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.
I'd add underpowered/overcosted/"not functioning as the lore describes" units as feelsbad too, though these feelsbad occur during listbuilding as you take a sad look at the profile and then don't include them in the list. It's why I never fielded howling banshees over multiple past editions, despite really wanting to*.
Or you go "how bad can it be?", field the UP unit anyway and get your "this unit sucks" expectations confirmed. Which is what I did with striking scorpions and lictors, for example :p
* they were supposed to be elite glass cannon-type power armor shredders, but they hit like a wet blanket.
You're discussing wargames on the Internet, which means you're in a room full of people who operate from the assumption that the only possible way wargames can be fun is for them to be exact, perfect replicas of their personal idea of fun. To you, the thing that's wrong is the people complaining that the game isn't fun, because you think it is and therefore the other player's attitude is the only possible problem; to the people complaining about the rules feeling bad, however, the game isn't fun and therefore the problem is the game.
I'm interested in what it means and why it's being used so much. There are without a doubt rules that work poorly, but 'feels bad ' is an appeal to emotion that seems to be conflated with poor rule design.
If I were to play the feels bad game, I'd say the entirety of 10th ed because it has had every rule that doesn't directly benefit space marines removed, until it's just tough smash save grrr. Without any real nuance.
I feel the "problem" with 40k and "feels bad moments/gotchas" is that its such a long game. Playing 2k points (including set up etc) in 2-2.5 hours requires both players to be focused on what they are doing. With two players who are enjoying a lazy Sunday afternoon, it can easily take 4.
Losing a game - or being in a position where it feels the game is decided but you still need another hour to make sure - because you didn't know a stratagem, or that such and such a unit ignored regular rules, or just because you failed 3 charge rolls in a row, "feels bad".
But I think there's a doubling down effect here on why "gotchas" are an issue in 40k and not so much in other games despite being there. As the game takes so long, a lot of people just don't play very many. This in turn means it takes a long time to "learn" by playing alone.
When I look at almost any other game (miniatures, cards, RTS, Mobas etc etc) - odds are new players are going to "get got" over and over again. This can serve as a barrier to entry - as who likes losing their first 10 games? But if those games are relatively quick (especially because you are getting caught and defeated) you can just shake hands and go again. Not so much with 40k unless you can earmark entire weekends.
Its the gap we saw with 9th. I felt if you were constantly playing/watching/reading 40k then stratagems were not that complicated - and you learned the "go-to" combos of the various in form factions. By contrast, if you played once a month (which I'd argue is relatively frequent) you had little chance. I mean there's 20+ factions (and over 100 subfactions). If that was your only way of learning, odds are you were "getting got" every game for the entire edition.
Tyel wrote: I feel the "problem" with 40k and "feels bad moments/gotchas" is that its such a long game. Playing 2k points (including set up etc) in 2-2.5 hours requires both players to be focused on what they are doing. With two players who are enjoying a lazy Sunday afternoon, it can easily take 4.
Losing a game - or being in a position where it feels the game is decided but you still need another hour to make sure - because you didn't know a stratagem, or that such and such a unit ignored regular rules, or just because you failed 3 charge rolls in a row, "feels bad".
But I think there's a doubling down effect here on why "gotchas" are an issue in 40k and not so much in other games despite being there. As the game takes so long, a lot of people just don't play very many. This in turn means it takes a long time to "learn" by playing alone.
When I look at almost any other game (miniatures, cards, RTS, Mobas etc etc) - odds are new players are going to "get got" over and over again. This can serve as a barrier to entry - as who likes losing their first 10 games? But if those games are relatively quick (especially because you are getting caught and defeated) you can just shake hands and go again. Not so much with 40k unless you can earmark entire weekends.
Its the gap we saw with 9th. I felt if you were constantly playing/watching/reading 40k then stratagems were not that complicated - and you learned the "go-to" combos of the various in form factions. By contrast, if you played once a month (which I'd argue is relatively frequent) you had little chance. I mean there's 20+ factions (and over 100 subfactions). If that was your only way of learning, odds are you were "getting got" every game for the entire edition.
As an example of the former, I was playing a game a couple of days ago, it was neck-and-neck, slightly in my favor as I had more OC on the board. And I was close to pulling it off too. Additionally, my opponent reminded my my sole surviving heavy weapons, a land raider, could spend a CP to swap to tactical doctrine, fall back, shoot, then charge the skorpekhs it had been engaged in, tying them up. He then overwatched me, destroyed my land raider, and he had complete control of half the board, boxing me into the left half of the board and taking away my chance to pull off the win. It was then i decided, once and for all, I'm done with 10th.
On the other hand, SW legion has a Gatcha mechanic as a core one, the order cards. Besides Standing orders, which is required, you have no idea what's in your opponents command card hand until it's played. However, because it's 1) a faster game, a 800pt gane still only takes about an hour and a half, 2) it's balance by more wide-spread or beneficial cards being lower priority, meaning your opponent gets the first move.
As opposed to stratagems which are almost purely beneficial, are almost impossible to stop or interact with, and have few ways for your opponent to counteract them
Or you go "how bad can it be?", field the UP unit anyway and get your "this unit sucks" expectations confirmed. Which is what I did with striking scorpions and lictors, for example :p
* they were supposed to be elite glass cannon-type power armor shredders, but they hit like a wet blanket.
You're not talking about them in 10th ed, right? Because both those units are pretty good right now
On the other hand, SW legion has a Gatcha mechanic as a core one, the order cards. Besides Standing orders, which is required, you have no idea what's in your opponents command card hand until it's played. However, because it's 1) a faster game, a 800pt gane still only takes about an hour and a half, 2) it's balance by more wide-spread or beneficial cards being lower priority, meaning your opponent gets the first move.
I mean, you both have the same amount of cards of every pip value, and you learn pretty quickly what will realisitically be brought by your opponent depending on which leaders/operatives they have in their list. (Like if you see Maul in the list, you can fully expect "At last" to be in your opponent's hand)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/14 13:29:22
Or you go "how bad can it be?", field the UP unit anyway and get your "this unit sucks" expectations confirmed. Which is what I did with striking scorpions and lictors, for example :p
* they were supposed to be elite glass cannon-type power armor shredders, but they hit like a wet blanket.
You're not talking about them in 10th ed, right? Because both those units are pretty good right now
On the other hand, SW legion has a Gatcha mechanic as a core one, the order cards. Besides Standing orders, which is required, you have no idea what's in your opponents command card hand until it's played. However, because it's 1) a faster game, a 800pt gane still only takes about an hour and a half, 2) it's balance by more wide-spread or beneficial cards being lower priority, meaning your opponent gets the first move.
I mean, you both have the same amount of cards of every pip value, and you learn pretty quickly what will realisitically be brought by your opponent depending on which leaders/operatives they have in their list. (Like if you see Maul in the list, you can fully expect "At last" to be in your opponent's hand)
True, it's just the best example I can give with the games I play. Though I guess it can also be compared to strats in that, at least with 10th all stratagems your opponent can use are known. It's nearly 15+, but they are available.
True, it's just the best example I can give with the games I play. Though I guess it can also be compared to strats in that, at least with 10th all stratagems your opponent can use are known. It's nearly 15+, but they are available.
You only need to know 5-7 new strat per opponent right now, much better than 8th/9th (although i agree the game would be better without them)
There is a subtle but very important difference between a secret hand of order cards versus a sprawling set of stratagems that the game assumes you know.
Getting caught out by the former is being surprised by hidden information and is an intended part of the game. It might throw a wrench in your plans, it might deny you a close victory, but that element of surprise and uncertainty is deliberate on the part of the designer.
Getting caught out by the latter is being surprised by information that is not supposed to be hidden, and is an unintended result of the difficulty of learning and remembering all the potential stratagems in play. Losing because you forgot about a stratagem your opponent had all along is not fun, is not how the designer intended the game to be played, and is often described as a 'feels bad' situation.
At least it's better in 10th than it was in 8th/9th.
shortymcnostrill wrote: I'd add underpowered/overcosted/"not functioning as the lore describes" units as feelsbad too, though these feelsbad occur during listbuilding as you take a sad look at the profile and then don't include them in the list. It's why I never fielded howling banshees over multiple past editions, despite really wanting to*.
Or you go "how bad can it be?", field the UP unit anyway and get your "this unit sucks" expectations confirmed. Which is what I did with striking scorpions and lictors, for example :p
* they were supposed to be elite glass cannon-type power armor shredders, but they hit like a wet blanket.
That only works for over achiving armies like eldar. An 2000pts eldar list can take 500pts of banshees or scorpions, because the rest of the army is that good. It is much worse, when GW designes your rules to be bad, so you end up playing with what is more or less a tournament build. And you still often lose by virtue of match up alone. GW doesn't just do this unit is 5% weaker then it should be. They do stuff like Imperial Knights can not hold objectives realisticaly, have LoS blocked by everything, but everyone else can see them. Or in "tank" editions having armies that can't deal with tank, or score secondaries or hold objectives. It wouldn't be that if at least GW treated all armies the same, but it ain't the case.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
In that case GW shouldn't create factions, who requier to know the ranges of everything to everything in every turn.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Tyran wrote: 6" fixed charge also had its own issues, it basically requires pre-measuring to be banned and that introduced further issues.
What is the reasoning for this? I think not being allowed to pre-measure is a problem for new players, mostly. I remember in late 3rd or 4th that I was able to estimate the range for my Basilisk or Leman Russ within 1-2" of the actual target (which was usually the center of the enemy unit). I'm confident I could estimate 6" no problemo after some time getting used to.
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
Tyran wrote: 6" fixed charge also had its own issues, it basically requires pre-measuring to be banned and that introduced further issues.
What is the reasoning for this? I think not being allowed to pre-measure is a problem for new players, mostly. I remember in late 3rd or 4th that I was able to estimate the range for my Basilisk or Leman Russ within 1-2" of the actual target (which was usually the center of the enemy unit). I'm confident I could estimate 6" no problemo after some time getting used to.
yeah, no premeasuring is an artificial balancing point that in reality only means newer players (or people that don't work with measurement in real life) are at an unnecessary disadvantage.
Tyran wrote: 6" fixed charge also had its own issues, it basically requires pre-measuring to be banned and that introduced further issues.
What is the reasoning for this? I think not being allowed to pre-measure is a problem for new players, mostly. I remember in late 3rd or 4th that I was able to estimate the range for my Basilisk or Leman Russ within 1-2" of the actual target (which was usually the center of the enemy unit). I'm confident I could estimate 6" no problemo after some time getting used to.
The problem with 6" fixed charges is that it is very easy to avoid charges by simply placing your models Move+6.1+" away. Obviously it is even easier with pre-measuring but as you noted veteran players can usually do it just by eyeballing.
2D6, while unreliable, does mean you need to be Move+12.1+" away to be fully safe.
Add the generally increased movement of 8th+ editions and assault is usually more threatening (outside of cavalry and jump units that could already move 12").
Tyran wrote: 6" fixed charge also had its own issues, it basically requires pre-measuring to be banned and that introduced further issues.
What is the reasoning for this? I think not being allowed to pre-measure is a problem for new players, mostly. I remember in late 3rd or 4th that I was able to estimate the range for my Basilisk or Leman Russ within 1-2" of the actual target (which was usually the center of the enemy unit). I'm confident I could estimate 6" no problemo after some time getting used to.
The problem with 6" fixed charges is that it is very easy to avoid charges by simply placing your models Move+6.1+" away. Obviously it is even easier with pre-measuring but as you noted veteran players can usually do it just by eyeballing.
2D6, while unreliable, does mean you need to be Move+12.1+" away to be fully safe.
Add the generally increased movement of 8th+ editions and assault is usually more threatening (outside of cavalry and jump units that could already move 12").
I feel like this isn't much of an issue if reasons exist for holding ground (such as objectives) or sufficient penalties exist for most units if they move away. A unit being 12.1" away in 3rd lost rapid fire and couldn't shoot the enemy with rapid fire or heavy weapons if it moved. Armies were smaller so a unit losing firepower could be a big deal. You would also run out of board or move off objectives if you kept conceding ground.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/11/14 15:43:06
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
Yeah, I suspect I'm mistaken because I didn't get enough games in at the time or something, but being able to reliably predict whether an enemy would be able to charge you never seemed all that game breaking to me. And it seems like it would be even less so now that backing up means giving up objectives.
Plus, Fleet always added a little unpredictability into the mix; it just also gave you a chance to change your plans if you rolled low rather than just making you fail a 3" charge because reasons.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
I think the best example of a feels bad mechanic is armor saves and and improved squad leader armor you see in Horus heresy. Rolling one die at a time is not only painstaking but also can completely negate any shooting that isn’t overwhelming. Even more egregious though is the image of the squad leader dancing in front of shots like some sort of secret service member only to slink back in the moment any weapons can punch through his armor.
The other feels bad mechanics generally come from outcomes where one party wasn’t even aware of the possibility. With hundreds of strategems and now hundreds of unit specific rules and faction abilities it’s impossible for all but the most dedicated players to track everything. 40k doesn’t encourage a rule zero discussion like some games so it can leave to moments that wrong foot a player because it was an unknown unknown. It’s why generally it’s best to discuss what your army does and verify some actions with your opponent if they seem to be stumbling into an obvious bad play. Of course in a tournament all bets are off but in casual play there is a level of responsibility to explain your army to your opponent.
As an example of the former, I was playing a game a couple of days ago, it was neck-and-neck, slightly in my favor as I had more OC on the board. And I was close to pulling it off too. Additionally, my opponent reminded my my sole surviving heavy weapons, a land raider, could spend a CP to swap to tactical doctrine, fall back, shoot, then charge the skorpekhs it had been engaged in, tying them up. He then overwatched me, destroyed my land raider, and he had complete control of half the board, boxing me into the left half of the board and taking away my chance to pull off the win. It was then i decided, once and for all, I'm done with 10th.
On the other hand, SW legion has a Gatcha mechanic as a core one, the order cards. Besides Standing orders, which is required, you have no idea what's in your opponents command card hand until it's played. However, because it's 1) a faster game, a 800pt gane still only takes about an hour and a half, 2) it's balance by more wide-spread or beneficial cards being lower priority, meaning your opponent gets the first move.
As opposed to stratagems which are almost purely beneficial, are almost impossible to stop or interact with, and have few ways for your opponent to counteract them
I hope that you are aware that your Land Raider could have remained in Engagement Range of those Skorpekhs and still fired at them with its weapons? Vehicles (and monsters) have Big Guns Never Tire. You fire at -1, but you can target units in Engagement range of your vehicle (except with Blast). Its not a Stratagem, its just a rule that all vehicles and monsters have.
What weapons was your opponent using that were able to destroy a Land Raider with Overwatch? That is some hot rolling. At the risk of sounding paranoid, I wonder if your opponent was trying to lure you into fall/back/shoot/charge to allow him to use Overwatch when you didn't have to? That would be more than a "feels bad!"
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
As an example of the former, I was playing a game a couple of days ago, it was neck-and-neck, slightly in my favor as I had more OC on the board. And I was close to pulling it off too. Additionally, my opponent reminded my my sole surviving heavy weapons, a land raider, could spend a CP to swap to tactical doctrine, fall back, shoot, then charge the skorpekhs it had been engaged in, tying them up. He then overwatched me, destroyed my land raider, and he had complete control of half the board, boxing me into the left half of the board and taking away my chance to pull off the win. It was then i decided, once and for all, I'm done with 10th.
On the other hand, SW legion has a Gatcha mechanic as a core one, the order cards. Besides Standing orders, which is required, you have no idea what's in your opponents command card hand until it's played. However, because it's 1) a faster game, a 800pt gane still only takes about an hour and a half, 2) it's balance by more wide-spread or beneficial cards being lower priority, meaning your opponent gets the first move.
As opposed to stratagems which are almost purely beneficial, are almost impossible to stop or interact with, and have few ways for your opponent to counteract them
I hope that you are aware that your Land Raider could have remained in Engagement Range of those Skorpekhs and still fired at them with its weapons? Vehicles (and monsters) have Big Guns Never Tire. You fire at -1, but you can target units in Engagement range of your vehicle (except with Blast). Its not a Stratagem, its just a rule that all vehicles and monsters have.
What weapons was your opponent using that were able to destroy a Land Raider with Overwatch? That is some hot rolling. At the risk of sounding paranoid, I wonder if your opponent was trying to lure you into fall/back/shoot/charge to allow him to use Overwatch when you didn't have to? That would be more than a "feels bad!"
I'm aware, I wasn't trying to shoot the skorpekh, I was trying to soften up lychguard enough for my hammer termies to finish off the unit so they can't get up, then dominate the middle objective. As for what shot at me, it was a Doomstalker, and because the LR was already damaged, it only took 2 successful shots to kill it, and the thing is d6+1, hitting on 5s in OW.
I mean, he may have been, but I don't like to assume malice on a whim. It's not like this was a tourney, where there's an element of psychological warfare, this was a crusade game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/15 13:12:22
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: I think the best example of a feels bad mechanic is armor saves and and improved squad leader armor you see in Horus heresy. Rolling one die at a time is not only painstaking but also can completely negate any shooting that isn’t overwhelming. Even more egregious though is the image of the squad leader dancing in front of shots like some sort of secret service member only to slink back in the moment any weapons can punch through his armor.
The other feels bad mechanics generally come from outcomes where one party wasn’t even aware of the possibility. With hundreds of strategems and now hundreds of unit specific rules and faction abilities it’s impossible for all but the most dedicated players to track everything. 40k doesn’t encourage a rule zero discussion like some games so it can leave to moments that wrong foot a player because it was an unknown unknown. It’s why generally it’s best to discuss what your army does and verify some actions with your opponent if they seem to be stumbling into an obvious bad play. Of course in a tournament all bets are off but in casual play there is a level of responsibility to explain your army to your opponent.
this armour and hit allocation stuff breaks the immersion in the situation. would be a lot better to have all hits allocated prior to even rolling to wound, best AP goes against best armour then gradually down. no model gets a second hit until all have one
easier to have hits only on visible models etc. and then role individually, takes a bit longer, avoids a lot of issues though
Not sure I love the idea of plasma guns being able to reliably snipe out characters and squad leaders because they automatically home-in on the best save in the squad. Sort of turns good armor into a death trap, doesn't it? Also means potentially more wound tracking for multi-wound units.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
That is one thing 10th did right. You shouldn't be allowed to allocate hits to characters until everyone else is dead (outside of precision hits of course).
The first example of 'feels bad' that comes to my mind isn't 40K, or even another tabletop wargame, but the boardgame Eldritch Horror. Hopefully I can use that as an example here without dragging things off-topic. I'll put it in spoiler tags so you can skip over it if you prefer.
Spoiler:
In Eldritch Horror (a Cthulhu Mythos game) each player has a character with various skills, e.g. Strength 3, Will 2, Observation 4.
During the game you can upgrade your character with 'improvement tokens' that add +1 or +2 to your skills. For instance, by going to Sydney and doing a week's hard manual labour, you might get a +1 improvement token to your Strength.
There are also a lot of effects that can downgrade your character, like falling and breaking your leg while exploring ancient ruins. Often for these downgrades you take a card like "Leg Injury" that tells you what the penalty is. "Cursed" for instance means you have to roll 6s rather than 5s or 6s to succeed at dice tests, making it twice as hard to achieve anything in the game until you find a way to lift the curse.
So far so good. All appropriately pulpy and flavourful.
Then an expansion to the game added impairment tokens, which are the opposite of improvement tokens: -1 to Strength, -2 to Will, and so on. For instance, if you get hit by a spell that magically ages you ten years, you might have to take a -1 Strength token to represent your enfeebled state. (Or cancel out a +1 Strength you already had.)
Mechanically this is simply the reverse of improvement tokens. It lets the game represent a larger variety of possible effects. The designer thought it made perfect sense to add them to the game.
But in practice, many players disliked or outright hated impairment tokens.
For some reason or other, it rubbed them the wrong way to reduce the stats of their characters. They weren't all that bothered by getting a card that says "you're cursed and now your dice rolls are harder" - it was frustrating but enjoyably thematic. But they did object to taking a token that gave them -1 Strength and pretty much did the same thing. It made them feel useless, like they couldn't do anything no matter how hard they tried.
It may also have been because players tended to grow attached to their characters and play them like RPG characters - slowly getting stronger and more experienced, collecting more and more items, and so on. That's not really how the game is 'meant' to be played. EH is actually easier to win if you treat your characters as expendable in humanity's fight against the eldritch horrors--if you're willing to sacrifice characters who are nearly dead or insane, in order to bring fresh, healthy investigators into the game.
But if you think of your character as a long-term improvement project over several hours of game time, getting impairment tokens feels like an unfair setback - like being sent back to square one.
The issue was exacerbated by several event cards that hit you with multiple impairments at once, instantly turning useful characters into borderline useless ones.
The game designer was taken aback by the 'feels bad' response of many players to what seemed like just another logical way to achieve the same gameplay effect.
Wyldhunt wrote: Not sure I love the idea of plasma guns being able to reliably snipe out characters and squad leaders because they automatically home-in on the best save in the squad. Sort of turns good armor into a death trap, doesn't it? Also means potentially more wound tracking for multi-wound units.
well that only happens if the one who is different also has a better save
Flames has a "mistaken target" rule as well, once all the hits are allocated (by the attacking player) the player controlling the victims can pick two models and on a 3+ swap the hits allocated, and can do that for as many model pairs as they like. this shuts down at 8" or less when it can no longer be done.
the wound tracking for multi wound units isn't that hard to deal with given they tend to be smaller units, plus being honest no "normal" infantry figure should be multi wound anyway as damage is always going to either be trivial and they can carry on or enough they cannot carry on
You're discussing wargames on the Internet, which means you're in a room full of people who operate from the assumption that the only possible way wargames can be fun is for them to be exact, perfect replicas of their personal idea of fun. To you, the thing that's wrong is the people complaining that the game isn't fun, because you think it is and therefore the other player's attitude is the only possible problem; to the people complaining about the rules feeling bad, however, the game isn't fun and therefore the problem is the game.
I'm interested in what it means and why it's being used so much. There are without a doubt rules that work poorly, but 'feels bad ' is an appeal to emotion that seems to be conflated with poor rule design.
If I were to play the feels bad game, I'd say the entirety of 10th ed because it has had every rule that doesn't directly benefit space marines removed, until it's just tough smash save grrr. Without any real nuance.
...I mean, it's a fuzzy term that means different things to different people, but in general I think it means "the things that happen on the table contradict what my intuition suggests should happen," e.g. "oh no I moved my airplane too close to enemy lines and it was brought down by...flamethrowers?", "...why are my Chaos Warriors losing melee to a unit of goblin archers?", "what's the point of running Knights at all if Space Marines with knives are a cost-effective way to kill them?", that kind of thing (examples from various editions).
If 10th feels bad to you because the Warhammer in your head isn't bad SM fanfic and 10th feels like bad SM fanfic, then "feels bad" is an accurate way to describe it, but you could definitely be more precise in your description if you wanted.
Wyldhunt wrote: Not sure I love the idea of plasma guns being able to reliably snipe out characters and squad leaders because they automatically home-in on the best save in the squad. Sort of turns good armor into a death trap, doesn't it? Also means potentially more wound tracking for multi-wound units.
well that only happens if the one who is different also has a better save
I feel like that's not very uncommon in 40k though. Off the top of my head, autarchs have better saves than the squads they can join. So do phoenix lords. I think DW can still mix termies into their squads. Pretty sure warbosses have better saves than boyz.Probably more, especially if you count invulns as better saves than armor saves. And the end result is still that the highest quality incomign shots automatically snipe out the models with the best saves (thus the models that are most likely to be expensive and that you're probably least happy about losing.) Like I said, in the event that your armor is better than that of your squad, your armor functionally makes you die faster. Which is counterintuitive and enough of a problem that I wouldn't be excited about switching to that system.
Flames has a "mistaken target" rule as well, once all the hits are allocated (by the attacking player) the player controlling the victims can pick two models and on a 3+ swap the hits allocated, and can do that for as many model pairs as they like. this shuts down at 8" or less when it can no longer be done.
In addition to being more complicated, it sounds like this is basically a rule to undo your heat-seeking plasma proposal above. So if we're adding extra rules to negate the proposed rules, I feel like there's probably a stronger alternative out there.
the wound tracking for multi wound units isn't that hard to deal with given they tend to be smaller units, plus being honest no "normal" infantry figure should be multi wound anyway as damage is always going to either be trivial and they can carry on or enough they cannot carry on
I mean, we've had enough threads about W2 marines to safely say that that opinion isn't universally supported. Switching back to a wound system where multiple models can be injured simultaneously wouldn't be the end of the world, but I do think the extra tracking it requires is still worth keeping in mind.
Hope none of that came off as overly harsh. Not trying to attack you over toy soldier rules.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
Hellebore wrote: But surely a central theme of wargames is adapting tactics to deal with suboptimal conditions.
Which is why most feel bad rules are labelled that way because they deny agency to one or both players, no matter what the "LeArN 2 pLaY" drones want you to think.
pretty much this - I think one of the best examples is how scattering worked in earlier editions:
You target something with a template, and units covered were able to jink / take cover (?) before you roll to hit. If you miss the shot, it scatters in a randomized direction. Units that are now under the template were NOT allowed to try to evade that shell. You werent even allowed to just evade "in case the shell scatters onto my other dudes"
Considering that this was a) removing agency from the now-hit units and b) made absolutely no sense as this was mostly relevant for indirect fire - no "look at the barrel direction then take cover" at all - this was just a feels bad moment. they fixed this towards the end of 7th edition, but up until that everyone i know played it like that and complained about the awful rule.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/16 20:36:43
Wyldhunt wrote: Not sure I love the idea of plasma guns being able to reliably snipe out characters and squad leaders because they automatically home-in on the best save in the squad. Sort of turns good armor into a death trap, doesn't it? Also means potentially more wound tracking for multi-wound units.
well that only happens if the one who is different also has a better save
I feel like that's not very uncommon in 40k though. Off the top of my head, autarchs have better saves than the squads they can join. So do phoenix lords. I think DW can still mix termies into their squads. Pretty sure warbosses have better saves than boyz.Probably more, especially if you count invulns as better saves than armor saves. And the end result is still that the highest quality incomign shots automatically snipe out the models with the best saves (thus the models that are most likely to be expensive and that you're probably least happy about losing.) Like I said, in the event that your armor is better than that of your squad, your armor functionally makes you die faster. Which is counterintuitive and enough of a problem that I wouldn't be excited about switching to that system.
Flames has a "mistaken target" rule as well, once all the hits are allocated (by the attacking player) the player controlling the victims can pick two models and on a 3+ swap the hits allocated, and can do that for as many model pairs as they like. this shuts down at 8" or less when it can no longer be done.
In addition to being more complicated, it sounds like this is basically a rule to undo your heat-seeking plasma proposal above. So if we're adding extra rules to negate the proposed rules, I feel like there's probably a stronger alternative out there.
the wound tracking for multi wound units isn't that hard to deal with given they tend to be smaller units, plus being honest no "normal" infantry figure should be multi wound anyway as damage is always going to either be trivial and they can carry on or enough they cannot carry on
I mean, we've had enough threads about W2 marines to safely say that that opinion isn't universally supported. Switching back to a wound system where multiple models can be injured simultaneously wouldn't be the end of the world, but I do think the extra tracking it requires is still worth keeping in mind.
Hope none of that came off as overly harsh. Not trying to attack you over toy soldier rules.
none of that is harsh, never mind overly harsh, just different ways to approach the same issue.
Flames v3 had the target unit player allocate hits, with IIRC four pages of illustrated rules on how to do it, priority etc, then various units that had special rules that mucked about with it.
in V4 they flipped it to the attacker allocates hits, largely however they want with just a few rules (can't allocate to stuff you can't see, and has to be below 16" before over it), then added the "mistaken target" swapping so unit leaders etc are harder to snipe out
has the advantage that done that way you more or less only bother when it matters, see also middle earth where technically each model fires at an individual, but its not uncommon for it to be "mix six archers shoot at your block of infantry" and let the target player work out who dies when it doesn't matter much
many ways to skin the cat then argue over whose fault it is you now have a cold, and angry, cat
Hellebore wrote: But surely a central theme of wargames is adapting tactics to deal with suboptimal conditions.
Which is why most feel bad rules are labelled that way because they deny agency to one or both players, no matter what the "LeArN 2 pLaY" drones want you to think.
pretty much this - I think one of the best examples is how scattering worked in earlier editions:
You target something with a template, and units covered were able to jink / take cover (?) before you roll to hit. If you miss the shot, it scatters in a randomized direction. Units that are now under the template were NOT allowed to try to evade that shell. You werent even allowed to just evade "in case the shell scatters onto my other dudes"
Considering that this was a) removing agency from the now-hit units and b) made absolutely no sense as this was mostly relevant for indirect fire - no "look at the barrel direction then take cover" at all - this was just a feels bad moment. they fixed this towards the end of 7th edition, but up until that everyone i know played it like that and complained about the awful rule.
worst bit with templates is how so few would roll the flipping scatter die close to the template and all the resulting arguments over the angle
especially given there is a seriously easy solution, print a clock face on the template, the "12" position goes directly at the firing unit, now roll a D12...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/16 21:40:19
