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.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The Cadians, Catachans, and DKoK all have to also be able to build that unit.

The Catachan kit cannot build all of the options in the infantry kit. It has no plasma guns, meltaguns, sniper rifles, or grenade launchers.

So, no, the kits do not have to be able to make all of the options in the infantry squad kit, only the bare minimum.

So, the krieg kit being limited to only being able to assemble 1 vox or 1 plasma gun satisfies that condition with the kit still restricting to not being able to make both from a single 10 man squad. Which brings us back to how the Krieg squad is the only one which has the vox as a choice between it and a special weapon.

Now, onto your kasrkin sergeant with hotshot lasgun point. Lets take a mosey to GWs official sales page for the Kasrkin kit and look through it at what the official constructed models are. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/kill-team-kasrkin-2023
Now lets go to image seven, showing the official ways that GW wants you to build your Kasrkin sergeant, which I imagine are probably also the only ways shown in the instruction booklet. Hmm, I see Kasrkin with bolt pistol, with hot-shot laspistol, and with plasma pistol. I also see an arm holding a powersword, and the first image of the kit also shows a chainsword arm. Now lets mosey onto the rules for 10th on what equipment a kasrkin sergeant can take. Hotshot laspistol or bolt pistol or plasma pistol, chainsword or power weapon. Exactly what the kit (and dollars to donuts the assembly instructions) shows the sergeant having.

I'm not seeing the contradiction here, I'm afraid. Seems to me that the problem with both of these kits and the corresponding rules is the exact same idiotic "no model, no rules, and only the GW(tm) Official FineAssembly(tm) method is tabletop legal, regardless of whether you can use the bits interchangeably".

So you either have to have min squads or max squads and nothing in between now? Damn, I seriously hate that

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Ah yes, the infantry squad which does not get any of the rules specific to the Death Korp of Krieg squad such as the medpack, or the DKoK unit ability.

In fairness - and in a vague attempt to inject a dash of levity into proceedings here - the DKoK squad can't benefit from the medpack yet either, as they have no way to take it in the squad

Dollars to donuts, the medpack wasn't meant to be an upgrade but rather a keyword.

Unlikely, when none of the three other units (Platoon Command Squad, Cadian Command Squad, Storm Trooper Command Squad) gain a keyword when they take a medi-pack.

This looks like someone simply missed adding the option for one Krieger per 10 to replace their lasgun with a Death Korps medipack and [insert weapon option here].

 Prometheum5 wrote:
Warhammer 40K players should really try out some other wargames and get some perspective on all the fun and engaging ways people can get together to play with their toy soldiers that don't rely on mathematically beating the piss out of each other.

Just going to note that I play a ton of other games. We're not naïve and unaware of other systems. We just like 40K more for what it offers -- and it doesn't involve beating each other with math.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Prometheum5 wrote:
Warhammer 40K players should really try out some other wargames and get some perspective on all the fun and engaging ways people can get together to play with their toy soldiers that don't rely on mathematically beating the piss out of each other.

Just going to note that I play a ton of other games. We're not naïve and unaware of other systems. We just like 40K more for what it offers -- and it doesn't involve beating each other with math.

Then why does GW consistently put out a game where it can so easily come down to maths?

If you want a game that isn't about beating each other with maths, there needs to actually be depth, meaningful in game choices and the like. Driving a massive tank through some woods or blowing a hole in a ruin to clear a path for the infantry following behind, for example, or a way to use the four F's (Find, Fix, Flank, Finish) to enable actual tactical manoeuvres and give more decision making to ranged combat than "which things do I need to shoot first?"

Think about how much more design space that would open up on weapons if they were not just about killing outright. If weapons like heavy bolters, heavy stubbers, multilasers etc. and the like were designed to be good at suppressing enemy infantry, preventing them from being able to move, rather than it just coming down to "do these kill as effectively as a X weapon?" Then think about how important movement could be if getting to the side of enemy units, especially enemy units in cover, mattered. Where getting a unit caught in a crossfire was a death sentence for that unit, rewarding tactical play and movements? All of that makes the pregame maths less important, and the actual decisions on the table more important.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'd also like to say this-if the game isn't trying to be balanced, where is the customization? I'd be a LOT more forgiving of what's going on right now if the datasheets were more like 30k's, where HQs have a list of options the entire page long and units in general can be customized to hell and back.

The customization is on a different level now. Using my main as an example...

Damage
Rubrics + Ahriman - +1 to wound on auto-hitting flamers and a free nuke in the form of MW or stripping saves
Rubrics + Infernal - strong spell combined with SH1 - great for bolter squads
Scarabs + Termie Sorc - good spell, LH, and army-wide reroll vs a target
Fly Prince - fly over mortal wounds

Durability / Control
Rubrics + Sorcerer - LH, but more importantly no targeting outside 18", which allows for control without threat from OOLOS shooting
Rubrics + Exalted - durability and resurrecting models. Can stand off or get in the mix with flamers.
Rubrics + Exalted on Disc - durability and screwing with enemy movement.
Enlightened w/ Bows - snipers
Enlightened w/ Spears - quick unit that can exploit poor movement by the opponent
Tzaangors + Shaman - T4 with a 5+++ and also a decent buff for the now S5 AP1 swings

Support
Cultists - granting CP on kills or death allowing for aggressive play
Tzaangors - gives Cabal on objectives so a reasonable backfield unit
Foot Prince - -1 to hit aura and a once per game Precision buff
Helbrute - decrease Cabal cost
Forgefiend - -1 to hit to one unit



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Prometheum5 wrote:
Warhammer 40K players should really try out some other wargames and get some perspective on all the fun and engaging ways people can get together to play with their toy soldiers that don't rely on mathematically beating the piss out of each other.

Just going to note that I play a ton of other games. We're not naïve and unaware of other systems. We just like 40K more for what it offers -- and it doesn't involve beating each other with math.

Then why does GW consistently put out a game where it can so easily come down to maths?

If you want a game that isn't about beating each other with maths, there needs to actually be depth, meaningful in game choices and the like. Driving a massive tank through some woods or blowing a hole in a ruin to clear a path for the infantry following behind, for example, or a way to use the four F's (Find, Fix, Flank, Finish) to enable actual tactical manoeuvres and give more decision making to ranged combat than "which things do I need to shoot first?"

Think about how much more design space that would open up on weapons if they were not just about killing outright. If weapons like heavy bolters, heavy stubbers, multilasers etc. and the like were designed to be good at suppressing enemy infantry, preventing them from being able to move, rather than it just coming down to "do these kill as effectively as a X weapon?" Then think about how important movement could be if getting to the side of enemy units, especially enemy units in cover, mattered. Where getting a unit caught in a crossfire was a death sentence for that unit, rewarding tactical play and movements? All of that makes the pregame maths less important, and the actual decisions on the table more important.

That's kind of why I like 10th. It has so much less math and so much more utility. And it's also why I'm upset, because they didn't do all the work to make sure we didn't have stupid stuff.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The Cadians, Catachans, and DKoK all have to also be able to build that unit.

The Catachan kit cannot build all of the options in the infantry kit. It has no plasma guns, meltaguns, sniper rifles, or grenade launchers.

So, no, the kits do not have to be able to make all of the options in the infantry squad kit, only the bare minimum.

They don't even show off the Catachan kit in the datasheet for them in 10E. They use a single model from the Command Squad, which does have those things.

So, the krieg kit being limited to only being able to assemble 1 vox or 1 plasma gun satisfies that condition with the kit still restricting to not being able to make both from a single 10 man squad. Which brings us back to how the Krieg squad is the only one which has the vox as a choice between it and a special weapon.

DKoK get a special option in their roster. They can't take an autorifle like the Cadians can on their Sergeant, nor 2 flamers per 10 models like the Catachans can. Instead they get to take 3x specials, ditching a vox if they do so.

I don't like it. I don't think anyone does. That doesn't mean that it was done because of the kit...because if it was truly done because of the kit, even assuming you're not wanting to kitbash? There is a second vox-caster model in the form of the Spotter Specialist which uses an entirely different body than the plasma/vox body. Just like how there are two medic bodies in the kit.

They have some wild and crazy reason to have wanted to do it. I don't know it, nor do I suspect anyone else outside of the studio truly does. There's just wild, reckless speculation.

Now, onto your kasrkin sergeant with hotshot lasgun point. Lets take a mosey to GWs official sales page for the Kasrkin kit and look through it at what the official constructed models are. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/kill-team-kasrkin-2023
Now lets go to image seven, showing the official ways that GW wants you to build your Kasrkin sergeant, which I imagine are probably also the only ways shown in the instruction booklet. Hmm, I see Kasrkin with bolt pistol, with hot-shot laspistol, and with plasma pistol. I also see an arm holding a powersword, and the first image of the kit also shows a chainsword arm. Now lets mosey onto the rules for 10th on what equipment a kasrkin sergeant can take. Hotshot laspistol or bolt pistol or plasma pistol, chainsword or power weapon. Exactly what the kit (and dollars to donuts the assembly instructions) shows the sergeant having.

Additionally, where it says "Consult the Kill Team Operative" list? Command Roster will show you that the Kasrkin Sergeant has a drop-down box of options, including which is the Hot-shot Lasgun and Gun Butt.

I'm not seeing the contradiction here, I'm afraid. Seems to me that the problem with both of these kits and the corresponding rules is the exact same idiotic "no model, no rules, and only the GW(tm) Official FineAssembly(tm) method is tabletop legal, regardless of whether you can use the bits interchangeably".

The instruction sheets I posted are both Shadowvault and the official Kasrkin kit. There's several items in here and the actual Cadian Shock Troop kits that have models but no rules. Same with the new Heavy Weapons Team kit, which has vox-casters as options but no rules.

So I reiterate:
I genuinely believe that these rules were done before the kits themselves, and the designers have never once built them. There are way, way too many glaring inconsistencies for the Guard.

 Dysartes wrote:

Unlikely, when none of the three other units (Platoon Command Squad, Cadian Command Squad, Storm Trooper Command Squad) gain a keyword when they take a medi-pack.

The Cadian Command Squad doesn't get a choice, but I get what you're meaning. I stand by what I said though. It's entirely possible that an early iteration of the datasheets had medipacks as a keyworded bit for certain units, instead moving them to upgrades or default wargear and missing the units(DKoK, Scions, and Kasrkin) that could take them.

This looks like someone simply missed adding the option for one Krieger per 10 to replace their lasgun with a Death Korps medipack and [insert weapon option here].

It would just be a lasgun. Both of the medics get lasguns as part of their instructions.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Prometheum5 wrote:
Warhammer 40K players should really try out some other wargames and get some perspective on all the fun and engaging ways people can get together to play with their toy soldiers that don't rely on mathematically beating the piss out of each other.

Just going to note that I play a ton of other games. We're not naïve and unaware of other systems. We just like 40K more for what it offers -- and it doesn't involve beating each other with math.

Then why does GW consistently put out a game where it can so easily come down to maths?

If you want a game that isn't about beating each other with maths, there needs to actually be depth, meaningful in game choices and the like. Driving a massive tank through some woods or blowing a hole in a ruin to clear a path for the infantry following behind, for example, or a way to use the four F's (Find, Fix, Flank, Finish) to enable actual tactical manoeuvres and give more decision making to ranged combat than "which things do I need to shoot first?"

Think about how much more design space that would open up on weapons if they were not just about killing outright. If weapons like heavy bolters, heavy stubbers, multilasers etc. and the like were designed to be good at suppressing enemy infantry, preventing them from being able to move, rather than it just coming down to "do these kill as effectively as a X weapon?" Then think about how important movement could be if getting to the side of enemy units, especially enemy units in cover, mattered. Where getting a unit caught in a crossfire was a death sentence for that unit, rewarding tactical play and movements? All of that makes the pregame maths less important, and the actual decisions on the table more important.

I get your point, but what you're describing isn't it. It's just different math. Especially flanking. People have this hilarious idea that 'flanking' in a tabletop game is like some god tier strategic maneuver that should decimate the enemy forces because of how difficult and tacitcal it is. IRL, that might be true. On the table that just means 12" move models do way more damage than 6" move models and Deepstrike is basically god mode.

When are mission packs being released? Need to k ow about Turn 1 deepstrikes.

 Oguhmek wrote:
the Stompa is still 800 points

lol

lmao

Eh. He has access to +1 to hit and some pretty big guns. It's an appropriate cost.

This is a WK into terminators with no fate dice:



And this is a Stompa with the +1 :

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'd also like to say this-if the game isn't trying to be balanced, where is the customization? I'd be a LOT more forgiving of what's going on right now if the datasheets were more like 30k's, where HQs have a list of options the entire page long and units in general can be customized to hell and back.

The customization is on a different level now. Using my main as an example...

Damage
Rubrics + Ahriman - +1 to wound on auto-hitting flamers and a free nuke in the form of MW or stripping saves
Rubrics + Infernal - strong spell combined with SH1 - great for bolter squads
Scarabs + Termie Sorc - good spell, LH, and army-wide reroll vs a target
Fly Prince - fly over mortal wounds

Durability / Control
Rubrics + Sorcerer - LH, but more importantly no targeting outside 18", which allows for control without threat from OOLOS shooting
Rubrics + Exalted - durability and resurrecting models. Can stand off or get in the mix with flamers.
Rubrics + Exalted on Disc - durability and screwing with enemy movement.
Enlightened w/ Bows - snipers
Enlightened w/ Spears - quick unit that can exploit poor movement by the opponent
Tzaangors + Shaman - T4 with a 5+++ and also a decent buff for the now S5 AP1 swings

Support
Cultists - granting CP on kills or death allowing for aggressive play
Tzaangors - gives Cabal on objectives so a reasonable backfield unit
Foot Prince - -1 to hit aura and a once per game Precision buff
Helbrute - decrease Cabal cost
Forgefiend - -1 to hit to one unit

Spoiler:

[spoiler]Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Prometheum5 wrote:
Warhammer 40K players should really try out some other wargames and get some perspective on all the fun and engaging ways people can get together to play with their toy soldiers that don't rely on mathematically beating the piss out of each other.

Just going to note that I play a ton of other games. We're not naïve and unaware of other systems. We just like 40K more for what it offers -- and it doesn't involve beating each other with math.

Then why does GW consistently put out a game where it can so easily come down to maths?

If you want a game that isn't about beating each other with maths, there needs to actually be depth, meaningful in game choices and the like. Driving a massive tank through some woods or blowing a hole in a ruin to clear a path for the infantry following behind, for example, or a way to use the four F's (Find, Fix, Flank, Finish) to enable actual tactical manoeuvres and give more decision making to ranged combat than "which things do I need to shoot first?"

Think about how much more design space that would open up on weapons if they were not just about killing outright. If weapons like heavy bolters, heavy stubbers, multilasers etc. and the like were designed to be good at suppressing enemy infantry, preventing them from being able to move, rather than it just coming down to "do these kill as effectively as a X weapon?" Then think about how important movement could be if getting to the side of enemy units, especially enemy units in cover, mattered. Where getting a unit caught in a crossfire was a death sentence for that unit, rewarding tactical play and movements? All of that makes the pregame maths less important, and the actual decisions on the table more important.

That's kind of why I like 10th. It has so much less math and so much more utility. And it's also why I'm upset, because they didn't do all the work to make sure we didn't have stupid stuff.

ERJAK wrote:

I get your point, but what you're describing isn't it. It's just different math. Especially flanking. People have this hilarious idea that 'flanking' in a tabletop game is like some god tier strategic maneuver that should decimate the enemy forces because of how difficult and tacitcal it is. IRL, that might be true. On the table that just means 12" move models do way more damage than 6" move models and Deepstrike is basically god mode.

All problems which can be fixed by changing to an alternating phase structure, allowing immediate counterplay (and many other tweaks no doubt).

Player 1 moves their cavalry up to flank unit X. This has opened a space on the board that Player 2 uses to deep strike a unit down, threatening player 1s tank. Player 1 now needs to decide whether to continue committing forces to ensure that they defeat unit X, or to try and save their tank. And so on. The shooting phase is then also alternating actions, so you need to think about what units to shoot, and when, as your opponent will be shooting in between your own shots. If player 1 shoots at the unit threatening their tank first, then their cavalry unit, somewhat exposed to try and get the kill on unit X, may be destroyed which allows unit X to survive and retain its position on the board. But if they go after X, they sacrifice their tank. Which do they think gets them closer to achieving their objective, or will be more useful in the future?

Suddenly you need to be thinking about not only your move now, but how your opponent might respond to that move, and then how you will respond to that move. All within the same phase. You are constantly having something to engage with, to think about, to adjust your plan to. In the shooting phase, what unit do you think your opponent will try to kill? Should you try to prevent that by attacking their units in position to make that attack first? Or instead attack another unit that may be in a more vulnerable position, potentially sacrificing your own unit in order to gain an advantage in either unit power on the board, or effective control over the board such as knocking an enemy off an objective.

In the melee phase, you have a strong melee unit you want to charge into an opponent on an objective, but that opponent has two units on the objective, and a third unit, a strong melee unit, in charge range of your strong melee unit and the objective. You could sacrifice a weaker unit by charging them into the strong melee unit and locking it down for this phase. But if you do that, your opponent can charge one of their units off the objective, retaining control as they still have a unit there, into your own melee unit and lock them down. But if you charge your melee unit into the two units on the objective then your opponent can then charge their melee unit into you, turning a potentially tough but winnable 2v1 fight into, most likely, a 3v1 slaughter. If you charge their melee unit this round with your melee unit, you give up the possibility of getting control of the objective, but also maybe get the most favourable fight against that unit as even if your opponent charges a unit off the objective in support, you also have a unit that can charge in in support. This will result in your melee unit taking some damage from that fight before they try and take the objective on the next turn, so might lack the strength to win it before the game ends if they get hurt too badly. Choices, choices.

Throw in asymmetrical mission design, so the players don't know which objectives their opponent may need for their mission, and now you have the potential for feints and deception. Did your opponent move their cavalry to flank your unit because they need the objective your unit is sitting on? Or do they want you to think that and waste your shooting on that cavalry unit at the expense of your forces elsewhere on the board?

The potential design space for a wargame is huge. And 40K does nothing with most of it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Eh. He has access to +1 to hit and some pretty big guns. It's an appropriate cost.

This is a WK into terminators with no fate dice:

Spoiler:

And this is a Stompa with the +1 :

Spoiler:

yeah but :
wraithknight 370pts
Stompa 800pts + Mek 45pts

And lets not pretend like the wraithknight won't use his fate dice too

Yeah but the Wraithknight is broken.

 Tyran wrote:
Yeah but the Wraithknight is broken.

because of the fate dice, no? i havnt really kept up with it specifically, only got sad when people started calling it OP

ERJAK wrote:
So the problem with the 'new style of Customization' thing is that not every faction has that.

BSS with MM and Meltaguns? Bad. Heavy Bolter, Stormbolter? Bad, but at a longer range. Heavy Flamer, Flamer? Bad, but occasionally tricks you into using a CP on them. Honestly, battle sisters are so bad 110pts that whether you give them free guns or not, doesn't really change the ability of the unit to contribute to the game that much.
Sacresants with Maces? Bad. Sacresants with Halberds? Bad,but in a slightly different way.
Dominions with 4 Meltas? Bad, because they're 130pts and you have to take 5 worthless bodies. 4 Flamers? Same problem, worse gun. 4 Stormbolters? Would be fine if they still had devastating wounds.
Paragons? Literally never a reason to take the flamer or heavy bolter. Not even to be funny.
Novitiates? Their upgrades require you to give up melee attacks and also suck.
The only unit with decent specialization is Seraphim and that's just 'Deepstrike, Y/N'

I'll agree with the nature of your assessment and not necessarily the details, but with caveats -- some things are "bad" as is defined by the currently busted state of other armies and from within a detachment that leans melee. It also leans into MD, which by comparison to what Eldar can so now seems quaint.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Eh. He has access to +1 to hit and some pretty big guns. It's an appropriate cost.

This is a WK into terminators with no fate dice:

Spoiler:

And this is a Stompa with the +1 :

Spoiler:

yeah but :
wraithknight 370pts
Stompa 800pts + Mek 45pts

And lets not pretend like the wraithknight won't use his fate dice too

Right. And this isn't me saying the WK is proper cost or that fate dice don't exist.

It just shows the Stompa performing quite well for 2x the cost of the worst unit in the game as well as highlighting that the WK is more about rules interactions than points ( though points could have made it slightly less oppressive ).

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
When are mission packs being released? Need to k ow about Turn 1 deepstrikes.

They are out there alongside the impossible deployment zone.

Dudeface wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
When are mission packs being released? Need to k ow about Turn 1 deepstrikes.

They are out there alongside the impossible deployment zone.

Literally a non-Euclidean horror

Dudeface wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
When are mission packs being released? Need to k ow about Turn 1 deepstrikes.

They are out there alongside the impossible deployment zone.

How is it impossible? the 16" arrows are for the 2 objectives, not the circle.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
When are mission packs being released? Need to k ow about Turn 1 deepstrikes.

They are out there alongside the impossible deployment zone.

Literally a non-Euclidean horror

On further reflection I think the 16" is the length from the middle to the outer objectives, but it's a mess to look at


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
When are mission packs being released? Need to k ow about Turn 1 deepstrikes.

They are out there alongside the impossible deployment zone.

How is it impossible?

See above, it looked like a 16" diameter with an 9" radius, that somehow made the quarters 32" apart. I think the numbers are poorly placed and instead means the vertical to the outer objectives.

Dudeface wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
When are mission packs being released? Need to k ow about Turn 1 deepstrikes.

They are out there alongside the impossible deployment zone.

Literally a non-Euclidean horror

On further reflection I think the 16" is the length from the middle to the outer objectives, but it's a mess to look at

You seem to be correct, it's 16'' upwards to where the arrows that delineate 12'' meet. I agree that it could have been depicted more clearly, or with clearer annotations.

Yep. Map is legal. Just bit unfortunate placement of number.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


All problems which can be fixed by changing to an alternating phase structure, allowing immediate counterplay (and many other tweaks no doubt).

Player 1 moves their cavalry up to flank unit X. This has opened a space on the board that Player 2 uses to deep strike a unit down, threatening player 1s tank. Player 1 now needs to decide whether to continue committing forces to ensure that they defeat unit X, or to try and save their tank. And so on. The shooting phase is then also alternating actions, so you need to think about what units to shoot, and when, as your opponent will be shooting in between your own shots. If player 1 shoots at the unit threatening their tank first, then their cavalry unit, somewhat exposed to try and get the kill on unit X, may be destroyed which allows unit X to survive and retain its position on the board. But if they go after X, they sacrifice their tank. Which do they think gets them closer to achieving their objective, or will be more useful in the future?

Suddenly you need to be thinking about not only your move now, but how your opponent might respond to that move, and then how you will respond to that move. All within the same phase. You are constantly having something to engage with, to think about, to adjust your plan to. In the shooting phase, what unit do you think your opponent will try to kill? Should you try to prevent that by attacking their units in position to make that attack first? Or instead attack another unit that may be in a more vulnerable position, potentially sacrificing your own unit in order to gain an advantage in either unit power on the board, or effective control over the board such as knocking an enemy off an objective.

Honestly these thing exist in 40k. The difference is that they are delayed because of the IGOUGO system.

Now, I am not speaking against Alternating Activation, but I have to agree with ERJAK that the "ideal" idea of flanking isn't really that much deeper in wargames. I mean, when I was playing Terminus Est type forces I tended to flank my opponents which is why they'd try to screen the deep strike zone to prevent me from doing just that. Hell, when I played windrunner Eldar in 7th I'd flank my opponents all the time.

I am a supporter of alternate-by-phase, but not alternate-by-unit. The former still plays and feels like a wargame to me.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


All problems which can be fixed by changing to an alternating phase structure, allowing immediate counterplay (and many other tweaks no doubt).

Player 1 moves their cavalry up to flank unit X. This has opened a space on the board that Player 2 uses to deep strike a unit down, threatening player 1s tank. Player 1 now needs to decide whether to continue committing forces to ensure that they defeat unit X, or to try and save their tank. And so on. The shooting phase is then also alternating actions, so you need to think about what units to shoot, and when, as your opponent will be shooting in between your own shots. If player 1 shoots at the unit threatening their tank first, then their cavalry unit, somewhat exposed to try and get the kill on unit X, may be destroyed which allows unit X to survive and retain its position on the board. But if they go after X, they sacrifice their tank. Which do they think gets them closer to achieving their objective, or will be more useful in the future?

Suddenly you need to be thinking about not only your move now, but how your opponent might respond to that move, and then how you will respond to that move. All within the same phase. You are constantly having something to engage with, to think about, to adjust your plan to. In the shooting phase, what unit do you think your opponent will try to kill? Should you try to prevent that by attacking their units in position to make that attack first? Or instead attack another unit that may be in a more vulnerable position, potentially sacrificing your own unit in order to gain an advantage in either unit power on the board, or effective control over the board such as knocking an enemy off an objective.

Honestly these thing exist in 40k. The difference is that they are delayed because of the IGOUGO system.

Now, I am not speaking against Alternating Activation, but I have to agree with ERJAK that the "ideal" idea of flanking isn't really that much deeper in wargames. I mean, when I was playing Terminus Est type forces I tended to flank my opponents which is why they'd try to screen the deep strike zone to prevent me from doing just that. Hell, when I played windrunner Eldar in 7th I'd flank my opponents all the time.

Flanking is inherently supported just by the way...physical space works. You're presented a wide angle of attack vectors and a small angle of return attack vectors when you attack areas of an opponent's force where either terrain, weapon ranges, or their own troops are blocking counterattacks.

Game rules don't need to spell it out for you, you don't need extra bonuses, and it certainly isn't non-existant in ANY game that has physical space as a mechanic.

Yet, people treat it like it's magic. (and like deepstriking behind a tank to hit it's AV10 rear facing made you General goddam Patton).

ERJAK wrote:
Game rules don't need to spell it out for you, you don't need extra bonuses, and it certainly isn't non-existant in ANY game that has physical space as a mechanic.

Yet, people treat it like it's magic. (and like deepstriking behind a tank to hit it's AV10 rear facing made you General goddam Patton).

Flanking bonuses are an approximation of the reality that a unit under fire positions itself to make use of concealment and cover in reaction to the unit engaging it, and is much more vulnerable to attack from a second direction. Surrounding a unit produces significantly greater casualties than attacking from a single direction even if the total volume of fire is the same.

It isn't 'magic', it's just one of those dynamic elements of real warfare that's been systematically stripped down in favor of firepower being determined at the listbuilding stage. What you're describing is more about Lanchesterian-square concentration of force, which is a legitimate thing but also a totally separate concept.

Armored vehicles IRL do tend to have more armor up front, and getting to their side is often advantageous.

It's a mechanic that reflects reality, provides incentive for maneuver, and variations in AV can act as a method of unit differentiation. It's a win, win, win.

 Dawnbringer wrote:

leopard wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's not true either way.

this is good, I had visions of a vox caster turning ear wax to plasma and firing it sideways

The Krieg instructions show you can build either the vox or plasma gun. Hence the restriction on the data sheet for either / or. But thanks Kanluwen for telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about...

The argument is not exactly right because without any need for conversions 2 miniatures (The vox caster, and kriegsman number 8 iirc) can be build with either melta or plasma. So the reason for having to pick between plasma or vox is different or GW's designers are even dumber for not knowing their kits.

M.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Oguhmek wrote:
the Stompa is still 800 points

lol

lmao

Eh. He has access to +1 to hit and some pretty big guns. It's an appropriate cost.

Surely this is a joke For 800pts you could have two Wraith Knights or two Imperial Knights. It is also disingenuous to allow a buff for the Stompa and not for the other faction.

sadly I think the problem is some of the minis are hard to tell what is the side and what isn't. I mean a rhino is pretty easy, but some of the more oddly shaped xenos tanks? maybe less so