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.

For huge parts of the world, playing GW or not playing table tops at all, is the reality.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Greentide made a lot of people very happy. And some of the builds were really fun. A couple Doubles events I went to had a lot of happy ork players. Yes it was for sure controversial why I said it depends who you talk to

Nope, that's nonsense.

Greentide just gave back what was taken away from orks after 5th, so per definition it couldn't be the best.

Oh, and it was removed from the supplement mid-edition.

There is no controversy about it at all. The only reason for an ork player to even remotely think well of 7th if it's the edition you started with, and even then it is strictly inferior to everything that came after it.

7th was, without doubt and room for discussion, the worst edition ever for orks.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.

Um, no. That would be absolutely absurd for a 28mm game. Let's not have Warmachine, where "snipers" would have better range if they threw their guns at the enemy.

Sorry, I want the movement phase to actually matter beyond shuffling closer to an objective or crossing the the board to get a turn one/two charge.

This is my second biggest complaint with Age of Sigmar vs WHFB. If I'm going to go through the trouble to outflank you, I want it to mean something.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.

Um, no. That would be absolutely absurd for a 28mm game. Let's not have Warmachine, where "snipers" would have better range if they threw their guns at the enemy.

Sorry, I want the movement phase to actually matter beyond shuffling closer to an objective or crossing the the board to get a turn one/two charge.

This is my second biggest complaint with Age of Sigmar vs WHFB. If I'm going to go through the trouble to outflank you, I want it to mean something.

What was your biggest complaint? I quit ‘fantasy’ Warhammer the moment WHFB ended. I liked the careful manoeuvring of ranked up battlelines too much, I didn’t want to play yet another mediocre skirmish game.

I would like movement to feel like it matters a bit more though. Sure, there’s the element of movement when it comes to objective grabbing, but nothing to do with moving into firing positions etc. I love light vehicles like Sentinels, Vypers, Piranhas etc, but when their guns are such long ranges and cover most of the table anyway, the highly manoeuvrable aspect of them seems to take a backseat. Perhaps I don’t play with enough LoS blocking terrain.

nemesis464 wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.

Um, no. That would be absolutely absurd for a 28mm game. Let's not have Warmachine, where "snipers" would have better range if they threw their guns at the enemy.

Sorry, I want the movement phase to actually matter beyond shuffling closer to an objective or crossing the the board to get a turn one/two charge.

This is my second biggest complaint with Age of Sigmar vs WHFB. If I'm going to go through the trouble to outflank you, I want it to mean something.

What was your biggest complaint? I quit ‘fantasy’ Warhammer the moment WHFB ended. I liked the careful manoeuvring of ranked up battlelines too much, I didn’t want to play yet another mediocre skirmish game.

I would like movement to feel like it matters a bit more though. Sure, there’s the element of movement when it comes to objective grabbing, but nothing to do with moving into firing positions etc. I love light vehicles like Sentinels, Vypers, Piranhas etc, but when their guns are such long ranges and cover most of the table anyway, the highly manoeuvrable aspect of them seems to take a backseat. Perhaps I don’t play with enough LoS blocking terrain.

The double turn. In a game as lethal as Warhammer, your opponent having two turns in a row is the single most un-fun thing I can think of.

And for the record, my number three is the lore and setting. I was heavily invested in the Old World. The Mortal Realms still feel very empty and un-lived in, and the story doesn't spend enough time in any one place for things to matter. I'm also still a little bitter that Malekith hasn't really stepped on the stage yet, but Teclis gets to be a god despite literally exploding in the End Times (which, really, was all his fault, anyway).

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
The double turn. In a game as lethal as Warhammer, your opponent having two turns in a row is the single most un-fun thing I can think of.

I can't get a read on that. Every time I see a post like yours, I see several people jumping in going on about how the double turn is fine, and those that think it's bad either don't understand or don't play AoS.

Meanwhile, most of tneva82's AoS game reports in this thread mention the double turn if not outright state its the reason why he won/lost.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.

Um, no. That would be absolutely absurd for a 28mm game. Let's not have Warmachine, where "snipers" would have better range if they threw their guns at the enemy.

Sorry, I want the movement phase to actually matter beyond shuffling closer to an objective or crossing the the board to get a turn one/two charge.

This is my second biggest complaint with Age of Sigmar vs WHFB. If I'm going to go through the trouble to outflank you, I want it to mean something.

The movement phase is the most important phase in the game if you're actually good at 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
The double turn. In a game as lethal as Warhammer, your opponent having two turns in a row is the single most un-fun thing I can think of.

I can't get a read on that. Every time I see a post like yours, I see several people jumping in going on about how the double turn is fine, and those that think it's bad either don't understand or don't play AoS.

Meanwhile, most of tneva82's AoS game reports in this thread mention the double turn if not outright state its the reason why he won/lost.

Little of column A, little of column B. One of the first things you learn as a competitive AoS player is how NOT to automatically lose if you get double turned.

Denying a double turn, forcing your opponent to pass by giving them terrible options and needing to avoid getting double turned themselves, or eating a double turn and then still winning after are immensely satisfying successes on a tactical/master planning level; which is a big part of why the faction of AoS that doesn't mind or really loves the double turn, DOES love it.

That said, it absolutely does win games on the spot sometimes, even at very high levels. Some shooting armies were only meta because they could basically guarantee a T1-T2 double turn and wipe half an army off the board.

It also allows for dramatic come-from-behind victories in a way 40k could never.

Good and the bad.

 vict0988 wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:
There’s a reason why almost all the desired changes people have listed are things that didn’t exist in earlier editions.

Because we know they can be implemented. The people that dislike USR have also been quiet for this thread, but they do exist. I also haven't mentioned how the current morale rules are my favourite of any edition I have played because they allow my Necrons to play how I want them to. Units run away when you lock them in combat, I don't need the game to handle that, my opponent will do it because of the incentives in the game. I do think it could be appropriate for there to be covering fire and a bigger morale impact, but I don't want Necrons to seek shelter or run away. Taking extra casualties I can pretty easily ignore, running away I cannot. Some people are just built for 9th, they either don't care about gotchas or they are really good at not getting got.

Even if the older morale system was put back in place, it wouldn't necessarily mean that everything would be affected by it the same. In HH 2.0, if a Daemon or Corrupted unit fails a Morale Check, it doesn't fallback, but instead automatically takes D3 wounds that can't be saved (so basically MWs). Necrons could have something like that, so the squad itself holds its ground, as it should, but it takes some wounds to represent some of the squad members "phasing out". Would something like that work for you?

Removed - rule #1

Hecaton wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
For huge parts of the world, playing GW or not playing table tops at all, is the reality.

Removed - rule #1

Guess I'm the one to defend Karol again.

Do you know how fething hard it is to get a community going for a game when those potential players aren't even sure their investment will result in more players? It takes a feth ton of effort and time.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.

Um, no. That would be absolutely absurd for a 28mm game. Let's not have Warmachine, where "snipers" would have better range if they threw their guns at the enemy.

Sorry, I want the movement phase to actually matter beyond shuffling closer to an objective or crossing the the board to get a turn one/two charge.

This is my second biggest complaint with Age of Sigmar vs WHFB. If I'm going to go through the trouble to outflank you, I want it to mean something.

But.... Movement is extremely important in AoS....

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
For huge parts of the world, playing GW or not playing table tops at all, is the reality.

Removed - rule #1

Guess I'm the one to defend Karol again.

Do you know how fething hard it is to get a community going for a game when those potential players aren't even sure their investment will result in more players? It takes a feth ton of effort and time.

Couldn’t agree more. It’s so much easier said that done.

ERJAK wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.

Um, no. That would be absolutely absurd for a 28mm game. Let's not have Warmachine, where "snipers" would have better range if they threw their guns at the enemy.

Sorry, I want the movement phase to actually matter beyond shuffling closer to an objective or crossing the the board to get a turn one/two charge.

This is my second biggest complaint with Age of Sigmar vs WHFB. If I'm going to go through the trouble to outflank you, I want it to mean something.

The movement phase is the most important phase in the game if you're actually good at 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
The double turn. In a game as lethal as Warhammer, your opponent having two turns in a row is the single most un-fun thing I can think of.

I can't get a read on that. Every time I see a post like yours, I see several people jumping in going on about how the double turn is fine, and those that think it's bad either don't understand or don't play AoS.

Meanwhile, most of tneva82's AoS game reports in this thread mention the double turn if not outright state its the reason why he won/lost.

Little of column A, little of column B. One of the first things you learn as a competitive AoS player is how NOT to automatically lose if you get double turned.

Denying a double turn, forcing your opponent to pass by giving them terrible options and needing to avoid getting double turned themselves, or eating a double turn and then still winning after are immensely satisfying successes on a tactical/master planning level; which is a big part of why the faction of AoS that doesn't mind or really loves the double turn, DOES love it.

That said, it absolutely does win games on the spot sometimes, even at very high levels. Some shooting armies were only meta because they could basically guarantee a T1-T2 double turn and wipe half an army off the board.

It also allows for dramatic come-from-behind victories in a way 40k could never.

Good and the bad.

oh here we go with the "it's not the game that's bad, it's YOU that's bad" stuff. Next we'll be told we're not using enough terrain and 98 strats per army is okay because most of them suck anyway so you only actually need to remember 5.

ERJAK wrote:

Vehicle armor facings are just a something gullible players tricked themselves into thinking were good. One: It's stupid from a fluff perspective to build tanks that are terrible in urban combat (i.e. have easily exploitable side and rear armor) in a setting where 90% of combat is urban. Then people think it adds 'tictacticals' but in reality, it's almost impossible to get a rear shot on anything without deepstrike and the difference between hitting side and rear is almost always negligible anyway. It's a stupid mechanic and it always has been.

Ummm...so you basically say every tank designer in ou world are stupid. Seeing armour strongest at front is normal. Funny that seeing either armour needs to be so thin it provides no protection anywhere or tank is so heavy it barely moves and runs out of energy soon. 1" m valun and stops moving after t3?-)

There's reason tanks don't have uniform armour...but armchair generals with zero idea how tanks work dont see it. "make armour equally strong everywhere!"

tneva82 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Vehicle armor facings are just a something gullible players tricked themselves into thinking were good. One: It's stupid from a fluff perspective to build tanks that are terrible in urban combat (i.e. have easily exploitable side and rear armor) in a setting where 90% of combat is urban. Then people think it adds 'tictacticals' but in reality, it's almost impossible to get a rear shot on anything without deepstrike and the difference between hitting side and rear is almost always negligible anyway. It's a stupid mechanic and it always has been.

Ummm...so you basically say every tank designer in ou world are stupid. Seeing armour strongest at front is normal. Funny that seeing either armour needs to be so thin it provides no protection anywhere or tank is so heavy it barely moves and runs out of energy soon. 1" m valun and stops moving after t3?-)

There's reason tanks don't have uniform armour...but armchair generals with zero idea how tanks work dont see it. "make armour equally strong everywhere!"

I don't have tanks, I have alien hovercraft. Make it Astra Militarum's Combat Doctrine to be tougher to kill in the front arc for the tanker aficionados and let me ignore it otherwise.

Change from inches to centimeters while keeping numbers the same, so range 12 means range 12cms, and make the table bigger at the same time, e.g. back to 8x4, remove turn limits...

Mostly, i agree with most other posters on most points e.g. strats disappear, USRs return, etc.

Overall, it is exciting to see so many relatively new members of Dakka posting such sensible solutions such as those.

Great thread.

 vict0988 wrote:
I don't have tanks, I have alien hovercraft. Make it Astra Militarum's Combat Doctrine to be tougher to kill in the front arc for the tanker aficionados and let me ignore it otherwise.

What is the front arc on those alien hovercraft even? People defending armor facings always seem to omit the part where they only worked for Imperial boxes and "draw the lines between the corners" doesn't work when the model in question doesn't have corners. And sure, you could house rule it for each game, but at that point you're conceding that the rule doesn't function and it's time to discard it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:
Change from inches to centimeters while keeping numbers the same, so range 12 means range 12cms, and make the table bigger at the same time, e.g. back to 8x4, remove turn limits...

Let's not. 40k already has enough realism issues without having infantry that can't shoot from one end of a tank to the other.

CAnt You sholve the Alien Hovercraft problem just by giving them a uniform armour value??

Same for a Monolith...

... But certainly AM and many Astartes vehicules look as if they have an armour distribution similar to that of RL tanks.

For units in which armor facings don't make sense, just give them the same AV all around. In addition, all they have to do is give one example showing where to draw the lines per vehicle. It cannot possibly be that hard for them.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Actually cutting the range of weapons way down is another one I want to put on my list. For a point of reference a bolter should have at most like a 12" range. The only weapons that should have over a 24" range is heavy weapons like lascannons and railguns.

Um, no. That would be absolutely absurd for a 28mm game. Let's not have Warmachine, where "snipers" would have better range if they threw their guns at the enemy.

Sorry, I want the movement phase to actually matter beyond shuffling closer to an objective or crossing the the board to get a turn one/two charge.

This is my second biggest complaint with Age of Sigmar vs WHFB. If I'm going to go through the trouble to outflank you, I want it to mean something.

But.... Movement is extremely important in AoS....

Yep, people who downplay movement in AoS have never played AoS. People forget that the Coherency rule in AoS is much more brutal than the 40k one and how the pile-in rules work.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
For units in which armor facings don't make sense, just give them the same AV all around. In addition, all they have to do is give one example showing where to draw the lines per vehicle. It cannot possibly be that hard for them.

If they brought facings back for 10th as part of a reset - which I doubt they'll do, unfortunately, but let's run with it as a thought experiment - a QOL improvement to the process would be that each vehicle datasheet could be accompanied by a top-down illustration of the stock vehicle showing which arc covers where.

I'd like for that material to also be available as a printable PDF - and I mean just the illustrations, there - but that's a minor point.

Hecaton 806314 11412626 wrote:Removed - rule #1

Sure just give people around here incomes high enough, so they can't just start a game, paint the models and then find out that no one wants to play it. People strugle supporting the building of a w40k and AoS army with a secondary and recast market that actualy exists.

Karol wrote:
You don't need gangs, if in your town or group of towns people play at a store and not at home, and the store owner lets people play only the games he sells or supports, he is not going to allow you to clog up the tables with games he is not selling, while at the same time not having tables for people who actualy buy stuff at the store and not online. At best you are going to get a slot to play on monday mornings and Good Luck finding people that can play in those hours, even durning summer.

But this is dystopian fantasy Poland. Why are you letting the store owner decide what happens? Kill him and take his store, your gang deserves it more than he does. And then you can tell all the 40k players to either join you in playing Warmachine or die.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
For units in which armor facings don't make sense, just give them the same AV all around. In addition, all they have to do is give one example showing where to draw the lines per vehicle. It cannot possibly be that hard for them.

This would at least solve the issue of knowing where the lines go on things that aren't Imperial boxes, it still wouldn't deal with the endless arguments over which facing you're in. The small amount of added strategic depth just wasn't worth all the conflict, especially in a game where non-vehicles completely ignore facings/crossfire/etc.

 Dysartes wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
For units in which armor facings don't make sense, just give them the same AV all around. In addition, all they have to do is give one example showing where to draw the lines per vehicle. It cannot possibly be that hard for them.

If they brought facings back for 10th as part of a reset - which I doubt they'll do, unfortunately, but let's run with it as a thought experiment - a QOL improvement to the process would be that each vehicle datasheet could be accompanied by a top-down illustration of the stock vehicle showing which arc covers where.

I'd like for that material to also be available as a printable PDF - and I mean just the illustrations, there - but that's a minor point.

Yeah. Free pdfs of vehicle facings would be great.

And, if they went the front/back route, they could have bases split down the middle to show exactly where the line is.

But the issue of where you are for facings? If you're in a facing, you can attack that facing. Being in a facing would mean that, if any part of your base is in a facing's arc, you can shoot that facing. To determine the arcs, place the template over the model and use a ruler or straight line to determine where they are.

Obviously it's cumbersome, which is why I prefer the front/back idea, but it's not like Games Workshop couldn't have fixed the bigger problems in a couple months, rather than waiting years, and then dropping the idea in its entirety.

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:


But this is dystopian fantasy Poland. Why are you letting the store owner decide what happens? Kill him and take his store, your gang deserves it more than he does. And then you can tell all the 40k players to either join you in playing Warmachine or die.

.

Because this is Poland not the US. If you kill a person, you go to prison. The question is stupid, you can't inherit stuff for other people, which is another differnce comparing to the US.

Karol wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Removed - rule #1

Given the Mad Max-ian alternate dimension that Karol (somehow) posts from, setting such a thing up could lead to a full scale post-apocalyptic multi-gang war. Perhaps better to stick with 40k.

You don't need gangs, if in your town or group of towns people play at a store and not at home, and the store owner lets people play only the games he sells or supports, he is not going to allow you to clog up the tables with games he is not selling, while at the same time not having tables for people who actualy buy stuff at the store and not online. At best you are going to get a slot to play on monday mornings and Good Luck finding people that can play in those hours, even durning summer.

A competent business owner would ask themself why they aren't supporting a game that a lot of local people clearly want to play.

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

Karol wrote:
You don't need gangs, if in your town or group of towns people play at a store and not at home, and the store owner lets people play only the games he sells or supports, he is not going to allow you to clog up the tables with games he is not selling, while at the same time not having tables for people who actualy buy stuff at the store and not online. At best you are going to get a slot to play on monday mornings and Good Luck finding people that can play in those hours, even durning summer.

But this is dystopian fantasy Poland. Why are you letting the store owner decide what happens? Kill him and take his store, your gang deserves it more than he does. And then you can tell all the 40k players to either join you in playing Warmachine or die.

Can we not encourage actual murder? From prior posts, there is a non-zero chance of this happening.

How do you know that there are many local people wanting to play those games ?
Stuff which is popular is already played, and any time taken away from those games, would drive away paying customers in favour of those potential ones. Potential ones which may just buy their stuff online, if the store doesn't have the entire model line they want. And then they would play at the store, taking up tables, from customers of games the stores sells.

Voss wrote:
Can we not encourage actual murder? From prior posts, there is a non-zero chance of this happening.

Shrug. We know Karol has already killed hundreds of people in the post-apocalyptic wasteland. Wrestling tournaments there are fought to the death, and we know that bludgeoning your opponent to death with a dreadsock is a common strategy in 40k. For him to have lived this long he has to have a body count in at least three digits.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
For huge parts of the world, playing GW or not playing table tops at all, is the reality.

Removed - rule #1

Guess I'm the one to defend Karol again.

Do you know how fething hard it is to get a community going for a game when those potential players aren't even sure their investment will result in more players? It takes a feth ton of effort and time.

so play games with no investment? Not every game requires that you buy their minis


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
I don't have tanks, I have alien hovercraft. Make it Astra Militarum's Combat Doctrine to be tougher to kill in the front arc for the tanker aficionados and let me ignore it otherwise.

What is the front arc on those alien hovercraft even? People defending armor facings always seem to omit the part where they only worked for Imperial boxes and "draw the lines between the corners" doesn't work when the model in question doesn't have corners. And sure, you could house rule it for each game, but at that point you're conceding that the rule doesn't function and it's time to discard it.

it's pretty simple tbh, GW just has to write proper rules.

Take the point of connection to the base, then draw lines at a 90" angle that extend infinitely, if youre in a quarter, youre shooting the corresponding facing.

imagine that kind of base


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

Hecaton 806314 11412626 wrote:Removed - rule #1

Sure just give people around here incomes high enough, so they can't just start a game, paint the models and then find out that no one wants to play it. People strugle supporting the building of a w40k and AoS army with a secondary and recast market that actualy exists.

again, many games don't require you to buy new models since theyre model agnostic