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.

If only we had some kind of wounding system whereby players were not certain how much damage they had done as they progressed through their shooting phase, like if saves and damage were taken at the end of the battle round rather than immediately. That way, players would have to aim for overkill and you wouldn't be utterly screwed if you got the second turn.

We could also lower lethality overall, introduce a better, clearer cover system, put in some kind of alternating activations so it's not just igougo, base charges off of movement stat instead of just granting random free moves to chargers, ditch the time consuming and obnoxious overwatch mechanic, and ditch tripointing by instituting a much tighter unit coherency rule.

Boy, wouldn't that be a much more streamlined and enjoyable ruleset. If only!

Less lethality, sure.

Every game system ever developed with alternating and/or randomized activation has been far worse than 40K pretty much every aspect. Not sure what GW could do differently.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Less lethality, sure.

Every game system ever developed with alternating and/or randomized activation has been far worse than 40K pretty much every aspect. Not sure what GW could do differently.

Randomized activation 100% agree. Alternating activation, seriously? Literally how? How could you possibly get worse than "we roll a single die at the beginning of the game, whoever wins gets to attack the opposing army with ALL THEIR gak before they get to do anything?"

I mean just off the top of my head, 2nd edition warmahordes, malifaux, Xwing and monsterpocalypse are far better designed and balanced game systems and all feature some form of not "I go with all my stuff, you go with all your stuff."

In apocalypse, which is what I'm alluding to here, you alternate based on detachments, and detachments have a kind of coherency radius similar to unit coherency. You can get towards IGOUGO and go with all your stuff by taking fewer detachments, but detachments give you that game system's version of CP the more you have.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Less lethality, sure.

Every game system ever developed with alternating and/or randomized activation has been far worse than 40K pretty much every aspect. Not sure what GW could do differently.

.. disagree, I've played games with alternating activation and it does add some depth to the play, I've NEVER deliberately exposed a unit in 40k simply to lure one of my opponents more valuable units into a trap. in games I've played with AA (such as battletech) that's a pretty common tactic of mine

the_scotsman wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Less lethality, sure.

Every game system ever developed with alternating and/or randomized activation has been far worse than 40K pretty much every aspect. Not sure what GW could do differently.

Randomized activation 100% agree. Alternating activation, seriously? Literally how? How could you possibly get worse than "we roll a single die at the beginning of the game, whoever wins gets to attack the opposing army with ALL THEIR gak before they get to do anything?"

I mean just off the top of my head, 2nd edition warmahordes, malifaux, Xwing and monsterpocalypse are far better designed and balanced game systems and all feature some form of not "I go with all my stuff, you go with all your stuff."

In apocalypse, which is what I'm alluding to here, you alternate based on detachments, and detachments have a kind of coherency radius similar to unit coherency. You can get towards IGOUGO and go with all your stuff by taking fewer detachments, but detachments give you that game system's version of CP the more you have.

Lol. Then why not just play those games?

I tried them all (except monsterpocalypse) and they are far inferior to even the worst past versions of 40K in just about every way.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Less lethality, sure.

Every game system ever developed with alternating and/or randomized activation has been far worse than 40K pretty much every aspect. Not sure what GW could do differently.

Randomized activation 100% agree. Alternating activation, seriously? Literally how? How could you possibly get worse than "we roll a single die at the beginning of the game, whoever wins gets to attack the opposing army with ALL THEIR gak before they get to do anything?"

I mean just off the top of my head, 2nd edition warmahordes, malifaux, Xwing and monsterpocalypse are far better designed and balanced game systems and all feature some form of not "I go with all my stuff, you go with all your stuff."

In apocalypse, which is what I'm alluding to here, you alternate based on detachments, and detachments have a kind of coherency radius similar to unit coherency. You can get towards IGOUGO and go with all your stuff by taking fewer detachments, but detachments give you that game system's version of CP the more you have.

Lol. Then why not just play those games?

I tried them all (except monsterpocalypse) and they are far inferior to even the worst past versions of 40K in just about every way.

Not sure what metric you'd be using to gauge that. Number of viable competitve strategies? number of viable factions? Units?

Or just, like, your opinion man?

Also, to answer your question: Because it's what people in my area play, and I like the miniatures. If everyone in my area was playing, I dunno, malifaux, I'd probably be playing that. Though I'd need to do a lot more commission work probably, I'd run out of minis to paint a lot faster.

Lol. Then why not just play those games?

I know this is surprising, but even with the decline in writing quality, people love the setting.

I tried them all (except monsterpocalypse) and they are far inferior to even the worst past versions of 40K in just about every way.

And that is your opinion. Personally I love 40k the setting. But think the game is one of the worst on the market. I only play it rarely these days. Pretty much everything else I play is some form of alternating activation. They are much much more interactive, tactical games. You like playing Rochambeau, not everyone else does. Again, that is my opinion. You don't have to like it, and you are welcome to your own. But don't act like your opinion is somehow the correct one.

gungo wrote:
If your shooting characters with multi Meltas your doing it wrong...

What, you want me to shoot flamers and bolters at them?
I'll do that too. But Melta have a very nice BANG YOU ARE DEAD to them.
You don't remember the nice old times where melta would INSTA-SPLAT so many characters? I wish they made melta deadly again!

gungo wrote:
plus nothing says irrelevant like all weapons doing zero damage after the initial 4!

"If you are shooting your weapons at a Gazhkull that already took 4 damage this phase, you are doing it wrong".
Two can play this game.

I don't think Ghaz's 'max 4 wounds per phase' rule is OP or anything but I agree with those saying that it's just a bandaid for 8th's terrible core rules.

I also agree with what was said a few pages back - that the game needs to find a medium between characters being untargetable and characters being shot to oblivion on turn 1.

I think a big part of this is the scale. Knights, Super-Heavies, Fliers and Primarchs simply have no business being in non-Apocalypse 40k. They skew the scale far too much.

I'd argue flyers can exist as fast skimmers like land speeders. But otherwise the scale is weird.

Justyn wrote:

And that is your opinion. Personally I love 40k the setting. But think the game is one of the worst on the market. I only play it rarely these days. Pretty much everything else I play is some form of alternating activation. They are much much more interactive, tactical games. You like playing Rochambeau, not everyone else does. Again, that is my opinion. You don't have to like it, and you are welcome to your own. But don't act like your opinion is somehow the correct one.

Well, your opinion then.

Setting-wise, I probably prefer some of the others, notably Infinity, (retro-70s) Star Wars, etc.. over 40K.

But game-mechanic wise, 40K (while still not „perfect“) is mechanically the best miniature wargame on the market by far.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Justyn wrote:

And that is your opinion. Personally I love 40k the setting. But think the game is one of the worst on the market. I only play it rarely these days. Pretty much everything else I play is some form of alternating activation. They are much much more interactive, tactical games. You like playing Rochambeau, not everyone else does. Again, that is my opinion. You don't have to like it, and you are welcome to your own. But don't act like your opinion is somehow the correct one.

Well, your opinion then.

Setting-wise, I probably prefer some of the others, notably Infinity, (retro-70s) Star Wars, etc.. over 40K.

But game-mechanic wise, 40K (while still not „perfect“) is mechanically the best miniature wargame on the market by far.

Imagine defending a system where you can kill half the opponent's army without trying before they can do anything and that's the best wargame on the market LOL

If 40k is the best designed wargame then I have drastically overestimated the quality of the other games.

pm713 wrote:
If 40k is the best designed wargame then I have drastically overestimated the quality of the other games.

I’ve recently discovered Star Wars Legion and am having a lot of fun with it. Seems a lot more balanced and engaging.

 Tiberius501 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
If 40k is the best designed wargame then I have drastically overestimated the quality of the other games.

I’ve recently discovered Star Wars Legion and am having a lot of fun with it. Seems a lot more balanced and engaging.

I'm just waiting someone to homebrew Marines or Necrons for it.

I shouldn't be surprised this isn't on topic anymore.

I think everyone's just waiting for some GW rules previews for PA6, there wasn't any yesterday so I'd imagine we get one today. Although they were forced to show off Ghaz's rules on facebook and that was probably one of the previews they had planned for this week..

Is this the last chapter of the Psychic Awakening? Ghaz is definitely a bang to go out on( we'll just ignore the space wolf ballarina trying to tickle him ) but it would have been cool if the Harlequins got a look in. Maybe the Necrons?

Keep looking and hoping for Daemon news...keep seeing people cry over Ghaz. Broken, not broken angry conversations...the toxic levels in this thread (and a few others) have really been getting me down lately. I’m wondering if it’s time my tenure on Dakka ends.

SamusDrake wrote:
Is this the last chapter of the Psychic Awakening? Ghaz is definitely a bang to go out on( we'll just ignore the space wolf ballarina trying to tickle him ) but it would have been cool if the Harlequins got a look in. Maybe the Necrons?

We still have at least 4 books to come.

We know that April is bringing "Engine Kill", which brings updated rules & stuff for:
-Adeptus Mechanicus
-Imperial Knights
-Chaos Daemons
-Chaos Knights

Beyond that, we haven't gotten any names or anything. We just know that it leaves:
-Necrons
-Harlequins
-Deathwatch
-Adeptus Custodes
-Sisters of Battle
-Death Guard

 Kanluwen wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
Is this the last chapter of the Psychic Awakening? Ghaz is definitely a bang to go out on( we'll just ignore the space wolf ballarina trying to tickle him ) but it would have been cool if the Harlequins got a look in. Maybe the Necrons?

We still have at least 4 books to come.

We know that April is bringing "Engine Kill", which brings updated rules & stuff for:
-Adeptus Mechanicus
-Imperial Knights
-Chaos Daemons
-Chaos Knights

Beyond that, we haven't gotten any names or anything. We just know that it leaves:
-Necrons
-Harlequins
-Deathwatch
-Adeptus Custodes
-Sisters of Battle
- Death Guard

We know one more book will be called "War of the Spider" and include Fabious (despite CSM and Emperor's Children having been in Faith & Fury)

Dangit, I forgot about "War of the Spider" as a title! Good catch.

Idle speculation:
Maybe "War of the Spider" is going to be where the Custodes & Sisters of Battle make an appearance, with no real "enemy" force to fill the book as well it could get used as a stepping stone for EC?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Imagine defending a system where you can kill half the opponent's army without trying before they can do anything and that's the best wargame on the market LOL

Imagine playing a game you don't actually think is the best while the game you prefer is right next to it on the shelf, LOL.

If you don't think 40K is the best .... don't play 40K.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Imagine defending a system where you can kill half the opponent's army without trying before they can do anything and that's the best wargame on the market LOL

Imagine playing a game you don't actually think is the best while the game you prefer is right next to it on the shelf, LOL.

If you don't think 40K is the best .... don't play 40K.

Nothing else is played in the area. That's the problem. Otherwise I'd drop 40k's rules in a heartbeat.

You also haven't explained what's flawed with other systems compared to the bloaty IGOUGO 40k is.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Imagine defending a system where you can kill half the opponent's army without trying before they can do anything and that's the best wargame on the market LOL

Imagine playing a game you don't actually think is the best while the game you prefer is right next to it on the shelf, LOL.

If you don't think 40K is the best .... don't play 40K.

Nothing else is played in the area. That's the problem. Otherwise I'd drop 40k's rules in a heartbeat.

You also haven't explained what's flawed with other systems compared to the bloaty IGOUGO 40k is.

Because a lengthy game-design essay would be somewhat off-topic. You haven't explained what advantages clunky alternating activations are supposed to have either.

Either way, if other systems were truly objectively better, it shouldn't be hard to get your locals to switch games by merit of presenting a genuinely superior system.

If you don't think 40K is the best .... don't play 40K.

Do you really only ever play one game?

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Keep looking and hoping for Daemon news...keep seeing people cry over Ghaz. Broken, not broken angry conversations...the toxic levels in this thread (and a few others) have really been getting me down lately. I’m wondering if it’s time my tenure on Dakka ends.

It'll be yesterday's news soon enough. Stick with us!

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Either way, if other systems were truly objectively better, it shouldn't be hard to get your locals to switch games by merit of presenting a genuinely superior system.

That's a load of gak. I've been pushing Conquest in my area as a real balanced and competitive game compared to AoS, and everyone is extremely hesitant because it's new and they're not interested unless more people are playing it.

People play what their friends and community play, regardless of how good or bad the game is.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/03/17/orks-da-new-rulezgw-homepage-post-3/

New ork stuff, da flying 'eadbutt is great haha!

Sunny Side Up wrote:
[Because a lengthy game-design essay would be somewhat off-topic. You haven't explained what advantages clunky alternating activations are supposed to have either.

Either way, if other systems were truly objectively better, it shouldn't be hard to get your locals to switch games by merit of presenting a genuinely superior system.

Are you a visitor from Vulcan, by any chance? Because I find this argument to be bizarre and incompatible with what's universally known about human nature. Especially since wargames represent an extreme commitment of time and effort, so any choice to play a particular system automatically involves a substantial investment in that game (an investment which generally is incompatible with other games).