First turn win syndrome and my two cents.

[Panzer]

 

More like big tanks!

 

 

So that's the secret to "your list"? Then I'm sorry to disappoint but the concept of big tanks is not exactly new to AM players lol

[antique_nova]

 

 

More like big tanks!

 

 

So that's the secret to "your list"? Then I'm sorry to disappoint but the concept of big tanks is not exactly new to AM players lol

 

Correction. Many tanks.

 

Because I don't approve of the AM lord of war tanks. Too cost inefficient.

[antique_nova]

 

 

The biggest problem is simply that 40k has too much firepower at too long range without any way to properly protect you from it.

 

I don't think it's a problem at all. Because it's reflecting war and in this case against long range weapons, the best defense is a good offense.

That's not how things work tho.

War also doesn't have any kind of “equivalent armys facing off“ system like 40k has with points. War has many more different factors to affect the outcome of a battle, especially to determine who gets the drop on who and then it's legit that the army that has the element of surprise gets to wreck the enemy army. And last but not least war is being held in real-time and not turn by turn (bolt action is the closest we could get but still far away from it).

It's game that's supposed to be balanced and fun for everyone and not a 1 turn simulation of one army getting the drop on another to end things quickly.

 

I wasn't talking about a points system. I'm talking about long range firepower and I'm refering to today's wars.

 

I had suggested in a different post that turns be limited by time (people referred to chess clocks), because I see horde players trying to be nifty about movement and take forever to finish and that shouldn't happen, because that doesn't reflect a hordes movements very well.

 

Bigger armies should be penalised by time to show how cumbersome it is to move large armies in sync quickly compared to smaller elite armies, which should have more time to ponder and react.

 

but then we'll completely derail this thread XD.

[Panzer]

 

 

 

More like big tanks!

 

 

So that's the secret to "your list"? Then I'm sorry to disappoint but the concept of big tanks is not exactly new to AM players lol

 

Correction. Many tanks.

 

Because I don't approve of the AM lord of war tanks. Too cost inefficient.

 

 

Doesn't matter, many tanks isn't a new concept to AM players either.

 

 

 

 

 

The biggest problem is simply that 40k has too much firepower at too long range without any way to properly protect you from it.

 

I don't think it's a problem at all. Because it's reflecting war and in this case against long range weapons, the best defense is a good offense.

That's not how things work tho.

War also doesn't have any kind of “equivalent armys facing off“ system like 40k has with points. War has many more different factors to affect the outcome of a battle, especially to determine who gets the drop on who and then it's legit that the army that has the element of surprise gets to wreck the enemy army. And last but not least war is being held in real-time and not turn by turn (bolt action is the closest we could get but still far away from it).

It's game that's supposed to be balanced and fun for everyone and not a 1 turn simulation of one army getting the drop on another to end things quickly.

 

I wasn't talking about a points system. I'm talking about long range firepower and I'm refering to today's wars.

 

I had suggested in a different post that turns be limited by time (people referred to chess clocks), because I see horde players trying to be nifty about movement and take forever to finish and that shouldn't happen, because that doesn't reflect a hordes movements very well.

 

Bigger armies should be penalised by time to show how cumbersome it is to move large armies in sync quickly compared to smaller elite armies, which should have more time to ponder and react.

 

but then we'll completely derail this thread XD.

 

 

I know you weren't but you made a bad comparison with "reflecting war" and I used those arguments to show you that it's very different to actual warfare.

 

Fact is that in actual warfare things like scouting ahead, relaying false informations, move more efficiently and into better positions and a number of other things are done to get the drop on the enemy. That's legit and unless you :cussed up or are terribly outnumbered means you have a great chance to win the battle handily.

In 40k all those things don't exist. You don't have any real say whether you get the drop on the enemy or not and you don't outnumber the enemy or he you (meant to be take quality-wise, not actual number of bodies). You have two equally strong armies, facing off each other. So unlike in real warfare it's not a legit thing to happen that one army who gets lucky and goes first screws the other player over.

It's a game of a battle or part of a bigger battle, not a full fledged warfare simulation. If you want such scenarios you gotta play narrative play, not matched play.

[Bulwyf]

I think if cover made the unit -1 to hit versus +1 to save it would make a positive difference in the game.

[Panzer]

I honestly don't think we need even more -1 to-hit modifier in the game. Maybe -1 for cover would've worked if we wouldn't have whole armies with a native -1 already.

Fantasy used to have a lot of negative to-hit modifier (moving, more than half range, small targets, and so on) but there it worked because the game was mostly melee focussed and there weren't native -1 for whole armies so it didn't cripple any army too much and gave melee armies a chance (gunlines were still annoying to play against). 40k however is mainly a shooting focussed game so any negative to-hit modifier cripples armies a lot.

That being said I do think the Ravenguard&Co traits should get replaced by something else for shooty armies. It's a great and rather balanced trait for melee armies since they do want to get within 12" eventually but for shooty armies it's just kinda broken. Especially if one can stack it with similar abilities. If this happens ... then I wouldn't mind cover to get changed into a -1 modifier considering how hard it is to get whole units into cover with the current terrain rules.

[Captain Idaho]

So because Astra Millitarum struggle to wipe out Alaitoc Eldar 1st turn they should be able to wipe out everyone else?

 

Eldar are their own problem but that doesn't mean we can't progress the game for everyone else.

[Panzer]

I never said or even implied that lol

[Captain Idaho]

I never said or even implied that lol

No you didn't. Others did ;)

 

Besides, it's only for 1 turn. You suffer a -1 to hit for the 1st turn to stop 1st turn wipe outs. Gives smaller and elite armies a chance to move and even shoot before getting drowned in firepower. Marines ARE one of the lowest performing armies this edition remember.

[Panzer]

Well that's the problem when you don't quote the ones you're replying to. :P

 

Yeah only for one turn but I still think the army-wide -1 modificators have to get replaced on shooty armies. Imagine T'au or AM had such a trait on everything.   At least on armies who operate >12" for the most part. On Marines it's fine imo since apart from Devastators and Predators they usually want to get within 12" anyway.

Once that's done I'm open for the idea of -1 the first turn and/or -1 to-hit in cover instead of +1 save.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

I never said or even implied that lol

No you didn't. Others did ;)

 

Besides, it's only for 1 turn. You suffer a -1 to hit for the 1st turn to stop 1st turn wipe outs. Gives smaller and elite armies a chance to move and even shoot before getting drowned in firepower. Marines ARE one of the lowest performing armies this edition remember.

But this is the other part of my point. If we’ve got a game where small and elite armies can’t even move and survive first turn (and I agree they struggle) that’s a sign of a fundamental problem with the game, and imposing band aid rules like -1 to hit on the first turn is treating the symptom rather than the cause.

 

We’ve got a situation where the weapon stats, wound table, AP mechanic and the abundance of rerolls have made it so that first turn (and in fact most) shooting is simply too deadly! Now for me, you fix that problem by addressing one or more of those issues directly, not adding in random rules that would severely disadvantage some armies who rely on shooting.

[Bulwyf]

That is the problem with 8th edition. Shooting and especially first turn shooting is off the chart. I know some of this is helped by using more terrain for LOS but that's not a real solution. The FAQ changes only further hurt assault armies. The game is essentially shooting list or assault list and when one of those two is almost useless...there's a problem.

 

I would be in favor of anything GW did to help balance the game by making assault lists on a more equal footing.

[Captain_Krash]

Nids  an Orks don't seem to have much of a problem with 1st turn...just from personal experience.

 

Krash

[Quixus]

Nids  an Orks don't seem to have much of a problem with 1st turn...just from personal experience.

 

Krash

Ever tried to kill 100+ boyz/gaunts in one turn of shooting? It is the expensive assault based armies that have problems. Marines have gotten even more fragile than before since almost everyone gets AP -1 on their regular weaponry, except bolt guns (which fluffwise should be good at penetrating anything short of power armour)

 

I would be in favor of anything GW did to help balance the game by making assault lists on a more equal footing.

1. remove the beta rule.

2. units arriving from reserve can move normally in the shooting phase if they forgo shooting.

 

alternative.

2. If the player forgoes shooting for the unit arriving from reserves it can be placed more than 6" away from enemy units.

[Bulwyf]

 

Nids  an Orks don't seem to have much of a problem with 1st turn...just from personal experience.

 

Krash

Ever tried to kill 100+ boyz/gaunts in one turn of shooting? It is the expensive assault based armies that have problems. Marines have gotten even more fragile than before since almost everyone gets AP -1 on their regular weaponry, except bolt guns (which fluffwise should be good at penetrating anything short of power armour)

 

I would be in favor of anything GW did to help balance the game by making assault lists on a more equal footing.

1. remove the beta rule.

2. units arriving from reserve can move normally in the shooting phase if they forgo shooting.

 

alternative.

2. If the player forgoes shooting for the unit arriving from reserves it can be placed more than 6" away from enemy units.

 

 

I can see them saying units from reserve can advance rather than shoot in the shooting phase. That would allow you to have a higher chance of charging and the rule would only benefit assault units.

[Quixus]

I can see them saying units from reserve can advance rather than shoot in the shooting phase. That would allow you to have a higher chance of charging and the rule would only benefit assault units.

 

Not without further rule changes:

 

A unit that Advances can’t shoot or charge later that turn.

[Panzer]

 

 

I never said or even implied that lol

No you didn't. Others did

 

Besides, it's only for 1 turn. You suffer a -1 to hit for the 1st turn to stop 1st turn wipe outs. Gives smaller and elite armies a chance to move and even shoot before getting drowned in firepower. Marines ARE one of the lowest performing armies this edition remember.

But this is the other part of my point. If we’ve got a game where small and elite armies can’t even move and survive first turn (and I agree they struggle) that’s a sign of a fundamental problem with the game, and imposing band aid rules like -1 to hit on the first turn is treating the symptom rather than the cause.

 

We’ve got a situation where the weapon stats, wound table, AP mechanic and the abundance of rerolls have made it so that first turn (and in fact most) shooting is simply too deadly! Now for me, you fix that problem by addressing one or more of those issues directly, not adding in random rules that would severely disadvantage some armies who rely on shooting.

 

 

I have to kinda disagree there. A -1 for the first turn isn't really fighting the symptoms. Fighting the symtoms would be giving specific armies that are struggling currently a rule to make them survive turn 1. A flat nerf to shooting turn 1 is a proper if a little heavy handed adjustment to the core rules imo.

 

That is the problem with 8th edition. Shooting and especially first turn shooting is off the chart. I know some of this is helped by using more terrain for LOS but that's not a real solution. The FAQ changes only further hurt assault armies. The game is essentially shooting list or assault list and when one of those two is almost useless...there's a problem.

 

I would be in favor of anything GW did to help balance the game by making assault lists on a more equal footing.

 

That's not just a problem of 8th edition tho. It's just a bit worse since the terrain rules are barely existant currently. And yeah the beta rule (beta rule, not a fix FAQ change yet!) is crap and shouldn't get used the way it is imo.

 

Nids  an Orks don't seem to have much of a problem with 1st turn...just from personal experience.

 

Krash

 

That's because both are horde armys and Nids generally being good in every regard currently.

Nids have horde based shooting, horde based melee, elite-ish shooting (Guards and Dakkafex mainly), strong psychic phase with a huge debuff zone for enemy psychic stuff and are pretty much immune to morale. Not to mention stuff that lets a unit move twice and the Flyrant.

Orks are just many and are pretty fast so they simply don't care as much about casualties. And they don't even have their Codex yet!

 

 

 

I would be in favor of anything GW did to help balance the game by making assault lists on a more equal footing.

1. remove the beta rule.

2. units arriving from reserve can move normally in the shooting phase if they forgo shooting.

 

alternative.

2. If the player forgoes shooting for the unit arriving from reserves it can be placed more than 6" away from enemy units.

 

 

I'm against 2 in both forms. You'd see first turn charges everywhere. You want Blood Angels to be seen as broken as Craftworld Eldar currently? That's how you achieve it. ^^

Not to mention stuff like Berzerker in Dread Claws and Bloodletter/Daemonette/Greater Daemon bombs dropping in via Stratagem and charge half of your army turn 1.

[Captain Idaho]

Well a bandage to the current rules is all we can do since we aren't going to get a total overhaul.

 

If folk really don't like another modification first turn (and I acknowledged too much complication is bad for the game, even if I contend that it's fair still) then perhaps we should look again at the terrain rules?

 

I enjoyed 3rd and 4th which had the abstract "area terrain" rules. You couldn't draw line of sight THROUGH it, though you could fire at units inside (and those units out) long as they were within 6" of the edge of the terrain.

 

It worked well. I could put my Dreadnought behind a GW 3 tree "wood" and it wouldn't get shot first turn, but if I wanted to fire with it I'd have to move the thing.

[Bulwyf]

 

I can see them saying units from reserve can advance rather than shoot in the shooting phase. That would allow you to have a higher chance of charging and the rule would only benefit assault units.

 

Not without further rule changes:

 

A unit that Advances can’t shoot or charge later that turn.

 

Sorry, I thought that was understood in my post. I would change the rule that if you come in from reserve you can advance in the shooting phase and still charge.

[Panzer]

Well a bandage to the current rules is all we can do since we aren't going to get a total overhaul.

 

If folk really don't like another modification first turn (and I acknowledged too much complication is bad for the game, even if I contend that it's fair still) then perhaps we should look again at the terrain rules?

 

I enjoyed 3rd and 4th which had the abstract "area terrain" rules. You couldn't draw line of sight THROUGH it, though you could fire at units inside (and those units out) long as they were within 6" of the edge of the terrain.

 

It worked well. I could put my Dreadnought behind a GW 3 tree "wood" and it wouldn't get shot first turn, but if I wanted to fire with it I'd have to move the thing.

 

I honestly liked the abstract LoS rules they used back then in fantasy and at some point in 40k (not sure which edition). No true line of sight but rather size-types for units and terrain that decided which unit could look over which unit/terrain etc.

Tho I don't see GW ever going back to something like that ever again with 40k. People got too used to true line of sight by now.

[Quixus]

 

Well a bandage to the current rules is all we can do since we aren't going to get a total overhaul.

 

If folk really don't like another modification first turn (and I acknowledged too much complication is bad for the game, even if I contend that it's fair still) then perhaps we should look again at the terrain rules?

 

I enjoyed 3rd and 4th which had the abstract "area terrain" rules. You couldn't draw line of sight THROUGH it, though you could fire at units inside (and those units out) long as they were within 6" of the edge of the terrain.

 

It worked well. I could put my Dreadnought behind a GW 3 tree "wood" and it wouldn't get shot first turn, but if I wanted to fire with it I'd have to move the thing.

 

I honestly liked the abstract LoS rules they used back then in fantasy and at some point in 40k (not sure which edition). No true line of sight but rather size-types for units and terrain that decided which unit could look over which unit/terrain etc.

Tho I don't see GW ever going back to something like that ever again with 40k. People got too used to true line of sight by now.

 

what I don't like is that we have true LOS but not true line of effect. Even if only one model is visible, all models can be removed if the opponent deals enough damage.

[Captain Idaho]

We have abstract rules for blasts and casualty removal so I don't see why not have abstract terrain rules. True line of sight was something Jervis loved if I remember rightly. He said it was more cinematic and fun.

 

Which I disagree with. There's nothing fun about my army veing wiped out 1st turn without firing a shot (actual experience) because there's literally no terrain blocking line of sight.

[MARK0SIAN]

Well a bandage to the current rules is all we can do since we aren't going to get a total overhaul.

 

If folk really don't like another modification first turn (and I acknowledged too much complication is bad for the game, even if I contend that it's fair still) then perhaps we should look again at the terrain rules?

 

I enjoyed 3rd and 4th which had the abstract "area terrain" rules. You couldn't draw line of sight THROUGH it, though you could fire at units inside (and those units out) long as they were within 6" of the edge of the terrain.

 

It worked well. I could put my Dreadnought behind a GW 3 tree "wood" and it wouldn't get shot first turn, but if I wanted to fire with it I'd have to move the thing.

Totally agree. Aside from a major overhaul of the points I mentioned earlier this is how you fix the problem for me. Terrain needs a serious revamp. I’m in favour of abstract rules. My friends and I always play ITC rules for the ground floors of buildings and it really helps a side survive the first turn.

 

Further to the terrain changes I would also like to see the rules around line of sight tightened up. I would much prefer a return to the old rule that line of sight must be drawn from the head or body of a model to the head or body of the target model. Being able to draw line of sight on a spear tip or the end of a flowing cloak is absurd and exacerbates the shooting problem as it makes hiding some models extremely difficult.

[Aarik]

I agree that going back to the abstract terrain rules would be a big help. Or at the very least have true "line of effect" to match true line of sight, as mentioned above, and adopt the ITC first floor rule.  But being able to shoot into and out of terrain, but not through, is very simple to play and would solve a lot of problems.  Everything else in this game is an abstraction; having terrain and line of sight not be seems misguided and unnecessarily complicated.

 

And does anyone actually really, really enjoy true line of sight in the "cinematic and exciting" sense?  I just get annoyed that I have to get down and lean over the board and make a judgment call.  To me it's just a huge hassle.

[Captain Idaho]

Seems to me there's more consensus on terrain changes than my initial suggestion (which I still like grumble grumble) so that's probably the best solution.