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.
It is just damned demoralizing to spend the time to paint up a squad of (expensive, $-wise) troops only to have them blown off the table turn 1 before they get to do anything.
Well, here's a solution: buy a stronger model/unit, spend minimal time/effort on it, and that unit will take the shooting instead! Simple maths.
ERJAK wrote: So you had a back and forth game that came down to the wire and decimated both forces? I'm missing the bad here.
It really wasn't that bad of a game from 40k standards, but there weren't any actual decisions. Any "wire-coming-down-to-ness" wasn't because of decision making. And to debunk Daedalus's armchair generalship:
1) I did crash I chimera into psykers sticking their heads out. A lot of the dead chimeras were in the psychic phase from psykers wounding them to death. He did 3 MW with Doombolt, paid the warpcraft points thingy for an additional D3, and that's half a Chimera gone to a single non-smite power on a 3-cast psyker surrounded by other 1-3 cast psykers - AFTER the chimera has already lost some wounds to the Str 7 staff. Locking him in combat with chimeras just got the chimeras deleted pretty much instantly because that's such a clear and obvious solution to that problem; the decision basically not in the hands of the player ("hmm, do I fall back and waste my everything, or do I delete the Chimera, and then shoot and charge? Hard choice..."). I was praying for Chimera explosions, but didn't get any, because that's not a decision in the hands of the player. It did slow him down, but his guns and powers didn't really need to move to be in range, so he just blapped me off the objectives, because that's an obvious decision that is basically not in the hands of the player.
2) There was no path for his DP to do it the way I had surrounded my tank commander. I forced him to come to my front. Because that's a decision that's so obvious it's barely in the hands of the player, ESPECIALLY with so much terrain that's impassable to vehicles. I did this essentially by accident since my tanks were all funneled down one lane of advance on that particular flank. I didn't make a "decision" to protect my tank commander. Conversely, his charge choice was obvious: charge something else and probably delete one more irrelevant chimera (Before being deleted in turn by said tank commander), or charge the tank commander and try to cripple an important piece of my army (whilst being deleted by a combo-of-stratagems so obvious that the decision isn't in the hands of the player - you either have the CP and remember the strats, or you don't).
The theme here are "decisions the players made that affected the outcome" and those decisions were: 1) I will play for the objectives 2) I will make the obvious, clear, optimal choice in every occasion, because there are no hard decisions in this game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/14 19:31:58
The issue with saying "terrain helps" is it just changes the question.
Yes, obviously you should LOS block with everything. But it just means lists evolve to deal with that reality. You want units with good movement abilities who can navigate the table and deliver their ludicrous point returns into someone before your opponent does the same to you. This is a skill - but its not overly skilful. It just an evolution players go through.
Damage in 40k is too high. I think GW want one or both players to have relatively little left by turn 5. That seems reasonable. But many people are being near wiped by the close of turn 3 unless they spend the first turn or 2 hiding behind a brick of polystyrene. Which isn't really a good thing.
Some themes emerging…
Force org should return… or not.
Special rules should return to usr and included in main book if possible e.g. jet bikes.
Generally, main book should have the rules, codices should describe units and how these interact with rules… mostly if not completely.
Terrain and morale should be more realistic (for lack of a better word… maybe meaningful would be good?)
Needing to study core rules plus expansions plus every codex to understand what is possible at any given game night is… a lot to ask, especially when many or most important rules are in codices and expansions.
Accessibility is good… gaminess is not. (Realism helps with accessibility imho because it lets people take advantage of everyday real life intuitions in making sense of what is happening on the tabletop.)
Movement should matter (more).
Table is too small. Weapon ranges and ranges generally are too big relative to table size.
Model placement should matter (more).
I may have missed something important and likely added something not…
For me, accessibility refers to the ability of a gamer new to the system to get going with a game. Its the "floor" of the gaming experience.
The 8th Edition designer wrote in WD back in 2019 that accessibility was the goal. Instead of a large book of rules the game was stripped down to core rules onto which you layered rules as you wanted. He referenced the Core Rules being the same for everyone, but after that you could tailor your game. Open play was meant to be a game unencumbered by additional rules - get your datasheets which have the applicable rules for your models in the game and get playing with a simple mission.
I think this carries forward into 9th Edition, although the Core Rules are written with more "tightness" and therefore more wordy. The datasheets provided with the models are certainly less accessible then the 8th Ed ones. It is still a very accessible gaming experience. If you have a Codex you do not need to play with all those faction rules and the datasheets alone give you what you need. Now, if a brand new player wants to play Ad Mech with all the bells and whistles they can do so, but they don't have to when they are getting started.
Don't want lots of rules in your game? Try open play. You don't even need Terrain. If I am setting up somebody's first game of 9th Ed I go that route as my start state, adding layers based on their previous experience.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
It is just damned demoralizing to spend the time to paint up a squad of (expensive, $-wise) troops only to have them blown off the table turn 1 before they get to do anything.
Well, here's a solution: buy a stronger model/unit, spend minimal time/effort on it, and that unit will take the shooting instead! Simple maths.
That's always the solution, isn't it? "Not having fun? Buy different models!"
aphyon wrote:
Notice they no longer support epic, BFG and other low profit margin games that do not tie into the main games where minis can be re-used.
You can't use Titanicus and Aeronautica in mainline 40k so....whaddya mean?
...I wouldn't describe Titanicus or Aeronautica as "currently supported."
Oh, right. I guess the 17 items they sell for Aeronautica or the 48 for Titanicus is the same exact amount of support as the 0 items they sell for Epic or BFG
They kept selling BFG models for, what, six or seven years after the last minis release/rules update?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/14 21:28:49
AnomanderRake wrote: They kept selling BFG models for, what, six or seven years after the last minis release/rules update?
They just recently announced a new kight for Titanicus. That doesn't mean it isn't dead, but I'm not going to judge production until covid is under control. Nevertheless there is a significant amount of releases for detached games and if they die it was because they didn't sell well.
It is just damned demoralizing to spend the time to paint up a squad of (expensive, $-wise) troops only to have them blown off the table turn 1 before they get to do anything.
Well, here's a solution: buy a stronger model/unit, spend minimal time/effort on it, and that unit will take the shooting instead! Simple maths.
This is a weird/bad suggestion. Anyway, for me, I admire painted models before, after, and in between rounds. I don't have any sense of loss when they don't stay on the table so I have a hard time relating to this particular concern.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/14 22:31:19
There is no point side-seat driving someone's off-hand recollection of a game of 9th edition they've played.
Go watch tabletop tactics "league report" game where Lawrence's Drukhari tables Stig's Ad-Mech.
That game was so controversial that they almost pulled it offline as people complained about it so much. Which to me is ridiculous, its not their fault that the Drukhari and Ad-Mech rules are terrible game design.
That video is a clearly documented example of how "meta" 9th edition functions. It is showcasing two "netlist" "tournament ready" armies and records how they play out against one another.
And what it exemplifies is a bad wargame.
If we want to have a discussion about how games go, use examples that we can all view and comment on.
catbarf wrote: Frankly, it sucks, and I much prefer the terrain rules in older editions- where terrain was traversible, and not only LOS-blocking but actually made a major difference to survivability. Terrain in 9th is too binary; either you're hidden, or you're visible and can be engaged at either full or near-full effectiveness.
So you're talking about only killing what you can see. I don't think I'd mind if that rule came back, but with current terrain rules it might perhaps wind up being stronger than intended.
You can otherwise traverse just about anything as long as you aren't a "large" model, but unlike old editions a tank behind a forest can pick up a handy -1 to be hit regardless how much is visible, really. And in older editions units like jump packs wound take a dangerous terrain test ( twice! )when attempting to land in ruins.
But let's map it out the old and new.
Fully behind some crates Then - no benefit other than being invisible
Now - invisible and you get cover from weapons that can still shoot you
Barricade
Then - you might get soft cover, which was totally useless to heavy armor, but you could swing first if they charged...unless they had assault grenades
Now - you get cover, helps limit models that can fight in melee, grants an O/W or melee buff
In swiss cheese cover Then - probably hard cover, which was either a 4++ or 5++; pretty great for just about everything, but you can be seen across the table
Now - cover or obscuring depending on your placement
The thing about old cover saves is it greatly benefits some dynamics ( super cheap models ) and not others ( power armor against small arms ). And that can create a big problem when the missions are less focused on killing and more on holding with obsec.
There's pros and cons to each, but I much prefer the more flexible and well defined interactions with the terrain of 9th.
jeff white wrote: Some themes emerging…
Force org should return… or not.
Special rules should return to usr and included in main book if possible e.g. jet bikes.
Generally, main book should have the rules, codices should describe units and how these interact with rules… mostly if not completely.
Terrain and morale should be more realistic (for lack of a better word… maybe meaningful would be good?)
Needing to study core rules plus expansions plus every codex to understand what is possible at any given game night is… a lot to ask, especially when many or most important rules are in codices and expansions.
Accessibility is good… gaminess is not. (Realism helps with accessibility imho because it lets people take advantage of everyday real life intuitions in making sense of what is happening on the tabletop.)
Movement should matter (more).
Table is too small. Weapon ranges and ranges generally are too big relative to table size.
Model placement should matter (more).
I may have missed something important and likely added something not…
Seems to me that going back to 4th/5th edition or a fan-made ruleset based on those editions would meet most of those goals/themes . . .
Gregor Samsa wrote: There is no point side-seat driving someone's off-hand recollection of a game of 9th edition they've played.
Go watch tabletop tactics "league report" game where Lawrence's Drukhari tables Stig's Ad-Mech.
That game was so controversial that they almost pulled it offline as people complained about it so much. Which to me is ridiculous, its not their fault that the Drukhari and Ad-Mech rules are terrible game design.
That video is a clearly documented example of how "meta" 9th edition functions. It is showcasing two "netlist" "tournament ready" armies and records how they play out against one another.
And what it exemplifies is a bad wargame.
If we want to have a discussion about how games go, use examples that we can all view and comment on.
Sure, we can talk about the best army in the game with tons of mobility working over someone else.
Admech chose ROD with so few units that want to be tied up doing actions and no way to cross the table.
This is a huge mistake:
He pushed his models up, but they weren't going to be able to get far enough to see the raiders behind cover, so he exposed his unit to charges for no good reason.
Spoiler:
In doing so he could have brought the right most Las Chickens to the left and focused against the left-most raiders
Spoiler:
Of all he could shoot he killed only two boats and 5 kabalites. He needlessly exposed his long range left flank to the contents of the raiders even when he could see them without a problem.
It's a bit much how exposed his entire army was and it's likely because this game was played back in June and he wasn't used to how god damn fast DE are. Admech lists now are way more flexible with appropriate melee support. His Dragoons were entirely caught out in the middle of the table with nowhere to go that could support the army.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/15 00:35:27
I do wonder with those saying 40k isn't that deadly play many other wargames. As a rule of thumb many 'gun' games take 3 or more points than the cost of a target to eliminate it. Extreme specialisms or poor matchup's (infantry with rifles vs tanks for example) skew that one way or the other. One on one they will duel for a while, 3 on one and you should win swiftly.
40k is judged on units getting their points back in a turn, because once you do your thing you are often a big target. I can't duel with say a tank a side because they are often equipped to kill enemy tanks in a round of shooting.
It means the game for me plays increasingly like a CCG. I play units (and cards) to do stuff through the game with such activities likely being one way. I get their is a back and forth there and quite a lot of challenge. But do your thing and die is hard to make a narrative around.
It is just damned demoralizing to spend the time to paint up a squad of (expensive, $-wise) troops only to have them blown off the table turn 1 before they get to do anything.
Well, here's a solution: buy a stronger model/unit, spend minimal time/effort on it, and that unit will take the shooting instead! Simple maths.
That's always the solution, isn't it? "Not having fun? Buy different models!"
Basically yes.
Like 40k but what you have just isn't working? Buy something different.
Decide you don't like 40k, but do still like miniature gaming? Switch games & buy models for that....
Either way, $ spent.
Or you can simply take the "wait" (and optionally bitch about it) approach. Whatever you have? Eventually the rules will cycle back around to it being good again. This cycle could take anywhere from about 18 months to a decade+ though.... In the meantime there's still plenty of games to be played.
jeff white wrote: Some themes emerging…
Force org should return… or not.
Special rules should return to usr and included in main book if possible e.g. jet bikes.
Generally, main book should have the rules, codices should describe units and how these interact with rules… mostly if not completely.
Terrain and morale should be more realistic (for lack of a better word… maybe meaningful would be good?)
Needing to study core rules plus expansions plus every codex to understand what is possible at any given game night is… a lot to ask, especially when many or most important rules are in codices and expansions.
Accessibility is good… gaminess is not. (Realism helps with accessibility imho because it lets people take advantage of everyday real life intuitions in making sense of what is happening on the tabletop.)
Movement should matter (more).
Table is too small. Weapon ranges and ranges generally are too big relative to table size.
Model placement should matter (more).
I may have missed something important and likely added something not…
Seems to me that going back to 4th/5th edition or a fan-made ruleset based on those editions would meet most of those goals/themes . . .
Back does seem the new way forward, back and outside of the corporate envelope.
The_Real_Chris wrote:I do wonder with those saying 40k isn't that deadly play many other wargames. As a rule of thumb many 'gun' games take 3 or more points than the cost of a target to eliminate it. Extreme specialisms or poor matchup's (infantry with rifles vs tanks for example) skew that one way or the other. One on one they will duel for a while, 3 on one and you should win swiftly.
40k is judged on units getting their points back in a turn, because once you do your thing you are often a big target. I can't duel with say a tank a side because they are often equipped to kill enemy tanks in a round of shooting.
It means the game for me plays increasingly like a CCG. I play units (and cards) to do stuff through the game with such activities likely being one way. I get their is a back and forth there and quite a lot of challenge. But do your thing and die is hard to make a narrative around.
Yes, this is an increasingly common complaint. Some seem to like it … study the books and cook up the Killy whombocombos for the win. Others who want a war game to be more simulation, more about interaction, hate it. Certainly one way forward would be to allow those who want a gamey CCG with models for cards to play that game, with options for realism for others who do not. Maybe this is the rationale behind using 30k to scratch the wargame itch while focusing marketing on the gamey game CCG style because there is more money in crack chasing deck building meta players…
5 old marines standing still ( so, double tap ) kill 1.8 Boyz. 5 5th edition marines killed 1.7 with one shot and 3.4 when double tapping.
An old TLC took a Killa Kan out of the game 40% of the time ( and if you're immobilized in a squadron...lol ). The current TLC takes one out 18% of the time.
Dem nostalgia glasses. What people experienced was more melee since stuff like Boyz were so cheap and Rapid Fire was restricted, so it took a couple turns for units to get into each other and then they died pretty fast unless no one brought a power fist against marines and then you just stood there in a pile the rest of the game. Various points through history brought units able to close the distance fast and/or hit hard ( more in 5th forward though ).
I'll ignore the game dissections as Daedalus doesn't seem to understand the points being made and would rather individually pick apart vague recollections of a specific game rather than engage with the overall points. Incidentally, that's why providing specific examples is often so frustrating - it's easy to miss a detail here or there and then someone jumps on that to prove some kind of point instead of looking at the situation holistically. The TTT AdMech DE game is a good example. The specifics aren't really the point. The criticism of that game was more about how it felt to watch and how deeply unsatisfying it was because of the extreme damage output and mobility, especially of the DE, which removed meaningful decisions from the game.
Anyway, to get back to the SM vs Orks example, it severely misses the point while simultaneously illustrating the problem perfectly. Yes, the comparison between editions seems to be in favour of 9th being less deadly than 5th. However, it ignores so many important factors in order to make this point. It ignores the difficulty and danger of getting into double-tap range in 5th. It ignores that the numbers for the 5th edition SM were pretty much fixed. There wasn't really any meaningful way to improve that damage output because re-rolls weren't a thing and nor were strats. In 9th that baseline number can change dramatically with the plethora of re-rolls and various other damage buffs available via auras, strats WL traits, relics, faction bonuses and so on. In 9th we can't just take that basic number and be confident it means anything, which is why many people say the game is bloated and inaccessible. It also completely ignores that in 5th the height of anti-personnel firepower was pretty much a frag missile or heavy bolter. In 9th we have units routinely throwing 20-30 dice with various buffs.
More or less lethal it actually depends on what units you're considering. In 5th a single lascannon shot had the power to blow up EVERY vehicle and with ork ones odds to do that were pretty high. Now it's flat out impossible, even rolling the luckiest rolls possible.
Dice rolling has increased, and that is what makes the game more lethal now. But it's not always like that and orks are perfect example of that: in 5th or any other old edition of 40k ork vehicles were paper things, a full turn of firepower from a TAC list killed on average more models than now.
Despite what people may think vehicles are significantly tougher now compared to the AV system age.
Infantries are much weaker now instead since firepower has increased dramatically (units like aggressors fire 30 shots per model, while once anti infantry units could fire 5-10 and maybe with some limitations) but infantries stats has not, except for marines who double up or even got 3x (see Termies) their wounds. Orks only got +1T, and if in old edition enemies could fire 30-50 shots per turn at them but now 100+ with multiple ways to enhance those shots then game is way more lethal for them now.
In 5th Kan wall had 80 boyz with 5+ cover save at 1500 points and those boyz looked pretty tough to delete and in fact that list archetype was among the top tiers for a while. Now killing 80 boyz, even with 5++, is not really that difficult, anyone could deal with something like that.
I think the issue is that older editions had lots of limiting factors on firepower. So on paper the numbers might have been the same if you lined up in musket lines on planet bowling ball.
But in practice they wouldn't be because you couldn't for example split fire (except with things like Long Fangs). Want to shoot a heavy weapon? Well you better not have moved, otherwise no (barring a special rule etc). Vehicles could die to a single Lascannon - but Rhinos were... 35 points (I can't remember)? So its not exactly the end of the world. You are highly likely to inefficiently use your damage potential than now.
The issue today is you have armies with sufficient movement and range to effectively deliver their damage into whatever their player wants. So my Anti-X shoots X, my Anti-Y shoots Y, my Anti-literally everything assault unit charges whatever I like. Its sort of balanced because my opponent is doing exactly the same thing back to me - but it does mean everything is dead before you need to make a decision. We are effectively playing checkers.
(Not that I think 5th was in any respect a high point, and many of those limiting factors above served to remove "serious" decisions and served to create "feels bad" moments - but still.)
Back does seem the new way forward, back and outside of the corporate envelope.
Well if it is any comfort one has to but look at what Andy Chambers has been working on since he left GW in late 4th ed when it comes to game design to see what could have been.
He has games that use action cards(blood red skies), games that use alternating activation, reaction mechanics etc...(DUST, bolt action etc..)
How hard these ideas could have been to convert into the 40K universe is hard to say ( i bet Andy could pull it off) but i have a feeling it would be in a better place.
GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear
The_Real_Chris wrote: I do wonder with those saying 40k isn't that deadly play many other wargames. As a rule of thumb many 'gun' games take 3 or more points than the cost of a target to eliminate it. Extreme specialisms or poor matchup's (infantry with rifles vs tanks for example) skew that one way or the other. One on one they will duel for a while, 3 on one and you should win swiftly.
40k is judged on units getting their points back in a turn, because once you do your thing you are often a big target. I can't duel with say a tank a side because they are often equipped to kill enemy tanks in a round of shooting.
It means the game for me plays increasingly like a CCG. I play units (and cards) to do stuff through the game with such activities likely being one way. I get their is a back and forth there and quite a lot of challenge. But do your thing and die is hard to make a narrative around.
^This.
Typically, if youre trying to construct some kind of narrative around what your troops/characters/whoever are doing, it might help if you could take more than one single action after you've finished cowering behind LOS blocking terrain.
Games that are meaningfully over after a single turn or two turns of real combat are deeply unsatisfying and an increasing percentage of my games of 9th edition 40k.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
5 old marines standing still ( so, double tap ) kill 1.8 Boyz. 5 5th edition marines killed 1.7 with one shot and 3.4 when double tapping.
An old TLC took a Killa Kan out of the game 40% of the time ( and if you're immobilized in a squadron...lol ). The current TLC takes one out 18% of the time.
Dem nostalgia glasses. What people experienced was more melee since stuff like Boyz were so cheap and Rapid Fire was restricted, so it took a couple turns for units to get into each other and then they died pretty fast unless no one brought a power fist against marines and then you just stood there in a pile the rest of the game. Various points through history brought units able to close the distance fast and/or hit hard ( more in 5th forward though ).
I'll ignore the game dissections as Daedalus doesn't seem to understand the points being made and would rather individually pick apart vague recollections of a specific game rather than engage with the overall points. Incidentally, that's why providing specific examples is often so frustrating - it's easy to miss a detail here or there and then someone jumps on that to prove some kind of point instead of looking at the situation holistically. The TTT AdMech DE game is a good example. The specifics aren't really the point. The criticism of that game was more about how it felt to watch and how deeply unsatisfying it was because of the extreme damage output and mobility, especially of the DE, which removed meaningful decisions from the game.
Anyway, to get back to the SM vs Orks example, it severely misses the point while simultaneously illustrating the problem perfectly. Yes, the comparison between editions seems to be in favour of 9th being less deadly than 5th. However, it ignores so many important factors in order to make this point. It ignores the difficulty and danger of getting into double-tap range in 5th. It ignores that the numbers for the 5th edition SM were pretty much fixed. There wasn't really any meaningful way to improve that damage output because re-rolls weren't a thing and nor were strats. In 9th that baseline number can change dramatically with the plethora of re-rolls and various other damage buffs available via auras, strats WL traits, relics, faction bonuses and so on. In 9th we can't just take that basic number and be confident it means anything, which is why many people say the game is bloated and inaccessible. It also completely ignores that in 5th the height of anti-personnel firepower was pretty much a frag missile or heavy bolter. In 9th we have units routinely throwing 20-30 dice with various buffs.
In short, it's a laughably bad comparison.
*sigh*
First, that game was hard to watch, because it was played really badly. It's like saying a skew list crushing someone is representative of the game. It isn't.
Second, those increases come at a cost. You don't just magically get better for nothing. And this is another pivot point for 40K. What did characters do back then? Basically nothing but fight or change unit org. Now characters give rerolls or other buffs and fight less often.
Those are laughably bad comparisons.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/15 12:56:36
If you think comparing the damage output of a unit from two different editions without taking into account the various damage buffs available now when one of the things specifically being complained about is the prevalence of those buffs and how they make the unit stats much less relevant is helpful or even directly comparable then you do you I guess. I'll leave others to decide which comparison is most useful in the context of this discussion.
As for yet more armchair generalship over the TTT game from you, I'd simply point out it's the only 9th edition video they've done that got the reaction from the viewers that it did. You're welcome to assume absolutely everyone else is wrong and there is no problem here. Again, I'll leave others to decide what the best conclusion is.
The best quality games of 9th I play are when I play with a newbie and leave out all stratagems, subfactions, relics, wl traits, etc because theyre still learning the game.
The game is still simple, but the actual tactical decisions I undertake are basically unchanged - stuff just takes way longer to die and stuff like the alternating close combat phase and fighting over objectives by adding more models actually starts to matter and influence the game.
So maybe 9th is just better than 5th, and the secret to enjoying oneself is just to slice off the solid 50% of meaningless bloat that's been piled on top of it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 13:21:49
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
the_scotsman wrote: The best quality games of 9th I play are when I play with a newbie and leave out all stratagems, subfactions, relics, wl traits, etc because theyre still learning the game.
The game is still simple, but the actual tactical decisions I undertake are basically unchanged - stuff just takes way longer to die and stuff like the alternating close combat phase and fighting over objectives by adding more models actually starts to matter and influence the game.
So maybe 9th is just better than 5th, and the secret to enjoying oneself is just to slice off the solid 50% of meaningless bloat that's been piled on top of it.
The downside of this, to me, is the loss of flavor/narrative. Consider the following quote, only replace "out of command points" with "don't have stratagems this game".
Unit1126PLL wrote: Captain Krassus screamed into the vox: "All Armageddon Steel Legion, raise high the black banners, now is our time! Fix bayonets!" signaling the epic charge.
BUT he couldn't have predicted the cunning of the Rule System, his true foe:
"Sir, we're out of command points, you can't give orders from within a Chimera!" screamed the driver, as he repeatedly shifted from reverse to forwards, jerkily trying to run Orks over like the zamboni scene in Austin Powers. After all, only a fool would drive past enemy infantry that offered practically no threat and bypass hardened positions with maneuver - and the mechanized units of the Armageddon Steel Legion were no fools!
And thusly on the cusp of victory did the planet of Armageddon fall, defeated not by the cleverness of his foe or superior force or tactics, but by the universal laws which this commander foolishly disregarded when he embarked upon his mechanized transport. Who was he to think he could give orders from a Chimera freely? To be a man in such times...
Sure. but every edition has had some kind of stupid rule shenanigan that absolutely breaks immersion. I'm under no illusions that 5th edition or any other edition perfectly captured versimilitude, it's just a matter of what unrealistic gak you're willing to put up with.
Would you prefer 'can't issue orders from a chimera' or 'your command squad is a separate unit that can't do anything to hide from my guns, I can always shoot out your commanders before engaging your troops even though I can't attack the Commissar right next to them because HES an independent character' or 'welp, your Leman Russ ran over a bush, RAW you have a 1/6 chance of being permanently immobilized!' or 'aha, i have cunningly gotten a unit with a hidden sergeant with a power klaw into the very front of your leman russ tank, RAW they now teleport behind it, say 'NOTHING PERSONAL' in japanese and your tank commander has just enough time to yell 'NANI???' before exploding'
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 13:36:49
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
the_scotsman wrote: Sure. but every edition has had some kind of stupid rule shenanigan that absolutely breaks immersion. I'm under no illusions that 5th edition or any other edition perfectly captured versimilitude, it's just a matter of what unrealistic gak you're willing to put up with.
Would you prefer 'can't issue orders from a chimera' or 'your command squad is a separate unit that can't do anything to hide from my guns, I can always shoot out your commanders before engaging your troops even though I can't attack the Commissar right next to them because HES an independent character' or 'welp, your Leman Russ ran over a bush, RAW you have a 1/6 chance of being permanently immobilized!' or 'aha, i have cunningly gotten a unit with a hidden sergeant with a power klaw into the very front of your leman russ tank, RAW they now teleport behind it, say 'NOTHING PERSONAL' in japanese and your tank commander has just enough time to yell 'NANI???' before exploding'
Actually, yes, given that the Command Squad thing used the Retinue rules (meaning the officer was an independent character if the squad was destroyed) and in 4th could be protected by anything from the Target Priority rules to choosing an optimal deployment location (given that radios were actually boardwide back then). Just like the officer, an Independent Character takes hits when their squad is destroyed, so the only REAL difference between the two is that the Commissar can attach to a larger squad should he choose. Not that he was less targetable.
Also in 4th, CC weapons hit the facing they were in.
Tanks being immobilized in difficult terrain literally happens - in fact, it happens worse than 1/6th of the time for tanks that share the Russ's visual lineage. Did you know that 60% (roughly 1-4 on a D6) of T-35s were abandoned by their crews due to breakdowns in 1941? (Also, it's worth noting that, in 4th, the 1 in 6 was modifiable by things like Rough Terrain Modifications, Dozer Blades, Auxiliary Drives, Skilled Drivers, etc. and is largely a consequence of the D6 system).
Things like this were why a modified 4th is my ideal 40k.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/09/15 13:43:48
the_scotsman wrote: The best quality games of 9th I play are when I play with a newbie and leave out all stratagems, subfactions, relics, wl traits, etc because theyre still learning the game.
The game is still simple, but the actual tactical decisions I undertake are basically unchanged - stuff just takes way longer to die and stuff like the alternating close combat phase and fighting over objectives by adding more models actually starts to matter and influence the game.
So maybe 9th is just better than 5th, and the secret to enjoying oneself is just to slice off the solid 50% of meaningless bloat that's been piled on top of it.
The downside of this, to me, is the loss of flavor/narrative. Consider the following quote, only replace "out of command points" with "don't have stratagems this game".
Unit1126PLL wrote: Captain Krassus screamed into the vox: "All Armageddon Steel Legion, raise high the black banners, now is our time! Fix bayonets!" signaling the epic charge.
BUT he couldn't have predicted the cunning of the Rule System, his true foe:
"Sir, we're out of command points, you can't give orders from within a Chimera!" screamed the driver, as he repeatedly shifted from reverse to forwards, jerkily trying to run Orks over like the zamboni scene in Austin Powers. After all, only a fool would drive past enemy infantry that offered practically no threat and bypass hardened positions with maneuver - and the mechanized units of the Armageddon Steel Legion were no fools!
And thusly on the cusp of victory did the planet of Armageddon fall, defeated not by the cleverness of his foe or superior force or tactics, but by the universal laws which this commander foolishly disregarded when he embarked upon his mechanized transport. Who was he to think he could give orders from a Chimera freely? To be a man in such times...
Your description here actually details a few tactical decisions that, while they may not be super narrative, seem to be what some people are looking for in 40k.
Does the officer keep the protection of the Chimera, or step out to employ orders?
Does the chimera use maneuver to avoid the ork infantry unit, or does it try to push through directly?
It would appear in your showcase that the commander made 2 unwise tactical decisions (kept the protection of the Chimera, and charged into the ork infantry unit). Well, always time to learn for next game!
Blackie wrote: Despite what people may think vehicles are significantly tougher now compared to the AV system age.
This is not true as a categorical statement. Things that were AV10/AV11 have gotten tougher, but anything AV12+ is now more vulnerable.
A single lascannon could kill a Leman Russ in one shot. On average, though, in 5th Ed a lascannon had to penetrate to have any chance of killing it outright, and just a 1-in-3 chance of a kill if it did penetrate. Against AV14 front, that meant an average of 18 lascannon hits to destroy a Leman Russ.
In 9th Ed it takes an average of 6.17 lascannon hits to kill a Russ. Barely over a third the survivability. And there's never just one lascannon.
Yes, there are other damage effects that could impact a vehicle in 5th Ed- a lascannon had a 1-in-3 chance to inflict some sort of damage, which would typically incapacitate the Russ for a turn. Exactly half the time, it would be accompanied by no lasting damage. Because stun effects didn't stack, there were severe diminishing returns to focusing fire.
So in one system, engaging a tank from the front arc with even dedicated anti-tank weapons has a very low chance of actually destroying it, but a decent chance of temporarily incapacitating it, giving you time to deal with more pressing threats or engage from a more favorable distance and angle. When damage is sustained, it is more likely to be weapon loss or immobilization than outright destruction, reducing the vehicle's capabilities but generally still leaving it as a threat.
And in the other system, a tank that pokes out of LOS-blocking terrain is not likely to survive, and reaches irrelevance (BS6+ and 4" move, thanks damage brackets) even before that happens.
I certainly see a lot fewer tanks on the table now than I did in 5th.
Slipspace wrote: If you think comparing the damage output of a unit from two different editions without taking into account the various damage buffs available now when one of the things specifically being complained about is the prevalence of those buffs and how they make the unit stats much less relevant is helpful or even directly comparable then you do you I guess. I'll leave others to decide which comparison is most useful in the context of this discussion.
As for yet more armchair generalship over the TTT game from you, I'd simply point out it's the only 9th edition video they've done that got the reaction from the viewers that it did. You're welcome to assume absolutely everyone else is wrong and there is no problem here. Again, I'll leave others to decide what the best conclusion is.
There's a problem with DE and there's a problem with some other units. Yes, there are videos of people getting stomped - even worse than your example is the one from AoW where he forces the other guy to keep playing. There are far more where this doesn't happen. If you simply want to ignore choices that were made that created a worse outcome then we can all pretend 40K is nothing but a dice simulator.
Unit didn't get stomped. He just didn't like models getting removed in a sequence. Scotsman played skew lists in a mission that supported that skew with models that probably shouldn't be in 40K.
I will bet that if competitive sensibilities were taken back to older editions you'd find similar problems. We didn't have them back then, because we were 10 to 20 years old with no real forums for discussion and no access to data to create a wider sense of how things worked. No one really did mathhammer back then. They certainly didn't on the AOL chat room. The younger crowd was also unaware how to abuse pythag and other measurements to get around no pre-measure, which is probably the biggest thing that kept units alive.
The vast majority of changes in 9th has reduced killing power and increased defense and yet here we are complaining MORE about things dying than we did in 8th. Just because people want to complain about multiple units focusing a single unit of theirs doesn't mean things are out of whack, broadly speaking.
I am genuinely sorry that you guys are unable to develop a story with units, because they die frequently, but if you are willing to write your own scenarios and someone is willing to play it then you can continue to tweak it to promote the behavior you want. What better story than a company trying to assail a fort to detonate it from within while the rest of the army covers it's advance? Maybe even throw in that only visible models can die and see how it goes.
Daedalus81 wrote: I will bet that if competitive sensibilities were taken back to older editions you'd find similar problems. We didn't have them back then, because we were 10 to 20 years old with no real forums for discussion and no access to data to create a wider sense of how things worked. No one really did mathhammer back then.
You have a very different recollection of 2000s-era Librarium-Online, Warseer, or Dakka than I do. Especially considering the existence of meta/netlists like like Rhino Rush or Leafblower. We may not have had Facebook and Reddit for soliciting advice but it was not hard for a teenager in the 2000s to find competitive 40K lists and tactics.
I also want to point out that we have plenty of examples on this forum of people being dissatisfied with their current experiences with 8th/9th, going back to earlier editions, and having a better time of it. Are you suggesting that they're all playing 9th competitively, and then switching to non-competitive when they go back to 4th or 5th? I don't think that's the case; I think people are approaching older editions with the same mindset and finding it's a better fit for their expectations.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/15 15:22:45
