Just wondering today about the game-ending element of 40k.
In particular the fact that a mission initially has a set number of turns, however these are then extended to turn 6 and 7 respectively.
Although this throws up many more increased tactical choices and situations, the question would be what is detracted from the game by this rule.
First of all, in games such as Capture and Control and Take and Hold, the fact that the game does not have a certain end point detracts from the overall tactical plan of the game, as if a player knows he has a limit to when he can take or contest objectives, he can more carefully formulate a strategy. Such as, "Unit X will be in range of this objective by turn 5", or "Unit Y will move out of cover and go flat out to contest objective Y in turn 5, after staying in cover most of the game." Both of these are 2 albeit simple ways of approaching a game such as this with a strategy. However, when the game time can be extended, Unit X has less chance of holding that objective (and after covering the whole length of the table such an event can be pretty disappointing), and Unit Y would not even be used in such a way , as the player knows that it will probably be destroyed/ removed off the objective if the game continues.
Another point is that certain armies have distinct disadvantages if such an event occurs, not only is this unfair on said army, there is nothing they can do to prevent it, as the situation is built into the rules. An example would be Necrons, (although the new codex is now with imminent), an extra 2 turns gives the opponent an extra 2 turns to phase them out, which could effectively change a close victory into a loss. Especially if playing against an army which is particularly strong later in the game (Orks reaching combat - for example). This also particularly plays into the hands of reserve based armies, who have already denied their opponent several turns of shooting, and now have a couple more turns to reak havoc.
Finally, some may argue that another turn is not even nessecary, as especially in time constricted games, having another 2 turns unexpectedly can make the game seem like it is not finished by a long way and give an unclear result, despite the fact that on turn 5 the game may have been nearly over, especially if it was objective based as described above. This can leave both players feeling unsatisfied with the result is the game has to finish without completing the extra 2 turns, as if they were very close to wiping each other out they may not feel like a tie is a fair result. This also then prompts the system of victory points for tie-breakers, which do not reflect how the game has gone, especially if the opponent has been focussing on another victory condition, rather than eliminating the opponents forces.
After all this however, it is important to remember, that a large amount of 40k is predominantly based on luck, and these extra turns just seek to make us improve at adapting to changing situations, and to be overall better generals. They may also add a lot to a battle, especially if two equally matched forces were just getting into the thick of the bare-knuckle fighting, and as this point ending on turn 5 may mean both player would want to carry on. Again, this is very situational.
There is no doubt that this is a big part of the game...but whether another system is needed or not is not clear, I certainly think it adds another random and interesting dimension to the game, and in the current age of net-lists, MSU and unit redundancy, that is a welcome change. :)
What do you think? Should the end-turn rules be changed?
Hey man this is trignama from the bnc, saw ur request for followers there so thought I would check it out.
ReplyDeleteAs for the topic on hand rumour has it that random game length is gone come 6th edition. Games will last for 6 turns on all missions, this combined with other rumored changes is geared towards 40k becoming less reliant on luck and more so on strategy.
Random Game length is important. It forces you to plan ahead beyond turn 5 while still requiring you to have plans for if the game ends on turn 5.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned using unit Y to go Flat Out and contest an objective on turn 5. Some armies are unable to do this (Tyranids, Necrons, and any other army without Skimmers or Bikers)and thus they are put at a disadvantage. As it stands, it is generally a good idea to do so on Turn 5 if it will tip the balance, but it comes with a risk just like every other dynamic action in the game.
The situations you mentioned where Random Game Length has a negative impact on the players are no more common than anything else related to important rolls. Be it an important roll on the vehicle damage table or a morale check, when the game can go either way there is that risk of someone (or both players) being unhappy with the seemingly 'unfair' result.
Oh, and Necrons? They can also benefit from a longer game thanks to their 'We'll Be Back' rule as each turn they gain (close to) half of their dead warriors back, and later turns (when there are more downed) they gain more back, yielding a temporary advantage in the later turns when they could have silenced several enemy units and begin to regain more warriors than they lose each turn. It won't always work this way but it can, so it isn't an actual disadvantage to them. In fact, I can't think of any armies that are hurt by the game going longer or for a random amount of time.
By the way, this is Devjon here, also from B&C. I thought I might as well check out your Blog and from what I've seen so far (as little as there actually is) I think I'll stick around. Keep it up.