A way to make the game go faster?

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.

**happypants**

This is something I have thought about for forever and can't come up with a good or even reasonable way to do it.

Limiting turn time is unfair to horde players. Limiting total time means games don't get finished.

I guess you could get a 'total game time bank per model' but that means that horde players get more time for strategy as well which hurts people with smaller armies.

Has anyone else ever given any thought to this?

**DonkeyCannon**

Stop taking smoke breaks!

**HellsGuardian316**

Its a very hard thing to do.

I've found a useful tool is to write out a sheet that applies to your army.
E.G. if you have a power weapon then its statistics are listed on the sheet so you don't have to look through the rulebook
Things like fleet rules, what you tanks can do etc

Makes it a bit more streamline

**happypants** · Posted By DonkeyCannon on 11/22/2006 6:58 AM Stop taking smoke breaks! :p

Posted By DonkeyCannon on 11/22/2006 6:58 AM
Stop taking smoke breaks!

:p

**DonkeyCannon**

House rules and knowing said rules for situations where the BGB does not cover. Not taking 10 minutes to place a drop pod.

**Strangelooper**

Da herb makes for slow game play.

**lord_sutekh**

More understanding of the rules and less arguing abstract bull-puckey to get a temporary advantage makes all the difference.

**yakface**

Although a bit OT, I think one of the easiest ways they could have sped up the game in 4th edition would have been to get rid of "range sniping" and the restrictions on removing casualties from within LOS.

I really don't understand why these rules are still in the game now that it has become more squad based and less focused on the individual model.

The fluff in the casualty rules even states that the reason you can remove any model from the unit is because it represents other models in the unit continuing to move forward and take their positions. So if casualty removal is clearly an abstract concept within the unit, why continue to apply range and LOS to it?

Why can't we imagine that the model behind the building surged forward to take the place of another model?

Because even though I'm a veteran player with a good grasp of the rules who can breeze through most of these situations, I can also recognize that a lot of time is spent checking to see which models can be removed as casualties. Are these guys in range of the bolters? Can this guy be seen by the Lascannon? Etc, etc, etc.

I think the rules should be changed as such:

1) Casualties may be drawn from anywhere in the target unit, regardless of range and/or line of sight of the firing weapon.

2) Firing models that are within range of at least one model in the unit count as shooting at full effect at the unit.

3) If the majority of the target unit is out of LOS from the firing models, add +1 to the cover save of the cover the unit is concealed behind.

Now obviously this would occasionally lead to some strange situations where ten models shooting bolters are only in range of one model in the target unit, yet they're able to do a bunch of damage. So yes, this would certainly increase the damage potential of short ranged shooting weapons and units.

However, this would somewhat be offset by the fact that Assualt armies could take casualties off from the *back* of their unit, even if out of range or LOS, meaning they will be more likely to keep those front models alive to charge in the next turn.

But most important of all would be the tremendous streamlining of the shooting phase IMO. All you have to do is check to see which models in the firing unit are within range of their target and that's all the measuring you have to do.

Besides that, I personally would love to see the whole range sniping garbage just go away, as it just seems very gamey everytime it happens. It doesn't add anything positive to the experience and is only ever an issue when someone's important model accidentally gets nailed by a meltagun. It doesn't really make sense from the loose perspective of the casualty removal rules, and it always seems to leave players feeling like they somehow just got cheated.

**HellsGuardian316**

Although I can see a bit of sense to your comments Yakface I can also think of a good reason why it can be one sided and damaging to certain armies and could make it a bit unfair.

For example, you have a horde of 20 kroot hiding behind a building with only one model in L.O.S. of a squad of marines. If that one model was hit with 20 boltguns and which all wounded (kroot have no save btw), then using GW rules only the one model would be removed. However using the rule you mentioned would mean that the whole squad be removed as they have no save. Even with a 5+ or 6+ save that would be a huge disadvantage.

Perhaps you could change it to be similar to the assualt rules, I.E. only models within 2" of a model who is in L.O.S. can be taken as casulties. You would still get the effect you mentioned of units walking forward to where their comrads are/were.

That would help streamline it a bit because then your using similar rules for both phases.

Personally I do prefere the game as is, but in a huge game perhaps you could use this as a House Rule to speed things up so that players aren't kept playing till 3am etc lol

**yakface**

Posted By hellsguardian316 on 11/28/2006 3:10 AM
Although I can see a bit of sense to your comments Yakface I can also think of a good reason why it can be one sided and damaging to certain armies and could make it a bit unfair.

For example, you have a horde of 20 kroot hiding behind a building with only one model in L.O.S. of a squad of marines. If that one model was hit with 20 boltguns and which all wounded (kroot have no save btw), then using GW rules only the one model would be removed. However using the rule you mentioned would mean that the whole squad be removed as they have no save. Even with a 5+ or 6+ save that would be a huge disadvantage.

Perhaps you could change it to be similar to the assualt rules, I.E. only models within 2" of a model who is in L.O.S. can be taken as casulties. You would still get the effect you mentioned of units walking forward to where their comrads are/were.

That would help streamline it a bit because then your using similar rules for both phases.

Personally I do prefere the game as is, but in a huge game perhaps you could use this as a House Rule to speed things up so that players aren't kept playing till 3am etc lol

If a majority of the Kroot were behind the building, they would get a minimum of a 3+ cover save (normal 4+ with +1 for having a majority of models out of LOS).

That means twenty boltgun shots fired at BS4 would average out to 2.22 dead Kroot. Even if they were behind a forest (normally a 5+ save bumped up to a 4+ save) would still only result in 3.33 dead Kroot.

So I don't think its quite as bad as you were envisioning. As I said before, this would certainly increase the effectiveness of shooting, but again, it would also ensure that CC units would be able to keep the models that are within charge range alive to charge.

**Strangelooper**

I agree, I think that a lot of confusion would be removed if we just treat units as shooting at units. And kind of ignore the 'individual model' part except in the case of characters.

When half a unit can doubletap and half can't, casualty removal gets convoluted.

**Raider**

I like your idea Yakface. The game would go a lot faster. The rules would be more coherent.

The loss of thouse little tricks wouldnt really hurt that much because you hardly apply them on a regular basis anyways for fear of sour feelings.

**djones520**

Posted By DonkeyCannon on 11/22/2006 6:58 AM
Stop taking smoke breaks!

Amen Brother. Once spent 10 hours on a game, and only got to Turn 3 because half the players where always smokin.

Game length doesn't bother me to much. I remember how long the took back in the good ole 2nd Ed. days, and these seem like quickies compaired to those.

**Kultofthebonedragons**

I lost games becasue the other player was taking his time and looking up things in the book and watching the clock in touraments. IF your going too play a army at least Know there rules and any special rules for them and tell them too the other player, I do all the time when i play dark eldar espeically if i have mandrakes ( there special cover save rule even in C/C)and , wytches.HQ YEs i may be giving away secrets and traps but it makes the game go way faster.
Ive played on game never got past turn Two due too the other guy knew he had lost the game in turn one ( he was a Speed Freak player) i was a Dark eldar Player and I lost the game due too his watching the clock and looking up rules and asking the host if he could go too the bathroom and etc.....