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.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


I take issue with it for two reasons:

1) There is simply no reason for them to exist. They add nothing to the game and are still completely disconnected from everything else.

2) Even if there aren't as many of them (at once) as there are currently, they still take up significant amounts of design space that could be much better spent on other, more tangible options. The detachment rules fit on 4 pages. But 2 entire pages are devoted exclusively to stratagems. So that's half the design space for every faction completely devoured by these detestable things.

Stratagems are bolted-on additions to simulate a tactical and strategic depth the basic rules are not able to actually depict and display on the table - your e.g. Leadership mechanics do not allow for representation of units that have a particularly dogged determination, or insane courage, or are raving lunatics only intent on careless slaughter, so you need your tacked-on bits to show that (and also to spell it out for the dum-dums). Similar for Ambushes, Flank moves, Good Logistics and so on. They 'need' Stratagems in the same amount that they dumbed down and simplified the actual rules, and they need it to placate people with no imagination that need everything spelled out and decorated with flashing lights.

This.

So much this.

Strats and the "Every unit gets a special rule" thing smack so much of CCG type design. CCGs have to lean into that sort of thing because they don't deal with an actual battlespace representation where positioning or firing lanes can matter. But in 40k, a game with an actual battlespace and terrain, should be leaning into that more with geometric tactics like flanking, screening and crossfire mechanics. But those tactical relationships are harder to verbalize so I guess get less attention from a game company that makes money by printing rules and selling models.

 Insectum7 wrote:
This.

So much this.

Strats and the "Every unit gets a special rule" thing smack so much of CCG type design. CCGs have to lean into that sort of thing because they don't deal with an actual battlespace representation where positioning or firing lanes can matter. But in 40k, a game with an actual battlespace and terrain, should be leaning into that more with geometric tactics like flanking, screening and crossfire mechanics. But those tactical relationships are harder to verbalize so I guess get less attention from a game company that makes money by printing rules and selling models.

The rules in these datasheets have never represented more the effects of models in a 3d space than in any system for 40K prior.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The rules in these datasheets have never represented more the effects of models in a 3d space than in any system for 40K prior.

"If you kill a unit with shooting, fire again!" (Sternguard)

I'll take decent armor facing, crossfire, and morale rules over all of it, any day.

The GSC crossfire rules were neat in theory, but didn't work well in practice. In a skirmish game it'd make more sense, because otherwise everything needs to be fast. Alternatively you can make it so nothing dies without a crossfire situation, but then you need to drastically reduce model count. And then the army with the most deepstrike wins that dynamic.

I'd consider these morale rules pretty decent. Many abilities key off of objectives and others based on enemy movement. You'll still have very straightforward things, but there's nothing wrong with that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The GSC crossfire rules were neat in theory, but didn't work well in practice. In a skirmish game it'd make more sense, because otherwise everything needs to be fast. Alternatively you can make it so nothing dies without a crossfire situation, but then you need to drastically reduce model count. And then the army with the most deepstrike wins that dynamic.

I'd consider these morale rules pretty decent. Many abilities key off of objectives and others based on enemy movement. You'll still have very straightforward things, but there's nothing wrong with that.

Who says any crossfire rules have to be implemented the same way that GSC did them? You're a jiu-jitsu master at the "can't be done any different" mentality.

Let's just agree to disagree.

I'm sure there's many ways to skin the cat. I just think 40K fits in a weird scale that makes some things a little more difficult to do without losing other aspects. And we can see what happens when people feel like they are losing things.

I enjoyed stuff like vehicle facings, but they work better in something like Bolt Action where a tank is smaller than dreadnought and square. I'm content to watch 40K find its own path rather than being something it might not be good at.

Dakka - OMG Combi-weapons have a combined profile. Where am options?

Also Dakka - OMG every unit has something unique rules wise you children born out of wedlock.

Also Dakka - OMG I don't understand any nuance!

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm sure there's many ways to skin the cat. I just think 40K fits in a weird scale that makes some things a little more difficult to do without losing other aspects. And we can see what happens when people feel like they are losing things.

I enjoyed stuff like vehicle facings, but they work better in something like Bolt Action where a tank is smaller than dreadnought and square. I'm content to watch 40K find its own path rather than being something it might not be good at.

40K got along just fine with vehicle facings for decades. There are also ways one could increase clarity if you needed it. The idea that vehicle facings is something "40K can't be good at" seems pretty out of place.

"And we can see what happens when people feel like they are losing things." Seems to me to highly dependent on what's lost. I don't see any tears over consolidated Bolt-Rifles.

Daed, you've gone from 'these rules better represent positioning than any edition before' to 'these rules don't represent positioning like older editions but it's for the best really' in four posts.

I'd like to see mechanics like facing, flanking, crossfire, and other wargame staples represented in a scale-appropriate manner. Yes, it can be done- for example, Flames of War made facings work and that's a larger-scale game than 40K.

Tying those concepts to arbitrary units as special abilities, or as once-per-turn stratagems running off an ephemeral resource like Command Points ('sir, that squad over there just struck first in combat! we don't have enough points left to fire the smoke launchers!') reeks of the CCG-esque design Insectum was talking about. It's playable, it adds depth that wouldn't exist if the mechanics were just gone wholesale, but there are ways to write these concepts into the core rules in a more holistic and less tacked on and game-y manner.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm sure there's many ways to skin the cat. I just think 40K fits in a weird scale that makes some things a little more difficult to do without losing other aspects. And we can see what happens when people feel like they are losing things.

I enjoyed stuff like vehicle facings, but they work better in something like Bolt Action where a tank is smaller than dreadnought and square. I'm content to watch 40K find its own path rather than being something it might not be good at.

40K got along just fine with vehicle facings for decades. There are also ways one could increase clarity if you needed it. The idea that vehicle facings is something "40K can't be good at" seems pretty out of place.

"And we can see what happens when people feel like they are losing things." Seems to me to highly dependent on what's lost. I don't see any tears over consolidated Bolt-Rifles.

I don't remember who said it and in which of the many 10th edition thread, but it was recently and the quote was something like 'It looks like GW listened to some complaints and is acting on them, but without understanding why people make these complaints, so they consolidate all over the place and remove stuff like varied CC weapons or Combiweapons, because they did not understand what people found annoying about twenty different Bolt Rifles'

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm sure there's many ways to skin the cat. I just think 40K fits in a weird scale that makes some things a little more difficult to do without losing other aspects. And we can see what happens when people feel like they are losing things.

I enjoyed stuff like vehicle facings, but they work better in something like Bolt Action where a tank is smaller than dreadnought and square. I'm content to watch 40K find its own path rather than being something it might not be good at.

40K got along just fine with vehicle facings for decades. There are also ways one could increase clarity if you needed it. The idea that vehicle facings is something "40K can't be good at" seems pretty out of place.

"And we can see what happens when people feel like they are losing things." Seems to me to highly dependent on what's lost. I don't see any tears over consolidated Bolt-Rifles.

I don't remember who said it and in which of the many 10th edition thread, but it was recently and the quote was something like 'It looks like GW listened to some complaints and is acting on them, but without understanding why people make these complaints, so they consolidate all over the place and remove stuff like varied CC weapons or Combiweapons, because they did not understand what people found annoying about twenty different Bolt Rifles'

That's EXACTLY what it feels like.

Full disclosure, I work in the games (video games) industry, and I've seen this happen all the time. It's infuriating. Sometimes it just so happens that those in power have only the most superficial understanding of the design (admittedly sometimes just because their attention is elsewhere), and the solutions given to a problem show that lack of understanding.

 catbarf wrote:
Daed, you've gone from 'these rules better represent positioning than any edition before' to 'these rules don't represent positioning like older editions but it's for the best really' in four posts.

I'd like to see mechanics like facing, flanking, crossfire, and other wargame staples represented in a scale-appropriate manner. Yes, it can be done- for example, Flames of War made facings work and that's a larger-scale game than 40K.

Tying those concepts to arbitrary units as special abilities, or as once-per-turn stratagems running off an ephemeral resource like Command Points ('sir, that squad over there just struck first in combat! we don't have enough points left to fire the smoke launchers!') reeks of the CCG-esque design Insectum was talking about. It's playable, it adds depth that wouldn't exist if the mechanics were just gone wholesale, but there are ways to write these concepts into the core rules in a more holistic and less tacked on and game-y manner.

Because you're trying to make me say something I didn't. Facings and templates were fun, but they didn't create wildly more tactical dynamic. In practice it resulted in tanks parking into a corner or someone just gambling on a deepstrike instead of actually moving tactically. A FoW tank is like 1.25" x 2" and moves 10" to 20". A Rhino is 3" x 4.5" and moves 10". The geometry is not in favor of making that work. Especially not when you generally don't have units appearing from orbit in FoW.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Daed, you've gone from 'these rules better represent positioning than any edition before' to 'these rules don't represent positioning like older editions but it's for the best really' in four posts.

I'd like to see mechanics like facing, flanking, crossfire, and other wargame staples represented in a scale-appropriate manner. Yes, it can be done- for example, Flames of War made facings work and that's a larger-scale game than 40K.

Tying those concepts to arbitrary units as special abilities, or as once-per-turn stratagems running off an ephemeral resource like Command Points ('sir, that squad over there just struck first in combat! we don't have enough points left to fire the smoke launchers!') reeks of the CCG-esque design Insectum was talking about. It's playable, it adds depth that wouldn't exist if the mechanics were just gone wholesale, but there are ways to write these concepts into the core rules in a more holistic and less tacked on and game-y manner.

Because you're trying to make me say something I didn't. Facings and templates were fun, but they didn't create wildly more tactical dynamic. In practice it resulted in tanks parking into a corner or someone just gambling on a deepstrike instead of actually moving tactically. A FoW tank is like 1.25" x 2" and moves 10" to 20". A Rhino is 3" x 4.5" and moves 10". The geometry is not in favor of making that work. Especially not when you generally don't have units appearing from orbit in FoW.

40k tables are too small and too crowded to represent a lot of the units that are available in a 'realistic' way anyway - transports are barely useful on a tactical scale, flyers are ridiculuous, and even some infantry units can basically cross a table in two turns. Strategy-level mobility like deepstrike insertions, airdrops, drop pods etc. are things that make much more sense on e.g. EPIC scale or even smaller scales, for 40k a lot of that is just windowdressing. Same goes for infiltrators, scouts and flanking, it just does not really matter. As does, for example, range on artillery, because these are ridiculously short and due to the crowded tables there's no safe backfield for it anyway. And so on, and so on. It's a skirmish-scale game wearing company- and increasingly battalion-level combat as a too-wide skinsuit.

If they doubled move speeds and cut models and weapon ranges in half you could probably make it work, but that's a whole different game. The models are just so comparatively huge to all the other games I play.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Daed, you've gone from 'these rules better represent positioning than any edition before' to 'these rules don't represent positioning like older editions but it's for the best really' in four posts.

I'd like to see mechanics like facing, flanking, crossfire, and other wargame staples represented in a scale-appropriate manner. Yes, it can be done- for example, Flames of War made facings work and that's a larger-scale game than 40K.

Tying those concepts to arbitrary units as special abilities, or as once-per-turn stratagems running off an ephemeral resource like Command Points ('sir, that squad over there just struck first in combat! we don't have enough points left to fire the smoke launchers!') reeks of the CCG-esque design Insectum was talking about. It's playable, it adds depth that wouldn't exist if the mechanics were just gone wholesale, but there are ways to write these concepts into the core rules in a more holistic and less tacked on and game-y manner.

Because you're trying to make me say something I didn't. Facings and templates were fun, but they didn't create wildly more tactical dynamic. In practice it resulted in tanks parking into a corner or someone just gambling on a deepstrike instead of actually moving tactically. A FoW tank is like 1.25" x 2" and moves 10" to 20". A Rhino is 3" x 4.5" and moves 10". The geometry is not in favor of making that work. Especially not when you generally don't have units appearing from orbit in FoW.

Well it's nice that you can project your play experience upon everyone else like that.

I found flanking to be incredibly useful, as well as attacking weaker rear armor in Assault. It also added an extra area for army differentiation, where Imperial vehicles usually had to really protect their flanks, while the Eldar Vehicles had a much narrower weak area to the rear, combined with the maneuverability and weapons (S6 Shuriken Catapults and Scatter Lasers vs. Imperial S5 Heavy Bolters as secondary weapons) to make them intrinsically better at flanking attacks to begin with.

What's that? Simple core rules and stats to help differentiate forces without the requirement of bespoke special rules? Nonsense I say! Inconceivable!!! Waghghg!!!

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm sure there's many ways to skin the cat. I just think 40K fits in a weird scale that makes some things a little more difficult to do without losing other aspects. And we can see what happens when people feel like they are losing things.

I enjoyed stuff like vehicle facings, but they work better in something like Bolt Action where a tank is smaller than dreadnought and square.

So please explain why vehicle facings:
A) worked for decades before 8e,
B) currently work for square tanks in one game (Bolt Action, 30k/HH, etc) but not in 40k.

Tsagualsa wrote:

40k tables are too small and too crowded to represent a lot of the units that are available in a 'realistic' way anyway - transports are barely useful on a tactical scale, flyers are ridiculuous, and even some infantry units can basically cross a table in two turns. Strategy-level mobility like deepstrike insertions, airdrops, drop pods etc. are things that make much more sense on e.g. EPIC scale or even smaller scales, for 40k a lot of that is just windowdressing. Same goes for infiltrators, scouts and flanking, it just does not really matter. As does, for example, range on artillery, because these are ridiculously short and due to the crowded tables there's no safe backfield for it anyway. And so on, and so on. It's a skirmish-scale game wearing company- and increasingly battalion-level combat as a too-wide skinsuit.

Trransports are very rule dependent. Do you remember the parking lot deployments of 5th edition? That's a clear example of a time when transports had a very obvious tactical use.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
If they doubled move speeds and cut models and weapon ranges in half you could probably make it work, but that's a whole different game. The models are just so comparatively huge to all the other games I play.

Remember when Rapid Fire weapons only shot out to 12" on the move in most cases? It's almost like some sort of ranges cut in half situation. . . . And how in the same era there were larger tables, smaller base sizes and fewer superheavy-esque models to be seen in armies? Or even in 2nd edition where vehicles could move really fast?

It's like the both of you are just partially describing earlier editions of 40K. Haha.

 catbarf wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
But you are the one posting about "commanders no longer doing anything to actually command their army", which hasn't really been a thing for basically any army but Guard as long as I've been playing?

Yeah, 're-roll 1s to hit within 6 inches' is such a boringly shallow concept of command/leadership that absolutely nothing of value is lost in ditching it.

If people want commanders to command, maybe there should be stratagems tied to characters (on the character's datasheet), so you only have access to the strat if the relevant character is on the field. Heck, it's already called command points.

This.

The frustrating thing is that there already existed abilities that could have easily been repurposed like this (e.g. Swarmlord allowing a unit to move again instead of shooting).

Instead, it feels like we're left with the worst of all worlds.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Strats and the "Every unit gets a special rule" thing smack so much of CCG type design. CCGs have to lean into that sort of thing because they don't deal with an actual battlespace representation where positioning or firing lanes can matter. But in 40k, a game with an actual battlespace and terrain, should be leaning into that more with geometric tactics like flanking, screening and crossfire mechanics. But those tactical relationships are harder to verbalize so I guess get less attention from a game company that makes money by printing rules and selling models.

I think the real disconnect is because so many stratagems are things that make no sense as limited-use abilities. Like Transhuman Physiology. How exactly is a strat affecting this? Shouldn't a model's physiology be active at all times, for obvious reasons? And why does one space marine unit's physiology make every other space marine's physiology worse?

Given the current stratagem rules, it really seems like they should be representing stuff like Orbital Bombardments or bombing runs. i.e. effects originating from units that aren't represented on the battlefield. Or else to summon reinforcements in some way.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

40k tables are too small and too crowded to represent a lot of the units that are available in a 'realistic' way anyway - transports are barely useful on a tactical scale, flyers are ridiculuous, and even some infantry units can basically cross a table in two turns. Strategy-level mobility like deepstrike insertions, airdrops, drop pods etc. are things that make much more sense on e.g. EPIC scale or even smaller scales, for 40k a lot of that is just windowdressing. Same goes for infiltrators, scouts and flanking, it just does not really matter. As does, for example, range on artillery, because these are ridiculously short and due to the crowded tables there's no safe backfield for it anyway. And so on, and so on. It's a skirmish-scale game wearing company- and increasingly battalion-level combat as a too-wide skinsuit.

Trransports are very rule dependent. Do you remember the parking lot deployments of 5th edition? That's a clear example of a time when transports had a very obvious tactical use.

Yeah, but not in transporting units In other editions they had their uses as carriers for seeker missiles, as moveable cover, to bring suicide assault squads over the table in one turn by turboboosting and so on, but rarely did they actually do what their name and background suggested.

But anyway, that's more of a general critique and not specifically a problem of 10th, other than by the general trend of it getting worse over time because units and models get larger and larger and occupy ever more of the table.

I remember when the "standard" table was 8x4 in my area, which is great for a plodding wargame that you play for hours and hours in a garage. Bolters being 12" most of the time doesn't really solve the problem ( The Lord of Change was mostly smaller than a Dreadnought ). We could discuss the pros and cons of lots of stuff from older editions and neither of us will be convinced.

Lots of people also talk about AA being the right solution for 40K, but I'm unconvinced of that ( though the stuff they've changed in 10th makes that slightly more possible ). The reactive elements they did add strikes a balance that I think could work. No one has really played 10th so I can't say anything is better, but I like what I see.

 vipoid wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Strats and the "Every unit gets a special rule" thing smack so much of CCG type design. CCGs have to lean into that sort of thing because they don't deal with an actual battlespace representation where positioning or firing lanes can matter. But in 40k, a game with an actual battlespace and terrain, should be leaning into that more with geometric tactics like flanking, screening and crossfire mechanics. But those tactical relationships are harder to verbalize so I guess get less attention from a game company that makes money by printing rules and selling models.

I think the real disconnect is because so many stratagems are things that make no sense as limited-use abilities. Like Transhuman Physiology. How exactly is a strat affecting this? Shouldn't a model's physiology be active at all times, for obvious reasons? And why does one space marine unit's physiology make every other space marine's physiology worse?

Given the current stratagem rules, it really seems like they should be representing stuff like Orbital Bombardments or bombing runs. i.e. effects originating from units that aren't represented on the battlefield. Or else to summon reinforcements in some way.

I agree that that further exacerbates the problem. It lends to the "There's no rhyme or reason" feeling to the implementation, just mechanics in the abstract, which again, feels like MtG or something.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Lots of people also talk about AA being the right solution for 40K, but I'm unconvinced of that

Why? AA is generally just better than alternating turns.

ccs wrote:
So please explain why vehicle facings:
A) worked for decades before 8e,
B) currently work for square tanks in one game (Bolt Action, 30k/HH, etc) but not in 40k.

They worked in that we used them. I know you've seen plenty of examples as to why they didn't work across this forum over those decades, too. I've also outlined the scale differences in those other games.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

40k tables are too small and too crowded to represent a lot of the units that are available in a 'realistic' way anyway - transports are barely useful on a tactical scale, flyers are ridiculuous, and even some infantry units can basically cross a table in two turns. Strategy-level mobility like deepstrike insertions, airdrops, drop pods etc. are things that make much more sense on e.g. EPIC scale or even smaller scales, for 40k a lot of that is just windowdressing. Same goes for infiltrators, scouts and flanking, it just does not really matter. As does, for example, range on artillery, because these are ridiculously short and due to the crowded tables there's no safe backfield for it anyway. And so on, and so on. It's a skirmish-scale game wearing company- and increasingly battalion-level combat as a too-wide skinsuit.

Trransports are very rule dependent. Do you remember the parking lot deployments of 5th edition? That's a clear example of a time when transports had a very obvious tactical use.

Yeah, but not in transporting units In other editions they had their uses as carriers for seeker missiles, as moveable cover, to bring suicide assault squads over the table in one turn by turboboosting and so on, but rarely did they actually do what their name and background suggested.

But anyway, that's more of a general critique and not specifically a problem of 10th, other than by the general trend of it getting worse over time because units and models get larger and larger and occupy ever more of the table.

I mean, functioning as moveable cover is a thing that seems to happen all the time in real life. I did it all the time with Rhinos/Razorbacks, and then used the blown up wreck as cover again! but there were also Rhino rushes. And the Eldar tanks did a fair amount of actual transporting, in my memory. Same with Dark Eldar.

because alternate activations must be done right to work well

and if GW does not even manage to get alternating turns right, how should they get something more complex right

the solution for 40k is to take it way from GW and let someone else write the rules
as long as GW is doing it, the turn sequence makes no difference

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Lots of people also talk about AA being the right solution for 40K, but I'm unconvinced of that

Why? AA is generally just better than alternating turns.

Generally I agree. The problem is in the disparity of how many units one can take and how activations are handled. 40K has had way more unit selection flexibility than most games ( if not all of them ), which can make it wonky. These new datasheets put up a lot more constraints than we're used to, which could help go that direction. I'm just not sure it's there yet.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I remember when the "standard" table was 8x4 in my area, which is great for a plodding wargame that you play for hours and hours in a garage. Bolters being 12" most of the time doesn't really solve the problem ( The Lord of Change was mostly smaller than a Dreadnought ). We could discuss the pros and cons of lots of stuff from older editions and neither of us will be convinced.

I never found 3rd-5th particularly "plodding". Weapons having reduced range is something that you brought up. And it's true, reduced weapons ranges make maneuvering more important.

I have no idea what the Lord of Change size comment is alluding to. If anything, the Greater Daemons were more playable models back then because they were small enough to not be seen from everywhere on the table.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
. . . but I like what I see.

Color me shocked.

ccs wrote:

So please explain why vehicle facings:
A) worked for decades before 8e,
B) currently work for square tanks in one game (Bolt Action, 30k/HH, etc) but not in 40k.

A) 40k isn't a tank game as shown by several factions that lack tanks
B) Facings become a mess with non square vehicles.
C) To be honest they never quite worked in pre-8e. Because the lack of restrictions on tank movement, access to long range weapons and the occasional blatantly gamey move, 99% of the time a tank was going to have the most optimal position (aka the front facing the enemy).

It only became relevant with deep strike and other hilariously fast units like aircraft (that were their own bag of issues).

EDIT: Also D) while technically different from the concept of facings, the AV and Damage Table was a mess as shown by the issue GW kept changing it from edition to edition and eventually kinda killed it with the Hull Point system. And of course that relates to the whole MC vs Vehicle mess that from what I have hear is still kinda an issue in 30k/HH.

facings simply required a small diagram on the datasheet to clearly indicate what they were.