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.
We literally have a Strat that basically Grant's everyone +1 to their save.
You can pretend there are advantages to going second (there are VERY few), but first turn basically dictates how the game goes.
Also the fact you decided to drop Footcrons as viable in certain missions is one of the most hilarious things I've ever read. Go tell everyone in the Necron Tactica thread about your "finding". I'll get the popcorn.
I did mention that Strat although I think it should've been 0 CP instead of 2, what I said was that we need more of those. What is the opposite of shooting twice? Taking half damage, SM got some of that with transhuman physiology, good design! Iron Hands ignoring move and shoot and re-roll hit rolls of 1 in dev doctrine? Bad!
What is your proof of that? The stats have shown the opposite according to reddit but I can't find a source, I'll just say it isn't always cut and dry. I have been beat by players that had good deployment with just the right terrain and they managed to take advantage of going second. Normally and especially at lower levels of play and with the original maelstrom missions I'd say there was a huge advantage to going second, I still believe there is an advantage to going first but in ITC with good terrain it's not huge for me.
Unsolicited advice for a mission set no one plays would not be appreciated in a tactics thread. These were homebrew missions that discouraged shooting and damaged units that sat in their deployment zone all game, nobody plays with anything like it. Of course, a Zerker rush or Custodian bike list would have done ten times better at those missions than my Warriors and Triarch Praetorians, but I packed my list before going and was pleasantly surprised when I didn't get stomped by a relatively soft old Ynnari list (he thought WD was optional since the FAQs/Erratas were unchanged) and I got to reanimate a bunch of my guys because the missions turned the game into a pillow fight. I think it is very much related to rules intent, however. The intent of the rules is to allow people to have fun and if gunlines are ruining your fun maybe you should consider night fight or storm rules before you try out AA which is very far removed from the game's design. UGOIGO is baked deeply into the system and all the attempts of AA had integration problems right on the surface of the system from my POV and would require huge changes to implement I don't think I've seen anyone say they tried AA and it worked flawlessly for three games.
Which was only ever used when both opponents had maybe one unit left and everyone was on indefinite Overwatch.
Your experience of 2nd edition was apparently vastly different to mine, and that of every other person I've discussed it with in the last 20 years...
Overwatch was extremely widely used, particularly by Guard and more shooty-styled Marine armies. If anything, the complaint was that it was used too much.
Can confirm. I won a ton of my 2nd Ed games by abusing the Overwatch mechanics using most of my units.
Have overwatch as a choice during a turn, and let it fire at units after they have moved. Every unit can overwatch on 6+ can be left.
Orks allways overwatch on a 5+ could be a special ork rule.
Once upon a time, Overwatch was something you did instead of shooting in your own shooting phase, allowing you to interrupt your opponent's movement (and later expanded to any time in the opponent's turn) to shoot at units as they moved into sight or range. A return to something like that would have been vastly better than the version that was introduced in 6th edition.
I come in too late to really see much of then, i was sorta more interested in the painting and building so it was a year before i really even started to learn the rules right before 3rd edition.
I would think it would open the game up a lot, Could even have things that enable it during the first player turn. Making the first player have to think about placement and movement as well.
There is a lot it could do for the game, with little changes in other place now i feel.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...@AnomanderRake that definitely has made the problem more pronounced and is why I feel one of the big rebalancing points in the game is a real fix to preventing whomecer goes fordt each turn from having an advantage.
First turn advantage wasn't a serious issue in Warmachine because the game was heavily melee-focused and models didn't deploy in range to attack. First turn advantage is serious in 40k because everything is a giant cannon capable of blasting models three tables away. Blaming the issue on the turn order and trying to overcomplicate the game further isn't going to solve the issue if you keep letting people deploy armies capable of wiping each other off the table in a turn or two of shooting in range to shoot each other.
Adding extra stuff to the game without addressing the actual problems (because it'd be too hard and require undoing some of the things in the army books you've sold people) is exactly the mistake that GW makes that leads to excess bloat, wild imbalance, and constant edition changes.
40k will never be WMH as it is too shooting heavy and thus has to address things differently.
And turn priority has always been a complaint, it's just no one can agree how to balance it.
Let me rephrase.
You cannot fix Warhammer by introducing alternating activations unless you're prepared to burn the whole thing and start over. I've tried. Basic assumptions about having a movement, shooting, charge, and fight phase are ingrained into how units are designed, the whole concept of being 'engaged in melee', all the sort of conceptual bases of the game.
You might fix Warhammer by correcting the power creep that creates trap options, alpha-strike advantage, and the target priority game where the movement phase is an irrelevant afterthought because your army can sweep all enemies off the table without moving.
And we know exactly how you'd build Warhammer with alternating activations, because Rick Priestley went off and built Antares. Which is Warhammer with alternating activations. As written by the people who invented Warhammer.
I disagree, because I feel that Apoc captures the 40k feel while being an AA system.
Now I'm not saying that AA is the only way to flatten put the advantage, I'm just saying that if 40k adopts an AA system that it should adopt the one used in Apoc.
There are a lot of ways to address the first move advantage: random turn order, casualties only die at the end of the game turn, ect, ect.
The point is the rules need to have this solution, whatever it is, baked into it because assuming that people are going to play with a set amount of terrain in any game doesn't work to fix bad play experiances. I mean I love a good building to building style city fight board, but there are people who toss down maybe 5 peices of terrain and call it good, and others still who enjoy something between those two layouts. Because of that the balancing factor terrain should provide doesn't exist with enough consitency to be worth using to prop up the game's balance.
Especially with how lackluster the defensive nature of it edition's terrain is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dyndraig wrote: IGOUGO is not the problem by itself, One of my favorite rulesets (Kings of War) is IGOUGO and it works great.
I feel that it can be a good system, especially in fantasy or historical games with little to no shooting, but in a game like 40k I feel that it needs some more fleshing out. The ability to sacrifice something like movement in the next turn by going to ground for example was a good start, but rather than building on it (perhaps a unit can make a defensive shooting action, but fights last and loses the ability to shoot the next turn for example) they took it away and left us with less reaction or interrupt actions available, which is why there are many who feel like the game has too much downtime.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/17 07:39:08
I don't think theres anything wrong with the idea of the game being balanced around some amount of terrain... If there was any indication of what that amount was.
The 40k rules however dont say anything, and its left to the players to experiment. Getting it wrong though is a hugely negative play experience that can invalidate hundreds of dollars worth of minis.
All it would take is one page in a rulebook to show some example terrain layouts.
We literally have a Strat that basically Grant's everyone +1 to their save.
You can pretend there are advantages to going second (there are VERY few), but first turn basically dictates how the game goes.
Also the fact you decided to drop Footcrons as viable in certain missions is one of the most hilarious things I've ever read. Go tell everyone in the Necron Tactica thread about your "finding". I'll get the popcorn.
I did mention that Strat although I think it should've been 0 CP instead of 2, what I said was that we need more of those. What is the opposite of shooting twice? Taking half damage, SM got some of that with transhuman physiology, good design! Iron Hands ignoring move and shoot and re-roll hit rolls of 1 in dev doctrine? Bad!
What is your proof of that? The stats have shown the opposite according to reddit but I can't find a source, I'll just say it isn't always cut and dry. I have been beat by players that had good deployment with just the right terrain and they managed to take advantage of going second. Normally and especially at lower levels of play and with the original maelstrom missions I'd say there was a huge advantage to going second, I still believe there is an advantage to going first but in ITC with good terrain it's not huge for me.
Unsolicited advice for a mission set no one plays would not be appreciated in a tactics thread. These were homebrew missions that discouraged shooting and damaged units that sat in their deployment zone all game, nobody plays with anything like it. Of course, a Zerker rush or Custodian bike list would have done ten times better at those missions than my Warriors and Triarch Praetorians, but I packed my list before going and was pleasantly surprised when I didn't get stomped by a relatively soft old Ynnari list (he thought WD was optional since the FAQs/Erratas were unchanged) and I got to reanimate a bunch of my guys because the missions turned the game into a pillow fight. I think it is very much related to rules intent, however. The intent of the rules is to allow people to have fun and if gunlines are ruining your fun maybe you should consider night fight or storm rules before you try out AA which is very far removed from the game's design. UGOIGO is baked deeply into the system and all the attempts of AA had integration problems right on the surface of the system from my POV and would require huge changes to implement I don't think I've seen anyone say they tried AA and it worked flawlessly for three games.
...you DO realize that the Strat is, for all intents and purposes, broken? If it were in any other game, we'd be laughing at the concept itself. For a flat 2CP (which is a pitiful amount), you increase your durability to EVERYTHING being shot at you.
It's bad design because IGOUGO is already bad design and the Stratagem proves that. The fact you're going these lengths to defend a non-realistic approach (which was somehow a complaint with AA but not IGOUGO......) to how the game should be played just shows adversity to change. Apparently even the Apocalypse rules say IGOUGO is bad!
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
...you DO realize that the Strat is, for all intents and purposes, broken? If it were in any other game, we'd be laughing at the concept itself. For a flat 2CP (which is a pitiful amount), you increase your durability to EVERYTHING being shot at you.
It's bad design because IGOUGO is already bad design and the Stratagem proves that. The fact you're going these lengths to defend a non-realistic approach (which was somehow a complaint with AA but not IGOUGO......) to how the game should be played just shows adversity to change. Apparently even the Apocalypse rules say IGOUGO is bad!
Yes, there is very rarely a situation where I don't use it, even if I get most of my army in cover I'll still use it to keep one or two units in cover to have a chance at denying First Strike/Kill One. I'd still improve it even further, I don't think it should be a Stratagem, it should just be a game mechanic IMO. It's the same thing in card games, one player has to go first and the other player has to go second and those can work fine with IGOUGO. The player going first gets some sort of punishment, they can't attack, they draw less cards, they get fewer other resources, they have a harder time scoring objectives and it all balances out and you can still have a great experience. You just have to take it into account when balancing the game by giving the player going second some advantages while the player going first gets others that's not bad design IMO. Ignoring the problem can be bad design and if it gets really bad it can be very fun to be put in the losing position from the start, same reason why we need tight balance, the game shouldn't be decided too early. It shouldn't be decided by factions entirely, lists entirely, deployment entirely, who gets first turn entirely, round 1 entirely... AA only fixes one of these issues, which no one can provide stats exist in the first place, that of games being decided by who gets first turn. The game might very well still be decided at the end of round 1 with AA.
I want realistic results within the lore of the game world more than I want moment-to-moment realism. AA is slightly less gamey but it's still far from simulationist by default. The nature of war in the far future looking anything like 40k seems very unrealistic. There are tonnes of popular UGOIGO games, much fewer simultaneous games outside of RTS because a computer is better at handling those things, it's pretty much only miniature games that do the AA thing AFAIK, you don't see any card games where people can only attack with one thing at a time and then go back and forth until every card has had a chance to attack. When 40k is viewed more like a card game, you aren't commanding models and units in a one to one scale, but instead representing some other much larger conflict by the rules, then I think things are more fun and make more sense. I'm still waiting to find someone to play Apoc with so I might change my mind back to thinking that 40k should change over, currently I am not convinced.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/17 15:43:06
vict0988 wrote: AA only fixes one of these issues, which no one can provide stats exist in the first place, that of games being decided by who gets first turn. The game might very well still be decided at the end of round 1 with AA.
AA provides two mechanisms that help avoid one-turn games.
1. Players have the ability to react to each other, which mitigates alpha striking. If my deployment leaves my army exposed to shooting, I have the ability to activate units and get them out of the line of fire while they're being attacked. It's not a get out of jail free card and I'm still going to be shot, but I don't have to sit around and let my entire army get blasted off the table before they do anything.
2. Players have the ability to fight back simultaneously. If we both have glass hammer, shooting-oriented armies, you getting the first turn doesn't mean I'm going to be wiped off the table before I can respond. We're going to trade fire, and it might be a bloodbath, but I can eliminate units before they have a chance to shoot and that reduces the overall firepower coming my way.
Reaction systems (a la Infinity or Starship Troopers) allow games to have similar sorts of counterplay while retaining the basic IGOUGO structure.
It's also worth mentioning that AA dramatically increases the opportunity for meaningful decision-making. You have to make decisions like whether to get a threatened unit into cover, or activate another unit to try to preemptively take out the threat. You can make plans to coordinate your units, but you have to be ready for the possibility of the enemy interrupting. You get to choose whether to activate an important unit early and maximize its benefit, or save it for later to exploit how the battlefield changes in the interim. There's a lot more tactical challenge involved and at the scale of 40K I think it makes for a much better game.
It always seems the people who are advocating AA advocate tournament play and hyper competitive list building. It’s like they want to play a different game from 40k. Like they want to change every aspect of 40k and ignore the whole of the back ground.
No one from the other sides of these arguments are saying that you lot a wrong. Just that you lot have different opinions. Like different things. It’s like you have gone onto a cheese lovers forum just to go around telling everyone that cheese is gak and they shouldn’t like eat. Because they are wrong.
Again the mod is right. Overwatch was over used and a pain in the arse at times in 2nd. Constantly interrupting moves and dragging the game out in my experience. Which according to slayer fan didn’t happen because everything happens as he says or else.
Like the Ogryn thing. No one takes ogryns apparently when they can afford Bullgryns. Except I do. All the time. Don’t even own Bullgryns and don’t want to. I even take ogryns at the expense of other units. I like ogryns. So I take them.
Basically a lot of people on here need to grow up and stop stamping their feet. Let’s all be big boys and girls and accept that some people like different things from each other. Looking at you slayer-fan. (And I’m not a huge fan of slayer either).
I like alternate activation. I'm not a tournament player any longer (mainly because I don't want to keep up with burn and churn culture).
I like alternate activation because I enjoy the interaction of the game much better than standing there for 30-45 minutes doing nothing but watching models get pulled off the table without being able to respond.
Andykp wrote: It always seems the people who are advocating AA advocate tournament play and hyper competitive list building. It’s like they want to play a different game from 40k. Like they want to change every aspect of 40k and ignore the whole of the back ground.
No one from the other sides of these arguments are saying that you lot a wrong. Just that you lot have different opinions. Like different things. It’s like you have gone onto a cheese lovers forum just to go around telling everyone that cheese is gak and they shouldn’t like eat. Because they are wrong.
Again the mod is right. Overwatch was over used and a pain in the arse at times in 2nd. Constantly interrupting moves and dragging the game out in my experience. Which according to slayer fan didn’t happen because everything happens as he says or else.
Like the Ogryn thing. No one takes ogryns apparently when they can afford Bullgryns. Except I do. All the time. Don’t even own Bullgryns and don’t want to. I even take ogryns at the expense of other units. I like ogryns. So I take them.
Basically a lot of people on here need to grow up and stop stamping their feet. Let’s all be big boys and girls and accept that some people like different things from each other. Looking at you slayer-fan. (And I’m not a huge fan of slayer either).
Tournaments have nothing do with it, for me at least. I just want more tactical, immersive gameplay. A complete re-write would, if done by creative and competent people, lead to a much better gameplay experience. It would be a "different" game than "shuffle your models around and roll more 6s than the other person," and probably a better one that more closely matches the lore.
How does a more dynamic, balanced game conflict with the 40k fluff, anyway? I wasn't aware that most of the battles were completely lopsided, or revolved around both forces standing in one spot trading potshots until one side is wiped out.
...you DO realize that the Strat is, for all intents and purposes, broken? If it were in any other game, we'd be laughing at the concept itself. For a flat 2CP (which is a pitiful amount), you increase your durability to EVERYTHING being shot at you.
It's bad design because IGOUGO is already bad design and the Stratagem proves that. The fact you're going these lengths to defend a non-realistic approach (which was somehow a complaint with AA but not IGOUGO......) to how the game should be played just shows adversity to change. Apparently even the Apocalypse rules say IGOUGO is bad!
Yes, there is very rarely a situation where I don't use it, even if I get most of my army in cover I'll still use it to keep one or two units in cover to have a chance at denying First Strike/Kill One. I'd still improve it even further, I don't think it should be a Stratagem, it should just be a game mechanic IMO. It's the same thing in card games, one player has to go first and the other player has to go second and those can work fine with IGOUGO. The player going first gets some sort of punishment, they can't attack, they draw less cards, they get fewer other resources, they have a harder time scoring objectives and it all balances out and you can still have a great experience. You just have to take it into account when balancing the game by giving the player going second some advantages while the player going first gets others that's not bad design IMO. Ignoring the problem can be bad design and if it gets really bad it can be very fun to be put in the losing position from the start, same reason why we need tight balance, the game shouldn't be decided too early. It shouldn't be decided by factions entirely, lists entirely, deployment entirely, who gets first turn entirely, round 1 entirely... AA only fixes one of these issues, which no one can provide stats exist in the first place, that of games being decided by who gets first turn. The game might very well still be decided at the end of round 1 with AA.
I want realistic results within the lore of the game world more than I want moment-to-moment realism. AA is slightly less gamey but it's still far from simulationist by default. The nature of war in the far future looking anything like 40k seems very unrealistic. There are tonnes of popular UGOIGO games, much fewer simultaneous games outside of RTS because a computer is better at handling those things, it's pretty much only miniature games that do the AA thing AFAIK, you don't see any card games where people can only attack with one thing at a time and then go back and forth until every card has had a chance to attack. When 40k is viewed more like a card game, you aren't commanding models and units in a one to one scale, but instead representing some other much larger conflict by the rules, then I think things are more fun and make more sense. I'm still waiting to find someone to play Apoc with so I might change my mind back to thinking that 40k should change over, currently I am not convinced.
You're forgetting one key difference for those card games, and that's the availability of cards. You start with your whole army in 40k, but I don't start with my whole deck in MtG
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Have overwatch as a choice during a turn, and let it fire at units after they have moved. Every unit can overwatch on 6+ can be left.
Orks allways overwatch on a 5+ could be a special ork rule.
Once upon a time, Overwatch was something you did instead of shooting in your own shooting phase, allowing you to interrupt your opponent's movement (and later expanded to any time in the opponent's turn) to shoot at units as they moved into sight or range. A return to something like that would have been vastly better than the version that was introduced in 6th edition.
Which was only ever used when both opponents had maybe one unit left and everyone was on indefinite Overwatch.
That might've been how you & yours were playing, but it definitely wasn't my 2e experience (or practice).....
Yeah, I’ve been witness to too many Overwatch games back from the day to see the old style return. Both sides sitting in Overwatch until one side flinched and was cut down (usually 5th turn, when someone *had* to make a move to capture an objective).
If Overwatch carried a -1 To Hit penalty and could be negated by some form of pinning (seriously, why is this mechanic NOT in the game?), I might change my stance.
Also, on AA, I’ve used it for most of my 8E games, and it has worked well enough. However, I also play in small enough games (1000-1250 points) that IGOUGO is feasible, as it’s really hard to wipe a squad out before it has had a chance to act.
Insectum7 wrote: Can confirm. I won a ton of my 2nd Ed games by abusing the Overwatch mechanics using most of my units.
Agreed - for gunlines put everything on overwatch, hide everything.
Worst case scenario you get to shoot with everything at the start of your opponents turn with no penalty. But in practice you could delay until after an opponent had declared their actions (overwatch, charge, etc) and then selectively pick off what you wanted before they actually could move or hide. The only exception was when your opponent had the overwatch initiative on you to overwatch your overwatchers...
...you DO realize that the Strat is, for all intents and purposes, broken? If it were in any other game, we'd be laughing at the concept itself. For a flat 2CP (which is a pitiful amount), you increase your durability to EVERYTHING being shot at you.
It's bad design because IGOUGO is already bad design and the Stratagem proves that. The fact you're going these lengths to defend a non-realistic approach (which was somehow a complaint with AA but not IGOUGO......) to how the game should be played just shows adversity to change. Apparently even the Apocalypse rules say IGOUGO is bad!
Yes, there is very rarely a situation where I don't use it, even if I get most of my army in cover I'll still use it to keep one or two units in cover to have a chance at denying First Strike/Kill One. I'd still improve it even further, I don't think it should be a Stratagem, it should just be a game mechanic IMO. It's the same thing in card games, one player has to go first and the other player has to go second and those can work fine with IGOUGO. The player going first gets some sort of punishment, they can't attack, they draw less cards, they get fewer other resources, they have a harder time scoring objectives and it all balances out and you can still have a great experience. You just have to take it into account when balancing the game by giving the player going second some advantages while the player going first gets others that's not bad design IMO. Ignoring the problem can be bad design and if it gets really bad it can be very fun to be put in the losing position from the start, same reason why we need tight balance, the game shouldn't be decided too early. It shouldn't be decided by factions entirely, lists entirely, deployment entirely, who gets first turn entirely, round 1 entirely... AA only fixes one of these issues, which no one can provide stats exist in the first place, that of games being decided by who gets first turn. The game might very well still be decided at the end of round 1 with AA.
I want realistic results within the lore of the game world more than I want moment-to-moment realism. AA is slightly less gamey but it's still far from simulationist by default. The nature of war in the far future looking anything like 40k seems very unrealistic. There are tonnes of popular UGOIGO games, much fewer simultaneous games outside of RTS because a computer is better at handling those things, it's pretty much only miniature games that do the AA thing AFAIK, you don't see any card games where people can only attack with one thing at a time and then go back and forth until every card has had a chance to attack. When 40k is viewed more like a card game, you aren't commanding models and units in a one to one scale, but instead representing some other much larger conflict by the rules, then I think things are more fun and make more sense. I'm still waiting to find someone to play Apoc with so I might change my mind back to thinking that 40k should change over, currently I am not convinced.
You're forgetting one key difference for those card games, and that's the availability of cards. You start with your whole army in 40k, but I don't start with my whole deck in MtG
Yes, there is a lot of hidden information in Magic. You don't start with your entire deck (army) available, you don't know what is in each other's hands unless an effect allows you to look, you can bluff, and you won't always draw what you need at that moment. There is also a far abetter resource system with lands and mana. The lands untap or "refill" at the beginning of your turn, and you can choose not to use all of it, which means your opponent now has to consider what you may do on their turn. Magic has instants, activated abilities, and spells with flash, that can all be used on your opponent's turn, and the cards are far more complex than units in 40k, with keyword abilities and unique abilities that create multitudes of different synergies and possibilities.
You're forgetting one key difference for those card games, and that's the availability of cards. You start with your whole army in 40k, but I don't start with my whole deck in MtG
Does your army start on the table? Do your units start in RF/melee range? Do you choose which dice rolls you'll get? You won't always have every possible option available every game. You and your opponent are dealt hands in the form of terrain and mission, you draw cards in the form of rolling dice, you set up combos and advance your board state by moving units in the right directions and try to mess with your opponents win condition and board state and combos.
I'm not sure what makes card games okay for UGOIGO and 40k not ok? Is it that your entire army can shoot all at once? Because as I said that's only a problem if the terrain does not mitigate it and if the mission doesn't make up for any difference between the advantage of shooting first that is left after you have the option of trying to hide your army in terrain. An unedintical experience between going first and going second might be a good thing to keep the game interesting if it's balanced. Adding a rule like cover for the player going second in the first battle round would remove the pressure on terrain and missions to balance the IGOUGO system which is why I think prepared positions should have been 0 CP.
Stormonu wrote: On AA, I’ve used it for most of my 8E games, and it has worked well enough. However, I also play in small enough games (1000-1250 points) that IGOUGO is feasible, as it’s really hard to wipe a squad out before it has had a chance to act.
That's interesting to hear, maybe I didn't read the threads I read about the subject thoroughly enough or failed to commit it to memory, perhaps it's easier than I thought it was and I was making big problems out of nothing. I doubt I'd be able to find anyone willing to play it, I wouldn't be mad if GW wanted to do it for 9th ed after fixing any issues the Apoc format might have. That'll be 0-4 years in the future if trends hold unless you want to count CA. I'd be happy with a streamlined 8th edition because SM are kind of going off the rails, even if the intention might have been to cut down on bloat by including the Vigilus stratagems in the main book. I just really wanted a perfected version of 8th and it looks further away than ever. I'd wish they just changed Chapter Tactics and Legion Heritage (the combat doctrine bonus) to narrative play only.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/17 18:33:16
Andykp wrote: It always seems the people who are advocating AA advocate tournament play and hyper competitive list building. It’s like they want to play a different game from 40k. Like they want to change every aspect of 40k and ignore the whole of the back ground.
No one from the other sides of these arguments are saying that you lot a wrong. Just that you lot have different opinions. Like different things. It’s like you have gone onto a cheese lovers forum just to go around telling everyone that cheese is gak and they shouldn’t like eat. Because they are wrong.
Again the mod is right. Overwatch was over used and a pain in the arse at times in 2nd. Constantly interrupting moves and dragging the game out in my experience. Which according to slayer fan didn’t happen because everything happens as he says or else.
Like the Ogryn thing. No one takes ogryns apparently when they can afford Bullgryns. Except I do. All the time. Don’t even own Bullgryns and don’t want to. I even take ogryns at the expense of other units. I like ogryns. So I take them.
Basically a lot of people on here need to grow up and stop stamping their feet. Let’s all be big boys and girls and accept that some people like different things from each other. Looking at you slayer-fan. (And I’m not a huge fan of slayer either).
Tournaments have nothing do with it, for me at least. I just want more tactical, immersive gameplay. A complete re-write would, if done by creative and competent people, lead to a much better gameplay experience. It would be a "different" game than "shuffle your models around and roll more 6s than the other person," and probably a better one that more closely matches the lore.
How does a more dynamic, balanced game conflict with the 40k fluff, anyway? I wasn't aware that most of the battles were completely lopsided, or revolved around both forces standing in one spot trading potshots until one side is wiped out.
I just noticed it was mostly competitive players who also shouted loudest about AA. Also those players appear not to care much about the fluff. Their armies are entirely about winning as are their play styles. Even if it means taking only flying tyrants and some spores. So I concluded those people don’t care about the fluff and don’t like how the game plays or has always played. So maybe 40k isn’t for them.
I didn’t say you couldn’t want a 40k game with AA. But I’m not wrong for wanting it as is. We just like different things. Again it’s only the vocal AA advocates saying that everyone else is wrong. Same with competitive play.
I can't really say Prepared Positions is OP. It's, at best, a 16.7% increase in survivability, and at worst it does nothing for ya (already in Cover, enemy ignores Cover, excessive AP, etc). It's certainly useful, and makes surviving the alpha strike easier, but it ain't breaking no games.
I don't think 40K needs alternating activation. AA simply introduces other problems and tends to slow game play down which is anathema to an already somewhat bloated game system. The problem is that 40K allows too many phases or too much activity per side per turn.
We play 40K with a Reaction Phase whereas the defender has the possibility to either move slightly or shoot at half strength at nearby enemy units (no overwatch). It breaks up the block of phases each side has without compromising tactical execution.
I've played AA games, and they aren't inherently any more tactical or realistic than IGOUGO. But I do understand that 40K has long exacerbated the worst qualities of IGOUGO, prompting gamers to look for alternatives.
amanita wrote: I don't think 40K needs alternating activation. AA simply introduces other problems and tends to slow game play down which is anathema to an already somewhat bloated game system. The problem is that 40K allows too many phases or too much activity per side per turn.
We play 40K with a Reaction Phase whereas the defender has the possibility to either move slightly or shoot at half strength at nearby enemy units (no overwatch). It breaks up the block of phases each side has without compromising tactical execution.
I've played AA games, and they aren't inherently any more tactical or realistic than IGOUGO. But I do understand that 40K has long exacerbated the worst qualities of IGOUGO, prompting gamers to look for alternatives.
How in the hell is AA any slower than IGOUGO? I'm doing stuff around the same time my opponent is with AA. In IGOUGO I wait half an hour.
Andykp wrote: It always seems the people who are advocating AA advocate tournament play and hyper competitive list building. It’s like they want to play a different game from 40k. Like they want to change every aspect of 40k and ignore the whole of the back ground.
No one from the other sides of these arguments are saying that you lot a wrong. Just that you lot have different opinions. Like different things. It’s like you have gone onto a cheese lovers forum just to go around telling everyone that cheese is gak and they shouldn’t like eat. Because they are wrong.
Again the mod is right. Overwatch was over used and a pain in the arse at times in 2nd. Constantly interrupting moves and dragging the game out in my experience. Which according to slayer fan didn’t happen because everything happens as he says or else.
Like the Ogryn thing. No one takes ogryns apparently when they can afford Bullgryns. Except I do. All the time. Don’t even own Bullgryns and don’t want to. I even take ogryns at the expense of other units. I like ogryns. So I take them.
Basically a lot of people on here need to grow up and stop stamping their feet. Let’s all be big boys and girls and accept that some people like different things from each other. Looking at you slayer-fan. (And I’m not a huge fan of slayer either).
Tournaments have nothing do with it, for me at least. I just want more tactical, immersive gameplay. A complete re-write would, if done by creative and competent people, lead to a much better gameplay experience. It would be a "different" game than "shuffle your models around and roll more 6s than the other person," and probably a better one that more closely matches the lore.
How does a more dynamic, balanced game conflict with the 40k fluff, anyway? I wasn't aware that most of the battles were completely lopsided, or revolved around both forces standing in one spot trading potshots until one side is wiped out.
I just noticed it was mostly competitive players who also shouted loudest about AA. Also those players appear not to care much about the fluff. Their armies are entirely about winning as are their play styles. Even if it means taking only flying tyrants and some spores. So I concluded those people don’t care about the fluff and don’t like how the game plays or has always played. So maybe 40k isn’t for them.
I didn’t say you couldn’t want a 40k game with AA. But I’m not wrong for wanting it as is. We just like different things. Again it’s only the vocal AA advocates saying that everyone else is wrong. Same with competitive play.
Maybe because we understand half an hour to not react to the opponent is bad, compared to the CAAC people here apparently who say "Wow I killed half your army! Hope you make a comeback!"
You're forgetting one key difference for those card games, and that's the availability of cards. You start with your whole army in 40k, but I don't start with my whole deck in MtG
Does your army start on the table? Do your units start in RF/melee range? Do you choose which dice rolls you'll get? You won't always have every possible option available every game. You and your opponent are dealt hands in the form of terrain and mission, you draw cards in the form of rolling dice, you set up combos and advance your board state by moving units in the right directions and try to mess with your opponents win condition and board state and combos.
I'm not sure what makes card games okay for UGOIGO and 40k not ok? Is it that your entire army can shoot all at once? Because as I said that's only a problem if the terrain does not mitigate it and if the mission doesn't make up for any difference between the advantage of shooting first that is left after you have the option of trying to hide your army in terrain. An unedintical experience between going first and going second might be a good thing to keep the game interesting if it's balanced. Adding a rule like cover for the player going second in the first battle round would remove the pressure on terrain and missions to balance the IGOUGO system which is why I think prepared positions should have been 0 CP.
Stormonu wrote: On AA, I’ve used it for most of my 8E games, and it has worked well enough. However, I also play in small enough games (1000-1250 points) that IGOUGO is feasible, as it’s really hard to wipe a squad out before it has had a chance to act.
That's interesting to hear, maybe I didn't read the threads I read about the subject thoroughly enough or failed to commit it to memory, perhaps it's easier than I thought it was and I was making big problems out of nothing. I doubt I'd be able to find anyone willing to play it, I wouldn't be mad if GW wanted to do it for 9th ed after fixing any issues the Apoc format might have. That'll be 0-4 years in the future if trends hold unless you want to count CA. I'd be happy with a streamlined 8th edition because SM are kind of going off the rails, even if the intention might have been to cut down on bloat by including the Vigilus stratagems in the main book. I just really wanted a perfected version of 8th and it looks further away than ever. I'd wish they just changed Chapter Tactics and Legion Heritage (the combat doctrine bonus) to narrative play only.
...yes the army starts on the table. I don't start with my entire deck in my hand playing MTG or Yugioh.
And all the sudden you're making the "terrain" argument, which is utterly hilarious. Newsflash: most of the good units don't care about terrain, and in fact none of the top armies really do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flandarz wrote: I can't really say Prepared Positions is OP. It's, at best, a 16.7% increase in survivability, and at worst it does nothing for ya (already in Cover, enemy ignores Cover, excessive AP, etc). It's certainly useful, and makes surviving the alpha strike easier, but it ain't breaking no games.
/a little late to the party.
For the whole army outside of Super Heavy units for 2CP. It isn't just ONE unit like other survival Strats.
If that were in ANY other game we'd all be laughing at the bad design. Why is it okay for 40k to do it?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/09/17 19:11:24
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
I don't like tournament play at all. I like alternating activation because it gives me the opportunity to respond to the enemy, and gives me more to think about and do. It makes my on-the-spot decisions more meaningful, and tends to make for closer results than the pendulum swings of 40K turns. At the very least, it gives units the opportunity to act before being focus-fired to a man and removed from the table, which as a casual player who likes to see his models do things before they drop dead I consider valuable.
Tournament gamers certainly appreciate how IGOUGO facilitates combos and provides absolute control to execute your intended strategy. I wouldn't generalize it as a tournament vs casual thing at all.
I'd challenge 40K players to try a game of Bolt Action and see how they like it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/17 19:30:03
catbarf wrote: I don't like tournament play at all. I like alternating activation because it gives me the opportunity to respond to the enemy, and gives me more to think about and do. It makes my on-the-spot decisions more meaningful, and tends to make for closer results than the pendulum swings of 40K turns. At the very least, it gives units the opportunity to act before being focus-fired to a man and removed from the table, which as a casual player who likes to see his models do things before they drop dead I consider valuable.
Tournament gamers certainly appreciate how IGOUGO facilitates combos and provides absolute control to execute your intended strategy. I wouldn't generalize it as a tournament vs casual thing at all.
I'd challenge 40K players to try a game of Bolt Action and see how they like it.
I agree on the BA part.
as for the combos, well stratagems are great for the one getting them off first.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/17 19:35:09
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Stormonu wrote: Yeah, I’ve been witness to too many Overwatch games back from the day to see the old style return. Both sides sitting in Overwatch until one side flinched and was cut down (usually 5th turn, when someone *had* to make a move to capture an objective).
If Overwatch carried a -1 To Hit penalty and could be negated by some form of pinning (seriously, why is this mechanic NOT in the game?), I might change my stance..
It generally did wind up with the to Hit penalty, as you had a -1 for a target moving into LOS. I agree though that it should have had something that made it less of a no-brainer - make it require a LD or Initiative test, or apply a bonus modifier to shooting at units in Overwatch to represent that they are 'locked' in place taking aim instead of evading incoming fire.
Again, like I said, even across a whole army, you're getting, at best, a 16.7% durability increase. At worst (which is gonna be pretty common considering all the AP and "ignore cover" around and how often you'll hide your good units out of LOS and/or in Cover anyway) it does nothing for ya. And, I guess importantly, it only applies to a single phase of the entire game. Your guys still sitting out in the open on T2? No longer helps them. You might be better off using a sub-faction ability that gives Cover when you're outside a certain distance from the enemy, cuz at least that lasts more than 1 Phase.
To reiterate: not saying it's a bad stratagem. It's solid. But don't play it off like it's broken either. Be objective about it.
Edit: also doesn't apply to units with the Flyer battlefield role either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/17 20:25:29
Completely off topic but Bolt Action is a lot of fun. I also like how they handle veteran levels making more experienced troops harder to knock out assuming they know how to avoid incoming fire, still having pinning mechanics which I miss. The only thing I ever really hated about pinning was that it felt almost pointless to most armies who were either immune, near immune, could take near immunity buffs or otherwise ignored moral in all its effects. Always a problem with 40k, they leave so many of the game play elements on the cutting room floor and boil it down to this bland gruel of blow each other away while keeping some troops with a foot on base ( base being objectives ).
40k these days feels like that one scene from the first dawn of war where it had Marine forces standing on one side shooting non stop at chaos marine forces on the other side and all it was was non stop bolter fire until you break stalemate. Neither side breaking, running, doing anything tactical just shooting each other in the face.
Edit: What I'm saying is, aside from units actually not being bad pulls in a codex, maybe bring back some meaningful mechanics to make things that happen during a turn have some weight.
Also, touching on card games being IGOUGO, that is true however I'd point out it isn't nearly that simple. Depending on how you set up your deck for MtG at least, you can do a lot on your opponents turn. I feel like 40k designers see this and its why we have more, still not many, but more mechanics in strats and the like that let you say shoot reserves as they come in for instance. It isn't much but on that it does give me hope they might actually make the turns feel more fluid with less dead time.
Even if I have 0 hope they will ever even fall into making Ogryns good one day or imagine any kind of meaningful changes to their unit entry. I still wish they would make less, ideally , no codex options that are DoA.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/17 21:19:16
60PL 
12PL 
