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.

Honestly in the US especially the game stores essentially control what's allowed to be played. If they don't outright tell you you can't play a game they don't stock then the players will ostracize you because they really do treat the game store like their turf. I have heard people outright say with complete seriousness that it is disrespectful to the game store to play something there that you can't buy there. I've seen people berated simply for saying hey this other store is having a tournament in 2 weeks, the store owner called the guy out and said it was disrespectful to talk about another game store in his establishment

I have almost seen what amounted to a gang war between two stores because one of them accused the other of trying to steal their customers by saying that they were also having 40k nights.

It may be extreme but it's not unrealistic to have groups that have no common interest or association other than the fact that they all shop and play at the same store. These people don't want to have an actual community they want to gather around the game store and that's it

Karol wrote:

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.

Bruh you cannot be serious lmao.

They were obviously being sarcastic, and you do go to prison if you kill someone in the US

Wayniac wrote:
I have heard people outright say with complete seriousness that it is disrespectful to the game store to play something there that you can't buy there.

How is it not disrespectful? It's a store, not a private club, free gaming space is provided with the intent that you have a place to use the stuff you buy at the store (or at least provide opponents for the people who do buy their games there). Expecting to use the store's space to play a game they don't sell is like walking into a restaurant with a to-go bag from the local McDonalds and expecting them to let you use one of their tables to eat it.

(Granted, this would be different if the store was charging money for the use of the space, but at least in the US hardly any stores do.)

Wayniac wrote:
Honestly in the US especially the game stores essentially control what's allowed to be played. If they don't outright tell you you can't play a game they don't stock then the players will ostracize you because they really do treat the game store like their turf. I have heard people outright say with complete seriousness that it is disrespectful to the game store to play something there that you can't buy there. I've seen people berated simply for saying hey this other store is having a tournament in 2 weeks, the store owner called the guy out and said it was disrespectful to talk about another game store in his establishment

I have almost seen what amounted to a gang war between two stores because one of them accused the other of trying to steal their customers by saying that they were also having 40k nights.

It may be extreme but it's not unrealistic to have groups that have no common interest or association other than the fact that they all shop and play at the same store. These people don't want to have an actual community they want to gather around the game store and that's it

I guess Im fortunate to live in Spain rather than in the gangwarfare wastelands of "Poland" and the "US", here when you go to a gamming night to the LGS the only thing we risk are bragging rights rather than our lives!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:

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.

Bruh you cannot be serious lmao.

They were obviously being sarcastic, and you do go to prison if you kill someone in the US

Only if proven guilty in a convoluted trial.... And if your bikers gang buddies dont rescue you on the way to prison.

According to the movies (documentaries?) Ive been watching lately killing someone and going to jail in the US is a rare occurence.

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I have heard people outright say with complete seriousness that it is disrespectful to the game store to play something there that you can't buy there.

How is it not disrespectful? It's a store, not a private club, free gaming space is provided with the intent that you have a place to use the stuff you buy at the store (or at least provide opponents for the people who do buy their games there). Expecting to use the store's space to play a game they don't sell is like walking into a restaurant with a to-go bag from the local McDonalds and expecting them to let you use one of their tables to eat it.

(Granted, this would be different if the store was charging money for the use of the space, but at least in the US hardly any stores do.)

Hard disagree on that way of thinking, every single store i know of encourages any game being played on their tables. A table with people playing on it is better than a table with nobody on it, a full store attracts more people, lets you post more pictures on facebook to show the community is booming. Let's say i go to my LGS that doesnt sell Malifaux and start playing Malifaux, they gain interest in it, ask about how the game is and it becomes a possible product they would sell if they see quite a few people playing it.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Bruh you cannot be serious lmao.

They were obviously being sarcastic, and

I have a degree of problem in understanding sarcasm. And as far as anything coming from most western countries I assume everything is the way people write it, because there is enough wierd and ununderstandable stuff I read about those places, to assume anything is not possible.

you do go to prison if you kill someone in the US

But not always. I am no telepath, and I watched enough US streamers on twitch to assume that for some, the actual physical elimination of store owners, is something they accept. I know my grand aunt had such problems with her tenants in Chicago.

It's a store, not a private club, free gaming space is provided with the intent that you have a place to use the stuff you buy at the store (or at least provide opponents for the people who do buy their games there).

Where I live to use the table, you either have to buy stuff on a monthly basis or pay for the table, so it ain't free. But I assume it doesn't have to be like that everywhere.

A table with people playing on it is better than a table with nobody on it, a full store attracts more people, lets you post more pictures on facebook to show the community is booming.

I have played since the very start of 8th ed. In two stores. I can't remember a single time, where there would be people at the store and all three tables in them were not reserved or with people playing on them. Maybe in US, where the houses are the size of warehouse, and stores are probably the size of small auditoriums it is different. But not everyone lives in the US, and not all stores are gigantic.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Let's say i go to my LGS that doesnt sell Malifaux and start playing Malifaux, they gain interest in it, ask about how the game is and it becomes a possible product they would sell if they see quite a few people playing it.

There is now an extra game, and am assuming the game found traction and people didn't just stay with games they could find opponents for without spending extra money, for the same number of table. This blows up the schedul and days on which specific games are played, the old customers will be unhappy, because they will have less chance to play on the days that are best to play. On top of that a ton of people will start thinking, why am I playing the full store price for stuff, when I could start buying my w40k stuff online for 10% cheaper. It is a good way to kill your store.

Whelp, setting aside the fact that "someone" has a new account obviously, there is quite a lot of truly odd language getting tossed around here.

1. Why are we discussing murder?
2. Why are we discussing disrespect to GW? GW is not a person that deserves respect. Humans deserve respect, not companies.
3. Why is it every time we start a thread on 10th, it gets derailed by a very specific person into trolling?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
1. Why are we discussing murder?

Because in fantasy Poland murder is the only way to get to play a new game. You have to assemble a gang and kill the rival gang that owns the store and bans anything but their favorite game from being played there.

(Fortunately it is easier in the real world, but we should acknowledge that Karol lives in a dystopian alternate universe where ruthless Darwinism is the only law and give him appropriate advice for his situation.)

2. Why are we discussing disrespect to GW? GW is not a person that deserves respect. Humans deserve respect, not companies.

We aren't, the comment was about disrespect to the store, a store which is owned by people.

Apocalypse like turn system. So each player can use their cool toys before it gets killed turn 1.

usmcmidn wrote:
Apocalypse like turn system. So each player can use their cool toys before it gets killed turn 1.

I really like the damage being at end of turn. But that would be so hard to do for 40k.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

usmcmidn wrote:
Apocalypse like turn system. So each player can use their cool toys before it gets killed turn 1.

I really like the damage being at end of turn. But that would be so hard to do for 40k.

not really, just one dice per squad

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

usmcmidn wrote:
Apocalypse like turn system. So each player can use their cool toys before it gets killed turn 1.

I really like the damage being at end of turn. But that would be so hard to do for 40k.

not really, just one dice per squad

Not when you also need to keep track of wounds. Now it's 2 for many armies. Sure it's not "a lot" bit could be 10 sets of 2 dice as tokens and GW really doesn't like actual tokens on the table for the most part.

It would create a whole after phase sub phase, where all the units that do or fight or shot after death have an additional turn, and I guess the kills they would generate would sometimes spill over and sometimes not, knowing GW.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

usmcmidn wrote:
Apocalypse like turn system. So each player can use their cool toys before it gets killed turn 1.

I really like the damage being at end of turn. But that would be so hard to do for 40k.

not really, just one dice per squad

Not when you also need to keep track of wounds. Now it's 2 for many armies. Sure it's not "a lot" bit could be 10 sets of 2 dice as tokens and GW really doesn't like actual tokens on the table for the most part.

put the dead dudes on their side

usmcmidn wrote:
Apocalypse like turn system. So each player can use their cool toys before it gets killed turn 1.

Really like this idea. If you are not going to move to alternating activations (which has it's own issues) this could really help with a lot of the issues of the current structure. Yes you may still be alpha striked in that next turn you are obliterated but at least you don't have half your units that did nothing.

Karol wrote:
It would create a whole after phase sub phase, where all the units that do or fight or shot after death have an additional turn, and I guess the kills they would generate would sometimes spill over and sometimes not, knowing GW.

just delete fight/shoot on death from the game

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

usmcmidn wrote:
Apocalypse like turn system. So each player can use their cool toys before it gets killed turn 1.

I really like the damage being at end of turn. But that would be so hard to do for 40k.

not really, just one dice per squad

Not when you also need to keep track of wounds. Now it's 2 for many armies. Sure it's not "a lot" bit could be 10 sets of 2 dice as tokens and GW really doesn't like actual tokens on the table for the most part.

put the dead dudes on their side

My 4th Ed Necrons miss this.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

usmcmidn wrote:
Apocalypse like turn system. So each player can use their cool toys before it gets killed turn 1.

I really like the damage being at end of turn. But that would be so hard to do for 40k.

not really, just one dice per squad

Not when you also need to keep track of wounds. Now it's 2 for many armies. Sure it's not "a lot" bit could be 10 sets of 2 dice as tokens and GW really doesn't like actual tokens on the table for the most part.

put the dead dudes on their side

Thats not how Apoc works, all dead still gets the rest of the turn to play. All wounds are done at the end of the turn, removing models changes the movements, charge, los, etc.. of each unit that way.

Damage resolution at the end of a battle round would be weird, because that means only one player has to deal with their opponent being able to shoot back before their models are removed.

It works in Apocalypse because the game is alternating activation. And I think AA on its own would do a lot to address the 'use your cool toys before they get blown away' issue; it certainly does in Grimdark Future.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Hard to believe honestly but I'd welcome it if it means GW have sorted out their lack of design philosophy on the game

But sure, here's my wishlist:
- no strats
- no subfactions
- no doctrines
- no super doctrines
- USRs
- HQ units lets you change the classification of specific units (so a Trygon Prime makes Ravaners troops for example)
- more interesting rules that reroll auras and +/-1 modifiers on everything
- more out of turn movement actions like falling back, counter-charges, going to ground etc
- just more emphasis in manuvering in general


I'd be okay with keeping secondaries if all of the above happened honestly. My big issue with 40k 9th Ed s the book keeping and mental load honestly.

I'd go for this. No bespoke rules.

In fact just give me a polished up 6th again and I'd be happy. Until 10th I'm done 9th is too much of a shitshow and the CSM Dex was the last straw. Hoping for the traitor legions treatment.

For all the people who are advocating facing rules returning, what are the rules regarding that? How do you determine facing? If my predator can see the slightest edge of the rear of your pred, does it get rear shooting?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Thats not how Apoc works, all dead still gets the rest of the turn to play. All wounds are done at the end of the turn, removing models changes the movements, charge, los, etc.. of each unit that way.

no i mean litterally put the model laying down where they were to represent that theyre dead, and keep a wounds counter for the ones that arent




Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
For all the people who are advocating facing rules returning, what are the rules regarding that? How do you determine facing? If my predator can see the slightest edge of the rear of your pred, does it get rear shooting?

Its pretty simple, other games have it figured out already.


2 options :

A : from the connection point of the base/center of mass, you trace two lines that are perpendicular to each other, creating 4 quarters around the model. If the firing model is within one of these quarters, thats the facing theyre shooting.

B: GW provides custom diagrams for every vehicle and places them on the datasheet


Basically, recreate these bases for every vehicle in the game

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
For all the people who are advocating facing rules returning, what are the rules regarding that? How do you determine facing? If my predator can see the slightest edge of the rear of your pred, does it get rear shooting?

You act like clearly defined facings and firing arcs are hard, rather than 'in the past, GW only did a mediocre job,' and it wasn't a real problem for anyone but the pedants.

"Hi, folks! We here at GW are hard at work bringing back old mechanics, but we know how fiddly actual facings could be... so we figured out a great way to make it nice and easy! All you have to do is buy dozens of new bases - one for each and every one of your formerly baseless vehicles - before you ever play a game of 10th! Don't forget to paint and base them, but be careful! You have to do in a way that preserves this very simple pattern on the bottom, so you can see the facings. Oh man, they're neato... and you'll love them, no doubts! Waaagh, or something! You guys like that, right?"

I foresee that going over really well.

GW has gotten away with much more, including deleting units and options from codexes. But you don't need the new bases if they just have a diagram per vehicle on a printable pdf that you can put over your vehicle if needed. Even then, needing new bases is something that happens occasionally, like when models change base sizes. It's not my ideal solution to have a bunch of bases being made for it, but there's a lot of answers for this.

So what about non-based vehicles? I'm only asking about Facings because I forsee a lot of people using this as a way to cheat by either slow playing (Measuring and re-measuring multiple times during opponents turn, or wasting time debating "imaginary lines"), or fast playing (Assuming they are in the quadrant for optimal results without actually verifying, think fast pickup of dice)

Basically anything where the rules state "Draw imaginary anything" leaves me feeling hinky. If there were actual templates or blast templates that would be one thing.

My unknowledgable assumption:

My Vertus Praetor with Melta Missiles and spear CAN be built in such a way that the spear peaks out father than the model is supposed to be. So I could position my bikes so that the spears can see the rear of the vehicle. I now get Melta shots at the rear of the target. This is not fair or sportsmanlike, but it is allowed under my current understanding of facing rules and shooting rules. It's also not at ALL difficult to achieve when building my models.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So what about non-based vehicles? I'm only asking about Facings because I forsee a lot of people using this as a way to cheat by either slow playing (Measuring and re-measuring multiple times during opponents turn, or wasting time debating "imaginary lines"), or fast playing (Assuming they are in the quadrant for optimal results without actually verifying, think fast pickup of dice)

Basically anything where the rules state "Draw imaginary anything" leaves me feeling hinky. If there were actual templates or blast templates that would be one thing.

My unknowledgable assumption:

My Vertus Praetor with Melta Missiles and spear CAN be built in such a way that the spear peaks out father than the model is supposed to be. So I could position my bikes so that the spears can see the rear of the vehicle. I now get Melta shots at the rear of the target. This is not fair or sportsmanlike, but it is allowed under my current understanding of facing rules and shooting rules. It's also not at ALL difficult to achieve when building my models.

Models can only shoot a facing that they have Line of Sight on, and Line of Sight is drawn from the body of the model, not the tip of its spear. For models with bases you could always make Line of Sight be traced from the base.

There are answers, but every answer has a cost. The real question, then, is whether the costs are worth the rewards of slightly more nuance in facings for a particular subset of units in a mish-mashed-levels-of-abstraction game mechanic.

Any specific layer of fiddly extra stuff you have to do is not a knife to the throat on its own, it's just a little extra fiddly stuff. But fiddly extra stuff doesn't just get added to make [subsection of units] slightly different, it ends up getting applied to a whole bunch of stuff. And a bunch of little stuff can add up to a lot of stuff.

And one of the biggest complaints about 9th right now is bloat. Rules bloat, stratagem bloat.

More fiddly stuff is a tough sell, for a relatively low benefit of making it sometimes make a difference for certain units if you fire behind, to the side, and/or in front of them.

Personally, I don't want to have to look at the diagram of every codex's vehicle I face, figure out the facings of each individually different type of model, and work that into every battle. It's not an impossible task, it's just another layer of Things I Need To Memorize, and the payout seems... weak.

If this relatively abstract game really needs flanking, IMO it doesn't need multiple bespoke flanking mechanics for different types of units. Pick something that's distinguishable at-a-glance, with universally applied benefits, so that the Aeldari Pathfinders putting rounds in the backs of unsuspecting Astartes engaged with Guardians on the other side gain as much advantage as a Fusion-equipped Stealth Suit putting heat on the tailpipe of the unsuspecting Leman Russ firing at the Hammerhead towards its front.

And again, the simpler and easier the determination the better, IMO, if we're adding this layer of flanking fiddly. Implementing simple and easy determinations for flanking that don't lead to arguments? Hoo boy, that's probably a harder ask than most folks realize.


Edit 1:...A real spit-ball, 3 minute thought, but here's my As Simple As I Can Imagine flanking mechanic concept, possibly poorly worded since this is on the fly:

If two friendly units with LoS to an enemy unit have at least one enemy model between at least one friendly model in each friendly unit, that enemy unit does not gain the benefits of cover (if any) and/or the friendly models gain [small boost to shooting ... perhaps reroll 1s to hit? 1 better AP, if that's still around? extra morale penalty?].

Edit 2: Honestly, it probably doesn't even need to be a second unit. If you have an enemy model between two friendly models, it is Flanked, and gets Punished.

I think flanking benefits for flanking vehicles and flanking infantry is a good distinction for bonuses. The cost of the flanking for vehicles seems to be that people might cheat, it will take longer, and you might need to rebase, depending on which route is taken. But, to me, people trying to cheat will always happen, the second is a suitable cost, and with the predrawn templates for each vehicle, the third won't happen. If we cut down on a lot of rules bloat, this tiny droplet of rules won't matter. What would matter is if this only affected one or two factions.

And, if we just do front/back, there's no real issue. If you're in front of the model, use the front armor. If you're behind, use the rear armor. If you're somewhere in the middle, as long as you're in the arc, you can use either.

I don't think we need that level of distinction for vehicles, any more than we need it for other models with depicted facings that don't matter in any way, shape, or form mechanically.

I can't stress enough how effectively abstract the sort of discrete movement/firing/combat phase actions are, when you get right down to it, and how little it makes sense to ME to make ANY particular model's circumstantial facing actually matter. In the battle that's being simulated with our neat 6" movements and dice-rolled set number of attacks, everyone is moving, firing, bleeding, and dying all at once. Any particular facing and position models happen to have at any specific moment of the game are, IMO, abstract representations of rough positioning and action at best.

Which is why, perhaps, I'm less inclined towards marking vehicles in particular (which represent more than just the sort of lumbering brutal behemoths, and practically all of which will be moving and maneuvering and trying to show their strongest side to their greatest threat, because that's what you do when threatened) as getting a bespoke layer of Flanking rules, rather than just integrating a Universal, appropriately abstract, preferably fluffy way of showing that Being Surrounded Is Bad and/or Surrounding Enemies Is Good.

Edit: I really do get it that taking a Lascannon up the tail pipe is worse news for a tank crew than taking a lascannon on the heaviest layer or armor. So is taking a Power Fist up the Thorax. So is taking a Pulse shot on the fusion reactor backpack. Despite SOME subsection of vehicles being lumbering behemoths... that's just NOT a universal quality of vehicles such that they deserve better or worse treatment from being [RipTear]'d up the [Exhaust Port].