PDA

View Full Version : Warhammer 40k: A condradiction of Itself.



KR3LL
17-06-2013, 15:28
The more I play 6th edition, the more it seems it wasn't play tested much, or even thought out that well. With upcoming apoc its going to be even more visible.

6th Edition came with a lot of goodies. Allies, 2nd force org chart, fortifications. All of these new rules, additions are great. They add a lot of flexibility and interesting builds. To utilize any of them like you really want to though require larger games.
So this brings me to my main point. Larger Games. I am not talking 4K+ here. Even a 2k point game can easily take 3 hours.

Setup takes much longer, terrain setup rules add un-needed time (most people skipping this rule I think, but its still part of the rules). So some of the other set up time is consumed by, roll for warlord trait, roll for deployment type, roll for sides, roll for setup, roll for night fighting, roll for number of objectives, roll for psychic powers. And if you are playing CSM or CD...add about 10 minutes of more rolls before you play.

So in game rolls, roll for type of objective, and remember each turn what it does, and don't forget to do it. Roll for random terrain type, and remember each turn what it does, and don't forget to do it.

Pre-measuring I agree is a good thing, but also adds time on to the game.

Assault phase has many added sub-steps. Declare charge, roll overwatch hits, roll overwatch wounds, roll overwatch saves, roll charge distance. Then we have rules like Hammer of Wrath, Challenges, Initiative pile in steps, sub fight pile in.

My main point here is the game rules promote larger battles, but the rules also make the games take way too long.

My second point is...
So yes...something needed done about vehicles. But is it me or does everything seem too squishy. The whole hull point scale needs wiped clean and started over. Seems like the land raider should be about double what it is for hull points. For vehicles that are supposed to be so resilient and rare they sure do like to get wrecked in every small encounter with any enemy. There is an entire range of vehicles that are no longer playable rules wise.

So Apoc coming up just confuses me. Much larger games. Vehicles being so squishy and games take much longer already. Is it going to be any fun? A friend and I played 5k Orks vs 5K Necrons a couple months ago (I had an incredibly mobile and fast ork force). After 7 hours of play, we got to the bottom of turn 2. We were not jerking around either. We tried to hurry our phases and steps as much as possible and still enjoy the game. We took a couple small breaks. But after we finished the bottom of turn 2, my opponent and I just looked at each other and we decided to call it quits...what was the point of playing any more that day.

I really feel like the rules of 6th edition work against what its trying to be. Did you really think "Forging a narrative" would make the game play like this?

HereComesTomorrow
17-06-2013, 16:08
You know you can ignore the terrain set up and objective effect rules, right?
As for the assault phase, you can make anything sound complicated if you list every step. It doesn't actually take that long in practice. I have no problem with hull points either.

And a 5k game where one side is a horde army took a long time to play out? Sorry, but you'll get no sympathy from me. Maybe some envy.

Kijamon
17-06-2013, 16:14
If you are going to play Orks at 5,000 points then you really need to be considering some sort of movement trays for your units. Otherwise picking up and moving a handful at a time is going to take ages.

Dark_Kindred
17-06-2013, 16:26
I myself like 6th edition and endeavor to do everything up to and including alternating terrain. The assault phase was divided into subphases to make everything more organized rule wise while also adding depth. I also find your 10,000 point horror story to be a bit over the top because we do apocalypse games at my store that are bigger. If we can do 4-5 turns with 18,000+ points worth of models in less than 6 hours, I don't know what you are doing.

IMO hull points actually make sense and have done a lot to balance the game.

If you are really having a hard time remembering what mysterious objectives and mysterious terrain are, I would suggest making note cards and just putting those beside said objectives/terrain.

Bubble Ghost
17-06-2013, 16:26
A friend and I played 5k Orks vs 5K Necrons

Playing 40K at that size and expecting it to work as a game is like trying to decorate a bedroom using Citadel paintbrushes, and about as related to warfare. If you want to use that many miniatures, out-of-the-box 40K is the wrong tool for the job. Stubbornly struggling through with the unmodified rules and then faulting the game is a bit weird.

40K is still, thankfully, optimised for a (relatively) affordable and transportable army, and intended to give you interesting things to do as you build your collection. Conversely, something like Kings of War is a good game and works well for huge battles, but for that very reason, a 500 point game of it would be nothing but air - it would need modification to work at that non-optimal level. 40K is the same. Personally, I don't think even the Apocalypse rules ever achieved anything you couldn't do more easily with a shelf, except perhaps provide you with a thin means to pretend there's a reason for standing around admiring your miniatures for 12 hours. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Cheeslord
17-06-2013, 16:26
I'm surprised you didn't mention Wound Allocation. Rolling saves one at a time because the guy at the back has a better save, randomly allocating wounds, then saving, one at a time for certain attacks even though you all have the same save ...

Mark.

Ozendorph
17-06-2013, 16:29
Hopefully Apocalypse introduces a streamlined play system that better supports larger-scale games. I find even smaller games tedious in 6th edition, and I can't even imagine playing a 6th Ed game at our normal Apoc point levels.

jackers
17-06-2013, 16:29
Wait, you mean apocalypse was fun in the first place? :p

Sarcasm aside, I've never really understood the point of apocalypse to be honest. Every game I've ever seen has had far too many players and always seems to devolve into several smaller fights between one or two people on each team, with no-one ever communicating with the other players on their side.

I often play 2.5k games against one of my friends, which take about 3 hours to finish. This includes lots of narrative story and chatting. I seriously doubt I would play a game much bigger than that though, as alot of the rules and playstyles start to break down once you get to 3k+.

In reference to your points about 40k taking longer; I agree that it definitely takes longer to play a game than it used to, but I actually like that, since I came from playing fantasy, where there are lots of extra tactical rules etc to think about (alot of the additions to 6th ed. 40k actually came from fantasy). 6th ed has added many more tactical elements to the game, and while it is far from perfect, it is definitely my favourite edition of 40k so far.
Ofcourse there are some ridiculous rules in the book, like mysterious terrain, random terrain setup, mysterious objectives etc, but almost no-one I know actually uses them, haha.

As far as vehicles go, I feel that GW are damned if they do, damned if they don't really. If they give a vehicle too many HPs/USRs then people cry broken, give it too few then people say that they can't use any of the vehicles they bought last edition. I think most vehicles are about right, with a couple of exceptions; Landspeeders being one, and flyers being the other.

fgsfds-
17-06-2013, 16:34
I really don't mind long games. Sure, this means you need to have some 3-5 hours of free time to get to play a complete game (and this usually means you'll only get to play on weekends) but that just makes me look more foward to the game. It's like a special treat. And I usually don't even notice how the time flies by.
The biggest games I've played have been 2000 points so I can't really say anything about games bigger than that.

And I think the rules considering vehicles are just fine (but then again, I seldom use any, so what do I know). Vehicles are usually (or have been) the biggest single units on the table so of course they attract attention and get destroyed first as no one want's to let them get too close or fire their weapons. I really bought my vehicles for transportation means only, because I know they won't last long in the battle.

Bubble Ghost
17-06-2013, 16:38
Rolling saves one at a time because the guy at the back has a better save

You don't have to do that.

Individual8580
17-06-2013, 16:47
No-one is forcing anybody to play 2k points games at gunpoint, right?

Xeen
17-06-2013, 16:57
I disagree with you, respectively. We routinely play 1850 and can usually get a game done in 3 hours give or take 20 minutes. And that time is starting with arriving at the store with your friend to finishing putting everything away, so the actual game is probably like 2.5 or so, if that. Also, I don't think I ever played a game of 40k above like 750 points that took less than 2 hours total, regardless of editions. To me the game does not feel any longer compared to previous editions.

I agree with you that there are a lot of things that can slow the game down, however if you are not playing someone who is trying to play 100% competitive it is usually not a problem, and most of the time a lot of rules are not used at all. I have never used the alternating terrain set up, as me an my opponent just set it up and agree. I play demons (Tzeentch) and CSM and it does not take that long to roll up gifts and psyker spells. Mysterious terrain and objectives are usually not used, or when they are, most people tend to forget about them, which is why we tend not to use them. I agree the game gets really slowed when you play someone who has to meticulously premeasure ever single move and counter-move no matter how unimportant, and who has to absolutely be sure how to place every member of the squad to optimize positioning every turn, it can be time consuming, but my experience is most people in causal games don't do this. This would especially be true of Apocalypse with large numbers of troops on the board. Also, the old Apocalypse rules have a lot of issues, which may be fixed, but typically our league makes a rule that you only get like 10 minutes per phase 4 turns (so an hour per player turn which makes 8 hours total, but most times people don't use the whole 10 min every phase) and if you are playing a large Apocalypse game, you do need all day anyway. Don't play apocalypse and expect to be down in 3 hours.

Finally on vehicles, I agree that they die pretty easy and in real life a land raider dying as easy in a tactical engagement makes it really inefficient (actually I don't think any army could really take the caustically rate of most games of 40k regularly where unless it is a total stomping it most armies lose like 80% of there models), but that is meaning less to a game that needs to be balanced. I like hull points, because in previous editions if felt like the game was vehicles and bring troops to score. I think the HPs but not being stunned to a glance really balanced vehicles, most of which are still good (see: Wave serpent, War Walkers, Vindicators, Artillery of any kind, Russes, annihilation barges etc.) That is just my two cents.

KR3LL
17-06-2013, 17:21
You know you can ignore the terrain set up and objective effect rules, right?
As for the assault phase, you can make anything sound complicated if you list every step. It doesn't actually take that long in practice. I have no problem with hull points either.

And a 5k game where one side is a horde army took a long time to play out? Sorry, but you'll get no sympathy from me. Maybe some envy.


Most often we ignore terrain set up rules, as we did in the 5k game. They are still part of the rules, that add to game time. If it was a good addition to 6th everybody would be using it right.
Assault phase is as complicated as that. I listed them out, they are part of the rules, they are there, and they add to game time.

Hull points were needed, and I never played heavy armour list in 5th. But now I have bunch of awesome looking walkers just setting on a shelf, rendered useless by 6th edition.


If you are going to play Orks at 5,000 points then you really need to be considering some sort of movement trays for your units. Otherwise picking up and moving a handful at a time is going to take ages.

Besides my lootas, my entire army was in vehicles. I was in close combat with everything turn 2.


I myself like 6th edition and endeavor to do everything up to and including alternating terrain. The assault phase was divided into subphases to make everything more organized rule wise while also adding depth. I also find your 10,000 point horror story to be a bit over the top because we do apocalypse games at my store that are bigger. If we can do 4-5 turns with 18,000+ points worth of models in less than 6 hours, I don't know what you are doing.

IMO hull points actually make sense and have done a lot to balance the game.

If you are really having a hard time remembering what mysterious objectives and mysterious terrain are, I would suggest making note cards and just putting those beside said objectives/terrain.

The 10k battle was what it was. It took that long. We ignored random terrain, random objectives, random terrain setup...ignored all that to speed things along. It still took forever. What really slowed the game down to a crawl was the assault phase.


Playing 40K at that size and expecting it to work as a game is like trying to decorate a bedroom using Citadel paintbrushes, and about as related to warfare. If you want to use that many miniatures, out-of-the-box 40K is the wrong tool for the job. Stubbornly struggling through with the unmodified rules and then faulting the game is a bit weird.


Again as I stated in my first post, there are rules in place to encourage bigger games, but there are other rules in place that slow the game down. Even 2-3k point games should not take as long as they do. We modified and ignored several rules to speed things along and still found faults in how long it took.


I'm surprised you didn't mention Wound Allocation. Rolling saves one at a time because the guy at the back has a better save, randomly allocating wounds, then saving, one at a time for certain attacks even though you all have the same save ...

Mark.

Sorry, left one out...I am sure there are others too.


Hopefully Apocalypse introduces a streamlined play system that better supports larger-scale games. I find even smaller games tedious in 6th edition, and I can't even imagine playing a 6th Ed game at our normal Apoc point levels.

I hope so too.


No-one is forcing anybody to play 2k points games at gunpoint, right?

No, but the rules of 6th most certainly promote it.


I disagree with you, respectively. We routinely play 1850 and can usually get a game done in 3 hours give or take 20 minutes. And that time is starting with arriving at the store with your friend to finishing putting everything away, so the actual game is probably like 2.5 or so, if that. Also, I don't think I ever played a game of 40k above like 750 points that took less than 2 hours total, regardless of editions. To me the game does not feel any longer compared to previous editions.

In 5th edition a 2k game would take me, playing orks right at 2 hours. That is with setup time. Now that is about 3 hours and while ignoring a lot of rules to speed things along.



I agree with you that there are a lot of things that can slow the game down, however if you are not playing someone who is trying to play 100% competitive it is usually not a problem, and most of the time a lot of rules are not used at all. I have never used the alternating terrain set up, as me an my opponent just set it up and agree. I play demons (Tzeentch) and CSM and it does not take that long to roll up gifts and psyker spells. Mysterious terrain and objectives are usually not used, or when they are, most people tend to forget about them, which is why we tend not to use them. I agree the game gets really slowed when you play someone who has to meticulously premeasure ever single move and counter-move no matter how unimportant, and who has to absolutely be sure how to place every member of the squad to optimize positioning every turn, it can be time consuming, but my experience is most people in causal games don't do this.


I agree, a lot of the rules are ignored or not used. but if 6th edition is so great...why are we ignoring rules to make it better?




Finally on vehicles, I agree that they die pretty easy and in real life a land raider dying as easy in a tactical engagement makes it really inefficient (actually I don't think any army could really take the caustically rate of most games of 40k regularly where unless it is a total stomping it most armies lose like 80% of there models), but that is meaning less to a game that needs to be balanced. I like hull points, because in previous editions if felt like the game was vehicles and bring troops to score. I think the HPs but not being stunned to a glance really balanced vehicles, most of which are still good (see: Wave serpent, War Walkers, Vindicators, Artillery of any kind, Russes, annihilation barges etc.) That is just my two cents.
[/QUOTE]
Some vehicles are OK with the amount of Hull points allocated. Most are not. Fliers are all jacked up...period. Most of it would be OK though but the auto-glancing stuff makes it really suck. Crons and Nurgle can easily auto-glance a vehicle to death with just slightly higher than avg rolls. I had a unit of 5 plague drones double-kill a necron monolith a couple weeks ago. 8 glances from a charging attack.

Bubble Ghost
17-06-2013, 17:34
the rules of 6th most certainly promote it.

I just don't accept your premise. The rules acknowledge the possibility of larger games, which is a considerate thing for them to do because they know there are folks like yourself about, but they don't "promote" larger games. They even tell you, right there in the section on game size, that you should "expect a game of 4000 points or more to take the entire day."

Furor Teutonicus
17-06-2013, 17:56
My second point is...
So yes...something needed done about vehicles. But is it me or does everything seem too squishy. The whole hull point scale needs wiped clean and started over. Seems like the land raider should be about double what it is for hull points. For vehicles that are supposed to be so resilient and rare they sure do like to get wrecked in every small encounter with any enemy. There is an entire range of vehicles that are no longer playable rules wise.


Where I play we house rule vehicles with "tank" or "walker" USR to have the doubble amount of hull points in apoc games. Works out pretty good.

Blinder
17-06-2013, 17:58
I really haven't found the new mechanics in 6th adding excessive time to my games beyond the unfamiliarity factor (which is largely passed except for the occasional really weird case, like double-checking that both of my Guard squads do indeed get separate rolls to run down the unit they just beat in combat). Most of the extra time that I see comes from the codices involved, be it their tendency towards a higher model-to-points ratio or by containing a whole rulebook's worth of abilities and exemptions (or both...). Granted, the core rules have been making higher troop counts more and more desirable, but I see that more as shifting models around rather than adding significant quantities compared to what people would take if everything was scoring.

As for vehicles... my main gripe right now is that they're still always hit in the rear by assault. If they had remained hard to hit I could see leaving that in, but making them easier to hit and making it reliable to glance things to death just feels like too much when it's added to the facing nerf (from my experience vehicles were never all *that* hard to pop in CC in 5th unless you had a low quantity of low quality attacks). Put them back to assaulting the facing you're assaulting and suddenly MC's, meltabombs, and chainfists all have a reason to be the go-to vehicle solution aside from "crap it's a land raider." Shooting at vehicles isn't all *that* bad IMO, though I don't think they needed to keep the +1/+2 modifiers around either.

KR3LL
17-06-2013, 17:59
I just don't accept your premise. The rules acknowledge the possibility of larger games, which is a considerate thing for them to do because they know there are folks like yourself about, but they don't "promote" larger games. They even tell you, right there in the section on game size, that you should "expect a game of 4000 points or more to take the entire day."

Maybe I should clarify, larger games...I mean anything over 2k.

Double Force Org starts at 2k. Allies are barely usable in smaller point games besides a cheap HQ and troop choice. So these promote larger games, which in turn are barely do-able because of time required to do so.

WLBjork
17-06-2013, 18:07
You may cry about current assault rules, but these are easy compared to 2nd edition.

Imagine having to work out every model fighting individually (and if 2 opposing units bunched together it was a nightmare) yet I still played big games back then - 10k as it was, probably about 4.5k nowadays, and got through the games in about the same amount of time as you claim to have taken with this one.


My group ignore some of the rules because they aren't essential to the core game, mainly the terrain set up and mysterious terrain rules.

For set-up, we have our own system we feel is superior whereas mysterious terrain would slow our games down a little too much whilst we concentrate on memorising the vehicle damage chart (almost done) and the special rules.

Saunders
17-06-2013, 18:11
It takes less time to play a game, the more you play and become familiarized with the rules.

Sami
17-06-2013, 18:18
I'm surprised you didn't mention Wound Allocation. Rolling saves one at a time because the guy at the back has a better save, randomly allocating wounds, then saving, one at a time for certain attacks even though you all have the same save ...

Erm, what?



edit: also, I found introducting premeasuring sped things up. No more pondering for ages on whether unit A will hit unit B or if it will be a wasted shot. Just measure and decide your course of action.

Ozendorph
17-06-2013, 18:18
@WLBjork Actually I'd say the current Assault rules are about as inefficient as the 2nd Ed rules. Pulling casualties from B2B models (same), Pile-In at each initiative step, LoS! rolls, Challenges...it's ugly. And that's before you consider having to resolve a round of shooting from the charged unit (and anyone nearby if Tau) before you even get to roll for charge range and get stuck in (maybe). I should re-model all my Berzerkers to be face-palming.

shinankoku
17-06-2013, 18:22
KR3LL -

First off, sweet Number 21 pic.

Secondly, I knew this ed was going to be a cluster #%+&. They added all these new units, new rules, blah, blah ... The game hasn't played this slowly since 2nd ed. Very sad.

On the other hand, the other posters to this thread have a point - house rules rock! Make it your own game, play it the way it works for you. Honestly, my buddy and I have dropped back to 3rd ed with a few forth, fifth and sixth ed rules. Whatever.

Good luck

Fear Ghoul
17-06-2013, 18:26
Whether a game takes too long is entirely subjective. Plenty of board games require 3+ hours of play despite their insistence that an average game length is 30+ minutes. 40k has never been designed with large (1750pts+) games in mind, but they do have rules in place should people wish to pursue this route.

skorczeny
17-06-2013, 18:37
Maybe I should clarify, larger games...I mean anything over 2k.

Double Force Org starts at 2k. Allies are barely usable in smaller point games besides a cheap HQ and troop choice. So these promote larger games, which in turn are barely do-able because of time required to do so.

I don't know if these things really promote larger games. They simply enable them.

Double force org chart is not a reason to play large games, but a way to make large games more feasible. Not a lot of people have 6 or more troop choices, but its very very easy to have 3 HQ choices in your collection. If you want a bigger game, now you have the rules to cram your whole collection in.

Tournaments are often under 2k (small games) , and I believe that allies are incredibly common there. So I don't think allies promotes large games, but simply allows you to mash together two of your armies if you want to play a larger game, but don't have one large coherent force.

Ozendorph
17-06-2013, 18:52
I think when determining what size games GW is promoting, it'd probably be best to see exactly what's being promoted, rather than trying to decipher the intent of various rules. What point values are being used in White Dwarf (promotional mag) Battle Reports? What size armies are shown in promotional photos? In White Dwarf Daily? And so on.

Spiney Norman
17-06-2013, 18:57
Wait, you mean apocalypse was fun in the first place? :p

Sarcasm aside, I've never really understood the point of apocalypse to be honest. Every game I've ever seen has had far too many players and always seems to devolve into several smaller fights between one or two people on each team, with no-one ever communicating with the other players on their side.


I thought the "point" in apoc was so baldly transparent that everyone understood. The point is "lets design a new way to play the game that sounds big and cool and makes people spend wads of cash just to be able to play it that way, and wads more to be competitive at it".

At the end of the day apoc was and is, just a GW money spinner pure and simple, you need at least 3k points to turn up to an apoc game (which I can't currently do with any of my three armies), so much more regular stuff needed, and if you want to actually stand a chance you have to put down big bucks for the super heavies.

Ozendorph
17-06-2013, 19:34
Hmm...in my opinion you missed the point of Apocalypse entirely, despite its bald transparency :p

But I'm a guy with several Apoc-sized forces that has been playing for decades, so I think we're looking at the game from very different perspectives

Bubble Ghost
17-06-2013, 19:42
The point of Apocalypse is to allow you to stand and admire your disposable income miniatures, and create an illusion for you to present to others that there is some reason beyond OCD to own so many of them. Like I said on the previous page, I think a shelf lets you do that far more efficiently. You just don't have the ability to pretend you're playing a game while you stare at a shelf.:p




(I kid)

Poseidal
17-06-2013, 19:54
The funny thing about game size is since 6th edition the games I've played have been smaller than what I played in 3rd to 5th. Generally a 'larger' game is 1750 and 1500 is common.

Before 6th, generally 2000, 2250 and 2500 were more common (and occasionally 1850). I think the 'double force org' chart being mentioned in the main book and having a cut-off at 2000 probably meant most players around here didn't want to deal with that, so the game size was dropped below that.

flemfilms
17-06-2013, 20:07
The more I play 6th edition, the more it seems it wasn't play tested much, or even thought out that well. With upcoming apoc its going to be even more visible.

6th Edition came with a lot of goodies. Allies, 2nd force org chart, fortifications. All of these new rules, additions are great. They add a lot of flexibility and interesting builds. To utilize any of them like you really want to though require larger games.
So this brings me to my main point. Larger Games. I am not talking 4K+ here. Even a 2k point game can easily take 3 hours.

Setup takes much longer, terrain setup rules add un-needed time (most people skipping this rule I think, but its still part of the rules). So some of the other set up time is consumed by, roll for warlord trait, roll for deployment type, roll for sides, roll for setup, roll for night fighting, roll for number of objectives, roll for psychic powers. And if you are playing CSM or CD...add about 10 minutes of more rolls before you play.

So in game rolls, roll for type of objective, and remember each turn what it does, and don't forget to do it. Roll for random terrain type, and remember each turn what it does, and don't forget to do it.

Pre-measuring I agree is a good thing, but also adds time on to the game.

Assault phase has many added sub-steps. Declare charge, roll overwatch hits, roll overwatch wounds, roll overwatch saves, roll charge distance. Then we have rules like Hammer of Wrath, Challenges, Initiative pile in steps, sub fight pile in.

My main point here is the game rules promote larger battles, but the rules also make the games take way too long.

My second point is...
So yes...something needed done about vehicles. But is it me or does everything seem too squishy. The whole hull point scale needs wiped clean and started over. Seems like the land raider should be about double what it is for hull points. For vehicles that are supposed to be so resilient and rare they sure do like to get wrecked in every small encounter with any enemy. There is an entire range of vehicles that are no longer playable rules wise.

So Apoc coming up just confuses me. Much larger games. Vehicles being so squishy and games take much longer already. Is it going to be any fun? A friend and I played 5k Orks vs 5K Necrons a couple months ago (I had an incredibly mobile and fast ork force). After 7 hours of play, we got to the bottom of turn 2. We were not jerking around either. We tried to hurry our phases and steps as much as possible and still enjoy the game. We took a couple small breaks. But after we finished the bottom of turn 2, my opponent and I just looked at each other and we decided to call it quits...what was the point of playing any more that day.

I really feel like the rules of 6th edition work against what its trying to be. Did you really think "Forging a narrative" would make the game play like this?

I agree on almost all of these points.
1 thing you forgot to mention was flyers. They speed the game up a bit since they come out and kill a squad or vehicle every round :rolleyes:

Most of my group's 5th Ed games tended to be around 2000 pts. We've been trying to do this with 6th, but it just doesn't work. It really does take way too long. And we have house ruled a lot.
More and more we are moving to 1850 and 1500 pt games, and I've been enjoying them a lot more. All the BS I don't like about 6th become less of a problem at 1500 pts.

And since every unit is being reduced in points, the model counts are still relatively the same as 5th Ed games at 2000 pts.

raygunsand rocketeers
17-06-2013, 20:14
40k is broken over about 1000 points, the the amount of brokeness is directly proportional to the increase of point levels...
1500 point games and larger are better served with a different ruleset....
dont ask me which one, because last time I advocated for it, one of the Mods deleted my post....
if your new to the game (10 yrs or less), you prolly wont notice as much as people like me that have played since 1987....

I broke down and played a straight 40k game at the comic shop this weekend, about half the people gave up early,
about a quarter reverted back to our clubs house rules and were disqualifyed, but the other quarter, the fan boys,
they were pleased in their smug waac broken rules set sort of way..

its sad that such a rich and interesting background is represented by such a substandard game.....

a great solution would be for GW to produce 2 rule sets.....
one only suitable for their tournament system and its needs, and one for fun fluffy play.....

this would increase their revenue, and prolly make both camps of 40k players happy.....

GW, you need a business consultant, or a marketing stratigist.....
(I am available for hire......)

Horus Lupercal
17-06-2013, 20:26
Do people actually consider Apocalypse competitive?

I always saw it as a medium to just go mental and have a laugh. Win or lose its more about the moments that happen in the game to me.

T10
17-06-2013, 20:33
So, big games take a lot of time? An the rules "promote bigger games"? What, we need to USE ALL THE TOYS! ALL THE TIME! Seriously? :)

-T10

Ssilmath
17-06-2013, 20:41
Do people actually consider Apocalypse competitive?

I always saw it as a medium to just go mental and have a laugh. Win or lose its more about the moments that happen in the game to me.

That's kind of the whole point of the game in general. People seem to forget that on the internet, it seems.

ehlijen
17-06-2013, 21:07
40k is broken over about 1000 points, the the amount of brokeness is directly proportional to the increase of point levels...
1500 point games and larger are better served with a different ruleset....

I disagree. I find games under 1k would be better served with a different rules set as would games over 1999, but in between 40k is where it was designed to be. That's where the FO chart is just starting to get restrictive (ie have actual meaning) but not cripplingly so.


dont ask me which one, because last time I advocated for it, one of the Mods deleted my post....

I doubt it was what you said that caused that. But anyway, that is a hard question because games at that scale are what GW is selling while almost everyone else is going the 'you can play our game more cheaply' route and offers rules for smaller scale games. Many of those games are nice, but that leaves GW at a sort of monopoly for large scale wargames at the 28mm level. That's before factoring in that most 40k players want to keep the same aesthetic and background in their games.


if your new to the game (10 yrs or less), you prolly wont notice as much as people like me that have played since 1987....

lol I have played for just over 10 years :p and frankly that sounds a bit entitled. You are saying someone who has played 4 out of the 6 editions and likely a sizeable chunk of his adult life is 'new to this game'? Or did I miss the sarcasm? 40k as we know it now has only been around for about 15 years. 2nd ed (I have dabbled in it) was a very different beast. I know why some prefer it, but it was more drastically different than 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th have been to each other.


I broke down and played a straight 40k game at the comic shop this weekend, about half the people gave up early,
about a quarter reverted back to our clubs house rules and were disqualifyed, but the other quarter, the fan boys,
they were pleased in their smug waac broken rules set sort of way..

That sounds very odd. How many players did this game have? Or was it more than one? And why were you disqualifying people who wanted to play the game as you do?


its sad that such a rich and interesting background is represented by such a substandard game.....

Amen. It is mostly so very fixable problems as well.


a great solution would be for GW to produce 2 rule sets.....
one only suitable for their tournament system and its needs, and one for fun fluffy play.....

this would increase their revenue, and prolly make both camps of 40k players happy.....

GW, you need a business consultant, or a marketing stratigist.....
(I am available for hire......)

The problem is that that would officially fracture the player base, and that GW cannot afford. That's also why they dropped specialist games (those meanies :( ).
They need as many people as possible to stay with the core games to keep a critical mass of players so that they can cite 'a large player base' as a reason why getting into the hobby is not at all a dangerous and probably foolish waste of money.

I don't like a lot of what GW is doing (as you may have notice) but I do want them to notice and fix that, not go under. I like the 40k background and model range. And the core idea behind most of 6th ed's elements.

Grimbad
17-06-2013, 21:22
You may cry about current assault rules, but these are easy compared to 2nd edition.

Imagine having to work out every model fighting individually (and if 2 opposing units bunched together it was a nightmare) yet I still played big games back then - 10k as it was, probably about 4.5k nowadays, and got through the games in about the same amount of time as you claim to have taken with this one.

2nd edition combats are easy and pretty quick once you get the hang of them, and 2nd edition systematically encourages skirmish gameplay anyways. They're also much less common in 2e, in my experience, because infantry really butcher each other with small arms.

Since 6th edition came out it's been more striking than ever to me how functional and intuitive the 2nd edition rules set is compared to current 40k. It works. Unless you play Tau.

Horus Lupercal
17-06-2013, 21:37
That's kind of the whole point of the game in general. People seem to forget that on the internet, it seems.

Well at least I'm not the only one :)

Heafstaag
17-06-2013, 22:58
I'm fine with the current rules EXCEPT for premeasuring. My house rule is that you can't, as I consider it cheating and unsporting. Premeasuring is one of the reasons I haven't gotten back into Fantasy as the maneuvering of your units in fantasy used to be so important...glorious 7th will always live in my heart!

MasterDecoy
17-06-2013, 23:56
I Haven't noticed any significant increase or decrease in time to play a game, 2.5 hours is about the norm for a 1.5k to 2.5k game (give or take half an hour), and I would say every 1k points adds another 45 minutes (although I did manage to finish a 4.75k game my tyranids vs his dark angels, in 3.5 hours including setup and pack up a few months back), and each additional player in the game doubles its time.

I find game time is generally more affected by players than game size however and I have literally finished several 5 to 6 turn 1k games before others have even made it to turn 2 in my LGS toruny.

Pre-mesuring has sped up gameplay IMO by ending arguments before they happen ("these firewarriors are 18.5" away from your ork boyz so they cant charge in your turn ok?" no, ok ill nudge them a bit more, happy?") and ("ok before you roll charge distance your boyz are more than 6" away so you need at least a 7 on 3 dice to reach my firewarriors because of this wall here")

Wound allocation has slightly slowed down gameplay IMO, but if you do it smartly you almost dont notice it (roll groups of saves together)

I have noticed a significant increase in game time with my tau however due to now moving all my stuff every turn, shooting with everything every turn in specific order to maximise damage, then moving half my army in the assault phase again every turn, then performing multiple overwatches in the opponents turn.

Scribe of Khorne
18-06-2013, 00:09
Maybe I should clarify, larger games...I mean anything over 2k.

Double Force Org starts at 2k. Allies are barely usable in smaller point games besides a cheap HQ and troop choice. So these promote larger games, which in turn are barely do-able because of time required to do so.

Serious? Me and my group use allies, I went to a 60+ player tournament with allies, and allies are used all over the place in tournaments, and they are almost all sub 2k, in the 1750-1850 range.

The game has never worked at 2k+, never will.

KR3LL
18-06-2013, 00:23
Serious? Me and my group use allies, I went to a 60+ player tournament with allies, and allies are used all over the place in tournaments, and they are almost all sub 2k, in the 1750-1850 range.

The game has never worked at 2k+, never will.

I see them a lot too. It is nearly always just a cheap troop choice and a HQ. Barely scratches the surface of the ability of using an allied choice at that point value.

How has the game never worked at 2K+? I think it has worked just fine.

Marshal
18-06-2013, 03:00
The 10k battle was what it was. It took that long. We ignored random terrain, random objectives, random terrain setup...ignored all that to speed things along. It still took forever. What really slowed the game down to a crawl was the assault phase.


Odd. I played a game there a couple of weeks ago with the new Tau codex vs the old Eldar one at about 5k per side and the assault phase was never an issue at all...

What was slowing down our games was the shooting phase... but still, we finished the game in right around the 4 1/2 hour mark. I was home in time for supper that day and my girlfriend was all confused knowing what size of a battle we were playing. It depends on the people playing. My buddy and I play each other regularly so we know what we're going to basically be doing and are able to roll everything really quickly without reading through the rules to each other every time.

Long story short, you picked an assault oriented army, you were playing at 5k per side, you should expect to be at the game all day and should do so. Turn 4 onward always goes much quicker as there's less on the board. Turn 2 is almost always the longest in any game of 40k, even smaller ones, because that's when **** gets real.

Scribe of Khorne
18-06-2013, 03:04
I see them a lot too. It is nearly always just a cheap troop choice and a HQ. Barely scratches the surface of the ability of using an allied choice at that point value.

How has the game never worked at 2K+? I think it has worked just fine.

If all you are getting is a cheap HQ and a min Troop, I hate to say it but your doing it wrong. 2k+ is a completely different game, especially in 6th, its not even 40K anymore. Its the most min/max "lets get as much Anni Barges on the table", suck your main buying force (vet players) dry version of the game possible, just like that abomination that was 'ard boyz.

Nearly all of your complaints are due to playing at the point the game breaks down, and did in 5th as well.

Ssilmath
18-06-2013, 03:37
If all you are getting is a cheap HQ and a min Troop, I hate to say it but your doing it wrong. 2k+ is a completely different game, especially in 6th, its not even 40K anymore. Its the most min/max "lets get as much Anni Barges on the table", suck your main buying force (vet players) dry version of the game possible, just like that abomination that was 'ard boyz.

Nearly all of your complaints are due to playing at the point the game breaks down, and did in 5th as well.

That is down entirely to the players and their attitude towards the game. In my experience, 2000 points is where the game really starts to get fun and people have the freedom to take non competitive and fun options. If people are cramming as many of broken unit x as they can onto the field, your problem is the players and not the game.

RobPro
18-06-2013, 03:41
Pretty sure the point of Apoc is to use things like formations, assets, and super-heavies with a "no-holds-barred" outlook. If you're playing 5k without looted baneblades, titans, pylons, etc., you're probably gonna have a bad time.

I think one reason why people think the game is slower is that, for the most part, models move -much- faster and you are able to take shots at longer range (a la the move and single shot at full range change to rapid fire). This means games actually start on turn 1 and 2, whereas before you typically moved into position on those turns by running or whatever and would be all set to shoot/charge the next turn.

Scribe of Khorne
18-06-2013, 04:33
That is down entirely to the players and their attitude towards the game. In my experience, 2000 points is where the game really starts to get fun and people have the freedom to take non competitive and fun options. If people are cramming as many of broken unit x as they can onto the field, your problem is the players and not the game.

There you go telling people about how to have the right fun again.

Using allies to get min HQ/Troops is frankly missing the point. You can do it for fluff, or for competitive, or aesthetic reasons. Just using it to use it is counter productive to pretty much any of those.

You can take non-competitive options at any level so again I dont see your point.

I have 1750, competitive.
You have 1750, with some non-competitive.

I have 2000, competitive.
You have 2000, with some (more?) non-competitive.

Given average terrain levels, who do you think is going to get slammed? Neither player would enjoy the game, as it would be a turn 2 or 3 blow out.

Neither fluffy, or competitive lists gain by going to 2k, I have yet to see a solid argument otherwise.

Ssilmath
18-06-2013, 04:46
So, let me get this straight. You complain about not having fun, somebody suggests how you can have fun, you snarl at them for dictating what is fun. Right.

Just as you can have noncompetitive lists as you go small, you can have jackass spam lists at the smaller points. If you're playing competitive, people are going to take the most powerful/most efficient lists no matter the points level. Pull back from the competitive, winning is everything mindset and you may find your enjoyment of the game increasing dramatically. Or don't, and keep raging at Games Workshop till you somehow feel better.

KR3LL
18-06-2013, 04:55
Odd. I played a game there a couple of weeks ago with the new Tau codex vs the old Eldar one at about 5k per side and the assault phase was never an issue at all...

What was slowing down our games was the shooting phase... but still, we finished the game in right around the 4 1/2 hour mark. I was home in time for supper that day and my girlfriend was all confused knowing what size of a battle we were playing. It depends on the people playing. My buddy and I play each other regularly so we know what we're going to basically be doing and are able to roll everything really quickly without reading through the rules to each other every time.

Long story short, you picked an assault oriented army, you were playing at 5k per side, you should expect to be at the game all day and should do so. Turn 4 onward always goes much quicker as there's less on the board. Turn 2 is almost always the longest in any game of 40k, even smaller ones, because that's when **** gets real.

So was this sarcasm? Not trying to be mean or anything. But you played a shooty army vs a shooty army and you said "assault phase was never an issue at all" What slowed down your games was the shooting phase....Gotcha.

All day game I expected. But after two turns taking most the day we did'nt care to start a round 3.


If all you are getting is a cheap HQ and a min Troop, I hate to say it but your doing it wrong. 2k+ is a completely different game, especially in 6th, its not even 40K anymore. Its the most min/max "lets get as much Anni Barges on the table", suck your main buying force (vet players) dry version of the game possible, just like that abomination that was 'ard boyz.

Nearly all of your complaints are due to playing at the point the game breaks down, and did in 5th as well.

I am not doing anything wrong. I hardly ever take allies. How is 2K so different? That its not 40k? I love, try to play 2 to 2.5k usually. It lets me play some fun stuff.

The game breaks down...I agree with you. In 5th edition...not so much. Games were much quicker in 5th...period. Its also just not all about getting to finish line. How you get to the end of a game can make a great story. Where it goes wrong is when you get bored from how long its taking, or you are unable to finish all together. My LGS used to run a small tourney one a month on a weekday evening. 1k pts or so. 3 rounds. We have not done this once since 6th came out.

ehlijen
18-06-2013, 06:07
40k scales badly because of 3 things:

1: FO charts don't scale right according to points. Meaningless below 1k, more or less, harsh at 1850, meaningless again at 2k due to doubling. This could easily be improved to a system more like fantasy's 6th/7th ed one, but that leaves the other two points.
2: IgoUgo. At some point, a turn will simply take too long for that system. At the right points level, it's good: simple, intuitive (as a game mechanic) and straightforward. Fighting in both turns and rolling saves gives the inactive player just enough to do to stay invested. But horde and MSU armies can already stretch this to the limits under 2k, it just gets insane after. There is a practical upper limit to how many units a player should have in an IgoUgo system and 12 guard platoons are past that point. Not much you can do about this, but at least it doesn't hurt smaller games. Apoc tries to get around this by offering bigger units that cost more points, but that runs into scale problems (ie the ratio of movement to shooting range becomes so bad it meaningless).
3: Table size. The standard game is meant to be played on about 6' by 4'. That's already pretty big for a simple table, but can still be done without too much trouble by most people. Go up in game size, and you're meant to go up in table size as well. But a) how if you don't have the room? b) lengthwise or widthwise? One makes outflanking less useful, the other changes the balance of melee to shooting towards shooting as they can setup further away. Doing both gives you both problems, but doing neither makes it too crowded.

1. is easily fixable, if they wanted to. It's also the only problem in smaller games. 3. is addressable with some better guidelines as to how big a table should be for what points limit. They don't have to be rules, just 'for x points, z*y feet will mean an advantage to fast/ranged/blast units'. But 2. will always be there and apocalypse is not a good fix because it is too constrained by the 40k movement distances (resulting in dicehammer) and tries to cheat with lolsuprise stratagems :(

Scribe of Khorne
18-06-2013, 06:31
So, let me get this straight. You complain about not having fun, somebody suggests how you can have fun, you snarl at them for dictating what is fun. Right.

Just as you can have noncompetitive lists as you go small, you can have jackass spam lists at the smaller points. If you're playing competitive, people are going to take the most powerful/most efficient lists no matter the points level. Pull back from the competitive, winning is everything mindset and you may find your enjoyment of the game increasing dramatically. Or don't, and keep raging at Games Workshop till you somehow feel better.

I do have fun. Playing against competitive lists, where I have a competitive list as well. Nobody is snarling, nobody is raging at GW either.

The game is harder to break below 2k, thats my perspective.

I wouldnt enjoy the game more playing a fluffly list that has no chance of dealing with 1 heldrake, let alone 2.

Games where quicker in 5th, I wont deny that, however we now have some cool (subjective) rules like overwatch, and for me, its an ok trade. YMMV.

Ssilmath
18-06-2013, 07:06
Ah, well, I apologize then, I was under the impression that you were not enjoying yourself. Mea culpa.

My impression thus far is that the game has sped up, but of course that's not to say that KR3LL hasn't seen a slowdown. I think some of his points are deliberately trying to find problems, as quite a few of the steps he listed have been a part of the game since at least 3rd, they just didn't have their own particular named step.

Horus Lupercal
18-06-2013, 08:07
If all you are getting is a cheap HQ and a min Troop, I hate to say it but your doing it wrong. 2k+ is a completely different game, especially in 6th, its not even 40K anymore. Its the most min/max "lets get as much Anni Barges on the table", suck your main buying force (vet players) dry version of the game possible, just like that abomination that was 'ard boyz.

Nearly all of your complaints are due to playing at the point the game breaks down, and did in 5th as well.

I'm sorry please show me the rules that say im doing something wrong?

raygunsand rocketeers
18-06-2013, 08:37
Ehlijen, I live in Fairbanks Alaska. we have no 'official' GW events. I dont know how many were at the tourney,
but there are 17 'battle fields/ tables set for it. 9 guys in our group, the home rules group, about the same number in the regular' 40k' group,
our two groups dont mix well. most of the other people were soldiers (this is an army town), and a few locals....
I played with a soldier that had never played before, he really dug space wolves because of the cav/wolves, forget the name..
we also played it straight from the rogue trader book, and later that night from the pre-rogue trader rule set, Combat 3000;
which while a little more 'clunky', everyone seemed to enjoy.
you are right about how different Rogue trader and 40k 2nd Ed. is, but we prefer them,
the other group is always up to date on the latest and newest, and are a boon to the comic shop owner as a draw..
It really is about preference, I guess thats why kevin (the shop owner), gave each group a different night....

also agree 40k dont work well at low point levels either.... kill squad how ever........

Poseidal
18-06-2013, 09:00
Are you referring to 2000 points as a double force org or not? Without it, the difference between it and 1750 is a single land raider or unit in a transport.

Tarax
18-06-2013, 09:51
I think when determining what size games GW is promoting, it'd probably be best to see exactly what's being promoted, rather than trying to decipher the intent of various rules. What point values are being used in White Dwarf (promotional mag) Battle Reports? What size armies are shown in promotional photos? In White Dwarf Daily? And so on.

WD doesn't really promote regular battles. Even Tournament standard battles are rarely found in WD. And as for points... they have produced BR with sometimes upto 3500 points and latley they don't even show the points at all. Who knows what GW nowadays find 'regular' or 'normal'.

As to the OP, I agree that a lot of things have become random, ie you have to roll the dice to know what's what. Some have always been there, like mission and deployment. But now with scenery, Warlord Traits, Psychic Powers (beforehand) and Mysterious Terrain and Objectives (during), there is more. But as said before, you don't have to use them, and a lot of people don't. As to Myterious Terrain, again as said, you can place a marker next to it as a reminder.
Personally I hate the random assault move and the pre-measuring, but I like the overwatch and changes to the FOC. So there is a little bit of both in this new edition. I also like to play rather small battles, of upto 1500 points, which puts a regular game at about 2.5 hours, casual play.

Cheeslord
18-06-2013, 09:55
You don't have to do that.

I don't have my rulebook in front of me, but I thought that when the unit being shot at had mixed saves you were obliged to roll the saves one at a time (since the saving throw in each case potentially depends on the results of all previous saves which can determine whether the guy at the back with the different save is "got to"). Are you saying that you don't have to do that because you can choose to ignore the rules, or is there a rule that bypasses this requirement?

Mark.

MasterDecoy
18-06-2013, 10:09
I don't have my rulebook in front of me, but I thought that when the unit being shot at had mixed saves you were obliged to roll the saves one at a time (since the saving throw in each case potentially depends on the results of all previous saves which can determine whether the guy at the back with the different save is "got to"). Are you saying that you don't have to do that because you can choose to ignore the rules, or is there a rule that bypasses this requirement?

Mark.

you could of course roll dice in groups of like saves to save time of course,
I.E 8 wounds in the pool, first 3 guys have a 4+ save, next 3 have a 5+ save, next 3 have a 2+ save
roll 3 dice for the first 3 guys, remove casulatys
if there are still guys left with the 4+ save, roll that many dice, remove casualty's if there are still guys left in the 4+ group, repeat
repeat for each group untill the pool is empty

duffybear1988
18-06-2013, 10:49
I find 6th edition far too boring and long winded to even consider playing Apocalypse with this ruleset. As someone who hates randomness for the sake of randomness I dread what Apoc is going to do.

Bring back 4th edition/early 5th edition.

Bubble Ghost
18-06-2013, 12:55
I don't have my rulebook in front of me, but I thought that when the unit being shot at had mixed saves you were obliged to roll the saves one at a time (since the saving throw in each case potentially depends on the results of all previous saves which can determine whether the guy at the back with the different save is "got to"). Are you saying that you don't have to do that because you can choose to ignore the rules, or is there a rule that bypasses this requirement?

There's no rule, because you don't need one. There's a shortcut, though, which is that if you have ten wounds in your wound pool, and the 6th guy back has a different save, you can roll a batch of 5 saves. You remove the failures, then roll another batch of however many guys there now are before the one with the different save, and so on. This would be possible to do legally even if there wasn't a boxout flagging it for you - because how does the game know if you rolled those one at a time or not..?



Bring back 4th edition/early 5th edition.

Please don't.

draccan
18-06-2013, 13:30
The real problem with 40k is that GW tries to turn it into Epic Armageddon with oversized dolls.
The skirmish aspect of 40k is suffering as a result...

Chapters Unwritten
18-06-2013, 13:32
Baseless complaints, frankly. We asked for most of what they gave us.

I think is edition more than makes up for its added ates with casualty removal being much easier and everything g just generally being more deadly.

The I ly problem this game has is the same one it has always had: it's full of players who take the niche bits that bug them and harp on them. The all bike army wants terrain rules changed, the all infantry guy thinks vehicles need a nerf, the all vehicle guy thinks they need a price drop, the all assault guy says shooting is too good, etc etc.

The problem with this game has always stemmed from its players.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

WLBjork
18-06-2013, 13:47
2nd edition combats are easy and pretty quick once you get the hang of them, and 2nd edition systematically encourages skirmish gameplay anyways. They're also much less common in 2e, in my experience, because infantry really butcher each other with small arms.

Since 6th edition came out it's been more striking than ever to me how functional and intuitive the 2nd edition rules set is compared to current 40k. It works. Unless you play Tau.

With hindsight, "easy" wasn't the best word choice.

Nor really is "simple", even though both are accurate.

I was referring more to the time needed to resolve every individual combat. IIRC, for simplicity (can't remember if this was rule or not), we always stayed 2" apart, and avoided anything above 1-on-1 as much as possible. After all, keeping it simple like this still meant 5 Terminator Marines being charged by 15 Orks probably had 15 or more combats to resolve...

IcedCrow
18-06-2013, 14:13
4th ed / 5th ed killed the game for me. Too static, too boring, too chess-like, too optimized. Granted if you were a tournament player, these were your golden years.

40k 6th ed has exploded our scene with new players. The competitive guys raged for a few months and sold their armies and went to warmachine, and then came back a few months later and are now knee deep in competitive 40k again.

We get what we want out of this hobby. If we want to gripe and complain the whole time then that's what we will get out of it. There is no perfect game and anyone can find any reason to gripe about anything.

Poseidal
18-06-2013, 14:38
6th has got much more people back in round here too. A major improvement over the badly designed 3rd edition and the sterile 4th and 5th editions.

Fantasy seems to have died round here though. 8th edition has had the opposite effect.

SideshowLucifer
18-06-2013, 14:41
I love 6th edition. It reminds me a lot of 2nd edition but smoother. I don't understand the complaint of the game taking too long, especially at an obnoxious point level. I like the game taking a couple hours, it's a couple of hours I'm playing something I enjoy. 4th and 5th edition were just dull with no life at all; stand around and roll hand-fulls of dice. 6th brought back a bit of tactics and a lot of the over-the-top feel that 40k had before 3rd sucked the life from it. Outside of the Chaos Codex, all of the 6th edition army books have been pretty flavorful and great. Once some of the odd armies get updated I think almost everything will fall into place.

IcedCrow
18-06-2013, 15:13
Fortunately for us, 8th edition WHFB was also a highly successful boon for our area.

duffybear1988
18-06-2013, 15:59
4th ed / 5th ed killed the game for me. Too static, too boring, too chess-like, too optimized. Granted if you were a tournament player, these were your golden years.

I don't know, the 4th edition missions were much more entertaining than any of the 6th edition ones.

I can see why people like 6th as it's just pure chaos on the tabletop... anything can happen thanks to the randomness. I disagree with people saying the older editions were too sterilised, they were far from sterile (ok maybe later 5th edition was).

I just preferred it when I knew that if I spent £12 on a single librarian/sorcerer etc, I was going to get a 100 point warp caster who had access to powers I could choose and theme my army around (or cheese up depending on your opinions).

There is something to be said for optimisation within a game. By this I mean that you choose the best for the job. If you are a football manager and you are managing a team and one of your players gets his leg broken just before the game then you don't put him on the field, you use somebody else. So when my librarian gets a crap power roll why the hell does he have to still show up for the game. Not to mention that a librarian is supposed to be a hardened battle psyker so I think he would probably know which power to swot up on before the battle.

For example I was playing a game with the new eldar codex the other day and I rolled some really crap powers for my farseer so I was a bit peeved. He went on to do pretty much nothing in the game apart from slay a few orks in combat, and chuck a spear at a trukk (and missed). After we drew the game we were talking and I said that having to roll for powers etc really took something out of the fun. He countered with the age old "random rolling fuels the narrative". I asked him how he worked that out considering that in stories/movies the characters always have the right tool for the job.

All this fuelling the narrative stuff grinds... in Return of the Jedi did the Emperor roll on a random psychic power list before he used force lightning? Did the Witch King have to roll on a chart to see if he got the ability to break Gandalf's staff?

Imagine if they did. Imagine if instead of lightning jumping from his fingertips, the Emperor had caused flowers to sprout from the deck, or if instead of destroying Gandalf's staff, the Witch King had just drenched him in a puddle of salty water...

Fun? :eyebrows:

Bubble Ghost
18-06-2013, 16:18
in Return of the Jedi did the Emperor roll on a random psychic power list before he used force lightning? Did the Witch King have to roll on a chart to see if he got the ability to break Gandalf's staff?

Imagine if they did. Imagine if instead of lightning jumping from his fingertips, the Emperor had caused flowers to sprout from the deck, or if instead of destroying Gandalf's staff, the Witch King had just drenched him in a puddle of salty water...:

In terms of what rolling on the chart represents, then yes, the Emperor and the Witch King did roll on charts to get those powers. They then used them in appropriate ways.

Randomly generated powers mean you choose whether or not to include a psyker in your army, rather than whether or not to include Null Zone in your army. They make the game about the character, not the superpowerz. The difference is important, and is bad for people who care about the extent to which any one single battle can test your planning skills and the competitive veracity of that one result, but good for everyone else.

ehlijen
18-06-2013, 16:27
I don't know, the 4th edition missions were much more entertaining than any of the 6th edition ones.

I can see why people like 6th as it's just pure chaos on the tabletop... anything can happen thanks to the randomness. I disagree with people saying the older editions were too sterilised, they were far from sterile (ok maybe later 5th edition was).

I just preferred it when I knew that if I spent £12 on a single librarian/sorcerer etc, I was going to get a 100 point warp caster who had access to powers I could choose and theme my army around (or cheese up depending on your opinions).

There is something to be said for optimisation within a game. By this I mean that you choose the best for the job. If you are a football manager and you are managing a team and one of your players gets his leg broken just before the game then you don't put him on the field, you use somebody else. So when my librarian gets a crap power roll why the hell does he have to still show up for the game. Not to mention that a librarian is supposed to be a hardened battle psyker so I think he would probably know which power to swot up on before the battle.

For example I was playing a game with the new eldar codex the other day and I rolled some really crap powers for my farseer so I was a bit peeved. He went on to do pretty much nothing in the game apart from slay a few orks in combat, and chuck a spear at a trukk (and missed). After we drew the game we were talking and I said that having to roll for powers etc really took something out of the fun. He countered with the age old "random rolling fuels the narrative". I asked him how he worked that out considering that in stories/movies the characters always have the right tool for the job.

All this fuelling the narrative stuff grinds... in Return of the Jedi did the Emperor roll on a random psychic power list before he used force lightning? Did the Witch King have to roll on a chart to see if he got the ability to break Gandalf's staff?

Imagine if they did. Imagine if instead of lightning jumping from his fingertips, the Emperor had caused flowers to sprout from the deck, or if instead of destroying Gandalf's staff, the Witch King had just drenched him in a puddle of salty water...

Fun? :eyebrows:

No. If the emperor had rolled fireball instead of lightning bolt, he'd have tried to kill luke that way. If the witch king had rolled telekinesis instead of shatter, he'd have tried to yank gandalf's staff away. Whichever power they'd rolled, they retroactively always had it and thus would have used it to similar advantage.

Each lore has a theme and a number of spells of supposedly similar power. The idea is that a little bit of variety presents you, the player, with a different challenge each game while no single result is supposed to make the model useless. You need more flexibility than before in how you're willing to use your psyker, but it does encourage more variety. Some people do find that fun.

Whatever power your roll, it's roughly as powerful as all the others and the psyker retroactively always had it. Just like your psyker model doesn't permanently die if he is killed in one game, none of his power rolls are permanently binding. He can meet dozens of different final ends just like he can have always known a single different one of seven powers.

Just what powers did your farseer get that he couldn't achieve anything with, btw? He'll end up knowing half a lore with his three rolls, and can always swap for primaris powers.

IcedCrow
18-06-2013, 16:40
While I personally would not use random powers in a game I designed (in the fantasy wargame that I have worked on, your casters pick a school and they know all of the powers from that school which have six spells in each), the fact is that GW's ability to write useful powers is limited.

When i say sterile, this is one of the big things I"m talking about. 4th/5th ed... you fought largely the same thing. Over and over and over and over. The same optimized mech list, longfire missile spam, draigo leading paladin nob biker wound shenangian Jaws of the WOrld Wolf in every...single....game.... for years.

Yes those editions let you optimize to your hearts content, and the thing is when allowing for that environment you might as well take 80% of the codex and tear it out of the book and wipe your butt with it and set it on fire because it will never get used (and the proof is in the pudding... for YEARS you only saw a small sampling of the overall units available because the game was an exercise in optimization and in optimization you are only using the best available... )

You only see the same powers over and over and over and over and over. For YEARS.

That's 4th and 5th ed. Optimized forever, but so boring. I say boring obviously as my own opinion but that's because there is only so much of the same optimized spam you can take for years before you want a new game. That's dangerous when it comes to trying to retain players, as I find most players don't enjoy that and get burnt out and quit for other things.

The game turned away from absolute optimization. And I feel from a retainment standpoint that that is a huge and positive thing.

Scribe of Khorne
18-06-2013, 17:00
I'm sorry please show me the rules that say im doing something wrong?

You want to use the rule book as your guide on what is good? GW must love you.

Using allies, and getting nothing but a Cheap HQ and a min sized troop choice is a bad idea in nearly any way I can imagine.

Odin
18-06-2013, 17:41
Erm, what?



edit: also, I found introducting premeasuring sped things up. No more pondering for ages on whether unit A will hit unit B or if it will be a wasted shot. Just measure and decide your course of action.

Yup, premeasuring has nicely streamlined the game for me.

RobPro
18-06-2013, 17:42
Using allies, and getting nothing but a Cheap HQ and a min sized troop choice is a bad idea in nearly any way I can imagine.

In case the guy not sure about bringing allies past a cheap hq and min troop... what you do is look at your army and fill in holes. Not good at long rage low ap shooting, intercepting, and skyfire? Bring something like a riptide and a skyray with some outflanking kroot, those allies pretty much get you linebreaker for free! Bad at taking the relic? Bring Draigo and some Paladins. Want to run Chaos Space Marines but you only like a couple units? Run Necrons as main to get 3 barges, 2 flyers and some Wraiths to fill in points you don't want to spend on the Chaos. Not sure how to deal with blobs behind an Aegis? Bring a Manticore. It gives competitive players a lot of options.

It also gives fluffly players a lot of options, too. Want to model a bunch of guardsmen as tech priest guys that worship your Necrons? Go crazy, it'll look awesome on the table and they compliment each other. Want cool demons in your CSM army? You can do it now! Just a few examples, there's tons more for people who know more about the fluff than I do.

Konovalev
18-06-2013, 17:43
Does the BRB ever attempt to explain why psychic powers are randomly generated+primaris? I've always just imagined that the warp energies are fickle, and the powers required some measure of preparation before use. As a trained combat psyker, the primaris power is one that is both simple enough, and studied enough, to always be castable providing the psyker made the necessary preparations to use it in a given battle. As for the rest of the powers, maybe they depend on the current warp environment and that particular psykers attunement with said environment?

duffybear1988
18-06-2013, 18:13
While I personally would not use random powers in a game I designed (in the fantasy wargame that I have worked on, your casters pick a school and they know all of the powers from that school which have six spells in each), the fact is that GW's ability to write useful powers is limited.

When i say sterile, this is one of the big things I"m talking about. 4th/5th ed... you fought largely the same thing. Over and over and over and over. The same optimized mech list, longfire missile spam, draigo leading paladin nob biker wound shenangian Jaws of the WOrld Wolf in every...single....game.... for years.

Yes those editions let you optimize to your hearts content, and the thing is when allowing for that environment you might as well take 80% of the codex and tear it out of the book and wipe your butt with it and set it on fire because it will never get used (and the proof is in the pudding... for YEARS you only saw a small sampling of the overall units available because the game was an exercise in optimization and in optimization you are only using the best available... )

You only see the same powers over and over and over and over and over. For YEARS.

That's 4th and 5th ed. Optimized forever, but so boring. I say boring obviously as my own opinion but that's because there is only so much of the same optimized spam you can take for years before you want a new game. That's dangerous when it comes to trying to retain players, as I find most players don't enjoy that and get burnt out and quit for other things.

The game turned away from absolute optimization. And I feel from a retainment standpoint that that is a huge and positive thing.

I would argue that it's the codex rewrites that have helped bring balance rather than the rules. For example the tau and eldar lists are really well written so pretty much everything is useful. This means we are seeing lots of varied lists. By contrast the chaos marine codex is badly balanced which has led to spamming of the only useful units. How many times have people used possessed or thousand sons?

Most of the 5th edition armies suffered the same - with space wolves it was thunder wolves, long fangs, rune priests and grey hunters being used while blood claws, skyclaws, battle leaders and swiftclaws were left on the shelves. I wonder how different lists would have been if points had been adjusted slightly, and if some of the rules were modified.

Blood angels had similar issues with fast razorbacks and sanguinary priests. Necrons had flyer spam, and grey knights are... grey knights.

The problem with 5th edition was the badly designed codecii and the lack of varied missions.

6th edition has fixed a fair few of the codex issues (tau, daemons, eldar and dark angels are all good). But there is still plenty of spam around, the missions are still just as dull, and there are still plenty of unbalanced units which are causing problems. In fact it's even easier to do this as allies are now available.

Scribe of Khorne
18-06-2013, 18:24
In case the guy not sure about bringing allies past a cheap hq and min troop... what you do is look at your army and fill in holes. Not good at long rage low ap shooting, intercepting, and skyfire? Bring something like a riptide and a skyray with some outflanking kroot, those allies pretty much get you linebreaker for free! Bad at taking the relic? Bring Draigo and some Paladins. Want to run Chaos Space Marines but you only like a couple units? Run Necrons as main to get 3 barges, 2 flyers and some Wraiths to fill in points you don't want to spend on the Chaos. Not sure how to deal with blobs behind an Aegis? Bring a Manticore. It gives competitive players a lot of options.

It also gives fluffly players a lot of options, too. Want to model a bunch of guardsmen as tech priest guys that worship your Necrons? Go crazy, it'll look awesome on the table and they compliment each other. Want cool demons in your CSM army? You can do it now! Just a few examples, there's tons more for people who know more about the fluff than I do.

This is exactly what I am saying. ;]

There are reasons to use allies, both fluffy and crunchy, but to just use them is not the point at all, and to say you need to play overly large games to utilize them is also false.

nosebiter
18-06-2013, 18:35
I would argue that it's the codex rewrites that have helped bring balance rather than the rules. For example the tau and eldar lists are really well written so pretty much everything is useful. This means we are seeing lots of varied lists. By contrast the chaos marine codex is badly balanced which has led to spamming of the only useful units. How many times have people used possessed or thousand sons?

Most of the 5th edition armies suffered the same - with space wolves it was thunder wolves, long fangs, rune priests and grey hunters being used while blood claws, skyclaws, battle leaders and swiftclaws were left on the shelves. I wonder how different lists would have been if points had been adjusted slightly, and if some of the rules were modified.

Blood angels had similar issues with fast razorbacks and sanguinary priests. Necrons had flyer spam, and grey knights are... grey knights.

The problem with 5th edition was the badly designed codecii and the lack of varied missions.

6th edition has fixed a fair few of the codex issues (tau, daemons, eldar and dark angels are all good). But there is still plenty of spam around, the missions are still just as dull, and there are still plenty of unbalanced units which are causing problems. In fact it's even easier to do this as allies are now available.

Well if you ask me, all the issues you point out in the post, added to my dislike of quite a few 6th rules that are poorly designed and excecuted just screams that it is time for a blank slate.

Wash the board clean and start over completely. The 40k framework is what 15-16 years old and has grown clumsily into something it was never meant to be in the first place. Take all the ideas for what you want the game to do and be about, and build a game around it, rather then try to cram half hearted ideas onto a system that cant carry it.

As the game is now it feels to me like windows 8. I can see the idea, but oh boy did they frack it up.

nosebiter
18-06-2013, 18:36
Does the BRB ever attempt to explain why psychic powers are randomly generated+primaris? I've always just imagined that the warp energies are fickle, and the powers required some measure of preparation before use. As a trained combat psyker, the primaris power is one that is both simple enough, and studied enough, to always be castable providing the psyker made the necessary preparations to use it in a given battle. As for the rest of the powers, maybe they depend on the current warp environment and that particular psykers attunement with said environment?

You roll dice for it in warhammer, so the lazy design choice was to just copy paste.

The same for the challenge mechanic.

Horus38
18-06-2013, 18:49
Baseless complaints, frankly. We asked for most of what they gave us.

I think is edition more than makes up for its added ates with casualty removal being much easier and everything g just generally being more deadly.

The I ly problem this game has is the same one it has always had: it's full of players who take the niche bits that bug them and harp on them. The all bike army wants terrain rules changed, the all infantry guy thinks vehicles need a nerf, the all vehicle guy thinks they need a price drop, the all assault guy says shooting is too good, etc etc.

The problem with this game has always stemmed from its players.

This really sums up a lot of what I was thinking ^ I've found 6th edition to be the best I've ever played in since 3rd. Granted there's definitely room for improvement, but it's trending in the right direction.

Konovalev
18-06-2013, 19:12
You roll dice for it in warhammer, so the lazy design choice was to just copy paste.

The same for the challenge mechanic.

Lazy, or in other words efficient. What is the explanation for random spells in fantasy?

nosebiter
18-06-2013, 19:18
Lazy, or in other words efficient. What is the explanation for random spells in fantasy?

Its random! GW rules design philosophy.

Ozendorph
18-06-2013, 19:23
This really sums up a lot of what I was thinking ^ I've found 6th edition to be the best I've ever played in since 3rd. Granted there's definitely room for improvement, but it's trending in the right direction.

6th Edition is kitschy linoleum covering up hardwood floors that really just needed a good waxing. Yet, while cumbersome and awkward, some of the rule additions are kind of clever in a "Brad Pitt wearing a John Deere hat" way, so I guess it's got that going for it. :)

Honestly these threads do go 'round and 'round, and of course no one is truly right or wrong. It makes me hope Apoc provides a clean rule set with more abstraction that some players can use for larger games or timed events, while others can stick to the boondoggle that is the core 6th Ed rules (incoming dashed hopes in dreams, ETA one month..)

Grocklock
18-06-2013, 20:13
The real problem with 40k is that GW tries to turn it into Epic Armageddon with oversized dolls.
The skirmish aspect of 40k is suffering as a result...

What skermish side, there has not been one for years

duffybear1988
18-06-2013, 20:19
Well if you ask me, all the issues you point out in the post, added to my dislike of quite a few 6th rules that are poorly designed and excecuted just screams that it is time for a blank slate.

Wash the board clean and start over completely. The 40k framework is what 15-16 years old and has grown clumsily into something it was never meant to be in the first place. Take all the ideas for what you want the game to do and be about, and build a game around it, rather then try to cram half hearted ideas onto a system that cant carry it.

As the game is now it feels to me like windows 8. I can see the idea, but oh boy did they frack it up.

Hehe I work in IT and we have been bitching about Windows 8 since it came out.

Also love the Battlestar reference. My brother has been watching it recently so everyone at home is a nugget :)

As for starting 40k with a clean slate... why not? It can't be any worse.

Grocklock
18-06-2013, 20:42
Lazy, or in other words efficient. What is the explanation for random spells in fantasy?

There is no explanation for it. It just is. Not every rule is made with fluff in mind some are done for other reassons.

gwarsh41
18-06-2013, 20:54
Hehe I work in IT and we have been bitching about Windows 8 since it came out.

Also love the Battlestar reference. My brother has been watching it recently so everyone at home is a nugget :)

As for starting 40k with a clean slate... why not? It can't be any worse.

I also work in IT, a few of our guys new laptops came with 8, so I installed a nice little program to bypass the stupid windows screen and boot to a "classic" view with fully functional start bar.

Sephillion
18-06-2013, 21:13
I don't know, the 4th edition missions were much more entertaining than any of the 6th edition ones.

I can see why people like 6th as it's just pure chaos on the tabletop... anything can happen thanks to the randomness. I disagree with people saying the older editions were too sterilised, they were far from sterile (ok maybe later 5th edition was).

I just preferred it when I knew that if I spent £12 on a single librarian/sorcerer etc, I was going to get a 100 point warp caster who had access to powers I could choose and theme my army around (or cheese up depending on your opinions).

There is something to be said for optimisation within a game. By this I mean that you choose the best for the job. If you are a football manager and you are managing a team and one of your players gets his leg broken just before the game then you don't put him on the field, you use somebody else. So when my librarian gets a crap power roll why the hell does he have to still show up for the game. Not to mention that a librarian is supposed to be a hardened battle psyker so I think he would probably know which power to swot up on before the battle.

For example I was playing a game with the new eldar codex the other day and I rolled some really crap powers for my farseer so I was a bit peeved. He went on to do pretty much nothing in the game apart from slay a few orks in combat, and chuck a spear at a trukk (and missed). After we drew the game we were talking and I said that having to roll for powers etc really took something out of the fun. He countered with the age old "random rolling fuels the narrative". I asked him how he worked that out considering that in stories/movies the characters always have the right tool for the job.

All this fuelling the narrative stuff grinds... in Return of the Jedi did the Emperor roll on a random psychic power list before he used force lightning? Did the Witch King have to roll on a chart to see if he got the ability to break Gandalf's staff?

Imagine if they did. Imagine if instead of lightning jumping from his fingertips, the Emperor had caused flowers to sprout from the deck, or if instead of destroying Gandalf's staff, the Witch King had just drenched him in a puddle of salty water...

Fun? :eyebrows:

Your comparison would work if there were some in-game powers that were that ridiculous; however, the choices are generally between a power that can roast your enemies, a power that can buff your allies, a power that can debuff your enemies, etc. Even the less competitive powers can be used and have an actual effect (most of them, anyway), unlike the examples you give.

That said, some powers are badly designed in that they almost beg for you to write a lista round themÖ but you cannot, at least not reliably. For instance the Tzeentch Boon from CSM. It sucks, but maybe if we could reliably get it every game, it might be possible to use it decently, but as it is, itís impossible. At least there are primaris powers.

Maybe I donít mind the randomness too much since I played Dark Eldar, and Wychesí drugs donít have primaris, so you can end up with the druge that allow you to run slightly faster, or with +1 WS, which isnít that useful.

Scribe of Khorne
18-06-2013, 21:39
The difference is you dont select wyches because of drugs. Wyches are a thing unto themselves with their own rules.

Psykers without powers are next to useless, and the inability to choose your powers, and design lists around them, does remove something from the game.

Chapters Unwritten
18-06-2013, 23:16
Its random! GW rules design philosophy.

We asked for this too.

As Icedcrow mentioned, the game was far and away too like from game to game. You might hate the random stuff but it opens the design up a lot - no more need to find tune each power, making some less or more useful. They can throw a whole list at us now, because random might not be synonymous with balance, but it is synonymous with fairness.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

ehlijen
19-06-2013, 01:24
Does the BRB ever attempt to explain why psychic powers are randomly generated+primaris? I've always just imagined that the warp energies are fickle, and the powers required some measure of preparation before use. As a trained combat psyker, the primaris power is one that is both simple enough, and studied enough, to always be castable providing the psyker made the necessary preparations to use it in a given battle. As for the rest of the powers, maybe they depend on the current warp environment and that particular psykers attunement with said environment?

It doesn't have to explain it. You are not using the same character every game anyway (else if he died once he'd be dead for all future games). What you do determine is what power this parallel reality version of this character had all along. The primaris power exists to offer a last resort control option so as to not be 100% random. You don't change the powers every game, you determine what power, for the duration of this game, the character has always had.

edit:

The difference is you dont select wyches because of drugs. Wyches are a thing unto themselves with their own rules.

Psykers without powers are next to useless, and the inability to choose your powers, and design lists around them, does remove something from the game.

Psykers are not useless without powers. They almost all come with force weapons (or wych weapons, which are also good) and some even come with anti psychic gear. Powers are nice, but the character they come on is capable even without them. And the primaris power means you are never completely without a choice and could prepare for at least that.

Scribe of Khorne
19-06-2013, 04:07
Psykers are not useless without powers. They almost all come with force weapons (or wych weapons, which are also good) and some even come with anti psychic gear. Powers are nice, but the character they come on is capable even without them. And the primaris power means you are never completely without a choice and could prepare for at least that.

The merits of a psyker without powers are debatable I think. As for the primaris, that does I suppose prove a point since all I hear talked about are divination and telepathy. :]

IcedCrow
19-06-2013, 04:16
You also have to look at the source of who is making those comments. If the source are players that must have complete control to be happy, then this would not be surprising (and is why I don't care that powers are random, because even here you are seeing players simply opting to always use the primaris power)

ehlijen
19-06-2013, 04:33
The merits of a psyker without powers are debatable I think. As for the primaris, that does I suppose prove a point since all I hear talked about are divination and telepathy. :]

Exactly, the merits are debatable, ie neither clearly lacking or present. But the potential for great accomplishments is there regardless of what powers they end up getting.

SideshowLucifer
19-06-2013, 04:36
Powers were random way back when I loved the game. Then they turned them into guns that needed a Ld test to shoot and I hated it. Now they are random and cool again. I'll stick to random over stagnant. The random elements require a certain bit of strategy to mitigate, and I like having it.

Tarax
19-06-2013, 08:35
I always loved the way Eldar bought their powers. Each power had a certain point value that was added to the cost of the Psyker.
This system was based around the fact that each power had a certain point value reflecting the effect of that power, ie the more powerful the higher the cost. A system that would also work in Fantasy.
The fact that other armies could choose their powers, made lists just as predictable as buying, but it didn't cost you anything. So we got a lot of JotWW and other powers that were more effective than others in the same list. Of course you choose the best powers if you can. But what if you have to actually pay for them (in points, mind)? How much would JotWW cost?
And now we have randomness. Is it better? Better than choosing without any negative consequence, but IMO not better than buying for the powers you want.

ehlijen
19-06-2013, 10:23
I always loved the way Eldar bought their powers. Each power had a certain point value that was added to the cost of the Psyker.
This system was based around the fact that each power had a certain point value reflecting the effect of that power, ie the more powerful the higher the cost. A system that would also work in Fantasy.
The fact that other armies could choose their powers, made lists just as predictable as buying, but it didn't cost you anything. So we got a lot of JotWW and other powers that were more effective than others in the same list. Of course you choose the best powers if you can. But what if you have to actually pay for them (in points, mind)? How much would JotWW cost?
And now we have randomness. Is it better? Better than choosing without any negative consequence, but IMO not better than buying for the powers you want.

It'd be the same as just choosing your power. Mathhammer would quickly declare which is the best for the points and you'd see that power 75% of the time.

The roll on the table is meant to gently prod players out of the comfort/stale zone of planning everything and have a bit more of a chaotic, reactive game. Whether you like that or not is up to everyone to decide for themselves, but I do actually.

Baneboss
19-06-2013, 11:08
Is it better? Better than choosing without any negative consequence, but IMO not better than buying for the powers you want.

Thats debatable. Even if you had a system where Jaws are priced accordingly to their power its still a flawed system. Jaws are great for hunting big Tyranid monstrosities but arent so much against high I or swarmy opponents. In other words you would always take it against certain opponents where this power would feel dirty cheap in points while against some others it would feel overpriced and not dependant to do anything. Random system put some more fresh air to a stalemate and you need to adapt. Buying powers for what you want would be 'balanced' if the game had only several races (or 2 or even 1) and all of them would be quite similar. Ofcourse there is always a tournament environment where you need to make a list to take on 3+ different armies and opponents.

In conclusion in a dice throwing game where most things are random, some more randomness doesnt hurt it. I would like it to be balanced in a way that you buy and take but as you see in certain situations you cant put a balanced point cost on something.

Ofcourse now we need to wait for new Space Wolf codex :)

Poseidal
19-06-2013, 13:00
Random powers kind of got rid of 'Farseer tax' so for that alone I'm glad.

IcedCrow
19-06-2013, 13:16
If powers costed points youd still see the same powers taken. The only thing affected would be armies getting smaller as points would go to the sure powers. Which imo is bad.

There will always be powers that are just better in any system, and given the power of free choice, players are going to gravitate to those powers as often as they can. Random alleviates that to a degree. I'm all for it in the name of not having to face the same power in dozens to hundreds of games over the course of several years.

Carlosophy
19-06-2013, 16:34
edit: also, I found introducting premeasuring sped things up. No more pondering for ages on whether unit A will hit unit B or if it will be a wasted shot. Just measure and decide your course of action.

Agreed. We've premeasured as a house rule since 2E and it speeds the game up significantly as no more are you wasting a whole turn's shooting because you were half an inch short.

More casualties at a faster rate = faster game outcome.

Tarax
19-06-2013, 18:11
It'd be the same as just choosing your power. Mathhammer would quickly declare which is the best for the points and you'd see that power 75% of the time.

The roll on the table is meant to gently prod players out of the comfort/stale zone of planning everything and have a bit more of a chaotic, reactive game. Whether you like that or not is up to everyone to decide for themselves, but I do actually.

As it stand there a a couple of options:

1) You buy your psyker and the powers
2) You buy your psyker and choose your powers
3) You buy your psyker and roll for your powers

Now comes the point of costing them.

1) Psyker costs 50 pts + Power A 15 pts + Power B 25 pts (not buying Powers C and D at respectively 20 and 30 pts) = 90 pts
2) Psyker costs 90 pts and chooses Powers B and D (compare costs of 90 vs 105 pts)
3) Psyker costs 90 pts and rolls Powers A and C (compare costs of 90 vs 85 pts)

(Perhaps could have changes some of the points costs, but here goes.)

Which would be the best option, points, balance or otherwise?
Also, I have not taken into account the effectiveness of each Power. But simply go by the fact that each Power will cost more as it increases in power.

Rated_lexxx
19-06-2013, 18:25
What I have found that really bogs down games is having to roll armor saves one a time and removing models closest from where the shot came from

You have to start measuring which guy is closer when it counts(such as holding a objective) and in my experience this happens more often then not. IF they got rid of this or redesigned it my games would go a lot faster

The Illuminated
19-06-2013, 19:33
but I do actually.

Do you field psykers?

Scribe of Khorne
19-06-2013, 19:40
What I have found that really bogs down games is having to roll armor saves one a time and removing models closest from where the shot came from

You have to start measuring which guy is closer when it counts(such as holding a objective) and in my experience this happens more often then not. IF they got rid of this or redesigned it my games would go a lot faster

I know BubbleGhost already mentioned this (and he and I posted on this at the release of 6th!) , but you really do not have to do that.

Unless the model really matters (Special Weapon, Squad Leader) just roll them all and then figure out who is closest or not. If its a squad leader that shares armour save, do all the rolls first, and then LOS. If its a character (Captain or what not) and you want to soak a few, then yeah, make a few individual.

Speed rolling is still very much possible, but I do understand some people dont do it for whatever reason. Even when you have someone on an objective its really not that arduous to get the bulk of the rolls out of the way and then get down and close for the last few.

Rated_lexxx
19-06-2013, 20:54
I know BubbleGhost already mentioned this (and he and I posted on this at the release of 6th!) , but you really do not have to do that.

Unless the model really matters (Special Weapon, Squad Leader) just roll them all and then figure out who is closest or not. If its a squad leader that shares armour save, do all the rolls first, and then LOS. If its a character (Captain or what not) and you want to soak a few, then yeah, make a few individual.

Speed rolling is still very much possible, but I do understand some people dont do it for whatever reason. Even when you have someone on an objective its really not that arduous to get the bulk of the rolls out of the way and then get down and close for the last few.

We do speed rolling as much as possible. I want to say about half the time though it comes down to one armor save at a time

SideshowLucifer
19-06-2013, 20:58
It rarely ever happens that way locally here. There really aren't that many things to differentiate a lot of the squad's models.

Ozendorph
19-06-2013, 21:08
It rarely ever happens that way locally here. There really aren't that many things to differentiate a lot of the squad's models.

It normally comes down to the position of characters (squad leader, attached ICs) in a unit, and whether some members of a squad benefit from cover (in cases where that matters). I don't see how it would come up more or less often in different gaming groups, unless players are ignoring the rules in favor of speedy play (a popular option in this edition).

Bubble Ghost
19-06-2013, 21:27
We do speed rolling as much as possible. I want to say about half the time though it comes down to one armor save at a time

That is either a big exaggeration, or you use some incredibly weird armies. You only have to roll one at a time when the guy at the front and the guy next in line have different saves. Even if one of the models is a character, you can still speed roll it if the saves are the same, as long as you remember that you don't get another save chance after you do the Look Out Sir roll.

Jind_Singh
19-06-2013, 21:31
The games for me do go a bit slower - but that's down to the fact we don't have the same grasp and understanding of the rules that we once did - not that the game is slowing us down.

There are situations that cause us to stop and clarify - but the more games I play the faster our games are getting - and to cap it off two weeks in a row I played 6,500 ad 5,500 points - 6 turn games - and they played well - and done well within the day.

The larger scale games also played better than before - so I quite enjoy the new edition and all it has to offer.

Having said that is not perfect...

Like I don't get why the addition of a single slow and purposeful model makes the ENTIRE squad slow and purposeful!

Why would a single mega-nob warboss suddenly make his squad of Lootas move and shoot at full BS!?

ehlijen
20-06-2013, 00:21
As it stand there a a couple of options:

1) You buy your psyker and the powers
2) You buy your psyker and choose your powers
3) You buy your psyker and roll for your powers

Now comes the point of costing them.

1) Psyker costs 50 pts + Power A 15 pts + Power B 25 pts (not buying Powers C and D at respectively 20 and 30 pts) = 90 pts
2) Psyker costs 90 pts and chooses Powers B and D (compare costs of 90 vs 105 pts)
3) Psyker costs 90 pts and rolls Powers A and C (compare costs of 90 vs 85 pts)

(Perhaps could have changes some of the points costs, but here goes.)

Which would be the best option, points, balance or otherwise?
Also, I have not taken into account the effectiveness of each Power. But simply go by the fact that each Power will cost more as it increases in power.

You've started with a false premise. The powers on the table are supposed to be equal in value for that very reason. They may not be, but if so, that's a problem with GW balancing things, not with the system of random powers. Yes, some are more potent, but those are warpcharge 2.

Maybe primaris powers are weaker in some cases, but if so, that'd still be balanced by you getting a choice to take it, but never being forced to.


Do you field psykers?

Yes. I have two librarians and a primaris psyker (which I may be using more often now that I don't have to fret about whether my most frequent opponent will ruin my day with his runes of warding). Right now I'm still on a new Tau high, though.

Same principle applies with warlord powers though, except there it is a free upgrade so people aren't complaining about having lost choice.

Tarax
20-06-2013, 08:08
I know BubbleGhost already mentioned this (and he and I posted on this at the release of 6th!) , but you really do not have to do that.

Unless the model really matters (Special Weapon, Squad Leader) just roll them all and then figure out who is closest or not.

I believe the rules state that you roll the same save at the same time, unless it is a different save or it's a character. So special weapons are not exempt from this rule. (Maybe it was FAQ'd or it was already there, but I remember it thus.)


You've started with a false premise. The powers on the table are supposed to be equal in value for that very reason. They may not be, but if so, that's a problem with GW balancing things, not with the system of random powers. Yes, some are more potent, but those are warpcharge 2.

Difference in Warp Charge is one thing, being able to choose JotWW willynilly is a complete other issue. But yes, is the chance of getting something, ie random, is equal, then so the outcome must be, ie Powers must be of equal strength (or game value, or effect). But since GW has a problem with finding balance, you may get lucky on your roll.
Best thing that could be done, to give your psyker his intended role, is to have Lores with each a certain aspect of the game, ie one affecting Movement, another Shooting, one offensive, another defensive, etc.

MasterDecoy
20-06-2013, 08:10
With regards to psykers and choosing powers:
Take the hive tyrant, 4 powers, 2 choices Which 2 used to get chosen every time?
on top of that, now that we have a choice between the random powers and his stock powers, how many people keep the base powers vs how many people think its almost auto swap out for biomancy?

ehlijen
20-06-2013, 08:43
Difference in Warp Charge is one thing, being able to choose JotWW willynilly is a complete other issue. But yes, is the chance of getting something, ie random, is equal, then so the outcome must be, ie Powers must be of equal strength (or game value, or effect). But since GW has a problem with finding balance, you may get lucky on your roll.
Best thing that could be done, to give your psyker his intended role, is to have Lores with each a certain aspect of the game, ie one affecting Movement, another Shooting, one offensive, another defensive, etc.

Jaws was written in another edition for a different system, I don't understand how people always picking that is an argument against the current power generation system?

And no, the best thing to do is to decide what lore you like and build your army so that your psyker has a place in it somewhere no matter what power he rolls.


With regards to psykers and choosing powers:
Take the hive tyrant, 4 powers, 2 choices Which 2 used to get chosen every time?
on top of that, now that we have a choice between the random powers and his stock powers, how many people keep the base powers vs how many people think its almost auto swap out for biomancy?

That imbalance is a result of edition change.

Poseidal
20-06-2013, 09:14
As it stand there a a couple of options:

1) You buy your psyker and the powers
2) You buy your psyker and choose your powers
3) You buy your psyker and roll for your powers

Now comes the point of costing them.

1) Psyker costs 50 pts + Power A 15 pts + Power B 25 pts (not buying Powers C and D at respectively 20 and 30 pts) = 90 pts
2) Psyker costs 90 pts and chooses Powers B and D (compare costs of 90 vs 105 pts)
3) Psyker costs 90 pts and rolls Powers A and C (compare costs of 90 vs 85 pts)

(Perhaps could have changes some of the points costs, but here goes.)

Which would be the best option, points, balance or otherwise?
Also, I have not taken into account the effectiveness of each Power. But simply go by the fact that each Power will cost more as it increases in power.

The costing for the 'random' powers are generally smaller than either of the 'set' powers. A Farseer who bought two powers and the ability to cast two (Mastery 2) would cost about 40% more than a plain level 3 Farseer now who can cast 2-3 powers a turn but randomly chooses powers.

Chapters Unwritten
20-06-2013, 14:15
It rarely ever happens that way locally here. There really aren't that many things to differentiate a lot of the squad's models.

Even if there were, it wouldn't matter. If you have all the same save, it all can be rolled at once.

The casualty removal is so visually intuitive that my people almost never have to measure for it. You don't have to measure because most of the time it is very apparent. When it isn't, it's a matter of a couple of models, which is closer, and if it's NOT apparent it's supposed to be selected another way. I frankly don't remember the rule because it almost never comes up.

It does not take a sig if isn't amount t of time to wave your tape over two models.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Tarax
21-06-2013, 07:52
Best thing that could be done, to give your psyker his intended role, is to have Lores with each a certain aspect of the game, ie one affecting Movement, another Shooting, one offensive, another defensive, etc.


And no, the best thing to do is to decide what lore you like and build your army so that your psyker has a place in it somewhere no matter what power he rolls.

Like I said before, that would be good, IF all the powers in a Lore affect similar parts of the game, Movement, Shooting, Saves, etc. As this isn't so (don't know all Lores, but a quick glance tells me it doesn't), you could still end up with the 'wrong' Powers.


The costing for the 'random' powers are generally smaller than either of the 'set' powers. A Farseer who bought two powers and the ability to cast two (Mastery 2) would cost about 40% more than a plain level 3 Farseer now who can cast 2-3 powers a turn but randomly chooses powers.

Note that I used Psyker and not Farseer. The cost of a Farseer includes other elements, while a Psyker can be from any army.

ehlijen
21-06-2013, 08:11
Like I said before, that would be good, IF all the powers in a Lore affect similar parts of the game, Movement, Shooting, Saves, etc. As this isn't so (don't know all Lores, but a quick glance tells me it doesn't), you could still end up with the 'wrong' Powers.


The lores don't have to all be variants of the same spell. The point is that you build your army so that no matter what power is rolled on the lore you want, he will have somewhere to play a part.

Eg if I was to have a librarian and wanted to roll on the divination table, I'd include a devestator squad for him to sit out if he rolls Perfect timing or scriers gaze (which I'd swap for the primaris) and a line squad (tactical or sternguard) for him o join if I roll foreboding, precognition or misfortune. Forewarning will serve him well in either role.

Tarax
21-06-2013, 10:20
If that's your way of putting it, then we disagree (all fine) on the concept of deciding on a role for your Psyker. Me, before rolling for Powers; you, after rolling.

Poseidal
21-06-2013, 10:38
Note that I used Psyker and not Farseer. The cost of a Farseer includes other elements, while a Psyker can be from any army.

The Farseer has pretty much the same gear in both codices, just in the first one he needed to spend more and buy gear to get the mastery levels.

It's true for other armies too. A Dark Angels Librarian can be made level 2 for the same cost as a level 1 Codex Space Marines Librarian is level one, the difference being the latter can choose his powers from the list (at army selection, not before each game). The level 1 Ultramarine Librarian from last edition costs over 50% more than the Dark Angel one, who is by all intents and purposes the pattern for the 'new' Librarian (the Dark Angels differences being only in lore and wargear selection and things affecting the entire Dark Angels army compared with a Codex force).

The 'costs' that you had up there don't match up to how they've made it as you had all '2 power' costs the same whether random, choosing or buying. Instead, if they had two powers the ones who choose (or buy) end up about 50% more expensive, and in the case of the Farseer has one fewer Warp Charge to play with too.

ehlijen
22-06-2013, 04:57
If that's your way of putting it, then we disagree (all fine) on the concept of deciding on a role for your Psyker. Me, before rolling for Powers; you, after rolling.

The rules want to coax you into the latter in 6th ed. Your way still works, but only if you plan around primaris powers.

Tarax
22-06-2013, 09:41
I guess you're right.

But as we're drifting away from the topic, I'd like to leave it at that.

Anybody else got an opinion about the amount of dice rolling during the game (apart form the To Hit, To Wound, Save and Morale rolls)?

Darnok
22-06-2013, 10:45
I think there are two things to keep in mind here: experience and expectations.

You need experience to play 40K. This may sound trivial, and is true for every game beyond stone-paper-scissors. But the rules are not exactly intuitive, there are lots of special rules and mechanismy to keep in mind to get the "whole thing". Once you know the basics, you need to play for some time, until you know what you do. This is what I call "playing the game, not letting the game play you" - you all know that phase when you had much more to do with how the rules work, instead of... playing with them.

I believe that between experienced gamers there is no big issue about game sizes. If you know your rules and your forces, you can handle a bigger game just as well as a smaller one. Of course it needs more preperation and more time than a smaller one, but so what? A three course dinner needs more preperation and more time than a sandwich - nothing wrong about either of than, and not the fault of the food. But bring inexperienced players to a bigger game, and watch the mess to unfold...

The second point are the expectations the player brings to the table. What do you think about the game, and what do you want it to be? If you think 40K is a "big skirmish" (as I do), you might not like the bigger games. If you see it as a mass battle game, you might find its "skirmishy" elements strange. Both views have their points, and they are not exclusive - but you run into trouble if you want to mix them. Some elements of 40K work well even at larger games, others not so much. You need to check for yourself what you expect from your game, and maybe tweak the rules if the game doesn't work exactly how you want it.

In the end I believe the contradiction the OP sees is not in the game itself, but with what people make of it. You can play 40K at smaller and larger scales (both up to a certain point...), but it requires experience, and the same mindset and expectations between the players. Just remember that there is no "right" or "wrong" way to play 40K: it is your game, you can make of it what you want. And try to have fun while you do it. :)