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.

 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.

And yet people are completly fine with fixed boards and by extention listtailoring torwards that.

At the end of the day for a wargame 40k has some serious meh deployment rules

have certainly seen much better deployment systems beyond "side A deploys, then side B deploys" or "deploy alternating units" which seems as adventurous as GW gets

Chain of Command essentially makes a side game out of deployment with its "patrol phase" I think its called, perhaps a bit too complex for 40k (CoC has fewer units)

GW at least have tried to shake it up a bit by moving away from "you deploy 12" back from the centreline" with the various deployment areas though, which helps with the terrain issues slightly as well

I think GW though have the approach of "get into the action as soon as possible" and as such anything that slows that down is avoided or left to the players to work out for themselves

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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.

Actual usable terrain for w40k has those two. Everything or the majority size of terrain is an L shaped wall at least as high as an imperial knight. So we are kind of a playing in a world where all terrain is size 3 as are all vehicles.

leopard wrote:
have certainly seen much better deployment systems beyond "side A deploys, then side B deploys" or "deploy alternating units" which seems as adventurous as GW gets

Chain of Command essentially makes a side game out of deployment with its "patrol phase" I think its called, perhaps a bit too complex for 40k (CoC has fewer units)

GW at least have tried to shake it up a bit by moving away from "you deploy 12" back from the centreline" with the various deployment areas though, which helps with the terrain issues slightly as well

I think GW though have the approach of "get into the action as soon as possible" and as such anything that slows that down is avoided or left to the players to work out for themselves

You know what game had a great deployment system? Wrath of Kings.

It was alternating, but you had a deployment area of 20", split into four, 5" zones labelled A (0"-5") through D (15"-20").

Unit cards denoted which deployment zone a model could be placed in. A unit labelled A could only be placed in the first zone, but a unit labelled D could be deployed anywhere in that 20".

Players alternated deployment, starting with zone A, then B, then C, then D. Unit type usually determined what kind of deployment zone then could go in. Slower, more heavily armored units would generally be zones A or B, while lighter, skirmishing troops were in C or D.

Conquest uses something similar, in that your whole army doesn't show up on the first turn, only the lighter/faster elements, and as the game goes on the heavier stuff arrives later. When those units do show up they can either come on from your table edge or from the side, but no farther forwards than your units have already reached.

It gives incentive to take units that might not be the most effective on the table, but a mediocre unit on the table is more useful than a great unit still in reserve, and can scout forwards to allow that great unit to come in at a more useful location.

Deployment, terrain, and objectives are areas where 40K is still very old-school in its approach.

 catbarf wrote:
Conquest uses something similar, in that your whole army doesn't show up on the first turn, only the lighter/faster elements, and as the game goes on the heavier stuff arrives later. When those units do show up they can either come on from your table edge or from the side, but no farther forwards than your units have already reached.

It gives incentive to take units that might not be the most effective on the table, but a mediocre unit on the table is more useful than a great unit still in reserve, and can scout forwards to allow that great unit to come in at a more useful location.

Deployment, terrain, and objectives are areas where 40K is still very old-school in its approach.

This sort of force escalation was actually a feature in older 40k editions. There were a number of mission types where an army would only start with a few units on the field, and everything else came in through Reserves. Those were honestly some of my favorite 40k games.

something GW have done, to their considerable credit, in recent 40k versions is break the player base from "we only play scenario #1 and you can't use any of this long list of banned items"

had some of the campaign stuff in 5th edition, the battle missions, cities of death (way better when you ignored the FAQ that said ignore the terrain bits as they were waaay better than 5th edition) etc - rocking horse droppings getting anyone to actually play any but were great fun

its something they could really mess about with, even vary by faction maybe - say maybe a fast moving force can force a weird deployment catching the enemy off guard, a slower force having fewer options

The only real issue I have with tournaments is that they were often used to excuse unbalanced army compositions.

Back in the day, one would encounter varying levels of spam, and the near-universal response was: "Well, if that used that in a tournament, they'd be crushed."

The clear assumption was that tournaments (and their restrictions) were the most pure and balanced form of 40k and pick-up games were lesser affairs.

I played in a couple local tournaments and didn't get a lot out of it. I prefer narrative games and I think 40k is a pretty terrible engine to try to set up a test of skill. Indeed, I don't know what skill tournaments are really testing - tactics or army composition? I think the latter is often more important.

Maybe they should save time and just have people submit lists.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
The only real issue I have with tournaments is that they were often used to excuse unbalanced army compositions.

Back in the day, one would encounter varying levels of spam, and the near-universal response was: "Well, if that used that in a tournament, they'd be crushed."

The clear assumption was that tournaments (and their restrictions) were the most pure and balanced form of 40k and pick-up games were lesser affairs.

I played in a couple local tournaments and didn't get a lot out of it. I prefer narrative games and I think 40k is a pretty terrible engine to try to set up a test of skill. Indeed, I don't know what skill tournaments are really testing - tactics or army composition? I think the latter is often more important.

Maybe they should save time and just have people submit lists.

If spamming Land Raiders was what brought your opponent happiness and the rules allowed it and it wasn't banned or discouraged in the core rules then what was the problem? It's on you to communicate before the game that you'd like to play against a list that isn't spammy and indeed if your reasoning was "because it's too strong" when it in fact wasn't too strong then your opponent will feel unfairly targeted and could fairly point out that your argument does not make sense because it is not a strong list and it would get crushed at tournaments. If you made it clear that you enjoyed the look or feel of the game more with varied or perhaps even highlander lists then your opponent could either accommodate you or not accommodate you, but your opponents did not have any reason why they ought to accommodate you as opposed to the opposite, spamming isn't inherently wrong, even in casual settings. Where else can somebody spam their bad units?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
The only real issue I have with tournaments is that they were often used to excuse unbalanced army compositions.

Back in the day, one would encounter varying levels of spam, and the near-universal response was: "Well, if that used that in a tournament, they'd be crushed."

The clear assumption was that tournaments (and their restrictions) were the most pure and balanced form of 40k and pick-up games were lesser affairs.

I played in a couple local tournaments and didn't get a lot out of it. I prefer narrative games and I think 40k is a pretty terrible engine to try to set up a test of skill. Indeed, I don't know what skill tournaments are really testing - tactics or army composition? I think the latter is often more important.

Maybe they should save time and just have people submit lists.

For army lists in 9th spam like that of yore is pretty rare.

I have no idea how spammy 10th will be, but rule of 3 is still in effect.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

For army lists in 9th spam like that of yore is pretty rare.

I have no idea how spammy 10th will be, but rule of 3 is still in effect.

My language was imprecise. I didn't mean spam in particular, but rather heavily-optimized lists designed to wreck all-comers forces.

The obvious solution is to curate one's opponents, which is what I do now (playing an obsolete edition is helpful in this respect). However, back when I was young and carefree, showing up for pick-up games, you had folks that figured an angle that gave them enough of an edge to make the game a foregone conclusion.

And the response I got when criticizing this mode of play was often "well, that person will pay if they use that list in a tournament."

It's interesting to note that one of the reasons I didn't have that experience in 2nd ed. was that the psyker system was so labor-intensive that people had lists with them and without them. Around these parts, if you wanted to play, that was one of the questions asked and people typically had both lists on hand.

I think that level of interactivity led to more interesting games. With the onset of 3rd, I did see people openly treating games as "tournament prep."

That being said, I think 40k has much bigger problems.

The only negative impact I’ve had from tournament gaming?

1. Poor losers who picked up on some bad habits from That Guy.

2. Opponent insisting every game they played was tournament practice, so certain additional rules had to be in play.

On the second one? Just…give me notice, and a copy of said rules. I might be game, because variety is good, and I may find a new cunning way to use my force which I can apply elsewhere. But don’t just spring it on me.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The only negative impact I’ve had from tournament gaming?

1. Poor losers who picked up on some bad habits from That Guy.

2. Opponent insisting every game they played was tournament practice, so certain additional rules had to be in play.

On the second one? Just…give me notice, and a copy of said rules. I might be game, because variety is good, and I may find a new cunning way to use my force which I can apply elsewhere. But don’t just spring it on me.

What do you think the default should be?

The base game, easy as that.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
2. Opponent insisting every game they played was tournament practice, so certain additional rules had to be in play.

That's the one that drives me nuts. Even in friendly games "Oh, do you mind if I bring my [Latest Netdeck Tournament Flavour-Of-The-Month List with scarcely constructed miniatures]". To the narrative event day I planned? To the thing I planned where I specifically said "This isn't a tournament, please don't bring special characters!"? Sure...



Oh and I concede: There is a place for symmetrical terrain. On a themed board.



(It's far from finished, but you get the idea. )

Bringing a competitive list to a casual event or game night is something you see in every hobby, even the ones without tournaments. Like the MTG Elder Dragon Highlander format, maybe someone comes from a group where more competitive (deck)lists are the norm. Maybe the player is just stupid. I'd say it's a win if the player at least has the wherewithal to know that they should ask first and then you're free to say no.

Racerguy180 wrote:
The base game, easy as that.

What is the base game? Only War mission? It's not balanced at all and skew isn't disincentivised, sounds like a bad plan to me.

 vict0988 wrote:
Bringing a competitive list to a casual event or game night is something you see in every hobby, even the ones without tournaments. Like the MTG Elder Dragon Highlander format, maybe someone comes from a group where more competitive (deck)lists are the norm. Maybe the player is just stupid. I'd say it's a win if the player at least has the wherewithal to know that they should ask first and then you're free to say no.

Racerguy180 wrote:
The base game, easy as that.

What is the base game? Only War mission? It's not balanced at all and skew isn't disincentivised, sounds like a bad plan to me.

Whatever you think skew is, it isn't disincentivized in current the tourney pack (AoO) anyways. Or any of the previous ones.....

 vict0988 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The only negative impact I’ve had from tournament gaming?

1. Poor losers who picked up on some bad habits from That Guy.

2. Opponent insisting every game they played was tournament practice, so certain additional rules had to be in play.

On the second one? Just…give me notice, and a copy of said rules. I might be game, because variety is good, and I may find a new cunning way to use my force which I can apply elsewhere. But don’t just spring it on me.

What do you think the default should be?

Whatever is in the rulebook is your Common Denominator. That’s something every player will have access to, and experience of.

I am not against House Rules however. Often they can be consensus based fixes to wonky rules or odd situations, pre-agreed to keep games moving. And some, but not all, Tournament Rules are doing the same thing there. All I ask is prior notice. Rules from outside of the core rulebook should never hit the opponent as a “Gotcha”. Ever. And yes, that extends to officially published variants, such as Zone Mortalis or Boarding Action. Because different missions/game types encourage different types of units. If I’ve gone for a mechanised army because I Effing Love My Tanks, don’t insist on a City Fight at the last minute. If I’ve brought that list to a pre-agreed City Fight, the problem it causes for my army is entirely of my own making.

 vict0988 wrote:
Bringing a competitive list to a casual event or game night is something you see in every hobby, even the ones without tournaments. Like the MTG Elder Dragon Highlander format, maybe someone comes from a group where more competitive (deck)lists are the norm. Maybe the player is just stupid. I'd say it's a win if the player at least has the wherewithal to know that they should ask first and then you're free to say no.

Racerguy180 wrote:
The base game, easy as that.

What is the base game? Only War mission? It's not balanced at all and skew isn't disincentivised, sounds like a bad plan to me.

I have never had a problem with the eternal War missions in the Core rules other than hearing tournament players complain about I think it was the scoring or something like that. Whatever it was, I'm pretty sure it's only a problem to hypercompetitive tournament players.

But now in my opinion the matched play rules in the core rulebook should be the expected default unless otherwise specified. Instead what you find is everyone assumes the GT pack is what everyone is using unless you say you're not.

ccs wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Bringing a competitive list to a casual event or game night is something you see in every hobby, even the ones without tournaments. Like the MTG Elder Dragon Highlander format, maybe someone comes from a group where more competitive (deck)lists are the norm. Maybe the player is just stupid. I'd say it's a win if the player at least has the wherewithal to know that they should ask first and then you're free to say no.

Racerguy180 wrote:
The base game, easy as that.

What is the base game? Only War mission? It's not balanced at all and skew isn't disincentivised, sounds like a bad plan to me.

Whatever you think skew is, it isn't disincentivized in current the tourney pack (AoO) anyways. Or any of the previous ones.....

Assassination, Bring it Down, Abhor the Witch and No Prisoners are examples of rules that punish skew in AoO.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The only negative impact I’ve had from tournament gaming?

1. Poor losers who picked up on some bad habits from That Guy.

2. Opponent insisting every game they played was tournament practice, so certain additional rules had to be in play.

On the second one? Just…give me notice, and a copy of said rules. I might be game, because variety is good, and I may find a new cunning way to use my force which I can apply elsewhere. But don’t just spring it on me.

What do you think the default should be?

Whatever is in the rulebook is your Common Denominator. That’s something every player will have access to, and experience of.

I am not against House Rules however. Often they can be consensus based fixes to wonky rules or odd situations, pre-agreed to keep games moving. And some, but not all, Tournament Rules are doing the same thing there. All I ask is prior notice. Rules from outside of the core rulebook should never hit the opponent as a “Gotcha”. Ever. And yes, that extends to officially published variants, such as Zone Mortalis or Boarding Action. Because different missions/game types encourage different types of units. If I’ve gone for a mechanised army because I Effing Love My Tanks, don’t insist on a City Fight at the last minute. If I’ve brought that list to a pre-agreed City Fight, the problem it causes for my army is entirely of my own making.

I think you're leaving balance on the table by not using the missions which the current pts costs were assigned according to. I find it more likely that your tanks are going to get into a very unfair match (in either direction) when playing a format for which their points costs were not assigned. To me, it just makes sense that the default is the most balanced mission pack because that's how you get the highest possible number of fair and fun games in the hobby. If you don't have the newest mission rules I think you are the one who should be making notice of that so you can play an outdated core rules mission set, kind of like if you're bringing the old Ghazzy model or Legends units. You should be able to play with your miniatures for a long time, but some rules are going to go bad and you should expect pts and missions to be updated often so we can all have fun and not just the matchups between factions and units in the same tier of competitiveness.

Wayniac wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Bringing a competitive list to a casual event or game night is something you see in every hobby, even the ones without tournaments. Like the MTG Elder Dragon Highlander format, maybe someone comes from a group where more competitive (deck)lists are the norm. Maybe the player is just stupid. I'd say it's a win if the player at least has the wherewithal to know that they should ask first and then you're free to say no.

Racerguy180 wrote:
The base game, easy as that.

What is the base game? Only War mission? It's not balanced at all and skew isn't disincentivised, sounds like a bad plan to me.

I have never had a problem with the eternal War missions in the Core rules other than hearing tournament players complain about I think it was the scoring or something like that. Whatever it was, I'm pretty sure it's only a problem to hypercompetitive tournament players.

But now in my opinion the matched play rules in the core rulebook should be the expected default unless otherwise specified. Instead what you find is everyone assumes the GT pack is what everyone is using unless you say you're not.

I'm sure you saved quite a bit of money and reading, it's nice that you've been able to enjoy those missions all of 9th edition. I don't know if you tried any of the GT mission packs but in my opinion they're very similar, they could just have been errata. Of course everyone has their own opinions as well, there was a podcast once where two people discussed the Eternal War missions and they both mentioned that they hated one of the missions, they both assumed they were talking about the same one, but they weren't. Maybe I'm wrong and the GT missions are good enough or perhaps even flawless. I think it'd be great if GW could make a mission set that 90% of people thought was good enough, but Eternal War probably isn't going to be it because it's secondaries are too complicated for a lot of casual players.

To be honest I was always somewhat confused by the attempt to differentiate between casual lists and competitive lists.

Admittedly it was easier in 6th-7th when lists that tried to break the game were very blatant (e.g. screamer star or aircraft spam).

But not all competitive lists are necessary unfluffy. I don't see what was unfluffy about an IG parking lot list in 5th, or nidzilla lists and deathwing lists in 9th.

 vict0988 wrote:

ccs wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Bringing a competitive list to a casual event or game night is something you see in every hobby, even the ones without tournaments. Like the MTG Elder Dragon Highlander format, maybe someone comes from a group where more competitive (deck)lists are the norm. Maybe the player is just stupid. I'd say it's a win if the player at least has the wherewithal to know that they should ask first and then you're free to say no.

Racerguy180 wrote:
The base game, easy as that.

What is the base game? Only War mission? It's not balanced at all and skew isn't disincentivised, sounds like a bad plan to me.

Whatever you think skew is, it isn't disincentivized in current the tourney pack (AoO) anyways. Or any of the previous ones.....

Assassination, Bring it Down, Abhor the Witch and No Prisoners are examples of rules that punish skew in AoO.

The opponent being able to pick optimal secondaries is hardly a deterrent. If Bring It Down was? Then you'd never see a Knights list.

Being able to max out secondaries vs GK, no matter what you do, assuming you are trying to play and win the game, was not fun the entire edition. It forced the army in to a trade game, and as soon as nerfs and creep cought up with GK, their best armies weren't very effficient. And their not tournament optimised builds even less so.

People either use the GT missions or the ToW missions over the core rules because they both have fewer issues than the core ones.

Not only that but a lot of more casual players prefer AoO because of the detachment rules. You can argue that you can just slot the detachment rules from that into the core missions, but then that still isn't playing the core missions and is still homebrew that has to be organised and agreed upon beforehand.

Let's also not forget that the GT packs have all of the rules within them, in a much smaller booklet than the concrete block that is the main rule book.

ccs wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

ccs wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Bringing a competitive list to a casual event or game night is something you see in every hobby, even the ones without tournaments. Like the MTG Elder Dragon Highlander format, maybe someone comes from a group where more competitive (deck)lists are the norm. Maybe the player is just stupid. I'd say it's a win if the player at least has the wherewithal to know that they should ask first and then you're free to say no.

Racerguy180 wrote:
The base game, easy as that.

What is the base game? Only War mission? It's not balanced at all and skew isn't disincentivised, sounds like a bad plan to me.

Whatever you think skew is, it isn't disincentivized in current the tourney pack (AoO) anyways. Or any of the previous ones.....

Assassination, Bring it Down, Abhor the Witch and No Prisoners are examples of rules that punish skew in AoO.

The opponent being able to pick optimal secondaries is hardly a deterrent. If Bring It Down was? Then you'd never see a Knights list.

If laws deterred crime there would be no criminals.

 Bosskelot wrote:
People either use the GT missions or the ToW missions over the core rules because they both have fewer issues than the core ones.

Not only that but a lot of more casual players prefer AoO because of the detachment rules. You can argue that you can just slot the detachment rules from that into the core missions, but then that still isn't playing the core missions and is still homebrew that has to be organised and agreed upon beforehand.

Let's also not forget that the GT packs have all of the rules within them, in a much smaller booklet than the concrete block that is the main rule book.

This is actually a good point, and makes it even stupider that the GT book tends to sell out instantly and not even be reprinted, so like you literally CANNOT get it after pre-order despite it being intended for gaming.

ToW I think is great, probably the better of the two, because having SOME randomness encourages you to build more well-rounded lists, something that tournament play desperately needs again.

 vict0988 wrote:

Assassination, Bring it Down, Abhor the Witch and No Prisoners are examples of rules that punish skew in AoO.

oh sure, its not like the factions that would give max points on those just accept it and play these lists anyway.

I'm not about to bring tzaangors instead of marines in my thousand sons
I'm not about to not bring my sorcerers in my thousand sons
I'm not about to not bring vehicles in my admech



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

If laws deterred crime there would be no criminals.

get over yourself, this is a wargame with varied factions that play differently, just because one book is written to spam a certain type of unit doesn't suddenly make it a crime, wtf kind of comparison is that

On the different missions? Remember prior notice and agreement is all I ask. Don’t go springing surprises on me, or assume I’ll have the relevant book or file with that mission and it’s rules.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

If laws deterred crime there would be no criminals.

get over yourself, this is a wargame with varied factions that play differently, just because one book is written to spam a certain type of unit doesn't suddenly make it a crime, wtf kind of comparison is that

I think they just mean that those anti-skew secondaries don't prevent skew on their own.

I try to make it more difficult for someone to max out on me, but it doesn't stop me from taking multiple psyker characters.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

If laws deterred crime there would be no criminals.

get over yourself, this is a wargame with varied factions that play differently, just because one book is written to spam a certain type of unit doesn't suddenly make it a crime, wtf kind of comparison is that

I think they just mean that those anti-skew secondaries don't prevent skew on their own.

I try to make it more difficult for someone to max out on me, but it doesn't stop me from taking multiple psyker characters.

as i said, the game has too many diverse factions for these secondaries to be meaningful.