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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Color me shocked.

And you don't like it. Color me shocked.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Color me shocked.

And you don't like it. Color me shocked.

Only because it's so incredibly easy to imagine something better.

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

Without a clear diagram on LoS per model though, you can argue about whether you're pointed at the favorable side for your gun or not.

The current wounding and armor system isn't the problem with 40k, it's the rules writers themselves.

easily solved by adding bases to vehicles

It's pretty rare to see you like anything that isn't a facsimile of something in 3rd to 5th edition - by my perception, anyway. I haven't really seen you imagine anything outside that scope.

GW pretty much imagined a whole system that few people would have guessed, but I'd bet you'll never touch it, because it doesn't agree with your sensibilities. And that's fine. You do you. That doesn't make it bad.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
.

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

It's the solution once you open up your eyes and finally realize how unskilled GW's writers are when it comes to external balance or factions.

If an army is granted a unit that's too tough and/or offensive, you'd at least get some chance at counter play. I'd even wager that 7th edition Riptides would've been less an issue as you'd at least be able to deal with 1-2 of them somewhat instead of just letting them attack your army simply because you didn't go first.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
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.

You can use pass tokens or whatever. There's a number of ways to make it work. And some units (knights etc) could have multiple activations.

Any worries you might have don't really equal the "I go 2nd. My opponent blasts 30% of my army off the field before I can do a thing."

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It's pretty rare to see you like anything that isn't a facsimile of something in 3rd to 5th edition - by my perception, anyway. I haven't really seen you imagine anything outside that scope.

GSC Crossfire-like mechanics aren't a 3rd through 5th thing, and that was only a page ago, Daed.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
GW pretty much imagined a whole system that few people would have guessed, but I'd bet you'll never touch it, because it doesn't agree with your sensibilities. And that's fine. You do you. That doesn't make it bad.

And that system is . . . ?

Also, GW "imagined" AoC and I wouldn't have guessed that. But that doesn't make it good either.

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
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.

You can use pass tokens or whatever. There's a number of ways to make it work. And some units (knights etc) could have multiple activations.

Any worries you might have don't really equal the "I go 2nd. My opponent blasts 30% of my army off the field before I can do a thing."

I'm curious how you would design multiple activations for a knight. What would that look like?

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
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.

You can use pass tokens or whatever. There's a number of ways to make it work. And some units (knights etc) could have multiple activations.
Any worries you might have don't really equal the "I go 2nd. My opponent blasts 30% of my army off the field before I can do a thing."

that someone who actually wants to write a good game can make it work is not the problem

but a game written by somebody won't be played, otherwise people would not care about GW rules but use their 40k models in Warpath FF or Onepagerules GDF

just GW won't make it work, or do you really think we would have such problems with what they come up with now if they were actually good at writing rules?
if they don't manage to make alternating turns work, why do you think something more complex will be easy going for them

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
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.

You can use pass tokens or whatever. There's a number of ways to make it work. And some units (knights etc) could have multiple activations.

Any worries you might have don't really equal the "I go 2nd. My opponent blasts 30% of my army off the field before I can do a thing."

If you go alternate activations you can do all sorts of fun stuff like Interceptors actually intercepting things, ambushers interrupting enemies, units set-up in hiding and overwatch doing nasty surprises, Waaaagh! activating half your army for a devastating green wave of charges, Callidus Assassins messing with enemy activations, and so on and so on. Alternate actions does not do much in Isolation, the game needs to actually be built around it, but it can be very good with game design that boldly makes use of the possibilities it offers.

And still no one has addressed the notion that there are two states that characters in 10th exist in:

1. Leading a unit, providing a buff to that unit.
2. Not leading a unit, having no effect on friendly units, and being shot off the table because they can't hide at all.

Which means there is no choice in using characters. You have to put them inside units lest they be sniped from across the table, and even if you're brave enough to not attach them... they don't do anything!

There has to be a middle ground.

FWIW, good organization can often reduce clutter without actually throwing anything out. The same applies to rules bloat.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I'm curious how you would design multiple activations for a knight. What would that look like?

Literally let it activate multiple times/game round. As it takes damage it loses activations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
just GW won't make it work, or do you really think we would have such problems with what they come up with now if they were actually good at writing rules?
if they don't manage to make alternating turns work, why do you think something more complex will be easy going for them

You can make that argument for every level of system complexity. My point stands.

Hecaton wrote:
You can make that argument for every level of system complexity. My point stands.

so yes, the game should be alternate activations that finally people stop asking for it and kill that mode off for any other game as well by GW showing how bad it can be and no one will ever touch it

 kodos wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
You can make that argument for every level of system complexity. My point stands.

so yes, the game should be alternate activations that finally people stop asking for it and kill that mode off for any other game as well by GW showing how bad it can be and no one will ever touch it

That doesn't make sense; if that were true people would never touch alternating turn systems like 40k currently has.

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I'm curious how you would design multiple activations for a knight. What would that look like?

Literally let it activate multiple times/game round. As it takes damage it loses activations.

You just made a better argument for not doing alternate activations than Daedalus ever could

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I'm curious how you would design multiple activations for a knight. What would that look like?

Literally let it activate multiple times/game round. As it takes damage it loses activations.

You just made a better argument for not doing alternate activations than Daedalus ever could

You should break down your reasoning because I don't think you're following.

For multiple activation to work on a Knight its stats would need to be nerfed so it doesn't simply blows away an entire army in one round.

Like sure it is possible to write such rules but why would you write such rules? Why a Knight needs multiple activations? It is one lumbering giant machine not a ninja.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And still no one has addressed the notion that there are two states that characters in 10th exist in:

1. Leading a unit, providing a buff to that unit.
2. Not leading a unit, having no effect on friendly units, and being shot off the table because they can't hide at all.

Which means there is no choice in using characters. You have to put them inside units lest they be sniped from across the table, and even if you're brave enough to not attach them... they don't do anything!

There has to be a middle ground.

Okay, I'll give it a go. Just spitballing here but see what you think:

- First, ditch stratagems.

- Instead, we move towards an AoS approach where characters have Command Abilities that you can spend CP to use.

- These abilities will usually involve buffing a single, friendly unit within 12".

- However, if a character is attached to a unit, he can use his Command ability on his own unit without spending CP (representing the fact that it's easier to give commands to a unit you've already taken personal charge of).

- Could have an additional limitation that a character has to have been attached to his current unit since the start of your last command phase in order to use his command ability on them without spending CP (so you have to think a turn in advance when it comes to switching which unit your character is attached to).


Anyway, just a rough idea but it would encourage characters to attach to units, whilst also allowing them to command units other than the one they're currently leading (or when not attached to a unit at all).

 Tyran wrote:
For multiple activation to work on a Knight its stats would need to be nerfed so it doesn't simply blows away an entire army in one round.

Like sure it is possible to do so but why would you?

That would be true for everything in an AA system.

 Tyran wrote:

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

Perhaps you need to inform GW of this. For a non-tank game they seem to produce a great variety of the things (and other vehicles).... everything from Grot tanks to Baneblades.
They go out of their way to keep making separate datasheets for different variants of things that could really be just a (long) laundry list of options. Good example: the Leman Russ.
They've even gone out of their way in previous editions to make entire tank based lists for the Guard.
And have you read any of the options in HH/30k (wich rules wise is just 40k 7.75 edition) - you can take multiple Landraiders or Venators, etc as a single unit.
But hey, you go right ahead & try and convince me that since Demons & Tyranids lack tanks/vehicles that 40k isn't a tank game. Give it your best shot.

 Tyran wrote:
B) Facings become a mess with non square vehicles.

Only for two types of people:
Stupid people who don't understand an X diagram made up of 90d angles* overlaid on the center of the tank/vehicle.
And those pretending to be stupid in order to cheat.

*or whatever angles the designers designate as I've seen some games where the front/rear are narrower than the side arcs

 Tyran wrote:
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).

ccs wrote:
Only for two types of people:
Stupid people who don't understand an X diagram made up of 90d angles* overlaid on the center of the tank/vehicle.
And those pretending to be stupid in order to cheat.

*or whatever angles the designers designate as I've seen some games where the front/rear are narrower than the side arcs

The notion that people had problems figuring out vehicle facings is only something I'd heard since coming here, and even then, only in retrospect. Never seemed to be a big deal when it was a rule. I can't recall ever running into an issue over whether it was one facing or another that couldn't be solved by just putting an X over the tank.

Honestly the biggest tank related problem I ever came across was a situation where my friend had range and LOS to a Whirlwind of mine, but the part he could see wasn't in range, and the part that was in range was out of LOS.

Hecaton wrote:
You should break down your reasoning because I don't think you're following.

I'm guessing you can only activate certain "parts" of the model?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

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

Without a clear diagram on LoS per model though, you can argue about whether you're pointed at the favorable side for your gun or not.

The current wounding and armor system isn't the problem with 40k, it's the rules writers themselves.

Thats what i said.... plenty of room on the datasheet to show a topdown view of a vehicle, with lines indicating what the facings are...

And given how much blank space these sheets have, it's not like there isn't room.

ccs wrote:

Perhaps you need to inform GW of this. For a non-tank game they seem to produce a great variety of the things (and other vehicles).... everything from Grot tanks to Baneblades.
They go out of their way to keep making separate datasheets for different variants of things that could really be just a (long) laundry list of options. Good example: the Leman Russ.
They've even gone out of their way in previous editions to make entire tank based lists for the Guard.
And have you read any of the options in HH/30k (wich rules wise is just 40k 7.75 edition) - you can take multiple Landraiders or Venators, etc as a single unit.
But hey, you go right ahead & try and convince me that since Demons & Tyranids lack tanks/vehicles that 40k isn't a tank game. Give it your best shot.

You can also take aircraft, does that mean it is an aircraft game?

The fact that you can have a list made of tanks doesn't mean the game is built around tanks.

Think like the difference between Halo that can have tanks and an actual tank game like World of Tanks.

Only for two types of people:
Stupid people who don't understand an X diagram made up of 90d angles* overlaid on the center of the tank/vehicle.
And those pretending to be stupid in order to cheat.

While point, GW didn't do that. pre-8e 40k probably had the most ridiculous facing system ever by relying on the actual model. (Similar to how it currently has the most ridiculous LOS system ever by relying on the actual model)

So you're telling me that facings don't work because people don't know how to (or won't) deploy &/or maneuver units to set up those side (and occasionally rear) shots?
Yeah, that's not a rules failure....

I'm telling you that pre-8e facing system didn't really force a maneuver based game. Other games may and do make it work, but not 40k.

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

That was me.

Anyway, this thread just shows to me that there are so many possible ways to do things to make 40ks rules less complicated (not less complex, that's different), and more elegant, and yet they seemed to miss all of them for the most mind-bogglingly convoluted ways to implement them. It almost feels like they don't even think about the smaller impacts their changes they make (let alone the large ones) and just do them and who cares right? Like, to use DW as an example because I'm familiar. Proteus kill teams used to be 5 vets, and 5 more of any mix of Bikes, vanguard vets, and Terminators, but now they've arbitrarily limited it to 0-4 vanguard vets, 0-4 Terminators, and 0-2 Bikes. Why? What does this accomplish besides ruin pre-existing squads and leave customers making new teams with one extra guy for no reason I can conceive of besides not wanting people to accidentally include the sergeant in the squad and have people think it's special? Which is dumb, because besides the terminator none of those units have a dedicated sergeant model.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
What does this accomplish besides ruin pre-existing squads and leave customers making new teams with one extra guy for no reason I can conceive of besides not wanting people to accidentally include the sergeant in the squad and have people think it's special?

You know, now that you mention it, that's probably the exact reason.

Utterly nonsensical.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
What does this accomplish besides ruin pre-existing squads and leave customers making new teams with one extra guy for no reason I can conceive of besides not wanting people to accidentally include the sergeant in the squad and have people think it's special?

You know, now that you mention it, that's probably the exact reason.

Utterly nonsensical.

GW tends to be very predictable once you watch the patterns long enough and apply just a little healthy corporate cynicism.