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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Or failing morale tests could result in a unit having to fall back, or becoming pinned down.

But it's probably impossibly difficult to write rules to represent something like that.

Getting pinned was basically a turn skip, iirc.
I do miss falling back, but from a game flow perspective I can see why one would want to do away with it, as it's yet more models being moved and yet more book keeping, as you'd have to remember who's retreating, who has regrouped, who needs to regroup and who's eligible for a regroup.
Resolving fall back for a horde was quite tedious, I recall.

In fairness, you probably could do it in a more streamlined fashion.

e.g. instead of models moving in the Morale phase, models that Fall Back could instead do so in the next movement phase (as if they were falling back from combat, except that they *have* to do so and *have* to move their full movement towards their table edge). Ditch the rules about regrouping and instead just apply the same penalties as are currently bestowed by the Fall Back rules.

Its just the conflict between whether you want 40k to be a sort of collective RPG sim, or futuristic chess.

IIRC GW have said (rightly imo) that the feedback they got on people losing control of their models (pinning, falling back etc) was very negative. Which is why they rolled out fearless to almost every faction.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


The only time morale is interesting is when NIghtLords use it to buff themselves

While it's certainly useful, I really don't consider getting +1 to hit very "interesting".

more interesting than just "you lose models because you lost models" is what i meant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Or failing morale tests could result in a unit having to fall back, or becoming pinned down.

But it's probably impossibly difficult to write rules to represent something like that.

pinned :

If you activate a unit that is pinned, reduce its movement by half and it can only hit on 6's. At the end of their activation, consider them no longer pinned.

fallback :

If you activate a unit that is retreating, you must move their full movement and end their movement as close as possible to your deployment zone.

Only hitting on 6's is probably to restrictive, pinned units shouldn't forget how to shoot. Having their BS reduced by one should be enough.

As for fallback, it did had the issue that in certain scenarios it became a "kill more", e.g if you were too close to your table edge or in melee with high initiative unit or there wasn't any room to fall back.

And of course there is the lore issue that pretty much everyone had access to morale mitigation if not outright nullification rules. I think the only times I saw morale have any effect was against Tau.

Somehow Guard scored a 41% winrate across tournaments this weekend. Really curious what changed and what lists they used.

Jarms48 wrote:
Somehow Guard scored a 41% winrate across tournaments this weekend. Really curious what changed and what lists they used.

Like I mentioned earlier - it takes time for people to swing back into the scene. Similarly people seem to be abandoning AdMech so they slumped to 26%. Iron Hands went from 40% to 20%, but had just two people playing so the quantity and quality of players affects our perception a ton.

Another interesting thing to note -- these were the winning factions:

CW
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Tyranids
Tau
Tyranids
Tau
GK
DE
Tau

Seven different factions out of ten.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Seven different factions out of ten.

fake news. we all know that 40k is terribly balanced an only the most recent codexes can win

 Tyran wrote:
Only hitting on 6's is probably to restrictive, pinned units shouldn't forget how to shoot. Having their BS reduced by one should be enough.

As for fallback, it did had the issue that in certain scenarios it became a "kill more", e.g if you were too close to your table edge or in melee with high initiative unit or there wasn't any room to fall back.

And of course there is the lore issue that pretty much everyone had access to morale mitigation if not outright nullification rules. I think the only times I saw morale have any effect was against Tau.

i'd honestly be down for pinning to straight up remove all shooting honestly. Or add suppressive fire.

The version of fallback i gave doesnt have the units destroyed once they reach the board edge, just brought further away from the fight.

remove the morale mitigation rules or make them extra rare (keep it for extra elite/emotionless factions)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


remove the morale mitigation rules or make them extra rare (keep it for extra elite/emotionless factions)

I mean, extra elite/emotionless kinda describes 3/4 of the factions. Extra elite: Custodes, (Chaos) Space Marines of all flavors (half of the game there), Sororitas and Knights. Emotionless: Tyranids, Necrons and debatably Demons and Orks.

 Tyran wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


remove the morale mitigation rules or make them extra rare (keep it for extra elite/emotionless factions)

I mean, extra elite/emotionless kinda describes 3/4 of the factions. Extra elite: Custodes, (Chaos) Space Marines of all flavors (half of the game there), Sororitas and Knights. Emotionless: Tyranids, Necrons and debatably Demons and Orks.

Extra elite : Custodes, Knights, Harlequins

emotionless : necrons, nids

giving Marines/Sisters a higher leadership is enough to differentiate them

Ok, although good luck selling taking away ATSKNF from Space Marines players, Mob rule from Orks and commissars from IG.

 Tyran wrote:
Ok, although good luck selling taking away ATSKNF from Space Marines players, Mob rule from Orks and commissars from IG.

oh i know it won't happen, i'm just giving my opinion.

ATSKNF could litterally just be : we have +1 Ld instead of whatever iteration it is right now

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Seven different factions out of ten.

Magnus (with some TS in tow) was at a top table this weekend, clearly a sign of the apocalypse.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Seven different factions out of ten.

Magnus (with some TS in tow) was at a top table this weekend, clearly a sign of the apocalypse.

Magnus was a big risk in 8th, because it was all guns all the time. Now with Harlies out of the way you could face lots of lists with pretty low shooting and with AoC he picks up a 2+ against small arms, which is pretty useful.

It's tempting for sure. Especially for carving through bugs.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Magnus was a big risk in 8th, because it was all guns all the time. Now with Harlies out of the way you could face lots of lists with pretty low shooting and with AoC he picks up a 2+ against small arms, which is pretty useful.

It's tempting for sure. Especially for carving through bugs.

Magnus was still a liability, it was just interesting to see the model pop up in a semi-final match. Against Nanavati's Eldar, and it was still a very close game.

Tyel wrote:
Its just the conflict between whether you want 40k to be a sort of collective RPG sim, or futuristic chess.

IIRC GW have said (rightly imo) that the feedback they got on people losing control of their models (pinning, falling back etc) was very negative. Which is why they rolled out fearless to almost every faction.

9th edition has been a perfect case study of changing the game to make it "more fun and more action packed" and then trashing the game in the process.

Making the engagement space smaller and shooting ranges longer, is meant to make the game more exciting, as Timmy gets to roll dice and kill models even in turn 1. This makes lethality go nuts, and negates maneuvering aside from "are you behind LOS blocking cover, y/n."

Removing things like pinning debuffs, forced fallbacks, etc is meant to ensure that Timmy doesn't get frustrated when he can't do what he wants whenever he wants. This strips out tactical effects from the game beyond "kill models," and makes the ruleset dumber and (again) cranks up the lethality.

Tyel wrote:


IIRC GW have said (rightly imo) that the feedback they got on people losing control of their models (pinning, falling back etc) was very negative. Which is why they rolled out fearless to almost every faction.

That's terrible game design philosophy though. Most strategy games have stunning effects and debuffs for a reason.
It doesn't even make sense, because in the end they just ramped up the lethality. How is losing entire squads not "losing control of your models?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hankovitch wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Its just the conflict between whether you want 40k to be a sort of collective RPG sim, or futuristic chess.

IIRC GW have said (rightly imo) that the feedback they got on people losing control of their models (pinning, falling back etc) was very negative. Which is why they rolled out fearless to almost every faction.

9th edition has been a perfect case study of changing the game to make it "more fun and more action packed" and then trashing the game in the process.

Making the engagement space smaller and shooting ranges longer, is meant to make the game more exciting, as Timmy gets to roll dice and kill models even in turn 1. This makes lethality go nuts, and negates maneuvering aside from "are you behind LOS blocking cover, y/n."

Removing things like pinning debuffs, forced fallbacks, etc is meant to ensure that Timmy doesn't get frustrated when he can't do what he wants whenever he wants. This strips out tactical effects from the game beyond "kill models," and makes the ruleset dumber and (again) cranks up the lethality.

Pretty much, yeah. It just dumbs down the game into a contest of who has the bigger gun.
"Tactics and manuvering? What's that? Buy our biggest model that can go brrr, peasant." - GW.

Tyel wrote:

IIRC GW have said (rightly imo) that the feedback they got on people losing control of their models (pinning, falling back etc) was very negative. Which is why they rolled out fearless to almost every faction.

The customer is not always right. And really, customers are going to give them feedback in all sorts of directions, the trick is knowing which feedback to listen to. This is why a strong design lead/team is important.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
"Tactics and manuvering? What's that?

If you guys say so.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
"Tactics and manuvering? What's that?

If you guys say so.

It's basically just admitting they're bad.

Look at the Dallas Open, the same 10 people you expect to win the event, won the event and the number 5 guy, Jack Harpster, played a Sisters list that, on paper, looks like complete doggak. He brought a Castigator with it's basic autocannon. A model that kills ONE MARINE per turn on average for 155pts and came in 5th. He won 100% on tactics and manuvering because he was at a massive numerical disadvantage for the whole event.

Tactics and manuvering are more important in 40k than anyone gives it credit for, but usually gets dismissed because it's "gamey"; like a tank having wet paper mache for rear armor isn't 'gamey'.

I think maneuver and tactics matter, but not in a way that is "realistic", and so it doesn't feel like tactics.

A tank having wet paper mache for rear armor is realistic (depending on the tank), so shooting it in the butt with less powerful weapons but still having effects feels tactical.

An objective being exactly 40mm around, so standing a 40mm or bigger base directly on top of it and saying "you can't score this objective without getting in Heroic Intervention range so I can slap you on your turn" is /tactical/ (and I do it all the time with my KOS) and pretty smart from a game winning perspective, but it is hard to reason through logically.*

*Depending on whether or not you even consider the idea of 40mm objectives logical.

How is a vehicle having weak rear armour not tactical? That encourages the player to flank around and try to get a rear strike and the vehicle's owner to keep his flanks secure. Not to mention that historically tanks tended to have relatively weak armour and the best place to attack a tank is from behind.
That's like tactics 101, that is hardly "gamey."

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
How is a vehicle having weak rear armour not tactical? That encourages the player to flank around and try to get a rear strike and the vehicle's owner to keep his flanks secure.
That's like tactics 101, that is hardly "gamey."

I think the concept works better at a smaller scale. Even at 4x6 the table was too small to effect a meaningful difference. The typical way for me was to just deepstrike the smallest footprint with multimeltas, but unless I was playing against all vehicles the tanks were usually parked in corners or against buildings. It essence it was cute, but not a very effective means of taking out most vehicles.

There were weapon arcs which were tactical, but in reality all they did was make tanks who didn't care about arcs more valuable and the rest weak.

9th is not simply exposed or unexposed. You have to understand what the opponent has available, the distance they can cover or when they might appear and where, and measure the lethality/obsec control potential. You need to weigh blocking out the objective with bodies and if your unit could sustain enough casualties to make spreading out like that worth it. The finer movement during melee can make or break objective control and their response options. Throwing a unit away to move block can have significant consequences at the right place and time.

There's a guy who went 6-2 with conscripts at Dallas, but it wasn't simply putting the most dice into their face. He designed his list and tucked away 3 units into reserves and didn't bring them on until turn 3 as a TTL objective. That's playing 450 points down for the majority of the game to score 15. He also took another unit and commander into reserves as a response force.

That sort of combination of a "strategy phase" in list building and then tactics in execution is what keeps me interested.

ERJAK wrote:
because it's "gamey"; like a tank having wet paper mache for rear armor isn't 'gamey'.

That's not gamey, that's just how tanks work. Designing a tank is a balance between durability, firepower, and mobility. If you lose 100 tanks, 80 will be from front hits, maybe 15-18 will be side hits and a couple outliers will be rear hits, usually from infantry with man-portable AT, as the guy commanding the tank brigade is majorly fething up if your tanks are getting shot in the ass end by other tanks. Thick rear armor makes a tank heavier, meaning it will have less range without resupply and more issues with engine/transmission/getting stuck in the mud. If you can omit the rear armor, you actually make the tank more survivable because it has better speed, more range, and won't get stuck or break down as easily. Those things cause far more losses than shots to the rear armor. I would say that's more of a simulation game aspect than a "gamey" one. To me, "gamey" mechanics are things that use cards/tokens and make little sense as to why they're 1 use only. Why can only 1 guy in my whole army try to use a melta bomb per turn if everyone has them? THAT is gamey. Tanks having thin rear armor is the opposite of gamey IMO

so a tank having a fragile back is gamey

but only one tank being able to use smokes at a time isnt?

wut

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think the concept works better at a smaller scale.

It worked fine for years. You're again putting up barriers and inventing reasons why something can't work when they clearly did in the past.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Seven different factions out of ten.

Magnus (with some TS in tow) was at a top table this weekend, clearly a sign of the apocalypse.

Magnus was a big risk in 8th, because it was all guns all the time. Now with Harlies out of the way you could face lots of lists with pretty low shooting and with AoC he picks up a 2+ against small arms, which is pretty useful.

It's tempting for sure. Especially for carving through bugs.

Magnus is still crap to take on the field. Him showing up in a final was an outlier for sure. But the big issue with magnus is all of his survivability is based off him going first to buff himself. unbuffed he can cleared off the table with minimal effort. In the land of 9th ed, a T7 with a 4++ means Nothing.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Kill team really helped crack down on the sneering 40k elite that don't like the "poors" playing their luxury hobby.

fething who?

I think we've solved the mystery of who's been vandalizing all those windmills.

Hecaton wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Kill team really helped crack down on the sneering 40k elite that don't like the "poors" playing their luxury hobby.

fething who?

I think we've solved the mystery of who's been vandalizing all those windmills.

I've played Warhammer in a dozen states and 3 countries. Somehow I've never met the people that seem to plague Bullgryns local stores. Either I haven't gotten around enough or he is telling some tall tales. Hmm...

I can imagine that if a generation of generation of players focuses on playing the game at a points level which is equal to the local or world standard tournament game, the acceptance to someone asking to play half or a third of that, could be rather low. Plus there could also be a few factions whose player wouldn't be interested in playing 500pts games. Not many knight, custodes or GK would like that, when their codex are build for playing with at least three times as many points.