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.

 catbarf wrote:

Immunity to gas might work if, like, gas ammunition were readily available for grenade launchers, missile launchers, artillery, and so on. That way it'd be something that players aren't actively buying with points, but Marines would still be able to cut off a potential weapon used against them.

That's not a bad idea.

Generalist units cannot work in the IGOUGO system since they have entire turns not being able to do anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Immunity to gas might work if, like, gas ammunition were readily available for grenade launchers, missile launchers, artillery, and so on. That way it'd be something that players aren't actively buying with points, but Marines would still be able to cut off a potential weapon used against them.

That's not a bad idea.

Would Space Wolf players need to model on helmets for their dudes now?

Yo nerf my SWs into the ground if it means they can keep their flavour XD ... I want flavourful rules that are reasonable to play against... that is all XD.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Hi. I am of my right mind. I am happy to receive nerfs to create as balanced a product as GW can conceivably create.

Seconded.

Thirded.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Generalist units cannot work in the IGOUGO system since they have entire turns not being able to do anything.

Generalist units in 9th can move up to an objective, shoot the unit standing on it, then charge them and seize the objective- hardly whole turns of not being able to do anything. 40K's implementation of IGOUGO allows a unit can do everything it has the capability to do, as opposed to, for example, having a limited number of 'actions' in an activation.

I have my issues with IGOUGO, but suggesting that it's the reason generalists don't work seems rather contrived.

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Generalist units cannot work in the IGOUGO system since they have entire turns not being able to do anything.

Generalist units in 9th can move up to an objective, shoot the unit standing on it, then charge them and seize the objective- hardly whole turns of not being able to do anything. 40K's implementation of IGOUGO allows a unit can do everything it has the capability to do, as opposed to, for example, having a limited number of 'actions' in an activation.

I have my issues with IGOUGO, but suggesting that it's the reason generalists don't work seems rather contrived.

It really isn't. The game rewards specialization because you only pay for what you need. Specialized units being uninterrupted can accomplish what they need to whereas the Generalists struggle to do anything because they're priced at being as capable as those specialized units while being uninterrupted.
If you were able to actually make use of those stats via being able to interact and interupt the opponent, you'd be better off, wouldn't you agree?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It really isn't. The game rewards specialization because you only pay for what you need. Specialized units being uninterrupted can accomplish what they need to whereas the Generalists struggle to do anything because they're priced at being as capable as those specialized units while being uninterrupted.
If you were able to actually make use of those stats via being able to interact and interupt the opponent, you'd be better off, wouldn't you agree?

AA introduces an activation economy that rewards reacting with optimal counters rather than mediocre ones, especially with action limitations that prevent generalists from using their full capabilities in one activation. If my army is half melee specialists and half ranged ones, and yours is all generalists, I can bring comparable firepower to bear either earlier than you or later than you as I desire. If once the armies meet you have to choose between punching or shooting on an activation, you're only getting half of your value whereas I can get all of mine.

More generally, if we're talking pure AA then individual units can't be interrupted; what might be relevant is the ability to interrupt an army's coordination. But I don't see that as particularly relevant to the generalist issue- if anything, generalists need to group up to present credible threats, while if I get the opportunity to activate my one unit of 20 Genestealers, hey, that's all I need.

So alternating activation provides some additional opportunities to spoil plans that rely on single ultra-specialized units as their lynchpins, but in my game-playing and game design I've never noticed any particular trend of generalist units being more desirable under AA than IGOUGO. Do you have any particular examples of games where this is generally considered to be the case?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
..Traditionally the mantra has been 'fight the shooty stuff, shoot the fighty stuff' but rarely has that ever worked outside of casual metas...

I'd like to break down some general design; I think it will make this conversation a bit clearer.

Here are a few unit attributes other than fighty and shooty:
Mobility
Durability
Footprint/Table space taken up
Deployment Options
Support

Conceptually, if you were building a unit from the ground up and each attribute was worth a set amount of points, then unoptimized generalists would be terrible. Luckily, the standards for paying for attributes don't have to be so rigid, so generalists can be balanced based off of their actual possible roles on the table rather than as simple addition of attributes. When designing a generalist unit, what needs to be asked is whether that unit's attributes are synergistic with it's battlefield role. If those attributes are all synergistic with their role, then the unit needs to pay full price for those attributes. If a unit is designed with attributes that aren't synergistic, then they should pay a fraction of the points for those attributes. Now that the 9th edition codex have moved away from the absurd notion of a table of weapon costs regardless of unit, there shouldn't be a barrier to making viable generalist units. Indeed, the majority of units shouldn't be completely optimized in order give the game more flavor.

About the "bring back the NBCR (nuclear, biological, chemical, radioactive) weapons", I think it is a false problem: it would be enough give to the various troops an equipment able to protect them, without make them immune to the effects of these weapons and the problem should be solved; for example the guardsmen should survive with 3 or less on a D6, the space marines in power armor with 4 or less and the ones in terminator armor with 5 or less.
About the main problem of this topic (if I have understood it), I think it is due to the "original sin of Games Workshop": they make a war game without knowing (and caring to know) how the armies actually work in a real war, so they aren't able to create a set of credible rules (credible, not realistic). For example the tactical squad should be the backbone of a space marine army, because they should be able to perform the great part of the military action, leaving to the assault and devastator squads the role of high specialized detachments, able to carry out very specific tasks. Now I don't want start to explain my ideas about how to resolve this issue, because before I want understand how and how much the rules are changed (I played only the second edition); but reading also these topics: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/792731.page and https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/793047.page, it seems to me that certain issues aren't been solved.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Generalist units cannot work in the IGOUGO system since they have entire turns not being able to do anything.

Hmm. Didn't realize this. Must be a new development with 9th ed.

Reintroduce initiative and make movement more important with marines slow relative others in both senses. Make charges based on movement. Make marines relatively more expensive and allow access to wargear that others do not e.g. targeters. Limit ranges and use bigger tables with varied terrain and realistic cover interactions. Squat idiot units like ... everything since end of 7th imho. Kill auras and buffmander bs. Get rid of the card game. Pay for stratagems and others.

 jeff white wrote:
Reintroduce initiative and make movement more important with marines slow relative others in both senses. Make charges based on movement. Make marines relatively more expensive and allow access to wargear that others do not e.g. targeters. Limit ranges and use bigger tables with varied terrain and realistic cover interactions. Squat idiot units like ... everything since end of 7th imho. Kill auras and buffmander bs. Get rid of the card game. Pay for stratagems and others.

Movement is already the most important phase of the game when playing someone of roughly equal skill (admittedly this skews pretty battle if it's your 8 year old nephew with a couple of start collecting boxes VS. Nick Nanavati with 27 eradicators, but those matchup differentials are far, far more rare than Dakka would have you believe) and initiative was always a TERRIBLE mechanic.

People on dakka want to talk about dumbing down the game and removing 'tactical play' all the time; well, initiative is the single best example of that. Initiative reduces the entirety of the combat phase to filling in spreadsheets with absolutely no thought necessary. In previous editions I wondered why they even bothered with the combat phase due to it being both far weaker than shooting(deathstars notwithstanding) and to it being easily the worst most boring aspect of the entire game, and the majority of that was down to initiative making the whole thing a case of 'my number bigger than your number'.

The rest of it was a combination of things that won't make any meaningful change (extra wargear? why? They already have more wargear than any other faction in the game?) and drivel (IS CARDGAME CUZ HAS CMOBOS!!!).

Also sidebar: Realistic cover interactions? Realistically NOTHING in the 40k universe that isn't SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to withstand significant punishment would even stand up to lasguns. Trees, ruins, normal buildings, pipes, etc don't do much against modern munitions, the feth are they gonna do against the stuff 40k armies are kicking out?

 jeff white wrote:
Reintroduce initiative and make movement more important with marines slow relative others in both senses. Make charges based on movement. Make marines relatively more expensive and allow access to wargear that others do not e.g. targeters. Limit ranges and use bigger tables with varied terrain and realistic cover interactions. Squat idiot units like ... everything since end of 7th imho. Kill auras and buffmander bs. Get rid of the card game. Pay for stratagems and others.

Ah yes Initiative! Let's return to the days of "Does this Tyranid melee unit get access to Assault grenades?.. No" It seems like people who have fond memories of Initiative tend to forget how annoying it was to discover how many melee units ended up being screwed over because of the penalties of charging through cover.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Reintroduce initiative and make movement more important with marines slow relative others in both senses. Make charges based on movement. Make marines relatively more expensive and allow access to wargear that others do not e.g. targeters. Limit ranges and use bigger tables with varied terrain and realistic cover interactions. Squat idiot units like ... everything since end of 7th imho. Kill auras and buffmander bs. Get rid of the card game. Pay for stratagems and others.

Ah yes Initiative! Let's return to the days of "Does this Tyranid melee unit get access to Assault grenades?.. No" It seems like people who have fond memories of Initiative tend to forget how annoying it was to discover how many melee units ended up being screwed over because of the penalties of charging through cover.

This wasn't a problem with the initiative mechanic. This was a problem with the cover mechanic. One that could have easily been fixed.

Your right. The issue with the initiative mechanic is that orks and necrons got fethed.

 Lance845 wrote:
Your right. The issue with the initiative mechanic is that orks and necrons got fethed.

That was sort of the point, though, right? Initiative acted as sort of a defensive stat for armies like Eldar, whose defense was speed. If Orks got in with Eldar, the Eldar could wipe out a few before they could swing, which protected the Eldar unit in a roundabout way. Now? Being fast gets you bupkis for defense. Or at least, gets you weird and inconsistent rules like LFR stratagem (did you know that only one unit of eldar can be fast per phase? the rest have to be slow) or bizarre invuln saves (wytches can dodge knives on a 4+ but not bullets, while Genestealers can dodge knives and bullets but only on a 5+).

 Lance845 wrote:
Your right. The issue with the initiative mechanic is that orks and necrons got fethed.

So we're allowed to have an initiative mechanic... so long as no army is slower than any other army?

 vipoid wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Your right. The issue with the initiative mechanic is that orks and necrons got fethed.

So we're allowed to have an initiative mechanic... so long as no army is slower than any other army?

May as well remove it then.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Your right. The issue with the initiative mechanic is that orks and necrons got fethed.

That was sort of the point, though, right? Initiative acted as sort of a defensive stat for armies like Eldar, whose defense was speed. If Orks got in with Eldar, the Eldar could wipe out a few before they could swing, which protected the Eldar unit in a roundabout way. Now? Being fast gets you bupkis for defense. Or at least, gets you weird and inconsistent rules like LFR stratagem (did you know that only one unit of eldar can be fast per phase? the rest have to be slow) or bizarre invuln saves (wytches can dodge knives on a 4+ but not bullets, while Genestealers can dodge knives and bullets but only on a 5+).

But thats not how it worked in practice. In practice units that were meant to be melee units but happened to come from slow armies paid a "melee tax" in models lives just to do the one job they were meant to do. There are better ways to handle the speed and initiative then just assigning a static number and telling certain armies "oh well".

vipoid wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Your right. The issue with the initiative mechanic is that orks and necrons got fethed.

So we're allowed to have an initiative mechanic... so long as no army is slower than any other army?

No.

Back before 8th I was working on a version of the game and I came up with a replacement for the initiative stat.

It worked where certain units/weapons could have a rule that amounts to "fast" or "slow".

There would essentially be 6 initiative steps.

1) Current players Fast.
2) Opponents Fast
3) Current players normal
4) Opponents normal.
5) Current players Slow
6) Opponents Slow.

So Tyranid Scything talons would be Fast and so Hormagaunts would tend to get to strike first unless it was the opponents turn and they were also fast (Eldar are the charge would strike first, tyranids on the charge would strike first).

Most weapons would be normal (Ork Choppa is a normal weapon. Orks charge a marine they strike first. Marine charges an ork they strike first).

And Slow weapons would drop to the bottom of the que (powerfists, crushing claws).

Now Necron Lychguard, preatorians, Overlords with their warscythes, flayed ones, etc... Ork Boyz and such... they wouldn't get fethed out of doing their thing when they charge on their own turn while the units and weapons that are supposed to be quicker can also do their thing.

The initiative attribute as was implemented is a problem and creates problems. This doesn't.

So in that case, Orks would still strike after eldar, and pay in models lives every time they charged...

but initiative is wrong because that also happens, okay.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So in that case, Orks would still strike after eldar, and pay in models lives every time they charged...

but initiative is wrong because that also happens, okay.

If that eldar unit had that rule or had weapons with that rule. But more importantly, it wouldn't be that way versus every other army in the game as well. The eldar army wouldn't be blanket "fast". They would likely have more options that were fast but not every option.

Likewise, ScyTal are fast. But Rending claws are not. Genestealers equiped with both could rending claw you on their turn and scy tal you on yours to leverage their "speed" at the cost of higher AP.

It creates a far more dynamic and interesting interplay of weapons and units then just saying. Well Eldar are initiative 10 and orks are initiative 2 so.. ::shrug::

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So in that case, Orks would still strike after eldar, and pay in models lives every time they charged...

but initiative is wrong because that also happens, okay.

If that eldar unit had that rule or had weapons with that rule. But more importantly, it wouldn't be that way versus every other army in the game as well. The eldar army wouldn't be blanket "fast". They would likely have more options that were fast but not every option.

Likewise, ScyTal are fast. But Rending claws are not. Genestealers equiped with both could rending claw you on their turn and scy tal you on yours to leverage their "speed".

It creates a far more dynamic and interesting interplay of weapons and units then just saying. Well Eldar are initiative 10 and orks are initiative 2 so.. ::shrug::

But stuff like that already existed (and conceivably can exist) in the initiative system. Powerfists were Initiative 1, Charnabal Sabres give you +1 initiative (so make you fasterer). There's two examples right there of pre-existing weapons that made you either faster or slower depending on weapon choice.

The armies still had baseline speeds on top of that though, and the eldar were faster than the orks. It sounds like, in your system, for baseline speeds, the eldar will still be faster than the orks, except in the cases where they take weapons that are slower like powerfists that would make them I1, for example (sorry we can't talk about initiative in your system)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So in that case, Orks would still strike after eldar, and pay in models lives every time they charged...

but initiative is wrong because that also happens, okay.

If that eldar unit had that rule or had weapons with that rule. But more importantly, it wouldn't be that way versus every other army in the game as well. The eldar army wouldn't be blanket "fast". They would likely have more options that were fast but not every option.

Likewise, ScyTal are fast. But Rending claws are not. Genestealers equiped with both could rending claw you on their turn and scy tal you on yours to leverage their "speed".

It creates a far more dynamic and interesting interplay of weapons and units then just saying. Well Eldar are initiative 10 and orks are initiative 2 so.. ::shrug::

But stuff like that already existed (and conceivably can exist) in the initiative system. Powerfists were Initiative 1, Charnabal Sabres give you +1 initiative (so make you fasterer). There's two examples right there of pre-existing weapons that made you either faster or slower depending on weapon choice.

The armies still had baseline speeds on top of that though, and the eldar were faster than the orks. It sounds like, in your system, for baseline speeds, the eldar will still be faster than the orks, except in the cases where they take weapons that are slower like powerfists that would make them I1, for example (sorry we can't talk about initiative in your system)

An ork with a weapon that gave them +1 Initiative wasn't going before an eldar anyway. Or a Space marine. Or anyone. The baseline speeds is the part that was a problem.

 Lance845 wrote:
An ork with a weapon that gave them +1 Initiative wasn't going before an eldar anyway. Or a Space marine. Or anyone. The baseline speeds is the part that was a problem.

Right, but why is that bad? A weapon that gave them +3 initiative would let them swing. But I think Orks, in general, are supposed to be slower than eldar in the lore, and so GW never gave them a weapon with +3. Or +1, that I recall, for that matter. That's just the same as them being Normal, Eldar being Fast, and Orks having no weapons that make them Fast. There's literally no difference (except yours has 3 steps instead of 10, and resolves ties in favor of the current player instead of going with simultaneity).

It sounds like your issue was that you thought Marines and Orks should be on the same initiative stat Speed Level instead of having a difference between them. That's fine, make Orks I4 Normal speed like SM. It's a bit wonkey they're faster than a mortal human but I can dig it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
An ork with a weapon that gave them +1 Initiative wasn't going before an eldar anyway. Or a Space marine. Or anyone. The baseline speeds is the part that was a problem.

Right, but why is that bad? A weapon that gave them +3 initiative would let them swing. But I think Orks, in general, are supposed to be slower than eldar in the lore, and so GW never gave them a weapon with +3. Or +1, that I recall, for that matter. That's just the same as them being Normal, Eldar being Fast, and Orks having no weapons that make them Fast. There's literally no difference (except yours has 3 steps instead of 10, and resolves ties in favor of the current player instead of going with simultaneity).

It sounds like your issue was that you thought Marines and Orks should be on the same initiative stat Speed Level instead of having a difference between them. That's fine, make Orks I4 Normal speed like SM. It's a bit wonkey they're faster than a mortal human but I can dig it.

Because this isn't a novel, it's a game. No representation in the game will ever match the so fast you cannot trace them with your eye speed of the eldar. The lore, as always, is a crap excuse for making unbalanced changes to the game. It's bad because it's unbalanced. Killing initiative is good for the game because it means the units can just do the thing they are supposed to do. Allowing for a "initiative-lite" in the form of those special rules allows representation without unbalance.

My issue isn't that I think orks should be anything. It's that I want a good general playing field for everyone.

JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Hi. I am of my right mind. I am happy to receive nerfs to create as balanced a product as GW can conceivably create.

Seconded.

Thirded.

Fourthed? Quartered?

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
An ork with a weapon that gave them +1 Initiative wasn't going before an eldar anyway. Or a Space marine. Or anyone. The baseline speeds is the part that was a problem.

Right, but why is that bad? A weapon that gave them +3 initiative would let them swing. But I think Orks, in general, are supposed to be slower than eldar in the lore, and so GW never gave them a weapon with +3. Or +1, that I recall, for that matter. That's just the same as them being Normal, Eldar being Fast, and Orks having no weapons that make them Fast. There's literally no difference (except yours has 3 steps instead of 10, and resolves ties in favor of the current player instead of going with simultaneity).

It sounds like your issue was that you thought Marines and Orks should be on the same initiative stat Speed Level instead of having a difference between them. That's fine, make Orks I4 Normal speed like SM. It's a bit wonkey they're faster than a mortal human but I can dig it.

Because this isn't a novel, it's a game. No representation in the game will ever match the so fast you cannot trace them with your eye speed of the eldar. The lore, as always, is a crap excuse for making unbalanced changes to the game. It's bad because it's unbalanced. Killing initiative is good for the game because it means the units can just do the thing they are supposed to do. Allowing for a "initiative-lite" in the form of those special rules allows representation without unbalance.

My issue isn't that I think orks should be anything. It's that I want a good general playing field for everyone.

I believe it is possible to balance the game and also keep it lore friendly, by reining in the lore somewhat where necessary. The game should never disconnect itself from the lore, because that's not engaging anymore - the game, by itself, is pretty awful. I play it to connect with the lore, and so I want the lore to have some semblance of impact on the game.

I am happy with some semblance. I don't think old initiative did that in any way that made for a good game.

There are units in the game right now that always strike first. I don't think they should always strike first. I think they, as a unit, should be quick and should generally strike first. Until something else that is also quick comes around on their turn. Be that ScyTals or some other weapon or unit. Some of those units are Eldar/DEldar/Harlequinns. I am happy for that to be the case. Let the exceptionally fast be represented as fast. Let everyone else be normal. Have only the exceptionally slow be slow. Orks and necrons should not be exceptionally slow by nature.

Why not, if GW's lore says they're exceptionally slow and we want some lore on the tabletop? Plus, don't forget that the "exceptionally slow" we're talking about here is like, as slow as a regular civilian human who winds up their punches and whatnot.

Honestly I just prefer the new rules. If you are fast it means you have a high Move, and thus you are more likely to charge and thus have the "initiative".