First turn win syndrome and my two cents.

[Bulwyf]

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.

 

There's more arguments about that than anything in the game that I have seen. I too have leaned over and argued with other grognard and new cubs about what is and what is not seen by model X

[Karack Blackstone]

To the ongoing discussion, I will add the following:

 

Terrain having both True Line of Sight and True Line of Effect is a balanced and effective approach, just with one caveat. If the weapon in question is say, a Boltgun, then if one model can be seen, only one model can be wounded and removed. The problem is, when the weapon being used changes from Boltgun to Leman Russ Battle Cannon, well, there's the problem.

 

A singe round from a Leman Russ Battle Cannon having access to its xdy number of hits, AP, and Wounds, makes sense, if the total number of models to start is one, but the number hit and wounded by the weapon is limited to the situation at hand. If 8th Edition has flaws, it is the following three:

 

1 - Not true terrain limited charge and attack rules when assaulting

2 - Vehicles and other such critters being permitted to fire any weapon from any point on the hull

3 - True line of sight without True line of effect

 

So, 3 is in essence being discussed. If 1 and 2 are other threads, or here, as well, so be it.

 

Still, the sentiment of the old abstract terrain felt right, to an extent; the lack of both TLOS and TLOE being in agreement is, to me, the much better put part of this thread.

[The Unseen]

40k could port bolt actions terrain rules over pretty much whole cloth and it would improve the game immensely.

 

50% of 50% is a really easy rule.

[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.

 

 

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 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.

 

 

I never said that I was using a new concept. I just think it's overlooked. :)

 

Okay, so if you're talking about all out warfare, then I agree and that's why I loved it when my local GWS used to do those campaigns with those campaign boards that are now OOP when I was a kid, because you had this greater sense of scale and realism to your campaign, because I always found it annoying that you always had to meet the enemy with a force of equal strength theirs (in terms of points), because that would never happen (I.e. Rome Total War or any Total War game)

 

Unfortunately, I doubt GWS will ever take it that far, because that's the domain of video games and if they were to try with tabletop, it'd get way too complicated and rely far more than just 2 people, because it's not a quick fight, but a full scale war.

 

When that happens, I just go for Total War games :P. Although, I would love to see a 40k Total War, because the fantasy version is just amazing. Sure it has it's faults, but it's far better than what anyone else ever expected.

[Aarik]

To the ongoing discussion, I will add the following:

 

Terrain having both True Line of Sight and True Line of Effect is a balanced and effective approach, just with one caveat. If the weapon in question is say, a Boltgun, then if one model can be seen, only one model can be wounded and removed. The problem is, when the weapon being used changes from Boltgun to Leman Russ Battle Cannon, well, there's the problem.

 

A singe round from a Leman Russ Battle Cannon having access to its xdy number of hits, AP, and Wounds, makes sense, if the total number of models to start is one, but the number hit and wounded by the weapon is limited to the situation at hand. If 8th Edition has flaws, it is the following three:

 

1 - Not true terrain limited charge and attack rules when assaulting

2 - Vehicles and other such critters being permitted to fire any weapon from any point on the hull

3 - True line of sight without True line of effect

 

So, 3 is in essence being discussed. If 1 and 2 are other threads, or here, as well, so be it.

 

Still, the sentiment of the old abstract terrain felt right, to an extent; the lack of both TLOS and TLOE being in agreement is, to me, the much better put part of this thread.

 

What do you mean with your Leman Russ battlecannon example?  Are you saying that it should or should not be able to kill more than the hypothetical lone visible model?  I would say that the the Russ gets its d6 shots or whatever and rolls to hit/wound/etc. as normal, but no matter how many unsaved wounds its shooting generates, it can only kill however many visible models there are.  I know that sacrifices some level of realism in discounting the explosion of the shell hitting non-visible models, but I think that's an edge case that is okay to abstract out in favor of a clean rule.

 

And can you explain more about your first numbered point?

 

I'm not upset about vehicles being able to shoot all their weapons from any point on their hull.  I understand the "realism" argument against it, but I think that allowing it is in line with the abstraction-to-enhance-playability theme of the abstract terrain rules that we're advocating for.

 

40k could port bolt actions terrain rules over pretty much whole cloth and it would improve the game immensely.

 

50% of 50% is a really easy rule.

 

What are the Bolt Action terrain rules?

[antique_nova]

 

I'm not upset about vehicles being able to shoot all their weapons from any point on their hull.  I understand the "realism" argument against it, but I think that allowing it is in line with the abstraction-to-enhance-playability theme of the abstract terrain rules that we're advocating for. 

 

Wait a minute. Back up.

 

Are you saying that if I have one Leman Russ (Tank A) in front of another (Tank B ), covering half of the tank B's guns, I can still shoot all of tank B's guns at a target if I can still see an enemy unit? Just like flyers can shoot from any point, even though they aren't facing the direction of said enemy unit?

[allfatherstudios]

Isn't this essentially Initiative for the most part?

Yes, I can see you are moving it into other phases, and that's a intresting concept that GW has never really touched on. What you are doing is changing the turn based systems to "activations", which removes the turn based system insofar as a "my go, your go" system as it stands now.

 

D&D 3.5 used this system. The argument than boils down which character has a better build. I don't see this as a solution but would give power gamers extra tools to cheat.

[antique_nova]

 

Isn't this essentially Initiative for the most part?

Yes, I can see you are moving it into other phases, and that's a intresting concept that GW has never really touched on. What you are doing is changing the turn based systems to "activations", which removes the turn based system insofar as a "my go, your go" system as it stands now.

D&D 3.5 used this system. The argument than boils down which character has a better build. I don't see this as a solution but would give power gamers extra tools to cheat.

 

Can I just not claim exterminatus and be done with it as I hide in my tank which is impervious to all exterminatus damage?

[Panzer]

 

I'm not upset about vehicles being able to shoot all their weapons from any point on their hull. I understand the "realism" argument against it, but I think that allowing it is in line with the abstraction-to-enhance-playability theme of the abstract terrain rules that we're advocating for.

 

Wait a minute. Back up.

 

Are you saying that if I have one Leman Russ (Tank A) in front of another (Tank B ), covering half of the tank B's guns, I can still shoot all of tank B's guns at a target if I can still see an enemy unit? Just like flyers can shoot from any point, even though they aren't facing the direction of said enemy unit?

Yes, that's how things work currently.

Even worse example: your tank is hidden behind a tall building but you can draw line of sight from the edge of one of its tracks to a foot of a single model from an enemy unit. Thanks to that you are allowed to shoot all your weapons at that enemy unit and kill all the models in it.

 

That's one of the.basic mechanics of 8th. You should know that much if you plan to play in tournaments lol

[Deathwalker]

 

 

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

Agreed, but alternatively you could say that AP is so common as to make armour irrelevant.

 

Side question, should armour be treated like a FNP save against WOUNDS?

IE: I hit, I wound, I do D6 wounds and I get a save against each of those wounds rather than I hit, I wound, you failed your save, and I rolled a 6, so take 6?

Would make tanks more consistent and probably tougher, would make 2 and 3 damage weapons ridiculously strong vs infantry.

Bad idea probably.

 

A "shot" would still have to be considered a "shot" like it is now with no spill over (unlike mortal wounds)

[Deathwalker]

 

Isn't this essentially Initiative for the most part?

Yes, I can see you are moving it into other phases, and that's a intresting concept that GW has never really touched on. What you are doing is changing the turn based systems to "activations", which removes the turn based system insofar as a "my go, your go" system as it stands now.

D&D 3.5 used this system. The argument than boils down which character has a better build. I don't see this as a solution but would give power gamers extra tools to cheat.

 

Warhammer, 40k or fantasy had this system as well, they had an Initiative stat, then they added in "slow weapons" like thunder hammers which always went last. (unless they charged, but I am iffy on my recollection of charging trumping slow weapons)

Oh, and building a "better character" is not cheating, never was, never will be.

[HeresyBeliever]

The ITC rule of ground floor not being see through is a good start to not having first turn. 

 

The next would be more terrain. If you are playing a AM / TAU gun line you don't want to be on an open table.  

 

Playing death guard I rather go second as the opponents move towards me a little most of the time and I hide when i set up. When you setup assume you are going second. 

 

The beta rule is good in my opinion as having your ranks full of enemies and being boxed in before you get to move sucks. Turn 2 fair game! 

 

The game will never be balanced 100% There will always be people who find the best units and use them to the best. But you then need to out think the problem. 

 

My local group has figured out how to deal with the alpha legion cultists coming in. 2 x 40 man units in the face before turn 1 starts in annoying to say the least. But people figured it out so now that trick is rarely used. 

 

We have only just had a year of this edition. People are still learning. Those who don't get to game much may how only played 8-10 games it's not a lot. 

 

Since people have been playing the BETA rules I have not been destroyed turn 1. 

[The Yncarne]

My group plays with lots of terrain and have woods block line of sight. I haven’t seen much to complain about but it is an insufficient sample.

[Brother Nihm]

Star Wars: Legion gets around this (and deployment) quite nicely imho.


https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2017/11/10/it-is-the-future-you-see-2/


 

 

Every game of Star Wars: Legion evolves in a different way, starting with setup. Before each game, players collaborate to define the battlefield and both players’ mission by dealing out and eliminating deployment, objective, and condition cards until the state of the battlefield and the parameters for victory have been established. There’s a lot of fun strategy to this phase.
 

The command system is also quite unique. During the Command Phase, a player’s commander issues orders to the units in their army using a command card. You’ll have direct control over when your ordered units activate, but your other order tokens are randomized, so you aren’t exactly sure when those units will activate (although every unit will still activate every round). Choosing what command card to play and which units to give orders to is a big part of the strategy of each round.   

 

[antique_nova]

 

 

I'm not upset about vehicles being able to shoot all their weapons from any point on their hull. I understand the "realism" argument against it, but I think that allowing it is in line with the abstraction-to-enhance-playability theme of the abstract terrain rules that we're advocating for.

Wait a minute. Back up.

 

Are you saying that if I have one Leman Russ (Tank A) in front of another (Tank B ), covering half of the tank B's guns, I can still shoot all of tank B's guns at a target if I can still see an enemy unit? Just like flyers can shoot from any point, even though they aren't facing the direction of said enemy unit?

Yes, that's how things work currently.

Even worse example: your tank is hidden behind a tall building but you can draw line of sight from the edge of one of its tracks to a foot of a single model from an enemy unit. Thanks to that you are allowed to shoot all your weapons at that enemy unit and kill all the models in it.

 

That's one of the.basic mechanics of 8th. You should know that much if you plan to play in tournaments lol

 

 

Surprisingly enough, I haven't seen or used many tanks in that kind of situation to have that rule drilled into me as often as I'd like.

 

And yeah, you'd think I'd know if I'm playing in tournaments! XD

[Aarik]

My local group has figured out how to deal with the alpha legion cultists coming in. 2 x 40 man units in the face before turn 1 starts in annoying to say the least. But people figured it out so now that trick is rarely used.

 

This is slightly off-topic, but how has your group handled this?

[Skaorn]

One alternative that might lessen 1st turn wipes but not go into complete alternate activation is alternate by detachment.

[Captain Idaho]

That certainly would encourage people to fill up detachments and provide a benefit to doing so instead of splitting over Detachments for CPs.

[MARK0SIAN]

One alternative that might lessen 1st turn wipes but not go into complete alternate activation is alternate by detachment.

I think Captain Idaho is right that it would encourage people to fill up detachments and I would support it on those grounds but I don’t think it will do much to limit first turn wipe outs. It just means that the guard army or tau army etc will be in one detachment instead of two or three. If they go first they’d still have the same level of firepower with all the other problems we’ve mentioned.

 

I’m not saying I don’t support the idea, I just don’t think it solves this particular problem.

[taikishi]

 

Isn't this essentially Initiative for the most part?

Yes, I can see you are moving it into other phases, and that's a intresting concept that GW has never really touched on. What you are doing is changing the turn based systems to "activations", which removes the turn based system insofar as a "my go, your go" system as it stands now.

D&D 3.5 used this system. The argument than boils down which character has a better build. I don't see this as a solution but would give power gamers extra tools to cheat.

 

 

No, it doesn't. D&D uses the same initiative-based system it's used since OD&D back in the 1970s where characters act in order of their initiative score. An activation system is more like Guildball or some of the other games mentioned here were you choose one of your units, do its stuff, then your opponent chooses one, does his thing and you keep activating back and forth until every unit has activated or both players have chosen not to activate units; then the new round starts and (usually) the player who activated first the previous round now activates second/last depending on the number of players.

 

I also think the terms "power gamer" is a bit extreme. You can optimize and still be a roleplayer ;p And calling it cheating is uncalled for because everything is done within the rules of the game.

 

Power gaming and cheating is:

Step 1: trying to secretly make pre-game contacts with every other PC in a pbp

Step 2: proceeding to abuse these contacts in ways that places every other PC in a compromising position so that you can do whatever you want

Step 3: using alts to provide resources to your PC that you wouldn't otherwise have without the alts (the cheating part)

Step 4: throwing a fit in a way to try to burn the game to the ground when the GMs punish ONE of your characters for actions it took in-game after being told that if they took the action it would result in the punishment the character got

 

Yes, this happened in a pbp I was in recently. A 4th level 30 Ranger with six attacks a round at a +40 to hit on each isn't power gaming, it's (possibly hyper) optimizing for combat (and still generally missing on 4s-5s)

[Redtoof]

Definitely agree with the need for more robust and beneficial terrain rules. Not quite sure how I’d fix it but size categories linking with key words sounds like the best starting point. (Size 1 only blocks los to Swarms, 2 to Swarms and infantry etc etc.)

 

If there is some kind of negative first turn trait applied, for my mind it should work on the first player turn, not game turn. That means there’s is a legitimate reason for going second, and first turn is much less of an advantage. Imarine if you have to choose between going first and getting the first blows in or holding back and going second so that you don’t get hit with the penalty? I think this logic should apply to the beta deep strike rules in any case, it would ensure both players have to survive a turn of firepower before their reserves come in, not two.

[Golf33]

I definitely agree on the terrain rules. It's really counterintuitive that a unit in ruins gets a cover bonus, but a unit outside ruins but on the opposite side from the shooter does not even though the bullets have to travel through the whole ruin to reach them!

 

When 5th came out I really liked the idea of TLOS but implementation has always fallen far short of the promise. 8th is by far the worst, taking the least-fun aspects of both concretisation and abstraction and jamming them together.

 

I think there are 3 ways it could be done better.

 

1. Line of sight - bring back the idea of area terrain for woods and ruins. If you're inside the feature you can see out and be seen from outside. If you're entirely on the opposite side from the shooter, neither of you can see or be seen. Vehicle hulls and model bodies & heads should be the target for any TLOS checks, not banners, weapons, limbs etc.

 

2. Cover - if there's something between the shooter and the target, the target should get a save bonus. An exception could be made for low walls within 2" of the shooter. You could probably use TLOS or something like it to work out whether cover is intervening or not.

 

3. Intervening models - these should result in a save bonus for the target as it's harder to ask at an obscured target. However, save where the bonus make a difference (E g. rolls of 2 when shooting at a 3+ unit with the bonus) should have a chance of hitting the intervening unit instead. Something like a 5+ or 6+.

 

There is still some space to refine LOS and area terrain ideas but hopefully it'll help move the discussion along.

[Aarik]

Definitely agree with the need for more robust and beneficial terrain rules. Not quite sure how I’d fix it but size categories linking with key words sounds like the best starting point. (Size 1 only blocks los to Swarms, 2 to Swarms and infantry etc etc.)

 

If there is some kind of negative first turn trait applied, for my mind it should work on the first player turn, not game turn. That means there’s is a legitimate reason for going second, and first turn is much less of an advantage. Imarine if you have to choose between going first and getting the first blows in or holding back and going second so that you don’t get hit with the penalty? I think this logic should apply to the beta deep strike rules in any case, it would ensure both players have to survive a turn of firepower before their reserves come in, not two.

 

I like both of these ideas a lot.  Some of the older editions (can't remember which exactly) had a similar model-size breakdown for LOS that I thought was very intuitive, and I was trying to think of how to implement that again, but I completely forgot about keywords!  I think that would be a great mechanism to do it with.

 

And I think the idea about making it less of an obvious choice to go first.  I do think that having enough LOS blocking terrain does a lot to prevent getting shot off the board first turn, however.

[Deathwalker]

I think what you are remembering is the old "level" system, where each troop or vehicle would only block or provide cover for models of the same level or lower.

I remember that back from 2nd ed WFB, and I think they ported it in to RT.

[Tyr13]

Hm... how about revamping the current cover system a bit? Currently, shooting is pretty damn deadly, since most things can lower an armour save. Cover used to help against that, giving you a save when you wouldnt otherwise - so how about bringing that back? Instead of getting +1 to saves, you get a 4+ fnp equivalent in heavy cover, and a 5+ in light cover. Suddenly, cover makes a huge difference. Similarly, ignore-cover effects, which are currently just an extra pip of AP in some situations, are suddenly useful - adding 33 to 50% more killing power in these situations. If 4+/5+ cover proves too powerful, a 5+/6+ might also be worth considering... or maybe just a flat 5+ for all cover types, since 6+ just doesnt come up terribly often...

As a bonus, the cover save means you dont have to have LOS blockers everywhere, and can advance into cover and shoot from it, rather than being stuck behind a wall and facing the choice of moving to fire (and dying) or staying put.