, loyalist Veterans had a small menu of traits they could inherently pick from too though.

I ran whatever trait gave me Elite Devastators, so I was able to have Lascannon Devs with Tank Hunter on them.

It is true that the current chaos is sorta garbage in comparison.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Oh yeah, completely agreed. But don't forget about Veteran Skills. A basic CSM could have more than an actual loyalist Veteran. More skill, less discipline. Now it's just "more spikes".

Well, sorta.

CSM could freely choose from Veteran Skills. Loyalists could choose Chapter Traits though, many of which allowed Veteran skills. They could be "equally veteran" in that way, but it was also thematically poigniant because loyalists were more regimented in their veterancy, bound by their chapter. Chaos got to choose willy-nilly, because they weren't inherently bound to any organization. (Then they could throw Marks on top of that). Iirc, loyalist Veterans had a small menu of traits they could inherently pick from too though.

I ran whatever trait gave me Elite Devastators, so I was able to have Lascannon Devs with Tank Hunter on them.

It is true that the current chaos is sorta garbage in comparison.

Yeah, "sorta".

What I was referring to was that every CSM infantry unit, except for Obliterators and Possessed, could freely select from a selection of Veteran Skills, and as long as they didn't take a Mark, could have as many as you were willing to pay for. Even basic CSM. Loyalist veterans got to choose 1 from a shorter list. My "basic" CSM usually had 3-4 Veteran Skills. Of course, Night Lords got one that no other Legion could have.(Stealth Adept).

And yes, the current state of CSM is..... not great.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And yes, the current state of CSM is..... not great.

I prefer the term "Increasingly Codex compliant".

^Oh I didn't realize you could stack them, ok that's different. I think some of the loyalist units could stack them in a very limited fashion through the Chapter Traits, but not the way Chaos apparently could. I'll have to take a look at my books again later

Like I think I could give units True Grit, through a trait. And then give a veteran unit (command/terminators/veterans) Tank Hunters. (At +6 ppm?). Something like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And yes, the current state of CSM is..... not great.

I prefer the term "Increasingly Codex compliant".

It's tragic.

Personally I find the treatment of Havocs singularly offensive.

You could only take multiple Veteran Skills if you didn't take a Mark. If you took a Mark, you could only have one. And Night Lords worked the best with no Marks and lots of Veteran Skills. Stealth Adept was effectively their Mark.

Stacking Vet Skills was something you could do. Didn't do it often, as I liked what the Marks did, but if you were going for a more specialist renegade force rather than a more dedicated Chaos force, it could work.

Infiltrate + Furious Charge, things like that. Not cheap, mind - very quickly made your troops expensive - but still possible.

I used to love my 12-man Infiltrating units. Sadly that's not Codex compliant, so we can't do that anymore.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Imo that was a great mechanic. That also coupled with the Marine Captain's ability which granted his Ld to every Marine on the table, giving them excellent fire discipline but without requiring them to be comically close to the Captain like todays aura abilities.

My favorite part was that loyalists needed their captain to maintain that discipline, but CSM didn't, because they were already all L9-10. If their boss got ganked, they didn't care, and there was a new opportunity for advancement.

The difference between loyalists and CSM was fantastic then. Loyalists had more discipline and generally better equipment, but were more rigid in their organization. CSM had lower discipline (no ATSKNF), but WAY more freedom in their unit arrangements, and way more ways to pump their power levels (to sometimes ridiculous levels). Soo good.

Ah, the joy of the 4th edition Chaos Codex being released.

To the topic: Split fire, moving and firing heavies, and random charge distances, changed the game from one of opportunity cost to one of firing optimization. There aren't tradeoffs anymore.

Do I move? Do I take a potshot at that tank? Do I have an antitank squad to fire first?

I used to run a Dev squad with one lascannon, two missile launchers, and a plasma cannon. It was a good take all comers loadout. All aspects went into it- what do I take in my list, how do I spread out capability against a range of opponents, how do I use it- now it's "how much can I cram in" and "how can I concentrate it?"

Heck, combat squads meant something when you could by game determine if you had a five man fire team and an action team, or a slightly more expensive than necessary push forward team.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying either is better, just that the game emphasis has been deliberately changed.