Warhammer 40k

[Snekposter]

Yeah Eisenhorn is on my "list of 3" that I recommend to anyone wanting to dip in to non Spess marine stuff, along with Shira Calpurnia and Gaunts Ghosts. Ravenor is good, but Eisenhorn is excellent

Shira is great. Short, angry, and as a result extremely willing to remind people to respect her authoritah. She's like a Lalafel Judge Dredd that nobody takes seriously until its too late.

 

[CervixHammer]

This King In Yellow shit sounds kinda retarded though, even if I'm liking everything else in the series.

Oh just wait till you realize you """have to""" read The Horus Heresy; The End And The Death: Part I, The Horus Heresy; The End And The Death: Part II, and The Horus Heresy; The End And The Death: Part III (and most of the Horus Heresy, at least the ones written by Abnett) for it to really pay off.

 

[p1138]

Any kind of AA will help, but activation is only one part of the problem. The boards should be bigger. My autism still cringes that the board isn't measured in full feet. At least this is something anyone can immediately change without needing to argue about rules. In my opinion, ranges need to be cut in half across the board, or at least put a cap on range. Having played OPR they cap their range to about 30", with some hitting 36" at most. I feel the reduced threat range feels more comfortable to play with and helped my melee units move up the board without having to so precisely leap frog between ruins. OPR does have the added rule of units themselves completely blocking LOS around their perimeter which doesn't exist in 40k, so it wouldn't translate perfectly.

I never understood the decision to decrease the size from 6'x4'. You could push two 6' folding tables next to eachother and have space to play on, going to 60x44 you STILL need two tables pushed together to play on. The only thing that technically "improved" was allowing more rows of tables next to eachother with even less room between players at large tournaments. It's not like GW even really makes neoprene mats(they've done a couple that they don't regularly sell and aren't even full size as I recall, it's just the KT/spearhead mats where you need multiple and the corners are rounded so they don't even fit together. An early excuse was that GW was using the new table size divided into quarters for smaller games and expecting people to slide those crappy paper sheets together as mats, due to being some standardized size, but A1 and A2 paper sizes are too big for that as well(the ANSI paper sizes don't fit either).

Then on top of that FLG releases their ridiculous 60x44folding tables, the size of the table for a 2k game... except that's $250 for one table, with zero additional space to set anything down like a dice tray, cards, models, whatever that isn't on the play surface, you could have bought 4 6' folding tables for the same fucking price and had twice as much space to play on plus room on the side.

With the current table size and deployment zone sizes, I don't think cutting back shooting to even mostly cap at 24" would resolve the problem as that's still entirely across NML from one DZ into another, and much longer than a lot of melee threat ranges outside of things like bloodcrushers and jump pack marines. Proper LoS rules would fix a lot of the leapfrogging issues(and make horde armies more playable), as one guy having a sword sticking out from behind a wall doesn't mean the entire unit can get wiped and you only lose 1 model(and using silhouettes or determined volumes off of base size eliminates model overhang being a problem for LoS and cover too, GW even acknowledged this problem recent-ish allowing models to squeeze through terrain gaps if their base would fit but the model wouldn't so long as the move isn't ended in the space where it can't fit(so big models with wings and shit like that).

 

[Spilled Spaghett]

An early excuse was that GW was using the new table size divided into quarters for smaller games and expecting people to slide those crappy paper sheets together as mats, due to being some standardized size, but A1 and A2 paper sizes are too big for that as well(the ANSI paper sizes don't fit either).

This is what I heard as well, but there doesn't seem to be any clear cut answer. I agree that the FLG table made sense on paper, but it is kind of wild to think that no one maybe play tested it and realized that they had no where for accessories or drinks. Maybe they assume that people will use a different table away from the board for all that? I don't know who plays like that, but if you require an extra table for your table it defeats the purpose. At that point you may as well invest in one of those fancy gaming dinner tables people use for DnD and board games. I've seen people use pool tables which, conveniently, is typically 44" across, and 88" long so plenty of space in the center for the board and room on the sides for causalities, dice, etc. That can be a really expensive choice for a table, but the upside is its also a pool table.

With the current table size and deployment zone sizes, I don't think cutting back shooting to even mostly cap at 24" would resolve the problem as that's still entirely across NML from one DZ into another, and much longer than a lot of melee threat ranges outside of things like bloodcrushers and jump pack marines. Proper LoS rules would fix a lot of the leapfrogging issues(and make horde armies more playable), as one guy having a sword sticking out from behind a wall doesn't mean the entire unit can get wiped and you only lose 1 model(and using silhouettes or determined volumes off of base size eliminates model overhang being a problem for LoS and cover too, GW even acknowledged this problem recent-ish allowing models to squeeze through terrain gaps if their base would fit but the model wouldn't so long as the move isn't ended in the space where it can't fit(so big models with wings and shit like that).

Cutting ranges would not solve the problem, but no one solution will. I think the combo of AA, 4'x6' boards, and halved ranges will resolve probably most of the big issues. Even if you can shoot across NML, at 24" you would have to be right on the line at the start of the game, and shooting perfectly straight down the board. Assuming there is even some obscuring cover in between this still improves survivability by leaps and bounds.

The other thing OPR does which doesn't translate to 40k is that charging is guaranteed rather than a roll. In 40k 7" is considered the danger zone for melee units, because anything more than that is improbable. In OPR if it's in 12", you're getting charged. I think with these changes we can start to remove some of the artificial fail states built into the game like rolling to charge, or rolling to advance. If we don't eliminate rolling I think we could at least give some kind of minimum to movement. Say you failed a charge, maybe instead of skipping your turn you at least got a 3" surge move? I generally am against any rule that says you have a random chance of literally nothing happens.

I am mixed about changing the LoS rules. On one hand the ruling is very clean. There's no arguing about whether this is considered 50% of the model, or if my commander's pinky toe counts as a valid target for the ass end of a Leman Russ's exhaust pipe. So long as you can connect the dots, it counts. This makes it so easy to LoS that most people just need a quick glance and assume there's LoS without fussing around with lasers and string. On the other hand it makes kitbashing, and modeling a double edged sword. I could add all sorts of bits to my models or make them lean as far forward as possible to give me the most reach. Or it could mean that my centerpiece model becomes a really easy target because how the hell am I supposed to stand behind a ruin with this wings out? Adding a check for valid targets, and restricting LoS will make the game crunchier, and it means that there's a lot more work that will have to go into the shooting phase. You would assume that good sportsmanship means people are generous and wont try to argue about whether or not their tank's gun can draw a line to an imaginary cylinder above the target's base. I think reality is this will cause arguments and we have to decide whether or not the trade off is worth it.

I wish we could use an entirely 2D LoS model that only uses the base itself and lines across the board to determine LoS. It's simple and extremely easy to measure with little room for edge cases. Unfortunately this doesn't account for any kind of 3d space such at shooting from above, or taller models looking over walls. I know the game is like 90% played 2D anyways, but it doesn't work as well as I wish it did. Maybe we should allow units to block LoS around their perimeter? It could add an extra role for some units to act as a phalanx moving up the board.

 

[p1138]

I am mixed about changing the LoS rules. On one hand the ruling is very clean. There's no arguing about whether this is considered 50% of the model, or if my commander's pinky toe counts as a valid target for the ass end of a Leman Russ's exhaust pipe. So long as you can connect the dots, it counts. This makes it so easy to LoS that most people just need a quick glance and assume there's LoS without fussing around with lasers and string. On the other hand it makes kitbashing, and modeling a double edged sword. I could add all sorts of bits to my models or make them lean as far forward as possible to give me the most reach. Or it could mean that my centerpiece model becomes a really easy target because how the hell am I supposed to stand behind a ruin with this wings out? Adding a check for valid targets, and restricting LoS will make the game crunchier, and it means that there's a lot more work that will have to go into the shooting phase. You would assume that good sportsmanship means people are generous and wont try to argue about whether or not their tank's gun can draw a line to an imaginary cylinder above the target's base. I think reality is this will cause arguments and we have to decide whether or not the trade off is worth it.

That's why using modern solutions for LoS would make sense, and it's easy to implement. Just assign 32mm and 40mm bases as 2" tall cylinders or whatever. and likewise for other base sizes. This is how other games do silhouettes.

Can you see my base? No. Can you see my mini as if it were a 2" cylinder? No. Then you're not shooting at it.
Can you see a model in my unit? Yes. How many of my guardsmen can you see? 1? Then you're only able to kill 1.

At that point it doesn't matter if you've got a toe overhanging a base, a sword poking out from behind a wall, or anything else. For LoS it also eliminates any possibility of modeling for advantage, because it won't matter. Want to model all of your dudes lying prone on their base? Go ahead, if the LoS is drawn with a silhouette it doesn't make a difference. This is one of the few things warmachine got right and Infinity does similar but also complicates it by having facings(it's also a skirmish game). Warmachine is even more 2d than 40k(still has rules and an example), but Infinity can handle varied height just fine. Even Star Wars Legion does this because it's stupid not to.


There's no arguing, there's no complaining about re-posed models or proxies, there's no complaining about someone using weapon effects on the end of a gun and wher that counts or whatever. And for vehicles in 40k? You either define the hull on the datasheet like the updated space marine drop pod or you just tell people to suck it up, define base sizes for vehicles and have people base their vehicles with some cheap bases, so you can define the silhouette volume based off of that since they added a base size for the chaos daemon soul grinder already anyway.

 

[Judge Dredd]

I wouldn’t mind something like Bolt Action where set up and activation is based on pulling dice out of a bag to see who can place units down when. Definitely feels better and more of a tactical set up of things instead of everyone hiding everything behind every piece of terrain at the start. But that would ruin the L shaped cardboard terrain meta

There's a skirmish game I have I'm looking forward to playing called ...One Hour Skirmish Wargames... It's a bad title. But it's all played with a deck of cards, and turn lengths are random.


At this point, I wonder how engrained the tournament terrain nonsense is in 40k. I can easily see then turning on "fun" terrain because it theoretically might give someone an edge, somewhere.

The One Hour Wargame series is known for it's creative scenarios that would never be considered in the modern 40k scene. Things like "A third of your army is late, so you have to hold out until they turn up" or "negotiations have failed. Your leaders start in the middle the middle of the board and can't attack first turn."

 

[Inquisitor_BadAss]

Browsing eBay and 5th edition fantasy books are so cheap and plenty available in excellent condition. I want to pick some up not even to play but as collectors pieces they're so nice.

There's a skirmish game I have I'm looking forward to playing called ...One Hour Skirmish Wargames... It's a bad title. But it's all played with a deck of cards, and turn lengths are random.


At this point, I wonder how engrained the tournament terrain nonsense is in 40k. I can easily see then turning on "fun" terrain because it theoretically might give someone an edge, somewhere.

The One Hour Wargame series is known for it's creative scenarios that would never be considered in the modern 40k scene. Things like "A third of your army is late, so you have to hold out until they turn up" or "negotiations have failed. Your leaders start in the middle the middle of the board and can't attack first turn."

I enjoyed when each army had an individual scenario written into each of their codex. And what you written about the one hour wargames sounds very 3rd / 4th edition 40K.

 

[Spilled Spaghett]

Can you see my base? No. Can you see my mini as if it were a 2" cylinder? No. Then you're not shooting at it.
Can you see a model in my unit? Yes. How many of my guardsmen can you see? 1? Then you're only able to kill 1.

I don't disagree that this is an effective form of LoS. It does solve any modeling for advantage and makes a consistent rule across the board. What I'm saying is that because you still have to imagine the 2" cylinder there will be arguments over edge cases where players can't agree whether your marine can see the corner of said cylinder. Since there is no physical object to trace a line to it becomes harder to measure. It might still be a better, fairer system for determining LoS, but I'm just wondering if casual players will accept it.

For determining valid targets 40k is done model by model. Maybe most marines can only see 1 guardsman, maybe some can see 2 and another sees 3. Are we attacking based on which models anyone in the unit can see (3) or is each attack model by model? If it goes model by model you're going to make the game take much longer as I have to re-roll the same weapon profile for each guardsman I want to shoot.

 

[Humble Architect]

Methinks those dumb AoS rules (bigger beard) should come into 40k but only for the fun factions, like the Cult Legions and Da Orks

Like if you did shove speakers in your Rhinos and the sounds of cartel videos threw off your opponent, that’s a matched win, cause you won in true EC fashion.

 

[demicolon]

why the fuck are there so many of you with pasta names?

It's the spooky month... you really don't want to know... booo...

 

[p1138]

I don't disagree that this is an effective form of LoS. It does solve any modeling for advantage and makes a consistent rule across the board. What I'm saying is that because you still have to imagine the 2" cylinder there will be arguments over edge cases where players can't agree whether your marine can see the corner of said cylinder. Since there is no physical object to trace a line to it becomes harder to measure. It might still be a better, fairer system for determining LoS, but I'm just wondering if casual players will accept it.

For determining valid targets 40k is done model by model. Maybe most marines can only see 1 guardsman, maybe some can see 2 and another sees 3. Are we attacking based on which models anyone in the unit can see (3) or is each attack model by model? If it goes model by model you're going to make the game take much longer as I have to re-roll the same weapon profile for each guardsman I want to shoot.

That's why you use a special device, it's like a gauge with marks on it that you can use to generate such a ruling. If only it had a name, and you could place it vertically next to a base between the gaps in bases since they're round. And yes, you just base it off of what is visible to anything in the attacking unit, which sure means sometimes you'll have to take a moment to check, that shouldn't be a big deal. What would also help with that is eliminating the absurd number of weapon profiles some units have which also slows down the game and they've been doing that too with deathguard.

Like if you did shove speakers in your Rhinos and the sounds of cartel videos threw off your opponent, that’s a matched win, cause you won in true EC fashion.

Turns out there's these stupid clip on bluetooth speakers these days, really small like 2"x3.5" and you can gut them really easily so the electronics are even smaller. It'd definitely fit into a rhino, I may or may not have done that with that warhound I built so I could have it play the dark souls 3 boss fight meme music when pulling it out of the case and setting it on the table for deployment. https://www.amazon.com/Temdan-Wearable-Bluetooth-Hands-Free-Waterproof/dp/B0D6V167K5/

 

[Spilled Spaghett]

What would also help with that is eliminating the absurd number of weapon profiles some units have which also slows down the game and they've been doing that too with deathguard.

Any time my SM or Guard friends bring tanks I want to cry as we slowly go through 6+ weapon profiles per model only for the vanquisher battle cannon to do no damage and the heavy stubber to chip me for 1. T'au is all about shooting, but at least I'm shooting maybe 3 profiles in a unit at most.

Speaking of weapon profiles why the fuck do so many datasheets include "optional" wargear that has literally no trade and only has one option? Why is it that a Leman Russ may be equipped with 1 hunter-killer missile instead of is equipped with 1 hunter-killer missile? It's an annoying gotcha that only punishes people who accidentally forgot to check the box when building their list.

 

[Buckaroo]

Speaking of weapon profiles why the fuck do so many datasheets include "optional" wargear that has literally no trade and only has one option? Why is it that a Leman Russ may be equipped with 1 hunter-killer missile instead of is equipped with 1 hunter-killer missile? It's an annoying gotcha that only punishes people who accidentally forgot to check the box when building their list.

In GW's infinite kindness to players from previous editions, they so graciously allowed them to use models they assembled and painted back when you had to pay the extra 5 points for a heavy stubber/storm bolter by keeping the extra guns optional.

 

[Rimanah]

Why is it that a Leman Russ may be equipped with 1 hunter-killer missile instead

To accommodate people who don’t have it on their models because it cost points in previous editions but are too lazy to add it now.

Which admittedly is a very small subset of people, but it’s nice GW decided to accommodate them. If only they’d extend the courtesy farther

 

[p1138]

Any time my SM or Guard friends bring tanks I want to cry as we slowly go through 6+ weapon profiles per model only for the vanquisher battle cannon to do no damage and the heavy stubber to chip me for 1. T'au is all about shooting, but at least I'm shooting maybe 3 profiles in a unit at most.

It's more than just tanks, and even applies to melee profiles at times. This shows my feelings on the matter. Shit could have been abstracted like other games do. Small arms/pistols, rifles/carbines, flamers, heavy weapons, that's it for infantry and divvy the damned squads up appropriate.

And the "optional" free guns, everyone just assumes they're there because wtf wouldn't they be, so WYSIWYG goes out the window for any of that anyway(not to mention with one shots like HK missiles it's not like most people were magnetizing them to remove once fired anyway).

 

[Mr Clark]

It's more than just tanks, and even applies to melee profiles at times. This shows my feelings on the matter. Shit could have been abstracted like other games do. Small arms/pistols, rifles/carbines, flamers, heavy weapons, that's it for infantry and divvy the damned squads up appropriate.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ImL5DbA55eU
And the "optional" free guns, everyone just assumes they're there because wtf wouldn't they be, so WYSIWYG goes out the window for any of that anyway(not to mention with one shots like HK missiles it's not like most people were magnetizing them to remove once fired anyway).

Retributors are a fantastic example of this. Its balanced around multimelta so when you take heavy flamers you are gimping yourself. Buuuut you can take up to 4 models of 3 different weapons. If you have wargear costs you get that guy who has 2 meltas, 1 flamer and 1 bolter causing chaos.

I kinda like what they did with Drukhari Scourges where they split the 4 weapon profiles into 2 different units.

If they straight up said that Retributors had 3 preset loadouts (all melta, all flamer or all bolter) and gave them different costs, whilst still limiting you to 3 Retributors in a game, it would fix some of the problem. Limit the choice of guns in a single unit and remove math equations from wargear costs without limiting the choice available to that unit. Simplification would probably help with guard too given their weapon choices in infantry.

But then you still need to cut loadouts down on tanks and other nonsense and no one wants their models or their profiles legends'd

 

[Rick The Stick]

Methinks those dumb AoS rules (bigger beard) should come into 40k but only for the fun factions, like the Cult Legions and Da Orks
View attachment 8051715
Like if you did shove speakers in your Rhinos and the sounds of cartel videos threw off your opponent, that’s a matched win, cause you won in true EC fashion.

That's fuckin funny and is the kinda shit that would get way more people playing in my non-playing retard opinion. Of course the redditor can't handle fun and doesn't understand why the judge rolled with it. I just hope "Gitgud" was jacked to go along with it.

 

[Judge Dredd]

The new white dwarf is about scenary. I didn't have a chance to do a proper skim, but I was wondering is it how to make your own stuff, or just shilling GW terrain?

I enjoyed when each army had an individual scenario written into each of their codex. And what you written about the one hour wargames sounds very 3rd / 4th edition 40K.

I don't remember that. I can believe it.

The one hour wargame book series (if you can call it that) is known for that. The first book, One Hour Wargames, (which I've not read) is supposedly pretty bland but is worth picking up just for the scenarios. One Hour Skirmish Wargames isn't worth getting for the scenarios are many are either bland or very system specific. Sci-fi Skirmish Scenarios is fun though. Not read one hour fantasy skirmish wargames so I don't know how the scenarios are.

 

[harbringer883]

Is there a place to get the old start collecting space marines (the firstborn one) thats not like 200 bucks. Or am I better off building it from recasters?

 

[Angelos32]

Ok maybe wrong thread for this, but I’ll be honest I don’t have the balls to post this in the warhammer fantasy thread. I’m mostly a fan of old world, and I’m into the lore of 40k(old lore) but not really the game since I’ve heard 10th edition is sub par at best. Having said that, I’ve honestly been looking at age of sigmar and it’s interesting the direction games workshop is taking it. They clearly are trying to lighten the vibe of 40k lore, and yet if you poke around aos lore in the past few years(completely fair of you don’t), it’s gotten darker every edition so it’s interesting that there is a game system, albeit one plenty of people despise for killing fantasy, take it in the other direction.Not to mention while poking around, stumbled upon a lot of solidly reliable rumors that if true, indicates that aos in future will be imitating old fantasy armies more and more.

Edit:part of me also thinks this because i also love seeing the aos community freak out about the apparent direction, lets me feel like a tourist for once