Warhammer 40k

[Mr Clark]

@augment

The plan with the turret is to slide the weapons on, have a magnet on the outside of the weapon to connect to the shields (that also have magents). Is that what you were referring to? Ive seen some people fuck off the rod completely and magnetise the gun to the turret then the shield to the gun but im hesitant to do that.

As for the flight stand, i 3d printed a large stand that has a spot for a 6x2mm magnet and then another magnet holder that looks like a cap (with magnet, obv) to glue to undercarriage. I was tempted to use a brass rod into the clear base but those clear flight stands are so flimsy I fear it will crack easily with the weight.

 

[augment]

@augment

The plan with the turret is to slide the weapons on, have a magnet on the outside of the weapon to connect to the shields (that also have magents). Is that what you were referring to? Ive seen some people fuck off the rod completely and magnetise the gun to the turret then the shield to the gun but im hesitant to do that.

As for the flight stand, i 3d printed a large stand that has a spot for a 6x2mm magnet and then another magnet holder that looks like a cap (with magnet, obv) to glue to undercarriage. I was tempted to use a brass rod into the clear base but those clear flight stands are so flimsy I fear it will crack easily with the weight.

Look at these images. The modeller drilled a whole large enough to fit a single magnet within the weapon, thus allowing for the use of the outer shields and the turret hook up at the same time. Because the stock connection is not nearly long enough, he introduced a styrene rod to help with clearance

https://ibb.co/gMgz3F6N

https://ibb.co/FqkKc94k

 

[p1138]

How is he wrong? That is exactly how IGUG works. Of course it's dependent on how the game is played, and the type of terrain. There's all kinds of factors. But if we are talking about just the system itself which is the only variable we are interested in then that's exactly how it plays out. You have the most number of models, therefore you have the most rules and activations to resolve, and therefor the most potential damage. I don't know what 40k games you've been playing where the later rounds take longer and are more impactful but I've never seen it. By round 3 units are very solidly dug into their objectives, or the balance of power has shifted in such a way that it's clear which fights will and wont be won. Maybe it's not 100% because, of course, you can always roll 1s or 6s. But the later rounds are definitely shorter and mostly going through the motions. There aren't many decisions available to you by round 4, especially if you're losing.

If we're playing 10th edition 40k, and my turn in round 1 takes more than a minute or two it's because I'm busy tabling my opponent because they've thrown the game in deployment or in their movement phase top of round 1.

IGUG does naturally favor the first turn, because of course it does. Your opponent isn't even allowed to play the game yet, and you are allowed to move and shoot with everything. Every model you kill is less damage that your opponent can deal back.

Shoot at what in the top of round 1? If you're going first, then unless your opponent left a bunch of scout and infiltrate units out in the open for no reason, you've got nothing to shoot at.

That is why we cover the table in L-shaped ruins. I'm not denying that there is still a huge advantage to going second, but that's more to do with how we build competitive terrain, and liter the board with L-shaped ruins. We know that IGUG favors first turn and these are adjustments we make to try and mitigate that. Arguably it goes too far. It still doesn't change that the first turn, regardless of who goes first is the longest and most impactful. If first turn doesn't decimate their opponent, then second turn is going to decimate their opponent who was forced to move into exposed positions.

The ruins being L shaped is irrelevant to the many terrain issues that the game has. L shaped ruins get used, because ruins are the only footprint outside of solid terrain features(sealed buildings, hills, etc.) that can block line of sight. GW doesn't even include just L shaped ruins in their mission packs at this point, that's partially a WTC problem(their layouts are shit) as both GW/ITC and UKTC use other shapes of ruins. There's nothing stopping you from using U shapes. Squares are an issue because again the way the rules work, with 4 sided ruins you get a unit in them that can't be attacked via ranged(unless indirect fire) or melee(unless it's harlequins on their tiny bases still and even that doesn't really work due to how much most models overhang their own bases). L's happen to be convenient because single walls don't stand on their own worth a shit, and Ls are easier to stack for storage.

The red chart is exactly the reason for most of the major changes in 10th edition. 9th edition especially was so lethal that the game was over by round 2. 10th edition has made armies a little more survivable so that the game looks more like the yellow chart, but it in no ways changes the curve, only smooths it out.

If your games look like the yellow chart, again it's either because your opponent has thrown the game early, or you have no idea what you're doing and are just dumping your shit into no man's land out in the open like an idiot.

t'll mostly come down to missions, but there is a bit of an inherent first-turn advantage that does warrant design consideration. Changing it to going first rather than picking was to prevent winning that roll from being even more game-deciding and allowing players to pick second in the smaller set of circumstances where it did win out. That said, GW has been actively balancing to try and get around it - the 9e change to have the second player score at the end of the final turn did a lot to help and they've been going back and forth on smaller changes since - but it's difficult; even chess has a slight advantage to white (and that's more AA than IGOUGO).

Even without using the mission packs, simply having a reasonable table layout and objectives other than "kill everything" favors going 2nd because someone has to step out first and expose a unit to being shot, but you're also unfortunately using Goonhammer's data which is awful and I'll get to why in a moment.

These were the first-turn win rates in early 10e - most missions had a first-turn advantage, although most weren't large enough to be particularly relevant.

This is true, but that's due to scoring which especially mattered later in the game and wasn't related to the first round of the game being action packed or anything of the sort like the guy spouting nonsense in the video claimed with the yellow and red graphs.

That then swung pretty consistently against the first turn for a good while. I haven't seen newer stats since challenger cards were abandoned, so I couldn't say the current state of things, but the overall point remains that the second player being advantaged has been the result of deliberately-introduced asymmetry to try and counteract the first-turn advantage going too far.

Again, still has nothing to do with the first round of shooting, the first round taking a significant amount of time, etc. As far as using goonhammer for data, it's awful because they're just relying on tabletop battles which is loaded up with random junk data. Unfortunately stat-check for whatever reason doesn't include GFWR(neither does meta monday but they haven't updated in a month now for some reason). But that being said, even if goonhammer's data wasn't a mess that's still not relevant to the time spent on each round "issue" that the guy in the video was talking about. I go U go has problems, and I'm not saying it doesn't. But for someone starting a new channel and wanting to talk about game design and specifically about the 800 pound gorilla in the wargaming room that is 40k, he should at least make sure his understand of the flow of the game other than 2 children shoving models into the center of the table just to roll dice at eachother for an hour, actually works.

 

[Spilled Spaghett]

Shoot at what in the top of round 1? If you're going first, then unless your opponent left a bunch of scout and infiltrate units out in the open for no reason, you've got nothing to shoot at.

Maybe if you're playing on WTC terrain that is so saturated in ruins that the only way to see your opponent is in melee, then maybe, but otherwise turn one you will be able to move forward into a position to shoot something. If you aren't killing something, or at least damaging a model on turn one you're throwing the game.

The ruins being L shaped is irrelevant

Yes it is. Don't think too hard about it.

If your games look like the yellow chart, again it's either because your opponent has thrown the game early, or you have no idea what you're doing and are just dumping your shit into no man's land out in the open like an idiot.

The only way it doesn't look like the first chart is if both players pass their first turn and sit in their deployment zone doing nothing. You start scoring on turn two, why would you not be taking objectives or scoring secondaries?

 

[p1138]

Maybe if you're playing on WTC terrain that is so saturated in ruins that the only way to see your opponent is in melee, then maybe, but otherwise turn one you will be able to move forward into a position to shoot something. If you aren't killing something, or at least damaging a model on turn one you're throwing the game.

I've played on WTC in precisely one event and fucking hated it. The only reason they used WTC was again, due to terrain storage for having that many tables. Of course if you had actually read the post...

Shoot at what in the top of round 1? If you're going first, then unless your opponent left a bunch of scout and infiltrate units out in the open for no reason, you've got nothing to shoot at.

The only shooting or charging to be doing round 1 is if you or your opponent tossed a unit out into the open for scoring, unless your opponent has thrown the game as I said. Top of round 1, you should really have nothing to be shooting at(maybe charging if you're playing WE with infiltrating units, but that's really an exception) because your opponent hasn't exposed anything in deployment and they haven't gone yet.. unless they're retarded.

Yes, if you shove all of your models into the center of the table at the first possible opportunity like an idiot, then yes you're going to be spending a bunch of time early on waiting on your opponent to play and then making saves, because you're playing like an idiot.

The only way it doesn't look like the first chart is if both players pass their first turn and sit in their deployment zone doing nothing. You start scoring on turn two, why would you not be taking objectives or scoring secondaries?

Because you don't need to move more than a unit or two into no man's land to score secondaries? Some of the secondaries you don't even play if drawn turn 1. Secondaries to end up in NML

Engage on all fronts, only requires being in the quarter so doesn't even have to be exposed to line of sight, completes at the end of your turn
Establish Locus, only have to be within 6" of the center and there's usually still LoS blocking terrain available, completes at the end of your turn
Secure no man's land, you send your 2 cheapest units to control 2 objectives if possible or just 1, which you should have at least one objective in NML that doesn't expose you to being shot at without the opponent having to reposition, also completes end of your own turn
Sabotage, requires being in a terrain feature anyway so same as above but even easier since the entirety of the terrain feature doesn't have to be outside of your DZ, just the unit(wholly within vs within)
Cleanse, same as secure no man's land, just needs to be a unit that can execute an action. End of your own turn.
Area Denial, this one actually does require sending a unit out into the open, but you're still scoring it end of your turn so throw away a cheap unit
Recover assets, can be done in cover, scores end of your turn
Tempting target, yeah this one means leaving a unit exposed like the others, but it still scores end of your turn

Behind enemy lines, storm hostile you can opt to re-draw in round 1. Defend stronghold and display of might you have to redraw in round 1.

So pretty much none of the secondaries require anything but throwing your cheapest unit out into the open, and sometimes not even into the open or even on an objective in round 1. Even someone playing custodes is still going to have a cheap unit of sisters of silence to throw at shit like this as an action monkey.

As for why you wouldn't do this for primary? Top of round 1 player goes and grabs primary objectives. Bottom of round 1 player removes them from objectives, congrats you've scored nothing when round 2 comes around. Additionally, depending in the armies involved you might be making it easier for a slow melee army like death guard or custodes to even take objectives in no man's land by giving them charge targets to begin with letting them grab those objectives early with tougher units than they normally would have been able to. If you're playing something fast like eldar with reactive moves, then obviously you could use those reactive moves to make those charges more difficult or impossible but I wouldn't need to point this out to you, not to mention if you had to reactive move off of the objective during the bottom of round 1 to avoid losing units, then you're still not scoring it round 2 anyway.

 

[Rimanah]

But if you don't know how the main game that your employer makes is played when you're discussing game design... fucking hell.

You say that as if that isn’t the standard operating procedure for GW employees, especially those on the 40K teams.
AFAIK Cruddance is still the head designer, and he’s a grade A retard who claimed math was subjective when someone confronted him with mathematical proofs nids were garbage in either 6th or 7th ed.

 

[p1138]

You say that as if that isn’t the standard operating procedure for GW employees, especially those on the 40K teams.
AFAIK Cruddance is still the head designer, and he’s a grade A retard who claimed math was subjective when someone confronted him with mathematical proofs nids were garbage in either 6th or 7th ed.

He's still at GW, but there's a rumor that last year at some point the design lead for 40k was switched resulting in the road gap where GW released the BA refresh, and then had nothing for 40k for 3 months afterward(and then swapped around the pre-existing release schedule so knights got delayed) which is insanity to allow space marine players to go so long without at least getting a new generic lieutenant.

But yes I get your point. It also shows with some of the laughable fuck ups in their own batreps on their wh+ garbage getting their own rules wrong(it happened pretty often in the earlier ones, no idea if they're still making those mistakes).

 

[Penne Dreadful]

But that being said, even if goonhammer's data wasn't a mess that's still not relevant to the time spent on each round "issue" that the guy in the video was talking about.

Yes, that's fair. I didn't watch the video and just nitpicked one specific point; probably should have given the slop a full watch before engaging. I do certainly agree that turn 1 in recent editions has tended to be a lot of shuffling around for positioning and minimising exposure rather than whoever goes first just shooting the other on Planet Bowling Ball; that's only become more true as opportunities for reliable turn 1 charges on trading pieces have greatly diminished.
Reasonable on Goonhammer's data being a bit of a mess too, but I didn't have anything better to hand.

 

[p1138]

Yes, that's fair. I didn't watch the video and just nitpicked one specific point; probably should have given the slop a full watch before engaging. I do certainly agree that turn 1 in recent editions has tended to be a lot of shuffling around for positioning and minimising exposure rather than whoever goes first just shooting the other on Planet Bowling Ball; that's only become more true as opportunities for reliable turn 1 charges on trading pieces have greatly diminished.
Reasonable on Goonhammer's data being a bit of a mess too, but I didn't have anything better to hand.

That's fine, I just more wanted to point out the potential issue with goonhammer(I really wish the other sites would track GFWR since BCP tracks that but whatever) rather than harp on it since that's as you pointed out tied to scoring and matters later rather than this guy's idea that round 1 takes up 1/3 of the game for everybody.

I don't know if I'd call the video slop, the problem is that he's not wrong for 75% of the video, it's just that 5 minute segment that shows he doesn't know wtf he's talking about. And sure, Spilled Spaghett(why the fuck are there so many of you with pasta names?) would be correct if 40k were played with table layouts like AoS, WHFB, etc, but no one does that and expects the game to be anything but a shooting gallery based on who goes first turn 1 unless they really have no idea how to play the game(because it's face it, without enough terrain the game immediately falls into the realm of unplayable trash). I would point out that it doesn't help in this regard that...

GW still doesn't have a fucking "here's a full table's worth of terrain in a box" available for at least an example(and it doesn't have to be from or for chapter approved either)
GW still relies on random boomers buying white dwarf instead of regularly publishing even photos of games on warcom
GW still publishes laughably stupid "matched play" table photos in the core rules that I'd never be willing to play on due to all of the issues with terrain
GW still claims their system is true line of sight, when it isn't(they say it is, but then I can make cover saves off of models in the unit that were completely hidden behind a wall? That's not TLOS) or switch to using silhouettes for anything that isn't a vehicle(that should have the hull specified like the new drop pod does)

And that's all easy shit to fix(that would help every level of play) without a massive core rules re-write that alternating activations would require(which should also still be done but for other reasons).

 

[AncientPhosphur]

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

 

[Rick The Stick]

Reading the Bequin novels and I like them quite a lot. I already finished Pariah and I'm doing Penitent now. Really fun characters and I think this is my first time dealing with Inquisition centered stuff. Any opinions on Ravenor and Eisenhorn stories? Liking these dudes a lot and wondering if their stories would be worth a gander. This King In Yellow shit sounds kinda retarded though, even if I'm liking everything else in the series.

Spoiler: spoilers I guess

Deathrow being Alpha Legion got a lol out of me because I'm autistic. I wonder who it could be though. Must have been someone of some sort of renown if the EC he was fighting recognized him and decided to fuck off. For that matter, this series has made the Alpha Legion out to be some boogeyman tier shit going off the few explicit mentions of them. Which is weird, kinda.
Penitent giving us a Blood Angel(possibly a clone of one?) Whos mutated so much he has actual fucking wings is super cool. Idk how that works, if it's going to be explained or if this fucker if even an actual BA or not.

 

[Rimanah]

He's still at GW, but there's a rumor that last year at some point the design lead for 40k was switched resulting in the road gap where GW released the BA refresh, and then had nothing for 40k for 3 months afterward

Looks like that rumor is correct, since Cruddace just announced he’s left GW and joined War Cradle Studios
Guess this isn’t explicit confirmation he’s gone from GW, but I’d be very very surprised if they let game designers work on other stuff the way they do for some Black Library authors.

 

[Brahma]

Reading the Bequin novels and I like them quite a lot. I already finished Pariah and I'm doing Penitent now. Really fun characters and I think this is my first time dealing with Inquisition centered stuff. Any opinions on Ravenor and Eisenhorn stories? Liking these dudes a lot and wondering if their stories would be worth a gander. This King In Yellow shit sounds kinda retarded though, even if I'm liking everything else in the series.

Spoiler: spoilers I guess

Deathrow being Alpha Legion got a lol out of me because I'm autistic. I wonder who it could be though. Must have been someone of some sort of renown if the EC he was fighting recognized him and decided to fuck off. For that matter, this series has made the Alpha Legion out to be some boogeyman tier shit going off the few explicit mentions of them. Which is weird, kinda.
Penitent giving us a Blood Angel(possibly a clone of one?) Whos mutated so much he has actual fucking wings is super cool. Idk how that works, if it's going to be explained or if this fucker if even an actual BA or not.

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

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

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

View attachment 8042910

I don't know how feasible a fix this would be, but in theory have we considered MOAR DICE to fix this?

Give every unit a reaction modifier and roll to decide turn order before the start of the game. It'd lead to faster turn around in player turns and you'd have to consider how likely a unit is to move earlier in a round when building the army and situations where an entire army moves before the other can even budge would become next to non-existent.

 

[9 IRON TO THE BALLS]

any one can confirm the femstode in tacticus is real or fake?

 

[p1138]

Looks like that rumor is correct, since Cruddace just announced he’s left GW and joined War Cradle Studios
Guess this isn’t explicit confirmation he’s gone from GW, but I’d be very very surprised if they let game designers work on other stuff the way they do for some Black Library authors.

Good fucking riddance.

And yeah, there's a big difference between authors getting paid for their work and thus needing to be able to write for something besides black library, and staff positions like this one.

 

[Mr Clark]

Look at these images. The modeller drilled a whole large enough to fit a single magnet within the weapon, thus allowing for the use of the outer shields and the turret hook up at the same time. Because the stock connection is not nearly long enough, he introduced a styrene rod to help with clearance

https://ibb.co/gMgz3F6N

https://ibb.co/FqkKc94k

These are excellent, thank you!

 

[4090 Chad]

Space Marine 2 has a free demo going on this weekend if there is anyone that hasn't played it and wants to give it a whirl.

 

[Spilled Spaghett]

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

View attachment 8042910

I haven't played Bolt Action but the random dice in a bag feels too random for me. A little bit of randomness is fine, but if I don't have decent control over my own units then it feels like it removes the ability to properly respond to your opponent.

As much as I would love to play thematic games on a beautifully decorated table there are a couple issues. You can beautifully craft a table that's really fun to play, but unless you have a dedicated space for it putting it up and taking it down is either a pain or impossible. It likely isn't modular making it very samey. It's great for gaming groups in your basement, not great for pick up games that don't want to spend a whole day playing.

Clear cut ruins are just practical. A giant cathedral looks beautiful on the table, and is such a pain in the ass to move models through that I think most people would rather not bother. The way that 40k is designed sadly requires a substantial amount of LOS block terrain lest you table your opponent turn 1. Even for a thematic game, waiting 20 minutes while you take half your army off the board isn't fun. I'm not saying there aren't drooling retards who treat tournament packs as gospel, but I get why people use it so much.

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.

 

[The tired cat]

So, managed to give the Mechanicus 2 demo a spin, so far really digging it. Did like playing as the Necrons, their leaders ressurection power is pretty neat and can rez units all over the map, I am kinda skippy how not all units get to use the cogs like in Mechanicus 1, as so far only the main priest is allowed to use em.