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.

Breng77 wrote:


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.

That's pretty much how 4th edition area terrain worked.

Wasn't 4th Ed the over watch edditon where if anything crossed your Loss while you were in over watch you could fire at them with full BS

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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.

I have not played all those games but Malifaux for example takes a lot less in the realm of self policing. IT isn't perfect but there are at least some restrictions on models, spam etc. A large part of that is you build your list at the table, and build it toward the mission, many of which don't even involve killing the opponent. I feel like in most cases the most competitive list in malifaux vs an average or lesser list is far less of a discrepancy than it is in 40k. Part of that is probably due to scale.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Wasn't 4th Ed the over watch edditon where if anything crossed your Loss while you were in over watch you could fire at them with full BS

No. There was no such thing as overwatch in 4th edition.

You may be thinking of 2nd edition, where you could skip your turn with a unit to go into overwatch and then shoot during the opponent's movement phase.

 docdoom77 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


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.

That's pretty much how 4th edition area terrain worked.

It is similar, though there was no size stat on models. There were tiers of terrain though, it was just a bit less granular than a size system would be.

Breng77 wrote:
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.

I 100% agree with this, in a general sense. The response you'll get on dakka is: "BUT SISTERZZ!!1" or equivalent.

Although I am seeing far less infantry spam now, than i used to. I would say infantry spam is falling out of the meta.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Wasn't 4th Ed the over watch edditon where if anything crossed your Loss while you were in over watch you could fire at them with full BS

No. There was no such thing as overwatch in 4th edition.

You may be thinking of 2nd edition, where you could skip your turn with a unit to go into overwatch and then shoot during the opponent's movement phase.

Yep that's it it was 2nd Ed that was the one where no one would move lol

Breng77 wrote:
I have not played all those games but Malifaux for example takes a lot less in the realm of self policing. IT isn't perfect but there are at least some restrictions on models, spam etc. A large part of that is you build your list at the table, and build it toward the mission, many of which don't even involve killing the opponent. I feel like in most cases the most competitive list in malifaux vs an average or lesser list is far less of a discrepancy than it is in 40k. Part of that is probably due to scale.

In my experience it is entirely possible to have a bad game of Malifaux because both players walked into the game with different ideas of how it should go.

 Marmatag wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
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.

I 100% agree with this, in a general sense. The response you'll get on dakka is: "BUT SISTERZZ!!1" or equivalent.

Although I am seeing far less infantry spam now, than i used to. I would say infantry spam is falling out of the meta.

If only we still had this really useful tool called a Force Organisation Chart.

Such a handy thing in limiting spam that was.

 Marmatag wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
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.

I 100% agree with this, in a general sense. The response you'll get on dakka is: "BUT SISTERZZ!!1" or equivalent.

Although I am seeing far less infantry spam now, than i used to. I would say infantry spam is falling out of the meta.

I don't mind the soup options. I do think there are probably too many force orgs available.

I mean the FOC did limit spam more than now, but it depends on what you wanted to spam.

Want to spam dedicated transports, FOC doesn't help, Troop choice, FOC doesn't help much (again more than now)

The other issue with the FOC was that some slots had too many good options and others had crap.

I think we would be far better off with limits (similar to Tau commanders) on specific units.

Personally I like:

All HQs are unique per detachment.
Elites/Fast/Heavy maybe 2 of each unit per detachment
Troops - limited to 3 of each type per detachment, unless you have already taken max of all available troops (so sisters who have only 1 troop choice are uneffected)
Dedicated transports - go back to being taken by specific units, not 1 per other unit.maybe have same limit as troop choices.

 Ordana wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
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.

I 100% agree with this, in a general sense. The response you'll get on dakka is: "BUT SISTERZZ!!1" or equivalent.

Although I am seeing far less infantry spam now, than i used to. I would say infantry spam is falling out of the meta.

If only we still had this really useful tool called a Force Organisation Chart.

Such a handy thing in limiting spam that was.

BUT SISSTERZZ!!!1

No seriously, I agree. If i was to re-write the detachments, they'd go something like this.

Battalion (+3 CP)
2HQ
3Troop
0-2 Heavy
0-2 Elite
0-2 Fast Attack
0-1 Flyer

Spearhead/Vanguard/Outrider (+1 CP)
1 HQ
1 Troop
2 Heavy/Elite/Fast

Fortification Network (-1 CP)
1-3 Fortification

Super-Heavy Detachment (+1 CP)
5 Lord of War

Patrol Detachment (+1 CP)
1 HQ
1 Troop
0-1 Elite
0-1 Fast
0-1 Heavy

Brigade (+5 CP)
3 HQ
5 Troop
2 Elite
2 Fast
2 Heavy
0-1 Flyer
0-1 LoW

Super heavy auxiliary detachment - Deleted
Air Wing - Deleted
Supreme Command Detachment - Deleted
Auxiliary Detachment - Deleted

 Marmatag wrote:
-snip-

I am thankful to whatever deity exists that you didn't write 8th edition.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
-snip-

I am thankful to whatever deity exists that you didn't write 8th edition.

Oh sorry i forgot one:

Baneblade Wing (+1000 CP)
3 Baneblade

Now does it sound like a good set of detachments?

the main problem of the old FOG was a internal codex balance issue
there were those that got just 1 good unit for each slot, so there was no problem of taking 12 good special units next to 6 good standards
and those were all good units used the same slots, running into massive problems.

and the slot was more chosen because of fluff than for anything else

GW solution to this is to add several different detachments, so that the slot a unit get can be based on fluff and it doesn't matter if all good units get the same one, instead of balancing the units and which slot they get


as long as the internal codex balance is that bad, GW could also just remove FOG/Detachments completely and just add a 0-X restriction to specific units instead
army lists won't look that different

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
-snip-

I am thankful to whatever deity exists that you didn't write 8th edition.

Oh sorry i forgot one:

Baneblade Wing (+1000 CP)
3 Baneblade

Now does it sound like a good set of detachments?

No, because my problem wasn't specifically with the presence or absence of a single detachment type, but rather the entire philosophy that was behind the detachment system entirely, primarily with regards to how little sense it makes. Why does a Vanguard detachment / Spearhead detachment require 1 Troop? It just seems arbitrary. Why can't a battalion take a Lord of War, and why does the Lord of War detachment require 5? That's also arbitrary, and benefits certain armies (ones with cheap brigades) far more than others, as well as keeping LOWs in general out of 2k games unless you have a cheap Brigade. Seems arbitrary. Why does the Fortification Network cost 1 cp? Are fortifications really so OP? Seems arbitrary. Why is there no way to bring exactly 4 troops without bringing more than one detachment? Seems arbitrary. Why, if I wanted to bring 9 troops, I'd need a Battalion, Patrol, and Brigade, but if I wanted to bring 10 Troops I could just bring two Brigades? Seems arbitrary.

I think it would be a interesting rule that you have to fill 1 detachment before adding more. And then fill the second before adding a third.

 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.

My statement stands then?

Reemule wrote:
I think it would be a interesting rule that you have to fill 1 detachment before adding more. And then fill the second before adding a third.

So that Battalion becomes a Brigade and Brigade becomes UNPLAYABLE? How stupid

KurtAngle2 wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I think it would be a interesting rule that you have to fill 1 detachment before adding more. And then fill the second before adding a third.

So that Battalion becomes a Brigade and Brigade becomes UNPLAYABLE? How stupid

I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

Charles Babbage.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I think it would be a interesting rule that you have to fill 1 detachment before adding more. And then fill the second before adding a third.

So that Battalion becomes a Brigade and Brigade becomes UNPLAYABLE? How stupid

Just taken an HQ Detachment first and the Brigade secound

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 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.

My statement stands then?

Not really, if you aren't willing to police your game 40k probably isn't the right hobby, honestly pretty much no hobby that involves understood contracts.

 Ordana wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
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.

I 100% agree with this, in a general sense. The response you'll get on dakka is: "BUT SISTERZZ!!1" or equivalent.

Although I am seeing far less infantry spam now, than i used to. I would say infantry spam is falling out of the meta.

If only we still had this really useful tool called a Force Organisation Chart.

Such a handy thing in limiting spam that was.

Lol. The FOC did nothing of the sort. 3rd edition was the era of Las/Plas Tact squad spam, the Dark Reapers spam of their day.

And this is why people play in tournaments. Or, at least why I do. I don't have to worry about policing myself or my opponent in regards to list content, and I don't have to feel bad after crushing someone.

I started tourney playing in 3rd all the way through 5th and power gaming spam was still a thing back then as it is today. The F.O.C did nothing to stop that.

The only difference is that everyone operated out of one codex instead of being able to ally different codices in, but the game was just as busted 20 years ago as it is today.

 Peregrine wrote:
Ugh. No, we do not need to add more -1 penalties to shooting on turn 1. That just makes long-range armies worthless, you can't hit anything on turn 1 and then you get mass charged, locked in combat, and wiped off the table before you ever fire a meaningful shot.

That's quite a short-sighted response, as suppression mechanics are much more than -1 to hit. Actually, it doesn't even need to be a to hit modifier, the point of suppression is to increase survivability of the target unit against repeat attack while also *limiting their effectiveness* in future turns (achieved through movement penalties, attack penalties or other such mechanisms). Some games, such as Bolt Action also use suppression as an alternative means of defeating an opponent - too many pinned down markers and the unit is removed from the table as though it was destroyed. Typically it is harder to achieve a suppression kill than it would be to remove the unit from the table by killing models if the suppression mechanic was not in play, but still easier to achieve than killing all the models when suppression is in play. Basically it raises the level of difficulty in alpha striking, but there is still some reward to shooting and going first.

I mean, if anything I would worry that it would make long range gunlines *too*powerful.

Breng77 wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


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.

That's pretty much how 4th edition area terrain worked.

It is similar, though there was no size stat on models. There were tiers of terrain though, it was just a bit less granular than a size system would be.

Minor quibble, but there actually was a size system for units. I think it was size 1-3, and it determined what size level of terrain you could shoot over. It was pretty basic, but it was there.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


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.

That's pretty much how 4th edition area terrain worked.

It is similar, though there was no size stat on models. There were tiers of terrain though, it was just a bit less granular than a size system would be.

Minor quibble, but there actually was a size system for units. I think it was size 1-3, and it determined what size level of terrain you could shoot over. It was pretty basic, but it was there.

Yeah. It wasn't a stat for troops though. Area Terrain had a height 1 to 3. Which affected, Infantry, Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles differently.

It was a great system, though. Plop down some ruins or some woods and you could hide things behind them of the correct size w/o worrying about a shot against an antenna or through two windows, etc.

 Marmatag wrote:
. If i was to re-write the detachments, they'd go something like this.

Battalion (+3 CP)
2HQ
3Troop
0-2 Heavy
0-2 Elite
0-2 Fast Attack
0-1 Flyer

Spearhead/Vanguard/Outrider (+1 CP)
1 HQ
1 Troop
2 Heavy/Elite/Fast

Fortification Network (-1 CP)
1-3 Fortification

Super-Heavy Detachment (+1 CP)
5 Lord of War

Patrol Detachment (+1 CP)
1 HQ
1 Troop
0-1 Elite
0-1 Fast
0-1 Heavy

Brigade (+5 CP)
3 HQ
5 Troop
2 Elite
2 Fast
2 Heavy
0-1 Flyer
0-1 LoW

Super heavy auxiliary detachment - Deleted
Air Wing - Deleted
Supreme Command Detachment - Deleted
Auxiliary Detachment - Deleted

So you don't want anyone to take assassins ever. Got it. And why punish knight players by only giving them 1cp per 5 units. That's a huge nerf from 3cp for 3 units. It's not like they're competitive anyway.

ThePorcupine wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
. If i was to re-write the detachments, they'd go something like this.

Battalion (+3 CP)
2HQ
3Troop
0-2 Heavy
0-2 Elite
0-2 Fast Attack
0-1 Flyer

Spearhead/Vanguard/Outrider (+1 CP)
1 HQ
1 Troop
2 Heavy/Elite/Fast

Fortification Network (-1 CP)
1-3 Fortification

Super-Heavy Detachment (+1 CP)
5 Lord of War

Patrol Detachment (+1 CP)
1 HQ
1 Troop
0-1 Elite
0-1 Fast
0-1 Heavy

Brigade (+5 CP)
3 HQ
5 Troop
2 Elite
2 Fast
2 Heavy
0-1 Flyer
0-1 LoW

Super heavy auxiliary detachment - Deleted
Air Wing - Deleted
Supreme Command Detachment - Deleted
Auxiliary Detachment - Deleted

So you don't want anyone to take assassins ever. Got it. And why punish knight players by only giving them 1cp per 5 units. That's a huge nerf from 3cp for 3 units. It's not like they're competitive anyway.

Assassins don't have an HQ unit. Explain to me how you can construct an all assassin list.

I mistyped. The super heavy detachment should be +3, not +1. I agree completely with that point.