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.

 catbarf wrote:
I think you guys are conflating two different styles of resolution.

The Avalon Hill style CRT is where you total up your fire factors, cross reference against a D6 or 2D6 roll, and the table applies some deviation on the basis of that roll to spit out a result. You roll a single die (or maybe two) and that resolves the entire interaction.

Battlefleet Gothic's combat resolution is still a bucket of dice system, it just uses a table to skip the first roll in the sequence. Instead of starting at 12 firepower and determining that you need a 3+ to hit and then rolling, the table tells you to simply roll 8 dice against the target's armor and that's it.

I'm not conflating them, I pointing out that there is a broad spectrum to play with.

As to the outcome, that's also effectively limited right now, it's just that there are very long "tails" of probability that can produce some extreme outcomes - and GW seems to think this is worth the extra amount of dice-rolling.

I prefer a "leaner" design, so something like Panzerblitz where you aggregate fire at a unit (and there are types of fire, like anti-personnal or anti-tank) and then compare it to its defensive value and roll a die has a lot of upside.

Another advantage of that approach is that while there are in theory only 6 outcomes (though modifiers could push this to more), right now there's only wounded/not wounded. The aggregate number provides the variation.

But going with a CRT you could have units be disrupted, forced to ground, etc. Huge vistas of possibilities we should just stop talking about because none of it will ever happen.

Back in the real world, GW could do some basic math, crunch the numbers and decided that you can get the same damage by tweaking the combat values and using half as much dice.

It might even happen, if only so that GW can switch it back later after the inevitable complaints. Gotta keep that churn going.

Dandelion wrote:Personally I would ditch the to-wound roll instead. It’s main purpose IMO is to reduce the effectiveness of small arms into big models. The addition of the damage stat and multiple wounds can already accomplish most of what the strength and toughness stat do.

I agree entirely, and Grimdark Future demonstrates how such a system can work quite well and meaningfully distinguish models from one another...

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:Huge vistas of possibilities we should just stop talking about because none of it will ever happen.

...but also I burst out laughing at this because, yeah, you're not wrong. This conversation is really just somewhere between a collective bitchfest and creative writing exercise. If 10th is selling great then there's no incentive to change, except change for change's sake.

So it goes.

 catbarf wrote:
...but also I burst out laughing at this because, yeah, you're not wrong. This conversation is really just somewhere between a collective bitchfest and creative writing exercise. If 10th is selling great then there's no incentive to change, except change for change's sake.

So it goes.

To be fair, it did cover a lot of ground in terms of alternative rules, mechanics, GW history and was pretty comprehensive in its approach. It wasn't the run-of-the-mill whinge, but quite pointed and brought together a bunch of different perspectives on the topic.

The thing that fills me with curiosity is why people keep accepting the churn and paying for it? Back when the product cycle was more of a rumor/dark conspiracy theory, I could see people "upgrading" because maybe this time GW would get it right.

But when you think about how much work has to go into the rules, new unit models, tweaks to factions, there's simply no way the design can be mature in three years, especially when it's non-iterative. It's always a fresh start, so the lessons learned from the last version are lost.

It seems like the ultimate triumph of optimism over experience.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

The thing that fills me with curiosity is why people keep accepting the churn and paying for it?

On the churn....
There's nothing I can do about that. It's just how GW operates. And s long as I've been playing their games? (A long time for the record) They've been churning longer.

On paying for it....
●Well, the 10e rules are so thin (& useless) that they can just live on my phone.
●The mission cards? I picked up a pack dirt cheap as everyone was parting out the Leviathan box.
●The unit cards? I did the math. It proved cheaper by a few $s to buy the cards for several of my forces than if I'd printed them & put them in photo sleeves/laminated them. And that was at MSRP. Add in the discount I get at the local shop...
Yes, I could just use my phone for the units - but I hate scrolling back & forth on my phone during play.

But seriously, most of the $ GW gets from me? Is for models. They have this annoying tendency to keep making new models I like. If they'd just stop doing that....

ccs wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

The thing that fills me with curiosity is why people keep accepting the churn and paying for it?

Spoiler:

On the churn....
There's nothing I can do about that. It's just how GW operates. And s long as I've been playing their games? (A long time for the record) They've been churning longer.

On paying for it....
●Well, the 10e rules are so thin (& useless) that they can just live on my phone.
●The mission cards? I picked up a pack dirt cheap as everyone was parting out the Leviathan box.
●The unit cards? I did the math. It proved cheaper by a few $s to buy the cards for several of my forces than if I'd printed them & put them in photo sleeves/laminated them. And that was at MSRP. Add in the discount I get at the local shop...
Yes, I could just use my phone for the units - but I hate scrolling back & forth on my phone during play.

But seriously, most of the $ GW gets from me? Is for models. They have this annoying tendency to keep making new models I like. If they'd just stop doing that....

This sums up my feelings.
I vote with my wallet.
They make models I like & I buy them.
They make rules I like & I buy them(30k & Necromunda)
I don't buy 40k rules....and haven't since i got back in hobby(unless you count buying starter boxes for the minis and keeping the rulebook)

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
...but also I burst out laughing at this because, yeah, you're not wrong. This conversation is really just somewhere between a collective bitchfest and creative writing exercise. If 10th is selling great then there's no incentive to change, except change for change's sake.

So it goes.

To be fair, it did cover a lot of ground in terms of alternative rules, mechanics, GW history and was pretty comprehensive in its approach. It wasn't the run-of-the-mill whinge, but quite pointed and brought together a bunch of different perspectives on the topic.

The thing that fills me with curiosity is why people keep accepting the churn and paying for it? Back when the product cycle was more of a rumor/dark conspiracy theory, I could see people "upgrading" because maybe this time GW would get it right.

But when you think about how much work has to go into the rules, new unit models, tweaks to factions, there's simply no way the design can be mature in three years, especially when it's non-iterative. It's always a fresh start, so the lessons learned from the last version are lost.

It seems like the ultimate triumph of optimism over experience.

Its entirely possible that people actually enjoy the game? Just throwing that out there? General Discussion is where people grumble.

I started in 2nd Ed and have mixed feelings on churn. I think it is part of the business model and also an honest attempt at improvement, if not always in equal proportions. Sometimes Edition Churn is exciting, especially if you play a lot. Edition change could be annoying if it involved major book purchases. I am stating the obvious, but edition change could be a disaster if the game experience a net negative compared to the last for the majority of players. I didn't love the shift from 2nd to 3rd, but I still enjoyed the game and more people came into the hobby. So a net positive even if Codex Creep was a thing (the 3.5 codexes). 4th and 5th had ups and downs as they fixed some problems and created new ones, but were generally positive until the end of 5th with Codex Creep once again rearing its head. The shift to 6th was negative from a game-play perspective, but there were some good kits for Dark Angels so I stuck around despite FineCast. 7th was terrible from a rules and balance perspective so I stopped playing for that entire edition. 8th had easy entry from a rules acquisition perspective, and I really liked the stripped-down game-play. So I got back on the train and had a great time. 9th cleaned some things up and unified the "scene", but the missions grew stale (Faction Secondaries are bad and they should feel bad). Codex Creep was also a thing, which can be worse than Edition Churn. 10th has a good mission pack and a decent rules set but balance was off on release. If they apply some rigour to the Codexes that were not at the printers before the release of 10th then the edition will be a good one.

If the edition turns out to be very unstable from a rules and balance perspective then perhaps I walk away again, but at this time I am still enjoying building, painting and playing. So I continue to do so.

have to say for all the griping GW have gotten a few things right in this edition, and a few things wrong.

so far the mission card deck produces some excellent games and really punishes "I sit here with Mr Re-rolls everything ands shoot you" builds (taming the aura spam also helps a lot here). yes you can shoot and kill but in general the secondary objectives are the decider