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.

nou wrote:
... suboptimal options ("bloat")...

I think it's dishonest to make it out that "bloat" is nothing more than competitive players disliking sub-optimal choices. It implies that 40k doesn't have bloat, and that bloat is just a "competitive dog whistle" for sub-optimal choices. This is clearly not true. Bloat is a real thing in 40k. 500 strats per army is bloat. The mess of rules that AdMech suffer from right now is bloat. 48 types of Bolter and damn near 20 variations on Scything Talons is bloat.

You don't get to complain about being strawmanned when this is your opening retort:

 catbarf wrote:
The post I was responding to was essentially saying that if some upgrades are crap, there's no reason to have options at all.

No it was not, lol. You are the one creating a strawman here.

I'm not complaining about anything, I'm letting you know you're arguing with made-up positions.

If you've got a better interpretation of his post or how 'but some of the upgrades are pointless' equates to 'only a few [upgrades] get used', I'm all ears.

Otherwise feel free to keep tilting at windmills.

I do have a [smarter] interpretation of his argument, and in fact I've already articulated it to you. But because I'm a nice guy I'll do it again:

"Older editions don't get points over new editions for their "wider options", because the majority of those options were so bad that no one ever took them, and thus in practice list building was about as restrictive then as it is today. Therefore whining about the big bad tournament players getting your flavor taken away is a meme".

There. Do you understand now?

Slipspace wrote:
I'm curious as to why you think the game would be more balanced if tournament play wasn't a thing. Without the tournament packs what format would a standard pick-up game be? Ultimately GW still needs to balance based around something and the easiest at the moment is the tournament scene, thanks to the standardised missions and wealth of data available.

Your proposal doesn't seem to make much sense. Are you suggesting the game would be better if it was less balanced?

Standard pickup game format would be the eternal war missions with normal detachments, like in the CORE RULES

That's what I was saying was the problem before. The issue is that there is no line in the sand between super competitive I want the most balanced experience possible play (GT pack) and I want some minor structure because we're having a pickup game but let's just throw dice and have fun ("regular" matched play). So between a combination of loud voices online saying the former is superior in every way and the latter shouldn't even exist, and GW constantly reacting to the former in ways that affect the whole game, you have a situation where what is affecting competitive play ultimately it affects everything.

I actually think it might be interesting if they took the CCG approach and had very restrictive conditions for tournaments only. Whether that's banning firstborn units, forgeworld, a completely different and streamlined set of rules, who knows. However, if past experience has indicated anything you would only see that approach used and non-tournament play would still be something that may as well not exist. We already see it with Legends. They are only banned in tournaments but how many casual gamers do you know that will allow you to use it because the implication of them not being allowed in tournaments is that they are too unbalanced for ANY game. There's literally no reason why in a non-tournament game or none tournament practice game someone should be told well you can't use legends but yet I guarantee that the majority of people when asked will immediately say Legends are not allowed, not that it's something specific to tournament play. We saw the same thing last edition with the rule of three (which was actually 2 in 1k). Nearly every single time somebody posted a list looking for feedback if it took more than three of something you would have tons of comments saying oh you can't do that because of the rule of three but the rule of three was 100% optional and suggested only for organized play, NOT everyday games. The paragraph above it even explicitly stated this and yet you had people acting as though it was part of the main rules. In fact I'm pretty sure that's why they just threw up their hands and added it to the main rules because everyone already acted like it was, which sort of illustrates the problem as a whole.

So rather than it being an exception where someone was like hey if you're playing in a tournament you can't take four of that unit, the default assumption was that you couldn't take four of it ever if you were playing anything outside of like open play. I saw many a post where someone had no indication they were even playing in a tournament at all and later on even clarified that this was just something for game night at their local shop, and yet everyone just assumed that this tournament only rule would be in effect all the time unless explicitly stated to be waived, when in fact it was intended to be the other way around. Again, the problem boils down to the idea that while restricting to only three of a certain unit is more balanced, which is why it's done for tournaments, but that means that it's the better approach everywhere because not doing it would be unbalanced. As I stated before it is a completely loaded question which makes you agree with it by it's very nature. It's a long the same lines of saying of course it's better not to punch someone in the face; who is really going to argue the opposite?

Wayniac wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
I'm curious as to why you think the game would be more balanced if tournament play wasn't a thing. Without the tournament packs what format would a standard pick-up game be? Ultimately GW still needs to balance based around something and the easiest at the moment is the tournament scene, thanks to the standardised missions and wealth of data available.

Your proposal doesn't seem to make much sense. Are you suggesting the game would be better if it was less balanced?

Standard pickup game format would be the eternal war missions with normal detachments, like in the CORE RULES

That's what I was saying was the problem before. The issue is that there is no line in the sand between super competitive I want the most balanced experience possible play (GT pack) and I want some minor structure because we're having a pickup game but let's just throw dice and have fun ("regular" matched play). So between a combination of loud voices online saying the former is superior in every way and the latter shouldn't even exist, and GW constantly reacting to the former in ways that affect the whole game, you have a situation where what is affecting competitive play ultimately it affects everything.

My experience is that folks heading to the FLGS for a pick-up game want some sense of balance. They don't want to negotiate the terms of the game beyond "2000 points? Current Battle Pack?" This doesn't mean that they are super competitive. The tourney crowd tend to pre-arrange their practice matches to obtain the work-up that they need. Where feelings can get hurt is when two strangers meet and one does have a competitive, well-constructed list and the other has put together something that they thought was cool (but still want to win even if they don't admit it). Having GW make balance updates based on the tourney scene can mitigate the damage in that case.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
I'm curious as to why you think the game would be more balanced if tournament play wasn't a thing. Without the tournament packs what format would a standard pick-up game be? Ultimately GW still needs to balance based around something and the easiest at the moment is the tournament scene, thanks to the standardised missions and wealth of data available.

Your proposal doesn't seem to make much sense. Are you suggesting the game would be better if it was less balanced?

Standard pickup game format would be the eternal war missions with normal detachments, like in the CORE RULES

That's what I was saying was the problem before. The issue is that there is no line in the sand between super competitive I want the most balanced experience possible play (GT pack) and I want some minor structure because we're having a pickup game but let's just throw dice and have fun ("regular" matched play). So between a combination of loud voices online saying the former is superior in every way and the latter shouldn't even exist, and GW constantly reacting to the former in ways that affect the whole game, you have a situation where what is affecting competitive play ultimately it affects everything.

My experience is that folks heading to the FLGS for a pick-up game want some sense of balance. They don't want to negotiate the terms of the game beyond "2000 points? Current Battle Pack?" This doesn't mean that they are super competitive. The tourney crowd tend to pre-arrange their practice matches to obtain the work-up that they need. Where feelings can get hurt is when two strangers meet and one does have a competitive, well-constructed list and the other has put together something that they thought was cool (but still want to win even if they don't admit it). Having GW make balance updates based on the tourney scene can mitigate the damage in that case.

sure it can but at the same time the base rules are pretty balanced enough. Like I have never found any major problems with the eternal War missions or the regular detachments. For a regular pickup game that should be all the balance the people need because they don't need the additional level of stuff when you're going to a tournament. The root cause here is still the inability to actually balance anything within a reasonable variation. A properly designed game would have enough of a balance variation that someone with a super optimized tournament list and someone mostly picking things that work decently together but aren't 100% optimal would be within a close variance of women based on performance not having one person going in with a 50% chance of losing just because they didn't go all out

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Different method - same outcome. Non-symmetrical terrain will provide an advantage to one person over the other.

You can't say that for certain.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You could have deployment zone terrain be similar and mid-board be random-ish and that could be fine, but it really comes down to what they decided to use for rules this time.

We got on fine without symmetrical boards for years before it suddenly became something that was "required".

Indeed.

Learning how to effectively use terrain was, once upon a time, just as vital to victory as knowing what your own models were capable of.

I can’t speak on the current terrain rules, because as ever currently a non-gamer. But asymmetrical terrain has always been part of the fun. If I’ve gone infantry heavy, and my opponent tank heavy? Different terrain would either help or hinder. Not really knowing what it would look like was all part of the risks we take when writing a list.

That has absolutely nothing to do with if both players had the same experience or if it was balanced ( it was not ).

 BlaxicanX wrote:
because the majority of those options were so bad that no one ever took them

I played 3rd, so (citation needed). The majority of those options never showed up in tournaments, but casual play at the local hobby shop was a totally different thing.

EviscerationPlague at least phrased it as some of the upgrades being pointless. Most casual players have enough awareness of the meta and a desire not to get curbstomped that they'll avoid the really bad choices, but may still take an upgrade that is at least decent because it looks cool on the model, or take a unit that might not be meta-defining but isn't a total waste of points, or keep using an option that was more viable in a prior edition but isn't worth breaking apart the models or having them counts-as something else, or take something 'meta' to compensate for a suboptimal choice elsewhere.

Like you said before:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
everyone looks at the game through a competitive lens, just to varying degrees, and so even casual players are not likely to take units/wargear that are blatantly trash.

Emphasis mine. When it came to Chaos upgrades, or Guard regiments, or Ork vehicle upgrades, or Tyranid build-your-own-species, there were some 'blatantly trash' choices, some standout great ones, and a lot that were okay. For a competitive player that was about the same diversity we have today, just a couple of tournament-ready options and a bunch of less-optimal ones they might as well ignore. For a casual player there was plenty of room for personalization without crippling yourself on the field against like-minded players.

It wasn't an 'illusion of flavor' that Vostroyans could stand up to bolter fire with a 4+ save (holy gak! Guard getting an armor save!), or that Elysians got to airdrop their entire army, or that you could make a unit of Tyranid Warriors with Enhanced Senses and all Venom Cannons as a rude surprise to players who thought Tyranids couldn't shoot, or that you could give your Chosen appropriate veteran skills that made them play like Veterans of the Long War and not just spiky Tacticals, or that your Chaos Lord could ride a daemon-possessed bike wreathed in fire like the album art to Bat Out Of Hell with any combo of like eight stat boosts to show where he is on the road to demigodhood.

The current Lord can't even take a bike.

So, if you and your friends felt compelled to take only the most points-effective options, well, that's your decision. I've met plenty of people who don't play that way, both back in 3rd-5th and now. We could have done without useless crap like Warrior Weapons, but the options that were 'good enough' were more fun for my groups than getting railroaded into the narrow set of 'tournament-viable' options that defined each army.

There were actual, flavorful choices that those who prioritized raw competitive effectiveness chose not to use. If that's the way they wanted to play, more power to them- I'm not telling anyone their way to play was wrong. The point is that what those players want the designers to prioritize is not necessarily the same as what more narrative-focused players want, which is where this whole tangent got started.

 Rihgu wrote:
Would be cool if they had specific, prescriptive HALF table setups, and each player picked what terrain type they were attacking from/defending in.

So a player that wants a lot of obscuring terrain might pick city ruins, and a player who wants to bunker down in cover would pick swampy forest, so the overall table would be a swampy forest on the edge of a ruined city.

Mechanically, of course, the terrain pieces would just have specific sizes, keywords, and placements so they could be physically represented by whatever.

Takes the best qualities of player placed terrain while keeping the limitations of "realistic" (mechanically speaking) terrain.

In tournaments? No, I don't think so. In casual play you can already do this if you have the terrain available, if you've both agreed that you're going to set up half the table to your advantage (not to an insane degree) then are you or is your opponent really going to pick the other side of the table? If you're concerned about that you can just agree not to roll for sides.

Wayniac wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You severly underestimate the cult of oficialdom in the hobby penitent.

This 100%. I have seen in the 25+ years i've been involved in 40k that almost always "tournament standard" infests an area and becomes THE standard, whether you're doing a tournament, preparing for a tournament, or having a friendly game. The assumption is that you're playing by the "standard" rules which for 40k means "2k Matched Play with the current GT pack" unless stated otherwise.

As it should be, less hassle that way. That doesn't mean you can't find people who will deal with the hassle, it starts by establishing a rapport with a few locals that aren't gits and showing them that you're not a git either and then try to set up some unofficial stuff with them. I've tried playing against a custom Kroot codex, someone posted a request for the new maelstrom format so I played one of those games and I played more 7th edition using homebrew codexes than official ones. Guess what happened when I brought my two loaded Nightscythes to a game after the rule that said they had to start in reserves was implemented? My opponent, on his own suggested we ignore the rule so we could have a fun game with my Nightscythes working like they used to since he didn't think Nightscythes were the intended recipient of the nerf.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
...deviation is something that you have to ask for specifically and implicates the structure in place is preciscly the common standard. Which isn't to say it's bad, merely the current standard is for a wargame mechanically disapointing (symetrical terrain, lack of sideboards, lackluster interaction with enemy units due to rules normally tied to morale beeing badly executed, etc.) and from a narrative perspective rather disturbing, since 40k always did profit significantly from even an implicit narrative structure, even if it was reduced to nametags under hq choices.

Most people aren't interested in list-tailoring (look at posts regarding the topic) so why would sideboards (which is to some degree list-tailoring) be the standard?

Wayniac wrote:
Deviation though is using the GT stuff instead of like Eternal War, or using AOO stuff. It's just that people are convinced that's the "most balanced" way, ergo it should be the default. The argument is always something like "Why WOULDN'T you want to use the most balanced set of rules, even for casual games" which, while not wrong, illustrates the problem. There is SUPPOSED to be a difference between "Hey want a friendly 2k game this weekend?" and "Want a competitive game this weekend?" or "I want to practice my tournament list, do you want to play a practice game?"

The fact that Eternal War, which is the default, is considered "bad" and only the GT AOO is balanced so is "good" is part of the issue. Eternal War matched play should be the default, not the GT pack du jour.

hunterac20@gmail.com wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
I'm curious as to why you think the game would be more balanced if tournament play wasn't a thing. Without the tournament packs what format would a standard pick-up game be? Ultimately GW still needs to balance based around something and the easiest at the moment is the tournament scene, thanks to the standardised missions and wealth of data available.

Your proposal doesn't seem to make much sense. Are you suggesting the game would be better if it was less balanced?

I'm saying the game would be better if people didn't need to relearn the game/buy $110 worth of already outdated rules books every ten minutes. I didn't say it would be more balanced without tournaments. I just clearly don't care all that much about absolute balance. First off, unless you literally have one identical faction, balance is impossible. 2nd, Spike can't bring his tourney army to play casual if there weren't tourney play. 3rd, 40k is a TERRIBLE game for competitive play anyway. 4th, without tourney packs your pickup game format issssss....whatever you want it to be of course. This game is best as a casual game, which is how most players play. 5th and lastly, GW is about as likely to study army lists at your local shop as I am likely to spontaneously grow a 3rd arm out of my forehead.

No idea where the $110 thing came from, unless you think only hyper-competitive players buy Codices? Perfect balance may not be possible (I don't think anyone seriously suggested it was, so that's just a strawman on your part) but the better balanced a game like 40k is the better the experience is for everyone, competitive or not. You're also very naive if you think simply removing tournament mission packs and not caring about balance is going to do anything to stop Sikes from bringing strong lists. Without some kind of standardised game format, the game will lose its biggest draw. As someone already pointed out, the great thing about games with a standard format is you can show up for a game and play against anyone else and be fairly confident of getting the experience you want. The moment you have to start negotiating every single game you start to lose players and the game experience overall suffers. Customised, collaboratively created games are great in groups that regularly play together, but I don't think losing the ability to have easy pick-up games is good for any game system. And the moment you have any sort of standardisation, people will optimise towards it whether you like it nor not.

It's also funny to me you point out 5th edition as some bastion of casual gaming when that's the edition that seems to have caused the big explosion in tournament gaming in 40k.

nou wrote:I'm really curious what arguments will be thrown around to dismiss The Most Balanced Competitive Experience in the form of the new Combat Patrol. Game mode, where you'll actually have to know how to play the game instead of how to break the game... I have already seen dismissal on the grounds "it's GW, it won't even be balanced". How on earth can one expect GW to achieve balance in the whole game and at the same time claim they are unable to balance a tiny, tiny subset of it?

The problem people have with Combat Patrol isn't that they don't believe GW can balance the boxes, it's that they don't think they're even going to try. It seems pretty obvious that those boxes are not currently designed with balance in mind, but are designed by the marketing and money guys to try to sell as many as possible and/or get rid of sprues people aren't buying in individual boxes. People believe this trend will continue in 10th, completely undermining the claim that it's balanced because the designers aren't even involved in curating the contents of the boxes.

That may turn out to be an incorrect assumption. If it does, Combat Patrol could well be extremely well balanced. It may also be extremely dull because it looks like you're locked in to playing the same exact combination of units over and over.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
Would be cool if they had specific, prescriptive HALF table setups, and each player picked what terrain type they were attacking from/defending in.

So a player that wants a lot of obscuring terrain might pick city ruins, and a player who wants to bunker down in cover would pick swampy forest, so the overall table would be a swampy forest on the edge of a ruined city.

Mechanically, of course, the terrain pieces would just have specific sizes, keywords, and placements so they could be physically represented by whatever.

Takes the best qualities of player placed terrain while keeping the limitations of "realistic" (mechanically speaking) terrain.

In tournaments? No, I don't think so. In casual play you can already do this if you have the terrain available, if you've both agreed that you're going to set up half the table to your advantage (not to an insane degree) then are you or is your opponent really going to pick the other side of the table? If you're concerned about that you can just agree not to roll for sides.

Wayniac wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You severly underestimate the cult of oficialdom in the hobby penitent.

This 100%. I have seen in the 25+ years i've been involved in 40k that almost always "tournament standard" infests an area and becomes THE standard, whether you're doing a tournament, preparing for a tournament, or having a friendly game. The assumption is that you're playing by the "standard" rules which for 40k means "2k Matched Play with the current GT pack" unless stated otherwise.

As it should be, less hassle that way. That doesn't mean you can't find people who will deal with the hassle, it starts by establishing a rapport with a few locals that aren't gits and showing them that you're not a git either and then try to set up some unofficial stuff with them. I've tried playing against a custom Kroot codex, someone posted a request for the new maelstrom format so I played one of those games and I played more 7th edition using homebrew codexes than official ones. Guess what happened when I brought my two loaded Nightscythes to a game after the rule that said they had to start in reserves was implemented? My opponent, on his own suggested we ignore the rule so we could have a fun game with my Nightscythes working like they used to since he didn't think Nightscythes were the intended recipient of the nerf.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
...deviation is something that you have to ask for specifically and implicates the structure in place is preciscly the common standard. Which isn't to say it's bad, merely the current standard is for a wargame mechanically disapointing (symetrical terrain, lack of sideboards, lackluster interaction with enemy units due to rules normally tied to morale beeing badly executed, etc.) and from a narrative perspective rather disturbing, since 40k always did profit significantly from even an implicit narrative structure, even if it was reduced to nametags under hq choices.

Most people aren't interested in list-tailoring (look at posts regarding the topic) so why would sideboards (which is to some degree list-tailoring) be the standard?

Wayniac wrote:
Deviation though is using the GT stuff instead of like Eternal War, or using AOO stuff. It's just that people are convinced that's the "most balanced" way, ergo it should be the default. The argument is always something like "Why WOULDN'T you want to use the most balanced set of rules, even for casual games" which, while not wrong, illustrates the problem. There is SUPPOSED to be a difference between "Hey want a friendly 2k game this weekend?" and "Want a competitive game this weekend?" or "I want to practice my tournament list, do you want to play a practice game?"

The fact that Eternal War, which is the default, is considered "bad" and only the GT AOO is balanced so is "good" is part of the issue. Eternal War matched play should be the default, not the GT pack du jour.

There is a difference, but that doesn't mean you don't want both games to be balanced. If you agree to play the mission format where you might end up with a 2/6ths of the board being empty of terrain then that puts a huge pressure on list building as to not break the game in the event of that happening, even though I'm a casual I don't want to do that.

Oh, yeah, Combat Patrol, the so-called 'way to play' that totally wasn't just some higher up outside the main studio going "See that product we already sell? Make that into a game."

To give them some credit, at least it's not like claiming "Do whatever you want!" is actually a legitimate 'way to play' just because you called it "Open Play", so it could be worse.

regarding list tailoring, I see why its an emotive subject, I also see games that either embrace it or pretty much have fixed lists.

One possible option though is for an event, say you design and bring a total force, which need not be game legal in and of itself, say 3,000 points for a 2,000 point event.

you then assemble a 2,000 point force, or up to that, knowing the following

- the table you will play on
- the scenario
- the faction your opponent has (and potentially some info on that their 3k list has available from seeing prior games but not getting a list)

so say I have my Death Guard, 3k of slime & tentacles. I know the scenario and that I'm playing say Custards, maybe knowing they have some dreadnaughts. now pick 2k from my list - and its 2k as "whole units", not fiddling the unit sizes, its basically bring a bag of pre-assembled units and select them

allows a level of working around bad matchups, also allows ways to deal with specific "issue" factions whatever the issue is

and also then rewards clever selections to use the fact your opponent will know your faction but not its contents to your advantage

e.g. say bring IG, maybe as 1,500 or armour and 1,500 of infantry - can now change the bias as needed.


further point on terrain - have a read up on how a lot of other games do this, essentially your faction has a preferred terrain type. for a scenario one side is the defender, you fight in their terrain.

however that terrain type just provides a list of stuff you could have, say hills, woodland, rivers, fields maybe - then a min & max of each item - players alternating in picking and placing from that list

works quite well in historical games

TBH I don't really get WHY having a sideboard or "support choices" would be a bad thing in 40k and not work. I mean like in a typical list you have 500 points or whatever to slot in after you see the mission/opponent, think lke you build a core list of X points (1500 let's say) and then have two 500 point subgroups which you can pick from to augment it.

I think the problem of sideboarding in 40K is that models aren't just a straight purchase. They have optional equipment which can quite significantly change their point cost. So trying to have a 500 point bolt-on ontop of a 1500 point army could mean that there are certain equipment choices you can't easily make. Or you end up leaving 50 points on both out and suddenly you're 100 points down on the whole army.


Warcaster, which sadly launched in the pandemic and hasn't got a huge amount of traction; had a neat idea of a gaming sideboard. You build your army and then during the game the whole army is a sideboard that you summon into the battlefield.

If a whole unit dies on the battlefield it just returns to your pool to bring on again.

Basically introduces a good few ideas
1) You can do sacrificial tactics without it impacting your score in the same way that it would in a 40K or regular wargame

2) You can take a few more situational models for an event army because now you can just leave them out during matches you don't need them and pull them in on those situations that you do.

3) Creates a more dynamic battlefield situation and lets you react to opponents in a new way instead of being a fully prebuilt army.



Has downsides too, but it was a neat idea and its a shame the game hasn't got more traction.

Wayniac wrote:
TBH I don't really get WHY having a sideboard or "support choices" would be a bad thing in 40k and not work. I mean like in a typical list you have 500 points or whatever to slot in after you see the mission/opponent, think lke you build a core list of X points (1500 let's say) and then have two 500 point subgroups which you can pick from to augment it.

1) You have to define those groups and check them independently so people don't cheat
2) It requires people to have more models, which means some people would be at a disadvantage for a time

It's more of a logistics problem than anything.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
... ban non-codex (eg FW) units...

I know you're just using FW as an example, but I have always found it frustrating that people would want to ban "FW units", as if they is any tangible difference between them and Codex units (especially now given the main 40k studio writes all the rules). There's no inherent advantage to FW units over Codex units, and oftentimes FW units completely suck compared to Codex units (I mean look the Macharius... without laughing, that is!).

I think defining these things as "FW units" is a bad idea.

(Plus, as always, I am 100% against anything that removes player choice/options)

My favorite part is people still decrying FW as "non-Codex"/"non-official"/etc. as though the rules haven't been handled by the same team for two editions now and still carry hang-ups about that one time they got beat by the one optimal FW choice available to their opponents army 3 editions ago when the FW rules writers didn't know WTF they were doing.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
Would be cool if they had specific, prescriptive HALF table setups, and each player picked what terrain type they were attacking from/defending in.

So a player that wants a lot of obscuring terrain might pick city ruins, and a player who wants to bunker down in cover would pick swampy forest, so the overall table would be a swampy forest on the edge of a ruined city.

Mechanically, of course, the terrain pieces would just have specific sizes, keywords, and placements so they could be physically represented by whatever.

Takes the best qualities of player placed terrain while keeping the limitations of "realistic" (mechanically speaking) terrain.

In tournaments? No, I don't think so. In casual play you can already do this if you have the terrain available, if you've both agreed that you're going to set up half the table to your advantage (not to an insane degree) then are you or is your opponent really going to pick the other side of the table? If you're concerned about that you can just agree not to roll for sides.

Sorry, yes, there would be no rolling for sides in this case, since it wouldn't matter at the point you pick. You just set up your chosen, preset terrain footprints/keywords on your side that you think will give you most advantage while your opponent does likewise.

Example (I'm doing early morning off the cuff mental math so the sizes may not scale up to reality):
City Ruins: 3 10"Wx6"Lx5"H ruins w/ Obscuring, Breachable, Scaleable, Light Cover on the deployment line, 2" in from the board edge and 6" apart from each other oriented long ways. and 2 4"Wx1"Lx3"H Obstacles w/ Light Cover, Scaleable, and Exposed Position set 4" in front of the deployment line and 16" from each board edge.
Forest: 5 8"Wx8"Wx5"H area terrain with Dense Cover, Light Cover set in... just imagine the numbers but like a sort of zig zag through your deployment zone, and then 2 pieces of difficult area terrain slightly beyond your deployment zone (again, set locations I just got lazy).

Player 1 wants to hide the majority of their army from the enemy on turn 1, so they pick City Ruins. Player 2 has some heavy fire power and ability to ignore some modifiers so they pick Forest. Both players set up their half of the table exactly as proscribed in the "map" for their choice, and then deploy as usual. Player 1 deploys their army completely hidden behind Obscuring and player 2 deploys their army in the Dense Cover, and then players roll for first turn and play as normal.

Then these "terrain choices" can be another balancing lever. Oh, the "Forest" choice is never picked because it doesn't provide enough hard cover? 2 of the deployment zone pieces have Obscuring now. The City Ruins is picked too much? Remove the Obscuring from the center piece and make it Dense instead.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
TBH I don't really get WHY having a sideboard or "support choices" would be a bad thing in 40k and not work. I mean like in a typical list you have 500 points or whatever to slot in after you see the mission/opponent, think lke you build a core list of X points (1500 let's say) and then have two 500 point subgroups which you can pick from to augment it.

1) You have to define those groups and check them independently so people don't cheat
2) It requires people to have more models, which means some people would be at a disadvantage for a time

It's more of a logistics problem than anything.

It could be as simple as bring 2000pts, field 1500pts of it, leaving out the parts that you don't feel will be useful. If you're already playing 2000pt games, that's no greater logistical burden than you're already experiencing.

Or it could be bring 2000pts, deploy 1000pts of your choosing, bring the other 1000pts in reserves.

Or bring 2000pts, deploy only 500pts of it, and bring in reinforcements of your choosing (including previously destroyed units) a la Warcaster.

I mean, some form of sideboard or escalation mechanic that gives you more control over which forces are on the tabletop doesn't have to involve bringing 3000pts to play a standard game. There are lots of ways it's been done.

 Rihgu wrote:
Sorry, yes, there would be no rolling for sides in this case, since it wouldn't matter at the point you pick. You just set up your chosen, preset terrain footprints/keywords on your side that you think will give you most advantage while your opponent does likewise.

Example (I'm doing early morning off the cuff mental math so the sizes may not scale up to reality):
City Ruins: 3 10"Wx6"Lx5"H ruins w/ Obscuring, Breachable, Scaleable, Light Cover on the deployment line, 2" in from the board edge and 6" apart from each other oriented long ways. and 2 4"Wx1"Lx3"H Obstacles w/ Light Cover, Scaleable, and Exposed Position set 4" in front of the deployment line and 16" from each board edge.
Forest: 5 8"Wx8"Wx5"H area terrain with Dense Cover, Light Cover set in... just imagine the numbers but like a sort of zig zag through your deployment zone, and then 2 pieces of difficult area terrain slightly beyond your deployment zone (again, set locations I just got lazy).

Player 1 wants to hide the majority of their army from the enemy on turn 1, so they pick City Ruins. Player 2 has some heavy fire power and ability to ignore some modifiers so they pick Forest. Both players set up their half of the table exactly as proscribed in the "map" for their choice, and then deploy as usual. Player 1 deploys their army completely hidden behind Obscuring and player 2 deploys their army in the Dense Cover, and then players roll for first turn and play as normal.

Then these "terrain choices" can be another balancing lever. Oh, the "Forest" choice is never picked because it doesn't provide enough hard cover? 2 of the deployment zone pieces have Obscuring now. The City Ruins is picked too much? Remove the Obscuring from the center piece and make it Dense instead.

Other point of comparison: Dust Warfare didn't use preset boards like you describe, but it had a pre-game 'battle builder' system where players took turns spending points to affect the conditions, objectives, and deployment. Each track was one-way, so your opponent couldn't 'buy back' something you put a point into.

Putting points into conditions got you out of night fighting, then adding more brought in radar support (for both players) and then artillery bombardment (same). Putting points into objectives shifted them from holding terrain, to killing the enemy, to assassinating leaders. Putting points into deployment shifted the deployment zones to be closer to one another. This helped to counter one-trick-pony lists- a gunline player could put his points into conditions to get radar, but you could put your points into deployment to start close to his force.

Then you followed competitive terrain placement rules to position the terrain, giving both players control over the layout.

So overall it was a lot easier to deal with a bad matchup, because both players were active participants in pre-game setup. No complaining about getting screwed by RNG because you're the one deciding on the mission and terrain.

not tried Dust Warfare but I like the sound of that as a system

I always see people mention dust having some cool mechanics, but never been able to play it.

That sounds really cool!
I do wish GW would put more things like that in, both in the standard rules and as optional rules.

But reading though the discussion, I do think a huge thing with 40k is bad terrain rules warping the game significantly.
Often written like they have to follow the terrain GW creates, over making good terrain for the game.

Apple fox wrote:
I always see people mention dust having some cool mechanics, but never been able to play it.

That sounds really cool!
I do wish GW would put more things like that in, both in the standard rules and as optional rules.

But reading though the discussion, I do think a huge thing with 40k is bad terrain rules warping the game significantly.
Often written like they have to follow the terrain GW creates, over making good terrain for the game.

quite, the whole "I can see a fraction of an arm through these six ruins, my laser pointer says so, so thats a clear shot" is silly, I get such rules are simple to write though - decent terrain rules are hard, especially if you want "true line of sight" which means you have to have a constant ground scale or you are shooting round corners.

do wish GW would at least try, the LotR "in the way test" idea is good but perhaps cumbersome at 40k game sizes, but even there is not perfect

I can live with the abstraction on maximum ranges with a d6 system, easy to assume under ideal conditions a pistol will fire far further, but under battle conditions thats as far as you can shoot in practice etc.

leopard wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
I always see people mention dust having some cool mechanics, but never been able to play it.

That sounds really cool!
I do wish GW would put more things like that in, both in the standard rules and as optional rules.

But reading though the discussion, I do think a huge thing with 40k is bad terrain rules warping the game significantly.
Often written like they have to follow the terrain GW creates, over making good terrain for the game.

quite, the whole "I can see a fraction of an arm through these six ruins, my laser pointer says so, so thats a clear shot" is silly, I get such rules are simple to write though - decent terrain rules are hard, especially if you want "true line of sight" which means you have to have a constant ground scale or you are shooting round corners.

Decent LoS rules are not difficult to write.

Units can shoot up to X inches into / out of area terrain (any terrain feature with a base), but cannot shoot through it.

In order to perform a shooting attack, a model in the shooting unit must be able to draw LoS on 25% of at least one model's body / mass in the target unit. 25% includes actual physical body parts such as arms, head, torso, legs, ect. Decoration and gear such as banners, swords, guns, capes, and elements of the base (scenery / diorama elements, and the base itself) do not count for the 25%. In simple terms, your models must have a reasonable chance of hitting the enemy in their actual body before they can fire, shooting at their guns and swords has no effect.

Man, it sure must be hard to be a GW rule's writer. Takes five minutes to write better LoS rules which also use the god-awful TLOS system GW has nailed themselves too. If they switched to a sensible system, like models having a tacked on "size", the first draft might take fifteen whole minutes!

Area terrain is good, but I'm not sure I'd consider any percentage-based system that relies on a completely subjective understanding of a 'reasonable chance' better than just binary can you see it yes/no.

 morganfreeman wrote:

Decent LoS rules are not difficult to write.

Units can shoot up to X inches into / out of area terrain (any terrain feature with a base), but cannot shoot through it.

In order to perform a shooting attack, a model in the shooting unit must be able to draw LoS on 25% of at least one model's body / mass in the target unit. 25% includes actual physical body parts such as arms, head, torso, legs, ect. Decoration and gear such as banners, swords, guns, capes, and elements of the base (scenery / diorama elements, and the base itself) do not count for the 25%. In simple terms, your models must have a reasonable chance of hitting the enemy in their actual body before they can fire, shooting at their guns and swords has no effect.

Man, it sure must be hard to be a GW rule's writer. Takes five minutes to write better LoS rules which also use the god-awful TLOS system GW has nailed themselves too. If they switched to a sensible system, like models having a tacked on "size", the first draft might take fifteen whole minutes!

Yea you lose me on the percent. That's where arguments happen.

LOS rules are incredibly tricky. Terrain design itself can help limit edge cases, but that limits terrain design. I've personally gotten to where I prefer ease of determination to any sort of realistic simulation though.

The main area that LOS rules get bogged down in is unit to unit targeting. When position is determined by the position of multiple models at once, there's just not going to be a simple answer.

I will say, I thought the 8th edition cover rules were rather clever, even if they were probably too clever for their own good. Making it so the unit didn't have cover until the models out of cover died creates a cool setup where being in the open means you get picked off first. The problem was entirely in how it only worked due to how saving throws are actually done and how that didn't work with the way people actually play with fast rolls. I think if you had to assign failed saves starting with the highest and working down it would work pretty well in combination with 9ths far more robust terrain rules.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:

Decent LoS rules are not difficult to write.

Units can shoot up to X inches into / out of area terrain (any terrain feature with a base), but cannot shoot through it.

In order to perform a shooting attack, a model in the shooting unit must be able to draw LoS on 25% of at least one model's body / mass in the target unit. 25% includes actual physical body parts such as arms, head, torso, legs, ect. Decoration and gear such as banners, swords, guns, capes, and elements of the base (scenery / diorama elements, and the base itself) do not count for the 25%. In simple terms, your models must have a reasonable chance of hitting the enemy in their actual body before they can fire, shooting at their guns and swords has no effect.

Man, it sure must be hard to be a GW rule's writer. Takes five minutes to write better LoS rules which also use the god-awful TLOS system GW has nailed themselves too. If they switched to a sensible system, like models having a tacked on "size", the first draft might take fifteen whole minutes!

Yea you lose me on the percent. That's where arguments happen.

In reality, writing unambiguous LoS rules is one of the most difficult aspect of rules writing. Even on grids. LoS rules discussions happen not only in wargaming, but also in boardgame community. Some games, like Tannhauser even use pre-defined LoS maps to get rid of typical grid corner problems. But yeah, sure, you have definitely succeeded in writing good LoS rules in 5 minutes. Funnily enough, those are almost exactly 2nd ed 40k LoS rules, which created multiple discussions in almost every game, especially in Necromunda. As Daedalus wrote, 25% of body parts may seem precise enough, but then those body parts are of unequal size, shape and angle. How does your rule treat Toxicrene tentacles? Do you measure exact area of visible tentacles, or treat their silhouette as a solid shape? Are Flyrant wings's membranes an important body part? He has holes sculpted in it anyway, so must be able to fly regardless of some minor damage. Are Jain Zar's hair a body part? Are Tau's huge ass guns or Eldar wraith constructs' fins irrelevant to LoS? Raider's sail? And Yncarne just shrank significantly.

nou wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:

Decent LoS rules are not difficult to write.

Units can shoot up to X inches into / out of area terrain (any terrain feature with a base), but cannot shoot through it.

In order to perform a shooting attack, a model in the shooting unit must be able to draw LoS on 25% of at least one model's body / mass in the target unit. 25% includes actual physical body parts such as arms, head, torso, legs, ect. Decoration and gear such as banners, swords, guns, capes, and elements of the base (scenery / diorama elements, and the base itself) do not count for the 25%. In simple terms, your models must have a reasonable chance of hitting the enemy in their actual body before they can fire, shooting at their guns and swords has no effect.

Man, it sure must be hard to be a GW rule's writer. Takes five minutes to write better LoS rules which also use the god-awful TLOS system GW has nailed themselves too. If they switched to a sensible system, like models having a tacked on "size", the first draft might take fifteen whole minutes!

Yea you lose me on the percent. That's where arguments happen.

In reality, writing unambiguous LoS rules is one of the most difficult aspect of rules writing. Even on grids. LoS rules discussions happen not only in wargaming, but also in boardgame community. Some games, like Tannhauser even use pre-defined LoS maps to get rid of typical grid corner problems. But yeah, sure, you have definitely succeeded in writing good LoS rules in 5 minutes. Funnily enough, those are almost exactly 2nd ed 40k LoS rules, which created multiple discussions in almost every game, especially in Necromunda. As Daedalus wrote, 25% of body parts may seem precise enough, but then those body parts are of unequal size, shape and angle. How does your rule treat Toxicrene tentacles? Do you measure exact area of visible tentacles, or treat their silhouette as a solid shape? Are Flyrant wings's membranes an important body part? He has holes sculpted in it anyway, so must be able to fly regardless of some minor damage. Are Jain Zar's hair a body part? Are Tau's huge ass guns or Eldar wraith constructs' fins irrelevant to LoS? Raider's sail? And Yncarne just shrank significantly.

Those are the LoS rules from 3rd / 4th, at least the bits I recall from memory. I know they’re flawed and I know they cause discussions. I also know that “people will quibble over details on edge cases” isn’t an argument, because that will happen no matter what depending on who’s participating. And most importantly, I know they’re better than the garbage we have now, with tanks unloading their full payload from an antenna into some dudes sword.

Obviously the better solution is to move to model sizing as a concept and just having los be an upward projection from the base, but we’re clearly not going to ever get that in 40k.

4th actually had model and terrain sizes, but the downside is that they only ranged from 1-3.

A 1-5 system would have been better imo.