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.

There's definitely a comparison to be made in terms of game design philosophy though. 40k is an archaic lumbering beast, stuck in it's old ways in terms of design, especially compared to how innovative, streamlined and fluid games have become in the last 10 years or so.

kirotheavenger wrote:I think part of the empthasis on list building is because it's more accessible to people.

Throughout my wargaming life, starting as a child and through into my adult life, I find myself list building and theory crafting more than actually gaming.
I can build lists sitting on the toilet, whilst trying to fall asleep, etc. I can discuss combos with friends easily.
But gaming is much harder. Two people need to find the time simultaneously, and it's more difficult to chat about cool moments because for a lot of them you really need to be there, and there's not much of a conversation beyond "yeah that sounds cool".

So... an empthasis on list building really helps to keep people engaging with your game at all times. And of course, it helps to sell models and books.
If the solution to your problem is "use it differently" you won't buy anything. If the solution is "pair it with this character" well now you're going to buy that character.

I don't think it's an accident that the most popular RPG, DnD, also has a very build-centric focus.

kirotheavenger wrote:Availability bias for 40k is definitely the factor keeping it's success going imo.

For many people 40k is the only wargame available, I know many people that are interested in wargames but either won't try them or won't continue with them because the playerbase isn't there.
40k has a vice-grip on the playerbase, it's the only game I ever see consistently played anywhere. In my city there's at least 4 local clubs focusing on 40k, I'm lucky to get 4 people for any non-GW system (and all of those 4 will consider 40k their main game).

I see this sentiment over and over again and it makes me scratch my head.

As an old married guy who works long hours away from home during the week. war gaming has become my #1 hobby as such it is both something i enjoy for gameplay but also for social activity with others who share the same interests. sure, life happens and keeps us busy, but for the last 20+ years since i have been frequenting the FLGS scene i have made time to game every weekend. when i was single it was a couple days (usually Friday and Saturday night) a week, that eventually turned into one very long day (usually 12+ hours) one day a week because of those other responsibilities. back in the day it was mostly 40K and battletech, however as my other hobbies dropped off and i focused more on my wargaming hobbies i expanded into other systems for the sake of variety and shared/built this interest up within the local community. to the point that some nights we do nothing related to GW games but end up getting many games in every weekend.

I can list build anytime during the week, and i do, with the direct drive that i will be able to try them out the next coming game night that week. so, the idea of only playing a game every couple of weeks or months is an alien concept and would make me question my continued interest in the time, effort and resources i am putting into the hobby. if i just want a cool looking model to display on a shelf i have no need to buy squads of them. It also diminishes my drive to complete them. it took the covid lockdowns to get me to finish all my old gundam master grade kits, some of them nearly 20 years old, as i had nothing else to do. however, in that same space i have built more armies of minis for a dozen different game systems than i care to count because i had a reason to get them done in a timely manner so i could use them.

This is why i play older editions of 40K and so many old games GW doesn't support any more like BFG, because like all my other non-GW games i want game night to be a fun experience for all involved.
The current edition and game design direction GW has gone in isn't that. so, i no longer chase it, and i am willing to critically look at what GW is doing. i am a fan of the original setting not the current company. that is the only thing that keeps me playing with my huge collection of 40K minis.

Like I'm not trying to be a dick but I don't get your post. It seems like a long way around to saying "not my problem/works for me". You get to play your prefered way so it shouldn't be a problem for anyone else? And if they can't play their preferred way they just shouldn't play at all? Help me out here.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Like I'm not trying to be a dick but I don't get your post. It seems like a long way around to saying "not my problem/works for me". You get to play your prefered way so it shouldn't be a problem for anyone else? And if they can't play their preferred way they just shouldn't play at all? Help me out here.

I guess the question is.... if one had a group or could convince a group to play something other than the latest/current iteration of 40k, how many people would rather do that?

Generally speaking, if you want to play 40k at a store or some established group/meetup, most people are going to be playing 9th edition whether they like it or not. But how many of those people, if given the choice, would be willing or interested in playing something else (30k, old hammer, etc.) if given the opportunity. 9th edition generally seems favored by more competitive-players, whereas more simulation and narrative players seem more receptive to older editions.

I took Aphyon basically to be reporting on his experience. And I feel similarly that I was sold on the setting but am not sold on the current company.

Mezmorki rung a bell with “playing against the system” and I like his design philosophy. And I second Auticus and his assessment. Was good to see those two engaging.

About marketing and so on tho, sure, chasing the plastic crack dragon means spending money, and I suppose that it means spending more than someone who uses old codices with Prohammer rules, but things did not need to go this way. There is something needy about meta chasing mindsets and nothing wrong about that I guess but the point is that sort of neediness is easy for marketers to manipulate by E.g. blowing meta bubbles of incremental codex releases to force the churn and burn whombo combo trade offs for top table aspirants is an easy enough marketing strategy. There is a different set of needs characteristic of the sort of mindset represented by E.g. an Auticus or a Morki. Those are more complex, and perhaps a bit more difficult to deliver to, but I would imagine as profitable especially long term and without evaporating goodwill from established invested and as serious hobbyists.

Speaking to the various gaming hobby hats I wear:

* 40k and table top miniature games and home brew rule crafter

* Board game player and designer

* Strategy and 4X video game critic (past staff writer at explorminate.net) and player

A trend that's cut across of these different genres is a (mistaken IMHO) belief that complexity equals depth, and by extension that competitive dominance can be achieved by demonstrating one's ability to process complexity better than their fellow players.

But this growing complexity is almost always funneled through systems and gameplay devices based on optimization and logistics.

We see it in board games where the complexity of things continues to escalate with engine building / resource management / resource conversation games getting fantastically intricate. Increasingly these are being designed to also accommodate solo-play. Having other players at the table is no longer even a prerequisite for the game.

We see it in 4X and empire building strategy games where games are lauded despite being baroque puzzle boxes of moving numbers and very little to offer by way of actual strategy. For every legitimate tactical choice one faces, there are 100 small micro optimization steps to take.

And we see it in 40K - most clearly in 9th with the extensive and intricate layering of codex level rules and the interactions that emanate from it. It's a LOT of content and specific knowledge to parse and sort through and account for - but at the end of the day the actual gameplay, once you've leapt through the optimization hurdles, is as straight forward as ever.

I don't know how this trend reverses. I think in many ways there's something fundamental and human about people being inherently attracted to this escalation of complexity. One sort of needs to burn themselves out on it to realize that the complexity isn't what they were really after at all.

Over at boardgamegeek.com, we started a guild last year for "OG-style" games - which was "Original German" style of games. Largely, the members there are reacting against the escalation of complexity and saying "wait a minute, these older German-style games that kicked this whole thing off, which focused way more on shared space and player interaction (and depth coming through that) is what we really after! How do I find more games like those?" It's been a great group to gel around this similar sort of reaction against complexity.

 jeff white wrote:
Mezmorki rung a bell with “playing against the system” and I like his design philosophy. And I second Auticus and his assessment. Was good to see those two engaging.

Eh, more randomness is not always good. Forcing players to interact, however, is - Level 99 games is one of the few companies I know that turns the Euro/Ameritrash idea on its head.

No1: I Iike where this thread is right now. Good points being made.

No2: Re "drive towards complexity" - I've long been viewing part of this drive as being associated with ease-of-dialogue surrounding gameplay. It can be hard to talk about tactics when you're dealing with spacial relationships and broader contexts involving multiple units. But it's really easy to talk about employing specific wargear, strats, unit abilities etc. There's a sort of soft drive for clutter because it makes for more dialogue and engagement.

Like try having a discussion about the game Go. Lol, you can do it, but it's pretty ephemeral unless you're really on top of the board situation.

Randomness has its place and asymmetrical gameplay elements that are used to force player action/reaction have a place as well.

Anything that prevents the game from being solved in the listbuilding stage can only be a good thing.

Randomness is also more forgiveable when lethality is lower. When the stakes are high, bad luck feels worse.

Hecaton wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Mezmorki rung a bell with “playing against the system” and I like his design philosophy. And I second Auticus and his assessment. Was good to see those two engaging.

Eh, more randomness is not always good. Forcing players to interact, however, is - Level 99 games is one of the few companies I know that turns the Euro/Ameritrash idea on its head.

Actually Argent: The Consortium is a great example of a highly random game done well and its not a million miles from the same aims as 40k. You have a random board set up resulting in random resource availability, spells, items, characters and objectives are randomly drawn. Theres a very high level of offensive player interaction and a lot of moving people around the board. But it all works and comes together brilliantly.

I learned some important lessons from randomness, I think. I mean somehow in the early days it seemed that my dice had more 1s on them and they would always seem to show up at the worst times… my plans would fail because I failed a critical roll and everything would fall apart. I learned two things, one being it didn’t matter. Skilful gameplay is more than consistent winning, because we win everytime we have a good time and that has nothing to do with the luck of the dice and everything to do with how I dealt with it, which was poorly. So I ruined enough good times that way to finally learn my lesson. There is nothing random about winning in this way, because it happens every time. Oh yeah and two is it all started with me planning too much beforehand, deck building and then just not adjusting well. Expectations were too rigid. That attitude had to change.

Insectum7 wrote:Randomness is also more forgiveable when lethality is lower. When the stakes are high, bad luck feels worse.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Actually Argent: The Consortium is a great example of a highly random game done well and its not a million miles from the same aims as 40k. You have a random board set up resulting in random resource availability, spells, items, characters and objectives are randomly drawn. Theres a very high level of offensive player interaction and a lot of moving people around the board. But it all works and comes together brilliantly.

I'd argue it's not the lethality per se, or even whether the game has lots of randomness or not. It's the distribution of outcomes.

A single 1D6 roll for who goes first, or roll to hit on your Super Death Laser (before it gets blown off the board and never gets a second shot) will inherently produce more swingy outcomes than rolling 20 dice per attack three turns in a row. The more lethal the game is, the fewer attacks your units get to make, and so there's less opportunity for a unit that flubbed its first shot to make up for it later.

The fewer rolls you make, and the stronger consequences those rolls produce on the game outcome, the more random the game ends up feeling. But a game can have lots of randomness without feeling unfair/arbitrary if the results are either tuned to avoid negative outcomes (eg a D6 roll for mission type, where if the missions are designed well, you aren't winning or losing on the basis of that roll), or if there are lots of opportunities for randomness to average out without snowballing early.

This touches on other issues of 40K's current design. You can lose turn 1 if you fail to do enough damage, or take too much damage, or flub some advance rolls, and then get walloped enough that a comeback is nigh-impossible. But that's only a thing because armies can regularly output their full combat potential on the first turn. A game with a more gradual escalation is less likely to be decided early by a couple of bad rolls, as it's less likely to immediately snowball. There's more opportunity for rolls to average out before the game is decided.

So there are a number of elements that combine to determine how 'random' a game ends up feeling; and they're not directly related to how much randomness it actually contains.

I feel like GW basically said "oh, so people want die rolls to be less swingy and random? let's add ALL THE DICE so they don't get a bunch of rolls that whiff all the time, and then let's add a bunch of re-rolls and bonuses to their rolls too!"

And like, sure that works but it's opened a lot of other problems too.

@Mezmorki

As I guy who is fortunate enough to be able to play 9th in a way that works for me, I haven't really engaged Prohammer, but reading your detailed post in this thread do have me taking it more seriously- there were things about previous editions of 40k I did enjoy, and of course, Prohammer would brin a lot of those back.

There are still some things that feel awkward. I always despised the "no pre-measure rules" they always made me feel like my ability/ inability to estimate distance became more important to anything that was connected to the game world. People often complain that strat use isn't "tactical"... but for me, knowing which strats to combine with which auras and how to not go overkill so that I maintain resources feels like more of a tactical thing than just having a better sense of spatial awareness than my opponent, so the the totally mundane, non-game related skill of being able to accurately estimate 24" gives me more of an advantage than a skill that can only be developed by engaging with the game.

Not a big deal- with my group, we could take Prohammer, and just like we do with 9th, we could say "Well we like the vast majority of the rules, but not this one, so lets just not use it."

The bigger issue for me is the limited model choices that are imposed by sticking with 3rd- 7th, and for some armies, dex choices too.

I don't imagine there are a lot of sisters players who particularly like Prohammer. Don't get me wrong- I loved the Witch Hunter dex for its time... But man, given what we've got now, I don't really think I could ever go back. I don't know when Custodes and Knights got their dexes, and I happen to really like Fortis, Indomitor and Spectrus Kill Teams for my Deathwatch. Harlequins might have a hard time. And for me, this was always the strong suit of 8th/9th- the absence of have/ have not armies. I can't think of any other edition where ALL faction rules where developed with the same amount of bells and whistles that have been available to Space Marines since second.

Prohammer mitigates SOME of the disparity by allowing a player to pick the best dex from the four year span. Even so, there are still going to be some factions left out.

Having said that, I still respect the time and effort you put into it, and I respect the amount of time and thought you put into your posts. You haven't entirely converted me yet, but I'm hearing you more clearly.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Mezmorki rung a bell with “playing against the system” and I like his design philosophy. And I second Auticus and his assessment. Was good to see those two engaging.

Eh, more randomness is not always good. Forcing players to interact, however, is - Level 99 games is one of the few companies I know that turns the Euro/Ameritrash idea on its head.

Actually Argent: The Consortium is a great example of a highly random game done well and its not a million miles from the same aims as 40k. You have a random board set up resulting in random resource availability, spells, items, characters and objectives are randomly drawn. Theres a very high level of offensive player interaction and a lot of moving people around the board. But it all works and comes together brilliantly.

Sure, but BattleCON has no randomness to speak of.

PenitentJake wrote:

There are still some things that feel awkward. I always despised the "no pre-measure rules" they always made me feel like my ability/ inability to estimate distance became more important to anything that was connected to the game world.

This is definitely worth pointing out (and is something that makes me skeptical of Prohammer's "objectives"). Does it also bring back guess weapons?

Because both of those things are deeply at odds with a simulationist approach, which would make the decision to include them appear like deference to tradition, or, worse, some sort of purity test for (a single hyper-niche, otherwise meaningless) skill.

I don't imagine there are a lot of sisters players who particularly like Prohammer. Don't get me wrong- I loved the Witch Hunter dex for its time... But man, given what we've got now, I don't really think I could ever go back. I don't know when Custodes and Knights got their dexes, and I happen to really like Fortis, Indomitor and Spectrus Kill Teams for my Deathwatch. Harlequins might have a hard time. And for me, this was always the strong suit of 8th/9th- the absence of have/ have not armies. I can't think of any other edition where ALL faction rules where developed with the same amount of bells and whistles that have been available to Space Marines since second.

Prohammer mitigates SOME of the disparity by allowing a player to pick the best dex from the four year span. Even so, there are still going to be some factions left out.

Our group doesn't use pro-hammer but a lot of Mezmorki's ideas also show up in the rules we do use-
We use base 5th but allow all codexes from editions 3-7th to be used

We import about 15 rules from other editions that fit better in 5th (including pre-measuring, and to Altruizine's point the actual rules for guess weapons from 3rd were dumb-mostly because they were taken directly from WHFB rules for cannons that bounced when they fired-. scatter dice +2d6 minus BS for direct fire makes for a much more reasonable approach given the setting)

To your point. as an old SOB Player and a GK player i will only use the demon hunter and witch hunter codexes as they best fit the fluff for an inquisitorial force. They also hard counter the 3.5 chaos codex that all the chaos players always choose.

As for the other factions, nobody is actually left out. by 7th ed all the "new" factions had a dex-sisters of silence/custodes (although most of their units were FW at the time), GSC, admech, deathwatch, and knights. the rest were already available to pick from-

.various flavors of space marines
.imperal guard
.demon hunters/GKs (5th ed but i hate that codex)
.witch hunters
.tau(kroot even had a chapter approved stand alone army)
.nids
.eldar
.dark eldar
.necrons
.chaos/demons
.orks

FW armies had DKOK, elysians, blood ravens, minotuars, corsair eldar, etc... in the IA books.

You can always use primaris minis as "counts as" in most cases without issue.

I have collected pretty much all my favorite versions of the above codexes (and IA books) for people to use if they do not have one. i think there are only 3 i do not personally own and regulars at the shop have those.

 Mezmorki wrote:

One sort of needs to burn themselves out on it to realize that the complexity isn't what they were really after at all.

There is more truth to this little sentence than you realise. I think you need to be 'burned out' of the conpetitive game/complex game to really see it for what it's for. I can absolutely testify that this is my personal experience - loved wmh and infinity. Now I can barely look at them. The complexity I used to love is now something that actively keeps me away.

I remember ages ago, someone used the term 'post-competitive' to describe themselves. You've been there you've done that now you just want to dial it back and relax because ultimately you've got nothing left to prove to anyone at this point.

I also think age plays a role. We all want different things at different stages in our lives. With life experience etc you see things later and understand things better that you didn't see at the time.

Deadnight wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:

One sort of needs to burn themselves out on it to realize that the complexity isn't what they were really after at all.

There is more truth to this little sentence than you realise. I think you need to be 'burned out' of the conpetitive game/complex game to really see it for what it's for. I can absolutely testify that this is my personal experience - loved wmh and infinity. Now I can barely look at them. The complexity I used to love is now something that actively keeps me away.

I remember ages ago, someone used the term 'post-competitive' to describe themselves. You've been there you've done that now you just want to dial it back and relax because ultimately you've got nothing left to prove to anyone at this point.

I also think age plays a role. We all want different things at different stages in our lives. With life experience etc you see things later and understand things better that you didn't see at the time.

Age and how busy/complex your life is definitely play a factor.

PenitentJake wrote:
@Mezmorki

I don't imagine there are a lot of sisters players who particularly like Prohammer. Don't get me wrong- I loved the Witch Hunter dex for its time... But man, given what we've got now, I don't really think I could ever go back.

I'm really not deliberately being contrarian but...nah, I'd go back to Witch Hunters tomorrow if I could. Keep your generic new tanks and baby carriers. If I can get back melta-bomb seraphim, jump pack cannoness and10 flamer template dominion/immolator bombs. I would give up all the meh extra stuff 9th brought for a bit of the flavor Witch Hunters had.

Hecaton wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Mezmorki rung a bell with “playing against the system” and I like his design philosophy. And I second Auticus and his assessment. Was good to see those two engaging.

Eh, more randomness is not always good. Forcing players to interact, however, is - Level 99 games is one of the few companies I know that turns the Euro/Ameritrash idea on its head.

True. As a stoic I find it hard to be passionate about things out of my control (my reaction is "whatever" whether I roll extraordinary well or badly), but I see place for randomness in wargames. That said high variance, high impact rolls should just die (like "this cannon can blow up itself or kill a dragon in one shot")

Giving players tools for ruthless interaction is a perfect replacement for surplus RNG. Games like Food Chain Magnate, Game of Thrones or Imperial 2030 have amounts of uncertainty, drama and tension WH40K could only dream of, but it all comes from player interaction, because these games are entirely or almost entirely deterministic.

 Altruizine wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

There are still some things that feel awkward. I always despised the "no pre-measure rules" they always made me feel like my ability/ inability to estimate distance became more important to anything that was connected to the game world.

This is definitely worth pointing out (and is something that makes me skeptical of Prohammer's "objectives"). Does it also bring back guess weapons?

Because both of those things are deeply at odds with a simulationist approach, which would make the decision to include them appear like deference to tradition, or, worse, some sort of purity test for (a single hyper-niche, otherwise meaningless) skill.

Why and how are these mechanics "deeply at odds with a simulationist approach"? I mean, do people get to pull out tape measures before they decide to engage with enemy A or B in real life? Range finders are a thing, but are their use always practical? What about smoky battlefields with chunks of flag and flesh blowing by in between unit X and enemies A and B? Might these interfere with such range finding? Terrain? Hills? Stubby scrubby brush, perhaps also blowing past in the explosions?

How is this a "hyper-niche" skill any more than say knowing to use 2 command points to play card Y now as opposed to later? Or, knowing to measure exactly 12.1" away from enemy unit A so that A cannot shoot friendly unit X? Or... any other thing involved in this game? What is wrong with practicing, so that one gets better at estimating ranges? Or, what is wrong with forcing players to err on the side of caution on way or the other, perhaps moving to within 11.9" range to use that pistol instead of measuring to stay exactly at that 11.9" line? Again, how "simulationist" is that, exactly?

Frankly, I do not see your point... enlighten me?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
@Mezmorki

I don't imagine there are a lot of sisters players who particularly like Prohammer. Don't get me wrong- I loved the Witch Hunter dex for its time... But man, given what we've got now, I don't really think I could ever go back.

I'm really not deliberately being contrarian but...nah, I'd go back to Witch Hunters tomorrow if I could. Keep your generic new tanks and baby carriers. If I can get back melta-bomb seraphim, jump pack cannoness and10 flamer template dominion/immolator bombs. I would give up all the meh extra stuff 9th brought for a bit of the flavor Witch Hunters had.

Cleanse the heretic with fire, indeed!

 Mezmorki wrote:

A trend that's cut across of these different genres is a (mistaken IMHO) belief that complexity equals depth, and by extension that competitive dominance can be achieved by demonstrating one's ability to process complexity better than their fellow players.

We have always summed it up as Complicated (lots of fiddly bits) vs Complex. Chess would be low complication, high complexity. 40k high complication, low complexity. The design for me is more reminiscent of magic than a wargame (or even their own wargames like warmaster or epic). But it seems to be the right choice. Magic is popular. The power up style is popular in online games. Maybe its just a case of the mainstream gamer wants something different to people who fall more on the traditional wargaming side, but the former are the majority?

Of course it could just be cyclical - maybe we are edging back to a version of the 70's/early 80's with the modern version of hordes of chits, tables and challenger 2000 wargames

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I feel like GW basically said "oh, so people want die rolls to be less swingy and random? let's add ALL THE DICE so they don't get a bunch of rolls that whiff all the time, and then let's add a bunch of re-rolls and bonuses to their rolls too!"

And like, sure that works but it's opened a lot of other problems too.

I'm not sure really. The outcome range on say a unit which hits on 3s rerolling 1s and wounds on 3s rerolling 1s for some low save chance is going to be fairly tight.

You can then skew the stats so said unit "reliably" does about 25% of its points as damage - or 65%.

I don't think 40k has a problem because its too random. Clubs aren't (in my experience anyway) full of people exclaiming "Yahtzee" as they score 20+ 6s on say 25 dice.
The issue is on perfectly average dice the result is "I kill about 40-50% worth of points of your stuff as the unit I used". And an even slightly above average set of dice starts to just kill everything.

 jeff white wrote:

Why and how are these mechanics "deeply at odds with a simulationist approach"? I mean, do people get to pull out tape measures before they decide to engage with enemy A or B in real life? Range finders are a thing, but are their use always practical? What about smoky battlefields with chunks of flag and flesh blowing by in between unit X and enemies A and B? Might these interfere with such range finding? Terrain? Hills? Stubby scrubby brush, perhaps also blowing past in the explosions?

How is this a "hyper-niche" skill any more than say knowing to use 2 command points to play card Y now as opposed to later? Or, knowing to measure exactly 12.1" away from enemy unit A so that A cannot shoot friendly unit X? Or... any other thing involved in this game? What is wrong with practicing, so that one gets better at estimating ranges? Or, what is wrong with forcing players to err on the side of caution on way or the other, perhaps moving to within 11.9" range to use that pistol instead of measuring to stay exactly at that 11.9" line? Again, how "simulationist" is that, exactly?

Frankly, I do not see your point... enlighten me?

I agree that "no premeasuring" is unrealistic, so I'll give it a punt.

Yes, in real life I can't tell the exact distance to the enemy. But, say my rifle has 300m effective range, I can tell roughly if the enemy is 300m away. If they're actually 325m away my rifle won't lose really any power at all vs 300m. 300m is just the rough point where the slow degradation of effectiveness is deemed too low. If the enemy is 400m away and I genuinely can't hurt them much at all, well that'll be obvious enough.
But in 40k... 300m is "might as well be point blank", whereas 301m suddenly becomes "might as well be on another planet". That cliff edge is so sharp and totally unrealistic. Premeasuring is a level of abstraction that helps feather that edge and actually leads to a more realistic overall sense.
Not to mention in the 41st millenium most factions will have some of range sensor in their helmet.

The same applies to movement for much the same reason. In real life, I can get a rough estimation of how much time it'll take to run across the street. Also, whether it's 5m across or 7m across won't leave me exposed to enemy fire for much differing amounts of time.
But in a turn based game, 5" means I cross the gap and am never exposed to enemy fire at all. 7" (assuming I move 6") means I'm standing around in the open with my dick in my hand for the entire enemy army to shoot.
So again, it's a totally unrealistic cliff edge that premeasuring helps to smooth out a little.

Sometimes an individual rule, despite being more realistic itself, leads to a less realistic game as a result of interactions with rules around it. This is one such example.

If you wanted to implement no-premeasuring in a realistic way, you would need to add range degradation. It's something I've seen in a few historical games. Eg you hit on a 2+, with -1 for every 6" between you and the enemy. Then, if I estimate you're at the edge of my range, it's not a question of "full effectiveness or none at all" it's a question of "hitting on 6s or not at all" which isn't much of a difference and there's no huge swing for being slightly off.
Actually, Warhammer Fantasy used to have a rule to this rough effect. You got -1 to hit over half range. Which gave you a little dip before it hit the cliff at full range and dropped to nothing.

I do think estimating distances is more "meta" than knowing what strategems to use*. The latter is actually just knowing how to use the game rules. The former is something else entirely.
*But don't get me wrong, I despise strategems with a passion.
But estimating distances shouldn't be a part of the game.

 Sim-Life wrote:


I'm really not deliberately being contrarian but...nah, I'd go back to Witch Hunters tomorrow if I could. Keep your generic new tanks and baby carriers. If I can get back melta-bomb seraphim, jump pack cannoness and10 flamer template dominion/immolator bombs. I would give up all the meh extra stuff 9th brought for a bit of the flavor Witch Hunters had.

I get you- like I said, I loved that dex for its time and there are still things about it that I really like- to aphyon's point, the Hunter books were the gold standard for Inquisition/ chamber militant armies... With the exception being Xenos Hunters, who didn't get a book before the reset button got punched (for which I STILL haven't forgiven GW).

I think I also almost like Witch Hunter AoF better too... But it's close. The powers laid out in the Witch Hunter book were great, and there's sort of an ease of use that isn't present given the versatility of the new system and its interactions with strats, traits and relics. I too loved the jump Cannoness AND melta Seraphim.

The units I'd miss most from the new dex:

Zephyrim- I feel like these complete the "Angelic Host" archetype. This would be so much stronger if we still had jump cannonesses... But I just love the ideas of a winged detachment, and sure, you can still get close to it with just Seraphim, but when you combine the two, it just feels more versatile and complete.

Mortifiers- This unit fills a big fluff space for me; the penitent engines were always so Ecclesiarchy in flavour, and I was always stretching to keep my penitent units together because the Repentia were the outsiders of the penitent units, being sororitas rather than Ecclesiarchy. Now that we have mortifiers, it feels like the penitent legion is conceptually complete- both the ecclesiarchy and the sororitas have a foot unit and a battlesuit unit. You can field a sororitas only Penitent legion (detachment).

Morvenn- It isn't so much Morvenn herself; it's the fact that the Abbess of the Sororitas has been given a model. It wouldn't even matter who the Abbess was, or how good her rules were to me- the fact is I want a model for that role for story reasons, and is an equality among factions issue.

The Triumph of Saint Katherine- I've posted in a couple of different threads about what the Triumph means to me- the way I use it is not as a model; instead, it's a campaign in a box. Admittedly, I could achieve the same campaign using Prohammer by doing a "Counts As" thing... But it just isn't as cool.

Cannoness Commanders/ Preceptors/ Superia- These aren't models or datacard entries- this is represented by the Blessings of the Faithful upgrade (well, unless you're OoOML, in which case GW DID actually give you a Cannoness superior). Again, this is a faction parity issue, as well as another model on the table and a storytelling tool.

But I would be a liar if I told you I never pull my WH dex of the shelf and wax nostalgic about loading up a hereticus inquisitor with a psyocculum and excruciators and building her a retinue to strike fear into the hearts of heretics across the galaxy. It's just that the Sororitas almost NEED the Inquisition to be complete in 3rd, and now they do not.

No pre-measuring is a dead rule anyways. It might have made some sense on green grass plains of 2nd and 3rd, but nowadays there are so many precise visual cues, that sight measuring is easier than ever - modular 2'x2' boards, Zone Mortalis boards, street grid of neoprene mats or even known sizes of bases result in sight measuring to 0.5" accuracy. I pretty much use tape measure for movement only, because measuring range is usually pointless.

The concept of turning a miniatures game into a Living Card Game (LCG) was like a highly infectious STD carried by Fantasy Flight Games that was passed onto GW during their brief love affair. Strategems are the festering lesions of a gaming venereal disease, causing such irreparable damage to the minds of the playerbase that they now think they like it.

nou wrote:
No pre-measuring is a dead rule anyways. It might have made some sense on green grass plains of 2nd and 3rd, but nowadays there are so many precise visual cues, that sight measuring is easier than ever - modular 2'x2' boards, Zone Mortalis boards, street grid of neoprene mats or even known sizes of bases result in sight measuring to 0.5" accuracy. I pretty much use tape measure for movement only, because measuring range is usually pointless.

I disagree that sight measuring is any easier today than it was before.
Where ever you played? You knew how big the table was. Whatever the year, a 4x6/4x8 table is still 4x6/4x8.
Known base sizes. You think we didn't know what size bases our models were on in the past?
I'll ad to this that we also knew the dimensions of models/vehicles. My Chimeras haven't changed length/width in 25 years....
Terrain features of known dimensions. Same thing as with bases & tables. You learned the dimensions of the stuff in your terrain collection.

And yet people would marvel that I could reliably drop a Basilisk round within 1/4" (at most) difference of my "guess"....
Newsflash: There was no guessing. The table may as well have had a grid overlay on it. The inaccuracy was because I often didn't take more than a casual glance before stating my so-called guess.