Oath of Moment issue symptomatic of a wider problem?

[unrealchamp88]

With the official announcement that Oath of Moment will be changed for a less lethal version and the ensuing conversation around this change, it got me thinking.

40k, as a game and its mechanisms, is primarily and almost exclusively focused around an army's (and thus its component units) ability to cause casualties to the opponent and thus remove models from the board. 

Everything revolves around this almost sole interaction. A unit's worth is based on how well it can cause casualties or assist allies in doing so, or negate an enemy's ability to cause casualties. This dynamic is fine, except when in a game ecosystem as large and varied as 40k. There are so many factions and sub-factions which all need to be represented as uniquely as possible through rules and stats by within the, somewhat narrow, paradigm of 'killing the enemy'. 

Add to this the recent move by GW to try and make the game more accessible to a broader audience (presumably for profit reasons), which leads to an inevitable reduction in complexity (regardless of their intention) and thus the qualities by which a weapon or unit can behave along, within the paradigm of 'killing enemies'.

Plus the reduction in lethality.

 

We find ourselves in an ever shrinking pool of different means by which units and armies can behave whilst being balanced, fun and not alike.

It should be noted GW have countered this somewhat by extending the 'strength vs toughness' dynamic, which has obviously had a benefit. 

 

My proposition to remedy this issue is that GW should more stridently pursue a path which they seem to have begun and one which existed in previous editions.

Namely the concepts of suppression, pinning and morale (though not necessarily exclusive to these).

 

Combat is not won solely by killing more of your enemies soldiers than the enemy does of yours. Reducing a combatants effectiveness or inhibiting a unit's combat effectiveness can be done in other ways such as reducing their accuracy, manoeuvrability, ability to react, forcing them to move from a vantage point, making them vulnerable to attack etc.

 

As I said, it would seem GW have made action toward these concepts with some unit abilities and the revised Battle-Shock system (previously Morale). 

 

I think that pursuing these concepts would help broaden the game and create a more varied and enjoyable experience for us players. So, i wonder how would we as players suggest this be done? What would we like to see? and how can these mechanisms be kept within the aesthetic of 40k? 

Edited September 19, 2023 by unrealchamp88

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

In 10th I think this is less the case now that OC exists, but even before that OBSEC units existed and even if you tabled your opponent in T4 you could still lose because you have fewer points.

 

the primary interaction of the game is between units and objectives imho

[unrealchamp88]

The primary point of the game is between units and objectives i.e. get the unit to the objective to give the controlling player victory points.

Units don't really interact with objectives as much as they do with allied or enemy units. 

 

Even then, those are still optional to a degree. Secondaries gain a player points outside of taking objectives. It is also possible for the objective to be 'destroy the enemy'.

 

So I don't disagree with you as much as I disagree with your emphasis, which obfuscates the issue I raised.

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

17 minutes ago, unrealchamp88 said:

The primary point of the game is between units and objectives i.e. get the unit to the objective to give the controlling player victory points.

Units don't really interact with objectives as much as they do with allied or enemy units. 

 

Even then, those are still optional to a degree. Secondaries gain a player points outside of taking objectives. It is also possible for the objective to be 'destroy the enemy'.

 

So I don't disagree with you as much as I disagree with your emphasis, which obfuscates the issue I raised.

 

 

Personally i prefer to play just to kill models, so I’m not 100% on the points for various secondaries, but how many secondaries amount to ‘kill X or Y enemy unit’ to get points? How many points do those secondaries give? If you don’t play primaries is it possible to win off points from those secondaries alone against someone who is play for primaries, and secondaries that arent kill focused?

 

since i don’t much care about points and objectives I’ve not paid much attention to how battleshocked interacts, but I know it prevents primary points from being earned, but does it also prevent secondary points from being earned?

 

some units can increase the OC of the themselves and/or those around them.

 

battleshock is already the sort of mechanic you were asking for previously. It’s another name for morale just with different rules from how morale previously worked. Turning off a unit’s ability to use strats can also be interpreted as a form of pinning mechanic as well since you can’t use strats like overwatch.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I’ve never played for points but 1 time since coming back in 8th. Lost every game but 1 and that’s the one I played for points. Even in that game I was down like 3 points by objectives but my army was fully painted and his wasn’t so i only won by a technicality tbh.

[WrathOfTheLion]

There is some degree of ersatz pinning with certain weapons that force a battleshock test, such as the Plagueburst Crawler in Death Guard. It's not quite formal, and can have some weird interactions with certain other armies, like Daemons, but it's sort of what they were going for with it.

[unrealchamp88]

I'm interested in how much further GW should take the mechanisms they've 'introduced' for 10th. Should they go further and how?

 

I've heard and seen many people opine that battle-shock is almost pointless. i'm inclined to agree. Though I can see the potential of what the designers tried to do.

 

I think to have unique, balanced, interesting and enjoyable ways of shooting/stabbing each others unit off the board has become a challenge, hence why the OoM changes and the concerns over marines detachments are arising. 

If pinning and morale were more fleshed out, imagine what shenanigans Raven Guard could get up to with their more clandestine modus operandi, as an example.

Edited September 19, 2023 by unrealchamp88

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I agree battle shock isn’t the same as the old morale mechanics but it’s loads better than the last mechanic.

[MegaVolt87]

15 hours ago, unrealchamp88 said:

The primary point of the game is between units and objectives i.e. get the unit to the objective to give the controlling player victory points.

Units don't really interact with objectives as much as they do with allied or enemy units. 

 

Even then, those are still optional to a degree. Secondaries gain a player points outside of taking objectives. It is also possible for the objective to be 'destroy the enemy'.

 

So I don't disagree with you as much as I disagree with your emphasis, which obfuscates the issue I raised.

 

 

 

Most secondaries were a pain to score and not worth the bother, especially the codex specific secondaries for many factions. From memory, I don't think its much of an option to win primarily off secondaries. They were more of a scale tip in close gams to dodge a draw. I'm glad the game has moved away from killhammer and become objectives based. GW balances the game around the MEQ profile, it would be better if it was balanced around the GEQ profile instead. 

[unrealchamp88]

I agree. Having the game objective based is massively better. 

 

My question is more around the mechanisms by which objectives are taken. Lethality is the name of the game, which imo, it shouldn't be. I remember when 'sniper' weapons caused pinning, which forced units to go to ground. One didn't need to kill models to be a detriment to the opponents efforts.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

6 hours ago, unrealchamp88 said:

I agree. Having the game objective based is massively better. 

 

My question is more around the mechanisms by which objectives are taken. Lethality is the name of the game, which imo, it shouldn't be. I remember when 'sniper' weapons caused pinning, which forced units to go to ground. One didn't need to kill models to be a detriment to the opponents efforts.

Would you be satisfied if sniper type weapons forced battleshock tests when they hit/wound/do damage m?

[Progenitor]

20 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Would you be satisfied if sniper type weapons forced battleshock tests when they hit/wound/do damage m?

Yes, because a failed BS test would remove their ability to control an objective which could be very useful, as well as stop strategems and now that Insane Bravery is once per battle that forces more choices to be made. I think that's entirely reasonable an ability to have on "shock and awe" weapons such as taking a bullet from an unseen adversary (even if you can actually see them on the actual tabletop). 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

21 minutes ago, Progenitor said:

Yes, because a failed BS test would remove their ability to control an objective which could be very useful, as well as stop strategems and now that Insane Bravery is once per battle that forces more choices to be made. I think that's entirely reasonable an ability to have on "shock and awe" weapons such as taking a bullet from an unseen adversary (even if you can actually see them on the actual tabletop). 

I haven’t been able to play 10th yet, so now it generally comes down to how to make battleshock feel more…palpable in the game since I’ve seen a lot of people say it seems almost pointless.

[unrealchamp88]

'Snipers' causing 'pinning' was an example of a previously existing mechanism which made sense and in the context of the current Battle-shock system, as commented above, it would work very nicely.

But I don't think it should be restricted to those weapons or effects. Weapon which employ large volumes of fire could feasibly do a similar thing. Gatling weapons and the like, which fire a 'wall of lead' at the enemy, could be used to restrict movement or reduce BS etc.

 

The point being that these mechanisms would mean that a unit having an impact in the battle isn't reliant on causing casualties. When attacks miss and fail to inflict any damage, it can leave a bitter feeling, but at the same time, having it so that every attack kills something is also just as 'feels bad'. The main emphasis is on causing casualties, but if that wasn't the case and units could have an impact in a less lethal and more tactical sense, i think that would benefit the game.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, unrealchamp88 said:

'Snipers' causing 'pinning' was an example of a previously existing mechanism which made sense and in the context of the current Battle-shock system, as commented above, it would work very nicely.

But I don't think it should be restricted to those weapons or effects. Weapon which employ large volumes of fire could feasibly do a similar thing. Gatling weapons and the like, which fire a 'wall of lead' at the enemy, could be used to restrict movement or reduce BS etc.

 

The point being that these mechanisms would mean that a unit having an impact in the battle isn't reliant on causing casualties. When attacks miss and fail to inflict any damage, it can leave a bitter feeling, but at the same time, having it so that every attack kills something is also just as 'feels bad'. The main emphasis is on causing casualties, but if that wasn't the case and units could have an impact in a less lethal and more tactical sense, i think that would benefit the game.

I mean sure it doesn’t have to be just sniper weapons, it can be artillery or some super gross nurgle thing.

[Helias_Tancred]

As a former infantryman, I like the idea of suppression in the game. However don't go deep or too much on it, because in all seriousness 40k rules are actually not that deep of a mechanic. It's not like we're playing ASL lol, or a Napoleonic table top game. 

[unrealchamp88]

40 minutes ago, Eilio Tiberius said:

As a former infantryman, I like the idea of suppression in the game. However don't go deep or too much on it, because in all seriousness 40k rules are actually not that deep of a mechanic. It's not like we're playing ASL lol, or a Napoleonic table top game. 

Totally agree. There is validity in the notion of playing a different TT game if one wants a highly tactical game with deep tactical mechanisms which reflect actual combat. 

 

So there is definitely a balance to strike when implementing such concepts to a game like 40k.

 

Its why, in my OP, I ask the question "...So, i wonder how would we as players suggest this be done? What would we like to see? and how can these mechanisms be kept within the aesthetic of 40k?"

I wouldn't want such mechanisms to impose and take away from the nature of 40k as a game, only enhance the experience with broader options of how to use units.