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.

40k used to be about deploying units and rushing through terrain to get at the enemy.

Now, there is pretty much no reason for terrain.

Games are played on a flat table, both players put as much as they can in Reserve, and end up on top of each other on turn one.

Such involvement. Much battlefield wow.

Spoletta wrote:

We need a criteria for LOS, i agree with that, but going to the warmahordes levels of "You could play with the bases alone" doesn't seem like a good idea.

Why?

it makes units without upgrades useless.

It doesn't make them useless at all. It means that people trying to game the system with free crap have a criteria set that as much free crap as possible = winning at life, and that units without all the free stuff != winning at life... but having played PL almost exclusively since release I can tell you that that is not really the case at all and hasn't been an issue on our tables.

I use deep strike to protect things, if you take that away, then we’re left with 0 way to protect anything.

Line of Sight Blocking Terrain.

I've played plenty of games with proper LOS blocking terrain. GW's terrain is not good for this, since any little hole will allow a battle tank to snipe at you. Proper closed off terrain that narrows down the lanes of sight solves a LOT of the Alpha Strike problem.

Yes you still have trouble with deep strikers and other things, but at least it's not a dong-measuring contest to see who can roll the best dice as lines of armies fire at each other until one is wiped off the table.

I wonder if GW will consider IGOYOUGO by unit in all phases, like deployment and (similar to..) close combat.

I think this may alleviate many of the alpha strike issues turn one and two while also allowing players to move some models around before taking them off the table. ...it might also give a better overall flow to the game.

xmbk wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

We need a criteria for LOS, i agree with that, but going to the warmahordes levels of "You could play with the bases alone" doesn't seem like a good idea.

Why?

If you even need to ask, then our visions of the game are so different that there is no use in discussing.

Edit: For reference:

Q: Do units that are not Infantry (Vehicles, Monsters,
etc.) gain the benefit of cover from woods, ruins etc. if they are at
least 50% obscured by that piece of terrain but are not actually
on or within it?
A: No. Unless they are Infantry, such a unit must meet
the two following conditions to gain the benefit of cover:
• All of its models must be either on or within the terrain.
• The unit must be at least 50% obscured from the point
of view of the firer (note that it doesn’t matter what is
obscuring the target, only that it is obscured).


From rulebook's FAQ.

 auticus wrote:
It doesn't make them useless at all. It means that people trying to game the system with free crap have a criteria set that as much free crap as possible = winning at life, and that units without all the free stuff != winning at life... but having played PL almost exclusively since release I can tell you that that is not really the case at all and hasn't been an issue on our tables.

IOW, power points only work if you voluntarily agree not to make effective armies under the system and pretend that you're paying the conventional point cost for all of your upgrades. Why do you consider this a compelling defense?

 Peregrine wrote:

 auticus wrote:
It doesn't make them useless at all. It means that people trying to game the system with free crap have a criteria set that as much free crap as possible = winning at life, and that units without all the free stuff != winning at life... but having played PL almost exclusively since release I can tell you that that is not really the case at all and hasn't been an issue on our tables.

IOW, power points only work if you voluntarily agree not to make effective armies under the system and pretend that you're paying the conventional point cost for all of your upgrades. Why do you consider this a compelling defense?

Because it works out fine?

Dandelion wrote:
Because it works out fine?

Only in situations where conventional points work out fine. You never gain anything with power points, and you have a lot of potential to make the game worse, so why would you want to use the inferior system?

You already think the game is inferior, so what does it matter?

Here's my 2 CP:

I have a friend who plays Grey Knights, while I have been playing a pure Primaris force, or Orks as the case may be.

For my first game with my Primaris marine force, he used an army that consisted of four Grandmaster DKs, and nothing but interceptors otherwise. My army consisted of 25 intercessors, three lieutenants, a captain in gravis armor, 6 aggressors and inceptors, 10 hellblasters, and a redemptor dreadnought, using the Iron Hands chapter tactic. I knew that his list was geared toward tournament play and that it would probably smash mine, but I was curious to see if I could weather his first turn and give a good return. Now, I probably held on to more models than most would considering that all of mine had 2 wounds, a 3+ save, and a 6+ FNP on top of all that, but he mangled it pretty badly, and I wasn't able to return any meaningful fire. I'm pretty sure that most other armies would get hurt even worse than I did.

The trick to that GK setup is that the DKs are put in reserve and the interceptors are put on the far edge of his deployment zone, so even if he has to put 50% of his army on the board at start, he can put them well out of range. Even if I go first, and even if I can manage to move forward and get a couple of shots in, that just leaves me open to 4 DKs flanking me. I don't begrudge him this tactic; it's smart, and it makes good use of GK's ability to teleport. That said, that list is not something that I want to play against very often except to try a new defense against it, as it has the ability to dictate the course of the battle despite any restrictions on how many models you can bring out of reserve. It means that 99.9% of all our games would be fought the same way, whether it's maelstrom or eternal war. Furthermore, it means that the game type is essentially useless, because it becomes a slugfest to see who gets wiped off of the board. Plus, I could stop this tactic if I used scouts, which I don't have, don't really want and can't afford to buy (I would for tournaments, though. It wouldn't even mess with my fluff because I could just put them in a separate detachment).

That said, as far as deep striking is concerned, I kind of like the suggestion to limit how many units can drop down in a turn. GKs would still be able to leverage interceptors to teleport most things into firing range on turn one, but other units would have to wait their turn, which would make it far easier to weather the alpha strike and still feel like you're in the game. Since I don't consider myself very knowledgeable on other armies' versions of the tactic, I can't really say if this would be balanced for the game or not. It's just the only suggestion that I've seen thus far that seems like it would make any positive difference in the tiny little meta that is my living room.

(Edited for clarification

 Peregrine wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Because it works out fine?

Only in situations where conventional points work out fine. You never gain anything with power points, and you have a lot of potential to make the game worse, so why would you want to use the inferior system?

Because the math is easy and I don't need to worry about which upgrades I'm going to take. "oh but if you drop the sponsons you can use those points on more guardsmen..." Yeah, I'm not interested in that minutiae. I want to be able to grab my stupid tank and just play it. Does it need to be 100% fair? No, because I'm not playing cutthroat games. And war is never fair anyway. A more realistic battle involves the attacking side always outnumbering the defender. Why else would they attack? Just the other day I played a game where the attacker (me) had almost twice the power level of the defender, but the defender was dug in and was given bonus command points. Using power helped gauge that difference so that we could fine tune the scenario. Points would have been irrelevant.

drbored wrote:
Line of Sight Blocking Terrain.

I've played plenty of games with proper LOS blocking terrain. GW's terrain is not good for this, since any little hole will allow a battle tank to snipe at you. Proper closed off terrain that narrows down the lanes of sight solves a LOT of the Alpha Strike problem.

Yes you still have trouble with deep strikers and other things, but at least it's not a dong-measuring contest to see who can roll the best dice as lines of armies fire at each other until one is wiped off the table.

Or just proper terrain rules that allow for LOS blocking without equally silly looking total solid brick walls. Buildings usually have these things called "windows" so one would like to have them on buildings. But equally sniping tank through narrow glimpse through 2 windows is silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Because it works out fine?

Only in situations where conventional points work out fine. You never gain anything with power points, and you have a lot of potential to make the game worse, so why would you want to use the inferior system?

Balance wise they are both bad. Only difference is they are different. In practice both are just as broken. So it's just different way of getting to equally bad end result. One is however easier to use on the spot. So one is good for preplanned game, other for on the spot.

Neither is inferior. That's where you are dead wrong.

tneva82 wrote:

drbored wrote:
Line of Sight Blocking Terrain.

I've played plenty of games with proper LOS blocking terrain. GW's terrain is not good for this, since any little hole will allow a battle tank to snipe at you. Proper closed off terrain that narrows down the lanes of sight solves a LOT of the Alpha Strike problem.

Yes you still have trouble with deep strikers and other things, but at least it's not a dong-measuring contest to see who can roll the best dice as lines of armies fire at each other until one is wiped off the table.

Or just proper terrain rules that allow for LOS blocking without equally silly looking total solid brick walls. Buildings usually have these things called "windows" so one would like to have them on buildings. But equally sniping tank through narrow glimpse through 2 windows is silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Because it works out fine?

Only in situations where conventional points work out fine. You never gain anything with power points, and you have a lot of potential to make the game worse, so why would you want to use the inferior system?

Balance wise they are both bad. Only difference is they are different. In practice both are just as broken. So it's just different way of getting to equally bad end result. One is however easier to use on the spot. So one is good for preplanned game, other for on the spot.

Neither is inferior. That's where you are dead wrong.

I used to do this all the time in the men of war series
Man those tanks on the other side of the window never expected that.

You know video game isn't all that sensible comparison either for much the same reason as miniature games are...Miniature games even more so seeing they rarely have interior walls, bookshelves, smoke and whatnot interfering that in reality would be there.

Video Games can probably simulate reality better than tabletop, since they can easily put all those details in now a days.

 auticus wrote:

it makes units without upgrades useless.

It doesn't make them useless at all. It means that people trying to game the system with free crap have a criteria set that as much free crap as possible = winning at life, and that units without all the free stuff != winning at life... but having played PL almost exclusively since release I can tell you that that is not really the case at all and hasn't been an issue on our tables.

Actually what it does is make units with meh upgrades worse. If you have really good upgrades that cost above your average unit cost, PL buffs that unit. If you have no upgrades, PL is generally ok. If you are a unit with upgrades that almost no one takes you end up overcosted in PL. The big issue for PL from a tournament standpoint right now is that GW has done (and I don't believe intends to do) any re-balancing using PL. Further most groups playing with it are not trying to min-max using it so we really have no idea how well things work out if you do (they don't work out great in points right now either, but at least GW is making some effort on that end).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

xmbk wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

We need a criteria for LOS, i agree with that, but going to the warmahordes levels of "You could play with the bases alone" doesn't seem like a good idea.

Why?

If you even need to ask, then our visions of the game are so different that there is no use in discussing.

Edit: For reference:

Q: Do units that are not Infantry (Vehicles, Monsters,
etc.) gain the benefit of cover from woods, ruins etc. if they are at
least 50% obscured by that piece of terrain but are not actually
on or within it?
A: No. Unless they are Infantry, such a unit must meet
the two following conditions to gain the benefit of cover:
• All of its models must be either on or within the terrain.
• The unit must be at least 50% obscured from the point
of view of the firer (note that it doesn’t matter what is
obscuring the target, only that it is obscured).


From rulebook's FAQ.

Meh I think I would prefer the malifaux version of TLOS, it isn't perfect but it is better than pure TLOS. IT comes down to defining terrain, and then everything model having a height characteristic. So a piece of terrain referred to as blocking would block LOS, then the terrain has a height (you could easily state that this is it's actual height in inches.) and if a model is shorter than that LOS is blocked unless the firing model is taller than the terrain in quesiton or you can draw a line not passing over the terrain that passes over the models base(or hull). Sure you could say "well then you just need the base" to which I would say to someone "well sure, but no one will play you." TLOS is a terrible mechanic that makes things much more difficult. % obscured is a bad rule because it really easy to tell when it is on one extreme or the other, not so much around exactly 50%. Abstract terrain just works much better for an abstract game, than TLOS.

Further most groups playing with it are not trying to min-max using it so we really have no idea how well things work out if you do (they don't work out great in points right now either, but at least GW is making some effort on that end).

Thats the key. PL isn't for powergaming and min max play. Points aren't good either as you noted but here we are (this is why I don't play 40k in a powergaming context until these mechanisms are at a point where I consider them not building themselves)

Spoletta wrote:

xmbk wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

We need a criteria for LOS, i agree with that, but going to the warmahordes levels of "You could play with the bases alone" doesn't seem like a good idea.

Why?

If you even need to ask, then our visions of the game are so different that there is no use in discussing.

Edit: For reference:

Q: Do units that are not Infantry (Vehicles, Monsters,
etc.) gain the benefit of cover from woods, ruins etc. if they are at
least 50% obscured by that piece of terrain but are not actually
on or within it?
A: No. Unless they are Infantry, such a unit must meet
the two following conditions to gain the benefit of cover:
• All of its models must be either on or within the terrain.
• The unit must be at least 50% obscured from the point
of view of the firer (note that it doesn’t matter what is
obscuring the target, only that it is obscured).


From rulebook's FAQ.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Saying "you could play with bases alone" means clearer definitions of terrain. Forests are the easiest example. Tree height is rarely to scale - there are tables where ancient oaks barely reach the 2nd story of buildings.

Another example is the difference between models from different editions. Why do my 2nd edition models gain obscured but your new editions of the same unit don't?

If you don't see this as an issue, we really are playing different versions of the game.

 auticus wrote:

Further most groups playing with it are not trying to min-max using it so we really have no idea how well things work out if you do (they don't work out great in points right now either, but at least GW is making some effort on that end).

Thats the key. PL isn't for powergaming and min max play. Points aren't good either as you noted but here we are (this is why I don't play 40k in a powergaming context until these mechanisms are at a point where I consider them not building themselves)

Alright im gonna point this out, all of the power level argument is under the assumption that you are with a close nit group of friends, if you just show up at a shop looking to play, no one is going to use power points because just basic point points is a more universally accepted form of the game. It can not be ignored that PL do expose power gaming much worse because anyone building a list taht has any inkling of wanting to win, will utilize all the free stuff. Points put a curb to that and prevent the power game somewhat, or even semi competitive player from gearing all out.

In a closed group, sure power levels can work, in a normal setting, its not going to, why od you think none of the tournaments use PL? If PL were so balanced we would see them in the ITC level, but we dont because of the lack of balance and ease of exploration. Because of this, i see no point in power level, GW might as well just scrap it and go back to using points as powerlevel are just a waste of time, since they are no more then "official house rules." If the argument for PL is "the math is easier." its addition, that is all, your just adding more things.

They are not balanced, if you're worried about exploitation stop right there and used matched play.

They are in the words of GW meant to be a gross estimate of how powerfull a unit can be to easily build a list for a whacky scenario.

And if you don't believe the narrative or open scenarios are whackier than the matched play ones(or god forbid the ITC-pack wich I think suffers from lack of wackiness) I think you need to try them.

 Peregrine wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Realistically, addressing this would basically require a new edition.

This is the correct answer. The only solution is a new edition that makes 40k a wargame, instead of a CCG with "cards" you have to paint yourself. And I'm glad people are finally starting to agree with what I was saying from day one, that 8th edition is a dumpster fire of bad design.

Exactly. Man, I used to play this game every week, I was on this forum all the time. 7th and 8th have been awful. I've got over 100,000 points of 40k, nicely painted, and it's just collecting dust, waiting (hoping) for a return to when this is a wargame again. Terrain should matter. It should be a factor in movement. Reserves did a lot to mitigate alpha-striking - until they added the stupid rule that you lose if you have no models on the table. And, can we focus on infantry again, instead of primarchs and giant monsters?

In a closed group, sure power levels can work, in a normal setting, its not going to, why od you think none of the tournaments use PL? If PL were so balanced we would see them in the ITC level, but we dont because of the lack of balance and ease of exploration. Because of this, i see no point in power level, GW might as well just scrap it and go back to using points as powerlevel are just a waste of time, since they are no more then "official house rules." If the argument for PL is "the math is easier." its addition, that is all, your just adding more things.

I'd like to point out that to many people, a closed group IS the normal setting and that the ITC level is a sub set of the game, as much as to a tournament player ITC is the normal setting and closed groups a sub set of the game.

It goes both ways and GW provided us multiple ways to play the game, which is one thing that I agree with them on.

I'd also like to point out that points are so far not balanced and are easy to exploit. To the point that the game is broken at the power gaming level regardless if you are using PL or points.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The issue with saying just choose not to use some matched play rules is that nobody does that. People don't pick and choose which to keep, other than missions thanks to ITC. Not that I've ever seen. Either you play matched play and use all the adjustments or you don't play matched at all (which also barely anyone does). There is no cherry picking.

Then you need to take better control of the game you're playing and set better expectations with your opponents. This is simply a matter of not being willing to have a conversation about the type of game you're interested in.

The moment you HAVE to police yourself, the game or point system is broken and needs to be fixed. End of story. We aren't to do the designer's job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:

In a closed group, sure power levels can work, in a normal setting, its not going to, why od you think none of the tournaments use PL? If PL were so balanced we would see them in the ITC level, but we dont because of the lack of balance and ease of exploration. Because of this, i see no point in power level, GW might as well just scrap it and go back to using points as powerlevel are just a waste of time, since they are no more then "official house rules." If the argument for PL is "the math is easier." its addition, that is all, your just adding more things.

I'd like to point out that to many people, a closed group IS the normal setting and that the ITC level is a sub set of the game, as much as to a tournament player ITC is the normal setting and closed groups a sub set of the game.

It goes both ways and GW provided us multiple ways to play the game, which is one thing that I agree with them on.

I'd also like to point out that points are so far not balanced and are easy to exploit. To the point that the game is broken at the power gaming level regardless if you are using PL or points.

Points have more granularity and are at least more fixable than Power Level. You can't argue against that.

Points have more granularity and are at least more fixable than Power Level. You can't argue against that.

Wasn't trying to argue it

They are more granular. But until they are actually fixed and provide real balance and not just structure, I'll stick with Power Level because its easier.

The moment points are actually enforcing some balance, I'll reconsider. Right now, they provide the same gaming experience to me.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The issue with saying just choose not to use some matched play rules is that nobody does that. People don't pick and choose which to keep, other than missions thanks to ITC. Not that I've ever seen. Either you play matched play and use all the adjustments or you don't play matched at all (which also barely anyone does). There is no cherry picking.

Then you need to take better control of the game you're playing and set better expectations with your opponents. This is simply a matter of not being willing to have a conversation about the type of game you're interested in.

The moment you HAVE to police yourself, the game or point system is broken and needs to be fixed. End of story. We aren't to do the designer's job.

This has been the nature of 40k for years. 40k has always been a self policed game - 8th didn't change that.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The issue with saying just choose not to use some matched play rules is that nobody does that. People don't pick and choose which to keep, other than missions thanks to ITC. Not that I've ever seen. Either you play matched play and use all the adjustments or you don't play matched at all (which also barely anyone does). There is no cherry picking.

Then you need to take better control of the game you're playing and set better expectations with your opponents. This is simply a matter of not being willing to have a conversation about the type of game you're interested in.

The moment you HAVE to police yourself, the game or point system is broken and needs to be fixed. End of story. We aren't to do the designer's job.

This has been the nature of 40k for years. 40k has always been a self policed game - 8th didn't change that.

Agreed, with the addition that most of wargaming has always been self policing. I've played Field of Glory, Flames of War, Bolt Action, X-Wing, Dunn-Kempf, DBX, Cold War Commander, Infinity, Malifaux, Warmachine, and others (though the ones I can't remember are usually one-off games and not systems I bought into) and they all require self-policing to make sure players come to the table with the same expectations. In my opinion, part of the beauty of hobby tabletop wargaming has been its freedom to do as you will with your hobby, but that sort of freedom comes at the cost of having to put effort into your enjoyment.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Realistically, addressing this would basically require a new edition.

This is the correct answer. The only solution is a new edition that makes 40k a wargame, instead of a CCG with "cards" you have to paint yourself. And I'm glad people are finally starting to agree with what I was saying from day one, that 8th edition is a dumpster fire of bad design.

Exactly. Man, I used to play this game every week, I was on this forum all the time. 7th and 8th have been awful. I've got over 100,000 points of 40k, nicely painted, and it's just collecting dust, waiting (hoping) for a return to when this is a wargame again. Terrain should matter. It should be a factor in movement. Reserves did a lot to mitigate alpha-striking - until they added the stupid rule that you lose if you have no models on the table. And, can we focus on infantry again, instead of primarchs and giant monsters?

Interestingly I see more infantry in the game now than I did in any previous edition. Early 8th had bigger things on the table, but they have largely fallen to the wayside in favor of infantry spam. Really what I miss is more restricted list building, I think at least having limits on repeat units would be largely good for the game.

That's because since wounds from hits don't bleed over anymore it's more beneficial to run min squads of 1 wound unit. Oh no, you unloaded your laz pred into my marine squad, you killed 3 marines with 3 hits each dealing 4 damage....I'm just gonna hit your one big guy with all my little guys and bring you down or make you worthless profile wise.

This edition is all about death by 1000 paper cuts.