Dudeface wrote:


There's consistent mention of weapons from all factions across the game rending vehicles open, leaving hopes and broken components. Melta is often described as turning armour into molten slag and opening holes in things.

There are some answers to some of those things in the lore but nobody has encyclopedic knowledge of black library battle scenes enough to pluck them from memory. Likewise I doubt you could pull an example of the opposite from memory - a fluff example of a unit firing at a vehicle and doing literally nothing and knowing it will do nothing.

"Gunheads" by Steve Parker had Kasrkin & regular infantry firing at a looted Baneblade with lasguns & hellguns. Explicitly forbidden by the general in charge of the expedition since he was convinced that it was Yarrick's Baneblade, they fired on it to keep its attention while a Techpriest prepared some way to disable it without harming it.


Admittedly, the "keeping its attention" may defeat the purpose of what you're suggesting but...

Regards "getting in close and doing nastiness" what nastiness do you mean, given we've established they're not equipped to actually damage the thing?

That said, if GW wrote in plain English "this interaction exists to represent XYZ" would that be enough?

This is another one of those spots where I feel like the "Small Arms" keyword would be handy. Make it so that the real feels bad moment of the "Deadly Demise" trigger can't be popped off by Small Arms keyworded weapons.

is there a practical gameplay difference between "lasguns and factional equivalents can't hurt vehicles, but all infantry is provided with an option that can" and "lasguns and factional equivalents can hurt vehicles"? because in my mind, when we're talking about the abstraction of gameplay, the difference really is not meaningful. if we do that, and now all vehicles are immune to small arms but then infantry get weak anti-vehicle grenades, what difference is there? is this a conversation about abstract gameplay concepts, or is this a conversation about lore?

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
is there a practical gameplay difference between "lasguns and factional equivalents can't hurt vehicles, but all infantry is provided with an option that can" and "lasguns and factional equivalents can hurt vehicles"? because in my mind, when we're talking about the abstraction of gameplay, the difference really is not meaningful. if we do that, and now all vehicles are immune to small arms but then infantry get weak anti-vehicle grenades, what difference is there? is this a conversation about abstract gameplay concepts, or is this a conversation about lore?

There is a hefty difference, even in a pure abstracted gameplay sense, between infantry spraying and praying to chip off wounds at a distance, and the scenario where the vehicle is immune up until the point when the infantry get close and plant AT bombs on it with rewarding results. Lore aside, the difference in behavior and result is pretty stark, imo.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
. . .
They already told you, s4 power weapon, which at the time was no armour saves, in a time when a vehicle didn't have an armour save. The dread would be av12 on the front, so you'd need an 8 on a d6 to glance it.

Aaagghhktually. . .

In the Cityfight rules they made an adjustment to the Dreadnought rules in CC where a Dreadnought could only be hurt on the front during its first round of combat, but in subsequent rounds it could be hit on the rear, iirc. It may have had to do with model placement, but it's been 20+ years.

Cityfight wasn't always in play - it was a variant ruleset from, as you say, 20+ years ago. In most versions of the game, and, most relevantly, in majority of pre-8th rules, Dreadnoughts were immune to being attacked on the rear in melee. An optional ruleset from 20+ years ago is negligible defence here.

Gaunt and a flamer killed a Dreadnought. Neither used "anti-tank" weapons, which is the complaint being raised here.

Saying Cityfight is obscure when the scenarios being pulled from novels seem equally so is a bit rich. And I reiterate that the scenario being described is "finding/creating weak points in hand to hand combat", which is what the earlier versions of the game did a better job of describing, as opposed to the "spray and pray" at range which is the real source of critique. Not to mention having heroic characters performing hyperbolistic deeds is also not out of place in BL novels . . .

But AHKSHUALLY I did some digging out of curiosity and discovered that the "Only Attack The Front of Walkers" rule was introduced in 4th ed. In 3rd ed infantry could attack the rear armor if they Assaulted from the rear, or surrounded the model after a round of CC. Not sure about 2nd ed or earlier, but I'll check later.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Something one would have to be aware though:

tanks become immune to small arms fire

everyone and their mother "must" include severe amount of anti tank in their list

pure infantry spam becomes worthwhile as anti tank lists can't really bring them down

no more AT than they do now.
Intermediate weapons can damage tanks much more easily and believably than a bolter or lasgun.

People like you seem to completely forget S5-9 weapons are not uncommon in most armylists


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
is there a practical gameplay difference between "lasguns and factional equivalents can't hurt vehicles, but all infantry is provided with an option that can" and "lasguns and factional equivalents can hurt vehicles"? because in my mind, when we're talking about the abstraction of gameplay, the difference really is not meaningful. if we do that, and now all vehicles are immune to small arms but then infantry get weak anti-vehicle grenades, what difference is there? is this a conversation about abstract gameplay concepts, or is this a conversation about lore?

I mean if the difference is between a lasgun damaging a tank from 24” or doubling your chances at 12” or a satchel charge or krak grenade from 3”, I think so.

It is truly amazing to me that people are still beating this dead horse about 6's wounding everything. It has L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y zero impact on gameplay. You can 100% toss a dreadnought or leman russ at 100 guys with bolters and lasguns and have confidence that the vehicle will be fine. Vehicles in 10th edition are more durable then they were in 5th, where it was literally impossible to wound even the weakest vehicles with anything less than S4 weapons.

I cannot count how many times my Lord of Change or Swarmlord were killed in overwatch by a single lucky roll from a bolt pistol in 6th edition, yet I never whined that MCs should be immune to lasguns and bolters. Why would I complain about something that has like a 1/1000th chance of happening? Who cares?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
"Cinematic" in an abstract game is bad. No one wants to pay a ton of money for an army, invest time to learn how to play it, often money too if coaching is needed and then lose important games on a roll. The person who did the "kill" is not going to forget, but the person who had the negative expiriance of an opponent rolling +5/+6 and then them failing a +2 sv potentialy can. Making people remember feels bad moments is not good.

Every single person who plays 40k knows that it is a game of chance and RNG can make or break even the most thought-out strategies or surefire plans. If bad luck "ruined experiences" then there would be no auto-fails on a 1. The titan would always kill the gretchin in close combat. Telion would always land the shot.

If someone chooses to play a game full of randomness and then gets buttblasted when RNG screws them over, that is a personal problem and they shouldn't be playing tabletop games.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It is truly amazing to me that people are still beating this dead horse about 6's wounding everything. It has L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y zero impact on gameplay. You can 100% toss a dreadnought or leman russ at 100 guys with bolters and lasguns and have confidence that the vehicle will be fine. Vehicles in 10th edition are more durable then they were in 5th, where it was literally impossible to wound even the weakest vehicles with anything less than S4 weapons.

I cannot count how many times my Lord of Change or Swarmlord were killed in overwatch by a single lucky roll from a bolt pistol in 6th edition, yet I never whined that MCs should be immune to lasguns and bolters. Why would I complain about something that has like a 1/1000th chance of happening? Who cares?

If it has 0 effect on game play then removing it shouldn’t make a difference.
If it doesn’t make a difference how come I’ve been in multiple games since 8th where it has made a difference. Whether taking a wound off to lower the vehicle to the next bracket, or destroying the vehicle, completely removing any impact that vehicle may have otherwise had in the following turn?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It has L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y zero impact on gameplay.

Oh cool, so getting rid of it would speed up the game by eliminating worthless rolling with l-i-t-e-r-a-l-l-y no downsides.

That was easy. Why are we arguing again?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It is truly amazing to me that people are still beating this dead horse about 6's wounding everything. It has L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y zero impact on gameplay.

That is L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y untrue. I've definitely sprayed a few vehicles to death since 8th dropped. It was a go-to tactic in fact, when I was fielding a bunch of Devil-gaints back when the Devourer was 3 shots. Even more annoying was that it was sometimes more effective to spray at vehicles than at the Custodes in front of them.

Dudeface wrote:

Grenades are in essence a different gun, they also have the issue of being applicable to other targets and possibly creating further balance or logic issues. In the context of 40ks known framework, a krak grenade is a short range s6 ap-1 d2(?) Heavy 1 weapon maybe? In which case, there's arguments for using those instead of lasguns a lot of the time maybe when possible. If you limit the number of grenade throws per unit, that also seems weird.

Melee stuff - what can a guardsman with a bayonette and a shovel manage in melee that they couldn't from further afield with a laser rifle?

The current game core would need shredding to facilitate base humans having any meaningful effect on vehicles without being literal cannon fodder.

Grenades have been handled a few different ways over the ages. If we went back to relying on squad grenades to kill vehicles, we'd probably do something along the lines of letting every model in a squad use grenades but add a rule saying that Grenade weapons can only be used against units with the Vehicle or Monster keywords. I imagine we'd *probably* make grenades a melee weapon at that point too so that using them requires getting into melee with the target to represent taking the time to latch them onto weak points, etc. instead of just lobbing them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
is there a practical gameplay difference between "lasguns and factional equivalents can't hurt vehicles, but all infantry is provided with an option that can" and "lasguns and factional equivalents can hurt vehicles"? because in my mind, when we're talking about the abstraction of gameplay, the difference really is not meaningful. if we do that, and now all vehicles are immune to small arms but then infantry get weak anti-vehicle grenades, what difference is there? is this a conversation about abstract gameplay concepts, or is this a conversation about lore?

Rolling fewer dice for more effect might be less feelsbad for both the attacker and the defender and less time-consuming in general. Plus you could potentially require units get into melee to use their anti-tank tools, which adds an interesting change in behavior.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It is truly amazing to me that people are still beating this dead horse about 6's wounding everything. It has L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y zero impact on gameplay. You can 100% toss a dreadnought or leman russ at 100 guys with bolters and lasguns and have confidence that the vehicle will be fine.

I L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y guarantee you that neither of those is true.

no one is forcing you to fire small arms at vehicles. if it's going to be a waste of dice in your situation, then you don't need to do it

I’d like to see the ‘anti-‘ rule reworked as well.

I’m not a fan of how it is now. Again seems ham fisted.

I think I’d rather it simply improves the AP of the weapon by 1 against the designated target type

Or maybe each class of anti- could have a different effect, so for example
Anti-aircraft +1 to hit
Anti-tank +1 to damage
Anti-infantry improve AP by 1

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
no one is forcing you to fire small arms at vehicles. if it's going to be a waste of dice in your situation, then you don't need to do it

The only wasted dice are those not rolled.

ccs wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
no one is forcing you to fire small arms at vehicles. if it's going to be a waste of dice in your situation, then you don't need to do it

The only wasted dice are those not rolled.

you weren't one of the people complaining about being forced to roll pointless dice firing at tanks

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I’d like to see the ‘anti-‘ rule reworked as well.

I’m not a fan of how it is now. Again seems ham fisted.

I think I’d rather it simply improves the AP of the weapon by 1 against the designated target type

Or maybe each class of anti- could have a different effect, so for example
Anti-aircraft +1 to hit
Anti-tank +1 to damage
Anti-infantry improve AP by 1

Not sure if this is more trolling, but...

That would break quite a few weapons. And wouldn't make much sense for some of the weapons that have those rules. Ex: Splinter weapons would suddenly be better at getting through armor, but they'd be terrible at wounding infantry in the first place. And the thing making them better at getting through armor is poison? And anything with "haywire" in its name would suddenly be awful at wounding their intended target (vehicles) when historically being able to reliable do some amount of damage to vehicles is their whole thing.

ccs wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
no one is forcing you to fire small arms at vehicles. if it's going to be a waste of dice in your situation, then you don't need to do it

The only wasted dice are those not rolled.

The majority of dice rolled for this game are wasted. There are too many rolls per model, mostly because there are too many stages in attack resolution.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Grenades are in essence a different gun, they also have the issue of being applicable to other targets and possibly creating further balance or logic issues. In the context of 40ks known framework, a krak grenade is a short range s6 ap-1 d2(?) Heavy 1 weapon maybe? In which case, there's arguments for using those instead of lasguns a lot of the time maybe when possible. If you limit the number of grenade throws per unit, that also seems weird.

Melee stuff - what can a guardsman with a bayonette and a shovel manage in melee that they couldn't from further afield with a laser rifle?

The current game core would need shredding to facilitate base humans having any meaningful effect on vehicles without being literal cannon fodder.

Grenades have been handled a few different ways over the ages. If we went back to relying on squad grenades to kill vehicles, we'd probably do something along the lines of letting every model in a squad use grenades but add a rule saying that Grenade weapons can only be used against units with the Vehicle or Monster keywords. I imagine we'd *probably* make grenades a melee weapon at that point too so that using them requires getting into melee with the target to represent taking the time to latch them onto weak points, etc. instead of just lobbing them.

And this is what bugs me, those are equally odd abstractions. A person being unable to throw something, carrying an infinite number of grenades, slapping grenades on a hover tank in melee, understanding that slapping grenades on this beats stabbing it, but apparently aren't worth using against things that aren't vehicles/monster keywords.

These are all abstractions, it's just some upsets people's sensibilities more than others.

^Those are less of an abstraction than spray and pray with small arms being a proposed anti-tank doctrine for infantry.

"Understanding grenade vs. Stabbing" though . . . Really? That feels like a stretch to claim is abstract, especially for troops equipped with grenades. Presumably they're trained with them.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Those are less of an abstraction than spray and pray with small arms being a proposed anti-tank doctrine for infantry.

"Understanding grenade vs. Stabbing" though . . . Really? That feels like a stretch to claim is abstract, especially for troops equipped with grenades. Presumably they're trained with them.

At what point has anyone suggested spray and pray as a proposed anti-tank doctrine? You're moving goalposts.

Beyond that, if we're assuming krak grenades are for melee with hover tanks, winged monsters etc. which assumingly can/do hover 6+ft above the ground, how are they telescoping their arms without throwing them? If they're throwing them why aren't they a ranged profile? If they're a ranged profile, why would you use a lasgun? Do all members of a unit carry at least 5 of each grenade just in case (gonna be heavy to carry)?

Somehow stretch arm strong patting a winged daemon price well over their heads in the air with their infinite krak grenades (which with sustained magically duplicate no doubt) is making perfect sense where shooting it's eyes doesn't?

- Grenades become baseline equipment again for most infantry units.
- Grenades get a ranged profile.
- Grenades can be used in melee against certain targets.
- Grenade supply is abstraced the same way any other ammunition is.
- Add limitations if necessary (f.e. so grenades don't get used by the whole unit instead of their regular ranged profile)

Doesn't seem very complicated to implement.

 a_typical_hero wrote:
- Grenades become baseline equipment again for most infantry units.
- Grenades get a ranged profile.
- Grenades can be used in melee against certain targets.
- Grenade supply is abstraced the same way any other ammunition is.
- Add limitations if necessary (f.e. so grenades don't get used by the whole unit instead of their regular ranged profile)

Doesn't seem very complicated to implement.

What is the reasoning for them only being used against certain units? Where is the abstraction for their ammo? I can conceivably see how a lasgun with a few spare cells can last for 120 rounds or something, a grenade is once and gone and a lot heavier. Why does only Timmy the Trooper get to throw the grenade? Was it his lucky pants?

Why are these abstractions "better"?

Edit: I guess to stop beating about the bush - these are all abstractions for a made up sci-fi game with very loosey goosey rules in reality. People are falling back on "old edition" logic as it's formed more of their logical experience with the setting, such as the grenade rules. In reality none of them can ever be abstracted to a place that makes sense for everyone, but the 6+ to wound exist to facilitate a minor interaction in skew environments. It's in setting explanation is as weird and abstract as a load of the other dumbass things that happen and people do/don't complain about.

The only thing that changes is what explanations or interactions feel better to the reader.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I’d like to see the ‘anti-‘ rule reworked as well.

I’m not a fan of how it is now. Again seems ham fisted.

I think I’d rather it simply improves the AP of the weapon by 1 against the designated target type

Or maybe each class of anti- could have a different effect, so for example
Anti-aircraft +1 to hit
Anti-tank +1 to damage
Anti-infantry improve AP by 1

Not sure if this is more trolling, but...

That would break quite a few weapons. And wouldn't make much sense for some of the weapons that have those rules. Ex: Splinter weapons would suddenly be better at getting through armor, but they'd be terrible at wounding infantry in the first place. And the thing making them better at getting through armor is poison? And anything with "haywire" in its name would suddenly be awful at wounding their intended target (vehicles) when historically being able to reliable do some amount of damage to vehicles is their whole thing.

This would be for a whole new edition…not all weapons that have certain keywords now will have them then.

Dudeface wrote:

 a_typical_hero wrote:
- Grenades become baseline equipment again for most infantry units.
- Grenades get a ranged profile.
- Grenades can be used in melee against certain targets.
- Grenade supply is abstraced the same way any other ammunition is.
- Add limitations if necessary (f.e. so grenades don't get used by the whole unit instead of their regular ranged profile)

Doesn't seem very complicated to implement.

[1]What is the reasoning for them only being used against certain units? [2]Where is the abstraction for their ammo? I can conceivably see how a lasgun with a few spare cells can last for 120 rounds or something, a grenade is once and gone and a lot heavier. [3]Why does only Timmy the Trooper get to throw the grenade? Was it his lucky pants?

[4]Why are these abstractions "better"?.

[1] The topic of the discussion is a proposal to counter skew lists of certain units.
[2] Fighting a tank in melee is supposedly an exceptional situation compared to shooting at the enemy with a rifle. A couple grenades per model is enough to be believable within the given setting. I'd like to point out that Intercessors apparently have enough ammunition for a whole battle with a single bandolier worth of grenades to use with their grenade launcher.
[3] That is not a point I made.
[4] Alot of units have their models with actual modeled grenades. An implementation that let units use their actual equipment organically, instead of gating it behind a "1 per battle round" mechanic is preferable to me.

Removed for rule 1 - ingtær

I'm not sure I'd have expected this in late 2021/early 2022, but what I'd like in 11th is some of the bloat/complexity back. I don't think its critical to 40k as a game - but it could add depth/imagination.

Dark Eldar character equipment limitations have been done to death - but Psykers in general especially seem to have got the short end of the stick.

I wouldn't necesarilly want to go back to older editions. A system of "you have a choice of 6 spells, but 1 is an auto-include and you can maybe argue for 2 more" isn't the best. In some ways the "it just happens/or it happens on a 2+" is quicker/better than rolling to manifest/deny, or assigning dice from a pool of older editions. But the current lack of customisation makes a lot of psykers feel like 0-1 inclusions. Perhaps especially on top of the leader rules where you need a unit worth attaching too as well.

Maybe this is intentional. GSC are perhaps only meant to have 1 Magos (although given there are 2 models, this feels weird, and the continued bad rules feels bad). Maybe CSM Sorcerers are meant to be second fiddle to choppy guys. Regular Marine Librarians seem to have been paying for the ancient sins of 7th and never been that hot (maybe during late 8th's Marine Mania, but even then they seemed an optional extra). Farseers are probably okay (and I'm loathe to say buff Eldar) but you probably take the Jetbike one and that's it.

Maybe detachments should get one extra spell as an enhancement choice. Although given how spells are just abilities, maybe that's no different to now.

I guess I'm not clear on the answers - but its something I'd like to see more of. I also wouldn't be surprised to see it given 40k's history.

Tyel wrote:

I wouldn't necesarilly want to go back to older editions. A system of "you have a choice of 6 spells, but 1 is an auto-include and you can maybe argue for 2 more" isn't the best. In some ways the "it just happens/or it happens on a 2+" is quicker/better than rolling to manifest/deny, or assigning dice from a pool of older editions. But the current lack of customisation makes a lot of psykers feel like 0-1 inclusions. Perhaps especially on top of the leader rules where you need a unit worth attaching too as well.

Speaking mostly with eldar in mind, you could definitely give similar psykers a list of powers to choose from with minimal issue. Let your farseer on a bike Fortune something, let the farseer on foot Guide something, and let either of them opt to take Doom without having to be Eldrad. The biggest hurtle there, I guess, is that that requires you make all powers on the same list equally useful, which means you can't up the points cost of a broken power without punishing the seers that wanted to take the not-broken powers. And you'd maybe need to watch out for certain unintended combos; maybe a warlock granting Quicken to a squad of already-fast bikes ends up being a problem where it was fine on a squad of infantry or something.

Still, it really feels like it wouldn't be hard to just give powers a wargear cost again and let people choose between a few options. Or failing that, go ahead and design two or three options for each psyker datasheet (reusing options where viable). That way, you only have to make those powers viable against one another and can lower or raise the caster's points cost as needed without punishing other datasheets.

Maybe detachments should get one extra spell as an enhancement choice. Although given how spells are just abilities, maybe that's no different to now.

I like the idea of getting rid of stratagems, replacing them with command abilities, and then having detachments grant new command abilities to leaders. So maybe Fire and Fade (move-shoot-move) becomes an ability for characters on bikes in the not-Saim-hann detachment.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Speaking mostly with eldar in mind, you could definitely give similar psykers a list of powers to choose from with minimal issue. Let your farseer on a bike Fortune something, let the farseer on foot Guide something, and let either of them opt to take Doom without having to be Eldrad. The biggest hurtle there, I guess, is that that requires you make all powers on the same list equally useful, which means you can't up the points cost of a broken power without punishing the seers that wanted to take the not-broken powers. And you'd maybe need to watch out for certain unintended combos; maybe a warlock granting Quicken to a squad of already-fast bikes ends up being a problem where it was fine on a squad of infantry or something.

Still, it really feels like it wouldn't be hard to just give powers a wargear cost again and let people choose between a few options. Or failing that, go ahead and design two or three options for each psyker datasheet (reusing options where viable). That way, you only have to make those powers viable against one another and can lower or raise the caster's points cost as needed without punishing other datasheets.

I don't think it should be that hard to come up with say 3 abilities that are roughly the same value. As you say, if say Farseers of all types had access to Fortune/Guide/Doom, but you had to pick 1 at the start, would it really throw the entire game? The "I can't believe its not Ulthwe" Detachment could have an enhancement that lets you use two or something.

I feel character customisation is a point of expression. Its been curtailed a lot in 10th - and I'd like to see it restored a bit. I don't really want to open the door to "this is an overcosted useless character" and "this is the blender to end all blenders now included in every tournament list". But the "you get zero options but can take one of four enhancements" feels too limiting. Even if some characters/enhancements are clearly very good.

Tyel wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Speaking mostly with eldar in mind, you could definitely give similar psykers a list of powers to choose from with minimal issue. Let your farseer on a bike Fortune something, let the farseer on foot Guide something, and let either of them opt to take Doom without having to be Eldrad. The biggest hurtle there, I guess, is that that requires you make all powers on the same list equally useful, which means you can't up the points cost of a broken power without punishing the seers that wanted to take the not-broken powers. And you'd maybe need to watch out for certain unintended combos; maybe a warlock granting Quicken to a squad of already-fast bikes ends up being a problem where it was fine on a squad of infantry or something.

Still, it really feels like it wouldn't be hard to just give powers a wargear cost again and let people choose between a few options. Or failing that, go ahead and design two or three options for each psyker datasheet (reusing options where viable). That way, you only have to make those powers viable against one another and can lower or raise the caster's points cost as needed without punishing other datasheets.

I don't think it should be that hard to come up with say 3 abilities that are roughly the same value. As you say, if say Farseers of all types had access to Fortune/Guide/Doom, but you had to pick 1 at the start, would it really throw the entire game? The "I can't believe its not Ulthwe" Detachment could have an enhancement that lets you use two or something.

I feel character customisation is a point of expression. Its been curtailed a lot in 10th - and I'd like to see it restored a bit. I don't really want to open the door to "this is an overcosted useless character" and "this is the blender to end all blenders now included in every tournament list". But the "you get zero options but can take one of four enhancements" feels too limiting. Even if some characters/enhancements are clearly very good.

Fully agree. The lack of customization is one of the biggest bummers in 10th, and it feels like the only reason we don't currently have more customization options is that GW doesn't feel like greenlighting it.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Those are less of an abstraction than spray and pray with small arms being a proposed anti-tank doctrine for infantry.

"Understanding grenade vs. Stabbing" though . . . Really? That feels like a stretch to claim is abstract, especially for troops equipped with grenades. Presumably they're trained with them.

At what point has anyone suggested spray and pray as a proposed anti-tank doctrine? You're moving goalposts.

It's the defense of the current paradigm. Claiming that S3 needs to be able to wound high T targets in order to provide an option for non AT specialists to deal with armor, is in effect "spray and pray".

Dudeface wrote:

Beyond that, if we're assuming krak grenades are for melee with hover tanks, winged monsters etc. which assumingly can/do hover 6+ft above the ground, how are they telescoping their arms without throwing them? If they're throwing them why aren't they a ranged profile? If they're a ranged profile, why would you use a lasgun? Do all members of a unit carry at least 5 of each grenade just in case (gonna be heavy to carry)?

Somehow stretch arm strong patting a winged daemon price well over their heads in the air with their infinite krak grenades (which with sustained magically duplicate no doubt) is making perfect sense where shooting it's eyes doesn't?

I'm fine with being able to throw Krak grenades, tbh. It was something that whole squads could be done in 2nd ed too, with a modifier to hit because they had to be precise, iirc.

But as to why aiming at weak spots might be inneffective is that I'd assume that infantry were already aiming at weak points on creatures and tanks to the best of their ability. There's just a point where a vehicle/creature is so tough that it's a pointless excercise.

Dudeface wrote:

Why are these abstractions "better"?

Because they make more sense in terms of unit behavior, and they provide more interesting game mechanics.

Or at catbarf said:

 catbarf wrote:

Tanks being at risk from small arms is a mechanic that does not track with my impression of how tanks operate within this fictional universe, does not track with how tanks work IRL, and was not present for the majority of this game's history. 'Anything can hurt anything' is a crude attempt to smooth over a more fundamental game design problem, and the post-hoc rationalizations seem more like thought experiments than anything based on lore, verisimilitude, or gameplay precedent. If the lore has evolved and I'm just out of date then I'm all ears, but given that so far the responses have been at best tangentially related to my simple request, I don't think it has.

Yeah. As much time as I've spent defending "spray and pray" on this thread, I'd probably prefer something like grenades if that option is on the table. Less rolling for more effect, and opting to go to the trouble of getting close to the enemy vehicle feels like an intentional choice whereas hosing it with rifle fire from the opposite side of the table feels a little more abstract.

Like, I still think you can feasibly finish off a tank with a lasgun by hitting the right spot, but the sort of desperate, creative actions that allow that to happen (like the examples Smudge provided) feel like they're better represented by short-ranged attacks where it's easier to imagine the infantry shoving guns and grenades through holes in the hull or lining up shots on on exposed components.

OK, I looked a bit into myself why this bothers me so much and have to adjust my stance from above a bit:
I could well live with vehicles being immune to small arms fire. I would prefer if standard-line-troops could somehow interact with vehicles, be it planting grenades or at least slow them down without damaging them or something, but I'm not adamant on that. I believe I could still enjoy well made rules if no interaction would happen at all.

Attention: Rant begins:
BUT: questioning my emotional responses above I realize my main issue with this is the whole "that is unrealistic" argument of lasguns damaging vehicles when meanwhile Meltagunners or Lascannons getting within 10 yards or even being literally in point blank range still have very unimpressive chances of seriously damaging a vehicle or outright cannot shoot at it (see engagement range) while this exact situation should result in near 100% hit chances. And this is defended with the arguments of "it's abstraction man! Doing it realistically would feel bad man! Gamemechanics are more important!"
The same with the argument that the lasgun, a lightweight, point and click weapon with linear shot (not ballistic) "flying" at the speed of light has more or less 50% chance to outright miss a target the size of a great unclean one from a meter away which is again defended with "its game mechanics dude!"
So the general image of "realism" and "immersion" brought up when it fits the more elite armies but ignored when it doesn't
Rant ending



On a more productive matter on hopes for 11th core rules. I personally (and you can feel free to fight me for it) think that the regeneration/reinforcement mechanics that worked at the beginning of 10th for Guard for example (I'm not completely familiar how they worked for Nids) had/have a lot of potential. It will take a heavy amount of work and experimentation to get it right, but I believe this might be a pathway to achieve the balance of elite armies getting to feel really elite (so SM boltering down dozens of grunts without much hassle) while still allowing the armies of grunts to function over 4-5 rounds because they are allowed to keep playing since their dudes grow back. And all that without needing to have 400+ bodies on the field.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. As much time as I've spent defending "spray and pray" on this thread, I'd probably prefer something like grenades if that option is on the table. Less rolling for more effect, and opting to go to the trouble of getting close to the enemy vehicle feels like an intentional choice whereas hosing it with rifle fire from the opposite side of the table feels a little more abstract.

Like, I still think you can feasibly finish off a tank with a lasgun by hitting the right spot, but the sort of desperate, creative actions that allow that to happen (like the examples Smudge provided) feel like they're better represented by short-ranged attacks where it's easier to imagine the infantry shoving guns and grenades through holes in the hull or lining up shots on on exposed components.

You know, as much hate as it gets, Hull Points kinda did that. An already damaged vehicle would fall apart after a certain amount of damage, even though the final hit wouldn't normally be a lethal kill. NOT that i'd advocate bringing that particular batch of rules back.

I'm totally open to exploring the possibilities of degrading protection though. I also don't know too much about real-world examples regarding it either. Imo it seems much easier to exploit weak points at close range or CC, rather than at longer ranges.

 Pyroalchi wrote:

The same with the argument that the lasgun, a lightweight, point and click weapon with linear shot (not ballistic) "flying" at the speed of light has more or less 50% chance to outright miss a target the size of a great unclean one from a meter away which is again defended with "its game mechanics dude!"

Missing with point-blank shots is kind of weird. I usually try to head canon it as the gun actually hitting, but not hitting the "right spot." The meltagun was a little high and gave the rhino a new sunroof. The lasguns are all plinking off of the armor, but anyone who stands up from behind cover long enough to draw a bead on something fragile-looking risks catching the eye of the guy manning the storm bolter.

In a future edition, I think we could probably play around with the importance of range more. Maybe grant to-hit bonuses to some weapons if they get closer to their target (this is sort of what rapid fire is meant to represent I guess) or explore the idea of weapons hitting better against distant targets than they do up close (sniper rifles, artillery) or having stealth-related rules move towards making units untargetable beyond a certain distance while they're in cover or whatever rather than just providing an armor bonus or to-hit penalty.

On a more productive matter on hopes for 11th core rules. I personally (and you can feel free to fight me for it) think that the regeneration/reinforcement mechanics that worked at the beginning of 10th for Guard for example (I'm not completely familiar how they worked for Nids) had/have a lot of potential. It will take a heavy amount of work and experimentation to get it right, but I believe this might be a pathway to achieve the balance of elite armies getting to feel really elite (so SM boltering down dozens of grunts without much hassle) while still allowing the armies of grunts to function over 4-5 rounds because they are allowed to keep playing since their dudes grow back. And all that without needing to have 400+ bodies on the field.

Was the respawning unit thing actually causing a problem? I played against it exactly once, was surprised by it, but it ultimately didn't make a huge difference to my game. Then again, I also used my archon to make it too expensive to use more than once, so...

 Pyroalchi wrote:

Attention: Rant begins:
BUT: questioning my emotional responses above I realize my main issue with this is the whole "that is unrealistic" argument of lasguns damaging vehicles when meanwhile Meltagunners or Lascannons getting within 10 yards or even being literally in point blank range still have very unimpressive chances of seriously damaging a vehicle or outright cannot shoot at it (see engagement range) while this exact situation should result in near 100% hit chances. And this is defended with the arguments of "it's abstraction man! Doing it realistically would feel bad man! Gamemechanics are more important!"
The same with the argument that the lasgun, a lightweight, point and click weapon with linear shot (not ballistic) "flying" at the speed of light has more or less 50% chance to outright miss a target the size of a great unclean one from a meter away which is again defended with "its game mechanics dude!"
So the general image of "realism" and "immersion" brought up when it fits the more elite armies but ignored when it doesn't
Rant ending

I am sympathetic to this, particularly how 40k handles ranges and their comparison to model size. Ranges might be the most abstracted-for-gameplay thing in 40k.

A major factor regarding "which level of abstraction to use" imo, is really what behavior do you want to encourage for both the players and the troops they "command". Units going full auto with small arms against armored vehicles at range is a behavior I'd want to drop in favor of moving against vehicles in close quarters with AT equipment, and/or flanking them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Missing with point-blank shots is kind of weird. I usually try to head canon it as the gun actually hitting, but not hitting the "right spot."

Yeah that's generally my take as well.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I’d like to see the ‘anti-‘ rule reworked as well.

I’m not a fan of how it is now. Again seems ham fisted.

I think I’d rather it simply improves the AP of the weapon by 1 against the designated target type

Or maybe each class of anti- could have a different effect, so for example
Anti-aircraft +1 to hit
Anti-tank +1 to damage
Anti-infantry improve AP by 1

kinda like aos4 is doing it, where the rule is "Anti-x (buff)"

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Attention: Rant begins:
BUT: questioning my emotional responses above I realize my main issue with this is the whole "that is unrealistic" argument of lasguns damaging vehicles when meanwhile Meltagunners or Lascannons getting within 10 yards or even being literally in point blank range still have very unimpressive chances of seriously damaging a vehicle or outright cannot shoot at it (see engagement range) while this exact situation should result in near 100% hit chances. And this is defended with the arguments of "it's abstraction man! Doing it realistically would feel bad man! Gamemechanics are more important!"
The same with the argument that the lasgun, a lightweight, point and click weapon with linear shot (not ballistic) "flying" at the speed of light has more or less 50% chance to outright miss a target the size of a great unclean one from a meter away which is again defended with "its game mechanics dude!"
So the general image of "realism" and "immersion" brought up when it fits the more elite armies but ignored when it doesn't
Rant ending

Do people defend that mechanic as a necessary abstraction for the sake of the game? I haven't seen it in this thread, and the fixed hit values is something I've been critical of since I started playing 40K. Even the simplest wargames usually have, at the very least, some distinction between 'optimal range' and 'long range'.

I mean, while we're here airing grievances with game mechanics, those fixed hit values are a contributing factor to a number of problems:
-Weapons being difficult to design for specific roles- anti-tank weapons double as anti-aircraft, and good anti-tank weapons are often good anti-heavy-infantry weapons too
-'Speed as defense' isn't represented in the core mechanics at all, so it has to be kludged in via the same defensive mechanic as energy shields
-Negative to-hit modifiers completely break the game if they're allowed to stack, because there's no way to gain a situational bonus to offset those penalties
-Many units can shoot at full effectiveness from turn 1, making it difficult to strike a balance between the game being too lethal or too non-lethal, because lethality doesn't escalate with proximity

Really, it isn't a to-hit mechanic at all, abstract or otherwise. It's just a crude filter to adjust damage output according to shooter skill, and not a particularly effective one at that since the absolute best you can be (2+) isn't even twice as good as a conscript (4+).

So I mean, yeah, I think it's pretty silly that the differing protective capabilities of armor types or the armor penetration of different types of ammunition is something modeled in the game and yet a grot in the next zip code is exactly as hard to hit as a Titan looming over you. I was genuinely surprised that 9th didn't at least incorporate the mechanic from Kill Team of a -1 at over half range.

Edit: Weapon ranges also create some real head-scratchers when compared to model size, as does the implied timescale of movement rates relative to model sizes, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. As much time as I've spent defending "spray and pray" on this thread, I'd probably prefer something like grenades if that option is on the table. Less rolling for more effect, and opting to go to the trouble of getting close to the enemy vehicle feels like an intentional choice whereas hosing it with rifle fire from the opposite side of the table feels a little more abstract.

Like, I still think you can feasibly finish off a tank with a lasgun by hitting the right spot, but the sort of desperate, creative actions that allow that to happen (like the examples Smudge provided) feel like they're better represented by short-ranged attacks where it's easier to imagine the infantry shoving guns and grenades through holes in the hull or lining up shots on on exposed components.

You know, as much hate as it gets, Hull Points kinda did that. An already damaged vehicle would fall apart after a certain amount of damage, even though the final hit wouldn't normally be a lethal kill. NOT that i'd advocate bringing that particular batch of rules back.

I'm totally open to exploring the possibilities of degrading protection though. I also don't know too much about real-world examples regarding it either. Imo it seems much easier to exploit weak points at close range or CC, rather than at longer ranges.

I kind of liked hull points at the time! It gave you the AV system (with all its pros and cons) but solved the 5th edition problem of vehicles being shaken 20 times but never suffering any lasting damage because of dice rolls. That said, once they gave vehicles what were basically Wounds, it made sense for someone to scratch their head and ask why they were bothering with a whole secondary attack resolution system when they could just give vehicles Toughness and Saves instead.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
[...]
Was the respawning unit thing actually causing a problem? I played against it exactly once, was surprised by it, but it ultimately didn't make a huge difference to my game. Then again, I also used my archon to make it too expensive to use more than once, so...

It was more or less killed for Guard in the last update, as reinforcements can now only be used once. So max 20 troops can be brought back, which is quite a bummer and I doubt it was necessary. But here we are.

Psychic powers: The whole system needs a buff, as psychers just aren't working right. I don't think we need a whole psychic phase to do it though. Just have them count as an extra action for movement/shooting/assault with an appropriate statline for the moment.

Have psychers be able to cast or dispell a certain number of spells per player turn. 1 for basic psychers, three for good ones, four for exceptional ones/special characters. Usual limits apply if it counts as a weapon.

Dispelling spells? I think should have a max range from diapeller to target unit. Have certain wargear (psychic hoods and the sort) buff the range of the dispell or the chance of it succeeding. Some archane wargear could have an area of effect.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Psychic powers: The whole system needs a buff, as psychers just aren't working right. I don't think we need a whole psychic phase to do it though. Just have them count as an extra action for movement/shooting/assault with an appropriate statline for the moment.

Have psychers be able to cast or dispell a certain number of spells per player turn. 1 for basic psychers, three for good ones, four for exceptional ones/special characters. Usual limits apply if it counts as a weapon.

Dispelling spells? I think should have a max range from diapeller to target unit. Have certain wargear (psychic hoods and the sort) buff the range of the dispell or the chance of it succeeding. Some archane wargear could have an area of effect.

Nothing wrong with wanting what you want, but I never understood why people so often seem determined to let psykers stop eachother from doing cool things. You don't see librarians failing to put up kineshields or throw lightning around just because there's another psyker nearby in lore, and people aren't frequently calling for Deny the Commander rolls that let my autarch turn off your lieutenant buffs.

Is it just that people got used to being allowed to turn off powers during the warp dice minigame of 7th? Is it a desire to see psykers nerfed? Just seems strange to me.

I do miss my Tempestas discipline. :(

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Psychic powers: The whole system needs a buff, as psychers just aren't working right. I don't think we need a whole psychic phase to do it though. Just have them count as an extra action for movement/shooting/assault with an appropriate statline for the moment.

Have psychers be able to cast or dispell a certain number of spells per player turn. 1 for basic psychers, three for good ones, four for exceptional ones/special characters. Usual limits apply if it counts as a weapon.

Dispelling spells? I think should have a max range from diapeller to target unit. Have certain wargear (psychic hoods and the sort) buff the range of the dispell or the chance of it succeeding. Some archane wargear could have an area of effect.

Nothing wrong with wanting what you want, but I never understood why people so often seem determined to let psykers stop eachother from doing cool things. You don't see librarians failing to put up kineshields or throw lightning around just because there's another psyker nearby in lore, and people aren't frequently calling for Deny the Commander rolls that let my autarch turn off your lieutenant buffs.

Is it just that people got used to being allowed to turn off powers during the warp dice minigame of 7th? Is it a desire to see psykers nerfed? Just seems strange to me.

Good points. If a psychic shooting attack happens, just treat it as bullets. don't bog down the game.

Honestly, I think the psychic system from 8th and 9th was perfectly fine aside frome everything being mortal wounds. Take the effects from 10th and the mechanic from 8th, done.
Morale needs more oomph, maybe some suppression, crossfire, whatever. Right now it's not terrible and it's good it's not ignored by most factions, but it's just not very impactful.
10th main problem is unit options and points, though. Kill no models no rules and same points for everything. Allow variety and allow us to play our models.

Requiring a cast roll and being able to deny it in some way opens up a lot of design space throughout all factions. To the point were the lack of a psychic offense / defense can be defining traits for some factions. See Tau or Dark Eldar for example.

Giving bonuses to cast (and deny) rolls is a way to differentiate the power of certain psykers without making the used psychic effect directly more lethal.

Psychic hoods have been part of the game at least since 3rd edition, so I can't agree on the point that this does not occur in the background. 3rd edition predates like 99% of all 40k novels ever written and clearly (imho) takes priority when it comes to whats officially possible in the setting. Psychic hoods have been with Space Marines until today and always helped with stopping the enemies psychic abilities in one way or another.

I agree that psychic powers should skip the to hit roll and go directly to wounding. Your "hit" was your psychic test.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:Honestly, I think the psychic system from 8th and 9th was perfectly fine aside frome everything being mortal wounds. Take the effects from 10th and the mechanic from 8th, done.
Morale needs more oomph, maybe some suppression, crossfire, whatever. Right now it's not terrible and it's good it's not ignored by most factions, but it's just not very impactful.
10th main problem is unit options and points, though. Kill no models no rules and same points for everything. Allow variety and allow us to play our models.

Hard disagree on psychic.
“Roll 2d6 and hope for the best” is not an engaging system.

Agreed on options and points, though.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. As much time as I've spent defending "spray and pray" on this thread, I'd probably prefer something like grenades if that option is on the table. Less rolling for more effect, and opting to go to the trouble of getting close to the enemy vehicle feels like an intentional choice whereas hosing it with rifle fire from the opposite side of the table feels a little more abstract.

Like, I still think you can feasibly finish off a tank with a lasgun by hitting the right spot, but the sort of desperate, creative actions that allow that to happen (like the examples Smudge provided) feel like they're better represented by short-ranged attacks where it's easier to imagine the infantry shoving guns and grenades through holes in the hull or lining up shots on on exposed components.

You know, as much hate as it gets, Hull Points kinda did that. An already damaged vehicle would fall apart after a certain amount of damage, even though the final hit wouldn't normally be a lethal kill. NOT that i'd advocate bringing that particular batch of rules back.

I'm totally open to exploring the possibilities of degrading protection though. I also don't know too much about real-world examples regarding it either. Imo it seems much easier to exploit weak points at close range or CC, rather than at longer ranges.

I kind of liked hull points at the time! It gave you the AV system (with all its pros and cons) but solved the 5th edition problem of vehicles being shaken 20 times but never suffering any lasting damage because of dice rolls. That said, once they gave vehicles what were basically Wounds, it made sense for someone to scratch their head and ask why they were bothering with a whole secondary attack resolution system when they could just give vehicles Toughness and Saves instead.

When the discussion's come up before, I've proposed that instead of using hull points to cause vehicles to suffer critical existence failure as soon as they get glanced three times, you just have each glancing or penetrating hit inflict a cumulative +1 to all future damage rolls. Then you could rework the damage table so all the vehicle destruction occurs at higher rolls. Vehicles would be much less susceptible to that first-turn instant death from a lucky lascannon, but also far less likely to tank three lascannon hits in a row with negligible damage.

Of course, that's not really about softening the armor itself, so kind of a separate tangent from the prior discussion.

JNAProductions wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:Honestly, I think the psychic system from 8th and 9th was perfectly fine aside frome everything being mortal wounds. Take the effects from 10th and the mechanic from 8th, done.
Morale needs more oomph, maybe some suppression, crossfire, whatever. Right now it's not terrible and it's good it's not ignored by most factions, but it's just not very impactful.
10th main problem is unit options and points, though. Kill no models no rules and same points for everything. Allow variety and allow us to play our models.

Hard disagree on psychic.
“Roll 2d6 and hope for the best” is not an engaging system.

Agreed on options and points, though.

Agreed. Psychic tests are uninteresting, unfluffy, and just kind of feelsbad when they fail. Again, no one expects lieutenants to roll to see if they randomly fail to buff their squad. But charging points for powers and providing a list of options for each psyker would be nice.

catbarf wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. As much time as I've spent defending "spray and pray" on this thread, I'd probably prefer something like grenades if that option is on the table. Less rolling for more effect, and opting to go to the trouble of getting close to the enemy vehicle feels like an intentional choice whereas hosing it with rifle fire from the opposite side of the table feels a little more abstract.

Like, I still think you can feasibly finish off a tank with a lasgun by hitting the right spot, but the sort of desperate, creative actions that allow that to happen (like the examples Smudge provided) feel like they're better represented by short-ranged attacks where it's easier to imagine the infantry shoving guns and grenades through holes in the hull or lining up shots on on exposed components.

You know, as much hate as it gets, Hull Points kinda did that. An already damaged vehicle would fall apart after a certain amount of damage, even though the final hit wouldn't normally be a lethal kill. NOT that i'd advocate bringing that particular batch of rules back.

I'm totally open to exploring the possibilities of degrading protection though. I also don't know too much about real-world examples regarding it either. Imo it seems much easier to exploit weak points at close range or CC, rather than at longer ranges.

I kind of liked hull points at the time! It gave you the AV system (with all its pros and cons) but solved the 5th edition problem of vehicles being shaken 20 times but never suffering any lasting damage because of dice rolls. That said, once they gave vehicles what were basically Wounds, it made sense for someone to scratch their head and ask why they were bothering with a whole secondary attack resolution system when they could just give vehicles Toughness and Saves instead.

When the discussion's come up before, I've proposed that instead of using hull points to cause vehicles to suffer critical existence failure as soon as they get glanced three times, you just have each glancing or penetrating hit inflict a cumulative +1 to all future damage rolls. Then you could rework the damage table so all the vehicle destruction occurs at higher rolls. Vehicles would be much less susceptible to that first-turn instant death from a lucky lascannon, but also far less likely to tank three lascannon hits in a row with negligible damage.

Of course, that's not really about softening the armor itself, so kind of a separate tangent from the prior discussion.

I can get behind that. It *is* a topic for another place, but I think that would address both the feels-bads of one-shot-kills and the frustration of unkillable 5th edition vehicles. And it makes each hit feel like progress towards eventually killing the target even if you're only shaking it for now.

I think I agreed with someone that I like 10th basically as is. However upon further review I do agree with some of the points that it could be refined.

Battle Shock - They need to make the rule "test for battle shock if below half strength and/or if the unit began the command phase already battle shocked". Then in addition to what battle shock does, it should turn off your detachment and/or faction rules i.e. can't use Oath re-rolls if battle shocked. This would give it some actual use, without a bunch of stacking modifiers. Some armies, like Thousand Sons, this is already the case as battle shock prevents generating cabal points.

Psykers - I play Eldar, CSM and TS and I love Psykers, and I was really worried about the removing of the psychic phase as I played in 3-5th where psychic powers were basically an afterthought other than doom/guide (or lash if you remember that BS). However I think they implemented it very well and handled the Thousand Sons very well with the cabal points (they really feel like a psychic army). However, in a perfect world I would probably add a rule where you make like 3-6 "powers" available (only use one per turn) and let psykers sub out their "power" that is on the data sheet for it. This way you could modify your psykers a bit, and I don't think this would add to much complexity. I also don't want to return to tests for shooting style attacks. That really did tip the balance in many games with having just one bad psychic phase.

Devastating wounds - it needs to go. make it -2 ap or something. It is to much now and to wide spread. If you want to cause mortal wounds on an attack it should be like "obliterating wounds" and be EXTREMELY limited to like only this like abbadon or gillimean etc.

All the talk about going back to armor values, damage rolls to destroy weapons, etc. I just don't agree with. Not that I don't think you can't make really good rules for that, it is just the game it to large in scope now for all that went into that, you would have to limit down the number of models on the board, at which point, just make a vehicle version of kill team for that. A lot of that stuff just adds complexity for the sake of complexity. Why have a whole different system for vehicles? What about monsters? Personally I feel like vehicles in 10th are harder to kill than when they had armor values.

Maybe I am in the minority, but with the size and scope of the game, I agree with GW's position of making the game simpler and easier. I mean I feel like maneuvering does matter, and the game plays faster then it ever has, at least that is my experience. Anyway that is my opinion, have at it.

 xeen wrote:
I think I agreed with someone that I like 10th basically as is. However upon further review I do agree with some of the points that it could be refined.

Battle Shock - They need to make the rule "test for battle shock if below half strength and/or if the unit began the command phase already battle shocked". Then in addition to what battle shock does, it should turn off your detachment and/or faction rules i.e. can't use Oath re-rolls if battle shocked. This would give it some actual use, without a bunch of stacking modifiers. Some armies, like Thousand Sons, this is already the case as battle shock prevents generating cabal points.

Psykers - I play Eldar, CSM and TS and I love Psykers, and I was really worried about the removing of the psychic phase as I played in 3-5th where psychic powers were basically an afterthought other than doom/guide (or lash if you remember that BS). However I think they implemented it very well and handled the Thousand Sons very well with the cabal points (they really feel like a psychic army). However, in a perfect world I would probably add a rule where you make like 3-6 "powers" available (only use one per turn) and let psykers sub out their "power" that is on the data sheet for it. This way you could modify your psykers a bit, and I don't think this would add to much complexity. I also don't want to return to tests for shooting style attacks. That really did tip the balance in many games with having just one bad psychic phase.

Devastating wounds - it needs to go. make it -2 ap or something. It is to much now and to wide spread. If you want to cause mortal wounds on an attack it should be like "obliterating wounds" and be EXTREMELY limited to like only this like abbadon or gillimean etc.

All the talk about going back to armor values, damage rolls to destroy weapons, etc. I just don't agree with. Not that I don't think you can't make really good rules for that, it is just the game it to large in scope now for all that went into that, you would have to limit down the number of models on the board, at which point, just make a vehicle version of kill team for that. A lot of that stuff just adds complexity for the sake of complexity. Why have a whole different system for vehicles? What about monsters? Personally I feel like vehicles in 10th are harder to kill than when they had armor values.

Maybe I am in the minority, but with the size and scope of the game, I agree with GW's position of making the game simpler and easier. I mean I feel like maneuvering does matter, and the game plays faster then it ever has, at least that is my experience. Anyway that is my opinion, have at it.

Devastating Wounds is fine as a concept.
It being overused for some armies is a separate issue.

It'd be neat if Psykers (and, honestly, most characters) had a choice of a few options. Generally, I'd think you should get one Offense, one Defense, and one Other ability.
Like, a SM Librarian right now has Mental Fortress, which is a 4+ Invuln for their unit. Let them swap it for one of the below.
-Telekine Movement: Add 2" to models in this unit's Move Characteristic, and they can ignore terrain when moving.
-Psychic Smash: A Melee Weapon with Extra Attacks, Pyschic, and a profile of 4 WS3+ S8 AP-2 D2 attacks.

A SM Chaplain could replace Litany of Hate (+1 to-wound in melee) with one of the below.
-Litany Of Endurance: When a model in this unit is killed by a melee attack, they can still make their melee attacks this phase before being removed.
-Litany Of Faith: Models in this unit have a 6+ FNP.

These are just off the cuff examples-no promises to their balance.

Yeah. Exarch powers and Pivotal Roles in 8th and 9th were great. I was really hoping they'd move towards making something like that available to more units. Let CSM chosen choose from a list of "veteran abilities" that define what role they play. Let an archon choose between a CP manipulation power, a beatstick power, and a buff-stuff-while-still-in-the-raider power. A little customization would go a long way. A trio of exarch powers and one or two exarch weapons for each aspect squad made them feel really customizable and satisfying.

Devastating wounds - it needs to go. make it -2 ap or something. It is to much now and to wide spread. If you want to cause mortal wounds on an attack it should be like "obliterating wounds" and be EXTREMELY limited to like only this like abbadon or gillimean etc.

DW, SH, and LH are all fine, but they're also all kind of bland and seem to be getting handed out kind of thoughtlessly. Lots of characters are clearly just being given one of those three rules because GW doesn't know what else to do with them.

But DWs are mostly fine. The stuff that has them mostly has to pay for them. Like, rubricae being able to get DW on all their shooting via a strat is strong, but I wouldn't call it game breaking. Night spinners having DW is strong, but they're probably priced reasonably for that strength at this point.

All the talk about going back to armor values, damage rolls to destroy weapons, etc. I just don't agree with. Not that I don't think you can't make really good rules for that, it is just the game it to large in scope now for all that went into that, you would have to limit down the number of models on the board, at which point, just make a vehicle version of kill team for that. A lot of that stuff just adds complexity for the sake of complexity. Why have a whole different system for vehicles?

That's a fair criticism. Personally, I do feel like 40k is at its best at like, 1k-1500 points, so I like fewer models anyway. But you're right that tracking shaken, stunned, destroyed weapons, and immobilized could be a bit much.

What about monsters?

If we were to go back to some sort of AV/damage system, I'd probably just treat monsters the same as vehicles. A carnifex can have its brain rattled and its limbs blown off too, after all.

But also note that making monsters/vehicles immune to small arms doesn't necessarily mean bringing back AV. You could apply catbarf's damage proposal and still use S vs T instead of AV.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

JNAProductions wrote:Hard disagree on psychic.
“Roll 2d6 and hope for the best” is not an engaging system.

Agreed. Psychic tests are uninteresting, unfluffy, and just kind of feelsbad when they fail. Again, no one expects lieutenants to roll to see if they randomly fail to buff their squad. But charging points for powers and providing a list of options for each psyker would be nice.

Thing is, it generally wasn't "roll 2d6 and hope for the best" - there was always at least the threat of Perils, and often, there was more play than that- so for example a piece of wargear might have augmented the roll- something which could be done in many different ways- roll 3 pick 2, +1 to the roll, rerolls- both those where if you use it you must reroll both, or the version that allows you to reroll just one, etc.

Now I'm not saying that we couldn't come up with a better system; we probably could. But at the very least, Perils needs to feel like the threat to humanity that it is- adding the hazardous keyword to a shooting attack does not feel like a psychic power that went awry, breached the veil between realspace and the warp and allowed something horrifying to claw its way through the tear.

And in some editions, it very much DID feel that way.

Deny the Witch is another layer- it isn't the psychic test itself, which may be the only thing that people find objectionable; if so, this next part won't matter much. But Deny the Witch feels better when it is an active roll by the Denier rather than a FNP vs. Mortals. And again, Deny isn't just Deny- there are systems that interact with it.

I liked the way psyker didn't used to feel like everything else... Just shooting or hitting but with a different keyword.

It used to feel like when two armies fought, they'd try to survey each other from a distance, and while every other soldier in the army was focused on relative positions of enemy and allied assets in relation to each other and mission objectives, the psykers and witches of opposing forces engage warp sight, seeing what others cannot; they plan both offensive and defensive strategies, and they know that their allies are far less able to withstand the enemy's psychic assault.

The 8th/9th systems of psychic rules weren't perfect and certainly could be improved. People on this very forum actually managed to prove to me that it could be done without having a formal psychic phase. Lots of room for improvement...

But it's damn sure better than the blandness of 10th's take on it. It does not feel like psychic warfare. Like you finish a fight, and you thin "Geeze, what's all the fuss with psykers and Black Ships? Psykers are just dudes whose guns or melee attacks are tougher than other people's. Why have an Ordo Hereticus at all- just treat psykers like dudes with better guns or knives, because that's all they are."

 xeen wrote:
All the talk about going back to armor values, damage rolls to destroy weapons, etc. I just don't agree with. Not that I don't think you can't make really good rules for that, it is just the game it to large in scope now for all that went into that, you would have to limit down the number of models on the board, at which point, just make a vehicle version of kill team for that. A lot of that stuff just adds complexity for the sake of complexity. Why have a whole different system for vehicles? What about monsters? Personally I feel like vehicles in 10th are harder to kill than when they had armor values.

Flavour, man, flavour - saying that you shot a tank for n wounds is far less interesting, and makes for a for more boring story, than saying you blew the main gun off, or immobilized it out of position.

Degradation of capabilities beyond "hurr, durr, -1 to hit at 1/3 Wounds remaining" is more interesting from a gameplay perspective than Wound counter go up/down (depening on whether you count wounds taken or wounds remaining) - might it be a little more tricky to track? Maybe - but that's what tokens to place next to (or, if things are crowded, on top of) a tank are for, even if GW seem pathologically afraid of using tokens in 40k these days for some reason.

For units with Mechanic capabilities, being able to fix specific damage results rather than "heal n wounds from a Vehicle" is a more interesting action.

I'm less convinced by including Hull Points, as that just seemed far too punishing for vehicles at the time, at had a knock-on effect of getting people to pick mid-range, high-ROF weapons as tank killers rather than actual anti-tank guns. This might just mean higher Hit Point values are required, or that vehicles need a save against them - combined a Wound-equivalent with a damage table feels off to me.

As is always the case, just because GW have tried a rules system, even over multiple editions, it doesn't mean they've managed to achieve the best version of that system.

 Dysartes wrote:

 xeen wrote:
All the talk about going back to armor values, damage rolls to destroy weapons, etc. I just don't agree with. Not that I don't think you can't make really good rules for that, it is just the game it to large in scope now for all that went into that, you would have to limit down the number of models on the board, at which point, just make a vehicle version of kill team for that. A lot of that stuff just adds complexity for the sake of complexity. Why have a whole different system for vehicles? What about monsters? Personally I feel like vehicles in 10th are harder to kill than when they had armor values.

I'm less convinced by including Hull Points, as that just seemed far too punishing for vehicles at the time, at had a knock-on effect of getting people to pick mid-range, high-ROF weapons as tank killers rather than actual anti-tank guns. This might just mean higher Hit Point values are required, or that vehicles need a save against them - combined a Wound-equivalent with a damage table feels off to me.

As is always the case, just because GW have tried a rules system, even over multiple editions, it doesn't mean they've managed to achieve the best version of that system.

We use Hull Points for our vehicles. For example a Rhino got 2, Predator 3, Land Raider 4.

You need to roll a 7 on the vehicle damage chart to cause -1 HP damage. An 8+ does the same and lets you roll once again on the chart. Anti-tank weapons like lascannons give you +2 on every roll on this table. Penetrating hits give an additional +2 for the first roll.

Well for one thing having any hopes for 11th edition seems foolish as GW has been committed to writing some of the most godawful wargaming rules for the past ten, fifteen or so years such that you're unlikely to get anything good out of 11th. Good GW rules only really emerge rarely from specialist games like Epic Armageddon, which bizarrely manages to be more realistic and play more realistically than 40k despite being far more abstracted at a larger scale. Watching battles of EA modified for the Horus Heresy and watching actual Horus Heresy games are night and day in difference and the tactical play at work, helps I guess when suppression, that critical element of warfare ever since the invention of guns and artillery, is actually a thing in epic yet not in any edition of 40k.

That aside, 40k the setting is pretty much damn dead to me as far as I care. Mixture of friends who worked for the studio and got burnt allowing to see the man behind the curtain, and the HH series just butchering the Priestley and King written background fluff just permanently killed 40k to me - corrected mistakes I made in the past and enjoying TOW, such, such better rules.

Now though for blindly wishlisting stuff for 11th edition though as that seems where the topic is rather than realistic speculation. And looking for a game I'd actually want to play even if the fluff is toast to me (thus in turn, upping the need for quality since 40k's rules are so bad in most of its editions that if you don't care about the lore, there's no real reason to dive in).

-Completely gut BS, replace with Stargrunt style range banding, with BS instead being the range in inches for where each band of accuracy is determined. (Basically it works like if your unit is poor skill and the band is say, 4", every 4" your to-hit rolls get progressively worse)

-In addition to gutting BS, weapons themselves should modify weapon bands, either sniper type weapons being more lenient on poor quality troops shooting at distance, or weapons having different bands depending on target.

-Complementing the above, Anti Tank and Anti Infantry weapons should have different bands for different targets, being easier to hit a tank with a guided missile than a random infantryman.

-Suppression should be an essential part of the game given its format of WWII style skirmish. Everyone should inflict suppression similar to Epic style blast templates, with compounding suppression markers pinning units down and breaking their morale, with any pinned unit being subject to a charge causing an auto-rout in melee, finally giving a tactical purpose.

-Saves are just dumb mechanics outside of perhaps energy shields, and everything should run based on Armor Value. Strength should be reworked accordingly, and in addition to AV there should be a toughness check for all weapons after scoring a penetrating hit to see if it actually did something.

-One of the few things Nu40K did good was degrading statlines which should be implemented for absolutely everyone. Infantry units in kind should no longer be considered individual models in a group but stands, with the individual basing just a choice of ease of movement or look. Outside of Kill Team scale games, keeping track of individuals at that level save maybe officers is ridiculous. Instead of removing models, an infantry unit's capabilities should degrade as it sustains damage or morale loss, eventually either being forced to retreat from the field or being catastrophically smoked.

-In addition to wounds (or hull points), all units should have a separate "wound" system for morale, with morale instead being degraded over time, but unlike wounds in most situations, regenerating when it is no longer taking blast tokens. Ideally this should encourage actual realistic tactical play in battles, and remove the need to totally exterminate the enemy (which should in turn, be far harder to do vs pinning the whole army). Tanks of course should also have morale which is one of the underlooked parts of 40k. Crews panic, and should be at risk of bailing from wrecked vehicles and quitting the field. Or just reversing off the field.

-Speaking of shields, all shields should be made in addition to armor value checks, because the separation of invuls and armor saves in 40k is mind boggingly stupid and makes no goddamn sense and never has. Moreover an energy shield should be the thing tested first, not last, since you need to get past the shield generator before you strike the armor. (Crappy) Void shields for everyone who has invuls.

-All units should have front arcs and rear arcs, for infantry decided on the axis of the officer's facing, and for vehicles and monsters in the 'no gak sherlock' department, with flank AV values needed as apparent. But rear fire should always get a bonus to its check against AV, including against infantry because usually people are supposed to be actually at risk from flanking fire, not treated indifferently as they are in 40k for its entire existence. Enfilade and defilade fire should also be relevant, and perhaps why individually basing infantry models matters at all. Infantry units using shields should also have at least different front and rear AV outside of flanking bonuses.

-Remove flyers entirely, their inclusion is dumb. Flyer related effects should be applicable to the game as point-purchased "stratagems" as perhaps the only way I would tolerate the idea of such in the game. If players really want to, they can use old flyer models and make zooming noises as a Thunderhawk drops a happy little 2k kg missile on somebody's head. It's just too small of a format for anything save maybe skimmers and hovercraft to be relevant on the board.

-In accordance with called in air support or artillery, templates, templates should definitely return. Templates of all sizes too, including 2e style smoke grenades for obscurement on demand. Vortex templates should also make a comeback because if we talk purely fun factor, the slowly moving circle of nope is the best thing either warhammer had.

-Cover should be dived into in great depth to make up for a mixture of heavy armor being more vulnerable to anti tank weapons. All vehicles should either get hull down fire rules, increased bonuses to AV from cover, and LOS infringing cover should inflict penalties to range band assessments. Eldar bullgak should have better rules for holofields more befitting their holographic nature than being a glorified energy shield with how invuls work. Tyranid style blips perhaps? In general though cover should provide benefits to AV, making armor harder to penetrate as there is more material to blow through, and LOS blocking should make everything harder to hit. Cover itself though should be subject to potential destruction through template weapons and the like. Flamers should have a purpose in not just ignoring LOS problems but actually destroying cover such as forests, wooden barriers, etc.

-Points costs for weapons should be harsh and more akin to oldhammer. You shouldn't be forced to slap as many upgrades on every unit as possible, and attempting to max out weapon upgrades should eat into your budget harshly for more effective, or rare wargear.

-FOC should not only return, but the main theme of armies should be based on lists, not ridiculous bonus rules. You're a Salamander army because your dudes get flamers for free as a base option to tactical squads, or you're an Ulthwe list because you have guardian squads out the wazoo in your troops slot with limited access to Aspects. Lists are how armies are supposed to be special, the idea of buffs makes no sense in the scale of game at hand, but is downright asinine. You don't play historicals and your Irish list is "thematic" because they get a bonus to javelins which somehow become deadlier. You're an Irish list because you're broke and field medium foot skirmishers.

-Everyone except Tyranids and Daemons should get access to mercenaries taken from other army lists at 25% cost, and following tables for mercs similar to many editions of WHFB. It's thematic for the fun of the game, but also allows realistic flexibility of lists to make up for holes in their arsenal.

This video reminded that twin linked small arms exist, and a crusader ends up doing 2 wounds to a battle wagon w/ ard case.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9UwSJ_alILA&t=1103s



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I’d like to see the ‘anti-‘ rule reworked as well.

I’m not a fan of how it is now. Again seems ham fisted.

I think I’d rather it simply improves the AP of the weapon by 1 against the designated target type

Or maybe each class of anti- could have a different effect, so for example
Anti-aircraft +1 to hit
Anti-tank +1 to damage
Anti-infantry improve AP by 1

kinda like aos4 is doing it, where the rule is "Anti-x (buff)"

Is that what they’re doing? I looked into AOS very briefly a few years ago, but not again since

Guard literally has a S2 weapon that’s wounding terminators, gravis, and custodes on like a 4+ and that makes 0 sense to me.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
This video reminded that twin linked small arms exist, and a crusader ends up doing 2 wounds to a battle wagon w/ ard case.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9UwSJ_alILA&t=1103s



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I’d like to see the ‘anti-‘ rule reworked as well.

I’m not a fan of how it is now. Again seems ham fisted.

I think I’d rather it simply improves the AP of the weapon by 1 against the designated target type

Or maybe each class of anti- could have a different effect, so for example
Anti-aircraft +1 to hit
Anti-tank +1 to damage
Anti-infantry improve AP by 1

kinda like aos4 is doing it, where the rule is "Anti-x (buff)"

Is that what they’re doing? I looked into AOS very briefly a few years ago, but not again since

Guard literally has a S2 weapon that’s wounding terminators, gravis, and custodes on like a 4+ and that makes 0 sense to me.

For thos of us who cba to watch it, is that a land raider crusader, allied knight crusader or a unit of crusaders? If the latter it's very easy to get lethal + sustained 5+ on them with 5 attacks a piece, they're a horrendous sandwich of rules that punches way above where it should.

Not familiar with Guard, what s2 weapon is wounding terminators on a 4?

Dudeface wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
This video reminded that twin linked small arms exist, and a crusader ends up doing 2 wounds to a battle wagon w/ ard case.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9UwSJ_alILA&t=1103s



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I’d like to see the ‘anti-‘ rule reworked as well.

I’m not a fan of how it is now. Again seems ham fisted.

I think I’d rather it simply improves the AP of the weapon by 1 against the designated target type

Or maybe each class of anti- could have a different effect, so for example
Anti-aircraft +1 to hit
Anti-tank +1 to damage
Anti-infantry improve AP by 1

kinda like aos4 is doing it, where the rule is "Anti-x (buff)"

Is that what they’re doing? I looked into AOS very briefly a few years ago, but not again since

Guard literally has a S2 weapon that’s wounding terminators, gravis, and custodes on like a 4+ and that makes 0 sense to me.

For thos of us who cba to watch it, is that a land raider crusader, allied knight crusader or a unit of crusaders? If the latter it's very easy to get lethal + sustained 5+ on them with 5 attacks a piece, they're a horrendous sandwich of rules that punches way above where it should.

Not familiar with Guard, what s2 weapon is wounding terminators on a 4?

unless they're complaining about the melee powerhouse that is ratling snipers, with their 5+ to hit and 2 strength in melee, they're talking about the Hellhound's chem-cannon, which is 2 strength, but has anti-infantry 2+ and torrent (which is comparable to its 7th edition stats, where it was a template weapon with Poisoned (2+). i see no issue with a specialized anti-infantry weapon like this being so efficient against terminators and other elite infantry

It might be meant in a way that if IG had an S2 weapon on a regiments unit with BS4+ it would mathematically come down as if that weapon would wound on a 4+

Since BS4+, S2, lethal hits wounds an S4 Terminator 22% of the shots which is more or less the same as wounding on a 4+ without lethal hits (25%)

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
This video reminded that twin linked small arms exist, and a crusader ends up doing 2 wounds to a battle wagon w/ ard case.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9UwSJ_alILA&t=1103s



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I’d like to see the ‘anti-‘ rule reworked as well.

I’m not a fan of how it is now. Again seems ham fisted.

I think I’d rather it simply improves the AP of the weapon by 1 against the designated target type

Or maybe each class of anti- could have a different effect, so for example
Anti-aircraft +1 to hit
Anti-tank +1 to damage
Anti-infantry improve AP by 1

kinda like aos4 is doing it, where the rule is "Anti-x (buff)"

Is that what they’re doing? I looked into AOS very briefly a few years ago, but not again since

Guard literally has a S2 weapon that’s wounding terminators, gravis, and custodes on like a 4+ and that makes 0 sense to me.

For thos of us who cba to watch it, is that a land raider crusader, allied knight crusader or a unit of crusaders? If the latter it's very easy to get lethal + sustained 5+ on them with 5 attacks a piece, they're a horrendous sandwich of rules that punches way above where it should.

Not familiar with Guard, what s2 weapon is wounding terminators on a 4?

unless they're complaining about the melee powerhouse that is ratling snipers, with their 5+ to hit and 2 strength in melee, they're talking about the Hellhound's chem-cannon, which is 2 strength, but has anti-infantry 2+ and torrent (which is comparable to its 7th edition stats, where it was a template weapon with Poisoned (2+). i see no issue with a specialized anti-infantry weapon like this being so efficient against terminators and other elite infantry

Same, if that's worth complaining about, what is the expected outcome for drukhari for people I guess. Poison has always worked like that and has always been another "wtf" in terms of what it does or does not do.

Dudeface wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
This video reminded that twin linked small arms exist, and a crusader ends up doing 2 wounds to a battle wagon w/ ard case.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9UwSJ_alILA&t=1103s



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I’d like to see the ‘anti-‘ rule reworked as well.

I’m not a fan of how it is now. Again seems ham fisted.

I think I’d rather it simply improves the AP of the weapon by 1 against the designated target type

Or maybe each class of anti- could have a different effect, so for example
Anti-aircraft +1 to hit
Anti-tank +1 to damage
Anti-infantry improve AP by 1

kinda like aos4 is doing it, where the rule is "Anti-x (buff)"

Is that what they’re doing? I looked into AOS very briefly a few years ago, but not again since

Guard literally has a S2 weapon that’s wounding terminators, gravis, and custodes on like a 4+ and that makes 0 sense to me.

For thos of us who cba to watch it, is that a land raider crusader, allied knight crusader or a unit of crusaders? If the latter it's very easy to get lethal + sustained 5+ on them with 5 attacks a piece, they're a horrendous sandwich of rules that punches way above where it should.

Not familiar with Guard, what s2 weapon is wounding terminators on a 4?

it was a land raider crusader

And the Chem cannon it’s anti-infantry 2+ but only S2. On top of that it’s a torrent weapon AP-2 damage 2

johnpjones1775 wrote:
it was a land raider crusader

And the Chem cannon it’s anti-infantry 2+ but only S2. On top of that it’s a torrent weapon AP-2 damage 2

So, a dedicated chemical warfare weapon is able to bypass armor and wound Infantry well?
I am shocked. Shocked I say.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
it was a land raider crusader

And the Chem cannon it’s anti-infantry 2+ but only S2. On top of that it’s a torrent weapon AP-2 damage 2

I'm going to assume you mean the hurricane bolters did 2 wounds, not the assault cannon and multimelta?

Also no issues with a chem weapon designed to kill infantry killing infantry well. That's actually a well designed profile in the frame of 40ks context.

So, I know this will NEVER happen, but all these issues could be resolved by throwing out the D6. A D10 or best case scenario, D12, would be perfect. The D6 is holding the game back mathematically. You can't make things stronger or weaker without a 16-18% shift. That's too much.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

JNAProductions wrote:Hard disagree on psychic.
“Roll 2d6 and hope for the best” is not an engaging system.

Agreed. Psychic tests are uninteresting, unfluffy, and just kind of feelsbad when they fail. Again, no one expects lieutenants to roll to see if they randomly fail to buff their squad. But charging points for powers and providing a list of options for each psyker would be nice.

Thing is, it generally wasn't "roll 2d6 and hope for the best" - there was always at least the threat of Perils, and often, there was more play than that- so for example a piece of wargear might have augmented the roll- something which could be done in many different ways- roll 3 pick 2, +1 to the roll, rerolls- both those where if you use it you must reroll both, or the version that allows you to reroll just one, etc.

Those are still basically just variations on, "you have an X% chance to cast the power, a Y% chance to not, and a Z% chance to perils." There's usually not an interesting decision being made. It's just that sometimes the cool thing you paid points to do, the thing that makes your librarian or farseer worth more points than a basic infantry guy, just doesn't happen. The most interesting choice there was, "My opponent makes the Z% chance higher. Do I want to choose to not do the cool thing or risk losing my psyker because I wanted to do a cool thing?" Neither of which feel great.

Now I'm not saying that we couldn't come up with a better system; we probably could. But at the very least, Perils needs to feel like the threat to humanity that it is

Psychic powers are generally depicted as being a threat to psychic humans and maybe wyrd boyz. Ancient space elf wizards, chaos sorcerers, and daemon commander made of warp stuff aren't generally depicted as accidentally making their brains explode because they had a bad Tuesday. So while massive "oops I summoned Cthulhu" style perils are a thing in the lore, they're more something that happens to NPCs.

- adding the hazardous keyword to a shooting attack does not feel like a psychic power that went awry, breached the veil between realspace and the warp and allowed something horrifying to claw its way through the tear.

Hazardous *does* feel like your psyker maybe gave himself a nose bleed causing him to realize that he needs to stop pushing his powers so hard though. Which is more consistent with what we see from psykers in novels. Hazardous gives your abilities a dangerous edge, but you're not just randomly failing to conjure lightning or put up a kineshield.

Deny the Witch is another layer- it isn't the psychic test itself, which may be the only thing that people find objectionable; if so, this next part won't matter much. But Deny the Witch feels better when it is an active roll by the Denier rather than a FNP vs. Mortals. And again, Deny isn't just Deny- there are systems that interact with it.

For me, the DtW is frustrating for a couple reasons. Mainly, it's that competent psykers like the ones we can add to our armies on the tabletop don't generally just have their powers vetoed on the battlefield. And certainly not by random low-level psykers. Rizileth the farseer, master of a thousand runes, lost to the path of the seer and doomed to obsess over exploring the skein... doesn't suddenly have his future sight blocked by Geoff the thirty year-old astropath. And Rizileth's warlock buddy certainly doesn't have his lightning blasts cancelled by Geoff. Like, imagine Ahriman just impotently waving his hands around, utterly incapable of using his psychic abilities because Geoff is rolling hot on his Deny the Witch rolls that day. Or Geoff and one or two of his fellow newbie astropaths, depending on the edition.

The other part of it is just that I remember when they were handing out DtW all over the place, and I'm still salty about it. You want to actually use your psychic powers? Okay, first roll a psychic test to see if you fail. Okay, now I'm going to see if one of my sisters or space wolf units just says no on a 6+. Okay, now I'm going to see if this wolf tail talisman says no on a 5+. Oh, you know what? Njal's here. So let's roll to see if he shuts it down on a 4+.But that's just irrational salt on my part.

I liked the way psyker didn't used to feel like everything else... Just shooting or hitting but with a different keyword.
...
But it's damn sure better than the blandness of 10th's take on it. It does not feel like psychic warfare. Like you finish a fight, and you thin "Geeze, what's all the fuss with psykers and Black Ships? Psykers are just dudes whose guns or melee attacks are tougher than other people's. Why have an Ordo Hereticus at all- just treat psykers like dudes with better guns or knives, because that's all they are."

Great response Wyldhunt, very classy. Always like reading your posts.

I was going to respond to some of the specifics, but by the time I got to the end, it looks like we agree on more than we disagree on.

 PenitentJake wrote:
Great response Wyldhunt, very classy. Always like reading your posts.

I was going to respond to some of the specifics, but by the time I got to the end, it looks like we agree on more than we disagree on.

I'm flattered. You've made my day.

And yeah. I think we have similar tastes regarding powers here. It sounds like I'm just currently leaning towards, "If they aren't going to give us satisfying, fluffy rules for them, then at least don't give us annoying rules where the psykers randomly stop psyking."

+My only hope is that the rules are attractive enough to get my friends and I to actually want to play 40K. I detest what 40K has become.


It wont be, that's the joke. GW will continue chasing mediocrity.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, I know this will NEVER happen, but all these issues could be resolved by throwing out the D6. A D10 or best case scenario, D12, would be perfect. The D6 is holding the game back mathematically. You can't make things stronger or weaker without a 16-18% shift. That's too much.

The othe pet peeve of mine, no it won't help. People won't take units that hit on a 8+ on a d12, despite the fact that's what an ork should have using a direct conversion. If you want more value sout of the dice people have to stop chasing 2+/3+ for everything and pretending anything else is worthless.

Otherwise you'll just have a game dominated by people stacking buffs to get to a 3+ rerol on a d12 and claiming the rest is trash.

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, I know this will NEVER happen, but all these issues could be resolved by throwing out the D6. A D10 or best case scenario, D12, would be perfect. The D6 is holding the game back mathematically. You can't make things stronger or weaker without a 16-18% shift. That's too much.

The othe pet peeve of mine, no it won't help. People won't take units that hit on a 8+ on a d12, despite the fact that's what an ork should have using a direct conversion. If you want more value sout of the dice people have to stop chasing 2+/3+ for everything and pretending anything else is worthless.

Otherwise you'll just have a game dominated by people stacking buffs to get to a 3+ rerol on a d12 and claiming the rest is trash.

9+ on a d12, for Orks that hit on a 5+ right now.

I am not saying it's a perfect solution, but it won't tie the entire game to a 1/6 change system. IT would allow such a greater scope of "Effectiveness". IE we could finally make S3 weapons have a meaningless impact on T12-16 platforms, etc.

D12 don't work with the buckets of dice some units can throw around.

The buckets of dice would have to be curtailed. Or somehow altered. Instead of 12 shot rolls, you roll the D12 to see how many of the 12 shots hit. Then you'd be able to calculate wounding individually. People act like math is hard, or abhorrent.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The buckets of dice would have to be curtailed. Or somehow altered. Instead of 12 shot rolls, you roll the D12 to see how many of the 12 shots hit. Then you'd be able to calculate wounding individually. People act like math is hard, or abhorrent.

Nah, people tell you that your initial idea is half-baked and won't work with the rest of the system (in a practical way) as is. Your initial proposal should have included the last one about how hits will be altered. This is by itself a much bigger change to how 40k works than the D12.

 a_typical_hero wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The buckets of dice would have to be curtailed. Or somehow altered. Instead of 12 shot rolls, you roll the D12 to see how many of the 12 shots hit. Then you'd be able to calculate wounding individually. People act like math is hard, or abhorrent.

Nah, people tell you that your initial idea is half-baked and won't work with the rest of the system (in a practical way) as is. Your initial proposal should have included the last one about how hits will be altered. This is by itself a much bigger change to how 40k works than the D12.

Also, changing from hitting X% of the time with Y number of attacks is very different from just hitting d12 times. Maybe you're thinking of having the number of hits be based on degrees of success? i.e. roll 1d12, and score hits based on how much higher you were compared to a BS stat or something?

Either way, that's a huge overhaul in its own right. The die size we use (degree of granularity) is a whole separate conversation to be had after figuring out exactly how your more fundamental overhaul would work.

That said, you probably *could* switch to some sort of "degrees of success" roll where the stats of the gun determine the degrees of success and the number of guns being fired serve as some sort of modifier or multiplier to that roll. If you wanted to it. It would be a huge amount of work, but you could potentially use that approach to reduce the overall number of dice rolled or create a minimum number of hits for the unit or something. Not sure that approach is better or necessary, but you could do it.

I'd rather 40k go the way of de-converting all attacks to properly allign with a D12 system, then continue to use a "All weapons wound 1/6th of the time" system. I'd rather GW massively alter the game, then continue it's current track.

Wanting an overhaul is fine, but low strength wounding high toughness is both unrelated the default die size and also a lever we can pull without a complete overhaul. See: previous suggestions of making vehicles with T > (2xS) immune to attacks and the several pages of accomponying discussion about giving units replacement methods of interacting with high-toughness targets.

And even if you do overhaul things, you don't necessarily need to end up using D12s to do it.

For example, if you're switching to a degrees-of-success approach based off a single die roll for the whole squad modified by weapon stats and squad size (which I *think* is what you were implying with your earlier post), then you could just as easily use a 2d6 roll instead of a d12 roll. This would get you a similar range of results (11 results instead of 12) and would also create a bell curve that could be used to make extremely successful or unsuccessful results more rare.

Using a d12 can't be the end goal. If your end goal is the greater granularity that would come with leaving 40k mostly unchanged but switching to d12s instead of d6s, then you don't need to overhaul the attack resolution process. If your end goal is to streamline the attack resolution process to involve fewer dice or to make vehicles immune to small arms, both of those things can be accomplished without using d12s.

I will say, I like rolling d12s. They're just the right amount of roundness.

Said before, will continue to say:
Giving blanket immunity is the laziest thing you can do.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The buckets of dice would have to be curtailed. Or somehow altered. Instead of 12 shot rolls, you roll the D12 to see how many of the 12 shots hit. Then you'd be able to calculate wounding individually. People act like math is hard, or abhorrent.

People aren't acting like anything. A system where each member of a squad has a chance to hit is just objectively better than roll to see how many shots hit. FFS, people bitch and whine enough about torrent being roll to see how many shots hit. You want to do that for every unit in the game? Are you trolling?

You've got to think your ideas through a bit before you write them down man. That might be the worst suggestion that I've ever seen.

I understand the argument for a different die type. I'm kind of indifferent- Dudeface's point above is spot on; if all anyone is interested in is min maxing the best units available to every army to win, it won't matter how many sides the die has, because people are only ever going to pick the unit that has the best target number they can hit, and they'll say everything else sucks and is useless and nothing changes.

Oh sure, the cost will go up once you're no longer using the most ubiquitous and mass produced die type in the world, and sure, it'll roll further and knock more models over, but other than that, I'm not sure it guarantees the kind of ositive change that people think it will.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I am not saying it's a perfect solution, but it won't tie the entire game to a 1/6 change system. IT would allow such a greater scope of "Effectiveness". IE we could finally make S3 weapons have a meaningless impact on T12-16 platforms, etc.

Look at it from a percentage chance. It's less about the faces on the dice and more percentage chance of success. Moving to a d12 or d10 just shrinks the jumps and makes them far less useful, the difference becoming one on paper but not much in practice.

Once the chance of success reduces to a certain amount, the failure becomes intolerable to players. 6+ becomes 11+, which won't be used.
6The current rules float around 3+, 4+ and 5+, or 33%, 50% and 66%. That range is about the only one that provides enough success for people to use. on a D12 you're getting 5 usable options in that range 5+ (~66%), 6+(~58%), 7+ (~50%), 8+ (~42%), 9+ (~33%).


The thing is, the finer the range of numbers the BIGGER your dice bucket needs to be, in order for those finer slices to come up statistically often enough for them to warrant existing. Otherwise you're creating differences for appearance rather than function.

I have no doubt that seeing 5+, 6+, 7+, 8+, 9+ as options FEELs like bigger and more important differences. But the function will not work that way.

If you really want to fix the granularity problem, you need to start with moving the game away from being a model-based to unit-based. That allows you to streamline lots of things, including target numbers.

For example, you can change the rules so that every die roll's normal target is 4+. You can adjust the number of dice rolled and the result of the success rather than making the die roll easier or harder. Target number adjustments can be universal rather than unit based. There is no reason every model has to push out X shots or Y attacks if the rules are by unit rather than model.

But this will never happen. GW is too wed to each model counting as an individual.

Just want to point out that we're once again discussing whether giving the to-wound system the nitpicky granularity of 8% increments will finally fix 40K, while the to-hit system that precedes it is still completely unaffected by how far away you are from the target, how big it is, how fast it's moving, or what weapon you're using. Maybe the problem is less that the shallow and simplistic mechanics lack single-digit-percentage granularity and more that they're shallow and simplistic.

Also: If anyone is pushing for D12s just so you can have an 8% chance of damaging the target, you can do that with D6s. Roll a D6, if you get a 6, then roll again and need 4+. You can even get crazy and have a further possibility of 6 followed by a 6. Not that any of this is a good idea, because throwing buckets of dice to likely accomplish nothing is really bad design, but you could do it.

Also: If anyone is pushing for D12s just so you can have an 8% chance of damaging the target, you can do that with D6s. Roll a D6, if you get a 6, then roll again and need 4+. You can even get crazy and have a further possibility of 6 followed by a 6. Not that any of this is a good idea, because throwing buckets of dice to likely accomplish nothing is really bad design, but you could do it.

We can do that, and we all do it every game we play. For the minority of people who didn't pick up on that paragraph, there are already a lot of stages in attack resolution, a lot of butterknifing

This is really bad game design, but it's super good product design. If you want a good game, you make most of the variables those on-field decisions like distance and movement. If insyead of that you want people to daydream about their lists and what box to buy next, you give the units a surfeit of different stats and stages of attack resolution.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the D6 system. I don't think more granularity of desired dice results would add anything to the game.

In terms of "should more things impact the hit roll" - that is I guess a potential limitation with the D6 system, but more generally it comes down to what sort of game you want 40k to be.

I.E. Do you want a game of "I caught your unit flat footed out in the open, I do massive damage" versus "I'm taking pot shots at your unit in cover with my own unit hiding in cover, so I do nothing". But then you need to have rules that encourage players (beyond being bad) to ever be out of cover. In practice any rules which focus on "movement/positioning" tend to feel abusive/not fun with IGOUGO (since it tends to devolve into "these units/factions can exploit them, these units/factions can't).

Which then leads you to... well, writing a whole new game which has very little connection to 40k as it exists today.

Which is fine perhaps - but it removes any bearings from the conversation.

I guess I'd like more mission variety - but also not going back to the old days. Because to cross the threads - I'm sorry Haighus, but the idea say the Rearguard Mission is fair is sort of alien to me. Maybe if two players have a massive collection and can therefore draw very specific lists with the limitations in mind. But I feel its one of those game types where the result is almost certainly known from deployment - i.e. unless the dice really skew one way or the other. I'm not saying the attacker or the defender always wins - but like above, you have this "you can, or you can't" phenomenon. Its hard to create optionality in game when you just don't have that many "moves".

As for the "never wounding armor debate" I will admit the 100% ban on it is ham fisted, but I like the idea that someone posted of anything not listed as keyword "AT" does minimum damage. I don't care if your Master Crafted and psyker boosted gun is made by the Emperor himself, it does 1 damage if at all, ever.

On the response to the AT Keyword thing, make all power weapons keyword AT. Make AT in grades. AT 1 is flat damage. AT2 is x2 damage. AT 3 (Volcano Cannon) is MAX possible damage.

So a Autocannon would be AT 1 and do a flat 2. A Plasma cannon might be AT 2, and roll for damage, say 2. Then multiply it. So 4. A Volcano cannon, if it hits a tank, would do it's max possible damage per wound. Which I think is 12.

This would make larger AT feel more effective, and not related to bad swingy rolls.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
As for the "never wounding armor debate" I will admit the 100% ban on it is ham fisted, but I like the idea that someone posted of anything not listed as keyword "AT" does minimum damage. I don't care if your Master Crafted and psyker boosted gun is made by the Emperor himself, it does 1 damage if at all, ever.

Aren't 99% of the S4 and lower weapons in the game D1 anyway? Feels like you might be fixating on some specific scenario.

On the response to the AT Keyword thing, make all power weapons keyword AT. Make AT in grades. AT 1 is flat damage. AT2 is x2 damage. AT 3 (Volcano Cannon) is MAX possible damage.

So a Autocannon would be AT 1 and do a flat 2. A Plasma cannon might be AT 2, and roll for damage, say 2. Then multiply it. So 4. A Volcano cannon, if it hits a tank, would do it's max possible damage per wound. Which I think is 12.

This would make larger AT feel more effective, and not related to bad swingy rolls.

How is this meaningfully different from just using the Damage stat? And how often do you think a weapon should be doing 2 or more damage to a tank but not to infantry?

Also, max damage is worse than X2 damage about half the time. If my weapon is Dd6, then rolling a 4+ would give me more than the max of 6 damage.

I don't see the point of this unless GW wanted to somehow separate out weapons which are say damage 2 or 3, but this is only meant to apply to infantry and not vehicles and/or monsters.

And I can sort of see GW trying for that distinction on the grounds that endless bloat is presumably fun fluff for someone somewhere, but I don't really see it.

I'd just scrap things like D6 damage. Have say Lascannons always do 4. You can then reverse engineer the comparable maths back from that.

I'd have blast weapons changed to just be a fixed number of shots too. Maybe with sustained. Or completely rebalance them, because right now I don't feel "anti-horde" weapons feel right. I don't want templates back, but I guess there was something visceral about putting down the pie plate. Rolling dice to determine how many dice you roll feels like and unnecessary extra step. Or tweak it so they are just like flamers, and the dice rolled=hits somehow.

Tyel wrote:
I don't see the point of this unless GW wanted to somehow separate out weapons which are say damage 2 or 3, but this is only meant to apply to infantry and not vehicles and/or monsters.

And I can sort of see GW trying for that distinction on the grounds that endless bloat is presumably fun fluff for someone somewhere, but I don't really see it.

I'd just scrap things like D6 damage. Have say Lascannons always do 4. You can then reverse engineer the comparable maths back from that.

I'd have blast weapons changed to just be a fixed number of shots too. Maybe with sustained. Or completely rebalance them, because right now I don't feel "anti-horde" weapons feel right. I don't want templates back, but I guess there was something visceral about putting down the pie plate. Rolling dice to determine how many dice you roll feels like and unnecessary extra step. Or tweak it so they are just like flamers, and the dice rolled=hits somehow.

how do you make blast weapons be a fixed number of shots while letting them scale with larger units? if you make them a fixed number, it risks being too good against small units, or too weak against bigger units, and so on. i really don't think that's the solution

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:


how do you make blast weapons be a fixed number of shots while letting them scale with larger units? if you make them a fixed number, it risks being too good against small units, or too weak against bigger units, and so on. i really don't think that's the solution

I assume they mean that a havoc launcher would be

4 shots + blast bonus

instead of

D6 shots + blast bonus

Tyel wrote:

I'd just scrap things like D6 damage. Have say Lascannons always do 4. You can then reverse engineer the comparable maths back from that.

Nah. This changes the nature of a lot of Dd6 weapons pretty significantly, and not in a way that I'd like. The point of weapons with Dd6 or Dd6+x is that they're "spiky". You might average 3.5 damage with them, but the potential to roll hot on damage can be a game changer. In practical terms, a lascannon that always does 4 damage will always need 3 unsaved wounds to kill a rhino or 2 unsaved wounds to kill a venom. Whereas a spiky Dd6 lascannon can potentially kill a rhino in two shots or a venom in 1.

Is your goal here just to avoid feelsbad low damage rolls? If so, doing something like the bright lance's Dd6+2 might be a better way to address this. Or do that thing they were doing with a couple weapons in 8th (9th?) where a weapon is Dd6, but you treat rolls of 1-2 as 3. (Which would mean you always do at least 3 damage, but you retain the ability to spike on damage.)

I'd have blast weapons changed to just be a fixed number of shots too. Maybe with sustained. Or completely rebalance them, because right now I don't feel "anti-horde" weapons feel right. I don't want templates back, but I guess there was something visceral about putting down the pie plate. Rolling dice to determine how many dice you roll feels like and unnecessary extra step. Or tweak it so they are just like flamers, and the dice rolled=hits somehow.

I feel like the obvious approach here is to lower the base number of shots (which can be random or not; doesn't really matter) and then make the number of extra shots from Blast either higher or variable. That is, you could make Blast into Blast(X) where X is the number of extra shots you get per 5 models in the enemy unit. Currently, Blast weapons are functionally Blast(1). This would mean that you could make (random example) a frag missile Blast(2). So it wouldn't really be more effective against small units, but its effectiveness against larger squads would scale up quickly making it more effective against hordes of gaunts and what have you.

Basically, if the point of Blast is to make a weapon anti-horde, then there's an easy way to adjust that dial so that they scale better *specifically* against hordes. But we don't really need the number of shots to be random. The to-hit roll already models the idea that sometimes blast weapons miss entirely.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

I feel like the obvious approach here is to lower the base number of shots (which can be random or not; doesn't really matter) and then make the number of extra shots from Blast either higher or variables. That is, you could make Blast into Blast(X) where X is the number of extra shots you get per 5 models in the enemy unit. Currently, Blast weapons are functionally Blast(1). This would mean that you could make (random example) a frag missile Blast(2). So it wouldn't really be more effective against small units, but its effectiveness against larger squads would scale up quickly making it more effective against hordes of gaunts and what have you.

Basically, if the point of Blast is to make a weapon anti-horde, then there's an easy way to adjust that dial so that they scale better *specifically* against hordes. But we don't really need the number of shots to be random. The to-hit roll already models the idea that sometimes blast weapons miss entirely.

I agree, especially where the higher strength Blast weapons are concerned. Too many things like Battlecannons or Doomsday Cannons have a swingy number of random shots, plus the bonus for Blast, which can turn them into anti-everything weapons. If you want a weapon to be good against hordes you can give it 1-2 shots base, but then give it a better Blast bonus to make it less effective against the "wrong" target and more effective against the thing you want it to shoot at. If you want it to be more of an anti-tank or anti-heavy infantry weapon you could even just remove Blast from it and give it a smaller number of random shots, or a fixed number of shots.

GW's fixation on random shots is just weird.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
I assume they mean that a havoc launcher would be

4 shots + blast bonus

instead of

D6 shots + blast bonus

Yes - this basically. But I'd also have a harder limit on the blast bonus. Have the rule be something "Blast (X). If targeted at a unit with 10+ models, this weapon gets X more shots".
You can then balance accordingly with other options in the roster. I don't think we need to see the variability of 5/10/15/20 etc.

In part because so few units are able to get that large any more anyway. Clearing Boyz is useful whereas I don't think mowing down Termagants comes up much. Almost any not-dedicated anti-tank weapon will do the job fine.

Slipspace wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

I feel like the obvious approach here is to lower the base number of shots (which can be random or not; doesn't really matter) and then make the number of extra shots from Blast either higher or variables. That is, you could make Blast into Blast(X) where X is the number of extra shots you get per 5 models in the enemy unit. Currently, Blast weapons are functionally Blast(1). This would mean that you could make (random example) a frag missile Blast(2). So it wouldn't really be more effective against small units, but its effectiveness against larger squads would scale up quickly making it more effective against hordes of gaunts and what have you.

Basically, if the point of Blast is to make a weapon anti-horde, then there's an easy way to adjust that dial so that they scale better *specifically* against hordes. But we don't really need the number of shots to be random. The to-hit roll already models the idea that sometimes blast weapons miss entirely.

I agree, especially where the higher strength Blast weapons are concerned. Too many things like Battlecannons or Doomsday Cannons have a swingy number of random shots, plus the bonus for Blast, which can turn them into anti-everything weapons. If you want a weapon to be good against hordes you can give it 1-2 shots base, but then give it a better Blast bonus to make it less effective against the "wrong" target and more effective against the thing you want it to shoot at. If you want it to be more of an anti-tank or anti-heavy infantry weapon you could even just remove Blast from it and give it a smaller number of random shots, or a fixed number of shots.

GW's fixation on random shots is just weird.

Absolutely. I kind of wonder if the random shots on blast weapons is an artefact from some idea that got scrapped in early testing for 8th but never fully removed. Like maybe they were kicking around the idea of having blasts auto-hit like flamers and the variable number of Attacks was their way of balancing that out/representing misses.

But yeah, fully agree on anti-tank blasts being low Attacks with a Blast(X) of whatever value you want them to have. If any.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
I assume they mean that a havoc launcher would be

4 shots + blast bonus

instead of

D6 shots + blast bonus

Yes - this basically. But I'd also have a harder limit on the blast bonus. Have the rule be something "Blast (X). If targeted at a unit with 10+ models, this weapon gets X more shots".
You can then balance accordingly with other options in the roster. I don't think we need to see the variability of 5/10/15/20 etc.

In part because so few units are able to get that large any more anyway. Clearing Boyz is useful whereas I don't think mowing down Termagants comes up much. Almost any not-dedicated anti-tank weapon will do the job fine.

Distinguishing between 5 and 10 is nice because it means that the Blast rule is relevant when facing elite armies like marines who generally don't have any units with 11+ models in them. Distinguishing between 15 and 20 is less relevant, but I guess units like my guardian defenders with their mandatory 11 models appreciate not getting treated like a 20-man horde. Also, actual horde units probably appreciate blasts losing effectiveness as they take losses. My necron warrior blobs certainly did the last time barbgaunts were firing into a 20-warrior blob.

 catbarf wrote:
while the to-hit system that precedes it is still completely unaffected by how far away you are from the target, how big it is, how fast it's moving, or what weapon you're using.

I think I understand what you are trying to communicate, but this is a hyperbolic statement.

Every weapon in the game has a maximum range, which is an effect on the to hit system when someone is too far away; rapid fire weapons have rapid fire range and number of rapid fire shots in addition to a maximum range- another effect on the to-hit system based on range. We have the Lone operative rule, which can be used to indicate both speed and stealth; we have stationary bonuses for heavy weapons, and those are always in effect for vehicle mounted weapons, even when they are moving. We have invulnerable saves to reflect model speed.

I think your point is that the systems we do have for impacted the to-hit rule are from such widely varied sources that they don't FEEL like they are related to range or positioning, and that a more elegant ranged combat system might replace the hodge podge of what we do have with something easier that made more sense to a greater number of people.

And that's a fair point. It's debatable, to be sure, but it's certainly a valid premise.

In isolation, rules that affect the to-hit roll, while present, are limited. But there are additional rules which address these issues be preventing damage from happening- so Lone Operative IS a range effect (you can't hit me from more than 12" away), while the Wyches wired reflex inulnerable save is not a range effect- but both do work to limit the potential to damage a target. Would taking some of those non-range effects and rewriting them to rely more on the to-hit roll itself make the game better/ easier?

Maybe.

Not to put words in their mouth, but I think catbarf is referencing how it's weird that a point-blank shot at something the size of a tank still misses just as often as a max-distance shot against a gretchen.

"You couldn't hit the broad side of a barn!"
"Well, sure, but it's not like I get a to-hit bonus against the barn."

EDIT: I do think that range-related rules could be explored as an alternative to or part of to-hit modifiers. We could hand out more variations on lone op. Maybe instead of to-hit penalties or always counting as being in cover, sneaky units have a rule that lets them perform the "hide" action that grants them 18" Lone Op. Maybe that 18" shrinks to 12" if they're wholly on area terrain. Maybe we lean into things like rapid fire and melta that functionally make weapons more powerful if you get close. Maybe we do the opposite and make sniper rifles and artillery less effective up close. It feels like there's room to play around with that sort of thing.

To me, I'm less concerned about the thematic accuracy of a blast weapon missing, vs the thematic inaccuracy of an Anti tank cannon shell only killing 1 soldier if it lands inside a squad of models.

Was there ever a time during 40k when squads were treated as a single unit, and not multiple little units? I.E. A single Vanquisher round hits a squad of 20 conscripts. It does 1 wound, for 12 damage, and you now have 8 Conscripts?

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Distinguishing between 5 and 10 is nice because it means that the Blast rule is relevant when facing elite armies like marines who generally don't have any units with 11+ models in them. Distinguishing between 15 and 20 is less relevant, but I guess units like my guardian defenders with their mandatory 11 models appreciate not getting treated like a 20-man horde. Also, actual horde units probably appreciate blasts losing effectiveness as they take losses. My necron warrior blobs certainly did the last time barbgaunts were firing into a 20-warrior blob.

I guess if I was going full heresy, I wouldn't even have the blast rule work based on unit strength. I'd have it work based on unit type.

So you want a gun to kill dedicated horde units (boyz, gaunts, cultists, maybe 20 man Necron warrior blobs and there's not much else...)? They can all acquire some sort of keyword, and these guns can interact with that.

It seems silly to me that your weapons get a bonus if a 5 man unit of Marines is at full strength - but not if one has died along the way. It seems to make more sense to go "these weapons are specifically designed to shred the kind of units that appear in a mass" than arguing over when a horde becomes a horde. To a degree you can argue that's covered in wounds/armour saves - but I don't see why 10 Hormagants should be treated as say 10 Howling Banshees. I don't feel they'd move in remotely the same way. And they aren't actually frozen in space while the other player gets their turn.

I'm pretty sure all the D3/D6 shots on Blast weapons stems from them transplanting templates into 8th's rules. Small were D3, large was D6. Much like how AP4 became -1, AP3 -2, AP2 -3 etc. I suspect they had this idea for them to auto-hit like flamers, but that proved too good, so we ended up with random shots and then rolling to hit separately process. Which has never really conveyed the feeling of firing a high explosive weapon in the direction of clumped up models.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
To me, I'm less concerned about the thematic accuracy of a blast weapon missing, vs the thematic inaccuracy of an Anti tank cannon shell only killing 1 soldier if it lands inside a squad of models.

Was there ever a time during 40k when squads were treated as a single unit, and not multiple little units? I.E. A single Vanquisher round hits a squad of 20 conscripts. It does 1 wound, for 12 damage, and you now have 8 Conscripts?

Unless you want to talk about how Mortal Wounds get allocated , nope.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Not to put words in their mouth, but I think catbarf is referencing how it's weird that a point-blank shot at something the size of a tank still misses just as often as a max-distance shot against a gretchen.

I think that's what he meant too, and it's a valid point.

I know that sometimes arguing semantics makes me look like a dick, but I'm just trying to cut down on misinterpretations.

ccs wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
To me, I'm less concerned about the thematic accuracy of a blast weapon missing, vs the thematic inaccuracy of an Anti tank cannon shell only killing 1 soldier if it lands inside a squad of models.

Was there ever a time during 40k when squads were treated as a single unit, and not multiple little units? I.E. A single Vanquisher round hits a squad of 20 conscripts. It does 1 wound, for 12 damage, and you now have 8 Conscripts?

Unless you want to talk about how Mortal Wounds get allocated , nope.

But notably, blasts used to use templates that scattered to determine how many hits you got. So a vanquisher could potentially kill a single soldier if the blast scattered in such a way that only a single model was hit. So "inside a squad" is a little nebulous. In 10th, if you roll low on your number of attacks and/or roll badly on your to-hit rolls, that's your equivalent of the template scattering to hit one model.

Tyel wrote:
I guess if I was going full heresy, I wouldn't even have the blast rule work based on unit strength. I'd have it work based on unit type.

So you want a gun to kill dedicated horde units (boyz, gaunts, cultists, maybe 20 man Necron warrior blobs and there's not much else...)? They can all acquire some sort of keyword, and these guns can interact with that.

It seems silly to me that your weapons get a bonus if a 5 man unit of Marines is at full strength - but not if one has died along the way. It seems to make more sense to go "these weapons are specifically designed to shred the kind of units that appear in a mass" than arguing over when a horde becomes a horde. To a degree you can argue that's covered in wounds/armour saves - but I don't see why 10 Hormagants should be treated as say 10 Howling Banshees. I don't feel they'd move in remotely the same way. And they aren't actually frozen in space while the other player gets their turn.

The idea behind blasts is that larger squads will occupy more space and more have targets to potentially hit. So the number of models is directly tied to the benefits you receive from the blast rule. If you've whittled a squad of hormagaunts down to the last one or two bugs, then the fact that they used to have friends shouldn't somehow make them easier to hit. What you'd end up modeling with that approach is that the last few models in a gaunt squad are somehow explosion magnets. A frag missile would weirdly be better at killing two remaining gaunts than it is at killing two gaunts in a 20-bug-swarm because you'd still be generating extra hits from Blast, but you'd only have a couple of bodies to apply the wounds to.

The fashion in which some models move around doesn't seem as relevant here as sheer space occupied. Which, for non-vehicle/monster squads, is probably best/most easily reflected by squad size.

I'm pretty sure all the D3/D6 shots on Blast weapons stems from them transplanting templates into 8th's rules. Small were D3, large was D6. Much like how AP4 became -1, AP3 -2, AP2 -3 etc. I suspect they had this idea for them to auto-hit like flamers, but that proved too good, so we ended up with random shots and then rolling to hit separately process. Which has never really conveyed the feeling of firing a high explosive weapon in the direction of clumped up models.

Yeah, I think your theory is correct. Although punishing models for clumping up was a bad mechanic, and I'm glad it's gone.

If you want Infantry weapons to act like AT weapons thematically, or have the ability to do so, based entirely off Extremely situational head cannon, but do not want tank weapons to literally behave like tank weapons thematically, because it would "punish" infantry players,

Then just remove tanks from the game. You don't want tanks, you want an infantry skirmish game.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If you want Infantry weapons to act like AT weapons thematically, or have the ability to do so, based entirely off Extremely situational head cannon, but do not want tank weapons to literally behave like tank weapons thematically, because it would "punish" infantry players,

Then just remove tanks from the game. You don't want tanks, you want an infantry skirmish game.

No, they don't want it because it takes forever to spread your hordes out to maximum coherency.
That's not fun for EITHER player.

The thing is that current blast weapons aren't inherently anti-horde. Yes there are a few blast weapons that do specialize at anti-horde stuff, but a lot of them are generalist weapons like the battlecannon (which is the poster child of blast weapons) or anti-tank like the demolisher and thermal cannon (or anti-super-heavy like the volcannon cannon).

Railroading blast weapons as inherently anti-horde stuff might have some weirder interactions down the line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
[
But notably, blasts used to use templates that scattered to determine how many hits you got. So a vanquisher could potentially kill a single soldier if the blast scattered in such a way that only a single model was hit. So "inside a squad" is a little nebulous. In 10th, if you roll low on your number of attacks and/or roll badly on your to-hit rolls, that's your equivalent of the template scattering to hit one model.

I don't think the vanquisher has ever been a blast weapon.

 Tyran wrote:
The thing is that current blast weapons aren't inherently anti-horde. Yes there are a few blast weapons that do specialize at anti-horde stuff, but a lot of them are generalist weapons like the battlecannon (which is the poster child of blast weapons) or anti-tank like the demolisher and thermal cannon (or anti-super-heavy like the volcannon cannon).

Railroading blast weapons as inherently anti-horde stuff might have some weirder interactions down the line.

I feel like there are probably some blast weapons that don't really need to be blast these days. If you want a thermal cannon to functionally just be for killing tanks, you can remove blast. If you want it to also be more effective the larger an enemy squad is, let it have blast. Guns that are intended to be "blasts" that clear out lots of infantry models but you don't want them to do *that much* damage to vehicles should probably just have their profile broken up into a single-shot non-blast profile and a multi-shot blast profile.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
[
But notably, blasts used to use templates that scattered to determine how many hits you got. So a vanquisher could potentially kill a single soldier if the blast scattered in such a way that only a single model was hit. So "inside a squad" is a little nebulous. In 10th, if you roll low on your number of attacks and/or roll badly on your to-hit rolls, that's your equivalent of the template scattering to hit one model.

I don't think the vanquisher has ever been a blast weapon.

My bad. Was thinking of the vindicator's demolisher cannon. But yeah, see above about just giving it multiple profiles to reflect what you're shooting at. This would have been a problem if we were still using templates, but nowadays you can just give it a statline to better reflect what it's targeting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If you want Infantry weapons to act like AT weapons thematically, or have the ability to do so, based entirely off Extremely situational head cannon, but do not want tank weapons to literally behave like tank weapons thematically, because it would "punish" infantry players,

Then just remove tanks from the game. You don't want tanks, you want an infantry skirmish game.

No, they don't want it because it takes forever to spread your hordes out to maximum coherency.
That's not fun for EITHER player.

I'm not entirely sure what Fez is referring to in this post to be honest. But yeah, slowing the game down to perfectly space your horde is a pain for everyone. And also a punishment for melee armies that have to clump up when they pile in. As satisfying as templates could be for the attacker, they were a real slap in the face to ork boyz and hormagaunts back in the day.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
...What you'd end up modeling with that approach is that the last few models in a gaunt squad are somehow explosion magnets. A frag missile would weirdly be better at killing two remaining gaunts than it is at killing two gaunts in a 20-bug-swarm because you'd still be generating extra hits from Blast, but you'd only have a couple of bodies to apply the wounds to...

IIRC there were some Blast or Blast-like weapons that had a rule stating that models could only be hit once per attack with extra attacks discarded, which I assume was done specifically to avoid the sort of situation you're describing. We could always bring that back as a core part of any hypothetical new Blast rules.

Also, you were technically correct to say that Vanquishers had Blast at some point - the 3e IG 'dex has Vanquishers as armed with standard Battle Cannons that had a special AT shell they could fire instead. I want to say that was the only time they did, though.

 waefre_1 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
...What you'd end up modeling with that approach is that the last few models in a gaunt squad are somehow explosion magnets. A frag missile would weirdly be better at killing two remaining gaunts than it is at killing two gaunts in a 20-bug-swarm because you'd still be generating extra hits from Blast, but you'd only have a couple of bodies to apply the wounds to...

IIRC there were some Blast or Blast-like weapons that had a rule stating that models could only be hit once per attack with extra attacks discarded, which I assume was done specifically to avoid the sort of situation you're describing. We could always bring that back as a core part of any hypothetical new Blast rules.

In this hypothetical scenario, our two remaining gaunts would still be more death prone than the first two gaunts because even if only two hits are allowed to "stick," you're still rolling a bunch of extra to-hit rolls. I guess you could limit the max number of attacks (not hits) to the number of models in the unit, but that feels off too. And regardless, it still just seems more intuitive to me that the blast rule would care about the number of models in the squad; not the general "vibes" of the unit or how it looked prior to taking damage. 10 terminators should be easier to blast than 5 gaunts. 20 gaunts should be easier to blast than 5 gaunts.

I feel like trying to change blast to operate off a target unit's key word is probably just creating design problems for ourselves unnecessarily.

That said, I do like the idea of blasts and torrents being more effective against swarms. (And have pitched as much in the proposed rules section.)

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, I know this will NEVER happen, but all these issues could be resolved by throwing out the D6. A D10 or best case scenario, D12, would be perfect. The D6 is holding the game back mathematically. You can't make things stronger or weaker without a 16-18% shift. That's too much.

I suggested this earlier in this thread and got torn apart., lol.

I'm with you though; the d6 is a real limiter in this game.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
The idea behind blasts is that larger squads will occupy more space and more have targets to potentially hit. So the number of models is directly tied to the benefits you receive from the blast rule. If you've whittled a squad of hormagaunts down to the last one or two bugs, then the fact that they used to have friends shouldn't somehow make them easier to hit. What you'd end up modeling with that approach is that the last few models in a gaunt squad are somehow explosion magnets. A frag missile would weirdly be better at killing two remaining gaunts than it is at killing two gaunts in a 20-bug-swarm because you'd still be generating extra hits from Blast, but you'd only have a couple of bodies to apply the wounds to.

The fashion in which some models move around doesn't seem as relevant here as sheer space occupied. Which, for non-vehicle/monster squads, is probably best/most easily reflected by squad size.

I just think its arbitrary.

If you had templates back, you could hit multiple units. It seems silly to me that shooting a unit of 20 gets special rules is a thing, but if I have 4 units of 5 on top of each other, its not. The reason for this was "gameyness". Big units with the massive 8/9th edition buff stack were a problem. I don't feel that's so much of an issue in 10th.

I feel if you want Blast to be anti-horde, its better done via keywords. It represents these weapons being high shrapnel Area of Effect weapons. These weapons are designed to act in an extra dimension beyond toughness and saves versus certain types of typically (although arguably not always, although Necron Warrior lore gets nerfed every expansion) soft targets.
I think its adding extra computational time, and not adding much to the game.

You've talked about how templates could miss - but surely that's easily simulated by just rolling dice to determine how many hits you get?

If you bring back blast templates, you make things like the Battle Cannon better than a Punisher. You can't do templates without radically altering the current state. You literally cannot fix the wounding state of this game. You either gut it entirely and redo it, which means every unit/weapon profile, or you do this minor tweaks every book, that invariably hack off an entire faction of players, while shifting the meta towards a different faction.

Or we can all just admit that balance is impossible with a non-binary game system, and everything will always be broken, uneven, and skewed.

Tyel wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
The idea behind blasts is that larger squads will occupy more space and more have targets to potentially hit. So the number of models is directly tied to the benefits you receive from the blast rule. If you've whittled a squad of hormagaunts down to the last one or two bugs, then the fact that they used to have friends shouldn't somehow make them easier to hit. What you'd end up modeling with that approach is that the last few models in a gaunt squad are somehow explosion magnets. A frag missile would weirdly be better at killing two remaining gaunts than it is at killing two gaunts in a 20-bug-swarm because you'd still be generating extra hits from Blast, but you'd only have a couple of bodies to apply the wounds to.

The fashion in which some models move around doesn't seem as relevant here as sheer space occupied. Which, for non-vehicle/monster squads, is probably best/most easily reflected by squad size.

I just think its arbitrary.

If you had templates back, you could hit multiple units. It seems silly to me that shooting a unit of 20 gets special rules is a thing, but if I have 4 units of 5 on top of each other, its not. The reason for this was "gameyness". Big units with the massive 8/9th edition buff stack were a problem. I don't feel that's so much of an issue in 10th.

I'm open to hearing pitches for making blasts the "don't put units near each other" rule, but:
A.) You'd want to do it in a way that doesn't punish people for not meticulously spacing units every time they move. Otherwise you just end up slowing down the game and encouraging tedious levels of meticulous model placement.
B.) I'm not sure units standing near each other is that big a deal these days? It would have been more interesting in 8th/9th with auras all over the place. But now, I'm not sure it would do much.

I feel if you want Blast to be anti-horde, its better done via keywords. It represents these weapons being high shrapnel Area of Effect weapons. These weapons are designed to act in an extra dimension beyond toughness and saves versus certain types of typically (although arguably not always, although Necron Warrior lore gets nerfed every expansion) soft targets.
I think its adding extra computational time, and not adding much to the game.

I feel like you're maybe getting a little lost in the abstraction and also maybe conflating concepts. A "horde" is just a large number of models regardless of how squishy or crunchy they are. Generally hordes tend to be on the squishy side, but not always. If you want a weapon that is good at hurting soft, lightly armored units, we already have the Attacks, Strength, and AP stats to reflect that. Dire Avengers are good at killing those targets without needing a Blast special rule. An anti-horde weapon is one that gets better when dealing with lots of models regardless of their squishiness or crunchyness. The Blast rule currently attempts to do this by scaling based on the number of models. Some blasts have good Strength, AP, and Damage to deal with crunchier hordes while other Blasts are better suited for squishy hordes, but they're all anti-horde.

tldr; Horde = lots of models. Anti-horde = good against lots of models. Having Blasts get better vs more models is a decent way to give blast weapons a niche as anti-horde weapons.

You've talked about how templates could miss - but surely that's easily simulated by just rolling dice to determine how many hits you get?

You could, sure. Or just use a to-hit roll with however many attacks. As I said earlier, it's not really necessary to give blasts a random number of attacks.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:If you bring back blast templates, you make things like the Battle Cannon better than a Punisher. You can't do templates without radically altering the current state. You literally cannot fix the wounding state of this game. You either gut it entirely and redo it, which means every unit/weapon profile, or you do this minor tweaks every book, that invariably hack off an entire faction of players, while shifting the meta towards a different faction.

Or we can all just admit that balance is impossible with a non-binary game system, and everything will always be broken, uneven, and skewed.

Feels like you're insisting on jumping to extremes to avoid acknowledging that other people have good points. You certainly could overhaul the game entirely and make something cool. But the game can be reasonably fun with the current system and has been fun with variations on that system. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Feels like you're being hyperbolic because people pointed out d12s aren't a cure all.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Clinto wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, I know this will NEVER happen, but all these issues could be resolved by throwing out the D6. A D10 or best case scenario, D12, would be perfect. The D6 is holding the game back mathematically. You can't make things stronger or weaker without a 16-18% shift. That's too much.

I suggested this earlier in this thread and got torn apart., lol.

I'm with you though; the d6 is a real limiter in this game.

In defense of the d12 thing... The added granularity *would* make it easier to bring back stacking to-hit modifiers. Which in turn could open up space to have things like crossfire mechanics, to-hit modifiers based on distance from the target, etc. Which could be cool. It's not a magic bullet, but it could be cool. Of course, it still runs into all the usual criticisms of the suggestion, and those criticisms probably keep the "let's use d12s" proposal from working in a vacuum.

PenitentJake wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
while the to-hit system that precedes it is still completely unaffected by how far away you are from the target, how big it is, how fast it's moving, or what weapon you're using.

I think I understand what you are trying to communicate, but this is a hyperbolic statement.

It's not hyperbole, it's just literal. None of those things are represented as part of the to-hit roll, the mechanic that ostensibly models the likelihood of hitting the target.

The value you need to roll to hit the target is not affected by range; two inches away is exactly the same as one millimeter within your maximum range (two millimeters further, and you suddenly can't hit at all). What you're shooting at doesn't affect the roll- grot or Titan, it's the same value. Doesn't matter if the target stayed still or is an aircraft flying at 300mph, at best it might get a permanent -1 to hit Just Because (still independent of actual distance moved), or it might get a special dodge save clunkily reusing the same mechanic used for energy shields. And while your weapon might give you a bonus shot at half range or an accuracy bonus when staying still, a mortar is still just as accurate engaging point targets as a sniper rifle and an anti-tank cannon intended to shoot Titans works just dandy for shooting individual dudes too.

The point is that 40K's problem is absolutely not that its core mechanics so intricately and comprehensively simulate the resolution of combat that it now requires single-digit-percentage shifts to finesse the results into perfection. Wounding on a 6+ on D12 rather than a 4+ on D6 represents a level of detail wholly inconsistent with the massive abstractions used in other mechanics, and is ultimately irrelevant when your damage-dealing capability comes from the Lethal Hits special rule overriding the normal combat resolution process.

This isn't an RPG, it's not even a skirmish wargame anymore, and there are other games at comparable levels of detail that make D6s work just fine- or use atypical dice for better reasons than minor statistical shifts or rolling more to accomplish less. People who feel that more crunchy minutiae = more better should be forced to play Campaign For North Africa.

Wyldhunt wrote:In defense of the d12 thing... The added granularity *would* make it easier to bring back stacking to-hit modifiers. Which in turn could open up space to have things like crossfire mechanics, to-hit modifiers based on distance from the target, etc. Which could be cool. It's not a magic bullet, but it could be cool. Of course, it still runs into all the usual criticisms of the suggestion, and those criticisms probably keep the "let's use d12s" proposal from working in a vacuum.

Kill Team (the older one) has a simple -1 over half range. These things can exist in a D6 system. They can also be modeled in ways other than straight bonuses or penalties to the value you need to roll (see: GSC crossfire mechanic in 9th Ed).

 catbarf wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
while the to-hit system that precedes it is still completely unaffected by how far away you are from the target, how big it is, how fast it's moving, or what weapon you're using.

I think I understand what you are trying to communicate, but this is a hyperbolic statement.

It's not hyperbole, it's just literal. None of those things are represented as part of the to-hit roll, the mechanic that ostensibly models the likelihood of hitting the target.

The value you need to roll to hit the target is not affected by range; two inches away is exactly the same as one millimeter within your maximum range (two millimeters further, and you suddenly can't hit at all). What you're shooting at doesn't affect the roll- grot or Titan, it's the same value. Doesn't matter if the target stayed still or is an aircraft flying at 300mph, at best it might get a permanent -1 to hit Just Because (still independent of actual distance moved), or it might get a special dodge save clunkily reusing the same mechanic used for energy shields. And while your weapon might give you a bonus shot at half range or an accuracy bonus when staying still, a mortar is still just as accurate engaging point targets as a sniper rifle and an anti-tank cannon intended to shoot Titans works just dandy for shooting individual dudes too.

It pains me to do this but Range and the Rapid Fire rules are part of the "to-hit system", and on an abstracted level definitely are intended to model the difficulty of hitting/effecting a target.

I agree with everything else though. It's a bit goofy that there aren't more modifiers for various circumstances. The abstraction works, but it does feel goofy. I think the limitations definitely come from a section of the player base who were extremely put off by cumulative to-hit modifiers making some things (certain Eldar Flyers during 8th ed, iirc) extremely difficult to engage. In theory I prefer the modifiers because it means you can DO more to change the outcome of tactical engagements, but in the extremes it can manifest in ways that many players find frustrating.

That said, modifiers can help alleviate issues too. Eldar Flyer is a cumulative -3 to-hit, defensively. But it's a large target (+1), range is "close" range for given weapon (+1), dropping it back to a -1.

Having played a number of OPR games, I'm still not sure if I like the "6 = automatic success" solution. But it does help armies that start with a worse base to-hit. Related: I enjoy the OPR Missile Launcher "ignoring cover" mechanic (ignore all modifiers?). It something that 40k should adopt to make Missile Launchers more competitive as a choice Imo. Ignore the first modifier or some similar thing.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

ccs wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
To me, I'm less concerned about the thematic accuracy of a blast weapon missing, vs the thematic inaccuracy of an Anti tank cannon shell only killing 1 soldier if it lands inside a squad of models.

Was there ever a time during 40k when squads were treated as a single unit, and not multiple little units? I.E. A single Vanquisher round hits a squad of 20 conscripts. It does 1 wound, for 12 damage, and you now have 8 Conscripts?

Unless you want to talk about how Mortal Wounds get allocated , nope.

But notably, blasts used to use templates that scattered to determine how many hits you got. So a vanquisher could potentially kill a single soldier if the blast scattered in such a way that only a single model was hit. So "inside a squad" is a little nebulous. In 10th, if you roll low on your number of attacks and/or roll badly on your to-hit rolls, that's your equivalent of the template scattering to hit one model.

Vanquishers, whatever the edition, have never caused/used blast, blast markers, nor scatter.

Nor are blasts/templates, though they can cause multiple casualties, what was being asked about.

Rapid Fire is a perfect example of designing for effect. Andy Chambers wanted to avoid modifiers to rolls in 3rd Ed for the sake of cognitive burden, so he made Rapid Fire a game-wide rule to make small arms more effective at short range than long. And it works fine.

But it is not a mechanic that alters your to-hit value. It doesn’t need to be. This is not a physics simulation. Abstraction for playability is a good thing. Design for effect.

Switching to bigger dice to implement fiddly modifiers or make you roll for a one-in-twelve chance of success (to be reduced further by other contingent rolls) is not designing for playability or for effect. It's overly literal simulation and statistical pedantry for a game that doesn't rely too heavily on its core mechanics anyways.

As for modifiers- yeah, having situational positives is how you deal with stackable negatives. Close range, large target, crossfire, lock-on, ideal weapon (eg anti-air gun vs aircraft), sustained fire, and so on and so on. Balance the to-hit system around the use of cover, and then maintaining speed in the open can be an alternative to cover but not something that outright breaks the game.

Or, just, don't implement it as modifiers. The current wounding system swings too easily from 3+ to 5+ for my taste but something like it could get you a more graceful degradation than straight penalties do.

There are many tools in the toolbox before resorting to bigger dice.

But d12s roll so nicely…

d12s are my preferred shape for a d4.

 Dysartes wrote:
d12s are my preferred shape for a d4.

What, you don't like caltrop shaped dice? /s

People are now going to resort to "I don't like the shape of those dice" argument. Often conflated with "You'll damage the models/terrain/board. And again, we do not NEED to roll 300 D12s. The game can be simplified to make a set number of attacks per weapon, or barring that, one roll to determine number of hits, one roll to determine number of wounds.

In regards to the above argument that I am being dismissive of good arguments, please, show me where I dismissed a good argument. I think you "believe" there are good arguments, and I am being dismissive of them, but I don't follow your beliefs. How do we reconcile this impasse? Maybe we fully state our side's arguments, plainly, without emotion?

I believe the game as it stands is being held to an archaic and outmoded form of number generation, the D6 system. It prevents growth, and promotes not only rule bloat, but also heavy unbalance to weaker factions who rely on quantity over quality. I would prefer we move to a higher system, even a D8 or D10. D12 would be my most preferred, but I would welcome any change at this point, to at least try.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
People are now going to resort to "I don't like the shape of those dice" argument. Often conflated with "You'll damage the models/terrain/board. And again, we do not NEED to roll 300 D12s. The game can be simplified to make a set number of attacks per weapon, or barring that, one roll to determine number of hits, one roll to determine number of wounds.

In regards to the above argument that I am being dismissive of good arguments, please, show me where I dismissed a good argument. I think you "believe" there are good arguments, and I am being dismissive of them, but I don't follow your beliefs. How do we reconcile this impasse? Maybe we fully state our side's arguments, plainly, without emotion?

I believe the game as it stands is being held to an archaic and outmoded form of number generation, the D6 system. It prevents growth, and promotes not only rule bloat, but also heavy unbalance to weaker factions who rely on quantity over quality. I would prefer we move to a higher system, even a D8 or D10. D12 would be my most preferred, but I would welcome any change at this point, to at least try.

Guys, help me out. Fez is just trolling now, right?

@Fezzik: I struggle to understand how that works with "one roll for number of hits, one for number of wounds "

Do you mean something like: these 5 dudes roll a d12 for their hits, they rolled a six. Now they roll another d6 and that is their wounds?
Or is the wounding step another d12 and the result is capped to not exceed the number of hits?

How do different Ballistic Skills/Weapon strengths work in this system?

 Wyldhunt wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
People are now going to resort to "I don't like the shape of those dice" argument. Often conflated with "You'll damage the models/terrain/board. And again, we do not NEED to roll 300 D12s. The game can be simplified to make a set number of attacks per weapon, or barring that, one roll to determine number of hits, one roll to determine number of wounds.

In regards to the above argument that I am being dismissive of good arguments, please, show me where I dismissed a good argument. I think you "believe" there are good arguments, and I am being dismissive of them, but I don't follow your beliefs. How do we reconcile this impasse? Maybe we fully state our side's arguments, plainly, without emotion?

I believe the game as it stands is being held to an archaic and outmoded form of number generation, the D6 system. It prevents growth, and promotes not only rule bloat, but also heavy unbalance to weaker factions who rely on quantity over quality. I would prefer we move to a higher system, even a D8 or D10. D12 would be my most preferred, but I would welcome any change at this point, to at least try.

Guys, help me out. Fez is just trolling now, right?

Willfully ignorant? Unsure tbh, but plenty of points were raised and they're just being ignored.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@Fezzik: I struggle to understand how that works with "one roll for number of hits, one for number of wounds "

Do you mean something like: these 5 dudes roll a d12 for their hits, they rolled a six. Now they roll another d6 and that is their wounds?
Or is the wounding step another d12 and the result is capped to not exceed the number of hits?

How do different Ballistic Skills/Weapon strengths work in this system?

If you are seriously asking, then;

Obviously changes would have to be made to the game. You'd have to limit shooting of an entire squad to a D12 divisable number, 3/4/6/12. Roll 1 d12 to see how many shots hit. If RF procs or whatever, roll it twice. Then you roll those hits as wounds. It wouldn't be hard, and it would seriously cut down on fast roll cheating. Throwing twenty dice on the table, and picking up the "ones" for reroll before I've even seen them because you dumped them behind your terrain.

Unless you're an utter chad, we already do this amount of basic 4th grade math in a normal game, so it shouldn't be daunting.

The problem isn't the D6, but the model based system when 40k at its current scale should be moved to a unit based system. And yes it would be much easier to implement a D12 in a unit based system, but also you could still do it with a D6.

But a move to a unit based system would be a massive change and I don't believe most of us want such a massive change even if in theory would lead to a better game.

The current ruleset is flawed in many many ways, but to be honest I'm kinda fine with it and I don't want GW to throw everything away because resetting every 3 years has become kinda too much.

 Tyran wrote:
The problem isn't the D6, but the model based system when 40k at its current scale should be moved to a unit based system. And yes it would be much easier to implement a D12 in a unit based system, but also you could still do it with a D6.

But a move to a unit based system would be a massive change and I don't believe most of us want such a massive change even if in theory would lead to a better game.

The current ruleset is flawed in many many ways, but to be honest I'm kinda fine with it and I don't want GW to throw everything away because resetting every 3 years has become kinda too much.

I respect your argument, and this opinion wins. Would it help? Maybe. Do you want to play that? No.

In all honesty, I haven't really had much fun with this edition, ever. Not once. 9th was a blast, and 8th was ok. But this edition is just bad to me. I don't think even a D20 could fix this.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The problem isn't the D6, but the model based system when 40k at its current scale should be moved to a unit based system. And yes it would be much easier to implement a D12 in a unit based system, but also you could still do it with a D6.

But a move to a unit based system would be a massive change and I don't believe most of us want such a massive change even if in theory would lead to a better game.

The current ruleset is flawed in many many ways, but to be honest I'm kinda fine with it and I don't want GW to throw everything away because resetting every 3 years has become kinda too much.

I respect your argument, and this opinion wins. Would it help? Maybe. Do you want to play that? No.

In all honesty, I haven't really had much fun with this edition, ever. Not once. 9th was a blast, and 8th was ok. But this edition is just bad to me. I don't think even a D20 could fix this.

More dice sides doesn't help when you don't use what you have already. I can't actually think of anything that natively hits on a 6 and anythifn that hits on a 5 generally gets cries for ways to buff it or easy modifiers. 40k effectively uses a d4.

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The problem isn't the D6, but the model based system when 40k at its current scale should be moved to a unit based system. And yes it would be much easier to implement a D12 in a unit based system, but also you could still do it with a D6.

But a move to a unit based system would be a massive change and I don't believe most of us want such a massive change even if in theory would lead to a better game.

The current ruleset is flawed in many many ways, but to be honest I'm kinda fine with it and I don't want GW to throw everything away because resetting every 3 years has become kinda too much.

I respect your argument, and this opinion wins. Would it help? Maybe. Do you want to play that? No.

In all honesty, I haven't really had much fun with this edition, ever. Not once. 9th was a blast, and 8th was ok. But this edition is just bad to me. I don't think even a D20 could fix this.

More dice sides doesn't help when you don't use what you have already. I can't actually think of anything that natively hits on a 6 and anythifn that hits on a 5 generally gets cries for ways to buff it or easy modifiers. 40k effectively uses a d4.

Lootas hit on a 6 natively, in shooting.

Dont most vehicles swing in melee on a 6+?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Dont most vehicles swing in melee on a 6+?

4+ these days.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The problem isn't the D6, but the model based system when 40k at its current scale should be moved to a unit based system. And yes it would be much easier to implement a D12 in a unit based system, but also you could still do it with a D6.

But a move to a unit based system would be a massive change and I don't believe most of us want such a massive change even if in theory would lead to a better game.

The current ruleset is flawed in many many ways, but to be honest I'm kinda fine with it and I don't want GW to throw everything away because resetting every 3 years has become kinda too much.

I respect your argument, and this opinion wins. Would it help? Maybe. Do you want to play that? No.

In all honesty, I haven't really had much fun with this edition, ever. Not once. 9th was a blast, and 8th was ok. But this edition is just bad to me. I don't think even a D20 could fix this.

More dice sides doesn't help when you don't use what you have already. I can't actually think of anything that natively hits on a 6 and anythifn that hits on a 5 generally gets cries for ways to buff it or easy modifiers. 40k effectively uses a d4.

Lootas hit on a 6 natively, in shooting.

They're also heavy, so essentially encouraged to hit on a 5+, although acknowledged that such a unit exists. That said the number of "orks should hit on a 4+" opinions you come across is a large one.

Dudeface wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
anythifn that hits on a 5 generally gets cries for ways to buff it or easy modifiers. 40k effectively uses a d4.

Lootas hit on a 6 natively, in shooting.

They're also heavy, so essentially encouraged to hit on a 5+, although acknowledged that such a unit exists. That said the number of "orks should hit on a 4+" opinions you come across is a large one.

The three main checks - 4+, 3+, and 5+ - should just be thought of as normal, reliable, and unreliable. There's no need to use 2+ and 6+ as something other than outliers. There's also nothing about bs3+ that implies a guard vet and a Terminator have the same skill just because they both hit on 3+. The guard vet has reliable bs which is scarce in guard armies, and the terminator has reliable bs which is universal in marine armies outside of servitors. It's not at all necessary to say a guard vet has accurate BS but a Terminator has more accurate BS.


Separately, orks going from guard BS to conscript BS has made people who play this game less creative, less motivated, and less perceptive than they'd be if orks had stayed at guard BS. The knock on effects from orks going to conscript BS have also meant that lots of people who would be good hobbyists and good opponents never even play 40k.

You're right, there is a lot of whining about 5+ and 4+ not being good enough, for example Tau are a shooting army so a few people have always been angry that they usually have bs4+. Would they be less angry if every army in the game shifted to a better bs? Conscripts hit on 4s, tau on 3s, Marines on 2s, so everyone is at 50% or better? Maybe every army keeps the same bs but everything is rolled on a D8. Personally that sentiment seems a bit weak.

 pelicaniforce wrote:
Separately, orks going from guard BS to conscript BS has made people who play this game less creative, less motivated, and less perceptive than they'd be if orks had stayed at guard BS. The knock on effects from orks going to conscript BS have also meant that lots of people who would be good hobbyists and good opponents never even play 40k.

This paragraph, it features a lot of BS.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@Fezzik: I struggle to understand how that works with "one roll for number of hits, one for number of wounds "

Do you mean something like: these 5 dudes roll a d12 for their hits, they rolled a six. Now they roll another d6 and that is their wounds?
Or is the wounding step another d12 and the result is capped to not exceed the number of hits?

How do different Ballistic Skills/Weapon strengths work in this system?

If you are seriously asking, then;

Obviously changes would have to be made to the game. You'd have to limit shooting of an entire squad to a D12 divisable number, 3/4/6/12. Roll 1 d12 to see how many shots hit. If RF procs or whatever, roll it twice. Then you roll those hits as wounds. It wouldn't be hard, and it would seriously cut down on fast roll cheating. Throwing twenty dice on the table, and picking up the "ones" for reroll before I've even seen them because you dumped them behind your terrain.

So because people have cheated you at some point, you want GW to respond by radically altering the game for everyone.....

There's several far simpler solutions to your problem.:
1) Walk around to the opponents side of the table so you can watch their dice rolls/removal.
And don't accept results you haven't witnessed.

2) You could also simply provide a large dice tray/box lid & insist that all rolls (theirs & yours) be rolled in it. Dice rolled outside the tray don't count.

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, I know this will NEVER happen, but all these issues could be resolved by throwing out the D6. A D10 or best case scenario, D12, would be perfect. The D6 is holding the game back mathematically. You can't make things stronger or weaker without a 16-18% shift. That's too much.

The othe pet peeve of mine, no it won't help. People won't take units that hit on a 8+ on a d12, despite the fact that's what an ork should have using a direct conversion. If you want more value sout of the dice people have to stop chasing 2+/3+ for everything and pretending anything else is worthless.

Otherwise you'll just have a game dominated by people stacking buffs to get to a 3+ rerol on a d12 and claiming the rest is trash.

That’s an easy fix tbh.
Make rerolls extremely rare, and limit buffs, and simply make a core rule that buffs can only stack in order to counter debuffs, and debuffs can only stack to counter buffs.

The stat line should represent a unit’s effectiveness in 75%+ of the time it gets used.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, I know this will NEVER happen, but all these issues could be resolved by throwing out the D6. A D10 or best case scenario, D12, would be perfect. The D6 is holding the game back mathematically. You can't make things stronger or weaker without a 16-18% shift. That's too much.

The othe pet peeve of mine, no it won't help. People won't take units that hit on a 8+ on a d12, despite the fact that's what an ork should have using a direct conversion. If you want more value sout of the dice people have to stop chasing 2+/3+ for everything and pretending anything else is worthless.

Otherwise you'll just have a game dominated by people stacking buffs to get to a 3+ rerol on a d12 and claiming the rest is trash.

That’s an easy fix tbh.
Make rerolls extremely rare, and limit buffs, and simply make a core rule that buffs can only stack in order to counter debuffs, and debuffs can only stack to counter buffs.

The stat line should represent a unit’s effectiveness in 75%+ of the time it gets used.

I do think 40k would benefit from having a proper concept of buffs and debuffs and only allowing one of each to apply outside of a unit's base abilities. It's currently too easy to stack a lot of buffs, in particular, onto a given unit, which makes balance a problem. It might also increase the number of meaningful decisions players need to make. At the moment it's pretty much just "apply all buffs where possible" because there often aren't a lot of conditions for applying them - they just kind of happen.

 Dysartes wrote:

 pelicaniforce wrote:
Separately, orks going from guard BS to conscript BS has made people who play this game less creative, less motivated, and less perceptive than they'd be if orks had stayed at guard BS. The knock on effects from orks going to conscript BS have also meant that lots of people who would be good hobbyists and good opponents never even play 40k.

This paragraph, it features a lot of BS.

"I was there, just shy of 26 years ago, when people who play this game (check this - Ed.) lost their creativity, motivation and perception."

Again, I don't think the "variance" of probability matters. The game isn't going to be remotely more interesting to me if Marines hit on say 3+/12, Eldar hit on 4+/12, and, idk, Sisters of Battle hit on 5+/12.
I can maybe understand the importance of this if you are "fluff first" (or indeed, "fluff-only") player. But in practice, form follows function.

Orks are good case in point.
"Make them BS5."
"Okay, but now their shooting sucks."
"Well that's fine, its fluffy."
"Okay but now no one is playing (or buying) any of the shooty options, of which there are many."
"uh... uh... okay, slash the points and/or hike the number of shots up so even though they are hitting on 5s, the buckets of dice average out to the sort of number of hits we'd want."
"Wouldn't it be easier to just make them BS3+"
"Probably, but its not fluffy. And maybe there's a type of player who likes rolling enough dice to fill a KFC bargain bucket."

Tyel wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 pelicaniforce wrote:
Separately, orks going from guard BS to conscript BS has made people who play this game less creative, less motivated, and less perceptive than they'd be if orks had stayed at guard BS. The knock on effects from orks going to conscript BS have also meant that lots of people who would be good hobbyists and good opponents never even play 40k.

This paragraph, it features a lot of BS.

"I was there, just shy of 26 years ago, when people who play this game (check this - Ed.) lost their creativity, motivation and perception."

Again, I don't think the "variance" of probability matters. The game isn't going to be remotely more interesting to me if Marines hit on say 3+/12, Eldar hit on 4+/12, and, idk, Sisters of Battle hit on 5+/12.
I can maybe understand the importance of this if you are "fluff first" (or indeed, "fluff-only") player. But in practice, form follows function.

Orks are good case in point.
"Make them BS5."
"Okay, but now their shooting sucks."
"Well that's fine, its fluffy."
"Okay but now no one is playing (or buying) any of the shooty options, of which there are many."
"uh... uh... okay, slash the points and/or hike the number of shots up so even though they are hitting on 5s, the buckets of dice average out to the sort of number of hits we'd want."
"Wouldn't it be easier to just make them BS3+"
"Probably, but it’s not fluffy. And maybe there's a type of player who likes rolling enough dice to fill a KFC bargain bucket."

a D12 system allows for buffs to make a difference but not be massively effective.
Going from a 4+ to a 3+ or a 3+ to a 2+ are massive. Just like going from a 5+ to a 6+ is also massive at something like a 16% change in effectiveness in a D6 system.

However in a D12 system obviously going from 4+ to 3+ is obviously a buff, but it’s not a 16% increase of effectiveness.

A d12, nice as it is to roll, won’t fix 40k.
If combined with other things, it could be a significant improvement, but on its own, it won’t do that much.

 JNAProductions wrote:
A d12, nice as it is to roll, won’t fix 40k.
If combined with other things, it could be a significant improvement, but on its own, it won’t do that much.

no single change can fix the problems the game has, but I personally think switching to a d10 or 12 could help fix a few issues.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
A d12, nice as it is to roll, won’t fix 40k.
If combined with other things, it could be a significant improvement, but on its own, it won’t do that much.

no single change can fix the problems the game has, but I personally think switching to a d10 or 12 could help fix a few issues.

"Replace the entire dev team with people who know what they're doing" is arguably a single change.

 waefre_1 wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
A d12, nice as it is to roll, won’t fix 40k.
If combined with other things, it could be a significant improvement, but on its own, it won’t do that much.

no single change can fix the problems the game has, but I personally think switching to a d10 or 12 could help fix a few issues.

"Replace the entire dev team with people who know what they're doing" is arguably a single change.

The team in charge of sacking the sacked dev team, has also been sacked....

I just think the difference is so marginal.

I mean if you shoot 18 BS3+ S4 AP- shots at MEQ you will on average get 2 wounds through, so one dead Marine.
If you go from BS3+ to BS2+, that increases to 2.5.

In a world of going from BS5+/12 to BS4+/12, i.e. hitting 3/4 times, you'd expect to get 2.25 wounds through.

In a game which is often about "do I wipe that squad or not", this level of marginality really doesn't matter.

What Tyel said. Greater granularity doesn't fix the problems of a lack of meaningful decisions to make in 40k at a fundamental rules level.

What needs to happen is a widening of game mechanics so that pure lethality/survivability is no longer the sole measure of effectiveness for weapons and units.

Stuff like expanding on pinning and suppression mechanics which opens up new meaningful choices in weapons between weapons which are more lethal to individual models and weapons which are more effective at suppression of units, on unit positioning beyond just physical distance so that smart play can result in units working synergistically to take out targets more effectively than they can individually (using 3 of the 4 Fs, for example where you fix an enemy in place with suppressive fire, then flank them, then finish them off). Instead of stratagems being mechanical bonuses or trap cards, have them offer new mechanics for units to enable synergistic manoeuvres so that they actually enable you to execute an actual strategy. For example maybe your tank can drive through the ruin or forest, taking some damage from an increased risk difficult terrain test, and until your next turn that terrain doesn't count as difficult terrain as your vehicle has cleared a path through, allowing you to quickly push other units through what otherwise would have been an obstacle.

Tyel wrote:
I just think the difference is so marginal.

I mean if you shoot 18 BS3+ S4 AP- shots at MEQ you will on average get 2 wounds through, so one dead Marine.
If you go from BS3+ to BS2+, that increases to 2.5.

In a world of going from BS5+/12 to BS4+/12, i.e. hitting 3/4 times, you'd expect to get 2.25 wounds through.

In a game which is often about "do I wipe that squad or not", this level of marginality really doesn't matter.

Vacuum examples are a vacuum. They ignore all the other factors. Re-rolls, command re-rolls, modifiers per unit, special rules, strats, and unit interactions. Yes, the Blood Angels hit on a 4+, but they can easily turn that into a 3+ with +x to wound....

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I just think the difference is so marginal.

I mean if you shoot 18 BS3+ S4 AP- shots at MEQ you will on average get 2 wounds through, so one dead Marine.
If you go from BS3+ to BS2+, that increases to 2.5.

In a world of going from BS5+/12 to BS4+/12, i.e. hitting 3/4 times, you'd expect to get 2.25 wounds through.

In a game which is often about "do I wipe that squad or not", this level of marginality really doesn't matter.

Vacuum examples are a vacuum. They ignore all the other factors. Re-rolls, command re-rolls, modifiers per unit, special rules, strats, and unit interactions. Yes, the Blood Angels hit on a 4+, but they can easily turn that into a 3+ with +x to wound....

To clarify then, are you taking the stance that switching to d12s fixes the game once you factor in re-rolls, modifiers, etc.? Or that the math for rerolls and modifiers is currently a problem but would somehow be fine when dealing with a d12?

Because earlier it sounded like you wanted to burn the game down and rebuild from scratch, which isn't inherently an argument for using d12s over d6s or d20s or d100s or a deck of cards, or some other mechanic entirely.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I just think the difference is so marginal.

I mean if you shoot 18 BS3+ S4 AP- shots at MEQ you will on average get 2 wounds through, so one dead Marine.
If you go from BS3+ to BS2+, that increases to 2.5.

In a world of going from BS5+/12 to BS4+/12, i.e. hitting 3/4 times, you'd expect to get 2.25 wounds through.

In a game which is often about "do I wipe that squad or not", this level of marginality really doesn't matter.

Vacuum examples are a vacuum. They ignore all the other factors. Re-rolls, command re-rolls, modifiers per unit, special rules, strats, and unit interactions. Yes, the Blood Angels hit on a 4+, but they can easily turn that into a 3+ with +x to wound....

To clarify then, are you taking the stance that switching to d12s fixes the game once you factor in re-rolls, modifiers, etc.? Or that the math for rerolls and modifiers is currently a problem but would somehow be fine when dealing with a d12?

Because earlier it sounded like you wanted to burn the game down and rebuild from scratch, which isn't inherently an argument for using d12s over d6s or d20s or d100s or a deck of cards, or some other mechanic entirely.

I am stating that a greater possible range of variables allows for greater allowances for exterior factors, where as currently, you cannot roll above a 6. No matter what modifiers you have, they are useless, as the max you can roll is a 6. Also a 1, is, no matter what else, always a 1 in many circumstances. You cannot modify out of a Plasma weapon rolling a 1. That means for many circumstances, the game is using a D4. Using a D12 allows for greater application and integration of fluff, gameplay mechanics, and as others have said, "granularity". But as it stands now, who cares if my super powerful elites have +X to hit, and Rerolls of X, because they rolled a 6.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I just think the difference is so marginal.

I mean if you shoot 18 BS3+ S4 AP- shots at MEQ you will on average get 2 wounds through, so one dead Marine.
If you go from BS3+ to BS2+, that increases to 2.5.

In a world of going from BS5+/12 to BS4+/12, i.e. hitting 3/4 times, you'd expect to get 2.25 wounds through.

In a game which is often about "do I wipe that squad or not", this level of marginality really doesn't matter.

Vacuum examples are a vacuum. They ignore all the other factors. Re-rolls, command re-rolls, modifiers per unit, special rules, strats, and unit interactions. Yes, the Blood Angels hit on a 4+, but they can easily turn that into a 3+ with +x to wound....

Switching to D12 should allow a reduction of all these things. Right now the game has all these rerolls because of the D6 limitation.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I just think the difference is so marginal.

I mean if you shoot 18 BS3+ S4 AP- shots at MEQ you will on average get 2 wounds through, so one dead Marine.
If you go from BS3+ to BS2+, that increases to 2.5.

In a world of going from BS5+/12 to BS4+/12, i.e. hitting 3/4 times, you'd expect to get 2.25 wounds through.

In a game which is often about "do I wipe that squad or not", this level of marginality really doesn't matter.

Vacuum examples are a vacuum. They ignore all the other factors. Re-rolls, command re-rolls, modifiers per unit, special rules, strats, and unit interactions. Yes, the Blood Angels hit on a 4+, but they can easily turn that into a 3+ with +x to wound....

Switching to D12 should allow a reduction of all these things. Right now the game has all these rerolls because of the D6 limitation.

Why do you assume we want to reduce the modifiers? If anything it allows for greater flexability, and inversely cuts down on the amount of dice needed.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I just think the difference is so marginal.

I mean if you shoot 18 BS3+ S4 AP- shots at MEQ you will on average get 2 wounds through, so one dead Marine.
If you go from BS3+ to BS2+, that increases to 2.5.

In a world of going from BS5+/12 to BS4+/12, i.e. hitting 3/4 times, you'd expect to get 2.25 wounds through.

In a game which is often about "do I wipe that squad or not", this level of marginality really doesn't matter.

Vacuum examples are a vacuum. They ignore all the other factors. Re-rolls, command re-rolls, modifiers per unit, special rules, strats, and unit interactions. Yes, the Blood Angels hit on a 4+, but they can easily turn that into a 3+ with +x to wound....

Switching to D12 should allow a reduction of all these things. Right now the game has all these rerolls because of the D6 limitation.

Except we all know they'd continue to exist, players would clamour for them and half the units would be "trash" unless they were a 4+. Unless the rest of the game; including the players perceptions, can shift, then it's the same situation with a different dice and the change hardly matters for the level of annoyance in people having to restock their dice.

Personally the only thing I believe that could shift the player's perceptions regarding rolls is changing Marines to 4+ in both BS/WS and also saves, because everything in the game is in one way or other compared to Marines for obvious reasons.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I just think the difference is so marginal.

I mean if you shoot 18 BS3+ S4 AP- shots at MEQ you will on average get 2 wounds through, so one dead Marine.
If you go from BS3+ to BS2+, that increases to 2.5.

In a world of going from BS5+/12 to BS4+/12, i.e. hitting 3/4 times, you'd expect to get 2.25 wounds through.

In a game which is often about "do I wipe that squad or not", this level of marginality really doesn't matter.

Vacuum examples are a vacuum. They ignore all the other factors. Re-rolls, command re-rolls, modifiers per unit, special rules, strats, and unit interactions. Yes, the Blood Angels hit on a 4+, but they can easily turn that into a 3+ with +x to wound....

To clarify then, are you taking the stance that switching to d12s fixes the game once you factor in re-rolls, modifiers, etc.? Or that the math for rerolls and modifiers is currently a problem but would somehow be fine when dealing with a d12?

Because earlier it sounded like you wanted to burn the game down and rebuild from scratch, which isn't inherently an argument for using d12s over d6s or d20s or d100s or a deck of cards, or some other mechanic entirely.

I am stating that a greater possible range of variables allows for greater allowances for exterior factors, where as currently, you cannot roll above a 6. No matter what modifiers you have, they are useless, as the max you can roll is a 6. Also a 1, is, no matter what else, always a 1 in many circumstances. You cannot modify out of a Plasma weapon rolling a 1. That means for many circumstances, the game is using a D4. Using a D12 allows for greater application and integration of fluff, gameplay mechanics, and as others have said, "granularity". But as it stands now, who cares if my super powerful elites have +X to hit, and Rerolls of X, because they rolled a 6.

I'm still not fully clear on what point you're trying to make. More granularity would mean that we could play around with stuff like stacking to-hit modifiers without breaking the game. Which would be neat, but I'm not sure it solves a lot of problems. Like, it's neat and fluffy to be able to say you're hitting an extra 8% of the time because you have slightly better stats than the next guy or because you, I don't know, set up a crossfire or whatever. But ultimately, those 8% modifiers aren't really solving any problems, right? Like, an ideal application of that change would be to have a combination of modifiers where the total modifier ends up being an odd number. So the equivalent of adding a +1.5 on a d6 roll instead of a +1 or +2. What does that fix?

Or is it literally just that you're jealous that other peoples elites can succeed on a 2+ like yours can, and you want to spread out WS/BS to make your guys feel more special?

Things that GW has done to inconvenience older players that were accepted without issue, leading to record profits off the top of my head:

- introduction of blast templates
- Removal of blast templates
- introduction of FW specific unit codexes
- introduction of Force org requirements for CP
- introduction of painting rules
- introduction of RO3
- The introduction of Troop requirements
- The introduction of Primaris lore and units


People being inconvenienced by GW's decisions is so far below their GAF meter, that it might as well be their "rules committee"

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Things that GW has done to inconvenience older players that were accepted without issue, leading to record profits off the top of my head:

- introduction of blast templates
- Removal of blast templates
- introduction of FW specific unit codexes
- introduction of Force org requirements for CP
- introduction of painting rules
- introduction of RO3
- The introduction of Troop requirements
- The introduction of Primaris lore and units


People being inconvenienced by GW's decisions is so far below their GAF meter, that it might as well be their "rules committee"

How is that relevant? And that list is 100% subjective too

how does new lore "inconvenience" you? if you dislike what primaris was in game, yeah sure, but how does their lore factor in here?

It wasn't for me, but someone raised the argument that "player convenience" should be a factor in game making decisions. I personally wish the game was more complicated.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It wasn't for me, but someone raised the argument that "player convenience" should be a factor in game making decisions. I personally wish the game was more complicated.

Complexity is bad-or, at least, not something to strive for.
Depth is good, and sometimes complexity is a side-effect of adding depth.

So not trying to be a bully, but going to reiterate my question from the top of the previous page:

Are we sure Fezz isn't just trolling at this point? Because I've been trying to get clarification on what they're trying to say for a while now, and they seem to just be jumping between vague-yet-inflammatory statements rather than laying out a clear stance.

I'm not trolling, but I am ignoring you.

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It wasn't for me, but someone raised the argument that "player convenience" should be a factor in game making decisions. I personally wish the game was more complicated.

Complexity is bad-or, at least, not something to strive for.
Depth is good, and sometimes complexity is a side-effect of adding depth.

I think this is one of the biggest things hurting 40k right now. The pursuit of simplicity. Simplicity is nice, but it's not an end-goal like GW seems to be pursuing. Something should be as complex as it needs to be to function. If it's too complex, it becomes obtuse and difficult to work with. Some people can persevere beyond and really enjoy it. Like that one star trek game that is still popular within it's circle (the name escapes me). On the other hand, if you pursue simplicity and streamlining confidently, you begin shaving away everything that made it interesting and enjoyable. There's a sliding scale for tolerance for this, but I do think most agree that simplicity, in of itself isn't a good endgoal, rather it should be a result of clever rules design. I think the state of current 40k balance and their complete inability to properly balance any units with inherently superior upgrade options speaks to this.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It wasn't for me, but someone raised the argument that "player convenience" should be a factor in game making decisions. I personally wish the game was more complicated.

Complexity is bad-or, at least, not something to strive for.
Depth is good, and sometimes complexity is a side-effect of adding depth.

I think this is one of the biggest things hurting 40k right now. The pursuit of simplicity. Simplicity is nice, but it's not an end-goal like GW seems to be pursuing. Something should be as complex as it needs to be to function. If it's too complex, it becomes obtuse and difficult to work with. Some people can persevere beyond and really enjoy it. Like that one star trek game that is still popular within it's circle (the name escapes me). On the other hand, if you pursue simplicity and streamlining confidently, you begin shaving away everything that made it interesting and enjoyable. There's a sliding scale for tolerance for this, but I do think most agree that simplicity, in of itself isn't a good endgoal, rather it should be a result of clever rules design. I think the state of current 40k balance and their complete inability to properly balance any units with inherently superior upgrade options speaks to this.

Yeah. I kind of get the impression that they recognized on some level that other editions were getting bloated with low-impact rolls and convoluted special rule interactions and so forth, so they tried to cut off a lot of the excess and move in a genuinely better direction. But the compass they were using were cries for balance and the advice of people who run tournaments. So they ended up prioritizing fewer, theoretically simpler-to-balance options over flavorful, evocative options.

So instead of a bunch of formations or mix & match subfaction traits, we have a handful of approved playstyles in the form of detachments. And instead of a myriad of quirky wargear options with questionably-balanced individualized points costs, we get fewer options and a single pricetag for the unit that goes up if the most optimal wargear options are overperforming. Which does make a lot of sense if you're trying to give yourself a managable number of combinations to balance, but has some obvious downsides for those who aren't making tournament-level game balance their first concern.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It wasn't for me, but someone raised the argument that "player convenience" should be a factor in game making decisions. I personally wish the game was more complicated.

If that was me saying the inconvenience of having to buy a load of d12s for one of my units to be up to 8% more or less effective wasn't worth it, you're taking it wildly out of context and replying with a list of drivel. Which sadly is par for the course.

- introduction of blast templates
- Removal of blast templates
- introduction of FW specific unit codexes
- introduction of Force org requirements for CP
- introduction of painting rules
- introduction of RO3
- The introduction of Troop requirements
- The introduction of Primaris lore and units

- not an inconvenience directly as you needed 1 set between 2 and provided with the box sets
- only an inconvenience I'm that I had to get rid of stuff
- only an inconvenience if you chose to use them, didn't want to buy or 'source' the rules, which was easy enough, all of which could be said about most codexes
- not an inconvenience, some shuffling if you choose to game it
- most events have painting rules, it's an arbitrary rule for casual play
- rule of 3 has largely existed in some format for a long time, ergo, no an inconvenience unless you were either a. Got the bad touch with unit sizes or b. A jackass trying to take rules advantages, in which case it's self inflicted
- again, existed in some point for a lot of the game, unsure how its an inconvenience?
- literally a subjective complaint that may or may not have had any impact on anyone depending on viewpoint

 Tyran wrote:
Personally the only thing I believe that could shift the player's perceptions regarding rolls is changing Marines to 4+ in both BS/WS and also saves, because everything in the game is in one way or other compared to Marines for obvious reasons.

The issue isn't perception I think, but more a desire to avoid bad luck.

Say I hit on 3s, rerolling, and wound on 2s. On paper my damage is 8/9*5/6=74%.
Compared with say hitting on 4s and wounding on 3s: 1/2*2/3=33%.

So on paper, 4 of the above weapons would expect to produce around the same damage as 9 of the ones below.

But consider the probabilities of total failure. In the above, if I fire 2 such shots, my odds of not getting to the saves step are (0.26)^2=6.76%.
By contrast, if I fire 4 of the second profile, my odds of failure are (0.67)^4=20.15%. If I fire 5 my odds are (0.67)^5=13.5%.

You can argue this is counteracted by more shots giving odds of getting more hits through than the above profile - but in 40k you are usually not that bothered about "super-successes". This is because you can only kill a unit once. Failure to do damage is what messes up a turn (and potentially a whole game plan). As a result the first profile is going to typically be preferred if they are around the same points.

I think the only way to change this is to completely eliminate rerolls from all sources and give everyone "bad" BS etc. But even then I think people may not like it, as it gives luck too much influence on results. No one I think enjoys it when their units just don't do what they are meant to do in a game. And if this happens repeatedly, I think people get frustrated (I certainly do.)

Tyel wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Personally the only thing I believe that could shift the player's perceptions regarding rolls is changing Marines to 4+ in both BS/WS and also saves, because everything in the game is in one way or other compared to Marines for obvious reasons.

The issue isn't perception I think, but more a desire to avoid bad luck.

Say I hit on 3s, rerolling, and wound on 2s. On paper my damage is 8/9*5/6=74%.
Compared with say hitting on 4s and wounding on 3s: 1/2*2/3=33%.

So on paper, 4 of the above weapons would expect to produce around the same damage as 9 of the ones below.

But consider the probabilities of total failure. In the above, if I fire 2 such shots, my odds of not getting to the saves step are (0.26)^2=6.76%.
By contrast, if I fire 4 of the second profile, my odds of failure are (0.67)^4=20.15%. If I fire 5 my odds are (0.67)^5=13.5%.

You can argue this is counteracted by more shots giving odds of getting more hits through than the above profile - but in 40k you are usually not that bothered about "super-successes". This is because you can only kill a unit once. Failure to do damage is what messes up a turn (and potentially a whole game plan). As a result the first profile is going to typically be preferred if they are around the same points.

I think the only way to change this is to completely eliminate rerolls from all sources and give everyone "bad" BS etc. But even then I think people may not like it, as it gives luck too much influence on results. No one I think enjoys it when their units just don't do what they are meant to do in a game. And if this happens repeatedly, I think people get frustrated (I certainly do.)

Thusly we shift to a d4 where every action will have a minimum 50% chance of success via buffs and debuffs.

I get it doesn't "feel nice" for an action not to complete 75%+ of the time but that is very much a perception issue by definition. As you note there is a desire to eliminate chance and make everything predictable, at which point, why bother with dice at all?

Dudeface wrote:
Thusly we shift to a d4 where every action will have a minimum 50% chance of success via buffs and debuffs.

I get it doesn't "feel nice" for an action not to complete 75%+ of the time but that is very much a perception issue by definition. As you note there is a desire to eliminate chance and make everything predictable, at which point, why bother with dice at all?

Well... to go slightly devils advocate, why bother with dice?

I mean over the years (and this thread) there's been certain people who want tanks to be 100% immune to small arms - but if you point a melta or get a powerfist etc in their rear, they should have a 100% (or near 100%) chance to blow up. This then leads to conversations of whether getting melta's into the rears of tanks in 40k has ever actually been skillful but that never really goes anywhere.

I think dice are useful for keeping things a bit in flux. You have to change your decision making through the game in a way you arguably don't in something like Chess. Especially when you only get to make 5 "moves". But that doesn't change the fact that pointing your lascannons at an enemy tank, as you are supposed to, only to then roll a load of 1s, feels bad. (Much worse imo than pointing a load of bolters and plinking off a wound or two.)

You could however have a lot more actions auto-complete. Should for instance every psychic power require a 2+ roll? Are weapons that auto-hit, auto-wound, allow no saves etc somehow breaking 40k?

But equally I guess it varies. This is very much vibes and nostalgic memory - but I remember playing "New Necromunda" a few years back and people not really liking it compared with "old Necromunda" a few decades back. I remember (and this could be wrong and due to being children) Old Necromunda being very non-lethal, because your models were so "bad". 2nd edition rules with bad profiles and bad weapons meant that at least starting gangs could easily blaze away to no effect. Close combat was a bit more lethal if you got a big split on dice rolls, but could also be weak. It meant when Juves actually did anything it felt like an achievement. By contrast we found New Necromunda could easily see half a gang deleted in a turn because the odds just weren't that low. Maybe we were also playing wrong and throwing stuff into each other - but still. It didn't produce the same feelings (the fact we were 20~ years older may also have had an effect.)

But this sort of runs into the clash of whether 40k being a game where you roll some dice and "forge a narrative" win or lose, or its a competitive skill-based game, where making the right decision should improve your odds of winning, and having dice repeatedly say no gets frustrating. A game which just reduces down to who rolls the most 6s because luck is so dominant isn't interesting to me.

Tyel wrote:
The issue isn't perception I think, but more a desire to avoid bad luck.

Say I hit on 3s, rerolling, and wound on 2s. On paper my damage is 8/9*5/6=74%.
Compared with say hitting on 4s and wounding on 3s: 1/2*2/3=33%.

So on paper, 4 of the above weapons would expect to produce around the same damage as 9 of the ones below.

But consider the probabilities of total failure. In the above, if I fire 2 such shots, my odds of not getting to the saves step are (0.26)^2=6.76%.
By contrast, if I fire 4 of the second profile, my odds of failure are (0.67)^4=20.15%. If I fire 5 my odds are (0.67)^5=13.5%.

You can argue this is counteracted by more shots giving odds of getting more hits through than the above profile - but in 40k you are usually not that bothered about "super-successes". This is because you can only kill a unit once. Failure to do damage is what messes up a turn (and potentially a whole game plan). As a result the first profile is going to typically be preferred if they are around the same points.

I think the only way to change this is to completely eliminate rerolls from all sources and give everyone "bad" BS etc. But even then I think people may not like it, as it gives luck too much influence on results. No one I think enjoys it when their units just don't do what they are meant to do in a game. And if this happens repeatedly, I think people get frustrated (I certainly do.)

The root cause here is the number of stacking rolls. When you have to roll to hit, to wound, and then to beat armor, that's three separate rolls that pare down your starting number of dice. And when the most common defensive profile in the game puts that third step at a 33% chance of success, you need either a boatload of dice (producing swingy results) or high rates of success on the first two rolls to actually accomplish anything.

Food for thought: The first game Andy Chambers wrote after leaving the 40K team, Starship Troopers, has no roll to hit at all. Shooter skill is factored into the weapon profile, and each attack is resolved with a single attack roll followed by a single save roll, and even then only if the attack didn't reach a no-saves-allowed auto-kill threshold. Many other modern games also use two rolls, just roll to hit -> roll for armor.

Tyel wrote:
I just think the difference is so marginal.

I mean if you shoot 18 BS3+ S4 AP- shots at MEQ you will on average get 2 wounds through, so one dead Marine.
If you go from BS3+ to BS2+, that increases to 2.5.

In a world of going from BS5+/12 to BS4+/12, i.e. hitting 3/4 times, you'd expect to get 2.25 wounds through.

In a game which is often about "do I wipe that squad or not", this level of marginality really doesn't matter.

that’s not where the difference comes in, imho.
Should an officer telling a guardsmen ‘shoot better’ really make that guardsmen’s accuracy equal to a standard marine?

I think it would be best if guard represented realistic human accuracy under high stress conditions like combat, but that’s basically just a 6+ in a D6 system. In a D10 system that’s more like an 8+

johnpjones1775 wrote:
that’s not where the difference comes in, imho.
Should an officer telling a guardsmen ‘shoot better’ really make that guardsmen’s accuracy equal to a standard marine?

Why shouldn't it?

Guardsmen are trained individuals to start with, as much as people like to pretend that's not the case.

I think it would be best if guard represented realistic human accuracy under high stress conditions like combat, but that’s basically just a 6+ in a D6 system. In a D10 system that’s more like an 8+

"Realistic human accuracy" compared to what?

Seriously, why is there an obsession that Guardsmen have to constantly be degraded while nobody talks about Guardians, Cultists, Neophyte & Acolyte Hybrids, etc?

 Kanluwen wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
that’s not where the difference comes in, imho.
Should an officer telling a guardsmen ‘shoot better’ really make that guardsmen’s accuracy equal to a standard marine?

Why shouldn't it?

Guardsmen are trained individuals to start with, as much as people like to pretend that's not the case.

I think it would be best if guard represented realistic human accuracy under high stress conditions like combat, but that’s basically just a 6+ in a D6 system. In a D10 system that’s more like an 8+

"Realistic human accuracy" compared to what?

Seriously, why is there an obsession that Guardsmen have to constantly be degraded while nobody talks about Guardians, Cultists, Neophyte & Acolyte Hybrids, etc?

Because guardsmen is the catch-all term for these types of units.....

GEQ
MEQ
TEQ

are all terms that everyone is used to in wargaming, it's not a personal attack on your guardians, and no one is saying that the other armies' shitters shouldnt also be bad

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Should an officer telling a guardsmen ‘shoot better’ really make that guardsmen’s accuracy equal to a standard marine?

I think it would be best if guard represented realistic human accuracy under high stress conditions like combat, but that’s basically just a 6+ in a D6 system. In a D10 system that’s more like an 8+

Should a Marine with centuries of experience, cybernetic augmentations, and integral targetfinders and aim assistance really hit just 33% more often than a Guardsman in the first place?

Is there any particular evidence you're drawing from that says a trained soldier averages a 16.67% or 30% hit rate in combat? Is either of those values universal, unaffected by how far away the target is or whether they're shooting a human-sized or tank-sized target? Does an officer saying 'shoot better' actually improve hit rates at all under combat conditions?

Is there any reason to think that a single 'shot' in 40K actually literally means a single projectile, and not just a test of whether a given combatant can put out effective fire in the nonspecific timeframe represented by a single turn?

The mechanics are, from a realism/simulation perspective, nonsense to begin with. Adding greater granularity to abstract mechanics doesn't improve the fidelity of simulation.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
that’s not where the difference comes in, imho.
Should an officer telling a guardsmen ‘shoot better’ really make that guardsmen’s accuracy equal to a standard marine?

Why shouldn't it?

Guardsmen are trained individuals to start with, as much as people like to pretend that's not the case.

I think it would be best if guard represented realistic human accuracy under high stress conditions like combat, but that’s basically just a 6+ in a D6 system. In a D10 system that’s more like an 8+

"Realistic human accuracy" compared to what?

Seriously, why is there an obsession that Guardsmen have to constantly be degraded while nobody talks about Guardians, Cultists, Neophyte & Acolyte Hybrids, etc?

Because guardsmen is the catch-all term for these types of units.....

You didn't read the post I was quoting, hm?

Dude literally calls out officers with orders to Guardsmen.

GEQ
MEQ
TEQ

are all terms that everyone is used to in wargaming, it's not a personal attack on your guardians, and no one is saying that the other armies' shitters shouldnt also be bad

I'm well aware of the acronyms.

I'm also aware that Officers aren't in every "GEQ" army. Also, that "GEQ" hasn't really been a thing for some time now.

So if Custodes are the best soldiers in the Imperium, by raw skill, power, speed, and knowledge, shouldn't they be better than a Primaris Captain at shooting their weapon?

You can't 1-1 everything in this game on a d6 system.

A D8/10/12 would allow Custodes to hit on a 2+ (God level skill) and a Captain to hit on a 4+ (Near god level skill) and still not really break the game.

If we start by erecting the goalposts it should be easy to demonstrate where people should fall on the "Shooting skill level" (Example).

Custodes and other Primarch level character/units on one end, and Plague bearers/Grots on the other.

On a D10, for instance, I would argue the Custodes-like hits on a 2+. The Grots-like hit on a 9+, and the Guards-like hit on a 5+.

Obviously there is a ton of polishing for this to work, ie where does a servitor fall, etc? But for the most part I think this is a clear example of how we can setup the goal posts and have greater granularity with a >D6.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

I think it would be best if guard represented realistic human accuracy under high stress conditions like combat, but that’s basically just a 6+ in a D6 system. In a D10 system that’s more like an 8+

Well the rest of us want this to be playable/enjoyable, so you'll just have to pardon us if we reject you notion of what'd be "best".

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So if Custodes are the best soldiers in the Imperium, by raw skill, power, speed, and knowledge, shouldn't they be better than a Primaris Captain at shooting their weapon?

You can't 1-1 everything in this game on a d6 system.

A D8/10/12 would allow Custodes to hit on a 2+ (God level skill) and a Captain to hit on a 4+ (Near god level skill) and still not really break the game.

If we start by erecting the goalposts it should be easy to demonstrate where people should fall on the "Shooting skill level" (Example).

Custodes and other Primarch level character/units on one end, and Plague bearers/Grots on the other.

On a D10, for instance, I would argue the Custodes-like hits on a 2+. The Grots-like hit on a 9+, and the Guards-like hit on a 5+.

Obviously there is a ton of polishing for this to work, ie where does a servitor fall, etc? But for the most part I think this is a clear example of how we can setup the goal posts and have greater granularity with a >D6.

Why do you think Plaguebearers suck at hitting things?

And, more pertinently, you don't NEED to 1-to-1 everything. A Custode is, in a lot of ways, better than a Marine Captain. A Custodes Shield Captain is straight-up better than a Marine Captain. Just because they hit on the same die result doesn't mean they're equals.

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So if Custodes are the best soldiers in the Imperium, by raw skill, power, speed, and knowledge, shouldn't they be better than a Primaris Captain at shooting their weapon?

You can't 1-1 everything in this game on a d6 system.

A D8/10/12 would allow Custodes to hit on a 2+ (God level skill) and a Captain to hit on a 4+ (Near god level skill) and still not really break the game.

If we start by erecting the goalposts it should be easy to demonstrate where people should fall on the "Shooting skill level" (Example).

Custodes and other Primarch level character/units on one end, and Plague bearers/Grots on the other.

On a D10, for instance, I would argue the Custodes-like hits on a 2+. The Grots-like hit on a 9+, and the Guards-like hit on a 5+.

Obviously there is a ton of polishing for this to work, ie where does a servitor fall, etc? But for the most part I think this is a clear example of how we can setup the goal posts and have greater granularity with a >D6.

Why do you think Plaguebearers suck at hitting things?

And, more pertinently, you don't NEED to 1-to-1 everything. A Custode is, in a lot of ways, better than a Marine Captain. A Custodes Shield Captain is straight-up better than a Marine Captain. Just because they hit on the same die result doesn't mean they're equals.

I never said they are equal. I was trying to set goal posts. I made the case that they both hit on 2+, and there should be some difference in just that one aspect. Obviously there are greater details, but a Space marine, no matter what age, should miss more often than a Custode. Currently they do not.

And I said plague bearer, excuse me for not naming the right unit. I was talking about the shuffling zombie thing. I am not familair with their unit in 10th, but I thought they hit on a 6+, hence the example. If I'm wrong, there you go.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So if Custodes are the best soldiers in the Imperium, by raw skill, power, speed, and knowledge, shouldn't they be better than a Primaris Captain at shooting their weapon?

You can't 1-1 everything in this game on a d6 system.

A D8/10/12 would allow Custodes to hit on a 2+ (God level skill) and a Captain to hit on a 4+ (Near god level skill) and still not really break the game.

If we start by erecting the goalposts it should be easy to demonstrate where people should fall on the "Shooting skill level" (Example).

Custodes and other Primarch level character/units on one end, and Plague bearers/Grots on the other.

On a D10, for instance, I would argue the Custodes-like hits on a 2+. The Grots-like hit on a 9+, and the Guards-like hit on a 5+.

Obviously there is a ton of polishing for this to work, ie where does a servitor fall, etc? But for the most part I think this is a clear example of how we can setup the goal posts and have greater granularity with a >D6.

Why do you think Plaguebearers suck at hitting things?

And, more pertinently, you don't NEED to 1-to-1 everything. A Custode is, in a lot of ways, better than a Marine Captain. A Custodes Shield Captain is straight-up better than a Marine Captain. Just because they hit on the same die result doesn't mean they're equals.

I never said they are equal. I was trying to set goal posts. I made the case that they both hit on 2+, and there should be some difference in just that one aspect. Obviously there are greater details, but a Space marine, no matter what age, should miss more often than a Custode. Currently they do not.

And I said plague bearer, excuse me for not naming the right unit. I was talking about the shuffling zombie thing. I am not familair with their unit in 10th, but I thought they hit on a 6+, hence the example. If I'm wrong, there you go.

Poxwalkers. Not Plaguebearers.

And why? Why is that one specific detail something that HAS to be done, and not abstracted into the whole? I mean, obviously a Bolter should be better at wounding a T5 model (Plaguebearer, Terminator, Plague Marine) than a Lasgun, but currently they don't.

 catbarf wrote:
The root cause here is the number of stacking rolls. When you have to roll to hit, to wound, and then to beat armor, that's three separate rolls that pare down your starting number of dice. And when the most common defensive profile in the game puts that third step at a 33% chance of success, you need either a boatload of dice (producing swingy results) or high rates of success on the first two rolls to actually accomplish anything.

Food for thought: The first game Andy Chambers wrote after leaving the 40K team, Starship Troopers, has no roll to hit at all. Shooter skill is factored into the weapon profile, and each attack is resolved with a single attack roll followed by a single save roll, and even then only if the attack didn't reach a no-saves-allowed auto-kill threshold. Many other modern games also use two rolls, just roll to hit -> roll for armor.

Yeah. I think Bolt Action works like that. Warmahordes used to work like that (and may still do) - although with a slightly different 2D6 based rolls.

I'm not sure I want to completely re-write 40k, but they could be a lot more imaginative.

I'm not sure I'd want 40k to be completely re-written, but I think some of your ideas on suppression, crossfire and stuff are reasonable. I just think you might need alternate activations (on whatever system) for that to feel reasonable.

Dudeface wrote:
Thusly we shift to a d4 where every action will have a minimum 50% chance of success via buffs and debuffs.

I get it doesn't "feel nice" for an action not to complete 75%+ of the time but that is very much a perception issue by definition. As you note there is a desire to eliminate chance and make everything predictable, at which point, why bother with dice at all?

If someone did want to overhaul the game, one option would be to do something like:
* Give each weapon its own little chart.
* Make a single Attack roll for all weapons of that type instead of making multiple to-hit/to-wound rolls.
* Add and subtract modifiers based on relative strength/toughness, to-hit bonuses/penalties, etc.
* Compare your total to the weapon's chart. Then go up the chart one step for every X instances of that weapon being fired. (X might be 1 for relatively elite units or strong weapons, or it might be a much higher number if you're dealing with weaker units/weapons that rely on weight of fire.)
* The chart now tells you how many saves your opponent has to make. Or, if you want to roll save vs AP into the above modifiers, it just tells you how many wounds you inflict.

The upsides of that approach being that you don't need dozens of dice to resolve your lasblaster or lasgun attacks, and depending on how you build the chart, you could choose to make fumbles not be a thing. That is, you could decide that every time at least X bolters are firing at a target, they will force at least 1 save or do at least 1 damage. (Again, depending on specifics.) But obviously that would be a big change that would come with its own design problems.

catbarf wrote:

Food for thought: The first game Andy Chambers wrote after leaving the 40K team, Starship Troopers, has no roll to hit at all. Shooter skill is factored into the weapon profile, and each attack is resolved with a single attack roll followed by a single save roll, and even then only if the attack didn't reach a no-saves-allowed auto-kill threshold. Many other modern games also use two rolls, just roll to hit -> roll for armor.

I've pitched something like that at least once in proposed rules. We could combine either the to-hit/to-wound rolls (an "Attack" roll) or the to-wound/save rolls (a "Defense" roll). Then just adjust Wounds on everything to compensate for there being one fewer rolls filtering dice out of the pool.

Having recently played Spear Head, I don't hate how they approach things: with to-wound being a flat value instead of a comparison to toughness. To compensate, they just give some units worse to-hit or to-wound stats and then give a bunch of wounds to more durable models. Although the lean towards shooting in 40k might make that approach translate poorly given how easy it would be to concentrate offense in one place each turn.

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So if Custodes are the best soldiers in the Imperium, by raw skill, power, speed, and knowledge, shouldn't they be better than a Primaris Captain at shooting their weapon?

You can't 1-1 everything in this game on a d6 system.

A D8/10/12 would allow Custodes to hit on a 2+ (God level skill) and a Captain to hit on a 4+ (Near god level skill) and still not really break the game.

If we start by erecting the goalposts it should be easy to demonstrate where people should fall on the "Shooting skill level" (Example).

Custodes and other Primarch level character/units on one end, and Plague bearers/Grots on the other.

On a D10, for instance, I would argue the Custodes-like hits on a 2+. The Grots-like hit on a 9+, and the Guards-like hit on a 5+.

Obviously there is a ton of polishing for this to work, ie where does a servitor fall, etc? But for the most part I think this is a clear example of how we can setup the goal posts and have greater granularity with a >D6.

Why do you think Plaguebearers suck at hitting things?

And, more pertinently, you don't NEED to 1-to-1 everything. A Custode is, in a lot of ways, better than a Marine Captain. A Custodes Shield Captain is straight-up better than a Marine Captain. Just because they hit on the same die result doesn't mean they're equals.

I never said they are equal. I was trying to set goal posts. I made the case that they both hit on 2+, and there should be some difference in just that one aspect. Obviously there are greater details, but a Space marine, no matter what age, should miss more often than a Custode. Currently they do not.

And I said plague bearer, excuse me for not naming the right unit. I was talking about the shuffling zombie thing. I am not familair with their unit in 10th, but I thought they hit on a 6+, hence the example. If I'm wrong, there you go.

Poxwalkers. Not Plaguebearers.

And why? Why is that one specific detail something that HAS to be done, and not abstracted into the whole? I mean, obviously a Bolter should be better at wounding a T5 model (Plaguebearer, Terminator, Plague Marine) than a Lasgun, but currently they don't.

It doesn't HAVE to, but we are literally talking "Hopes for 11th Core rules". My hope is that we expand the dice system, and I am trying to provide examples, perhaps badly, of ways it might improve gameplay, in my own way of thinking.

 Kanluwen wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
that’s not where the difference comes in, imho.
Should an officer telling a guardsmen ‘shoot better’ really make that guardsmen’s accuracy equal to a standard marine?

Why shouldn't it?

Guardsmen are trained individuals to start with, as much as people like to pretend that's not the case.

I think it would be best if guard represented realistic human accuracy under high stress conditions like combat, but that’s basically just a 6+ in a D6 system. In a D10 system that’s more like an 8+

"Realistic human accuracy" compared to what?

Seriously, why is there an obsession that Guardsmen have to constantly be degraded while nobody talks about Guardians, Cultists, Neophyte & Acolyte Hybrids, etc?

because it’s an easy point of reference rather than listing off every single stupid faction, making posts stupidly long.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

I think it would be best if guard represented realistic human accuracy under high stress conditions like combat, but that’s basically just a 6+ in a D6 system. In a D10 system that’s more like an 8+

Well the rest of us want this to be playable/enjoyable, so you'll just have to pardon us if we reject you notion of what'd be "best".

how does the number of sides on the die you roll make the game less enjoyable?

johnpjones1775 wrote:
...how does the number of sides on the die you roll make the game less enjoyable?

The "make the game use d10s!" crowd has been around for a very long time. Dissect the argument, and it's pretty universally about the fact that to them the game isn't enjoyable unless their models have two more points in every stat than everyone else, because giving them only one more point in every stat than everyone else is unrealistic...

 catbarf wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Should an officer telling a guardsmen ‘shoot better’ really make that guardsmen’s accuracy equal to a standard marine?

I think it would be best if guard represented realistic human accuracy under high stress conditions like combat, but that’s basically just a 6+ in a D6 system. In a D10 system that’s more like an 8+

Should a Marine with centuries of experience, cybernetic augmentations, and integral targetfinders and aim assistance really hit just 33% more often than a Guardsman in the first place?

Is there any particular evidence you're drawing from that says a trained soldier averages a 16.67% or 30% hit rate in combat? Is either of those values universal, unaffected by how far away the target is or whether they're shooting a human-sized or tank-sized target? Does an officer saying 'shoot better' actually improve hit rates at all under combat conditions?

Is there any reason to think that a single 'shot' in 40K actually literally means a single projectile, and not just a test of whether a given combatant can put out effective fire in the nonspecific timeframe represented by a single turn?

The mechanics are, from a realism/simulation perspective, nonsense to begin with. Adding greater granularity to abstract mechanics doesn't improve the fidelity of simulation.

There have been several studies
“On killing the psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society” David grossman
“Men against fire” SLA Marshall
Being just a few.

Personally I believe that marines should be a lot more accurate than 33% above normal guardsmen without basically auto hitting, something that can’t really happen with the current system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
...how does the number of sides on the die you roll make the game less enjoyable?

The "make the game use d10s!" crowd has been around for a very long time. Dissect the argument, and it's pretty universally about the fact that to them the game isn't enjoyable unless their models have two more points in every stat than everyone else, because giving them only one more point in every stat than everyone else is unrealistic...

And who told you that? Sounds like your own bias.
But you deflected rather than answer the question


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
that’s not where the difference comes in, imho.
Should an officer telling a guardsmen ‘shoot better’ really make that guardsmen’s accuracy equal to a standard marine?

Why shouldn't it?

Guardsmen are trained individuals to start with, as much as people like to pretend that's not the case.

I think it would be best if guard represented realistic human accuracy under high stress conditions like combat, but that’s basically just a 6+ in a D6 system. In a D10 system that’s more like an 8+

"Realistic human accuracy" compared to what?

Seriously, why is there an obsession that Guardsmen have to constantly be degraded while nobody talks about Guardians, Cultists, Neophyte & Acolyte Hybrids, etc?

Because guardsmen is the catch-all term for these types of units.....

You didn't read the post I was quoting, hm?

Dude literally calls out officers with orders to Guardsmen.

GEQ
MEQ
TEQ

are all terms that everyone is used to in wargaming, it's not a personal attack on your guardians, and no one is saying that the other armies' shitters shouldnt also be bad

I'm well aware of the acronyms.

I'm also aware that Officers aren't in every "GEQ" army. Also, that "GEQ" hasn't really been a thing for some time now.

Do you really not understand the concept of an example?
Pick any GEQ and any common army you want.
GEQ is definitely still a thing…

johnpjones1775 wrote:
There have been several studies
“On killing the psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society” David grossman
“Men against fire” SLA Marshall
Being just a few.

I've read both. Nowhere does either say that the average infantryman hits 17% (6 on a D6) or 30% (8+ on a D10) of his shots in combat. The idea of such a number existing, a single universal hit rate as 40K treats it, is complete nonsense to begin with, given that infantry combat could be anything from close-quarters room-clearing in Berlin to shooting at muzzle flashes 300yds away in Okinawa. It's extra silly since, as I alluded to with a rhetorical question, there is no reason to think that a single 'shot' with a lasgun in 40K is meant to represent a Guardsman pulling his trigger exactly once and simulating what happens as a result.

So, you're not asking for statistical adherence to the real world. You're asking for a number that is essentially arbitrary, but feels more right to you, and a D10 would let you pick more granular numbers that feel more right in relation to one another.

This is why I find the 'bigger dice' arguments thoroughly unconvincing: It isn't about realism or better gameplay; it's fundamentally an exercise in statistical masturbation and splitting hairs at the cost of playability.

 catbarf wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
There have been several studies
“On killing the psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society” David grossman
“Men against fire” SLA Marshall
Being just a few.

I've read both. Nowhere does either say that the average infantryman hits 17% (6 on a D6) or 30% (8+ on a D10) of his shots in combat. The idea of such a number existing, a single universal hit rate as 40K treats it, is complete nonsense to begin with, given that infantry combat could be anything from close-quarters room-clearing in Berlin to shooting at muzzle flashes 300yds away in Okinawa. It's extra silly since, as I alluded to with a rhetorical question, there is no reason to think that a single 'shot' with a lasgun in 40K is meant to represent a Guardsman pulling his trigger exactly once and simulating what happens as a result.

So, you're not asking for statistical adherence to the real world. You're asking for a number that is essentially arbitrary, but feels more right to you, and a D10 would let you pick more granular numbers that feel more right in relation to one another.

This is why I find the 'bigger dice' arguments thoroughly unconvincing: It isn't about realism or better gameplay; it's fundamentally an exercise in statistical masturbation and splitting hairs at the cost of playability.

Bravo, belissimo, magnificent. 100% on the nose.

I'd add that this suggestion:

On a D10, for instance, I would argue the Custodes-like hits on a 2+. The Grots-like hit on a 9+, and the Guards-like hit on a 5+.

Is largely a power trip as well. It's observes a shield captain > a guardian, so why is a shield captain no more skilled than a guardian? Ignoring that, grots are renowned for being good shots by greenskin standards, which requires a most cursory of Google. Moreover, the GEQ profile, is the most common of the "lower end" units and immediately ignores 50% of the new dice values for no fething reason.

Since you bring it up I also want to point something out about that comparison, where a Shield Captain hits on 2+, and a Guardsman hits on 5+.

Are we to understand that if you give a Shield Captain a lasgun, averaging 0.9 hits per shot, he's less effective than two Guardsmen, averaging 1.2 hits? Like, is that what all the incredible combat prowess of a Shield Captain amounts to? 'I can outshoot anyone in the galaxy! Whoah, two Guardsmen?' And that's supposed to be a massive improvement over the current system where... the exact same thing happens?

The way to-hit is mechanically handled in 40K does not allow for a shooter with high skill to significantly outperform a shooter with moderate skill. That is why a Vindicare, master sniper who also can't out-shoot two Guardsmen, receives Devastating Wounds, Ignores Cover, Precision, and Deadshot special abilities on top of his rifle being statted like an anti-tank gun. Making his to-hit BS2+ on a D10 would in no way obviate the need for all those special rules to do what the core mechanics can't.

Putting everyone on a Dragonball Z power scale has negligible gameplay value. Reworking mechanics to produce the desired outcomes does, and may not need bigger dice at all.

The reason that soldiers have such low accuracy in real combat is because the vast, vast majority of rounds are fired not to immediately kill, but to suppress an enemy.

Meanwhile your radio operator is organising for a reaper drone to launch a missile direct onto the enemy's grid co-ordinates from several kilometres away

Tyel wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
The root cause here is the number of stacking rolls. When you have to roll to hit, to wound, and then to beat armor, that's three separate rolls that pare down your starting number of dice. And when the most common defensive profile in the game puts that third step at a 33% chance of success, you need either a boatload of dice (producing swingy results) or high rates of success on the first two rolls to actually accomplish anything.

Food for thought: The first game Andy Chambers wrote after leaving the 40K team, Starship Troopers, has no roll to hit at all. Shooter skill is factored into the weapon profile, and each attack is resolved with a single attack roll followed by a single save roll, and even then only if the attack didn't reach a no-saves-allowed auto-kill threshold. Many other modern games also use two rolls, just roll to hit -> roll for armor.

Yeah. I think Bolt Action works like that. Warmahordes used to work like that (and may still do) - although with a slightly different 2D6 based rolls.

I'm not sure I want to completely re-write 40k, but they could be a lot more imaginative.

I'm not sure I'd want 40k to be completely re-written, but I think some of your ideas on suppression, crossfire and stuff are reasonable. I just think you might need alternate activations (on whatever system) for that to feel reasonable.

Please just buff aircraft and let me use my vendetta and or vulture again =(

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Please just buff aircraft and let me use my vendetta and or vulture again =(

I like the look of the Stormtalon, and there's definitely room in my army for fast-moving AT...