PDA

View Full Version : Homogenization or why 40K will needs an advanced game.



Noah Body
01-09-2006, 17:44
1st off this isn't an anti 40k4 rant (no really :) yeah I know when somebody says stuff like that it usually is ....like I'm not a racist but... well you'll see)

40K4 is a decent game with a awesome background.

Here is the problem as I see it. When GW made the jump from 40K2 to 40K3/4 they made the game more accessible to younger and more causal gamers. Not a bad thing. Not to every bodies taste but …. The increased model quality too ( :) yeah).
The subtly shifted the "scale" of the game so that more minis are on the table. Ok they ARE a mini's company and they are entitled to make money. Then at some point through the law unintended consequences or greed something bad started to happen. The Armies began to homogenize. WTF is this IDIOT talking about you ask.

Well look at the figure count and basic make up of all the 40K armies….

Do you see roughly the same number of figures and vehicles in each side in a 40k game?

Why is that? By the background some should be teeming hordes and others a scant squad or two. Because through rule creep 40K has ceased to be a war-game and had become and abstract game.
Again, in and of itself not a bad thing, alot of people seem to love it.
BUT it is slowly driving off a growing segment of its audience….WARGAMERS

WHY? Due to the abstractions in the present and probably future editions and codices the problem will become worse until
40k is almost analogous to Chess, still not bad but with less personality in each army there will be fewer people collecting multiple armies and fewer serious gamers until the base has eroded.

It has started already 40K used to be what 90% of the people played at our local gamestore….then 70% then 50% well now I never see it played the causal players moved to the next flavor of the week and the serious gamers moved to historicals
(Flames of War is the fastest growing game in my area…an area the used to be very 40K heavy)

Why fix it? The mini's are great and the background is awesome, and I don't want them to go the way of FASA

How to fix it, that's easy an advanced ruleset to keep serious gamers interested in the hobby that no longer offers the same challenges as historicals and an 40k4 ish Fantasy type game to bring in more casual gamers interested in Fantasy.

Casual or younger gamers who like the background may grow into the advanced rules and would be more likely to stay with the game rather than become bored and move on. The advanced rules could also more closly follow the background so that the flavour of each army is more apparent.


The polls show there are still significant numbers of people who prefer 2nd ed …now how many people would prefer a cleaned up 2nd ed or better yet a built from the ground up wargame?

Opinions?

Seth the Dark
01-09-2006, 17:49
Yea I have noticed that trend as well. Several Fantasy players won't touch 40k because they say it lacks any tactics.

Xander-K
01-09-2006, 18:49
you can say all that, yet what do I see the next generation of gamers playing at my store? 40k! they love it, an it seems to be bringing in a lot more players than it has in the past (maybe because rules easier to understand? I don't know), but more players = more money for GW = GW keep producing their lovely mini's so I really have nothing to complain about.

Eulenspiegel
01-09-2006, 18:59
Advanced rules will not make the game any more tactical!

Number of rules and level of detail simply doesn´t say anything about the complexity of the game.
More / more detailed rules (say, Vortex Grenades will be revived, different movement rates, throwable grenades, etc.) would add more options, more stuff to memorize and more tacitcal decisions.
More, not more difficult.

To make 40K tacically more challenging, you would have to revise the rules from the core. Look at WFB, it´s an entirely different game due to the static and inflexible nature of movement in that game.
This may or may not be the reason why people consider it more "tacitcal", because you actually have to plan ahead, and take care not to make any errors during movement. I wouldn´t know, as I never played the recent editions of WFB.

sliganian
01-09-2006, 19:05
[COLOR="Orange"]Advanced rules will not make the game any more tactical!
Number of rules and level of detail simply doesn´t say anything about the complexity of the game.


Funny that someone mentioned 'Chess' above.... ;)

tenpole
01-09-2006, 19:11
I just poke my nose in from the fantasy section and you said exactly how I feel. I was a fan of wh40k 2nd edition, ok characters got too powerful but in a game of marines vs orks the orks and gretchin would vastly out number the marines. Great fluff to the game as well. The second edition DID need improving to make it more fluid and tame the power of the characters. I sold all my 40K second edition on ebay.

Gaebriel
01-09-2006, 19:15
I would certainly like more options similar to, but not as complicated as 2nd edition. I don't care whether 40k is tactically challenging or not, all in all I don't care how it plays, as long as there's a lot of dicing and - more important - I can field my models then and now.

More options might mean more funstuff happening and bringing more colour to the game...

Sandals
01-09-2006, 19:20
i don't think 40k is less tactical than wfb, i think it is a completly different game with a completely different set of tactics. it's like saying rugby is more tactical than cricket. their just different.

i like both for very different reasons, and the simplicity of the 40k rules is one of the reasons i like it.

Noah Body
01-09-2006, 19:29
Chess is tactical and has very basic rules, but it is by no means realistic or a wargame. Chess is fun to play and has different armies. I like Chess. I don't want 40K to become more like quasi Chess.

Is wanting a 40K WARGAME wrong?

40K in its current incarnation is too abstract to truly be a wargame. It now just an abtract mini's game. What's next coin flipping 40K with each army using special coloured coins? THAT would play faster ans simpler too wouldn't it? It would be only slightly less tactical than the current version but all those who wouldn't like the new version are "old fashioned Luddites" who "can't handle the pace of the new game" or can't see the benifits of the streamlined rules. :eyebrows:


Advanced rules will not make the game any more tactical!

.

The_Patriot
01-09-2006, 19:37
Well Chess is indeed a wargame and the earliest version of a wargame. The armies it simulates are the ones used by the early empires like Greece. The game of chess may not be a true to life simulation of warfare, but it is a simulation of ancient armies on the strategic and tactical level. The question is what is your definition of tactical and strategic?

Noah Body
01-09-2006, 19:51
It has NOTHING to do with tactical and stategic it has to do with concrete and abstract. Chess is a Persian/Indian/Mogul game and was never meant to be a "wargame" in the sense of "combat simuation" there were "real" wargames of the period but not Chess.





Well Chess is indeed a wargame and the earliest version of a wargame. The armies it simulates are the ones used by the early empires like Greece. The game of chess may not be a true to life simulation of warfare, but it is a simulation of ancient armies on the strategic and tactical level. The question is what is your definition of tactical and strategic?

Sandals
01-09-2006, 20:25
maybe you should try inquisitor? that's about the most detailed game GW has produced for a long time. it may be as close to a "real" situation as you can get.

and when talking about "reality" don't forget we're talking about daemonically possessed genetically engineered supermen (chaos) fighting alien monsters from beyond the edge of the galaxy (nids)

Suspend thy disbelief! it's not meant to be accurate!

Buddha777
01-09-2006, 20:26
Sorry for the rant but I hate when people think WHFB is somehow more tactical. A bunch of complex rules (which WHFB has plenty of) only makes the game more complex, adding nothing to the tactical level of the game. The reality of it is that it's just a different set of rules that is adjusted for low movment rates and relativley static play. 40k on the other hand has a rule set for quick play (both literaly and in game turns). While in WHFB the average movment rate is 4", while it is 6" in 40k (not to mention the abundance of 12" and fleet movment). So while WHFB players may tout it as more tactical, it's only becuase if they screw up their movment phase there are dire consequences where there is more leyway in 40k due to the higher movment rates. Thats it. As someone who plays both games I can honestly say it takes just as much tactical thought to figure out if its worth fleeting with my gaunts rather than shooting than figuring out if its worth using a power dice to boost my Slaan's magic for that turn. Any argument otherwise is just plain contribed.

Mojaco
01-09-2006, 20:44
While in WHFB the average movment rate is 4", while it is 6" in 40k
Don't forget marching. The first few turns people usually race across the board moving twice their movement.
WFB IS more tactical. Movement is an ellement where luck has no bearing on. In WFB movement plays a far bigger role then it does in 40k. In 40k it desides LoS (terrain and vehicles being the only hindrances) and range. In WFB it desides front or flank charges, LoS (everything blocks sight), if stuff will be within range of the general, if stuff runs where it'll go, if the opponent can march, etc.

Also, the charge reactions and combat resolution mean that you can do a lot more in combat. You can roll nothing but 1's but still have a certain victory if your opponent was stupid enough to show his flank to a fully ranked, fully commanded unit. No such thing in 40k. Sure, 10 marines are extremely likely to whoop 10 grots, but bad luck can ruin that for you.

Is that a bad thing? Not at all. I love 40k above all. WFB is truelly one the best wargames, but I prefer the style of 40k. Simpler, but not completly untactical as some people are just to fast to descibe it. It's just that you reach full knowledge of the game earlier then you would for WFB.

I think the three GW games complement each other nicely. LotR for easy to understand skirmishing, 40k for more varied and somewhat more complex gameplay and wfb for full army clashes with the biggest challenge.

Who knows what they'll do with 5th though. Maybe they'll let 40k4 and 40k5 life side by side, with 4 being the beer&pretzel game, and 5 being the challenging one. Who knows.

Noah Body
01-09-2006, 20:51
Excellent points complexity is not corrilary to the tacticality of a game how ever it probably is necessary for concreteness and the elimination of abstracts. I'm certain neither 40K or WFB is more chalenging than the other tactially but one is less abstact. Inquistor is alsmost a roleplaying game in its complexity and bogs above the fire team level but I love to play it.

By reality I'm talking about in line with real world physics weapons and tactics, but yes there are fantastic elements in both games.




Sorry for the rant but I hate when people think WHFB is somehow more tactical. A bunch of complex rules (which WHFB has plenty of) only makes the game more complex, adding nothing to the tactical level of the game.


maybe you should try inquisitor? that's about the most detailed game GW has produced for a long time. it may be as close to a "real" situation as you can get.

and when talking about "reality" don't forget we're talking about daemonically possessed genetically engineered supermen (chaos) fighting alien monsters from beyond the edge of the galaxy (nids)

Suspend thy disbelief! it's not meant to be accurate!

Dosadi
01-09-2006, 21:05
Mt whole feeling on 40k is that iplay it the way I used to play games such as Blood Bowl, Talisman and Heroquest (Advanced HQ as well). It's become a "Beer & Pretzels" game for my friends and I. We get togeather, drink a few beers and play a big silly game of 40k. Much yelling, taunting and sass is involved. We have a great itme and nobody really cares who wins or looses. We don't care that it's not realistic.

There are other games we play that we take a bit more seriously. More thought is needed, tactics and straegy play an important role in these games. It's just a different style of play. We still yell and goad eachother, but we play these games as a challenge. I still love 40k. I've been at it since RT and I don't ever see myself stopping collecting and painting 40k miniatures. I love the fluff and the good times I've had over the years playing it. It's just a fun simple game. I don't really play in 40k tournaments 'cause people take the game seriously. I play in WHFB, Confrontation, Warmachine and Flames of War tournies because the challenge exists in these settings.

Dosadi

Chem-Dog
01-09-2006, 21:45
The polls show there are still significant numbers of people who prefer 2nd ed …now how many people would prefer a cleaned up 2nd ed or better yet a built from the ground up wargame?

I'm one of those who looks back fondly upon the 2nd edition, but I was young, I didn't have to work, had little in the way of responsibility and the 2-3 hours needed to play a game, there was a lot of ED2 which was surplus to the game, I suspect many of us who love ED2 are looking at it with rose tinted glasses or with the sepia tone of nostalgia.


Yea I have noticed that trend as well. Several Fantasy players won't touch 40k because they say it lacks any tactics.

This is a common conceit among Fantasy players.
There is a level of snobbery amongst (some) fantasy players evident even up to the highest level of the company, just look at the fanfare that the new WHFB is being released to, 40K's 4ED release was a damp squib in comparison, no baloons, swap shops or cakes.
Strategy and Tactics are required in both games, despite what the snobs say.

Indrid Khold
01-09-2006, 21:53
I played Warhammer Fantasy for years, and had a very impressive win record with my High Elves (if I do say so myself). In every game, I knew exactly how to deploy to get the most out of my army, and once deployment was done I knew exactly how to advance in order to win.

In 40K I have to carefully puzzle out my deployment in every game and plan my attack based on what sort of army the enemy has, the terrain, etc.

I love both games, but I consider 40K to be VASTLY more challenging and "tactical."

Dais
01-09-2006, 22:07
i think most of us wouldnt disagree to a minor shift to more complexity and variability. however, 2ed and 3ed were very different games, binging back too much would be more likely to please no-one than everyone. if more complexity was to be introduced it would be better to not lose what good there is in 4ed for the sake of imposing artificial challenge. it is better done with a light touch.

Noah Body
01-09-2006, 22:16
Chess has tactics too. I'm speakin about abstraction. Hell tic tac toe has tactics as does monopoly but I wouldn't call either a wargame.



I played Warhammer Fantasy for years, and had a very impressive win record with my High Elves (if I do say so myself). In every game, I knew exactly how to deploy to get the most out of my army, and once deployment was done I knew exactly how to advance in order to win.

In 40K I have to carefully puzzle out my deployment in every game and plan my attack based on what sort of army the enemy has, the terrain, etc.

I love both games, but I consider 40K to be VASTLY more challenging and "tactical."

Asq_Dak
01-09-2006, 22:19
The reality of it is that it's just a different set of rules that is adjusted for low movment rates and relativley static play.

That's very interesting, I've always found WFB less frustrating to play as my models could march to get the extra move, my cavalry move 16" and I have flyers going 20" but that's probably due to the army I play...

Anyway - as far as 2nd ed is concerned - I loved it to bits! It's the one I started on, and after playing 3rd ed for a bit I played a few 2nd ed and thought it was better. But now we are on 4th ed. And it is homogenising, I agree.

It was just last week I was talking to someone who said that marines seem to pitch out the same numbers as other forces, and are actually weaker in at least one given phase than any other army. Back in 2nd ed only marines could rapid fire, and that was lethal! but then you saw half as many marines on the table to other players so you needed the elite shooting capabilities!

So now, the defining traits of the different armies becomes less apparent as time passes. A new special rule for this army, another for the next that includes the previous and soon everyone can do the same as everyone else!

But yes, I think certain aspects of the game can be enhanced to reinforce the traits in the backgrounds of each race to add more flavour, but the game is fun to play, isn't it? ;)

Noah Body
01-09-2006, 22:45
That is why they need 2 differnent rulesets 40K4 and 40KA

Don't kill the 40K4 people love but and a seperate advanced ruleset not some bolted on piece of crap.



i think most of us wouldnt disagree to a minor shift to more complexity and variability. however, 2ed and 3ed were very different games, binging back too much would be more likely to please no-one than everyone. if more complexity was to be introduced it would be better to not lose what good there is in 4ed for the sake of imposing artificial challenge. it is better done with a light touch.

Chaos and Evil
02-09-2006, 09:35
WFB == Chess.

40k == Checkers.

Both of them have their time and place, but saying 40k is as tactically challenging as WFB is a rather patent falsehood.

If you want a 40k universe game that's as full of tactics as WFB, try Epic. Now there's a 40k game that doesn't always end up in a CC bundle in the middle of the table on turn 5. :D

philbrad2
02-09-2006, 10:34
40K4 is a slick game system but its 'depth' is limited. I suggest all those who have only played 40K3/4 download and read the rules for Necromunda (http://www.specialist-games.com/necromunda/default.asp) and give it a go. OK its a game designed for less models but there are some great rules in there. 40K used to be like this. You don't need masses of models to have a fun and rewarding game. Having gamed with 40K for about 15+ years now I have seen how the system has had to adapt. GW have pushed players to be able to field larger armies and there is no way you could play 40K2/RT with large armies in an hour or two as you can nowadays.

I'm not a FB player, but I find the checker/chess analogy a bit misleading from what I can see of the new edition of FB elements in here have been streamlined to speed up game play.

I know GW has introduced Combat Patrol and Kill Team rules to 40K and I love them, I play large numbers of Combat Patrol games as I find the restrictions the rules impose challenging and the game more tactically challenging. I for one would love 40K advanced rules set where I could play a 1000pts game and be able to include ideas like throwing grenades, different weapons effects, overwatch movement/targetting restrictions and enhance vehicle rules (ramming etc...)

40K can become too much of a 'no-brainer' on some levels. I beleive there is a market for an advance set of rules for 40K and to be honest I really don't see as GW would have much to loose producing such a set:confused: After all it would be another expansion for them. No real need to release new models to support it.

For those who have played 40K 'to death' and want something a little more taxing, as Chaos and Evil suggests try the likes of Epic:A, BFG and Necromunda. You might like it :D


:chrome:

insectum7
02-09-2006, 10:41
No tactics in 40K? I think the tactics themselvs are more abstract than people tend to think, and require both forethought and skill to see them through.

Now I can't speak for every gamers experience, but when I am positioning and moving my army, I'm usually looking several turns ahead, taking advantage of terrain, prioritising targets, defending against counter offensives, altering choices based on casualties and the opponents answers to my arrangements, deploying reserves, countering my opponents reserves, engaging in assaults in as best a manner that I can manage and trying to achieve mission objectives, while wondering when the game will actually end because my group plays only Omega level missions with random game length.

How can this not be a tactical game?

I will be bold and state a problem that arises in 40K. Some players are cowards.

There are some players who design army lists purely so that they don't have to think about what they need to do once on the table. Just about every codex is capable of making an army of this type, and in many gaming groups the lowest denominator of player can often decide how the game is going to be played.

The game is wide open to interpretation in many areas such as mission level, terrain styles and placement, army choices and matchups. My point is that there is alot that can go wrong in between understanding the basic rules, and having a community that continually pushes for peak gameplay potential.

It's sloppy gaming that I try to avoid. And if it is avoided, one can really start playing a very rewarding wargame. As for simplicity, I would say that 40K is easy to learn but difficult to master, both are good traits.


WFB == Chess.

40k == Checkers.

Both of them have their time and place, but saying 40k is as tactically challenging as WFB is a rather patent falsehood.


I have had a fairly consistent gaming group for about 3-4 years now, of about 6 people. Despite countless matches, many discussions and debates about tactics and strategies and inter-army realtionships, I win 80-90% of my games using a non-minmaxed army which is both diverse and in accordance with the background. This would suggest that there is a definite skill level to 40K and an array of strategic concepts which are more difficult to put to use than you would suggest. I think that you have seen/played the wrong games of 40K, because it can be a very challenging game if played right.

philbrad2
02-09-2006, 10:51
Not saying 40K has no tactics. Of course as you speak of, a number of elements mentionedare in my games and one must introduce some tactics along the line to attain a special mission but too many players simply play basic 40K games. Little of no special rules, no specific missions other than to bash each outher out of existance. The games I see at my local GW stores tend to be simple meat grinders. But even using Omega level scenarios the current lements of move-shoot-assault are pretty, well static there's not much else on offer to a player. For example a unit is 8" away from terrain with the bad guys bearing down on them. If 40K had a 'run' rule back (which is essentially 'fleet' for those who don't know) grenades (even special grenades smoke/flash etc..) or overwatch then this could give numerous tactical options back to the player for how they approach this situation. Rapid fire has given some options back in 4th ed as 3rd ed was even more of a move-shoot-clobber system.

:chrome:

insectum7
02-09-2006, 12:11
Well, right, because of its interpretive nature it's up to the players to make a decent game. I still blame the players for a lack of resposibility.

Ususally when armies start meeting for assaults the are enough units around to have plenty of options about how you will meet/avoid the other guy, those decisions can be among the complex and crucial depending on the relationships involved. Those are also the times when having a diverse array of units at your disposal has a great bearing on your options.

Noah Body
02-09-2006, 16:10
The thing is Insectum you seem to be te exception rather than the rule. I think a good game designer designs for the lowest common denominator GW didn't ....the game just seems to sink there. (It happened w/40k2 too hence "herohammer" ) IMO the vague abstract underpinnings of 40K4 RUIN the game, but that's me.




Well, right, because of its interpretive nature it's up to the players to make a decent game. I still blame the players for a lack of resposibility.

Ususally when armies start meeting for assaults the are enough units around to have plenty of options about how you will meet/avoid the other guy, those decisions can be among the complex and crucial depending on the relationships involved. Those are also the times when having a diverse array of units at your disposal has a great bearing on your options.

artificer
02-09-2006, 19:06
perhaps what's needed (rather than a full 40k4+ book) is just the advanced "tactics" type books like Cities of Death, where there are rules that go above and beyond the "normal" game situations. I would much rather have these types of books, perhaps covering things like siege, large scale combat (Apocalypse), and other special situations than a re-write of the rules to improve the game.

I'd even be open to a book of specialized missions on their own, where certain rules are altered for that mission (depending on the race).

tenpole
02-09-2006, 19:15
Or maybe play warhammer 40k second edition. You could modify it with house rules, in fact it probably needs it. Quick to ebay

Torgo
02-09-2006, 19:18
I wouldn't mind seeing a advanced rules supplement. I'd like to see it take an Epic approach rather than a 2nd edition approach. Epic has some neat stuff, like crossfire and suppression that I think would improve 40k, and make it a more tactical game. I'd prefer anything changed should actually add options and tactics, not mere fiddliness or "realism". If, say, frag grenades could be used to suppress or drive back opponents, that would be great. If it was merely changed to shooting 10 8" S3 AP6 assault 1 blast weapons, I'd just as soon stick to what we have now.

Oberon
02-09-2006, 19:20
I play three armies, ~15 models, 40 models, and 40 models approx. Enemies have armies from ten to 120 models, no in-betweens thus far sighted(2 weeks intense gaming in the new town). Because of this the homoginesation(sp?) hasn't been around, for me at least. If both sides have marines, of course armies look homogenous. Try mech army vs IG or something, or the other more special armies, and there you have it. This day 80+ men guard army got beating from basicly 20 marines,(half of them termies, rest of the army died doing nothing the first turn :angel: ), it is possible and different from your usual seek&destroy 1k SM vs SM shootout. :)

BrainFireBob
02-09-2006, 19:54
So, went through this thread:

Noah, what the heck do you mean by "it's abstract, not concrete"

:wtf:

The only non-abstract wargames I can think of are paintball, and debateably SCA.

ANY tabletop game is abstract.

And to others: Since 3rd, and even more pronounced in 4th, 40K has become a squad-level wargame. You play with squads, not individual models. That's what the balance has gone toward. So, a marine army might slap down 60 some models, in 6 squads or "scoring units."

Rork
02-09-2006, 20:15
I play both fantasy and 40k, and find the attitude of the fantasy "imperialists" inaccurate. Let me just say on top of that I usually prefer playing fantasy to 40k (but am usually playing 40k since so few play fantasy :( ).

On to my point. Fantasy is not strictly superior to 40k, but 40k has easier "beard" options like iron warriors and gunlines in general. 40k is more about application of firepower and the use of line of sight above all else. It is representing something akin to modern warfare which is rarely about set-piece battles (which fantasy is about).

Fantasy is antiquated warfare - you have to do a lot more work in the movement phase to beat your opponent, but are generally lining them up and knocking them down due to the pitfalls of blocking line of sight too much. It is still about fighting in a preferential situation for your own side, but it is gone about in a very different way.

So to say fantasy is "better" is fatuous, they're very different styles of warfare...

Noah Body
02-09-2006, 20:35
Ok Like how far in feet is the 24 inches a bolter fires? The thing with the current edition of 40K is that it plays wrong. I treats indiviual models like squads. If 1 marine was really 5 then fine that would be ok, but the mechanics are set incorectly to a 1:1 game. The abtraction of not have a fixed scale but still using "models eye view" is patantly wrong.





So, went through this thread:

Noah, what the heck do you mean by "it's abstract, not concrete"

:wtf:

The only non-abstract wargames I can think of are paintball, and debateably SCA.

ANY tabletop game is abstract.

And to others: Since 3rd, and even more pronounced in 4th, 40K has become a squad-level wargame. You play with squads, not individual models. That's what the balance has gone toward. So, a marine army might slap down 60 some models, in 6 squads or "scoring units."

Cap'n Umgrotz
02-09-2006, 20:44
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head there Rork, but I think fantasy is inherantly more suited to a fun wargame.(My views allow for others to think differently)
Bleh.I'm sick of talking about this, as with most internet debate, people just pick sides and stick to them.
What I will say is:
I think 40K could be improved. I do not like the direction the game has taken, nor do I understand the reasoning behind several of the changes. Many changes were for the best, others were odd, to my mind.
As far as tactics goes, I've noticed an arguing style amongst certain 40K fans. User X says: I think 40K is less tactical than it used to be/than fantasy.
User Y says: You're saying 40K has no tactics!Ludicrous! Of course it does (lists tactics)
This kind of argument is no argument. Those who argue properly I don't mind, and I suppose we just don't see eye to eye on what we want in a game, fair enough.But the above tactic wrecks my head.
And finally, an often overlooked problem with 40K is the existance of a flagship army. The game is built around MEQs and Space Marines get multiple codices. The only extra army books that get done for fantasy are the campaign books, which I'm sure we can all agree are different to a main codex. This uni-faction drain on studio time leads to neglect on other armies that need some TLC. Bleh. It's all been said before, it'll all be said again next week. I'm off to tilt at some windmills.

t-tauri
02-09-2006, 20:44
Ok Like how far in feet is the 24 inches a bolter fires? The thing with the current edition of 40K is that it plays wrong. I treats indiviual models like squads. If 1 marine was really 5 then fine that would be ok, but the mechanics are set incorectly to a 1:1 game. The abtraction of not have a fixed scale but still using "models eye view" is patantly wrong.

Why? You don't need to know the scale to play the game. Not knowing that 24" is 240m or 2.4km doesn't matter. Even the most "realistic" of games like Advanced Squad Leader abstract the ground scale to fit terrain features like roads and buildings on the maps.

I'd venture there isn't a major set of rules anywhere which doesn't use some absractions. Effective fluff range for aimed boltguns with space marines is probably a few hundred metres which means you'd need a table with three or four metres between set up zones.

You can't accept boltguns, genetically engineered supermen, aliens and all the wierdness of 40k and then start worrying about exact scales. As long as the terrain and the vertical scale matches the models then model's eye view for LoS is fine. The horizontal scale doesn't matter as long as the weapons are graded relative to each other.

insectum7
02-09-2006, 21:20
The thing is Insectum you seem to be te exception rather than the rule. I think a good game designer designs for the lowest common denominator GW didn't ....the game just seems to sink there. (It happened w/40k2 too hence "herohammer" ) IMO the vague abstract underpinnings of 40K4 RUIN the game, but that's me.

Maybe, my gaming group tends to be somewhat exclusive and most people involved make those well rounded, take-all-comer armies as opposed to swapping units at the sight of a different xenos.

As for lowest common denominator, I might say that the game is more misinterpreted as a result of its popularity. If the same crowd of hyper-competitive-with-simplistic-approach people turned their attention towards Epic, Fantasy or other game system that many posters think are inherently superior tactics-wise when compared to 40K, are your sure that proposed alternate game caould survive under the strain?

I haven't played Fantasy, but I've played Epic, and though it is a decent and interesting system I certainly don't think is can't be broken/abused. One of the major problems that arises in 40K is people who build an army to do one thing only in an attempt to avoid the type of complex maneuvering that some of us play the game for. But in Epic, do people really expect to have interesting games if all they are doing is waiting for a large scale 'planetfall' on turn three form an orbiting battle barge? There are still ways to avoid the standard argument/counterargument nature that the game is trying to put forth. If all the people from 40K switched to Epic, I think that game system would be snapped like a twig.

When comparing 40K tactics and strategies to those of Epic, I think another important thing to remember is that Epic lasts a maximum of 3 whole turns. Each of your units performs 3 actions and that's about it. Granted, those actions can include sweeping changes in positioning, and your opponent gets to answer each action in turn, but it's still just 3 actions a unit. Compare that to 40K, where every unit has at least 6 turns of 'actions' to perform. Many of the strategies in 40K rely on multiple turns of actions strung together and adjusted for the opponents moves. You can get alot done with a single unit when you put your mind to it.

I aint saying that Epic is a simple and unsophisticated system, but I think people don't complain about Epic because they haven't seen it put to the test by the lowest common denominator.

sorry, bloated post, just woke up.



As far as tactics goes, I've noticed an arguing style amongst certain 40K fans. User X says: I think 40K is less tactical than it used to be/than fantasy.
User Y says: You're saying 40K has no tactics!Ludicrous! Of course it does (lists tactics)
This kind of argument is no argument. Those who argue properly I don't mind, and I suppose we just don't see eye to eye on what we want in a game, fair enough.But the above tactic wrecks my head.


I'm gonna assume that one is for me. Why is it not an argument? And what then is a proper argument?

Cap'n Umgrotz
02-09-2006, 21:23
A proper argument would not change what your opponent says.If I say less, then I mean less, not none. D'you get me? You aren't addressing their point, just making up an new one and answering that. And it's at you, but not just you. Everyone who does that. (You're not the only one)

Noah Body
02-09-2006, 21:39
But offically as it's not, the mini scale and the ground scale different where 48 inches is like 3 miles or some crazy crap. ASL isn't a 1:1 game it is a squad game age a step away in scale.



Why? You don't need to know the scale to play the game. Not knowing that 24" is 240m or 2.4km doesn't matter. Even the most "realistic" of games like Advanced Squad Leader abstract the ground scale to fit terrain features like roads and buildings on the maps.

I'd venture there isn't a major set of rules anywhere which doesn't use some absractions. Effective fluff range for aimed boltguns with space marines is probably a few hundred metres which means you'd need a table with three or four metres between set up zones.

You can't accept boltguns, genetically engineered supermen, aliens and all the wierdness of 40k and then start worrying about exact scales. As long as the terrain and the vertical scale matches the models then model's eye view for LoS is fine. The horizontal scale doesn't matter as long as the weapons are graded relative to each other.

Gensuke626
02-09-2006, 21:39
First, I would like to say, that 40K is probably just as tactical as Fantasy, and as said, in different ways. my points have largely been made in previous posts, but my view lies with the "Different forms of Warfare" camp. Sure, in 40K it's easier to move your minis around, it's more forgiving, and you don't have to wheel (I hate Wheeling, it's the whole reason I won't touch fantasy), but you do have to worry about things like "If I move there, I'll put myself into heavy bolter range and LOS."

The other thing I'd like to mention is this, the approximated Scale of a Boltgun: First off, 24 inches is not the maximum range of a Boltgun. It is simply the maximum effective range of a boltgun that's been aimed briefly.

Now, Your Average Space Marine hits his mark 75% of the time at 20 Yards with a Typical Mk IV Sickle Mag boltgun. This is without aiming. Due to the nature of the Mk IV boltgun, the chances for a Marine to hit his mark are decreased to 60% up to 30 yds, 45% up to 40 yds, 30% up to 50 yds, 15% to 55 yds, and 0% up to 60 yds. Because aiming can be taken into account it is important to note that at 65 yds the chances a marine will hit are -15%, -30% at 70 yds, and -45% at all ranges above the approximate 70 yard mark.

Rapid Fireing his boltgun also decreases his accuracy by 20% for both shots, meaning that the effective range of a rapid fireing bolter is relatively short.

However, a marine can increase his accuracy by aiming his boltgun, allowing a marine to increase his fireing effectiveness by anywhere from 20 to 100% per 10 seconds aiming, depending on the individual marine.

As you can see, it is possible for a marine to hit his mark quite easily with atleast the first shot of a 2-shot volley (The recoil typically spoils the Marine's aim, unless he is specially trained or has advanced recoil compensators on his boltgun) at ranges exceeding 71 yds. However your typical squad of marines don't have the time to track a squad of enemies at long ranges for long periods of time to suitably aim, as the individual marine issue does come into play here. Though one marine in 10 may have a steady enough hand and a quick enough mind to gain the approximate +100% accuracy for aiming over 10 seconds, many do not, and because 40K is a game of majorities, it is simpler to say the squad as a whole can not fire.

So, what is 24 inches on a boltgun? I'd say between 45 and 55 yards assuming the Marines aimed.

Noah Body
02-09-2006, 21:49
If you assue that the bolter is an smg/machine pistol thats fine but what the other weapons especially the heavy weapons.



So, what is 24 inches on a boltgun? I'd say between 45 and 55 yards assuming the Marines aimed.

insectum7
02-09-2006, 22:45
A proper argument would not change what your opponent says.If I say less, then I mean less, not none. D'you get me? You aren't addressing their point, just making up an new one and answering that. And it's at you, but not just you. Everyone who does that. (You're not the only one)

Fair enough point, however, I begin listing tactics in an attempt to illustrate the complex strategic possibilities of the game. I was not necessarily making a new point, though it may be easy to interpret that as such. If I remove my "40K has no tactics?" clause, the listed tactics still provide evidence that 40K is a more complex game than the previous poster would have me think. Maybe a clearer way to put it would have been:

<listing of tactics> This array of game elements is clear evidence that 40K is not as simplistic as some would have you think.

As you say, people are quick to polarise arguments by making blanket statements like:

40K=checkers
WFantasy=chess

Now when us veterans see that our favored game is somehow analagous to checkers, we're gonna get a little miffed. I hope its understandable why we might tend toward polarised language. My intended point was that Warhammer 40K is not a simple game if played correctly, and that the analogies between GW games and checkes/chess was misconstrued and false.




The other thing I'd like to mention is this, the approximated Scale of a Boltgun: First off, 24 inches is not the maximum range of a Boltgun. It is simply the maximum effective range of a boltgun that's been aimed briefly.

Now, Your Average Space Marine hits his mark 75% of the time at 20 Yards with a Typical Mk IV Sickle Mag boltgun.... [yada yada yada]..

Watch out, the last time scale was discusssed it opened up a can of worms and the thread was closed because someone began threatening to quit 40K. Scale is more complex than people tend to think it is. For the sake of this thread, just leave it at that.

Gensuke626
02-09-2006, 23:19
I'm waiting to see if anyone noticed I just used Inquisitor rules to explain 40k rules...based on Noah's response I'd say that he either never played Inquisitor or didn't notice. Really, scale doesn't matter. It's a game for crying out loud! If you need advanced rules, play City Fight and use Forgeworld's rules for Super heavies, Titans, and flyers. Heck, you might not even need to go that far.

Try building an army that's different from what the norm is and challenge yourself to win with it. For example, I'm trying to work out a 1500pt Eldar armylist that's base of fire is a unit of D-cannons. Not going to use 5-man guardian squads with platforms, but I am using 2 squads of 5 rangers, 2 squads of 10 Dire Avengers, 2 squads of 5 Spiders to take objectives, ect. As far as I know, it's divergent enough from standard Eldar lists that I'd have a hard time trying to win with it, but it's going to surprise people on it's first outings (This coming monday will be my first field test...I may make a batrep)

Err...I seem to have gone on a tangent, but the point is, you don't need to make advanced rules to make the game more complex and require more thinking. Set up terrain in new ways (Like 3rd ed's roll a scatter die and 2d6, measure from center of the board.), Play raids and battles (I think that's what they are...the scenarios like breakout and sabotage in the BGB), come up with rules for playing in weird places like deathworlds, ice caves, Volcanic worlds, Hi-Grav worlds, ect. That's what I think.

t-tauri
02-09-2006, 23:23
But offically as it's not, the mini scale and the ground scale different where 48 inches is like 3 miles or some crazy crap. ASL isn't a 1:1 game it is a squad game age a step away in scale.
40k is a squad based game, just as ASL is. Individual leaders and vehicles, squads of troops. The rest of your post, I don't understand your point.

insectum7
02-09-2006, 23:58
As for unit numbers, I see a hefty difference in the number of models being played. In my group teh numbers tend to be as follows:

Chaos 40-50
Space Marines 45-55
Eldar 60-80
Imperial Guard 80-120
Dark Eldar 70-100
Orks 90-130
Tau 90-120
Tyranids 80-130
Necrons 50-60
Sisters 70-90

These are 1850 armies and they are a pretty hefty spread of guys. Some extreme armies push past the numbers that I give here. Whe I use my Marines vs. Orks or Tau I expect to see at least twice my number arrayed against me. If I use less than 50 marines I begin to feel pretty vulnerable. We have one Chaos army that plays 30 odd models in a 2150 army. It makes for much less of a wargame and more of a running-of-the-gauntlet, but on occasion we add 300 points to our 1850's and try to take it on for amusements sake.

Noah Body
03-09-2006, 01:14
Sorry let me try again. The basic unit in ASL is the squad,in the minis version its a 10 men(depending on country) to the base. The base in an area where in game abstraction the whole squad it uniformly spread over that base and can see and shoot in all directions. The 40k4 problem is that sometimes it acts like that too there the squad is one homogeneous thing but it als state that the models are individuals. You can't have it both ways. 40K4 would make more sense if you based 5 guys on a 6in by 6in square?

I haven't made my self any clearer have I ? :(





40k is a squad based game, just as ASL is. Individual leaders and vehicles, squads of troops. The rest of your post, I don't understand your point.

Noah Body
03-09-2006, 01:16
and in 40k5 everybody will have exactlly the same. Compare that to what you saw in 2nd and third ?



As for unit numbers, I see a hefty difference in the number of models being played. In my group teh numbers tend to be as follows:

Chaos 40-50
Space Marines 45-55
Eldar 60-80
Imperial Guard 80-120
Dark Eldar 70-100
Orks 90-130
Tau 90-120
Tyranids 80-130
Necrons 50-60
Sisters 70-90

These are 1850 armies and they are a pretty hefty spread of guys. Some extreme armies push past the numbers that I give here. Whe I use my Marines vs. Orks or Tau I expect to see at least twice my number arrayed against me. If I use less than 50 marines I begin to feel pretty vulnerable. We have one Chaos army that plays 30 odd models in a 2150 army. It makes for much less of a wargame and more of a running-of-the-gauntlet, but on occasion we add 300 points to our 1850's and try to take it on for amusements sake.

Gensuke626
03-09-2006, 01:27
Sorry let me try again. The basic unit in ASL is the squad,in the minis version its a 10 men(depending on country) to the base. The base in an area where in game abstraction the whole squad it uniformly spread over that base and can see and shoot in all directions. The 40k4 problem is that sometimes it acts like that too there the squad is one homogeneous thing but it als state that the models are individuals. You can't have it both ways. 40K4 would make more sense if you based 5 guys on a 6in by 6in square?

I haven't made my self any clearer have I ? :(

I don't think that makes sense...the 40k part I mean.

After all, they move as a squad, but their individual kit may vary, and they all draw different lines of sight. If a model in the squad can't see it's target, it can't shoot it. And if this is still a discussion about scale, I'd be very interested to know how.

Noah Body
03-09-2006, 01:34
In ASLM (Advanced Squad Leader Minis) If you can draw a line from any part of the base to any part of the enemy base the whole squad can shoot (in fact the squad behaves as if it were one giant person the shape of the base)
In 40K4 it is supossed to be by individual models but is behaving more and more like the ASLM base.



I don't think that makes sense...the 40k part I mean.

After all, they move as a squad, but their individual kit may vary, and they all draw different lines of sight. If a model in the squad can't see it's target, it can't shoot it. And if this is still a discussion about scale, I'd be very interested to know how.

insectum7
03-09-2006, 01:39
Sorry let me try again. The basic unit in ASL is the squad,in the minis version its a 10 men(depending on country) to the base. The base in an area where in game abstraction the whole squad it uniformly spread over that base and can see and shoot in all directions. The 40k4 problem is that sometimes it acts like that too there the squad is one homogeneous thing but it als state that the models are individuals. You can't have it both ways. 40K4 would make more sense if you based 5 guys on a 6in by 6in square?

I haven't made my self any clearer have I ? :(


and in 40k5 everybody will have exactlly the same. Compare that to what you saw in 2nd and third ?

Why can't you have it both ways? It works pretty well for me. The treatment of the squad as a single entity in many cases speeds up the gameplay and avoids some of the close combat hassles that used to occurr in 3rd. The use of the individual models helps because the formation of your squad can play a large part in how it functions and therefore is a variable for tactical consideration. I think it's a good balance right now.

I don't recall 3rd Ed. armies having signifigantly more or less guys. 2nd Ed. is, thankfully, a thing of the past. Not that I recall signifigantly different ratios there either. Ok ok, Chaos had the capacity to field like, 10 models if you wanted to, ar you saying that a good thing?

Noah Body
03-09-2006, 01:46
But you really can't have it both ways it causes anomolies especially in LOS.

And yes the ability to feild a 10 man army is a good thing just as the ability to feild 150 is.




Why can't you have it both ways? It works pretty well for me. The treatment of the squad as a single entity in many cases speeds up the gameplay and avoids some of the close combat hassles that used to occurr in 3rd. The use of the individual models helps because the formation of your squad can play a large part in how it functions and therefore is a variable for tactical consideration. I think it's a good balance right now.

I don't recall 3rd Ed. armies having signifigantly more or less guys. 2nd Ed. is, thankfully, a thing of the past. Not that I recall signifigantly different ratios there either. Ok ok, Chaos had the capacity to field like, 10 models if you wanted to, ar you saying that a good thing?

Gensuke626
03-09-2006, 01:47
In ASLM (Advanced Squad Leader Minis) If you can draw a line from any part of the base to any part of the enemy base the whole squad can shoot (in fact the squad behaves as if it were one giant person the shape of the base)
In 40K4 it is supossed to be by individual models but is behaving more and more like the ASLM base.

*looks at Noah's arguement*
*thinks about the last game of 40K he played*
*Opens his mouth to speak but closes it again*
*Thinks again*
I don't see it. I mean, as long as I stay in coherency, they behave like individuals who choose to attack the same target. I draw line of sight and measure range individually, some of them have different weapons or stats. sometimes only 2 squadies die because the rest are behind a rock and therefore out of line of sight.

I don't see how Squads act like how you describe the ASLM base...are you sure you're not simply projecting your feelings about the game in an unrealistic way because you're no longer having fun with the game?

Noah Body
03-09-2006, 02:30
Ok when you remove causlties can you remove those out side LOS of the shooter? In cc isn't the Sgt with a powerfist just one guy with 10 wounds ?



*looks at Noah's arguement*
*thinks about the last game of 40K he played*
*Opens his mouth to speak but closes it again*
*Thinks again*
I don't see it. I mean, as long as I stay in coherency, they behave like individuals who choose to attack the same target. I draw line of sight and measure range individually, some of them have different weapons or stats. sometimes only 2 squadies die because the rest are behind a rock and therefore out of line of sight.

I don't see how Squads act like how you describe the ASLM base...are you sure you're not simply projecting your feelings about the game in an unrealistic way because you're no longer having fun with the game?

Gensuke626
03-09-2006, 02:48
Answer for the first question. No, unless you're using a barrage weapon. There may be other weapons taht allow this, but I'd have to check. however No, if the model can not be seen, then it cannot be shot at, therefore wounds can not be allocated to it. Therefore, if I had a Hive Tyrant that could be seen past the corner of some size 3 woods, but his tyrant guard was out of line of sight due to some horrible movement error I made, and he got pelted with 4+ lascannon rounds suffering 4+ wounds, my Tyrant would be dead and my Tyrant guard would be untouched. Similarly, if I had a squad of Dark Reapers and the only model visible was the Exarch and I suffered a wound, the exarch would be the only eligable target and would most likely die.

To answer your second question, no. The sarge in CC is not simply a guy with 10 wounds, his placement in the squad is very important. Yes, If I am lucky, I can take off other minis and allow him to strike safely, however there are two things I must consider.
The first is, if he is in base to base, then he MUST be removed as a causalty before I remove causalties from those who are Not in base to base contact.
The second is if he is not in base to base, then he must be within 2" of someone in his squad who IS in base to base contact or he will be unable to attack

Once round 2 of combat begins (After the first pile in) then it becomes easier to protect the sarge as typically the members of the squad are ALL in base to base, but it is possible for my enemy to bottleneck or surround me in such a way that they may do things such as lock my sarge into place because he can't move far enough to get into base to base, and if they keep inflicting enough wounds to prevent him from being within 2" of a friendly squadie, then he may not attack.

It sounds like more trouble than it's worth, but technically, a Broodlord with his Genestealer retinue can accomplish this. If i keep the broodlord in base to base with all the minis who are within 2" of the sarge and I can kill them all every turn, then the sarge can never strike me. there are other examples of thise but the broodlord thing is the easiest to remember.

Anything else?

insectum7
03-09-2006, 02:51
And yes the ability to feild a 10 man army is a good thing just as the ability to feild 150 is.

:wtf:
Liar!

You could probably make a Chaos or Tyranid Army of <20 models in a 1500 if you really wanted to, but thats the type of playing we're trying to discourage.


Ok when you remove causlties can you remove those out side LOS of the shooter? In cc isn't the Sgt with a powerfist just one guy with 10 wounds ?

Respectively;

No, so?

Not quite, if you gang up on a unit with multiple squads you can make the sergent fight who you want because models still have to fight the unit that is in base to base with them.

Noah Body
03-09-2006, 03:22
Why is an overly large or small army bad? There are scenarios for both.
Like boarding parties for insance. The rules should allow for flexability, conversly that makes them easy to abuse hence we are back to the lowest common denominator. A viscious circle I afraid. :( :cries:

The whole cc method is too amorphos for my tastes Mordheims is simple and elegant (but I will conceed not necessarially suited to a larger game.




:wtf:
Liar!

You could probably make a Chaos or Tyranid Army of <20 models in a 1500 if you really wanted to, but thats the type of playing we're trying to discourage.



Respectively;

No, so?

Not quite, if you gang up on a unit with multiple squads you can make the sergent fight who you want because models still have to fight the unit that is in base to base with them.

Azazel
03-09-2006, 03:34
WHFB has more Phases in a turn. End of discussion.

Malphax
03-09-2006, 03:35
The first is, if he is in base to base, then he MUST be removed as a causalty before I remove causalties from those who are Not in base to base contact.

Where is this written? In the BGB close combat casualty removal section it only mentions keeping your squad in coherency and only removing engaged models, nothing about BTB models being removed first.

BrainFireBob
03-09-2006, 04:35
Noah Body, there were three threads, all of which were variations on this, started by Apollyon in the last COUPLE OF DAYS. There were very thorough arguments on the subject. Use the search function!

Conclusion: 40K does well enough as far as realism goes, and frankly, you want indie models, not squads, play Necromunda.

MALPHAX: That was the 3rd Ed casualty removal rule. Turns out, it was one of 4th's most fundamental changes.

Noah Body
03-09-2006, 05:03
They are locked


40K uses a 1:1 scale the models are independant (eg not a squad to a base)

Necromunda is awesome but uses gangs a 40K mod for that would fit the bill.




Noah Body, there were three threads, all of which were variations on this, started by Apollyon in the last COUPLE OF DAYS. There were very thorough arguments on the subject. Use the search function!

Conclusion: 40K does well enough as far as realism goes, and frankly, you want indie models, not squads, play Necromunda.

MALPHAX: That was the 3rd Ed casualty removal rule. Turns out, it was one of 4th's most fundamental changes.

Hellebore
03-09-2006, 05:27
Ok Like how far in feet is the 24 inches a bolter fires? The thing with the current edition of 40K is that it plays wrong. I treats indiviual models like squads. If 1 marine was really 5 then fine that would be ok, but the mechanics are set incorectly to a 1:1 game. The abtraction of not have a fixed scale but still using "models eye view" is patantly wrong.

Well, 2nd ed had the bolter with a range of 24" too, so it isn't like 2nd ed was that much more realistic. Sure lascannons were 72" range, which is 24" longer than 3rd ed, but alot of the heavy weapons had ranges disproportionate to the basic weapons, and the pistols were just as bad. A bolt pistol had a range of 16" (or was it 18"?) which was either 8" or 6" shorter than the boltGUN.

The leveling out of stats I actually liked, because the stats of characters was stupid in 2nd ed.

Also, the problem with BS was that it had a simple linear system with effectively only 5 levels of prowess, whereas WS was a comparative ability and thus a WS of OVER 5 actually meant something. The concept of a '1' always misses, combined with the fact that something with a BS of 10 needed to suffer a to hit modifier of -6 before it became harder to hit was problematic to say the least.

The fact also that being a character boosted your survivability and phyiscal prowess was also daft - army colonels aren't stronger or tougher than grunts.

So I prefer the stat system for 4th ed, because I believe it realistically shows the 'racial' maxima and minima (a human is only ever going to be S3T3, but COULD get to WS5 with alot of training).

A space marine is physically more capable than a human, but they both have around the same learning capacity (hence the WS5 is possible with an 'ordinary' human).

EAch race has a distinct set of parameters their stats fit into - there are physical stats and learned ones.


A human is always S3T3, unless mutated/engineered/augmented.
An eldar is always S3T3, period (unless they are walking suits of wraithbone).
An ork gets progressively stronger the bigger they get, and they grow bigger the more important they become (or vice versa) so they are min S3, and max S5.


The training they receive (WS, BS, and to some extent I) has an 'average' maxima, and then an 'outstanding' maxima - basically there is the capacity for a small number of the race to reach such high levels of ability - just not very many.


As for the game - here are some suggestions to make it more complex (not necessarily better):

IGOUGO turns into the LotR system, ImoveYoumoveIshootYouShoot etc

Replace AP with ASM:
AP/ASM
-/-
6/-1
5/-2
4/-3
3/-4
2/-5
1/-6

Shooting
Movement: -1 to hit (except assault weapons and pistols), -1 at long range (over 12" for rapid fire, or over half for heavy).
Rapid fire: the second shot suffers -1 to hit due to recoil (so 2 shots, 1 at -1 to hit.
Unit Size 3: +1 to hit
Unit Size 1: -1 to hit

Grenades have a throwing range =to Strength in inches suffering no modifiers (may be used before an assault).

Power weapons =asm -5.

I think that's about all that's required really to change the dynamic of the game - stats should remain as they are.

Hellebore

The_Patriot
03-09-2006, 05:40
IGOUGO turns into the LotR system, ImoveYoumoveIshootYouShoot etc

Hellebore

I like your suggestions for changes to improve dynamic except I wouldn't go with that system for a turn. I'd use the Face of Battle turn system which each model would get a card* based upon the number of actions they have. You would build a deck, either based on squad or all together with the squad numbered, out of those cards and a turn is over when those cards are all used up. An action would be move and/or shoot with the model gaining to hit modifiers for movement as you described.

You turn a card over at the same time your opponent does and resolved that model's action. Keep going until the deck is used up and you have to reshuffle to repeat. This would add in a more tactical element while forcing a player to be concerned about keeping unit coherency. It would also allow for plans to rapidly develop or change as the cards are turned over.

*card: A card would contain the model's identification number based upon squad. A model would have a 2 digit code that corresponds with the number painted on the base. The first code would be squad number/letter and the second code would be model number/letter.

insectum7
03-09-2006, 05:58
Nice post Hellebore.

Though I disagree with the idea of bringing save and hit modifiers back, I think that messing around with the IgoUgo system might add an interesting element to smaller battles. I haven't played LOTR but the system you mention seems easy enough to try out. I feel that mucking with the turn sequence might make the larger battles go slower however, as the system is pretty well lubricated for the bigger fights.

My intitial reaction is that it would be much harder to assault, as a squad would have to suffer through a shooting phase in between moving and assaulting.

ekister101
03-09-2006, 05:59
Lately I have found that the 40k game becomes more complex when the board becomes more complex. My last 2 games have been regular 40k games on a table built for cities of death and they were both awesome. I have noticed in local tournies the game is played on open tables with some blocking and some difficult terrain, but not nearly the terrain on the city fight table. That lends itself to a stacit type army list, IMHO. It makes some lists viable and some more powerful than others. But on that city fight terrain, the tactics change and any a cound commander can utilize the terrain and the board to their benefit. Reaction and counter abilities make strong bed partners and using some units in conjunction with others also see a power increase. Some units lose their previously potent abilities and some even become usless.

I have watched warmachine, FoW, and WFB and I have played many, many strategically based "box-games" and I have found my latest 40k games to be closer to those than ever before. I hope that the days of those wide open tables is falling by the way side. I love 6 turn games that really come down to the last assault phase to determine a winner. I don't even mind pulling a draw with my current WH list because it means I have probably played an excellent game to keep up with my opponent.

I would like to see more commander/platoon level special characters that are not over powered for their points cost and that are playable without opponents consent. I think there are some in certain codex's that reach those requirements, but still require opponents approval (or at least a tourney). I would be happy with them being more "vet. sgt" stats with something small as a special skill, like adding a point of leadership in certain situations or against a particular opponent, or adding a single attack to a single model on the charge against a particular opponent or in a certain type of terrain for a few more points than they typical vet. sgt.

That would add another level of fluffy tactics to the game, something that would be fun to fiddle with as well.

Just my 2 cents. I think 40k is plenty tactical in the right terrain setting and to be frank, I think that iun the year 40,000 I doubt that any commander worth a darn would not run out 50 space marines into an open field with a few plots of trees to take on anyone. In a city, sure. In a hive, absolutely, but across an open field, not so likely - how about bombing the crap out of it first. LOL

insectum7
03-09-2006, 06:51
Agreed
Terrain is SUCH a big part of 40K, alot of gamers overlook that.

But if you play omega missions on a good board, it's a whole different game then playing alpha on the usual public tables.

How many players do you know who have collected several armies but haven't contributed to a community terrain stock?

Toppan
03-09-2006, 07:23
blah blah blah

you have fun dont you?

Gensuke626
03-09-2006, 07:36
Where is this written? In the BGB close combat casualty removal section it only mentions keeping your squad in coherency and only removing engaged models, nothing about BTB models being removed first.

Hmm...You're right...I was wrong...Luckily the majority of my arguement stands.

Cap'n Umgrotz
03-09-2006, 12:35
Fair enough point, however, I begin listing tactics in an attempt to illustrate the complex strategic possibilities of the game. I was not necessarily making a new point, though it may be easy to interpret that as such. If I remove my "40K has no tactics?" clause, the listed tactics still provide evidence that 40K is a more complex game than the previous poster would have me think. Maybe a clearer way to put it would have been:

<listing of tactics> This array of game elements is clear evidence that 40K is not as simplistic as some would have you think.

As you say, people are quick to polarise arguments by making blanket statements like:

40K=checkers
WFantasy=chess

Now when us veterans see that our favored game is somehow analagous to checkers, we're gonna get a little miffed. I hope its understandable why we might tend toward polarised language. My intended point was that Warhammer 40K is not a simple game if played correctly, and that the analogies between GW games and checkes/chess was misconstrued and false.

Cool. I agree with you there. Like I said, I think 40K has more flaws than fantasy and would prefer if it was more similar to it in a number of ways. But I'm not talking down to people who play 40K or anything, or trying to imply that they have the tactical ability of a stunned frog. I often find 40K more challenging, but the challenge in this case is more often than not irratating rather than fun, for me. (And believe me, both sides of the fantasy/40K divide have their obnoxious elements, I sometimes (when grumpy) end up being one, but I'm taking a step back now.)
I think this back and forth is distracting from the topic of the thread, so I'll make an on topic point:If you want advanced rules, might house rules be the way forward?