Coming back to 40k from 5th Ed and one of the weirder changes to me is how WS works.
Obviously a lot of stuff in warhammer doesn’t make all that much sense, but I don’t understand why they made WS as a flat value to hit, rather than comparing it to the martial prowess of you opponent? It wasn’t exactly a complicated system before.
Why should an Ork Boy hit a stationery tank on the same value as hitting a Phoenix Lord or Primarch? Comparing WS in the past felt a lot more immersive than only hitting on the same roll every time.
With so much stuff getting power-creeped towards WS 2/3+, it makes combat master special characters feel less special, as one of their qualities was always making lesser characters and units hit them on 4s or 5s.
I agree with you. CC feels very different now. But IMO the insane buffs on attacks which are prevalent now make an even bigger impact on how CC plays out in the game.
Just count how many extra attacks one can stack to a death company interecessor and weep. It's OTT ridiculous now
You played 5th(i still play 5th at my FLGS). think of 40K from 8th edition onward as a completely different game. the troupes and iconic images are still there, but for all intents and purposes they could have sold it as an entirely different game system. it was as big of, if not bigger, of a shift as the change from 2nd to 3rd edition.
When they made the change they decided to try and simplify/streamline core mechanics(the flip side is that codexes and tons of stratagems if where they dumped all the more complex rules) for new players by removing all the charts and just having fixed stats as the game has moved away from lore based rules (i.e. eldar are faster and more agile thus having a higher initiative and usually weapon skill, but are weaker than a space marine) towards a resource management systems.
While the new system is oversimplified at least it now has the entire range, from hitting on 6s to hitting on 2s. The old system was limited to hitting on 3s, 4s and 5s which was extremely silly and something I really loved to be changed.
With the old system the best fighter in the world hit on 3s against the worst figther in the world, like any decent fighter against the same target. Example: Lelith and a kabalite warrior both hit on 3s against a gretchin. Dull IMHO.
nemesis464 wrote: Coming back to 40k from 5th Ed and one of the weirder changes to me is how WS works.
Obviously a lot of stuff in warhammer doesn’t make all that much sense, but I don’t understand why they made WS as a flat value to hit, rather than comparing it to the martial prowess of you opponent? It wasn’t exactly a complicated system before.
Why should an Ork Boy hit a stationery tank on the same value as hitting a Phoenix Lord or Primarch? Comparing WS in the past felt a lot more immersive than only hitting on the same roll every time.
With so much stuff getting power-creeped towards WS 2/3+, it makes combat master special characters feel less special, as one of their qualities was always making lesser characters and units hit them on 4s or 5s.
Anyone feel the same?
Well, no. But, I'll explain.
The problem with comparing WS was that is served both as offensive and as defensive stat. Since GW never fine-tuned weapon skill, but always handed a baseline WS to an entire codex, this meant that an ork boy or nob, both dedicated melee combatants would never hit and eldar or necrons on anything better than a 4+, even if they were fighting snipers, armed civilans or heavy fire support squads.
In the end, this cause melee damage for armies who relied on it to vary too much depending on which army you fought, and the extra layer of defense was just one of the many reason why melee was a mostly useless tool in 6th and 7th outside of invincible deathstars. Removing this defensive layer made melee units more reliable and more deadly, improving them in general.
These days, if a combat master is adept at parrying or evading blows, they get a bespoke rule saying just that, see the swarmlord, wyches or castellan crowe for examples. Agility is represented by having higher movement speed, which is also important in combat - you have more control of whether you get the charge, and when you do, you have a chance of taking down the enemy before he strikes back.
So essentially your mental image of how a fight works hasn't changed, WS simply doesn't represents how well can one defend against melee attacks any more.
Blackie wrote: While the new system is oversimplified at least it now has the entire range, from hitting on 6s to hitting on 2s. The old system was limited to hitting on 3s, 4s and 5s which was extremely silly and something I really loved to be changed.
With the old system the best fighter in the world hit on 3s against the worst figther in the world, like any decent fighter against the same target. Example: Lelith and a kabalite warrior both hit on 3s against a gretchin. Dull IMHO.
Okey but in return right now an IG trooper hits a custodes on a +4. It over inflates numbers of models and handicaps elite armies.
These days, if a combat master is adept at parrying or evading blows, they get a bespoke rule saying just that, see the swarmlord, wyches or castellan crowe for examples. Agility is represented by having higher movement speed, which is also important in combat - you have more control of whether you get the charge, and when you do, you have a chance of taking down the enemy before he strikes back.
Okey, but reality this breaks apart as soon as transports and jet packs are added. No to mention that some armies are told to be faster, stronger etc in the lore, but have no stratgems or extra rules to represent it, no to mention stats differences.
GK termintors are told to be moving just as fast and agile as the power armoured brothers, and that this is one of their differences from other marines. But it is just a lore thing. it doesn't come with any rules attached to it. And sometimes it is rather funny when veterans of 10k years of warp wars are just as good at hiting someone as a 30y old IG veteran.
Why should an Ork Boy hit a stationery tank on the same value as hitting a Phoenix Lord or Primarch? Comparing WS in the past felt a lot more immersive than only hitting on the same roll every time.
I'm amazed at how many players find that strange, and yet no one asked why shooting at a grot or a knight on the same value was perfectly fine.
GW simply decided in 8th to apply to WS the same level of abstraction that everyone had always found fine for BS.
Lance845 wrote: All the referencing charts is a huge time sink for no actual gain. It's good that it's dead.
Huh? No one playing past their first ever beginners game needed to refer to a chart for WS.
Enemy over double your WS: 5+
Enemy lower than your WS: 3+
Everything else: 4+
It was that easy
Just no. It was one of multiple charts in a 200 page rule book, learning it on it's own would have been fine but as one of a large myriad of convoluted rules it was easy to get it wrong in your first few months of playing whilst trying to learn everything.
These days, if a combat master is adept at parrying or evading blows, they get a bespoke rule saying just that, see the swarmlord, wyches or castellan crowe for examples. Agility is represented by having higher movement speed, which is also important in combat - you have more control of whether you get the charge, and when you do, you have a chance of taking down the enemy before he strikes back.
Okey, but reality this breaks apart as soon as transports and jet packs are added. No to mention that some armies are told to be faster, stronger etc in the lore, but have no stratgems or extra rules to represent it, no to mention stats differences.
GK termintors are told to be moving just as fast and agile as the power armoured brothers, and that this is one of their differences from other marines. But it is just a lore thing. it doesn't come with any rules attached to it. And sometimes it is rather funny when veterans of 10k years of warp wars are just as good at hiting someone as a 30y old IG veteran.
That's what "abstraction" means. That's the reason why Mortarion doesn't have a rule that has all models on the table not protected against his plague winds wither and die the second he enters and the same reason why Magnus can't wipe out the entire army in a single psychic phase. The last time GK were even close to their mostly idiotic lore, they were insanely OP. I have also found no evidence of GK terminators being any faster than any other astartes.
Just no. It was one of multiple charts in a 200 page rule book, learning it on it's own would have been fine but as one of a large myriad of convoluted rules it was easy to get it wrong in your first few months of playing whilst trying to learn everything.
Not to mention that no one knew which WS their characters had and always had to look it up when you hit them.
Blackie wrote: While the new system is oversimplified at least it now has the entire range, from hitting on 6s to hitting on 2s. The old system was limited to hitting on 3s, 4s and 5s which was extremely silly and something I really loved to be changed.
With the old system the best fighter in the world hit on 3s against the worst figther in the world, like any decent fighter against the same target. Example: Lelith and a kabalite warrior both hit on 3s against a gretchin. Dull IMHO.
Okey but in return right now an IG trooper hits a custodes on a +4. It over inflates numbers of models and handicaps elite armies.
Yeah because if theres any category of army that needs help right now it's elite armies, yes sir.
Whilst the mechanic itself wasn't that much of a problem, the table was pure trash as it only used 3/5's of the possible outcomes on a dice for no reason whatsoever and actually served to make really high skilled combatants seem really weak, my WS8 Succubus was no better in combat against a Space Marine than my WS5 Wych despite having a massively higher stat.
As Jidmah pointed out, it also had the problem of making certain combat armies rather bad against armies like Eldar and Nids thanks to the way the WS stat worked which is a terrible position to put an army in.
I think removing the defensive nature of the opposed roll and Initiative and leaving the WS and A stats as purely offensive in nature has been a good thing overall, sure it's contributed to the increased lethality of the game now but combat armies are no longer a pointless build.
I don't think the current system is any worse than the previous table. Different and imperfect, yes, but not worse.
As others have said the new system is more in line with how BS has always worked. I think the intention was to simplify/streamline the game. (Also why BS is now a 2+/3+/4+ etc live a Save instead of a Stat with an (admittedly very simple) table to reference.
Personally I'd have preferred a system with both melee attack and melee defence stats, especially since Initiative was removed. They could have used the same table as S/T for WS and a Melee defence stat.
Lance845 wrote: All the referencing charts is a huge time sink for no actual gain. It's good that it's dead.
Huh? No one playing past their first ever beginners game needed to refer to a chart for WS.
Enemy over double your WS: 5+
Enemy lower than your WS: 3+
Everything else: 4+
It was that easy
Just no. It was one of multiple charts in a 200 page rule book, learning it on it's own would have been fine but as one of a large myriad of convoluted rules it was easy to get it wrong in your first few months of playing whilst trying to learn everything.
Just no.
Older editions had a wealth of confusing convoluted rules, but that ridiculously easy WS system was not one of them. If someone had an issue understanding that, they probably didn’t understand 95% of the rules in the book. If loads of 12 year olds at my LGS could get on fine with the rules complexity, then so could most people.
I’m completely open to the idea that the rule itself was flawed as a lot of people have already pointed out, but too complicated? Absolutely not.
In my personal opinion, the way WS vs WS was implemented was bad game design.
First, it was contrasted with BS, which not only went up to 2+ but also was not a comparative stat - your target did not have an "evasiveness" stat, or you didn't have to compare your BS to how fast your target had moved in the turn, or anything like that. This devalued melee comparative to shooting.
Second, it was basically impossible or incredibly unusual to have a melee unit capable of hitting on 2s or needing to hit on 6s.
A unit's damage potential edging closer to 'predictable' territory makes it much much easier to properly value a melee unit in 8th-9th than in pre-8th.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If ballistic skill had also been a contested stat (lord fething knows 40k is in DESPERATE DESPERATE need of limitations to its hit rolls, it's absolutely laughable that units with Range = Board can easily fire across the entire board full of models and terrain and usually hit exactly the same as if they were 2" away from the target) then WS vs WS would have made much more sense. Improve it by making it possible to go to 6 and 2+, and it'd be good in my book.
But if we're not going to have that, I think it makes more sense to make WS flat.
Lance845 wrote: All the referencing charts is a huge time sink for no actual gain. It's good that it's dead.
Huh? No one playing past their first ever beginners game needed to refer to a chart for WS.
Enemy over double your WS: 5+
Enemy lower than your WS: 3+
Everything else: 4+
It was that easy
Just no. It was one of multiple charts in a 200 page rule book, learning it on it's own would have been fine but as one of a large myriad of convoluted rules it was easy to get it wrong in your first few months of playing whilst trying to learn everything.
Just no.
Older editions had a wealth of convoluted rules, but that ridiculously easy WS system was absolutely not one of them. If you had an issue understanding that, you probably didn’t understand 90% of the rules in the book.
Well I was learning in 7th which was a ridiculously overly convoluted and bloated mess that ment brain fades on the simplist things were quite common, knowing how something works and being confident in it as your playing are two very different things.
Imateria wrote: Well I was learning in 7th which was a ridiculously overly convoluted and bloated mess that ment brain fades on the simplist things were quite common, knowing how something works and being confident in it as your playing are two very different things.
7th was absolutely a bloated mess. In my opinion the less model interaction you have the worse of the game is. Two heroes fighting becomes better when their stats effect each other. If strength is measured against Toughness then I feel like WS should be measured against "parry" or just WS. BS should have an equivalent. We can assume everyone is very good at shooting their weapons in 40k (except orks). So maybe it should be measured more on the unit that's being shot at ability to to avoid fire rather then the accuracy of the shooter. Or something similar.
While we're on the subject I believe veichle facings and such also have its place in a model game. I very much dislike that everything become so...streamlined. Yeah it's smother but also models interact much less. it makes it move away from the relevance of the models themselves.
Thank you all for the responses. This is great that I can do this. Put some personal aspiration and character into the hobby and game. I really thank you for taking the time to educate a newbie like my self.
Take care
The new system has more variety while being simpler as well, for me it's a perfect example of good streamlining. The old one was a clumsy chart that made WS basically only matter in extreme fringe cases like a bloodthirster fighting a phoenix lord, 90% of the units in the game had a WS between 2 and 4. Now you move between 2+ and 6+. The only effect the change has is on characters fighting characters which are now mostly 2+ (and before that were 5-9, so basically always hit on 3s).
Imateria wrote: Well I was learning in 7th which was a ridiculously overly convoluted and bloated mess that ment brain fades on the simplist things were quite common, knowing how something works and being confident in it as your playing are two very different things.
7th was absolutely a bloated mess. In my opinion the less model interaction you have the worse of the game is. Two heroes fighting becomes better when their stats effect each other. If strength is measured against Toughness then I feel like WS should be measured against "parry" or just WS. BS should have an equivalent. We can assume everyone is very good at shooting their weapons in 40k (except orks). So maybe it should be measured more on the unit that's being shot at ability to to avoid fire rather then the accuracy of the shooter. Or something similar.
While we're on the subject I believe veichle facings and such also have its place in a model game. I very much dislike that everything become so...streamlined. Yeah it's smother but also models interact much less. it makes it move away from the relevance of the models themselves.
The MODELS shouldn't be interacting the PLAYERS should be interacting.
This superficial finicky rules that create exception clause after exception clause don't actually increase any amount of interactivity. It just creates a flow chart you have to navigate to find out the one piece of information that you use regardless of how complicated it is.
What you, and others, have done is confused that meaningless BS as interactivity or depth of game play when it's neither. It's just complication without merit and it WORKed on you because the player to player interactivity in 40k is so shallow as to not exist. 40k needs an overhaul to make what the players do and the decisions the players make matter more so that actual game play can take over from this nonsense.
Imateria wrote: Well I was learning in 7th which was a ridiculously overly convoluted and bloated mess that ment brain fades on the simplist things were quite common, knowing how something works and being confident in it as your playing are two very different things.
7th was absolutely a bloated mess. In my opinion the less model interaction you have the worse of the game is. Two heroes fighting becomes better when their stats effect each other. If strength is measured against Toughness then I feel like WS should be measured against "parry" or just WS. BS should have an equivalent. We can assume everyone is very good at shooting their weapons in 40k (except orks). So maybe it should be measured more on the unit that's being shot at ability to to avoid fire rather then the accuracy of the shooter. Or something similar.
While we're on the subject I believe veichle facings and such also have its place in a model game. I very much dislike that everything become so...streamlined. Yeah it's smother but also models interact much less. it makes it move away from the relevance of the models themselves.
I'll be honest, I don't think that actually increases any kind of interactivity or interest for me.
It's just yet another way for Games Workshop, rather than the player's decision making, to impact who wins or who loses a battle. It's a way for superspecial kickass megahero from...let's call it "Faction S" to always just coincidentally seem to have WS8 while superspecial kickass megahero from let's say "Faction X" always seems to have WS7, giving an enormous advantage to the former vs the latter even if they're approximately the same or very close to the same points value. It also greatly reduces any kind of tension - welp, looks like for this fight, the 140pt special character's nominal damage output is being reduced by 66% because the 150pt special character has 1 more point of WS - I wooooooonder who will wiiiiiiiiiiin in this exciting battle of champions...
The old WS and I situation created a whole lot of clear, obvious, "Don't Even Try" fight situations, just like the "double your T = INSTANT DEATH" threshold. 9th has a deadliness problem, but at the very least there's a way to beat opponents by outmaneuvering them instead of just...automatically knowing that you should always refuse the challenge vs character A because his I and WS are high enough that he'll easily butcher you before you get to swing and because your WS is lower you wouldn't do any damage anyway.
I really don't prefer a situation where superspecial mega-character who is the best duellist evar in the lore is always able to win in a fight, no matter what I, the actual player who is actually playing the supposedly tactical miniatures game, have to say about it.
Imateria wrote: Well I was learning in 7th which was a ridiculously overly convoluted and bloated mess that ment brain fades on the simplist things were quite common, knowing how something works and being confident in it as your playing are two very different things.
7th was absolutely a bloated mess. In my opinion the less model interaction you have the worse of the game is. Two heroes fighting becomes better when their stats effect each other. If strength is measured against Toughness then I feel like WS should be measured against "parry" or just WS. BS should have an equivalent. We can assume everyone is very good at shooting their weapons in 40k (except orks). So maybe it should be measured more on the unit that's being shot at ability to to avoid fire rather then the accuracy of the shooter. Or something similar.
While we're on the subject I believe veichle facings and such also have its place in a model game. I very much dislike that everything become so...streamlined. Yeah it's smother but also models interact much less. it makes it move away from the relevance of the models themselves.
The MODELS shouldn't be interacting the PLAYERS should be interacting.
This superficial finicky rules that create exception clause after exception clause don't actually increase any amount of interactivity. It just creates a flow chart you have to navigate to find out the one piece of information that you use regardless of how complicated it is.
What you, and others, have done is confused that meaningless BS as interactivity or depth of game play when it's neither. It's just complication without merit and it WORKed on you because the player to player interactivity in 40k is so shallow as to not exist. 40k needs an overhaul to make what the players do and the decisions the players make matter more so that actual game play can take over from this nonsense.
chill dude, I don't see why models shouldn't be interacting. In a game where small plastic miniatures represent fictional characters interaction is reasonable, IMO anyway. If you've played something like bolt-action then you can see how this could work. As to player decisions mattering then yes, that should also be more obvious. If two different people play the exact same list vs the same opponent then you should get different outcomes. I think that's the basic of pretty much any game. I assume that is what you ment anyway. That said I do believe my Carnifex fighting a pheonix lord should have different interactions to fighting a guardsman. I want my models to have a feel of being unique, and a good way to do that is increased interaction with other models. I guess it's an extension of the "your dudes" argument. I'm mostly still in 40k because of the models, not the games. I want the rules to represent my models properly interacting with other models. That way I feel like their accomplishments mean more. All that said though rules bloat is a bother and should be avoided.
Imateria wrote: Well I was learning in 7th which was a ridiculously overly convoluted and bloated mess that ment brain fades on the simplist things were quite common, knowing how something works and being confident in it as your playing are two very different things.
7th was absolutely a bloated mess. In my opinion the less model interaction you have the worse of the game is. Two heroes fighting becomes better when their stats effect each other. If strength is measured against Toughness then I feel like WS should be measured against "parry" or just WS. BS should have an equivalent. We can assume everyone is very good at shooting their weapons in 40k (except orks). So maybe it should be measured more on the unit that's being shot at ability to to avoid fire rather then the accuracy of the shooter. Or something similar.
While we're on the subject I believe veichle facings and such also have its place in a model game. I very much dislike that everything become so...streamlined. Yeah it's smother but also models interact much less. it makes it move away from the relevance of the models themselves.
The MODELS shouldn't be interacting the PLAYERS should be interacting.
This superficial finicky rules that create exception clause after exception clause don't actually increase any amount of interactivity. It just creates a flow chart you have to navigate to find out the one piece of information that you use regardless of how complicated it is.
What you, and others, have done is confused that meaningless BS as interactivity or depth of game play when it's neither. It's just complication without merit and it WORKed on you because the player to player interactivity in 40k is so shallow as to not exist. 40k needs an overhaul to make what the players do and the decisions the players make matter more so that actual game play can take over from this nonsense.
chill dude, I don't see why models shouldn't be interacting. In a game where small plastic miniatures represent fictional characters interaction is reasonable, IMO anyway. If you've played something like bolt-action then you can see how this could work. As to player decisions mattering then yes, that should also be more obvious. If two different people play the exact same list vs the same opponent then you should get different outcomes. I think that's the basic of pretty much any game. I assume that is what you ment anyway. That said I do believe my Carnifex fighting a pheonix lord should have different interactions to fighting a guardsman. I want my models to have a feel of being unique, and a good way to do that is increased interaction with other models. I guess it's an extension of the "your dudes" argument. I'm mostly still in 40k because of the models, not the games. I want the rules to represent my models properly interacting with other models. That way I feel like their accomplishments mean more. All that said though rules bloat is a bother and should be avoided.
....it does though.
It wounds the pheonix lord on a 3+ instead of a 2+, and the pheonix lord is this legendary combatant who's super difficult to hit, so the thing is, he gets an invulnerable save to represent that (or will, anyway, when the third xenos codex comes out in 2022) and the guardsman just gets got.
GW just changed it from "weapon skill is an offensive stat that is sometimes a defensive stat" to "WS is the offensive stat, T and Sv and Special Rules are defensive stats."
the_scotsman 796575 11068087 wrote:
Yeah because if theres any category of army that needs help right now it's elite armies, yes sir.
Well you tell me, my dudes are bottom 3 army. And where is the update suppose to come, after eldar, when all marines are going to be hard countered by them like in 8th ed?
I really don't miss the old WS system. I actually don't miss any of the older systems/books except the 5th edition Drukhari codex, but that's mostly because of all the wonderful special characters.
Eldarsif wrote: I really don't miss the old WS system. I actually don't miss any of the older systems/books except the 5th edition Drukhari codex, but that's mostly because of all the wonderful special characters.
There's a lot of stuff I prefer out of 5th to 9th and some stuff I prefer the idea but not the execution of (like the AV system and vehicles having semi-random damage tables instead of 'hit points'.)
the_scotsman 796575 11068087 wrote:
Yeah because if theres any category of army that needs help right now it's elite armies, yes sir.
Well you tell me, my dudes are bottom 3 army. And where is the update suppose to come, after eldar, when all marines are going to be hard countered by them like in 8th ed?
Your army is not bottom 3 because of GW having changed weapon skill from 7th to 8th, they're bottom tier because you're playing Iphone 8 super-special marines, and you're 2 generations behind the planned obsolescence curve to the point where GW is purposefully shipping updates that don't play well with your out of date firmware in the hopes that eventually you'll upgrade.
They didn't give all marine sub-factions get you by rules for free in a PDF except for GK because they forgot, or because they were being super-careful to not accidentally release broken OP gak into the game...they dropped Dark Angels all-tranhuman all the time terminators into the game. They did it because they want you to fething pony up if you want your updated marine rules.
9th structurally favors elite armies. Other than a couple of spoiler builds designed to take advantage of the fact that everybody is teching to kill elites, like 80% of the competitive play field right now is primarily based around elite infantry of some sort, whether that's marines, DG, Custodes, Necrons, Sisters, or Harlequins.
I'll be honest, I don't think that actually increases any kind of interactivity or interest for me.
It's just yet another way for Games Workshop, rather than the player's decision making, to impact who wins or who loses a battle. It's a way for superspecial kickass megahero from...let's call it "Faction S" to always just coincidentally seem to have WS8 while superspecial kickass megahero from let's say "Faction X" always seems to have WS7, giving an enormous advantage to the former vs the latter even if they're approximately the same or very close to the same points value. It also greatly reduces any kind of tension - welp, looks like for this fight, the 140pt special character's nominal damage output is being reduced by 66% because the 150pt special character has 1 more point of WS - I wooooooonder who will wiiiiiiiiiiin in this exciting battle of champions...
The old WS and I situation created a whole lot of clear, obvious, "Don't Even Try" fight situations, just like the "double your T = INSTANT DEATH" threshold. 9th has a deadliness problem, but at the very least there's a way to beat opponents by outmaneuvering them instead of just...automatically knowing that you should always refuse the challenge vs character A because his I and WS are high enough that he'll easily butcher you before you get to swing and because your WS is lower you wouldn't do any damage anyway.
I get what you're saying here but at the same time I'm not sure the change to WS has improved a whole lot in this area.
Each to their own, of course, but (at least in my experience) duels weren't lost because one character had WS8 and another WS7. Duels were lost because one character had a QUANTUM MEGA-FIST and ARMOUR OF THE 12TH PRIMARCH, while the other was stuck with a Power Sword and a 5++.
Don't get me wrong, you're probably right. But to me there's something, I don't know, depressing about current statlines. At least the old ones at least gave a little character in terms of how skilled units stacked up against one another. Now it's just 'Oh, you're a character? Sign up here for your free WS2+, BS2+'.
I really don't prefer a situation where superspecial mega-character who is the best duellist evar in the lore is always able to win in a fight, no matter what I, the actual player who is actually playing the supposedly tactical miniatures game, have to say about it.
Again, I don't disagree, but WS seems like a somewhat minor problem given that Primarchs exist.
In 7th, my decision point tactically when I had a character and my opponent had a slightly stronger character and it was time to d-d-d-d-d-d-duel was "fight/hide like a coward behind your mooks".
Now, I can influence the outcome by getting the charge off, or CP interrupting, or spending some of my CP resource to improve my chances with a stratagem.
I prefer the latter. It gives me, the general, actual options as opposed to most fights being determined by The Holy Lore and occasionally by someone rolling all 1s.
The only issue right now is how wide the point range is of characers who can easily insta-bonk other characters given one swing is. I'd prefer it to be more common for character duels with no CP expenditure to usually end in one full battle round, with one-turn kills happening more rarely except in circumstances where one character is like 50pts more expensive than the other, but then you'd run into the game's asinine 'fall back' system that makes combats HAVE to resolve in one turn or else the other guy just skips away singing la-la-la and lets his opponent get obliterated by a nearby tank.
Heck, if fall back were more limited or punishing like your opponent got to have a free punch at you as you ran away (which would, incidentally, resolve both the problem of "I have kidnapped this one guardsman so you can't shoot my whole blob of 30 orks" and the problem of "I have tied up your tank with my one gretchin, it must shoot me" instantly, while adding versimilitude to the game) then we could probably retool character stats to allow for satisfying two-turn duels to be the norm again. AND the way 9th structures combat, the guy who gets the initial charge off would only have the strike first advantage on the first turn, on the second turn the other guy would get to go first.
the_scotsman wrote: In 7th, my decision point tactically when I had a character and my opponent had a slightly stronger character and it was time to d-d-d-d-d-d-duel was "fight/hide like a coward behind your mooks".
The challenge system in 7th was just abysmal, though. And WS was the most minor factor in that.
"RAWWGHAAAAALFJGP"
"What do you think it's saying, sarge?"
"Well, my Tyranid is a little rusty but I think it's challenging me to one-on-one combat."
"RAWWGHAGAAAALFLFJP"
"Yes, it's definitely challenging me to one-on-one, combat."
"Er... are you going to accept?"
"No, I'm just going to cry into my rat & sawdust sandwich. Best of luck, lads."
The issue is that 40k doesn't have a "dodge" stat. You've got three ways to describe how "tough" a model is (toughness, saves, and wounds), but nothing to tell you how hard it is to hit. There's no way to differentiate swinging (or shooting) at a five story tall, lumbering Stompa and a small, lightning fast, and crazily skilled Wych. That leads to all sorts of nonsense and hoops to jump through (like modifier spam and "parry" invuls that mean you're only actually parrying plasma bolts, since your armor is almost always better).
WS to WS wasn't a great system, either, as you were really limited by that chart and it didn't allow you to have aggressive or defensive fighters.
A better system (assuming we want to stick with the skirmish game, but huge, scale of 40k) would be something like adding a Defense stat that you'd need to match by adding a d6 to your WS/BS when you attack. So a grot/fire warrior could be WS 2, a guardsman/guardian WS 3, a SM/Ork's WS4, a Wych 5, and so on, and you'd compare to an ork boy/firewarrior/guarsdman Def 7, a SM/guardian/grot Def 8, and Wych at 9. Then a grot would need a six to hit a marine (or Wych, presumably a 6 would always hit since we can't move away from single d6 and keep fast rolling) and the marine would need a four to hit the grot. A guardsman would need a four to hit the ork, but the ork would only need a three to hit him back. Storied duelist characters could slap grunts around on a 2+, but have enough space where one might be more accurate but the other harder to hit, resulting in an even fight despite the different approaches. Vehicles would generally have pretty poor Def (obviously), but cover and weapon penalties would make it relevant, while allowing light and zippy vypers to be harder to hit and a stompa almost impossible to miss.
the_scotsman wrote: In 7th, my decision point tactically when I had a character and my opponent had a slightly stronger character and it was time to d-d-d-d-d-d-duel was "fight/hide like a coward behind your mooks".
The challenge system in 7th was just abysmal, though. And WS was the most minor factor in that.
"RAWWGHAAAAALFJGP"
"What do you think it's saying, sarge?"
"Well, my Tyranid is a little rusty but I think it's challenging me to one-on-one combat."
"RAWWGHAGAAAALFLFJP"
"Yes, it's definitely challenging me to one-on-one, combat."
"Er... are you going to accept?"
"No, I'm just going to cry into my rat & sawdust sandwich. Best of luck, lads."
yup, agreed.
I'm mostly pointing out here that the fact that the models "Interacted" (by me and my opponent having to look up values on a table) is pretty much secondary to the fact that, in 8th+, I as a player might actually have agency to determine the outcome of a character duel, by ensuring that I fight first, or expending some of my command points on a stratagem.
Wheras in 7th and earlier, when two characters fought it was just "roll the dice to see what happened." the only decision was fight/dont fight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trimarius wrote: The issue is that 40k doesn't have a "dodge" stat. You've got three ways to describe how "tough" a model is (toughness, saves, and wounds), but nothing to tell you how hard it is to hit. There's no way to differentiate swinging (or shooting) at a five story tall, lumbering Stompa and a small, lightning fast, and crazily skilled Wych. That leads to all sorts of nonsense and hoops to jump through (like modifier spam and "parry" invuls that mean you're only actually parrying plasma bolts, since your armor is almost always better).
WS to WS wasn't a great system, either, as you were really limited by that chart and it didn't allow you to have aggressive or defensive fighters.
A better system (assuming we want to stick with the skirmish game, but huge, scale of 40k) would be something like adding a Defense stat that you'd need to match by adding a d6 to your WS/BS when you attack. So a grot/fire warrior could be WS 2, a guardsman/guardian WS 3, a SM/Ork's WS4, a Wych 5, and so on, and you'd compare to an ork boy/firewarrior/guarsdman Def 7, a SM/guardian/grot Def 8, and Wych at 9. Then a grot would need a six to hit a marine (or Wych, presumably a 6 would always hit since we can't move away from single d6 and keep fast rolling) and the marine would need a four to hit the grot. A guardsman would need a four to hit the ork, but the ork would only need a three to hit him back. Storied duelist characters could slap grunts around on a 2+, but have enough space where one might be more accurate but the other harder to hit, resulting in an even fight despite the different approaches. Vehicles would generally have pretty poor Def (obviously), but cover and weapon penalties would make it relevant, while allowing light and zippy vypers to be harder to hit and a stompa almost impossible to miss.
What, functionally, would be the distinction between a "dodge stat" and "modifier spam" that you characterize as nonsense and hoops to jump through?
And also, just pointing out here, but there definitely IS a way to differentiate swinging at a stompa and a wych in the current game state. They're completely different targets. One is T3, W1, 4++, the other is T7, W a lot, 3+. I'm completely wasting most of the stats of my Thunder Hammer if I swing it at the wych, wheras it's the perfect way to do a bunch of damage to the Stompa.
I think the point that very few here have pointed out is that very few people actually knew the WS stat of their army(unless they were really into melee) so the game always slowed down when people were looking up their I and WS.
The WS system was very unrealistic and uninteractive. Even the AC system in DnD is better than the old WS system, and there comes the crux of the problem: Some people want to treat this as a wargame whereas other kind of want more of a roleplaying game*. I understand the latter because of the roots of Games Workshop and Rogue Trader and to a lesser extent 2nd edition, but GW has been quite clear that they want want Warhammer to be an intense wargame rather than a roleplaying game so the removal of the WS(and facing and AV) makes perfect sense when it comes to streamlining the game.
* There is a third option. People who want some sort of a "reality simulator" where everything is measured and valued. Like people who like Flight Simulator. Nothing wrong with that, but it would make Warhammer too niche for most of the audience. Also, since it is hard to simulate actual warfare accurately in a dice game it would just be a group of individuals arguing whose interpretation of reality is the correct one.
the_scotsman wrote: In 7th, my decision point tactically when I had a character and my opponent had a slightly stronger character and it was time to d-d-d-d-d-d-duel was "fight/hide like a coward behind your mooks".
Now, I can influence the outcome by getting the charge off, or CP interrupting, or spending some of my CP resource to improve my chances with a stratagem.
I prefer the latter. It gives me, the general, actual options as opposed to most fights being determined by The Holy Lore and occasionally by someone rolling all 1s.
Well that is nice, for armies that were given access to stuff that lets them move fast enough to get in to melee on their turns or those stratagems. But for the armies that actually did have those "best duelist in the world" the change was not a good one. I would prefare for those super duelist dudes to actually be out killing entire armies like they do in the lore.
the_scotsman wrote: In 7th, my decision point tactically when I had a character and my opponent had a slightly stronger character and it was time to d-d-d-d-d-d-duel was "fight/hide like a coward behind your mooks".
Now, I can influence the outcome by getting the charge off, or CP interrupting, or spending some of my CP resource to improve my chances with a stratagem.
I prefer the latter. It gives me, the general, actual options as opposed to most fights being determined by The Holy Lore and occasionally by someone rolling all 1s.
Well that is nice, for armies that were given access to stuff that lets them move fast enough to get in to melee on their turns or those stratagems. But for the armies that actually did have those "best duelist in the world" the change was not a good one. I would prefare for those super duelist dudes to actually be out killing entire armies like they do in the lore.
Luckily, because that would mean GW would sell one model instead of whole armies, the game will never be that dumb.
Blackie wrote: While the new system is oversimplified at least it now has the entire range, from hitting on 6s to hitting on 2s. The old system was limited to hitting on 3s, 4s and 5s which was extremely silly and something I really loved to be changed.
Technically you're not wrong, but in practice you usually only see things hitting on 3+ or 4+, with the occasional 2+, so I'm not sure that the variety has really improved. Usually the only things I see hitting on 5+ or 6+ are vehicles.
If people had trouble with the old table (which, at its core, really wasn't very complex), I'd be open to seeing opposed WS using the same sort of calculation as S v T. That would produce more of a range than the old table, and give high-WS units greater durability in melee in addition to greater offensive output. It would give units like Howling Banshees or Genestealers a way to be effective in melee without being bucket-of-dice glass cannons.
The removal of the WS stat was a mistake. I've said this before and I stand by that assessment.
The "to hit" value they have replaced it with, may have streamlined the game, but it limited design space. It makes no sense that a guardsman hits a grot and a bloodthirster on the same value. It gives even less opportunity to differentiate between different units which is already hard to begin with on a D6 system with stats that range from 1-10.
They should have kept the comparison chart, but expanded it so that you can actually hit on 2+ depending on your WS and your opponents WS.
They also should have expanded the range of WS distribution between units and factions. In previous factions about 80% of all units had a WS between 3 and 5 with some outliers, which didn't matter at all, because best you could hope for was to hit on 3+ anyway so a WS 10 on a bloodthirster was more or less for show.
I understand why they made the decision to change WS, but I think it will hurt the game in the long run.
the_scotsman 796575 11068308 wrote:
Well that is nice, for armies that were given access to stuff that lets them move fast enough to get in to melee on their turns or those stratagems. But for the armies that actually did have those "best duelist in the world" the change was not a good one. I would prefare for those super duelist dudes to actually be out killing entire armies like they do in the lore.
Luckily, because that would mean GW would sell one model instead of whole armies, the game will never be that dumb.
You mean the way castellans invalidated all non skimer vehicles in 8th, until GW decided to fix castellans, and we never saw them played again?
Technically you're not wrong, but in practice you usually only see things hitting on 3+ or 4+, with the occasional 2+, so I'm not sure that the variety has really improved. Usually the only things I see hitting on 5+ or 6+ are vehicles.
But it is not just about how good you hit stuff, but how some random models from other armies hit you. If you are WS 10, some random dude shouldn't be hiting you ona +4. It could be both an offensive and defensive stat. Right now it boils down to being more numerous and point efficient to being better. Up until you get a combination of rules, which historicaly seems to be a high +4/+3 inv and some to hit modfired, that gets you away with everything. And we a beat stick like Mortarion, which some armies can't really kill. And he does not cost so much that by taking them, the DG player is stopped from taking a few units of termintors and other objective grabers.
...which is why you never see armies like Space Marines, Death Guard, Custodes, or Necrons with primarily elite infantry based army setups, and the entire meta boils down to being more numerous and points efficient.
Dude, I know you dislike marines, but don't call them a one army. Because there is a difference betwee a under 40% win rate DA army, pre codex, and a WS one which is only worse then harlis and co.
Plus all those armies get a ton of buffs and stacking rules on top of each other. And it can't even be said that those are 9th ed changes, because marines actually got worse comparing how they were at the end of 8th, and Custodes and harlis run on old books.
Only DG and necron have good 9th ed rules, but I have no idea what that has to do with being elite. One army spams super efficient termininators and a big monster like Mortarion, or even more termintors, and the other spams warriors and a Ctan. Is the elite thing related to the lore or number of units being taken in your argument, because I don;t think I understand you here.
Karol wrote: Dude, I know you dislike marines, but don't call them a one army. Because there is a difference betwee a under 40% win rate DA army, pre codex, and a WS one which is only worse then harlis and co.
Plus all those armies get a ton of buffs and stacking rules on top of each other. And it can't even be said that those are 9th ed changes, because marines actually got worse comparing how they were at the end of 8th, and Custodes and harlis run on old books.
Only DG and necron have good 9th ed rules, but I have no idea what that has to do with being elite. One army spams super efficient termininators and a big monster like Mortarion, or even more termintors, and the other spams warriors and a Ctan. Is the elite thing related to the lore or number of units being taken in your argument, because I don;t think I understand you here.
The difference between DA and WS is the same as Farsight Enclaves and Bork'an Sept.
Karol wrote: Dude, I know you dislike marines, but don't call them a one army. Because there is a difference betwee a under 40% win rate DA army, pre codex, and a WS one which is only worse then harlis and co.
Plus all those armies get a ton of buffs and stacking rules on top of each other. And it can't even be said that those are 9th ed changes, because marines actually got worse comparing how they were at the end of 8th, and Custodes and harlis run on old books.
Only DG and necron have good 9th ed rules, but I have no idea what that has to do with being elite. One army spams super efficient termininators and a big monster like Mortarion, or even more termintors, and the other spams warriors and a Ctan. Is the elite thing related to the lore or number of units being taken in your argument, because I don;t think I understand you here.
The difference between DA and WS is the same as Farsight Enclaves and Bork'an Sept.
One army. Different sub factions.
Call me when Bork'an gets a book. Until then, they are not the same in the least.
Karol wrote: Dude, I know you dislike marines, but don't call them a one army. Because there is a difference betwee a under 40% win rate DA army, pre codex, and a WS one which is only worse then harlis and co.
Plus all those armies get a ton of buffs and stacking rules on top of each other. And it can't even be said that those are 9th ed changes, because marines actually got worse comparing how they were at the end of 8th, and Custodes and harlis run on old books.
Only DG and necron have good 9th ed rules, but I have no idea what that has to do with being elite. One army spams super efficient termininators and a big monster like Mortarion, or even more termintors, and the other spams warriors and a Ctan. Is the elite thing related to the lore or number of units being taken in your argument, because I don;t think I understand you here.
The difference between DA and WS is the same as Farsight Enclaves and Bork'an Sept.
One army. Different sub factions.
Call me when Bork'an gets a book. Until then, they are not the same in the least.
Call me back when DA have their own codex again. While they are a add on to the codex SM they are just that. Codex SM.
Karol wrote: Dude, I know you dislike marines, but don't call them a one army. Because there is a difference betwee a under 40% win rate DA army, pre codex, and a WS one which is only worse then harlis and co.
Plus all those armies get a ton of buffs and stacking rules on top of each other. And it can't even be said that those are 9th ed changes, because marines actually got worse comparing how they were at the end of 8th, and Custodes and harlis run on old books.
Only DG and necron have good 9th ed rules, but I have no idea what that has to do with being elite. One army spams super efficient termininators and a big monster like Mortarion, or even more termintors, and the other spams warriors and a Ctan. Is the elite thing related to the lore or number of units being taken in your argument, because I don;t think I understand you here.
Custodes and Harlequins are indeed running on older books...but weirdly, they were doing much, MUCH worse in terms of winrates and in terms of the percentage of lists being run in 8th than in 9th.
And I'm not entirely up on competitive necron tactics, but while warrior spam does seem to be a thing, it's pretty tough for me to describe the codex as not "Elite."
You said something to the effect of "9th rewards you for being numerically superior to your opponent" and I'm just pointing out that the vast vast VAST majority of the armies being taken in the competitive meta are at the very least a bit elite, if not extremely elite like competitive DG lists, and most of the worst armies in the game currently are the ones based around "numerical superiority" - Guard, GSC, Tyranids, etc.
An objective analysis on early 9th edition is going to come to the conclusion that in general, the armies that do the worst are either those that A, rely heavily on psykers to succeed (GK Tsons Eldar) or B, rely heavily on static shooting or light infantry to succeed.
Blackie wrote: While the new system is oversimplified at least it now has the entire range, from hitting on 6s to hitting on 2s. The old system was limited to hitting on 3s, 4s and 5s which was extremely silly and something I really loved to be changed.
Technically you're not wrong, but in practice you usually only see things hitting on 3+ or 4+, with the occasional 2+, so I'm not sure that the variety has really improved. Usually the only things I see hitting on 5+ or 6+ are vehicles.
If people had trouble with the old table (which, at its core, really wasn't very complex), I'd be open to seeing opposed WS using the same sort of calculation as S v T. That would produce more of a range than the old table, and give high-WS units greater durability in melee in addition to greater offensive output. It would give units like Howling Banshees or Genestealers a way to be effective in melee without being bucket-of-dice glass cannons.
Not true. My orks have lots of stuff that actually hit on 2s (Warboss with killa klaw or big choppa, Big mek in Megarmor with stratagem and killa klaw, Deffkilla wartrike, Bonebreaka/Battlewagon with rolla, any non unwieldy weapons under the banner bubble, tin eadz big mek, dreads and nauts, anything freeboota once their trait is triggered in close combat, pretty much every named characters etc....), while basically everything in the SW roster hits most of the times on 2s. All the drukhari characters (former WS7, WS8, WS9) finally hit on 2s now.
Minus to hit also exist now so hitting on 5s and 6s is not uncommon for infantry models either.
The old table wasn't complex, actually super easy to remind. It was just stupid. IMHO the only interaction that could be interesting is some sort of dodge skill, but it also needs to affect (not necessarily in the same way) the BS then.
Karol wrote: Dude, I know you dislike marines, but don't call them a one army. Because there is a difference betwee a under 40% win rate DA army, pre codex, and a WS one which is only worse then harlis and co.
Plus all those armies get a ton of buffs and stacking rules on top of each other. And it can't even be said that those are 9th ed changes, because marines actually got worse comparing how they were at the end of 8th, and Custodes and harlis run on old books.
Only DG and necron have good 9th ed rules, but I have no idea what that has to do with being elite. One army spams super efficient termininators and a big monster like Mortarion, or even more termintors, and the other spams warriors and a Ctan. Is the elite thing related to the lore or number of units being taken in your argument, because I don;t think I understand you here.
The difference between DA and WS is the same as Farsight Enclaves and Bork'an Sept.
One army. Different sub factions.
Call me when Bork'an gets a book. Until then, they are not the same in the least.
Call me back when DA have their own codex again. While they are a add on to the codex SM they are just that. Codex SM.
SM is a superfaction now, like Chaos. Sorry if you can't see things like they are.
No reason to hijack this thread either though, so I'll not try to convince you.
Blackie wrote: While the new system is oversimplified at least it now has the entire range, from hitting on 6s to hitting on 2s. The old system was limited to hitting on 3s, 4s and 5s which was extremely silly and something I really loved to be changed.
Technically you're not wrong, but in practice you usually only see things hitting on 3+ or 4+, with the occasional 2+, so I'm not sure that the variety has really improved. Usually the only things I see hitting on 5+ or 6+ are vehicles.
If people had trouble with the old table (which, at its core, really wasn't very complex), I'd be open to seeing opposed WS using the same sort of calculation as S v T. That would produce more of a range than the old table, and give high-WS units greater durability in melee in addition to greater offensive output. It would give units like Howling Banshees or Genestealers a way to be effective in melee without being bucket-of-dice glass cannons.
Not true. My orks have lots of stuff that actually hit on 2s (Warboss with killa klaw or big choppa, Big mek in Megarmor with stratagem and killa klaw, Deffkilla wartrike, Bonebreaka/Battlewagon with rolla, any non unwieldy weapons under the banner bubble, tin eadz big mek, dreads and nauts, anything freeboota once their trait is triggered in close combat, pretty much every named characters etc....), while basically everything in the SW roster hits most of the times on 2s. All the drukhari characters (former WS7, WS8, WS9) finally hit on 2s now.
Minus to hit also exist now so hitting on 5s and 6s is not uncommon for infantry models either.
The old table wasn't complex, actually super easy to remind. It was just stupid. IMHO the only interaction that could be interesting is some sort of dodge skill, but it also needs to affect (not necessarily in the same way) the BS then.
Precisely. Fixed rolls are easier (until stuff like stratagems get piled on top) but that limits design space, and it's just plain boring.
Oddly enough a lot of the objections to WS are based on the challenge rule which was introduced in 6th so removing that rule could have sorted out the problem with Weapon Skill then?
Llamahead wrote: Oddly enough a lot of the objections to WS are based on the challenge rule which was introduced in 6th so removing that rule could have sorted out the problem with Weapon Skill then?
Not really. The main problem of prior editions was that WS basically was either 3+ or 4+, while now it is 2+ to 6+. People like to praise 5th edition on that board but the WS system (and I'd say the whole CC because it allowed for zero player interaction, once units were in the fight it went on until one side was erased or fled with nothing a player could do whatsoever) really was bad. It was pseudocomplex. Look at these tables and look, your characters' WS ranges from 4 to 8 but when you played the game you realized: Oh, this is all just on paper, basically I hit on 3+ or on 4+, end of the story.
Llamahead wrote: Oddly enough a lot of the objections to WS are based on the challenge rule which was introduced in 6th so removing that rule could have sorted out the problem with Weapon Skill then?
Not really. The main problem of prior editions was that WS basically was either 3+ or 4+, while now it is 2+ to 6+. People like to praise 5th edition on that board but the WS system (and I'd say the whole CC because it allowed for zero player interaction, once units were in the fight it went on until one side was erased or fled with nothing a player could do whatsoever) really was bad. It was pseudocomplex. Look at these tables and look, your characters' WS ranges from 4 to 8 but when you played the game you realized: Oh, this is all just on paper, basically I hit on 3+ or on 4+, end of the story.
Which is why they should have extended the WS comparison chart for units to be able to hit on 2+ or 6+.
And increase the WS stat distribution of units because most were in the 3-5 area. A WS10 bloodthirster was more for show as you said.
But if you have more combat oriented factions and units in the WS 5-6 area, things get more interesting. If harlequins were to have WS6 for example it would not only mean they hit most things well, but it would serve as a defensive stand also. Just an example but you get my point.
The WS range on units was also in such a small range that it didn't matter as much unless you were playing with special heroes.
I mean, a Grot is hitting on 5+ which was the same it was hitting most high WS heroes in the old WS system so decrying that grots are hitting your heroes on 5+ I can assure you nothing has changed in that regard.
I honestly feel like the game has streamlined without really losing anything because the margins of majority of units wasn't that high.
Llamahead wrote: Oddly enough a lot of the objections to WS are based on the challenge rule which was introduced in 6th so removing that rule could have sorted out the problem with Weapon Skill then?
No, because there was also the fundamental imbalance of BS always being a stat you got the full value from, while WS was a contested stat that you could pay points for and then your opponent could lower the value of by having a higher stat.
Whooch wrote: Thank you all for the responses. This is great that I can do this. Put some personal aspiration and character into the hobby and game. I really thank you for taking the time to educate a newbie like my self.
Take care
I just want to take a moment to point out that the OP had their question answered and that this message is very sweet. Good luck to you, @Whooch, however the game shakes out for you!
On the current thread of the conversation: What I miss is not so much WS but I, which, while not perfect, seems to me to have been a better system than only having Fight First/Last, which as handled is a Gordian knot in the pasta of the 9th-ed rules.
Initiative is a hard stat because it either removes all interactivity from the fight phase and you just go down the list resolving things mindlessly, or it's almost irrelevant (see WHFB 6th edition, where chargers fought first regardless of Initiative values).
Llamahead wrote: Oddly enough a lot of the objections to WS are based on the challenge rule which was introduced in 6th so removing that rule could have sorted out the problem with Weapon Skill then?
Not really. The main problem of prior editions was that WS basically was either 3+ or 4+, while now it is 2+ to 6+. People like to praise 5th edition on that board but the WS system (and I'd say the whole CC because it allowed for zero player interaction, once units were in the fight it went on until one side was erased or fled with nothing a player could do whatsoever) really was bad. It was pseudocomplex. Look at these tables and look, your characters' WS ranges from 4 to 8 but when you played the game you realized: Oh, this is all just on paper, basically I hit on 3+ or on 4+, end of the story.
Unless you were fighting vehicles. It really made playing Daemons difficult in 5th (amongst many, many other things) when you were hitting most vehicles on 4+ or 6+ flatly because of the way their movement rules worked for them.
Llamahead wrote: Oddly enough a lot of the objections to WS are based on the challenge rule which was introduced in 6th so removing that rule could have sorted out the problem with Weapon Skill then?
No, because there was also the fundamental imbalance of BS always being a stat you got the full value from, while WS was a contested stat that you could pay points for and then your opponent could lower the value of by having a higher stat.
...Well, yeah. Like how it doesn't matter how much AP you paid for on your weapons if your opponent's playing Harlequins, or all the Dd6 weapons in the world do nothing if your opponent's army is all 1W models.
This has been a pet project of mine for some time: Here's an expanded comparison chart so you can hit on 2+ and 6+. I've also made it easier to hit "upwards" so units are not instantly penalized when they fight someone with one more WS than them. Only if you fight a unit that has two more WS you go to hitting on 5+.
So now you have to distribute sensible WS values across units/factions, for example:
WS1: Spore mines
WS2: Grots, Zoanthropes, Conscripts
WS3: Guardsmen, Hormagaunts, Sisters, Necron Warrior
WS4: Space Marines, Orkboyz, Dire Avengers, Repentia
WS5: Space Marine Terminators, Grey Knights, Striking Scorpions, Wyches, Lychguard, Ork Nobz, Tyranid Warrior
WS6: Genestealers, Triarch Praetorians, Howling Banshees, Incubi, Grey Knight Terminators, Meganobz, Bloodletters
WS7: Harlequins, Custodes, Assassins, Lord of Change
WS8: Hive Tyrant, Great Unclean One, Solitaire, Demon Prince
WS9: Keeper of Secrets, Skulltaker, Guilliman,
WS10: Bloodthirster, Swarmlord, Lelith Hesperax
Edit: 6s to hit are always successful, forgot to amend that for the fringe cases on the chart when WS3 tries to hit WS10
This has been a pet project of mine for some time: Here's an expanded comparison chart so you can hit on 2+ and 6+. I've also made it easier to hit "upwards" so units are not instantly penalized when they fight someone with one more WS than them. Only if you fight a unit that has two more WS you go to hitting on 5+.
So now you have to distribute sensible WS values across units/factions, for example:
WS1: Spore mines
WS2: Grots, Zoanthropes, Conscripts
WS3: Guardsmen, Hormagaunts, Sisters, Necron Warrior
WS4: Space Marines, Orkboyz, Dire Avengers, Repentia
WS5: Space Marine Terminators, Grey Knights, Striking Scorpions, Wyches, Lychguard, Ork Nobz, Tyranid Warrior
WS6: Genestealers, Triarch Praetorians, Howling Banshees, Incubi, Grey Knight Terminators, Meganobz, Bloodletters
WS7: Harlequins, Custodes, Assassins, Lord of Change
WS8: Hive Tyrant, Great Unclean One, Solitaire, Demon Prince
WS9: Keeper of Secrets, Skulltaker, Guilliman,
WS10: Bloodthirster, Swarmlord, Lelith Hesperax
Edit: 6s to hit are always successful, forgot to amend that for the fringe cases on the chart when WS3 tries to hit WS10
This functionally makes WS3 and 4 the same as neither will commonly hit at better than a 4+ as the units with WS1 and 2 are either uncommon or are models that can't be taken as more than a handful of units in an army. This chart seems clever but it just causes a lot of work for nothing and only serves to make already strong armies like Harlequins and Daemons even better.
Lance845 wrote:All the referencing charts is a huge time sink for no actual gain. It's good that it's dead.
True, but considering there is the new comparison system that is being used for S v T that could have been used, I disagree on it being dead.
Tiberias wrote:The removal of the WS stat was a mistake. I've said this before and I stand by that assessment.
The "to hit" value they have replaced it with, may have streamlined the game, but it limited design space. It makes no sense that a guardsman hits a grot and a bloodthirster on the same value. It gives even less opportunity to differentiate between different units which is already hard to begin with on a D6 system with stats that range from 1-10.
They should have kept the comparison chart, but expanded it so that you can actually hit on 2+ depending on your WS and your opponents WS.
They also should have expanded the range of WS distribution between units and factions. In previous factions about 80% of all units had a WS between 3 and 5 with some outliers, which didn't matter at all, because best you could hope for was to hit on 3+ anyway so a WS 10 on a bloodthirster was more or less for show.
I understand why they made the decision to change WS, but I think it will hurt the game in the long run.
I agree with the concept, but disagree on the implementation. The chart simply isn't needed with how 8th+ Edition handles stat comparison. No extra chart really needed.
Blastaar wrote:Fixed rolls are easier (until stuff like stratagems get piled on top) but that limits design space, and it's just plain boring.
Attacking should work like this:
Roll to hit vs, evasion
Roll to wound vs. armor
Apply damage. Done.
I disagree, but only a little. I do like the player having a chance to defend their models with the Save system, so keep S v T for To Wound rolls.
Rihgu wrote:Initiative is a hard stat because it either removes all interactivity from the fight phase and you just go down the list resolving things mindlessly, or it's almost irrelevant (see WHFB 6th edition, where chargers fought first regardless of Initiative values).
Initiative could have been used for the "evasion" stat above as well as hitting first (or just alone for that matter). BS has not had anything to really compare itself against, as it just existed. Having BS and WS have to overcome a models "Initiative" or "Evasion" would allow for some significant design space and really identify the ones that are easy to hit, like Necrons who would rely on their built in toughness and regeneration to overcome, and those who should be devils to hit like Eldar Banshees and Wyches.
This would also allow Invul Saves to be actually about Invulnerability instead of being an Evasion Save.
I confess, I miss the old chart. It wasn't that difficult to remember. But I think it's what a lot of us just couldn't wrap our heads around; you can hit a grot with the same probability of hitting a Bloodthirster with 20,000 years of combat experience.
This has been a pet project of mine for some time: Here's an expanded comparison chart so you can hit on 2+ and 6+. I've also made it easier to hit "upwards" so units are not instantly penalized when they fight someone with one more WS than them. Only if you fight a unit that has two more WS you go to hitting on 5+.
So now you have to distribute sensible WS values across units/factions, for example:
WS1: Spore mines
WS2: Grots, Zoanthropes, Conscripts
WS3: Guardsmen, Hormagaunts, Sisters, Necron Warrior
WS4: Space Marines, Orkboyz, Dire Avengers, Repentia
WS5: Space Marine Terminators, Grey Knights, Striking Scorpions, Wyches, Lychguard, Ork Nobz, Tyranid Warrior
WS6: Genestealers, Triarch Praetorians, Howling Banshees, Incubi, Grey Knight Terminators, Meganobz, Bloodletters
WS7: Harlequins, Custodes, Assassins, Lord of Change
WS8: Hive Tyrant, Great Unclean One, Solitaire, Demon Prince
WS9: Keeper of Secrets, Skulltaker, Guilliman,
WS10: Bloodthirster, Swarmlord, Lelith Hesperax
Edit: 6s to hit are always successful, forgot to amend that for the fringe cases on the chart when WS3 tries to hit WS10
This functionally makes WS3 and 4 the same as neither will commonly hit at better than a 4+ as the units with WS1 and 2 are either uncommon or are models that can't be taken as more than a handful of units in an army. This chart seems clever but it just causes a lot of work for nothing and only serves to make already strong armies like Harlequins and Daemons even better.
Well I didn't say it was perfect, the distribution of WS can be finetuned for sure, but I think it proves a point that GW could have done something more interesting that a flat to hit value.
Edit: also a lot of work? how hard is that to remember when you used it three times, honestly?
Canadian 5th wrote: This functionally makes WS3 and 4 the same as neither will commonly hit at better than a 4+ as the units with WS1 and 2 are either uncommon or are models that can't be taken as more than a handful of units in an army. This chart seems clever but it just causes a lot of work for nothing and only serves to make already strong armies like Harlequins and Daemons even better.
In that proposed system, WS3 fighting WS4 will hit on 4+, and WS4 fighting WS3 will hit on a 3+. Just like how it currently is when, say, Marines fight Guardsmen.
This is how it worked back in 3rd-6th. Did you really feel back then like WS3 and WS4 were the same?
catbarf wrote: In that proposed system, WS3 fighting WS4 will hit on 4+, and WS4 fighting WS3 will hit on a 3+. Just like how it currently is when, say, Marines fight Guardsmen.
This is how it worked back in 3rd-6th. Did you really feel back then like WS3 and WS4 were the same?
I missed that the 4+ wash between WS3 and WS4 was only for the less skilled unit, which entirely changes how I feel about the chart.
This has been a pet project of mine for some time: Here's an expanded comparison chart so you can hit on 2+ and 6+. I've also made it easier to hit "upwards" so units are not instantly penalized when they fight someone with one more WS than them. Only if you fight a unit that has two more WS you go to hitting on 5+.
So now you have to distribute sensible WS values across units/factions, for example:
WS1: Spore mines WS2: Grots, Zoanthropes, Conscripts WS3: Guardsmen, Hormagaunts, Sisters, Necron Warrior WS4: Space Marines, Orkboyz, Dire Avengers, Repentia WS5: Space Marine Terminators, Grey Knights, Striking Scorpions, Wyches, Lychguard, Ork Nobz, Tyranid Warrior WS6: Genestealers, Triarch Praetorians, Howling Banshees, Incubi, Grey Knight Terminators, Meganobz, Bloodletters WS7: Harlequins, Custodes, Assassins, Lord of Change WS8: Hive Tyrant, Great Unclean One, Solitaire, Demon Prince WS9: Keeper of Secrets, Skulltaker, Guilliman, WS10: Bloodthirster, Swarmlord, Lelith Hesperax
Edit: 6s to hit are always successful, forgot to amend that for the fringe cases on the chart when WS3 tries to hit WS10
This functionally makes WS3 and 4 the same as neither will commonly hit at better than a 4+ as the units with WS1 and 2 are either uncommon or are models that can't be taken as more than a handful of units in an army. This chart seems clever but it just causes a lot of work for nothing and only serves to make already strong armies like Harlequins and Daemons even better.
Well I didn't say it was perfect, the distribution of WS can be finetuned for sure, but I think it proves a point that GW could have done something more interesting that a flat to hit value. Edit: also a lot of work? how hard is that to remember when you used it three times, honestly?
The thing I fail to understand is what part of that is supposed to be "interesting". Is having to look up your to hit roll in a table really that much of an improvement to your gaming experience?
In my opinion this adds absolutely no depth to the game and just reduces melee damage across the board.
Llamahead wrote: Oddly enough a lot of the objections to WS are based on the challenge rule which was introduced in 6th so removing that rule could have sorted out the problem with Weapon Skill then?
Not really. The main problem of prior editions was that WS basically was either 3+ or 4+, while now it is 2+ to 6+. People like to praise 5th edition on that board but the WS system (and I'd say the whole CC because it allowed for zero player interaction, once units were in the fight it went on until one side was erased or fled with nothing a player could do whatsoever) really was bad. It was pseudocomplex. Look at these tables and look, your characters' WS ranges from 4 to 8 but when you played the game you realized: Oh, this is all just on paper, basically I hit on 3+ or on 4+, end of the story.
Unless you were fighting vehicles. It really made playing Daemons difficult in 5th (amongst many, many other things) when you were hitting most vehicles on 4+ or 6+ flatly because of the way their movement rules worked for them.
A few points
1.the higher end WS really mattered among the big units.
the WS10 of the avatar of khaine meant that when he fought a bloodthirster (WS 9- 3.5 chaos dex) he hit it on 3s and the BT had to hit the avatar on 4+ for a change. yeah the BT was good but when he was fighting a literal god made manifest even he had to struggle.
I think the point many people are missing is that in CC weapon skill COMBINED with initiative is what made the units stand out as i noted in my first post. it was an abstract to represent in universe lore with a d6 system without making it overly complicated. it represented both speed and skill in dueling without having to make an opposed roll like heavy gear.
2.the vehicles being assaulting in close combat rules (4th ed)were fantastic (and we put them back in our house rules version of 5th combined with snap fire) because it forces the vehicle player to make tactical choices, not only over concerns about armor facing but also a trade off between moving and becoming less and less effective at shooting the more they moved or risking the outcome of being assaulted by not moving at all for better shooting. It is another abstract with the d6 system to represent the difficulty in attacking a moving vehicle that we can naturally identify with.
3.there was a psudo opposed roll for shooting-hard cover saves. they both represented units in cover hiding behind objects for protection, but also (in the example given in the book) aiming to avoid hitting friendly intervening models.
There were many lore aspects of the game they were attempting to represent within the limits of a d6 system that 9th doesn't even bother with. as a casual player who plays because of the lore it is one of many reasons i play 5th edition over 9th for regular 28mm 40K. if i want the kind of streamlined rules that 8th introduced i will play epic scale.
This has been a pet project of mine for some time: Here's an expanded comparison chart so you can hit on 2+ and 6+. I've also made it easier to hit "upwards" so units are not instantly penalized when they fight someone with one more WS than them. Only if you fight a unit that has two more WS you go to hitting on 5+.
So now you have to distribute sensible WS values across units/factions, for example:
WS1: Spore mines
WS2: Grots, Zoanthropes, Conscripts
WS3: Guardsmen, Hormagaunts, Sisters, Necron Warrior
WS4: Space Marines, Orkboyz, Dire Avengers, Repentia
WS5: Space Marine Terminators, Grey Knights, Striking Scorpions, Wyches, Lychguard, Ork Nobz, Tyranid Warrior
WS6: Genestealers, Triarch Praetorians, Howling Banshees, Incubi, Grey Knight Terminators, Meganobz, Bloodletters
WS7: Harlequins, Custodes, Assassins, Lord of Change
WS8: Hive Tyrant, Great Unclean One, Solitaire, Demon Prince
WS9: Keeper of Secrets, Skulltaker, Guilliman,
WS10: Bloodthirster, Swarmlord, Lelith Hesperax
Edit: 6s to hit are always successful, forgot to amend that for the fringe cases on the chart when WS3 tries to hit WS10
This functionally makes WS3 and 4 the same as neither will commonly hit at better than a 4+ as the units with WS1 and 2 are either uncommon or are models that can't be taken as more than a handful of units in an army. This chart seems clever but it just causes a lot of work for nothing and only serves to make already strong armies like Harlequins and Daemons even better.
Well I didn't say it was perfect, the distribution of WS can be finetuned for sure, but I think it proves a point that GW could have done something more interesting that a flat to hit value.
Edit: also a lot of work? how hard is that to remember when you used it three times, honestly?
The thing I fail to understand is what part of that is supposed to be "interesting". Is having to look up your to hit roll in a table really that much of an improvement to your gaming experience?
In my opinion this adds absolutely no depth to the game and just reduces melee damage across the board.
The interesting part is that it finally matters again who fights against who. Which means WS also becomes a defensive stat again.
I would also change auras and strats that give +1 to hit, to instead give +1 to WS, which in turn would mean that getting more of those buffs would actually be meaningful. Right now it's really easy to make most things hit on 2+, if you really want to.
This would also serve to reduce lethality of the the game in melee, which is something many people have complained about (shooting is another story). In short it would make melee combat more interesting again.
It would also free up design space to differentiate elite units better from each other.
Regarding complexity: honestly, how hard is this really when you have used it a couple of times? The principle really isn't that difficult.
I can take a ranged unit for a certain role, knowing that it will perform the same against all targets.
I can't do the same for melee, because if I bring veterans to kill high armored infantry, they will fail against custodes.
This means that you have to increase the cost of WS on units, because it is defending them other than being an offensive stat. This means increasing the cost of melee specialists, turning them into even more of a gamble. Either, you run into a good target and absolutely trash them thanks to a good offensive and defensive profile, or you meet the wrong unit and they are useless.
That's what happened in 5th 6th and 7th. Melee was unreliable because they had packed offense and defense in the same stat. 8th finally freed us of that, and indeed we saw quite the abundant use of assault units for the first time in many many years of 40k.
I think they missed the opportunity to rationalize the game and to eliminate entirely the to hit roll. We can call it a failure of imagination.
Right now, it's basically useless since there are so much reroll and attacks that very rarely you can achieve significative statistical deviations during the to-hot step.
Wound roll, armour save and damage rolls more than enought to maintain uncertainty and variety.
6 attacks at 2+? 5 hit, no roll needed. 1 attack at 4+? A hit every two models... And so on so forth. The time saved would be immense and the impact in the game flow negligible
That's what happened in 5th 6th and 7th. Melee was unreliable because they had packed offense and defense in the same stat. 8th finally freed us of that, and indeed we saw quite the abundant use of assault units for the first time in many many years of 40k.
If you think that, we had very different experiences with 4th and 5th edition. assault units were very much a thing and very effective. i should know, i regularly play against a chaos khorne army in our 5th edition game group and i have gone up against him with everything from GKs, assassins, assault marines, dreadnoughts and tyranids. just did a 5,700 point apocalypse game against him in fact...lots of CC happening there.
But it isn't just khorne our 5th ed group includes these armies-
I can take a ranged unit for a certain role, knowing that it will perform the same against all targets.
I can't do the same for melee, because if I bring veterans to kill high armored infantry, they will fail against custodes.
This means that you have to increase the cost of WS on units, because it is defending them other than being an offensive stat.
This means increasing the cost of melee specialists, turning them into even more of a gamble. Either, you run into a good target and absolutely trash them thanks to a good offensive and defensive profile, or you meet the wrong unit and they are useless.
That's what happened in 5th 6th and 7th. Melee was unreliable because they had packed offense and defense in the same stat. 8th finally freed us of that, and indeed we saw quite the abundant use of assault units for the first time in many many years of 40k.
That issue is very present with my proposal you are 100% correct. But you couldn't implement my chart into the game as it is anyway, the would have to be designed with it in mind and shooting would have to be tweaked accordingly.
While your criticism is very valid, I don't think it invalidates the charts as a generally more interesting concept GW could have used when designing 8th, while also not making shooting as reliable and lethal as it is now.
Edit: I disagree though with the sentiment that assault units were not as effective in previous editions.
Cybtroll wrote:I think they missed the opportunity to rationalize the game and to eliminate entirely the to hit roll. We can call it a failure of imagination.
Right now, it's basically useless since there are so much reroll and attacks that very rarely you can achieve significative statistical deviations during the to-hot step.
Wound roll, armour save and damage rolls more than enought to maintain uncertainty and variety.
6 attacks at 2+? 5 hit, no roll needed. 1 attack at 4+? A hit every two models... And so on so forth. The time saved would be immense and the impact in the game flow negligible
I get your point, but I personally disagree, it would make the game even more lethal and you would have even less differentiation between units, which I think is actually important for a game with that many factions.
Lethality would be exactly the same, and the attack sequence is a window dressing since you can already calculate exactly how many hits you will achieve at the list-builsing stage.
Already now, when you Mathammer, the only variable is the T and Save of the target, there is nothing in the attack sequence that cannot be simply expressed by a number of hits with the exact same final results.
All relevant mechanics are gradually phasing out, and already everything that is important (Invulnerability, Mortal Wound, Damage cap, modifiers to Wound) are after the to-hit step.
That's a direct consequences of capping hit modifiers at -1. I didn't like it, but that's the game we have.
I would prefer for iGW to take note of the impact of their decision and to go for it... rather than always staying in the middle of different ideas without fully realizing none.
Maybe to save the fluff of some faction like Orks could have a random number of hits (like D3) for any model. But that's windows dressing too.
That would also have the positive effect of leaving more breathing space to the system: D6 is enough if you have only wound, save and damage rolls.
And in general, I think the "cinematic" of 40k don't require hit wound. That's not The Three Musketeers, with elegant duelist that win with littl blood applied. It's much more gore, and Wound mechanics are more than enough for it
Lethality would be exactly the same, and the attack sequence is a window dressing since you can already calculate exactly how many hits you will achieve at the list-builsing stage.
Already now, when you Mathammer, the only variable is the T and Save of the target, there is nothing in the attack sequence that cannot be simply expressed by a number of hits with the exact same final results.
All relevant mechanics are gradually phasing out, and already everything that is important (Invulnerability, Mortal Wound, Damage cap, modifiers to Wound) are after the to-hit step.
That's a direct consequences of capping hit modifiers at -1. I didn't like it, but that's the game we have.
I would prefer for iGW to take note of the impact of their decision and to go for it... rather than always staying in the middle of different ideas without fully realizing none.
Maybe to save the fluff of some faction like Orks could have a random number of hits (like D3) for any model. But that's windows dressing too.
That would also have the positive effect of leaving more breathing space to the system: D6 is enough if you have only wound, save and damage rolls.
And in general, I think the "cinematic" of 40k don't require hit wound. That's not The Three Musketeers, with elegant duelist that win with littl blood applied. It's much more gore, and Wound mechanics are more than enough for it
You can calculate many things beforehand, but you can still miss ingame, there is still variance. If you remove that entirely it makes things more lethal in practice. You also lose some of the "theater", there should be a gage as to how good a unit fights compared to another unit it faces. And yes 40k not about elegant three musketeers duels, but it can have a small part of that.
I also strongly disagree that you would have enough breathing space on a D6 system. Right now many units seem to blur together in terms of their capabilities and stats, specifically because we are limited by a D6 to-hit system and a statblock from 1-10.
I completely agree though that capping modifiers at -1 was a bad decision.
Tiberias wrote: The interesting part is that it finally matters again who fights against who.
It already matters who fights who, because of attacks, damage, strength and AP on the offensive side and toughness, wounds and saves on the defense, in addition to unit and weapon abilities. Having a slightly better or worse hit roll doesn't change a lot about that. Not a single match-up from anything on your list would significantly be affected by your table. To pick one of the examples from this thread - a (non-exalted) blood thirster of unfetted fury currently does ~10 damage to an avatar, killing it before it can strike. If it had a lower WS and hit on 3s, it would still deal ~8.5 damage to it and kill it before it can strike.
Which means WS also becomes a defensive stat again.
We have already established that having a stat being both offensive and defensive is a bad thing. Especially when there is no equivalent for shooting which is vastly superior to melee.
I would also change auras and strats that give +1 to hit, to instead give +1 to WS, which in turn would mean that getting more of those buffs would actually be meaningful. Right now it's really easy to make most things hit on 2+, if you really want to.
+1 WS upgrades were feels-bad upgrades. If you bought a Waaagh! banner against marines, it made you hit better, if you bought it against imperial guard, it did absolutely nothing. "Most things" also is absolutely incorrect, only units with WS 3+ can be improved to 2+, and most armies don't even anything that provides +1 to hit, and even if they do, it's often limited to a single unit.
This would also serve to reduce lethality of the the game in melee, which is something many people have complained about (shooting is another story).
Lethality in melee is not the lethality people are complaining about. I'd also see the proof of "many people" complaining about this, or is this just the appeal to popularity fallacy?
In short it would make melee combat more interesting again.
Eh, your entire argument just boils down to "make melee worse".`Once again, what part of that do you consider "interesting"?
It would also free up design space to differentiate elite units better from each other.
Having a range from 1-10 instead of 2-6 is not design space, especially when it's just a more complicated way to make units hit on 2-6 anyways. Using d10 to roll to hit in combat would be strictly superior to your solution in terms of design space. Adding bespoke rules to the few exceptional melee combatants is vastly superior in terms of design space than comparing weapon skills between an imperial commissar and a tau ethereal.
Regarding complexity: honestly, how hard is this really when you have used it a couple of times? The principle really isn't that difficult.
You cannot deny that it adds complexity, and it adds no depth. Therefore it makes the game worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cybtroll wrote: I think they missed the opportunity to rationalize the game and to eliminate entirely the to hit roll. We can call it a failure of imagination.
Right now, it's basically useless since there are so much reroll and attacks that very rarely you can achieve significative statistical deviations during the to-hot step.
Wound roll, armour save and damage rolls more than enought to maintain uncertainty and variety.
6 attacks at 2+? 5 hit, no roll needed. 1 attack at 4+? A hit every two models... And so on so forth. The time saved would be immense and the impact in the game flow negligible
While you are technically right, just try playing a game like that. I did and it was super boring.
I think a middle ground would be good, something like reducing attacks of horde units to 1 and have each successful hit doubled/trippled depending on unit size.
Regarding complexity: honestly, how hard is this really when you have used it a couple of times? The principle really isn't that difficult.
You cannot deny that it adds complexity, and it adds no depth. Therefore it makes the game worse.
WS and I didn't add that much depth in 3e-7e, where the stats were assigned such that it was effectively "Codex X attacks before Codex Y and hits them on a 3+". It adds a lot more depth in 30k when WS and I exist in narrower bands, you may have the choice to take WS4 or WS5 melee units within one Codex instead of all your melee options having the same WS, and Initiative bonuses/penalties exist on some weapons/rules rather than I being on (not a powerfist) or off (a powerfist).
Tiberias wrote: The interesting part is that it finally matters again who fights against who.
It already matters who fights who, because of attacks, damage, strength and AP on the offensive side and toughness, wounds and saves on the defense, in addition to unit and weapon abilities. Having a slightly better or worse hit roll doesn't change a lot about that. Not a single match-up from anything on your list would significantly be affected by your table.
To pick one of the examples from this thread - a (non-exalted) blood thirster of unfetted fury currently does ~10 damage to an avatar, killing it before it can strike. If it had a lower WS and hit on 3s, it would still deal ~8.5 damage to it and kill it before it can strike.
Which means WS also becomes a defensive stat again.
We have already established that having a stat being both offensive and defensive is a bad thing. Especially when there is no equivalent for shooting which is vastly superior to melee.
I would also change auras and strats that give +1 to hit, to instead give +1 to WS, which in turn would mean that getting more of those buffs would actually be meaningful. Right now it's really easy to make most things hit on 2+, if you really want to.
+1 WS upgrades were feels-bad upgrades. If you bought a Waaagh! banner against marines, it made you hit better, if you bought it against imperial guard, it did absolutely nothing.
"Most things" also is absolutely incorrect, only units with WS 3+ can be improved to 2+, and most armies don't even anything that provides +1 to hit, and even if they do, it's often limited to a single unit.
This would also serve to reduce lethality of the the game in melee, which is something many people have complained about (shooting is another story).
Lethality in melee is not the lethality people are complaining about. I'd also see the proof of "many people" complaining about this, or is this just the appeal to popularity fallacy?
In short it would make melee combat more interesting again.
Eh, your entire argument just boils down to "make melee worse".`Once again, what part of that do you consider "interesting"?
It would also free up design space to differentiate elite units better from each other.
Having a range from 1-10 instead of 2-6 is not design space, especially when it's just a more complicated way to make units hit on 2-6 anyways. Using d10 to roll to hit in combat would be strictly superior to your solution in terms of design space.
Adding bespoke rules to the few exceptional melee combatants is vastly superior in terms of design space than comparing weapon skills between an imperial commissar and a tau ethereal.
Regarding complexity: honestly, how hard is this really when you have used it a couple of times? The principle really isn't that difficult.
You cannot deny that it adds complexity, and it adds no depth. Therefore it makes the game worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cybtroll wrote: I think they missed the opportunity to rationalize the game and to eliminate entirely the to hit roll. We can call it a failure of imagination.
Right now, it's basically useless since there are so much reroll and attacks that very rarely you can achieve significative statistical deviations during the to-hot step.
Wound roll, armour save and damage rolls more than enought to maintain uncertainty and variety.
6 attacks at 2+? 5 hit, no roll needed. 1 attack at 4+? A hit every two models... And so on so forth. The time saved would be immense and the impact in the game flow negligible
While you are technically right, just try playing a game like that. I did and it was super boring.
I think a middle ground would be good, something like reducing attacks of horde units to 1 and have each successful hit doubled/trippled depending on unit size.
I've presented my arguments, I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I will just say that boiling my proposal down to "just making melee worse" is a bit reductive. It is more complex than the current system sure, I just contestet the idea that it's too complex to use in practice. And I strongly contest the idea that it adds no depth. In my opinion it does by default because right now it does not matter who you try to hit in melee, with my system it does matter based on your WS, thus creating more depth than the current system.
I agree with you however that moving to a D10 system would be very good, but we both know that this will never happen.
Regarding complexity: honestly, how hard is this really when you have used it a couple of times? The principle really isn't that difficult.
You cannot deny that it adds complexity, and it adds no depth. Therefore it makes the game worse.
WS and I didn't add that much depth in 3e-7e, where the stats were assigned such that it was effectively "Codex X attacks before Codex Y and hits them on a 3+". It adds a lot more depth in 30k when WS and I exist in narrower bands, you may have the choice to take WS4 or WS5 melee units within one Codex instead of all your melee options having the same WS, and Initiative bonuses/penalties exist on some weapons/rules rather than I being on (not a powerfist) or off (a powerfist).
In 9th the same is archived by having units with different WS, speeds, AP, strength, number of attacks or damage characteristic. In addition some can have additional bespoke rules which give them the edge in certain scenarios. Weapons can have almost anything that fits in one line as a rule, the most common one besing -1 to hit, getting multiple attacks/hits out of one attack and mortal wounds on wound rolls of 6.
While I see how it is a good thing in a world were AP is binary, movement is defined by unit type, weapon abilities are limited and damage doesn't exist, WS really doesn't any depth to a system were you already have this many values to tweak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tiberias wrote: I've presented my arguments, I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I will just say that boiling my proposal down to "just making melee worse" is a bit reductive.
According to your proposal, almost every unit will cause reduced damage compared to now unless hitting vastly inferior combatants which they mostly likely wipe out no matter which system you use. You have failed to explain why that is interesting. From my point of view, you have provided nothing to back your arguments.
It is more complex than the current system sure, I just contestet the idea that it's too complex to use in practice. And I strongly contest the idea that it adds no depth. In my opinion it does by default because right now it does not matter who you try to hit in melee, with my system it does matter based on your WS, thus creating more depth than the current system.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Complexity does not add depth by default.
Depth means it adds more that the player needs to think about, more decision making. As I have explained and provided examples for, it does not. Feel free to provide counter-examples where your table would actually make a difference that is not just dealing 1-2 wounds more or less.
Tiberias wrote: I've presented my arguments, I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I will just say that boiling my proposal down to "just making melee worse" is a bit reductive.
According to your proposal, almost every unit will cause reduced damage compared to now unless hitting vastly inferior combatants which they mostly likely wipe out no matter which system you use. You have failed to explain why that is interesting. From my point of view, you have provided nothing to back your arguments
It will create more varied and interesting combat between units who are stated and geared to do so.
It is more complex than the current system sure, I just contestet the idea that it's too complex to use in practice. And I strongly contest the idea that it adds no depth. In my opinion it does by default because right now it does not matter who you try to hit in melee, with my system it does matter based on your WS, thus creating more depth than the current system.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Complexity does not add depth by default.
Depth means it adds more that the player needs to think about, more decision making. As I have explained and provided examples for, it does not. Feel free to provide counter-examples where your table would actually make a difference that is not just dealing 1-2 wounds more or less.
You are judging my proposal on the current rules and game design. I already said, 8th would have had to be designed with a chart like that in mind. I said before that you couldn't just add it to the game as is. My whole point was that GW could have come up with a system that was more interesting, offered more design space and provied more depth than what we have now, had they kept and expanded the comparison chart.
I don't think the present system in 9th is bad, I just think they could have done something better.
I don't think changing how weaponskill works will add anything to combat.
It's still one side throwing a bucket of dice and killing a bunch of models, then what remains retaliating in kind.
Doing some mental movement of numbers before handhand to determine whether you hit on 3s or 4s doesn't significantly change how that feels, but does add an extra drag.
kirotheavenger wrote: I don't think changing how weaponskill works will add anything to combat.
It's still one side throwing a bucket of dice and killing a bunch of models, then what remains retaliating in kind.
Doing some mental movement of numbers before handhand to determine whether you hit on 3s or 4s doesn't significantly change how that feels, but does add an extra drag.
Exactly. Thanks for putting my thoughts in better words
To me, the flaws of the existing combat system (and indeed, the wider 40k system) is exposed by the plethora of bespoke apecial rules units need to be considered a CC/shooty unit.
A units speciality and function is too often determined more by it's special rules, and the strategems available to it, rather than it's statline, whose most important trait is the wounds stat, with toughness being the second most.
I personally preferred the WS comparison system( with very rare special rules) to the existing flat WS+bespoke special rules system. I felt like a common chart with rare rules was less complex than the existing paradigm with it's set of modifiers (even SM, the traditional starter army, has it's assault doctrine which affects all units, is only sometimes active and vastly modifies the vase effectiveness of the unit's profile).
For me, the fact that you may or not get value out of higher WS is a benefit, as I'm of the opinion that nothing should be universally beneficial (I'd argue that the same point could be applied to the old and current AP system) and everything should be somewhat situational, with the system's depths coming out of recognizing and exploiting these systems.
I'm probably in the minority, as I'd prefer a less is more approach to rules.
kirotheavenger wrote:I don't think changing how weaponskill works will add anything to combat.
It's still one side throwing a bucket of dice and killing a bunch of models, then what remains retaliating in kind.
Doing some mental movement of numbers before handhand to determine whether you hit on 3s or 4s doesn't significantly change how that feels, but does add an extra drag.
Jidmah wrote:
kirotheavenger wrote: I don't think changing how weaponskill works will add anything to combat.
It's still one side throwing a bucket of dice and killing a bunch of models, then what remains retaliating in kind.
Doing some mental movement of numbers before handhand to determine whether you hit on 3s or 4s doesn't significantly change how that feels, but does add an extra drag.
Exactly. Thanks for putting my thoughts in better words
Well again, I get your points, I really do, but I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
I still believe it would increase design space and depth with a proper rules framework fitted around it. It might be a small thing, but I think it would also increase immersion. Hitting everything on the same value just doesn't make sense. From a narrative perspective it devaluates very skilled units...I know the narrative is not the most important thing for many people, but I think you can not neglect this perspective completely, even from just a game design standpoint. Your setting and lore has to be reflected on the tabletop at least in some parts.
The best example is the good old bloodthirster: an aeons old demigod of war, which a bog standard space marine can still hit on 3+ in combat, same as if he were to try and hit an ork boy. A comparison chart would fix that issue at least. And I'll say this again: I am not claiming that you could just implement my suggestion within the framework of 9th ed.
What is a "hit" anyway? If in reality the Blood Thirster parried the blow, what would that represent on the tabletop? Failed hit? Failed wound? Passed save? Who's to say it couldn't be any or all of those.
40k is too large a scale to accurately represent dueling between characters and it shouldn't try to be something it's not.
SideSwipe wrote: To me, the flaws of the existing combat system (and indeed, the wider 40k system) is exposed by the plethora of bespoke apecial rules units need to be considered a CC/shooty unit.
A units speciality and function is too often determined more by it's special rules, and the strategems available to it, rather than it's statline, whose most important trait is the wounds stat, with toughness being the second most.
I personally preferred the WS comparison system( with very rare special rules) to the existing flat WS+bespoke special rules system. I felt like a common chart with rare rules was less complex than the existing paradigm with it's set of modifiers (even SM, the traditional starter army, has it's assault doctrine which affects all units, is only sometimes active and vastly modifies the vase effectiveness of the unit's profile).
For me, the fact that you may or not get value out of higher WS is a benefit, as I'm of the opinion that nothing should be universally beneficial (I'd argue that the same point could be applied to the old and current AP system) and everything should be somewhat situational, with the system's depths coming out of recognizing and exploiting these systems.
I'm probably in the minority, as I'd prefer a less is more approach to rules.
I understand, but in my opinion having a system in place that needs to be checked for everyone fighting everyone is "more" than having bespoke rules on the few exceptional combat experts on the table.
For example, I ran a rather melee heavy DG list yesterday: blightlords, deathshrouds, plague marines, pox walkers, a daemon prince, a lord of contagion and Mortarion himself. The only one of them who has a bespoke ability that changes their combat prowress is plague marines, and that is just getting an extra attack for having two melee weapons. If you really wanted I guess you could also count the extra attacks some weapons have as "bespoke", but that's about it.
Outside of those two things, their vastly differing combat skills are solely decided by their own stats, those of their weapons and what characters provided them with support buffs. A WS table would have added nothing the game the other stats didn't.
There really is nothing situational about a comparative weapon skill. Mechanically, it is replaced by a fixed value the second the game starts without either player taking any conscient decisions. Unless you are list tailoring, whether the additional WS upgrade pays off or not is mostly decided by the event pairings, by who showed up at the store or what army your opponent decided on today.
You are still sending a high WS model after its optimal target while your opponent tries bog it down with a less optimal target or kill it before it strike - the situation remains the same, at best you have a different hit roll.
kirotheavenger wrote: What is a "hit" anyway? If in reality the Blood Thirster parried the blow, what would that represent on the tabletop? Failed hit? Failed wound? Passed save? Who's to say it couldn't be any or all of those.
40k is too large a scale to accurately represent dueling between characters and it shouldn't try to be something it's not.
Well it doesn't have to be a perfect representation of dueling, but I don't think anyone wants it to be. I don't claim any objective fact here, but for me it always manifested this way:
If your hit roll is high enough you manage to pass your opponents defenses in the sense that he doesn't manage to parry your blow.
If your wound roll is high enough it means you are physically strong enough to push through your opponents physicality.
And the save and AP represent whether the weapon can bypass the armor.
This is already an abstraction, because in my example it would be more logical for the wound roll to be after the save roll, but that is the order GW chose to go with and part of their abstraction.
So then you're trying to force the rules to fit into the meaning you have personally assigned to the dice rolls.
That might not be what GW thinks of the rolls as, nor what other players think of the rolls as.
Personally I don't see any material difference between to-wound and armour saves, and I think the game would be better off if they were just one combined roll.
The only reason I consider for them being separate is to add granularity between strength and AP, although this doesn't get you very far as they both tend to scale fairly hand-in-hand.
A lot of games don't bother with this, they just have "firepower" values, often separate "anti-tank" and "anti-squishy" values.
Rolling dice determines the outcomes of decisions.
Rolling dice brings me no joy, working out what dice I need to roll brings me no joy either.
Making decisions and reaping the rewards, or mitigating the failures brings me joy.
Fewer time rolling dice means more time for making decisions.
You are still sending a high WS model after its optimal target while your opponent tries bog it down with a less optimal target or kill it before it strike - the situation remains the same, at best you have a different hit roll.
Which creates problems, when all your units are suppose to be able to take out all other armies priority targets in melee, but do not have the rules and stats to do it in game. Plus it ignores the whole defensive aspect the stat could have. being hit only on +5 or +6, would greatly diminish the incoming hits in melee, while at the same time would not create a situation where you blend through a unit in a single turn, unless you were using for some reason squads bigger then 5 man.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kirotheavenger wrote: I definitely agree with a "less is more" approach to rules.
Unfortunately that's exactly the opposite of what 40k is at the moment.
I could give you at least one example of a 8th ed less rules being implemented to highest degree and it did not create a fun or good army to play with.
In a game where winning is build on a base of an army rule set that lets you ignore, core and other army rule set, streamling of anything only makes a unit or entire army worse.
Tiberias wrote: I still believe it would increase design space and depth with a proper rules framework fitted around it. It might be a small thing, but I think it would also increase immersion. Hitting everything on the same value just doesn't make sense. From a narrative perspective it devaluates very skilled units...I know the narrative is not the most important thing for many people, but I think you can not neglect this perspective completely, even from just a game design standpoint. Your setting and lore has to be reflected on the tabletop at least in some parts.
The best example is the good old bloodthirster: an aeons old demigod of war, which a bog standard space marine can still hit on 3+ in combat, same as if he were to try and hit an ork boy. A comparison chart would fix that issue at least. And I'll say this again: I am not claiming that you could just implement my suggestion within the framework of 9th ed.
Personally, I find the claim that weapon skill matters when you are trying to hit the a daemon with size of a building more immersion breaking than anything. You you really think he will bring down that 30 feet axe to parry all the 120 attacks made by the ork boyz horde around him instead of just killing more? Does it matter how well a succubus can use her whip when I run her over with a deff rolla? Does any space marine captain in his right mind try to parry a gorkanaut's klaw of gork? Should a guardsman with a bandana for armor really be able to parry a harleqin's kiss with a bayonet? Does an enraged khorne berzerker even understand the concept of defense?
Having a drawn out duel with fancy back and forth might sound awesome when an avatar is fighting a similarly sized monster or two humanoid sized masters of melee face each other, but for the vast majority of combats in 40k they just end with a single deadly strike or an unhealthy crunch.
kirotheavenger wrote: So then you're trying to force the rules to fit into the meaning you have personally assigned to the dice rolls.
That might not be what GW thinks of the rolls as, nor what other players think of the rolls as.
Personally I don't see any material difference between to-wound and armour saves, and I think the game would be better off if they were just one combined roll.
The only reason I consider for them being separate is to add granularity between strength and AP, although this doesn't get you very far as they both tend to scale fairly hand-in-hand.
A lot of games don't bother with this, they just have "firepower" values, often separate "anti-tank" and "anti-squishy" values.
Rolling dice determines the outcomes of decisions.
Rolling dice brings me no joy, working out what dice I need to roll brings me no joy either.
Making decisions and reaping the rewards, or mitigating the failures brings me joy.
Fewer time rolling dice means more time for making decisions.
No I am not trying to force them into meaning. I just responded how I see the to hit, to wound and save roll from a narrative perspective while also clarifying that these fews are my personal view and not objective. I made no arguments to change the wound or save roll mechanics.
What I was trying to do with the chart was to free up design space and make melee combat more interesting. A welcome side effect of this is that it also makes more sense from a narrative perspective.
Edit: I don't mean this in any condescending way, but if rolling dice brings you no joy...doesn't that mean 40k in general is a huge drag for you? Rolling lots of dice is just a fundamental part of the game.
Karol wrote: Which creates problems, when all your units are suppose to be able to take out all other armies priority targets in melee, but do not have the rules and stats to do it in game. Plus it ignores the whole defensive aspect the stat could have. being hit only on +5 or +6, would greatly diminish the incoming hits in melee, while at the same time would not create a situation where you blend through a unit in a single turn, unless you were using for some reason squads bigger then 5 man.
As I said in the other thread, GK fluff is stupid, rules as stupid as that fluff are bad for the game. See 5th edition for proof.
Just for the record, the correct representation of GK on the tabletop would be to force the entire army to start in reserves and disallow them to deploy unless chaos is involved.
I agree, that's why I think the wound/armour/damage mechanics better suits the setting than the hit/miss/cover that (for example) was the focus during 3rd - 7th.
Do you remember it, right? That was extremely based on hit and miss. 9th is about wounds and saves.
That said, no abstraction makes really sense in a general way, they're simply abstract mechanics that somehow feels like they make sense from a wider point of view... But they are not particularly simulative or accurate from any metrics (that even before you compond the fantasy elements)
Tiberias wrote: No I am not trying to force them into meaning. I just responded how I see the to hit, to wound and save roll from a narrative perspective while also clarifying that these fews are my personal view and not objective.
That is forcing them into a meaning.
What I was trying to do with the chart was to free up design space and make melee combat more interesting. A welcome side effect of this is that it also makes more sense from a narrative perspective.
You keep saying that, but you haven't actually answered why that would be more interesting, while there have been multiple response why people think it is not adding anything to the game.
Tiberias wrote: I still believe it would increase design space and depth with a proper rules framework fitted around it. It might be a small thing, but I think it would also increase immersion. Hitting everything on the same value just doesn't make sense. From a narrative perspective it devaluates very skilled units...I know the narrative is not the most important thing for many people, but I think you can not neglect this perspective completely, even from just a game design standpoint. Your setting and lore has to be reflected on the tabletop at least in some parts.
The best example is the good old bloodthirster: an aeons old demigod of war, which a bog standard space marine can still hit on 3+ in combat, same as if he were to try and hit an ork boy. A comparison chart would fix that issue at least. And I'll say this again: I am not claiming that you could just implement my suggestion within the framework of 9th ed.
Personally, I find the claim that weapon skill matters when you are trying to hit the a daemon with size of a building more immersion breaking than anything. You you really think he will bring down that 30 feet axe to parry all the 120 attacks made by the ork boyz horde around him instead of just killing more? Does it matter how well a succubus can use her whip when I run her over with a deff rolla? Does any space marine captain in his right mind try to parry a gorkanaut's klaw of gork? Should a guardsman with a bandana for armor really be able to parry a harleqin's kiss with a bayonet? Does an enraged khorne berzerker even understand the concept of defense?
Having a drawn out duel with fancy back and forth might sound awesome when an avatar is fighting a similarly sized monster or two humanoid sized masters of melee face each other, but for the vast majority of combats in 40k they just end with a single deadly strike or an unhealthy crunch.
Yeah, sure it doesn't make perfect sense, it's still an abstraction. I just think it's a better abstraction than a flat to-hit value.
No I am not trying to force them into meaning. I just responded how I see the to hit, to wound and save roll from a narrative perspective while also clarifying that these fews are my personal view and not objective. I made no arguments to change the wound or save roll mechanics.
What I was trying to do with the chart was to free up design space and make melee combat more interesting. A welcome side effect of this is that it also makes more sense from a narrative perspective.
Edit: I don't mean this in any condescending way, but if rolling dice brings you no joy...doesn't that mean 40k in general is a huge drag for you? Rolling lots of dice is just a fundamental part of the game.
Apologies, I think we may have misunderstood each other.
It seemed to me that part of your reasoning for changing this would be to make melee more 'logical' or 'realistic'. It makes sense that a clumsy Ork would struggle to land a blow on a master Blood Thirster, right? So you implement a system that would mean the Ork's 'to-hit' roll becomes harder to represent that.
But I disagree with the supposition, that that situation would or should be represented by the to-hit roll. Perhaps the Bloodthirster parrying the clumsy Ork attacks is represented by the save roll?
Hence why I said you're trying to impose your own suggestion of what to-hit represents by adding this new mechanic which adds relative dueling ability to the roll.
Tiberias wrote: No I am not trying to force them into meaning. I just responded how I see the to hit, to wound and save roll from a narrative perspective while also clarifying that these fews are my personal view and not objective.
That is forcing them into a meaning.
What? No it's not. I made no suggestions to change the wound or save roll. I just gave my opinion as to how I see those rolls narratively.
What I was trying to do with the chart was to free up design space and make melee combat more interesting. A welcome side effect of this is that it also makes more sense from a narrative perspective.
You keep saying that, but you haven't actually answered why that would be more interesting, while there have been multiple response why people think it is not adding anything to the game.
Why not roll for damage? You could hit a vital spot, but your round could go through muscle and hurt very little...it could tumble causing more damage, or it could shatter bone by accident, increasing it. If we're rolling for hit and wound vs armor, why not damage vs vitality stat? Why is damage the only aspect of this whole process without roll, especially when S vs T/Armor roll is the one that makes least sense? If you hit someone with a big choppy chainsword, the armor is either tough or not. And if the hit slides off the armor, surely that's part of to-hit, your blow landed poorly, not to wound, which is after your blow connects? Armor is a binary stat, either it stops the hit or not, and it's consistent- hit armor with two shots of the same caliber and one of them won't miraculously have less force...
First of all, the old WS chart had some overlooked nuance to it. Namely that trying to hit an opponents with equal WS or one point higher was a 4+ to hit. But going the other way, the model with 1 WS higher would hit on a 3+. So this wasn't quite as extreme as many people make it out to be. The vast majority of matchups were against WS's with 1 point differences.
Secondly, those really high WS values, while not granting 2+ hit rolls, regularly meant there had reliable hits (3+) and we're harder to be hit themselves. This works to reduce the lethality somewhat, as you're never hitting on 2+ and often only being hit back on a 5+. People complain about the lethality in 9th, and then poo-poo the way certain things used to work that made it less lethal.
First of all, the old WS chart had some overlooked nuance to it. Namely that trying to hit an opponents with equal WS or one point higher was a 4+ to hit. But going the other way, the model with 1 WS higher would hit on a 3+. So this wasn't quite as extreme as many people make it out to be. The vast majority of matchups were against WS's with 1 point differences.
Secondly, those really high WS values, while not granting 2+ hit rolls, regularly meant there had reliable hits (3+) and we're harder to be hit themselves. This works to reduce the lethality somewhat, as you're never hitting on 2+ and often only being hit back on a 5+. People complain about the lethality in 9th, and then poo-poo the way certain things used to work that made it less lethal.
100% agree with you there and one of the reasons for my suggestion for the updated chart.
I just want to say that I don't think GW will ever go back, the cats out of the bag, but I brought it up because I thought it would make for an interesting topic of conversation, which I think it did. I'm also happy about the constructive critisicm and scrutiny, which I believe is a good thing and necessary.
First of all, the old WS chart had some overlooked nuance to it. Namely that trying to hit an opponents with equal WS or one point higher was a 4+ to hit. But going the other way, the model with 1 WS higher would hit on a 3+. So this wasn't quite as extreme as many people make it out to be. The vast majority of matchups were against WS's with 1 point differences.
Secondly, those really high WS values, while not granting 2+ hit rolls, regularly meant there had reliable hits (3+) and we're harder to be hit themselves. This works to reduce the lethality somewhat, as you're never hitting on 2+ and often only being hit back on a 5+. People complain about the lethality in 9th, and then poo-poo the way certain things used to work that made it less lethal.
I'm fairly sure that 90% of the time people complain about 9th being too lethal, they are referring to shooting.
Reducing the efficiency of melee is not going to make the game less lethal, it's going to make melee disappear as a tactic again. WS doubling as defensive stat was a flaw, not a good thing.
If evasion should be a thing, it should not be rolled into another stat, and it should work against melee and ranged equally.
Would you mind quoting the relevant posts? If you did, I'm sorry, but everything I could find was just you stating your opinion as fact. I have understood that you think that reducing melee damage is "interesting", but that's not actually an argument.
Secondly, those really high WS values, while not granting 2+ hit rolls, regularly meant there had reliable hits (3+) and we're harder to be hit themselves. This works to reduce the lethality somewhat, as you're never hitting on 2+ and often only being hit back on a 5+. People complain about the lethality in 9th, and then poo-poo the way certain things used to work that made it less lethal.
I can run some numbers, but I'd be surprised if melee in 5th wasn't at least as deadly as melee in 9th.
In melee vs vehicles, you automatically hit the rear armor of any tank you got into contact with, and even if you didn't insta-kill it, several results on the damage table would immobilize it at least temporarily, guaranteeing you a second swing during your opponent's turn. I recall countless times easily popping medium tanks with a squad's single power klaw and having so much overkill that we'd roll it out and laugh at how the vehicle would take most of the damage table all at once.
in melee vs infantry, the lack of fall back meant that you would much more often get to swing twice in a battle round, and also Sweeping Advances were a thing.
WS could work with a more granular table and with GW giving different initiative and WS values to each unit.
But GW still lives in a world were the 80% of a codex has the same stats with the exception of characters.
But at the end of the day, the old meele system was devoid of any kind of tactic.
Literally. It was like Raid: Shadow Legends. Once two units made contact, the only decision a player had was to issue a duel. Everything else was automated by Initiative and WS. Now at least you have the minigame of alternating activating units, stratagems, consolidations and pile ins to make enemy units unable to attack back, etc...
First of all, the old WS chart had some overlooked nuance to it. Namely that trying to hit an opponents with equal WS or one point higher was a 4+ to hit. But going the other way, the model with 1 WS higher would hit on a 3+. So this wasn't quite as extreme as many people make it out to be. The vast majority of matchups were against WS's with 1 point differences.
Secondly, those really high WS values, while not granting 2+ hit rolls, regularly meant there had reliable hits (3+) and we're harder to be hit themselves. This works to reduce the lethality somewhat, as you're never hitting on 2+ and often only being hit back on a 5+. People complain about the lethality in 9th, and then poo-poo the way certain things used to work that made it less lethal.
I'm fairly sure that 90% of the time people complain about 9th being too lethal, they are referring to shooting.
Reducing the efficiency of melee is not going to make the game less lethal, it's going to make melee disappear as a tactic again. WS doubling as defensive stat was a flaw, not a good thing.
If evasion should be a thing, it should not be rolled into another stat, and it should work against melee and ranged equally.
Would you mind quoting the relevant posts? If you did, I'm sorry, but everything I could find was just you stating your opinion as fact. I have understood that you think that reducing melee damage is "interesting", but that's not actually an argument.
I think we might have had a misunderstanding here. I did not state any of my proposals as fact. In scientific terms I was proposing a hypothesis, which is just that. It has no claim to objective truth before it provides testable, reproducable peer reviewed results (broadly speaking). I can't provide that, how could I? I stated that my comparison chart could not be properly implemented in 9th, it requires a rule framework that was designed with it in mind. My point was simply that GW could have implemented a better system with an expanded comparison chart than we have now that is also a narratively better abstraction than we have now....not a the best one or a realistic one, just better than we have now.
The interesting part about reducing melee damage due to WS comparison imo is that in can provide a form of additional defense for units with higher WS. In the current system if you have enough attacks, rerolls and enough ap to at least force invulns, it absolutely does not matter what you fight against....a good example for this currently are repentia. I am proposing the notion that it would provide a bit more of a tactical consideration when you have to take into account the enemy WS. I would also propose that it provides more room to play with modifiers as compared to a blanket +1/-1 due to the wider range of WS stats.
Trimarius wrote: The issue is that 40k doesn't have a "dodge" stat. You've got three ways to describe how "tough" a model is (toughness, saves, and wounds), but nothing to tell you how hard it is to hit. There's no way to differentiate swinging (or shooting) at a five story tall, lumbering Stompa and a small, lightning fast, and crazily skilled Wych. That leads to all sorts of nonsense and hoops to jump through (like modifier spam and "parry" invuls that mean you're only actually parrying plasma bolts, since your armor is almost always better).
WS to WS wasn't a great system, either, as you were really limited by that chart and it didn't allow you to have aggressive or defensive fighters.
A better system (assuming we want to stick with the skirmish game, but huge, scale of 40k) would be something like adding a Defense stat that you'd need to match by adding a d6 to your WS/BS when you attack. So a grot/fire warrior could be WS 2, a guardsman/guardian WS 3, a SM/Ork's WS4, a Wych 5, and so on, and you'd compare to an ork boy/firewarrior/guarsdman Def 7, a SM/guardian/grot Def 8, and Wych at 9. Then a grot would need a six to hit a marine (or Wych, presumably a 6 would always hit since we can't move away from single d6 and keep fast rolling) and the marine would need a four to hit the grot. A guardsman would need a four to hit the ork, but the ork would only need a three to hit him back. Storied duelist characters could slap grunts around on a 2+, but have enough space where one might be more accurate but the other harder to hit, resulting in an even fight despite the different approaches. Vehicles would generally have pretty poor Def (obviously), but cover and weapon penalties would make it relevant, while allowing light and zippy vypers to be harder to hit and a stompa almost impossible to miss.
What, functionally, would be the distinction between a "dodge stat" and "modifier spam" that you characterize as nonsense and hoops to jump through?
And also, just pointing out here, but there definitely IS a way to differentiate swinging at a stompa and a wych in the current game state. They're completely different targets. One is T3, W1, 4++, the other is T7, W a lot, 3+. I'm completely wasting most of the stats of my Thunder Hammer if I swing it at the wych, wheras it's the perfect way to do a bunch of damage to the Stompa.
A dodge stat would consolidate all the various extra rules into one easy to reference place and give you a framework to reliably differentiate the evasive nature of wildly different models? You could declare that all models wound on a 4+ and then add in a modifier for race, another for weapon used, one more for target race, a fourth for target's armor, and so on to achieve the same result as you would currently, but that's a load of extra steps and things to reference that could easily be boiled down. The math doesn't change, it's just cleaner. It also feels more representative of the lore (which I'm sure we all agree is a good thing as long as it doesn't harm the game) for most to have that sort of stat laid out. Timmy wants to play the super armored marines because he wants to wade through oncoming fire while striding out the other side covered in bullet hits and laser burns but still swinging; Jimmy wants to play Dark Eldar because he wants to backflip through a storm of bullets and land dramatically on the other side without a scratch on him.
You could obviously compress lots of the stats 40k uses into a single roll (even Apocalypse dropped down to Hard/Soft firepower), but that's not what 40k is currently about. I wouldn't hate that move, and it would make sense with the way the game has grown, but if GW is going to stick with a rpg-lite or skirmish system, just lean in and make the best of it.
As for the last comment, there is not a difference in hitting the two, which was clearly what I was talking about. That is, after all, what the entire thread is talking about. You wound, save, and can sustain damage differently (three whole sets of rolls/opposing stats for "how much of a beating can you take"), but there is nothing representing how hard you are to hit in the first place.
And before anyone comes in with the "this is just a nerf to melee" cry, you'd of course have to redesign a large part of the game for these changes to make sense. No one's asking you to sharpie a new stat or chart into your 9th ed codex. Though I'd like to point out, again, that I would make "dodge" work on shooting, too. A Fortress of Redemption isn't exactly going to be jumping out of the way of 50% of a guardsman's lascannon shots, is it?
Karol wrote: Which creates problems, when all your units are suppose to be able to take out all other armies priority targets in melee, but do not have the rules and stats to do it in game. Plus it ignores the whole defensive aspect the stat could have. being hit only on +5 or +6, would greatly diminish the incoming hits in melee, while at the same time would not create a situation where you blend through a unit in a single turn, unless you were using for some reason squads bigger then 5 man.
As I said in the other thread, GK fluff is stupid, rules as stupid as that fluff are bad for the game. See 5th edition for proof.
Just for the record, the correct representation of GK on the tabletop would be to force the entire army to start in reserves and disallow them to deploy unless chaos is involved.
Is the concept broken just because it was badly executed once? Are Space Marines stupid and bad for the game because of the 8e 2.0 book+supplements?
Trimarius wrote: A dodge stat would consolidate all the various extra rules into one easy to reference place and give you a framework to reliably differentiate the evasive nature of wildly different models...
Maybe not all, but a significant portion of them could be baked in. I still think it is odd that that evasion can be the same thing as an energy shield. Sure they both prevent hits from connecting to Wound, but armor does that, too. A good example for an odd thing is Markerlights where Hits are always effective and cannot be Saved against. Dodging should avoid it, but cannot so long as it is a Save.
Trimarius wrote: As for the last comment, there is not a difference in hitting the two, which was clearly what I was talking about. That is, after all, what the entire thread is talking about. You wound, save, and can sustain damage differently (three whole sets of rolls/opposing stats for "how much of a beating can you take"), but there is nothing representing how hard you are to hit in the first place.
Indeed. Hitting a Stompa should be rather easy (unless you're arcing fire or literally can't hit the broadside of a barn), but a Wych should be a devil for anyone lacking skill.
Trimarius wrote: And before anyone comes in with the "this is just a nerf to melee" cry, you'd of course have to redesign a large part of the game for these changes to make sense. No one's asking you to sharpie a new stat or chart into your 9th ed codex. Though I'd like to point out, again, that I would make "dodge" work on shooting, too. A Fortress of Redemption isn't exactly going to be jumping out of the way of 50% of a guardsman's lascannon shots, is it?
Agreed. There is no reason to exclude shooting from having to face a defensive stat if melee is facing one, too.
kirotheavenger wrote: I was only objecting to simply dropping the old WS chart in to current 40k.
Yeah, it's not really needed when you can simply use the same comparison system being used for SvT.
kirotheavenger wrote: I think a two dice attack sequence is best. Ballistic/Weapon skill vs evasion followed by strength/ap vs defence.
It'll be simpler and more elegant.
So long as the Save system is kept for the defending player to counter as it is an iconic system.
kirotheavenger wrote: I was only objecting to simply dropping the old WS chart in to current 40k.
Yeah, it's not really needed when you can simply use the same comparison system being used for SvT.
kirotheavenger wrote: I think a two dice attack sequence is best. Ballistic/Weapon skill vs evasion followed by strength/ap vs defence.
It'll be simpler and more elegant.
So long as the Save system is kept for the defending player to counter as it is an iconic system.
Definitely. Attacking player rolls the offence (WS/BS vs 'evasion'), defending player rolls the defence ('firepower' vs 'defence'). This is how most games work. More dice rolls in a sequence doesn't really add much other than slowing stuff down.
I think now one of the issues 40k has is that it has several factions with a faction fantasy of being evasive and fast. With the only real way to show that is with a save that everyone can get.
A defensive stat would probably change little in how many roles but done well could open up the chance for more options in tactics.
It also means they could possibly look at buffs to hit and defensive stats as design opportunities rather than needing things like reroles to cover those which they seem to be trying to pull back a lot.
And I think it would fit better than a return to WS v WS and adding BS into the mix for it.
The old way of doing things mostly just seem favour how marines worked with the extreme edge cases struggling to fit in.
I also cannot find my copy’s of the rule books, since I seem to rember them changing it a few times in small ways over the years as well. But I forget where and how lol
kirotheavenger wrote: Definitely. Attacking player rolls the offence (WS/BS vs 'evasion'), defending player rolls the defence ('firepower' vs 'defence'). This is how most games work. More dice rolls in a sequence doesn't really add much other than slowing stuff down.
Most games just have the attacker roll everything to resolve an attack. Passing off some of the rolls to the defender- when there is no actual agency involved- just slows it down.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apple fox wrote: I think now one of the issues 40k has is that it has several factions with a faction fantasy of being evasive and fast. With the only real way to show that is with a save that everyone can get.
I've said it before and stand by it: If instead of rolling against WS or BS you compared your WS or BS stat to an Evasion stat, using the same algorithm as with S v T, it'd be much easier to implement bonuses and penalties to rolls without causing extreme breakpoints (like BS4+ armies only hitting on 6s).
Really why can't 40k boil down further to each unit having a ranged and melee firepower rating that checks against a unit's defense rating.
For example, a marine might have 2 base firepower for both melee and range. A bolter could add +1 to that with 24: range (+1 firepower within 12") and a chainsword could add +1 firepower in melee (+1 if you charged).
This is a very basic take on the idea but you don't need to make a hit and wound roll and then have your opponent take a save and then possible FNP.
EDIT: If firepower just gave a dice pool and every 5+ scored a hit then you could make defense a fixed number where you roll a number of dice equal to the hits you took and save on that number. Some units might get no save while a 2+ would extremely strong. You could also have special rules that mess with which numbers are considered a success.
kirotheavenger wrote:Definitely. Attacking player rolls the offence (WS/BS vs 'evasion'), defending player rolls the defence ('firepower' vs 'defence'). This is how most games work. More dice rolls in a sequence doesn't really add much other than slowing stuff down.
Really? Most I've seen have no interaction from the defending player at all. They just have to suck up whatever the attacking player rolls.
When utilizing a single die system like Warhammer, increasing the number of rolls used to complete an attack increases the variability in each attack, and can increase the survivability of the defender. It's not just something used to slow down the game.
catbarf wrote:Most games just have the attacker roll everything to resolve an attack. Passing off some of the rolls to the defender- when there is no actual agency involved- just slows it down.
There is some slow down, true, however, it does help keep the defending player engaged and invested instead of just removing models at whim. It is one of the failures of the WarmaHordes system, imo.
kirotheavenger wrote:Definitely. Attacking player rolls the offence (WS/BS vs 'evasion'), defending player rolls the defence ('firepower' vs 'defence'). This is how most games work. More dice rolls in a sequence doesn't really add much other than slowing stuff down.
Really? Most I've seen have no interaction from the defending player at all. They just have to suck up whatever the attacking player rolls.
When utilizing a single die system like Warhammer, increasing the number of rolls used to complete an attack increases the variability in each attack, and can increase the survivability of the defender. It's not just something used to slow down the game.
catbarf wrote:Most games just have the attacker roll everything to resolve an attack. Passing off some of the rolls to the defender- when there is no actual agency involved- just slows it down.
There is some slow down, true, however, it does help keep the defending player engaged and invested instead of just removing models at whim. It is one of the failures of the WarmaHordes system, imo.
I agree it does increase variability, but not satisfactorily so.
You get to the point where despite rolling a literal handful of dice your attacks are so ineffective as to be scarcely worth rolling (looking at you, Guardsmen).
Even if you just look at the 3 core rolls (hit-wound-save), do you really need granularity of 0.46%? two rolls in sequence (eg attack-defence) give a granularity of 2.8%. That's still within territory that you're unlikely to notice a significant difference between similar attacks, but with 0.46% granularity you have no chance of noticing that distinction.
There's many ways to do it. What Canadian suggests with firepower pools is a common and effective way of doing things. I don't think 40k's method is fundementally flawed at all, I just think it's too many rolls in the sequence. Especially if you throw in 'blasts', rerolls, variable damage, and special saves it just gets ridiculous (not to mention some of those can mean fast-rolling becomes impossible so you're rolling 15 dice one-by-one).
The problem with comparing WS was that is served both as offensive and as defensive stat. Since GW never fine-tuned weapon skill, but always handed a baseline WS to an entire codex, this meant that an ork boy or nob, both dedicated melee combatants would never hit and eldar or necrons on anything better than a 4+, even if they were fighting snipers, armed civilans or heavy fire support squads.
In the end, this cause melee damage for armies who relied on it to vary too much depending on which army you fought, and the extra layer of defense was just one of the many reason why melee was a mostly useless tool in 6th and 7th outside of invincible deathstars. Removing this defensive layer made melee units more reliable and more deadly, improving them in general.
These days, if a combat master is adept at parrying or evading blows, they get a bespoke rule saying just that, see the swarmlord, wyches or castellan crowe for examples. Agility is represented by having higher movement speed, which is also important in combat - you have more control of whether you get the charge, and when you do, you have a chance of taking down the enemy before he strikes back.
So essentially your mental image of how a fight works hasn't changed, WS simply doesn't represents how well can one defend against melee attacks any more.
Pretty much this. Melee was, 90% of the time, "everyone hits on 4s".
kirotheavenger wrote:I agree it does increase variability, but not satisfactorily so.
"Satisfactorily" is a personal thing. Some find it irritating, and a lot can depend on your army, such as the Guardsmen you mentioned, while some do not.
kirotheavenger wrote:There's many ways to do it. What Canadian suggests with firepower pools is a common and effective way of doing things. I don't think 40k's method is fundementally flawed at all, I just think it's too many rolls in the sequence. Especially if you throw in 'blasts', rerolls, variable damage, and special saves it just gets ridiculous (not to mention some of those can mean fast-rolling becomes impossible so you're rolling 15 dice one-by-one).
And I know of a game where both hitting and wounding are done on the same roll. How it manages it is an exploding dice mechanic where 6s can add more dice to the overall pool while 4,5, both count for a hit. The number of hits is compared against the durability of the target and if you beat the number, you do damage, and if you double it, you crit adding special effects. Of course, that was a starship game, not an infantry game.
Considering the scale 40K operates, I think the current Hit, Wound, Save system is about right. The added mechanics are questionable, to say nothing about the phrasing in which those added mechanics are used, but the base system is sound.
Maybe as a Melee-only Invul-type save? The alternative would be a Defense boost in melee. I could see some models like Wyches and the Emperor's Champion having such a skill.
@ OP - Yeah I also think tis a bad change along with initiative being gone completely. High intitiative along with high weapon skill marked you out as being good at combat vs other people/ things of differing level/skill.
Now its just Number of attacks, AP and how many rerolls you can get. And it doesn't matter if you are hitting a stationary rhino or a lightning quick assasin... (despite people insiting this is an abstraction and the rhino is actually moving.. *honest guvna*).
Alas. More accessible. Easier. Quicker.. yadaa yadaa yadda..
Ugh. I know you're poking fun, but this thread keeps reminding me of the nightmare of resolving 2nd edition combat, one pair of combatants at a time.
It was a pain. But it also made it more likely for some single, high-skill models to take on a crowd. A Banshee taking out 3-4 Marines by herself, for example. Fun rolls counting up fumbles, criticals and parries
Maybe as a Melee-only Invul-type save? The alternative would be a Defense boost in melee. I could see some models like Wyches and the Emperor's Champion having such a skill.
But melee doesn't need to be toned down. Definitely not if also shooting doesn't get an equivalent type of save/evasion.
Evasion as a game mechanic could be interesting, adding layers of saves against melee is not.
Maybe as a Melee-only Invul-type save? The alternative would be a Defense boost in melee. I could see some models like Wyches and the Emperor's Champion having such a skill.
But melee doesn't need to be toned down. Definitely not if also shooting doesn't get an equivalent type of save/evasion.
Evasion as a game mechanic could be interesting, adding layers of saves against melee is not.
Shooting gets modifications from Cover, and such things as game balance isn't a priority for Games Workshop as much as characterful rules.
I'm not totally disagreeing in terms of game balance, but such things can be addressed by point value and provide some flavor to units where it might otherwise be rather bland and boring.
Karol wrote: Dude, I know you dislike marines, but don't call them a one army. Because there is a difference betwee a under 40% win rate DA army, pre codex, and a WS one which is only worse then harlis and co.
Plus all those armies get a ton of buffs and stacking rules on top of each other. And it can't even be said that those are 9th ed changes, because marines actually got worse comparing how they were at the end of 8th, and Custodes and harlis run on old books.
Only DG and necron have good 9th ed rules, but I have no idea what that has to do with being elite. One army spams super efficient termininators and a big monster like Mortarion, or even more termintors, and the other spams warriors and a Ctan. Is the elite thing related to the lore or number of units being taken in your argument, because I don;t think I understand you here.
The difference between DA and WS is the same as Farsight Enclaves and Bork'an Sept.
One army. Different sub factions.
Call me when Bork'an gets a book. Until then, they are not the same in the least.
Call me back when DA have their own codex again. While they are a add on to the codex SM they are just that. Codex SM.
SM is a superfaction now, like Chaos. Sorry if you can't see things like they are.
No reason to hijack this thread either though, so I'll not try to convince you.
LOL you serious? They share most of the unit entries. Don't pretend they're a different army just because they can mix their Terminators hahahahaha.
the_scotsman wrote: Infinity, Battlegroup, Flames of War, and Heroscape to my memory have some kind of die roll the defending player commonly makes.
And infinity doesnt shy away with modifiers. Anyone can melee but if you bring a martial arts expert, be prepared to have a harder time hitting them and they'll have an easier time critting you.
Thats why i mostly play infinity nowadays, i feel like i can actually defend myself.
As it stands, 40k is really struggling to give fast, lightly-armoured units appropriate defences without just resorting to 'moar armour' (see the new Kabalite Warriors).
There's also the other aspect, in that units have just as much difficulty hitting a Land Raider or Imperial Knight from 10ft away as they do hitting a turbo-boosting Reaver on the other side of the table.
There could also be modifiers to the Evasion stat. e.g. models could get +1 Evasion if the attacker isn't within half range with a non-Pistol weapon. Maybe +1 evasion when in cover, instead of the current bonus to armour save?
Could help make the game less lethal (especially at range).
Ugh. I know you're poking fun, but this thread keeps reminding me of the nightmare of resolving 2nd edition combat, one pair of combatants at a time.
It was a pain. But it also made it more likely for some single, high-skill models to take on a crowd. A Banshee taking out 3-4 Marines by herself, for example. Fun rolls counting up fumbles, criticals and parries
I ran some small scale skirmish games of 40 using a mixture of 2nd ed and Necromunda rules - quite good fun esp when it was Deathwatch vs Aliens Vs Predators
Slayer-Fan123 796575 11070833 wrote:
LOL you serious? They share most of the unit entries. Don't pretend they're a different army just because they can mix their Terminators hahahahaha.
WS do not have DA unique speeders, unique RW and DW units, interogator chaplains , biker apothecaries etc. And this is before any actual relic, warlord traits, psychic powers or rules differences.
Slayer-Fan123 796575 11070833 wrote:
LOL you serious? They share most of the unit entries. Don't pretend they're a different army just because they can mix their Terminators hahahahaha.
WS do not have DA unique speeders, unique RW and DW units, interogator chaplains , biker apothecaries etc. And this is before any actual relic, warlord traits, psychic powers or rules differences.
Basically Bork'an isn't a codex because there aren't 6 Bork'an warlord traits, relics and stratagems. There is only one.
Which I guess means FSE is now half a separate faction.
I like how you ignore the DA flyers, 2 speeders, the speeder HQ, special termintors, knights, unique to DA characters that aren't special characters etc. But even if it was the case. DA would be a faction and not a bunch of traits, because they exist for over twice as long as I live and have a history of multiple books behind them. Just because this edition GW decied to force DA players to buy two books, and not name the second one a codex does not matter a thing.
Karol wrote: I like how you ignore the DA flyers, 2 speeders, the speeder HQ, special termintors, knights, unique to DA characters that aren't special characters etc. But even if it was the case. DA would be a faction and not a bunch of traits, because they exist for over twice as long as I live and have a history of multiple books behind them. Just because this edition GW decied to force DA players to buy two books, and not name the second one a codex does not matter a thing.
Well, you're correct in that regard. The book aspect doesn't matter at all.
Karol wrote: I like how you ignore the DA flyers, 2 speeders, the speeder HQ, special termintors, knights, unique to DA characters that aren't special characters etc. But even if it was the case. DA would be a faction and not a bunch of traits, because they exist for over twice as long as I live and have a history of multiple books behind them. Just because this edition GW decied to force DA players to buy two books, and not name the second one a codex does not matter a thing.
Dark Angels are a subfaction of the Adeptus Asartes which is a subfaction of the Imperium
Look at the keywords.
Speaking as someone who has had Dark Angels Marines and books for decades
You are just playing with words here. DA are a separate faction. When adeptus mechanicus get an update, then it does not mean that automaticaly DA got updated too. Or when SW get primaris TWC and wulfen, IF just got a new set of models and rules too.
Armies like DA or BA or SW are separate factions, just as much as eldar or tau are. And claiming that they are the same as some sub faction of tau is not true. The number of models, different rules and history is just different.
And saying that they stopped to be a codex faction, because GW decided to be donkey-caves and split marine books in half, is a weak argument too.
Karol wrote: You are just playing with words here. DA are a separate faction. When adeptus mechanicus get an update, then it does not mean that automaticaly DA got updated too. Or when SW get primaris TWC and wulfen, IF just got a new set of models and rules too.
Armies like DA or BA or SW are separate factions, just as much as eldar or tau are. And claiming that they are the same as some sub faction of tau is not true. The number of models, different rules and history is just different.
And saying that they stopped to be a codex faction, because GW decided to be donkey-caves and split marine books in half, is a weak argument too.
Not according to GW. They were once just another chapter, then they had a Codex, now they (quite rightly) don't.
Same as Black Templars had a Codex - now they don't.
Eldar are a Race and a true Faction - Craftworld Eldar are a sub faction, Ulthwe is a sub faction of the Craftworlds - equivalent to the Wolves or the Angels.
Orks are a Race, Bad Moons are a sub faction with indivdual tribes equivalent to the Wolves of the Angels
Dark Angels are a subfaction of the Adeptus Astartes which is a subfaction of the Imperium
Look at the keywords.
Speaking as someone who has had Dark Angels Marines and books for decades
Mr Morden wrote: Not according to GW. They were once just another chapter, then they had a Codex, now they (quite rightly) don't.
Same as Black Templars had a Codex - now they don't.
Eldar are a Race and a true Faction - Craftworld Eldar are a sub faction, Ulthwe is a sub faction of the Craftworlds - equivalent to the Wolves or the Angels.
Orks are a Race, Bad Moons are a sub faction with indivdual tribes equivalent to the Wolves of the Angels
Dark Angels are a subfaction of the Adeptus Astartes which is a subfaction of the Imperium
Look at the keywords.
Speaking as someone who has had Dark Angels Marines and books for decades
How do you not know this?
Does it matter what GW says when DAs alone have more unique unit entries than some stand-alone factions have unit entries period?
Canadian 5th wrote: Does it matter what GW says when DAs alone have more unique unit entries than some stand-alone factions have unit entries period?
Well, when it was GW who dropped the DA codex in favor of a supplement, I think it does matter. It's even funnier when Dark Angels are considered a codex-adherent chapter of Astartes while Black Templar aren't, but BT were folded in first.
I don't know what this has to do with addressing the Weapon Skill system, though. If any of you all want to continue this type of discussion, please open up a new thread.
You all are funny. You recognize the issues caused by GW over simplifying the core rules and then wanting to add a bunch more to make up for it (thus making it more complex again). Classic 40K handled this all nice in a single die roll (WS vs WS) with initiative dictating attack order. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Reminds me of another great irony. People loved to beat on 2nd edition because it had all these time consuming modifiers and re-rolls and special action cards all over the place that bogged the game down, made batch rolling hard, etc. 9th edition is right back there, what with die roll modifiers sprinkled all over the place like glitter at a my little pony convention. Not to mention the re-rolls and special action cards (ahem stratagems) bogging it all down again.
What the point of a streamlined rule set if you have to even more rule bloat on top of it to make up for an overly simple core?
Mezmorki wrote: You all are funny. You recognize the issues caused by GW over simplifying the core rules and then wanting to add a bunch more to make up for it (thus making it more complex again). Classic 40K handled this all nice in a single die roll (WS vs WS) with initiative dictating attack order. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Reminds me of another great irony. People loved to beat on 2nd edition because it had all these time consuming modifiers and re-rolls and special action cards all over the place that bogged the game down, made batch rolling hard, etc. 9th edition is right back there, what with die roll modifiers sprinkled all over the place like glitter at a my little pony convention. Not to mention the re-rolls and special action cards (ahem stratagems) bogging it all down again.
What the point of a streamlined rule set if you have to even more rule bloat on top of it to make up for an overly simple core?
+1, from someone that played back during 2nd edition and on and off through 8th and has been keeping up with 9th. Somewhere between 3rd and 5th is the better median in my opinion.
Mezmorki wrote: You all are funny. You recognize the issues caused by GW over simplifying the core rules and then wanting to add a bunch more to make up for it (thus making it more complex again). Classic 40K handled this all nice in a single die roll (WS vs WS) with initiative dictating attack order. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Reminds me of another great irony. People loved to beat on 2nd edition because it had all these time consuming modifiers and re-rolls and special action cards all over the place that bogged the game down, made batch rolling hard, etc. 9th edition is right back there, what with die roll modifiers sprinkled all over the place like glitter at a my little pony convention. Not to mention the re-rolls and special action cards (ahem stratagems) bogging it all down again.
What the point of a streamlined rule set if you have to even more rule bloat on top of it to make up for an overly simple core?
+1, from someone that played back during 2nd edition and on and off through 8th and has been keeping up with 9th. Somewhere between 3rd and 5th is the better median in my opinion.
Seconded. Imo 4th was peak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hellebore wrote: IMO they could fix a lot of issues with the game regarding fast light units and relative power if they did the following:
Reintroduce Initiative.
Make WS and BS comparative rolls AGAINST Initiative.
you don't need Initiative to determine who strikes first if it reflects the unit's speed by how EASILY it can be hit.
You collapse all the complexity of speed, agility and striking into a single stat and comparison mechanic.
It also gives you the opportunity to reduce the lethality of the game based on difficulty to hit.
It also means modifiers can be to WS and BS, rather than to the dice roll (which has very little movement in it).
you do this and you solve a lot of design space issues in the game.
BS 4 marine vs I4 eldar - 4+ to hit.
BS 8 vs I4 2+ to hit.
WS7 Phoenix lord vs I5 marine, 3+ to hit.
WS 6 marine captain vs I8 Solitaire, 5+ to hit.
You very easily create that 'speed is defence' aspect of the game, without having to create special rules to reflect it.
Interesting.
That would go some distance to dealing with something that always kinda bugged me, which is that Vehicles aren't harder to hit than infantry. Like, are you really going to miss a Monolith? The counterpoint to that is that taking out such a vehicle requires hitting weak points, and those could still be hard to hit, but opening up a stat that modifies defense could provide for some interesting opportunities.
Vehicle initiative could also be reflected by how fast they went.
ie, a stationary vehicle might have an Initiative of 1 (making everyone hit them on 2).
But a vehicle that moved 20" might be I5 and air craft might always be I10 regardless etc.
In terms of hitting weak points etc, you could say that 6s to hit vehicles gain +1 to strength, and give them all higher T values than normal.
Something like this means you could also go back to the old T vs S table where T8 can't be wounded by S4 - but on 6s to hit against a vehicle you could get a +1 strength and thereby wound on 6s.
Another advantage of going back to opposed WS and BS is that the values can be stretched out far more than they currently are.
ie, a marine is 4/4, a veteran is 5/5 etc.
You can actually reflect experience and skill in the stats, rather than having to invent new weapons in order to show why sternguard are better than normal tacticals.
You can effectively use the 2nd ed profiles of units, just comparing their WS and BS to I.
Mezmorki wrote: You all are funny. You recognize the issues caused by GW over simplifying the core rules and then wanting to add a bunch more to make up for it (thus making it more complex again). Classic 40K handled this all nice in a single die roll (WS vs WS) with initiative dictating attack order. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Reminds me of another great irony. People loved to beat on 2nd edition because it had all these time consuming modifiers and re-rolls and special action cards all over the place that bogged the game down, made batch rolling hard, etc. 9th edition is right back there, what with die roll modifiers sprinkled all over the place like glitter at a my little pony convention. Not to mention the re-rolls and special action cards (ahem stratagems) bogging it all down again.
What the point of a streamlined rule set if you have to even more rule bloat on top of it to make up for an overly simple core?
+1, from someone that played back during 2nd edition and on and off through 8th and has been keeping up with 9th. Somewhere between 3rd and 5th is the better median in my opinion.
I feel like this point just seems to have been forgotten.. It used to be brought up all the time when 8th was young. Boy how we have come full circle..
This needs to be brought up again and again IMO.. Maybe we can go back to WS v WS and initiative.
Lack of templates and firing arcs I can live with.. But the cc aspect is a whole other kettle of what the fudgery...
You can actually reflect experience and skill in the stats, rather than having to invent new weapons in order to show why sternguard are better than normal tacticals.
Don’t get me started on the 20+ variations of bolt weapons the last couple editions. New Space Marine unit? Assign it a new “master crafted blessed augmented bolt carbine with adjustable scope” with barely slightly different stats than the “Cawl pattern anointed bolt long rifle with sawed-off barrel” . . .
Give me the one page of weapon stats for standard guns in 40k in the old 3rd edition rulebook. Yes, all standard weapons for all factions instead of 20+ boltguns, a dozen+ plasma weapon variations, etc.
Mezmorki wrote: You all are funny. You recognize the issues caused by GW over simplifying the core rules and then wanting to add a bunch more to make up for it (thus making it more complex again). Classic 40K handled this all nice in a single die roll (WS vs WS) with initiative dictating attack order. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
But it was broke.
Are you sure you don't feel this way, because your avatar is a model that benefitted greatly from that system?
vipoid wrote: I think an evasion stat would definitely help.
As it stands, 40k is really struggling to give fast, lightly-armoured units appropriate defences without just resorting to 'moar armour' (see the new Kabalite Warriors).
There's also the other aspect, in that units have just as much difficulty hitting a Land Raider or Imperial Knight from 10ft away as they do hitting a turbo-boosting Reaver on the other side of the table.
There could also be modifiers to the Evasion stat. e.g. models could get +1 Evasion if the attacker isn't within half range with a non-Pistol weapon. Maybe +1 evasion when in cover, instead of the current bonus to armour save?
Could help make the game less lethal (especially at range).
There used to be initiative before the culling that was 8th and the dumbing down of 40k, now made worse with the gathering and continuous AoS ification and Magic ification of the hobby.
Lately, I feel a bit sweet and sour about the fact. “I told you so” usually doesn’t feel good, as is the case in this case...
nemesis464 wrote: Coming back to 40k from 5th Ed and one of the weirder changes to me is how WS works.
Obviously a lot of stuff in warhammer doesn’t make all that much sense, but I don’t understand why they made WS as a flat value to hit, rather than comparing it to the martial prowess of you opponent? It wasn’t exactly a complicated system before.
Why should an Ork Boy hit a stationery tank on the same value as hitting a Phoenix Lord or Primarch? Comparing WS in the past felt a lot more immersive than only hitting on the same roll every time.
With so much stuff getting power-creeped towards WS 2/3+, it makes combat master special characters feel less special, as one of their qualities was always making lesser characters and units hit them on 4s or 5s.
Anyone feel the same?
I think a better question to ask is "Why can't these game companies make ONE system, ONE edition" and run it forever? To me, the fact that the system has to chance ever X years is a bit silly at this point.
Hellebore wrote: IMO they could fix a lot of issues with the game regarding fast light units and relative power if they did the following:
Reintroduce Initiative.
Make WS and BS comparative rolls AGAINST Initiative.
you don't need Initiative to determine who strikes first if it reflects the unit's speed by how EASILY it can be hit.
I'm quoting this mainly in support and the fact I've been saying this for most of this thread. There's just too much sense in it.
Remember when Lelith was Initiative 9? This is one of the best examples of how a basic defensive stat could have had an impact when properly used for their fluff.
Mezmorki wrote: You all are funny. You recognize the issues caused by GW over simplifying the core rules and then wanting to add a bunch more to make up for it (thus making it more complex again). Classic 40K handled this all nice in a single die roll (WS vs WS) with initiative dictating attack order. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Reminds me of another great irony. People loved to beat on 2nd edition because it had all these time consuming modifiers and re-rolls and special action cards all over the place that bogged the game down, made batch rolling hard, etc. 9th edition is right back there, what with die roll modifiers sprinkled all over the place like glitter at a my little pony convention. Not to mention the re-rolls and special action cards (ahem stratagems) bogging it all down again.
What the point of a streamlined rule set if you have to even more rule bloat on top of it to make up for an overly simple core?
Exalted and posted here because i think that it is important re the OP.
Hellebore wrote: IMO they could fix a lot of issues with the game regarding fast light units and relative power if they did the following:
Reintroduce Initiative.
Make WS and BS comparative rolls AGAINST Initiative.
you don't need Initiative to determine who strikes first if it reflects the unit's speed by how EASILY it can be hit.
I'm quoting this mainly in support and the fact I've been saying this for most of this thread. There's just too much sense in it.
Remember when Lelith was Initiative 9? This is one of the best examples of how a basic defensive stat could have had an impact when properly used for their fluff.
That 9 represented so much, not only physical speed, but also supernatural instincts and training etc. Now gone to make room for a card game. Cards make money. Initiative stats do not.
It would also be very easy to make Fight first rules add +3 to initiative and Charging add +4 as far as that goes.
Normal fight last rules could be -3 and super fight last (judicar) could be -4.
Models swinging at initiative 0 would not be able to be chosen until everything else has swung.
WS vs WS could be handled the same way ST vs T is (this would go along way to balance all the + to hit stuff as well. No reason for a marine to be hitting EVERYTHING on a 2+ in assault).
Charistoph wrote: Remember when Lelith was Initiative 9? This is one of the best examples of how a basic defensive stat could have had an impact when properly used for their fluff.
That 9 represented so much, not only physical speed, but also supernatural instincts and training etc. Now gone to make room for a card game. Cards make money. Initiative stats do not.
Very true in regards to the instincts and training, which is why she had a Special rule to give her an Invul Save for defense because Initiative was only advantageous for going first in combat and Sweeping. Now consider the impact if that ultimate Initiative also affected people hitting her in the first place.
Initiative was not removed to make room for a card game, it was just left over after they removed its meaning, so it was dropped. Adding the stat back in would mean new cards, too, so...
Eihnlazer wrote: It would also be very easy to make Fight first rules add +3 to initiative and Charging add +4 as far as that goes.
Normal fight last rules could be -3 and super fight last (judicar) could be -4.
Models swinging at initiative 0 would not be able to be chosen until everything else has swung.
WS vs WS could be handled the same way ST vs T is (this would go along way to balance all the + to hit stuff as well. No reason for a marine to be hitting EVERYTHING on a 2+ in assault).
One of the reasons to use initiative or a defensive stat is to help make stat lines more diverse, and ork can have a high WS, better than a Eldar guardian but a Eldar guardian can still be faster and better suited to defensive fighting than a imperial guard.
Fighting first should probably just be a turn based thing, even potentially removing the strike back as a standard rule, and moving it to a rule that’s rarely given as a all the time thing.
Something like a order for IG like, hold the ground, bayonets at the ready. Giving a unit the ability to fight back in combat, and strike first if they are charged. Creating more situations for players to think ahead rather than the glut of responses GW favours now.
nemesis464 wrote: Coming back to 40k from 5th Ed and one of the weirder changes to me is how WS works.
Obviously a lot of stuff in warhammer doesn’t make all that much sense, but I don’t understand why they made WS as a flat value to hit, rather than comparing it to the martial prowess of you opponent? It wasn’t exactly a complicated system before.
Why should an Ork Boy hit a stationery tank on the same value as hitting a Phoenix Lord or Primarch? Comparing WS in the past felt a lot more immersive than only hitting on the same roll every time.
With so much stuff getting power-creeped towards WS 2/3+, it makes combat master special characters feel less special, as one of their qualities was always making lesser characters and units hit them on 4s or 5s.
Anyone feel the same?
I think a better question to ask is "Why can't these game companies make ONE system, ONE edition" and run it forever? To me, the fact that the system has to chance ever X years is a bit silly at this point.
You mean like classic battletech?
In over 30 years it has been effectively the same core rules set. the only major changes they made were fixing the anti-missile system so it made a difference (1 ammo for every firing instead of one ammo for every missile shot down-pretty important when 1 ton of ammo was 12) catalyst changed a few of the damage charts around when they took over and moved the max tech rules and old charts into an "optional rules" book.
Insectum7 wrote:
That would go some distance to dealing with something that always kinda bugged me, which is that Vehicles aren't harder to hit than infantry. Like, are you really going to miss a Monolith? The counterpoint to that is that taking out such a vehicle requires hitting weak points, and those could still be hard to hit, but opening up a stat that modifies defense could provide for some interesting opportunities.
They already had that fixed in 4th. If you remember vehicles didn't have a CC attack(except for the 30K mechanicus land raider/explorator that had a combat claw, and tau flechette launchers) but they could try to run people over with tank shock (it became really good and thematic with the old 3.5 chaos vehicle upgrades-remember when all those saw blades on a khorne rhino did something?). the vehicle owner had to trade off more accurate shooting for being harder to hit in close combat. going from being hit automatically for not moving to a 4+/6+ the faster they went. they also introduced ramming so they could effectively CC attack another vehicle in the movement phase (very useful if you had all your guns blown off). you also only hit the armor you were facing requiring tactical maneuvering (not the BS Jervis Johnson came up with in 5th- hitting on 3+ always against rear armor-.because in his words "you deserve it" if you get into CC with a vehicle-you don't deserve**** in a tactical war game-you earn it by being the better general)
Thats why our group still uses those rules in our hybrid 5th ed games- they were a good tactical and immersive element in the game.
Mezmorki wrote: You all are funny. You recognize the issues caused by GW over simplifying the core rules and then wanting to add a bunch more to make up for it (thus making it more complex again). Classic 40K handled this all nice in a single die roll (WS vs WS) with initiative dictating attack order. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
It was broken and essentially only worked well for eldar.
It feels almost 4 years too late to be protesting this change... jussayin. The old editions exist if you preferred those mechanics. The new edition is what it is and won’t be changing anytime soon. Make your choice and move on!
JohnnyHell wrote: It feels almost 4 years too late to be protesting this change... jussayin. The old editions exist if you preferred those mechanics. The new edition is what it is and won’t be changing anytime soon. Make your choice and move on!
The OPs question was answered on page 1, the topic has just meandered all over the place about rules changes in various editions. including problems, fixes and preferences.
Insectum7 wrote: Pretty sure Kharandras was better in 2nd, and he's not advocating for that.
An elf was almost always WS5+ AND I5+ meaning they'd always go first and hit the most.
Heaven forbid non-Space Marines be good at something?
You mean a boost to Eldar and none other? Orks gained a ton from the change now that they weren't always swinging last against everything and often given often weak WS scores, Tyranids don't have to suffer the issues of their better assault units not having assault grenades and thus being penalized by cover. Which of course Imperium and Eldar had in Spades. Not to mention how GW always felt that "Big Monsters need WS3!"
Notice how everyone's discussing how much this system benefits Eldar units, but forgets that there's other xenos melee units in the game.
Mezmorki wrote: You all are funny. You recognize the issues caused by GW over simplifying the core rules and then wanting to add a bunch more to make up for it (thus making it more complex again). Classic 40K handled this all nice in a single die roll (WS vs WS) with initiative dictating attack order. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
It was broken and essentially only worked well for eldar.
I dunno. I remember my hive tyrant wrecking face...
Insectum7 wrote: Pretty sure Kharandras was better in 2nd, and he's not advocating for that.
An elf was almost always WS5+ AND I5+ meaning they'd always go first and hit the most.
Heaven forbid non-Space Marines be good at something?
You mean a boost to Eldar and none other? Orks gained a ton from the change now that they weren't always swinging last against everything and often given often weak WS scores, Tyranids don't have to suffer the issues of their better assault units not having assault grenades and thus being penalized by cover. Which of course Imperium and Eldar had in Spades. Not to mention how GW always felt that "Big Monsters need WS3!"
Notice how everyone's discussing how much this system benefits Eldar units, but forgets that there's other xenos melee units in the game.
Eldar players have always been as bad and entitled as the so called typical Marine player. Only difference is the number of models released.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Notice how everyone's discussing how much this system benefits Eldar units, but forgets that there's other xenos melee units in the game.
To be fair, Eldar was a race known for speed and elegance, but weak as kittens, and still cost more than their stats often provided.
Tyranids are the beast faction made up of numerous species. Their small bugs tended to be very quick while many of their big bugs were slow. As a side note, a Genestealer's Initiative was pretty good when compared to an Eldar Guardian, hehe.
Insectum7 wrote: Pretty sure Kharandras was better in 2nd, and he's not advocating for that.
An elf was almost always WS5+ AND I5+ meaning they'd always go first and hit the most.
Heaven forbid non-Space Marines be good at something?
You mean a boost to Eldar and none other? Orks gained a ton from the change now that they weren't always swinging last against everything and often given often weak WS scores, Tyranids don't have to suffer the issues of their better assault units not having assault grenades and thus being penalized by cover. Which of course Imperium and Eldar had in Spades. Not to mention how GW always felt that "Big Monsters need WS3!"
Notice how everyone's discussing how much this system benefits Eldar units, but forgets that there's other xenos melee units in the game.
It benefitted Genestealers, Lictors, Tyrants, Slaneesh daemons, Dark Eldar, occasionally Ork Nobs on the charge when they doubled their initiative. . . It was just another way to meaningfully diversify models.
Not to mention Daedelus gives incorrect "elf" stats, Aspect Warriors were all WS4, not 5, for example.
Plus, Orks with their natively lower Initiative actually hit harder to compensate. It's almost like things can be rebalanced if required.
Clans was more additional equipment and forces more than changing its rules, unless you include Zelbrigen, but that was always optional.
Dark Age was Clix from WizKids, not original creator or even trying to continue the same game. In a way that would be like referring to Kings of War for Age of Sigmar. Less said the better on that somewhat disastrous front (models were well done, though).
Alpha Strike is as much a different scale of ruleset as Kill Team or Epic 40K is.
Argive wrote: I dunno. I remember my hive tyrant wrecking face...
Yeah, unless there was a small shrubbery at the feet of your charge target, then even tau fire warriors were given a shot to hit the pinnacle of evolution before it was allowed to kill them.
Argive wrote: I dunno. I remember my hive tyrant wrecking face...
Yeah, unless there was a small shrubbery at the feet of your charge target, then even tau fire warriors were given a shot to hit the pinnacle of evolution before it was allowed to kill them.
Friendly reminder that adopting one past rule does not mean you have to adopt ALL past rules. . .
Argive wrote: I dunno. I remember my hive tyrant wrecking face...
Yeah, unless there was a small shrubbery at the feet of your charge target, then even tau fire warriors were given a shot to hit the pinnacle of evolution before it was allowed to kill them.
What does that have to do with the WS comparison chart per se? Nobody claimed that all old charge and melee rules are desirable now in their entirety.
Charistoph wrote: Remember when Lelith was Initiative 9? This is one of the best examples of how a basic defensive stat could have had an impact when properly used for their fluff.
That 9 represented so much, not only physical speed, but also supernatural instincts and training etc. Now gone to make room for a card game. Cards make money. Initiative stats do not.
Very true in regards to the instincts and training, which is why she had a Special rule to give her an Invul Save for defense because Initiative was only advantageous for going first in combat and Sweeping. Now consider the impact if that ultimate Initiative also affected people hitting her in the first place.
Initiative was not removed to make room for a card game, it was just left over after they removed its meaning, so it was dropped. Adding the stat back in would mean new cards, too, so...
Actually the defensive element existed in the fact that casualties were removed immediately, before having a chance to strike in the first place... but sure, more could be done.
Yes GW will find a way to sell cards out of it but unnecessary...
Argive wrote: I dunno. I remember my hive tyrant wrecking face...
Yeah, unless there was a small shrubbery at the feet of your charge target, then even tau fire warriors were given a shot to hit the pinnacle of evolution before it was allowed to kill them.
Hey, there was a grot hiding in that bush, and that grot stopped a tank earlier in the afternoon...
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Notice how everyone's discussing how much this system benefits Eldar units, but forgets that there's other xenos melee units in the game.
To be fair, Eldar was a race known for speed and elegance, but weak as kittens, and still cost more than their stats often provided.
Tyranids are the beast faction made up of numerous species. Their small bugs tended to be very quick while many of their big bugs were slow. As a side note, a Genestealer's Initiative was pretty good when compared to an Eldar Guardian, hehe.
nemesis464 wrote: Coming back to 40k from 5th Ed and one of the weirder changes to me is how WS works.
Obviously a lot of stuff in warhammer doesn’t make all that much sense, but I don’t understand why they made WS as a flat value to hit, rather than comparing it to the martial prowess of you opponent? It wasn’t exactly a complicated system before.
Why should an Ork Boy hit a stationery tank on the same value as hitting a Phoenix Lord or Primarch? Comparing WS in the past felt a lot more immersive than only hitting on the same roll every time.
With so much stuff getting power-creeped towards WS 2/3+, it makes combat master special characters feel less special, as one of their qualities was always making lesser characters and units hit them on 4s or 5s.
Anyone feel the same?
I think a better question to ask is "Why can't these game companies make ONE system, ONE edition" and run it forever? To me, the fact that the system has to chance ever X years is a bit silly at this point.
You mean like classic battletech?
In over 30 years it has been effectively the same core rules set. the only major changes they made were fixing the anti-missile system so it made a difference (1 ammo for every firing instead of one ammo for every missile shot down-pretty important when 1 ton of ammo was 12) catalyst changed a few of the damage charts around when they took over and moved the max tech rules and old charts into an "optional rules" book.
Insectum7 wrote:
That would go some distance to dealing with something that always kinda bugged me, which is that Vehicles aren't harder to hit than infantry. Like, are you really going to miss a Monolith? The counterpoint to that is that taking out such a vehicle requires hitting weak points, and those could still be hard to hit, but opening up a stat that modifies defense could provide for some interesting opportunities.
They already had that fixed in 4th. If you remember vehicles didn't have a CC attack(except for the 30K mechanicus land raider/explorator that had a combat claw, and tau flechette launchers) but they could try to run people over with tank shock (it became really good and thematic with the old 3.5 chaos vehicle upgrades-remember when all those saw blades on a khorne rhino did something?). the vehicle owner had to trade off more accurate shooting for being harder to hit in close combat. going from being hit automatically for not moving to a 4+/6+ the faster they went. they also introduced ramming so they could effectively CC attack another vehicle in the movement phase (very useful if you had all your guns blown off). you also only hit the armor you were facing requiring tactical maneuvering (not the BS Jervis Johnson came up with in 5th- hitting on 3+ always against rear armor-.because in his words "you deserve it" if you get into CC with a vehicle-you don't deserve**** in a tactical war game-you earn it by being the better general)
Thats why our group still uses those rules in our hybrid 5th ed games- they were a good tactical and immersive element in the game.
Those were good times. I liked 4th but I lost a lot ...
Insectum7 wrote: It benefitted Genestealers, Lictors, Tyrants, Slaneesh daemons, Dark Eldar, occasionally Ork Nobs on the charge when they doubled their initiative. . .
How far back in time do I need to go to have nobz double their initiative on the charge?
The best they could do ever since I started was I4, assuming they were charging, not wielding a PK or charging into terrain.
Which meant that for many armies that their dedicated shooting units were allowed to kill a bunch of expensive melee experts before they could strike.
Plus, Orks with their natively lower Initiative actually hit harder to compensate. It's almost like things can be rebalanced if required.
That would go some distance to dealing with something that always kinda bugged me, which is that Vehicles aren't harder to hit than infantry. Like, are you really going to miss a Monolith? The counterpoint to that is that taking out such a vehicle requires hitting weak points, and those could still be hard to hit, but opening up a stat that modifies defense could provide for some interesting opportunities.
They already had that fixed in 4th. If you remember vehicles didn't have a CC attack(except for the 30K mechanicus land raider/explorator that had a combat claw, and tau flechette launchers) but they could try to run people over with tank shock (it became really good and thematic with the old 3.5 chaos vehicle upgrades-remember when all those saw blades on a khorne rhino did something?). the vehicle owner had to trade off more accurate shooting for being harder to hit in close combat. going from being hit automatically for not moving to a 4+/6+ the faster they went. they also introduced ramming so they could effectively CC attack another vehicle in the movement phase (very useful if you had all your guns blown off). you also only hit the armor you were facing requiring tactical maneuvering (not the BS Jervis Johnson came up with in 5th- hitting on 3+ always against rear armor-.because in his words "you deserve it" if you get into CC with a vehicle-you don't deserve**** in a tactical war game-you earn it by being the better general)
Thats why our group still uses those rules in our hybrid 5th ed games- they were a good tactical and immersive element in the game.
I meant in regards to shooting, actually. This was in regards to Initiative being used for evasion in CC and Shooting.
Argive wrote: I dunno. I remember my hive tyrant wrecking face...
Yeah, unless there was a small shrubbery at the feet of your charge target, then even tau fire warriors were given a shot to hit the pinnacle of evolution before it was allowed to kill them.
What does that have to do with the WS comparison chart per se? Nobody claimed that all old charge and melee rules are desirable now in their entirety.
Well, if you discount initiative, your Hive Tyrand was worse with the table than without in every possible scenario. Which means that you are asking for a flat melee nerf.
Insectum7 wrote: It benefitted Genestealers, Lictors, Tyrants, Slaneesh daemons, Dark Eldar, occasionally Ork Nobs on the charge when they doubled their initiative. . .
How far back in time do I need to go to have nobz double their initiative on the charge?
The best they could do ever since I started was I4, assuming they were charging, not wielding a PK or charging into terrain.
Which meant that for many armies that their dedicated shooting units were allowed to kill a bunch of expensive melee experts before they could strike.
3rd -4th era. Some 5th maybe.
Orks were not expensive. Nob sergeants in a Boyz mob could fight first with Initiative 6, then Boyz would fight at I4, simultaneously with Marines. This required a Mob check, which was something like testing agains the unit size on 2d6.
Plus, Orks with their natively lower Initiative actually hit harder to compensate. It's almost like things can be rebalanced if required.
They hit harder?At S3 without AP?
Back then they actually HAD a form of AP. Choppas reduced saves to 4+, even Terminators. Slugga boys had 4 attacks each on the charge. So a good charge with 10 boyz would average 3.33 marine kills simultaneously as the Marines fought back. If the Nob was in there he could use a Choppa, but more likely he had a Power Claw, which forced him to fight last, but he'd get 5 attacks for 2 kills by himself. The marines wouldn't kill the Nob, since the Ork player could just take boyz for casualties. But that'd be 5 Marines killed by 10 Orks, and the Marines (say, 10 man squad) would only average 2 dead Orks in return.
I don't know how the same 10 Orks would fare today, but I think "not as well" is the place we're in now, considering the same 10 marines average about 6 Ork kills. . . Oh and Intercessors for 8.5
Argive wrote: I dunno. I remember my hive tyrant wrecking face...
Yeah, unless there was a small shrubbery at the feet of your charge target, then even tau fire warriors were given a shot to hit the pinnacle of evolution before it was allowed to kill them.
What does that have to do with the WS comparison chart per se? Nobody claimed that all old charge and melee rules are desirable now in their entirety.
Well, if you discount initiative, your Hive Tyrand was worse with the table than without in every possible scenario. Which means that you are asking for a flat melee nerf.
We've been through this a couple of pages ago, but I'll say it one last time. The re introduction of a comparison chart would need a rule framework built around it, initiative could be a part of that.
jeff white wrote:Actually the defensive element existed in the fact that casualties were removed immediately, before having a chance to strike in the first place... but sure, more could be done.
Ah yes, true. However Lelith wasn't all that strong, making Wounding a bit more challenging against tougher foes like Marines and Nobs. She could put out a lot Attacks and once Wounded, they tended to stick.
Jidmah wrote: Not after you claimed that you don't need to support a hypothesis with arguments, no.
What the hell are you even talking about?
Edit: Are you KIDDING me? You gathered from my post that I believe you don't need to support a hypothesis with "arguments"? I wrote that a hypothesis has no claim to objective truth unless it can be tested and can provide reproducable and peer reviewed results, because you accused me of stating my opinion as fact. I then said I can't provide testable, reproducable results for my extended comparison chart because it would need a rule framework written around it....I don't have that framework, guess what, I didn't rework all the rules on my own.
How in the hell did you get from that to "I claimed that you don't need to support a hypothesis with arguments"?! Seriously.
I think the points some posters have made has wooshed well over peoples heads.
Just because there were units in certain edition that were perhaps too good/too points effcient does not mean the idea behind combination of initiative and WS v WS hititng in CC is a bad design for handling combat..
Nothin is perfect but IMO that offers much more room to design nits other then:
Tis unit always fights first
This unit always hits on 2+
This model has 999 attacks as the sole indicator for how good something is in CC.
Initiative simply implies the slower unit is twiddling their thumbs and doing nothing while getting hit. I'd rather just get rid of the activiation thing going on and everyone strikes at the same time unless there's combats that need to be resolved first/last. It would make the process significantly quicker too.
Contested WS - and especially contested initiative - is incredibly hard to balance though.
Does it really matter for instance if Ork Boys hit on 3s versus say Guardsmen, but 4s versus Space Marines or Eldar or 5 vs... whatever? (If this was the rules, sorry 7th and beyond disappears from my memory like some terrible nightmare). Mathematically you are making weird probability curves when those units with higher WS likely already have superior armour saves than chaff. Making assault essentially just shooting, but at point blank range makes sort of sense to me.
Back then they actually HAD a form of AP. Choppas reduced saves to 4+, even Terminators. Slugga boys had 4 attacks each on the charge. So a good charge with 10 boyz would average 3.33 marine kills simultaneously as the Marines fought back. If the Nob was in there he could use a Choppa, but more likely he had a Power Claw, which forced him to fight last, but he'd get 5 attacks for 2 kills by himself. The marines wouldn't kill the Nob, since the Ork player could just take boyz for casualties. But that'd be 5 Marines killed by 10 Orks, and the Marines (say, 10 man squad) would only average 2 dead Orks in return.
I don't know how the same 10 Orks would fare today, but I think "not as well" is the place we're in now, considering the same 10 marines average about 6 Ork kills. . . Oh and Intercessors for 8.5
10 basic orkz was 60pts and the Marines were 150pts. The orkz had 40 attacks on the charge, 26.6 hits, 13.3 wounds and 4.4 ish dead Marines.
10 Basic orkz are now 80pts and the Marines are 180pts. The orkz get 30 attacks, 20 hits, 10 wounds and 3.33dmg which results in 1.5 Dead Marines.
So orkz went up in price 33%, Space Marines only went up 20%. Orkz are now a bit over 1/3rd as deadly as they used to be vs Space Marines and point for point its even worse. All told Ork boyz aren't in a good place if the meta actually brought TAC lists instead of anti-elite lists.
Tyel wrote: Contested WS - and especially contested initiative - is incredibly hard to balance though.
Does it really matter for instance if Ork Boys hit on 3s versus say Guardsmen, but 4s versus Space Marines or Eldar or 5 vs... whatever? (If this was the rules, sorry 7th and beyond disappears from my memory like some terrible nightmare). Mathematically you are making weird probability curves when those units with higher WS likely already have superior armour saves than chaff. Making assault essentially just shooting, but at point blank range makes sort of sense to me.
My WS9 Daemon Princes had a 5++, same as my WS3 Plaguebearers.
Tyel wrote: Contested WS - and especially contested initiative - is incredibly hard to balance though.
Does it really matter for instance if Ork Boys hit on 3s versus say Guardsmen, but 4s versus Space Marines or Eldar or 5 vs... whatever? (If this was the rules, sorry 7th and beyond disappears from my memory like some terrible nightmare). Mathematically you are making weird probability curves when those units with higher WS likely already have superior armour saves than chaff. Making assault essentially just shooting, but at point blank range makes sort of sense to me.
My WS9 Daemon Princes had a 5++, same as my WS3 Plaguebearers.
WS doesn’t mean better armor.
I suspect its a generalization. And a fairly accurate one if you don't purposefully toss the prime exception to armor into the mix.
But it is notable that the low init, low weapon skill armies often choked hard, and their actual value was far more variable on the table, as they contributed less (dying first), and hit less often (against higher WS armies).
If even if you did go back to the older system and did change it so that that the chart wasn't slowed like it used to be, the vast majority of the units will still be hitting each other on 4s (since most of the units that wanted to be in melee in were WS 4) with generally getting on 3s vs GEQs, who don't want to be in melee most of the time anyway. It's rare for an army to have varying WS outside of characters, even less where WS5 could be accessible outside, again, characters. It wouldn't add much that the current system doesn't already do. Worse for using old fashion Init. I personally like that who went first was dependat on who took the risk vs "who's number is higher goes first." there's noting interesting about unavoidable damage.
If init got used as a defensive stat, I'd be much more interested in that (as long as it applys to shooting too. Nothing more infuriating that two campions of their respective races hitting each other on 4+ while john "I didn't die in the first hour" doe being able a score a bulleyes on a dark eldar reaver at full speed two thirds of the time).
Luke_Prowler wrote: If even if you did go back to the older system and did change it so that that the chart wasn't slowed like it used to be, the vast majority of the units will still be hitting each other on 4s (since most of the units that wanted to be in melee in were WS 4) with generally getting on 3s vs GEQs, who don't want to be in melee most of the time anyway. It's rare for an army to have varying WS outside of characters, even less where WS5 could be accessible outside, again, characters. It wouldn't add much that the current system doesn't already do. Worse for using old fashion Init. I personally like that who went first was dependat on who took the risk vs "who's number is higher goes first." there's noting interesting about unavoidable damage.
If init got used as a defensive stat, I'd be much more interested in that (as long as it applys to shooting too. Nothing more infuriating that two campions of their respective races hitting each other on 4+ while john "I didn't die in the first hour" doe being able a score a bulleyes on a dark eldar reaver at full speed two thirds of the time).
True, but if you distributed WS on a wider range across units and factions it could potentially work, and work better than the old system, while also freeing up design space compared to the current system and also being an (imo) better abstraction for melee combat than the current system. Working in initiative for both melee and/or shooting would be a cool idea for a rule framework that is built with an extended WS comparison chart in mind.
Insectum7 wrote: Pretty sure Kharandras was better in 2nd, and he's not advocating for that.
An elf was almost always WS5+ AND I5+ meaning they'd always go first and hit the most.
Heaven forbid non-Space Marines be good at something?
You mean a boost to Eldar and none other? Orks gained a ton from the change now that they weren't always swinging last against everything and often given often weak WS scores, Tyranids don't have to suffer the issues of their better assault units not having assault grenades and thus being penalized by cover. Which of course Imperium and Eldar had in Spades. Not to mention how GW always felt that "Big Monsters need WS3!"
Notice how everyone's discussing how much this system benefits Eldar units, but forgets that there's other xenos melee units in the game.
It benefitted Genestealers, Lictors, Tyrants, Slaneesh daemons, Dark Eldar, occasionally Ork Nobs on the charge when they doubled their initiative. . . It was just another way to meaningfully diversify models.
Not to mention Daedelus gives incorrect "elf" stats, Aspect Warriors were all WS4, not 5, for example.
Plus, Orks with their natively lower Initiative actually hit harder to compensate. It's almost like things can be rebalanced if required.
Genestealers.. Didn't have Assault grenades, thus got neutered by Cover and were often shot to pieces. Lictors were genuinely awful, Tyrants were never run without double ranged/wings even back in 5th, Slaanesh Daemons didn't have assault grenades and thus their high initiative didn't matter with cover charges and since they were forced to deepstrike meant they were forced to take a turn of fire, Dark Eldar always were inside vehicles, and the only Ork Nobs that fought in melee were Bikers that used 5th's weird rules so that they could split wounds across in a way that GW didn't expect.
I'm not sure how this helped differentiate them besides just simply being worse off.
^Mmmhmm, and this is one of those magical paradigms where the opposing unit is always in cover and there's no chaff to pin them down and there are no second rounds of combat and "all Nobs are on bikes" (wtf) and DE Wyches were "always inside vehicles" (wtf), etc etc etc.
Also: Here's another friendly reminder (as already mentioned above) that ALL the rules from previous paradigms don't have to be brought along even if SOME of the rules are reexamined for reinstatement.
Genestealers.. Didn't have Assault grenades, thus got neutered by Cover and were often shot to pieces. Lictors were genuinely awful, Tyrants were never run without double ranged/wings even back in 5th, Slaanesh Daemons didn't have assault grenades and thus their high initiative didn't matter with cover charges and since they were forced to deepstrike meant they were forced to take a turn of fire, Dark Eldar always were inside vehicles, and the only Ork Nobs that fought in melee were Bikers that used 5th's weird rules so that they could split wounds across in a way that GW didn't expect.
I'm not sure how this helped differentiate them besides just simply being worse off.
You realise that the initiative rules and the cover rules aren't bolted together, right? It is possible to have one without the other.
Yes, the way cover affected Initiative was utterly stupid (not helped by the Marine-centric distribution of grenades), I'm glad we can all agree.
Seriously, can you name one person here who has championed the idea of resurrecting that particular cover rule?
If not, I fail to see the point of bringing it up because it seems clear that absolutely no one (whether they like Initiative or not) wants that rule back.
Genestealers.. Didn't have Assault grenades, thus got neutered by Cover and were often shot to pieces. Lictors were genuinely awful, Tyrants were never run without double ranged/wings even back in 5th, Slaanesh Daemons didn't have assault grenades and thus their high initiative didn't matter with cover charges and since they were forced to deepstrike meant they were forced to take a turn of fire, Dark Eldar always were inside vehicles, and the only Ork Nobs that fought in melee were Bikers that used 5th's weird rules so that they could split wounds across in a way that GW didn't expect.
I'm not sure how this helped differentiate them besides just simply being worse off.
You realise that the initiative rules and the cover rules aren't bolted together, right? It is possible to have one without the other.
Yes, the way cover affected Initiative was utterly stupid (not helped by the Marine-centric distribution of grenades), I'm glad we can all agree.
Seriously, can you name one person here who has championed the idea of resurrecting that particular cover rule?
If not, I fail to see the point of bringing it up because it seems clear that absolutely no one (whether they like Initiative or not) wants that rule back.
Given how often I see people championing 5th edition for melee combat I might've interpreted things a bit wrongly in this regard, you are quite correct in this regard.
Though of the other things I've mentioned knowing GW we will return to the issues of Tyranid Monsters like the Carnifex returning to WS3 and I1 with maybe a +1 or 2 boost on charge is a worry.. That and the fact that in general it seems like something that could be tweaked from the newer rules so that there can be something useful. I enjoy the idea of Orks and Tyranids having proper Melee armies again rather then being forced into Shooting with some melee on the side or none at all in some cases.
Insectum7 wrote: ...Also: Here's another friendly reminder (as already mentioned above) that ALL the rules from previous paradigms don't have to be brought along even if SOME of the rules are reexamined for reinstatement.
But then the "Like 9th or pike off!" crowd lose their "ANYTHING BUT THE HORRORS OF 7TH" auto-win-arguments button.
Mezmorki wrote: I'm failing to understand what the problem with cover and assaulting was in prior editions?
Cover and Grenades negated initiative, basically. An I6 unit charging an I4 in cover still fought last because cover made them strike at I1. Frag Grenades were used by the attacker when assaulting into cover to give them I10.
Which imo was an alright mechanic, but it could probably be made better by being just a +/- modifier or having some other effect instead. I saw it as defenders being in cover working like an implicit Overwatch, and attacking with Frag Grenades nullified the Overwatch.
The issue most folks seem to have is that sometimes your attacking troops without grenades (Genestealers, for example) lost their advantage of having a high Initiative. I'm on the fence about it, personally. But I think a better system would allow a supporting unit to suppress the defenders in the firing phase, and then charging units wouldn't need grenades. You know, Devilgaunts firing at a unit of Marines keeping them from being able to mount a solid defense againat the assaulting Stealers, as an example. The advantage of Frags in this example could still allow units to Assault effectively without requiring another unit to provide supporting fire. So, Stealers could get their I6, and Marines could still attack into cover without suffering penalties.
Mezmorki wrote: I'm failing to understand what the problem with cover and assaulting was in prior editions?
Charing into cover reduced your I to 1 no matter how high it otherwise was.
Unless you had Assault Grenades or an equivalent rule, which wasn't super common to have as part of your basic wargear if you weren't Imperials, Orks or Eldar.
Mezmorki wrote: I'm failing to understand what the problem with cover and assaulting was in prior editions?
Cover and Grenades negated initiative, basically. An I6 unit charging an I4 in cover still fought last because cover made them strike at I1. Frag Grenades were used by the attacker when assaulting into cover to give them I10.
Which imo was an alright mechanic, but it could probably be made better by being just a +/- modifier or having some other effect instead. I saw it as defenders being in cover working like an implicit Overwatch, and attacking with Frag Grenades nullified the Overwatch.
The issue most folks seem to have is that sometimes your attacking troops without grenades (Genestealers, for example) lost their advantage of having a high Initiative. I'm on the fence about it, personally. But I think a better system would allow a supporting unit to suppress the defenders in the firing phase, and then charging units wouldn't need grenades. You know, Devilgaunts firing at a unit of Marines keeping them from being able to mount a solid defense againat the assaulting Stealers, as an example. The advantage of Frags in this example could still allow units to Assault effectively without requiring another unit to provide supporting fire. So, Stealers could get their I6, and Marines could still attack into cover without suffering penalties.
The way cover interacted with close combat in previous editions I think set up the stage for 40k allways being a bad game for close combat.
A lot of close combat units would be evective based entirely on the cover, as they couldn’t survive to deal the damage needed after.
It didn’t help that they put challenges in as well, that further pushed it to breaking point, as a lot of the units with both armor and grenades where also good challenge units/models. Something like a hereld was way to many points to pull so many duty’s over even something like a space marine Sargent.
It’s probably sad that it take initiative with it, and GW was not able to see where they could use the stat otherwise :(
Since bringing it back means another full round of new books and updates.
I wouldn't say CC was set up to fail though, there were plenty of units that were monsters in CC without grenades, etc.
I think it can't be stated enough that most of the problems of 6-7th were codex problems rather than core-rules problems. I thought the foundation was decent, with some minor quibbles.
Having units that work does not really make it a successful system for it.
The same way that designing a game to make close combat happen, is not the same as a game that close combat can happen.
For most army’s it was just, can I ignore this. Or can I survive it, and if not. Bad unit :(
Edit, since I think they could have done something good with those systems. They just didn’t.
Apple fox wrote: Having units that work does not really make it a successful system for it.
The same way that designing a game to make close combat happen, is not the same as a game that close combat can happen.
For most army’s it was just, can I ignore this. Or can I survive it, and if not. Bad unit :(
Edit, since I think they could have done something good with those systems. They just didn’t.
Ehhh, some qualifiers are gonna be needed there. Like are we talking about 3,4,5,6 or 7th? How much terrain were you using? What units are we talking about and what buffs are you loading them with? Like, systems can break just because certain units or abilities are on the table. I think the height was 4th ed, personally, for various reasons. There was a limit to how much you could buff units, Overwatch didn't exist, charges were a predictable 6", area terrain blocked LOS providing more cover for assaulting units, there were fewer fancy/big shooting weapons on the table, etc.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Unless you had Assault Grenades or an equivalent rule, which wasn't super common to have as part of your basic wargear if you weren't Imperials, Orks or Eldar.
And even they didn't have it as their basic kit until the Blue Period of 4th Edition. Before Eldar's release then, those Grenades had to be bought for all models in the unit as 1 point per model.
They started bringing out Defensive Grenades, too, as well. Predominantly among the Tau and Plague Marines. While they didn't mess with the Initiative Order much, they did negate the extra Attack Chargers would get.
I wouldn't say CC was set up to fail though, there were plenty of units that were monsters in CC without grenades, etc.
I think it can't be stated enough that most of the problems of 6-7th were codex problems rather than core-rules problems. I thought the foundation was decent, with some minor quibbles.
Eh challenges were handled better in 7th at least where attacks spilled over, but in 6th it was absolutely atrocious.
I wouldn't say CC was set up to fail though, there were plenty of units that were monsters in CC without grenades, etc.
I think it can't be stated enough that most of the problems of 6-7th were codex problems rather than core-rules problems. I thought the foundation was decent, with some minor quibbles.
Eh challenges were handled better in 7th at least where attacks spilled over, but in 6th it was absolutely atrocious.
Still had some big issues. And I say that as someone who enjoyed 7th.
Insectum7 wrote: ...But I think a better system would allow a supporting unit to suppress the defenders in the firing phase, and then charging units wouldn't need grenades. You know, Devilgaunts firing at a unit of Marines keeping them from being able to mount a solid defense againat the assaulting Stealers, as an example. The advantage of Frags in this example could still allow units to Assault effectively without requiring another unit to provide supporting fire. So, Stealers could get their I6, and Marines could still attack into cover without suffering penalties.
That's the approach I took in my own rewrite; hits with the "Suppression" keyword do what frag grenades did, which means you take the I hit for long charges into cover (frag grenades only have 6" range) and keyword-izes the support ability on the Skull Cannon so it can go on more things (Barbed Stranglers, for instance).
Apple fox wrote: Having units that work does not really make it a successful system for it.
The same way that designing a game to make close combat happen, is not the same as a game that close combat can happen.
For most army’s it was just, can I ignore this. Or can I survive it, and if not. Bad unit :(
Edit, since I think they could have done something good with those systems. They just didn’t.
Ehhh, some qualifiers are gonna be needed there. Like are we talking about 3,4,5,6 or 7th? How much terrain were you using? What units are we talking about and what buffs are you loading them with? Like, systems can break just because certain units or abilities are on the table. I think the height was 4th ed, personally, for various reasons. There was a limit to how much you could buff units, Overwatch didn't exist, charges were a predictable 6", area terrain blocked LOS providing more cover for assaulting units, there were fewer fancy/big shooting weapons on the table, etc.
I was mostly playing with 6th, no one play 7th here. But it’s more at the units good at close combat. They could be, but that does not mean the system is well set up and plays well.
New 40k is still woeful design, and even with units that are good. It still very heavy centre on stats as a space marine likes them. Entire faction identifies and fantasy have to contorted into a simple system, with just loaded up special rules and lots of add ons to make it even interesting but very complex.
It’s really just 1 step forward 2 back for 30 years or so.
It’s hard for me to really go into long long details, I already push myself a bit today :(
I enjoyed Challengers, but that's entirely selfish on my part since I enjoyed using my souped up Slaanesh Heralds to assassinate Independant Characters (yay for their Exalted Locus forcing challenges!)
1. the clan invasion and the (stupid) dark age story arcs were LORE additions to the universe that in no way changed the core game mechanics, at most they added new weapons and systems
2. I said CLASSIC battletech both battleforce and alpha strike are entirely different games set in the battletech universe. unless your trying to argue the equivalent that epic 40k is the same game as regular 28mm 40K
classic battletech still exists as the core game and still has the same core mechanics it has had for close to 30 years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Genestealers.. Didn't have Assault grenades, thus got neutered by Cover and were often shot to pieces. Lictors were genuinely awful, Tyrants were never run without double ranged/wings even back in 5th, Slaanesh Daemons didn't have assault grenades and thus their high initiative didn't matter with cover charges and since they were forced to deepstrike meant they were forced to take a turn of fire, Dark Eldar always were inside vehicles, and the only Ork Nobs that fought in melee were Bikers that used 5th's weird rules so that they could split wounds across in a way that GW didn't expect.
I'm not sure how this helped differentiate them besides just simply being worse off.
Yes they did, in the 4th ed codex that was used halfway through 5th-fleshhooks did the same thing as assault grenades. the 4th ed codex is always what i build my nids around when we are playing hybrid 5th edition including importing new bugs from editions 5-7.
Insectum7 wrote:^Mmmhmm, and this is one of those magical paradigms where the opposing unit is always in cover and there's no chaff to pin them down and there are no second rounds of combat and "all Nobs are on bikes" (wtf) and DE Wyches were "always inside vehicles" (wtf), etc etc etc.
Also: Here's another friendly reminder (as already mentioned above) that ALL the rules from previous paradigms don't have to be brought along even if SOME of the rules are reexamined for reinstatement.
Yes! this is exactly what we did with our house rules version of 5th. we sat down and looked at the best rules versions from the various editions and used the best in the framework of 5th edition(it didn't always have the best). it was a grand total of 15 rules that had to be imported across the entire core rules set to make it the most fun version of 40K we have ever played. something as simple as snap fire fixed the move/fire/defensive weapons on vehicles. incorporating some of the FW original flyer rules made the 7th ed flyer rules far less punishing etc..
Insectum7 wrote:
Mezmorki wrote: I'm failing to understand what the problem with cover and assaulting was in prior editions?
Cover and Grenades negated initiative, basically. An I6 unit charging an I4 in cover still fought last because cover made them strike at I1. Frag Grenades were used by the attacker when assaulting into cover to give them I10.
Which imo was an alright mechanic, but it could probably be made better by being just a +/- modifier or having some other effect instead. I saw it as defenders being in cover working like an implicit Overwatch, and attacking with Frag Grenades nullified the Overwatch.
The issue most folks seem to have is that sometimes your attacking troops without grenades (Genestealers, for example) lost their advantage of having a high Initiative. I'm on the fence about it, personally. But I think a better system would allow a supporting unit to suppress the defenders in the firing phase, and then charging units wouldn't need grenades. You know, Devilgaunts firing at a unit of Marines keeping them from being able to mount a solid defense againat the assaulting Stealers, as an example. The advantage of Frags in this example could still allow units to Assault effectively without requiring another unit to provide supporting fire. So, Stealers could get their I6, and Marines could still attack into cover without suffering penalties.
In 5th edition everybody gets basic grenades(krak/frag/photon) for free(except nids-unless you use the right codex) by default it was a design change we stayed with for all armies. it became even more useful when we added in actual grenade throwing rules from 7th. So not only do you have assault grenades they actually do something (small blast template at 8") they also make you fight at Initiative when charging through cover.
The I/WS/cover system just needed a few tweaks to make it work right, unfortunately GW spread the right rules across 5 different edition but never all together at the same time.
I can tell you from actual game experience over the last couple years we have been using it, that it works well to balance out dedicated CC units VS shooting units. CC happens often and is as useful as shooting units.
I wouldn't say CC was set up to fail though, there were plenty of units that were monsters in CC without grenades, etc.
I think it can't be stated enough that most of the problems of 6-7th were codex problems rather than core-rules problems. I thought the foundation was decent, with some minor quibbles.
Eh challenges were handled better in 7th at least where attacks spilled over, but in 6th it was absolutely atrocious.
challenges sucked in general. Space Marine Sgt's would just kill the nob easily and then the mob would run away. So you were paying for a Nob NOT to fight because if he refused the challenge he couldn't fight. And if you accepted the challenge, you were swinging last and the SM was likely killing you.
In 5th edition everybody gets basic grenades(krak/frag/photon) for free(except nids-unless you use the right codex) by default it was a design change we stayed with for all armies.
Necrons never got a grenade equivalent, never have, probably never will.
In 5th edition everybody gets basic grenades(krak/frag/photon) for free(except nids-unless you use the right codex) by default it was a design change we stayed with for all armies.
Necrons never got a grenade equivalent, never have, probably never will.
Yeah but in 5th they didn't need it. they get back up after you killed them and all of their gauss weapons could hurt everything on a roll of a 6 (auto glance/auto wound) not that you ever want warriors to really assault anything in CC, the true dedicated assault unit-wraiths never had to make a difficult terrain test so they were immune to that rule. and always struck at initiative 5 thanks to the wips
If giving everyone assault grenades is a solution to the problem in charging through cover, you've just removed the mechanic through another method.
I don't think it's a fundamentally bad mechanic. But it would be better if it gave -2 initiative or something instead of just immediately setting you to 1.
Same deal with unwieldy weapons.
Dai wrote: I view 40k as a RPG battlegame essentially at its strongest. Looked at like that I do miss the WS chart. YMMV.
The lore is what drives us to play the older editions in effect i feel exactly the same.
khorne berserkers blood raging? check, khorne vehicles with saw blades all over them that try to run over infantry? check (3.5)
Grey knights with rules that made them good at fighting demons and chaos specifically (3rd) but not very good at being anything more than an attachment that comes along to help out the main force with that specific problem
White scars that are mechanized and bike addicts (but different from ravenwing) with hunting lances, true grit, hit and run etc...(index astartes rules)
Thats effectively my point earlier that eldar having a higher init and WS represented a host of lore based traits-parry/finesse/speed but with base line human strength (3)-strike fast, avoid being hit but struggle to do damage against superhuman soldiers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kirotheavenger wrote: If giving everyone assault grenades is a solution to the problem in charging through cover, you've just removed the mechanic through another method.
I don't think it's a fundamentally bad mechanic. But it would be better if it gave -2 initiative or something instead of just immediately setting you to 1.
Same deal with unwieldy weapons.
It actually adds alot when you add in the ability to actually "throw" the frag grenades especially when you get the benefit if you throw 1 or all of them when you charge in.
i should clarify the free grenades was for all the units that used to get them but had to pay for them. some units never had them so they don't get them and still suffer the penalty. then again those units should really never initiate an assault except under the most dire conditions.
nemesis464 wrote: Coming back to 40k from 5th Ed and one of the weirder changes to me is how WS works.
Obviously a lot of stuff in warhammer doesn’t make all that much sense, but I don’t understand why they made WS as a flat value to hit, rather than comparing it to the martial prowess of you opponent? It wasn’t exactly a complicated system before.
Why should an Ork Boy hit a stationery tank on the same value as hitting a Phoenix Lord or Primarch? Comparing WS in the past felt a lot more immersive than only hitting on the same roll every time.
With so much stuff getting power-creeped towards WS 2/3+, it makes combat master special characters feel less special, as one of their qualities was always making lesser characters and units hit them on 4s or 5s.
Anyone feel the same?
I think a better question to ask is "Why can't these game companies make ONE system, ONE edition" and run it forever? To me, the fact that the system has to chance ever X years is a bit silly at this point.
You mean like classic battletech?
In over 30 years it has been effectively the same core rules set. the only major changes they made were fixing the anti-missile system so it made a difference (1 ammo for every firing instead of one ammo for every missile shot down-pretty important when 1 ton of ammo was 12) catalyst changed a few of the damage charts around when they took over and moved the max tech rules and old charts into an "optional rules" book.
Insectum7 wrote:
That would go some distance to dealing with something that always kinda bugged me, which is that Vehicles aren't harder to hit than infantry. Like, are you really going to miss a Monolith? The counterpoint to that is that taking out such a vehicle requires hitting weak points, and those could still be hard to hit, but opening up a stat that modifies defense could provide for some interesting opportunities.
They already had that fixed in 4th. If you remember vehicles didn't have a CC attack(except for the 30K mechanicus land raider/explorator that had a combat claw, and tau flechette launchers) but they could try to run people over with tank shock (it became really good and thematic with the old 3.5 chaos vehicle upgrades-remember when all those saw blades on a khorne rhino did something?). the vehicle owner had to trade off more accurate shooting for being harder to hit in close combat. going from being hit automatically for not moving to a 4+/6+ the faster they went. they also introduced ramming so they could effectively CC attack another vehicle in the movement phase (very useful if you had all your guns blown off). you also only hit the armor you were facing requiring tactical maneuvering (not the BS Jervis Johnson came up with in 5th- hitting on 3+ always against rear armor-.because in his words "you deserve it" if you get into CC with a vehicle-you don't deserve**** in a tactical war game-you earn it by being the better general)
Thats why our group still uses those rules in our hybrid 5th ed games- they were a good tactical and immersive element in the game.
Sure.
Maybe a better example is something like MTG which has had a few major changes, but basically has been the exact same game for nearly 30 years now. I feel that the changes in rules every X years is simply an excuse to FORCE the community to spend more money.
Well that is GWs business model for certain. just when they get all the codexes out for an edition they change editions and you have to re-buy all over again, then they drip- drip releases every month to keep people buying as the meta changes. after the chapter house thing they basically went in a direction to invalidate old models for the new ones they could copyright. while they have not outright squated marines it is pretty obvious to everybody given the release schedule they really really want you to switch over your SM armies to primaris.
It is a never ending roller coaster, after 20 years of this, there is a reason why so many players have chosen to jump off.
Mezmorki wrote: I'm failing to understand what the problem with cover and assaulting was in prior editions?
Cover and Grenades negated initiative, basically. An I6 unit charging an I4 in cover still fought last because cover made them strike at I1. Frag Grenades were used by the attacker when assaulting into cover to give them I10.
Which imo was an alright mechanic, but it could probably be made better by being just a +/- modifier or having some other effect instead. I saw it as defenders being in cover working like an implicit Overwatch, and attacking with Frag Grenades nullified the Overwatch.
The issue most folks seem to have is that sometimes your attacking troops without grenades (Genestealers, for example) lost their advantage of having a high Initiative.
But why should cover affect initiative in the first place?
It basically means that for cover to be an advantage, you need to have a lower initiative than the unit assaulting you and for that unit to have no grenades. Why not make cover a universal bonus, rather than one which disproportionally screws over armies like nids, Slaanesh, DE etc., whilst basically not affecting Marines, IG, Necrons or any PF-users at all?
I've said it before and I'll say it again - charging into cover should have cancelled out the extra attack you'd normally get from charging. Boom. Now cover matters with any combination of attacker and defender.
Because there was already a rule for that-defensive grenades used by CC deficient units like tau fire warriors.
Cover represents the assaulting unit having to climb over obstacles to get to a unit they are trying to assault in the cover thus they are at a disadvantage in initiative unless they can force the target of their assault to keep their heads down via frag grenades.
I am not sure if it is how you were taught to play the game from our previous conversations on the way you thought certain rules worked or our difference in what we want out of the game, but i don't think were ever going to agree on this i think the 9th edition terrain rules are complete garbage and not immersive at all compared to previous terrain rules.
FWIW in ProHammer we have it that units attack in initiative order. And charging units that have to cross through cover strike at initiative 1, unless they (or another charging unit) have assault Grenades, in which everyone strikes in initiative order again.
It makes cover matter and is logical IMHO. Sure, some units don't have assault grenades or the equivalent, but most units that need them have them, or have enough mobility to move around cover.
aphyon wrote: Because there was already a rule for that-defensive grenades used by CC deficient units like tau fire warriors.
Cool. Sounds like Fire Warriors can simulate the effects of terrain for enemies without needing to be in terrain.
It's back to the lore based rules, tau detest CC as a general rule, they will do it if they have to but photon grenades where their "go away and leave me alone while i shoot you from a distance" solution to it.
some eldar units have plasma(frag) and haywire grenades and the banshee masks specifically ignore all the benefits of cover in the first round of CC (they always strike at (I10). so there was some variety.
nemesis464 wrote: Coming back to 40k from 5th Ed and one of the weirder changes to me is how WS works.
Obviously a lot of stuff in warhammer doesn’t make all that much sense, but I don’t understand why they made WS as a flat value to hit, rather than comparing it to the martial prowess of you opponent? It wasn’t exactly a complicated system before.
Why should an Ork Boy hit a stationery tank on the same value as hitting a Phoenix Lord or Primarch? Comparing WS in the past felt a lot more immersive than only hitting on the same roll every time.
With so much stuff getting power-creeped towards WS 2/3+, it makes combat master special characters feel less special, as one of their qualities was always making lesser characters and units hit them on 4s or 5s.
Anyone feel the same?
They didn't want to confuse you whilst you read through 3 or 4 rulebooks to play the game
Mezmorki wrote: FWIW in ProHammer we have it that units attack in initiative order. And charging units that have to cross through cover strike at initiative 1, unless they (or another charging unit) have assault Grenades, in which everyone strikes in initiative order again.
It makes cover matter and is logical IMHO. Sure, some units don't have assault grenades or the equivalent, but most units that need them have them, or have enough mobility to move around cover.
I'm wondering if there should be a purpose to Frag Grenades even if the defenders are not in cover?
Also, having Frag only bring things back to Initiative feels counter to the idea of using grenades to storm a room/building. I'm wondering if a +1 to I would be better?
vipoid wrote:But why should cover affect initiative in the first place?
Because you're scrambling over/through the same stuff which made shooting them a challenge. I think this was how it was explained in the 3 BRBs that I had.
vipoid wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again - charging into cover should have cancelled out the extra attack you'd normally get from charging. Boom. Now cover matters with any combination of attacker and defender.
That could have been a reasonable option as well.
aphyon wrote:Because there was already a rule for that-defensive grenades used by CC deficient units like tau fire warriors.
So having them would allow them to be Charged as if they were in Cover, even if in the open.
Sumilidon wrote:They didn't want to confuse you whilst you read through 3 or 4 rulebooks to play the game
Main rulebook, Codex, Supplement, Psychic Awakening, and that's not getting in to Campaign or more Narrative options that have been introduced over the years. So, I don't think that was a concern.
Insectum7 wrote:I'm wondering if there should be a purpose to Frag Grenades even if the defenders are not in cover?
Also, having Frag only bring things back to Initiative feels counter to the idea of using grenades to storm a room/building. I'm wondering if a +1 to I would be better?
One of the advantages of having them be throwable.
Still having them throwable should have required them to be "shot" in order to gain the benefit. This would apply to Defensive Grenades like the Tau's Photons, though obviously that would be an Overwatch concept. It would also make Grenade Launchers more useful as their "throwing" range is so much greater, and it could be used to prep a unit for another to Assault. But that's just my quick thoughts on it.
vipoid wrote:But why should cover affect initiative in the first place?
Because you're scrambling over/through the same stuff which made shooting them a challenge. I think this was how it was explained in the 3 BRBs that I had.
But surely it works both ways? The vast majority of the time, "cover" was not a specially-built fortification. it just represented a unit being in a forest or some ruins. It's possible that a unit would struggle to get to them (allowing them time to strike), but it's equally possible that being surrounded by ruins or forest would allow an enemy to get the jump on them - which would surely cancel the defender's initiative?
That said, I was arguing from a gameplay perspective more than anything. If, for example, Dark Eldar charge Necrons in cover, the Dark Eldar lose one of their central advantages (speed). However, if the situation is reversed and it's Necrons charging Dark Eldar, the Dark Eldar now get...nothing from being in cover. That just seems like poor design to me.
vipoid wrote:But why should cover affect initiative in the first place?
Because you're scrambling over/through the same stuff which made shooting them a challenge. I think this was how it was explained in the 3 BRBs that I had.
But surely it works both ways? The vast majority of the time, "cover" was not a specially-built fortification. it just represented a unit being in a forest or some ruins. It's possible that a unit would struggle to get to them (allowing them time to strike), but it's equally possible that being surrounded by ruins or forest would allow an enemy to get the jump on them - which would surely cancel the defender's initiative?
That said, I was arguing from a gameplay perspective more than anything. If, for example, Dark Eldar charge Necrons in cover, the Dark Eldar lose one of their central advantages (speed). However, if the situation is reversed and it's Necrons charging Dark Eldar, the Dark Eldar now get...nothing from being in cover. That just seems like poor design to me.
If one could shoot the unit, then they wouldn't be so surprised by it, now would they? And if the Charging unit could not be seen, they could not Charge.
That's been the case in every Edition I've used, though that has apparently changed since then (I haven't kept up as much since 8th Ed started). In this particular case where a unit cannot Overwatch due to LoS, it would be a dead match, but on the other hand, the Charging unit could just be noisy enough to provide warning as they rounded the bend.
The point is that as a defender, if you are in cover, you can better position yourself to take advantage of cover as a defense - eg forcing an attacker ton scramble through difficult terrain or through a pinch point or clamber over an obstacle. If you, as the enemy, know the enemy is coming at you from X direction, there is no "getting the drop" on you.
Regarding dark eldar vs necron: factions have never been monolithic. There were dark eldar models/units with relatively lower initiative just as some necrons had higher iniative. There is more nuance in play than considering a rule at a purely conceptually level would imply.
In the same position as OP. A lot of stuff now doesn't really make logical sense to me and I find it very immersion breaking. e.g. So those Orks get to hit the Dark Eldar first now because....reasons, oh that guy can't cast that psychic power because his mate already used it, oh you should move a unit to that place on the map because you drew that card... It doesn't feel like a wargame to me anymore, feels like they've tried to make a tabletop version of a video game.
Ielthan wrote: In the same position as OP. A lot of stuff now doesn't really make logical sense to me and I find it very immersion breaking. e.g. So those Orks get to hit the Dark Eldar first now because....reasons, oh that guy can't cast that psychic power because his mate already used it, oh you should move a unit to that place on the map because you drew that card... It doesn't feel like a wargame to me anymore, feels like they've tried to make a tabletop version of a video game.
I think that's the point those of us who still play the older editions are making. it is not an immersive war game anymore, it is a board/resource management game.
People who are accustomed to or prefer the latter praise 9th as the greatest version of the game GW has ever made, the rest of us think it is a horrid abomination that destroyed the game- no matter how pretty minis look, GW makes money either way so they don't care.
The point people actually playing the game are making the point that immersion hasn't gone anywhere, things are just represented differently than they used to be, and that there have been many good arguments for why the old solution was horrible.
The other side mostly has ad hominem attacks to justify their rose-tinted nostalgia glasses, sprinkled in with some eldar missing the days of when they were superior at everything. It's in human nature to reject any and all change, and most of this thread is an echo chamber of people who have never really given the new system a chance and are shouting down anyone who dares embrace change for the better.
Ielthan wrote: In the same position as OP. A lot of stuff now doesn't really make logical sense to me and I find it very immersion breaking. e.g. So those Orks get to hit the Dark Eldar first now because....reasons, oh that guy can't cast that psychic power because his mate already used it, oh you should move a unit to that place on the map because you drew that card... It doesn't feel like a wargame to me anymore, feels like they've tried to make a tabletop version of a video game.
People who are accustomed to or prefer the latter praise 9th as the greatest version of the game GW has ever made, the rest of us think it is a horrid abomination that destroyed the game- no matter how pretty minis look, GW makes money either way so they don't care.
Jidmah wrote: The point people actually playing the game are making the point that immersion hasn't gone anywhere, things are just represented differently than they used to be, and that there have been many good arguments for why the old solution was horrible.
The other side mostly has ad hominem attacks to justify their rose-tinted nostalgia glasses, sprinkled in with some eldar missing the days of when they were superior at everything. It's in human nature to reject any and all change, and most of this thread is an echo chamber of people who have never really given the new system a chance and are shouting down anyone who dares embrace change for the better.
You complaining about ad hominem attacks is really rich...
Jidmah wrote: The point people actually playing the game are making the point that immersion hasn't gone anywhere, things are just represented differently than they used to be, and that there have been many good arguments for why the old solution was horrible.
The other side mostly has ad hominem attacks to justify their rose-tinted nostalgia glasses, sprinkled in with some eldar missing the days of when they were superior at everything. It's in human nature to reject any and all change, and most of this thread is an echo chamber of people who have never really given the new system a chance and are shouting down anyone who dares embrace change for the better.
You complaining about ad hominem attacks is really rich...
I was exclusively attacking your argument and lost interest in it after you kept going in circles about how using WS as a means of defense was "interesting" and never responded to any counter-arguments or questions. I'm sorry if that offended you, but that's the very opposite of ad hominem.
Jidmah wrote: The point people actually playing the game are making the point that immersion hasn't gone anywhere, things are just represented differently than they used to be, and that there have been many good arguments for why the old solution was horrible.
The other side mostly has ad hominem attacks to justify their rose-tinted nostalgia glasses, sprinkled in with some eldar missing the days of when they were superior at everything. It's in human nature to reject any and all change, and most of this thread is an echo chamber of people who have never really given the new system a chance and are shouting down anyone who dares embrace change for the better.
You complaining about ad hominem attacks is really rich...
I was exclusively attacking your argument and lost interest in it after you kept going in circles about how using WS as a means of defense was "interesting" and never responded to any counter-arguments or questions. I'm sorry if that offended you, but that's the very opposite of ad hominem.
No I didn't mean you used ad hominem, what really irks me is that you yourself said you don't even bother to comprehensively read my posts, while silmultaniously accusing me multiple times of things I never said or even implyed, simply because you condescendingly don't even bother to comprehensively read others posts. While before I honestly tried to engage you in conversation and discourse. So imo you are in no position to lecture anyone about fallacies in a discussion.
Edit: Also you saying you exclusively attacked my arguments is absolutely hilarious. It would be totally cool if you did, but you yourself said you don't even bother to properly read my arguments.
The other side mostly has ad hominem attacks to justify their rose-tinted nostalgia glasses, sprinkled in with some eldar missing the days of when they were superior at everything. It's in human nature to reject any and all change, and most of this thread is an echo chamber of people who have never really given the new system a chance and are shouting down anyone who dares embrace change for the better.
Fathom for half a second that some of us may actually have far MORE experience playing, testing and/or observing the various editions with real world experiences than you. I have spent on average 12-14 hours every weekend at the FLGS without fail for the last 13 years since i took over late night gaming duties(and playing there prior to that another 8 or so), have you?
9th edition was released in the middle of this lockdown and many people here openly admit they have gotten very few if any games at all in 9th to experience how the game plays compared to those of us who have not been so negatively affected. i still managed a solid 7 months worth of gaming in the middle of it at the FLGS.
My FLGS player group is sizable and diverse as far as game systems played and attitudes towards liking/disliking various editions of 40K. nobody said the previous editions did not have flaws. that is why Mezmorki wrote the "fixed" rules he did that his group found to work better. our group does the same, while we didn't think there needed to be as many fixes as his group oddly enough the 15 changes we did make mirror ones they made as well. that should tell you something right there about the level of understanding that veteran gamers have about mechanics.
Those in our group who like 9th like it for what it is (even with it's own flaws), but at least they recognize it is a completely different game than the 5 editions that proceeded it that were generally compatible.
Because they are so different i really do not think direct comparisons really work anymore. if you want a tactical wargame you play the old sytem where you work on defeating your opponents army (where points and objectives are essentially tie breaking mechanics to allow a secondary win condition VS outright victory). if you want a resource management game that is more focused on the "list" and cumulative points generators that happen to use toy soldiers instead of just cards you play the latter.
For those of use who are NOT comp/meta players who love the lore of 40K in a way it truly effects how armies are built (and we want to just play with models we think look cool) and operate that have lived through all the old editions. it is the reason we keep gravitating back to 2nd, or 3rd-5th even with the known flaws. The WS/init/cover mechanics that work together to represent an in universe experience is just a part of that overall discussion.
Let's just end this zero-sum game here and maybe adhere to rule #1. Just for reference, an ad hominem attack is everything that is about me, jidmah, instead of about the topic, the game systems.
Using ad hominem attacks is not only impolite, but also diminishes the value of your opinion.
On to your actual arguments.
My FLGS player group is sizable and diverse as far as game systems played and attitudes towards liking/disliking various editions of 40K. nobody said the previous editions did not have flaws. that is why Mezmorki wrote the "fixed" rules he did that his group found to worked better. our group does the same, while we didn't think there needed to be as many fixes as his group oddly enough the 15 changes we did make mirror ones they made as well. that should tell you something right there about the level of understanding that veteran gamers have about mechanics.
Since I don't want to feed you off with yet another arrogant response about how all that is anecdotal, let me add my own anecdote:
The great editions of the past were the reason 40kdied in this area, and not because I live in a remote location - within 30 minutes of driving there were four GW stores and three FLGS with gaming tables. Two FLGS completely dropped 40k, both game space and product, one GW store closed down, one was downsized to a fourth of it size, one cut in half and moved to a back ally, two gaming groups with 10+ players were disbanded. Campaigns organized by the GW store in the state capitol were lucky to have 4 people show up, veteran's night was canceled more often than not because the store manager didn't want to stay for the same two people duking it out. I actually dropped the game as well, because how little point there was in playing it.
8th was like rain in the desert, you can actually walk into GW stores and see people play 40k again instead of just LotR and AoS, one of the groups has reformed and has grown larger than ever, the FLGS have started bringing 40k game nights back. People pay money and go through the actual trouble to tame a software as unwieldy as TTS to continue playing 40k, instead of just playing free MtG or RPG/RTS games instead.
The games is legitimately fun to play for many people, precisely because of what has changed. From highly competitive to casual narrative players, everyone agrees that this is the best edition yet. And the two pure fluff bunnies in our group couldn't care less what roll an ork needs to hit a dark eldar or who gets to fight first.
Those in our group who like 9th like it for what it is (even with it's own flaws), but at least they recognize it is a completely different game than the 5 editions that proceeded it that were generally compatible.
Being different is not inherently bad. 9th isn't flawless, especially not in its current state, but one cannot argue that old editions didn't have massive flaws as well which dwarfed the problems 9th has today. Yes, you can house-rule those away, but are you really playing that old edition if you do?
if you want a tactical wargame you play the old sytem where you work on defeating your opponents army (where points and objectives are essentially tie breaking mechanics to allow a secondary win condition VS outright victory).
You are saying you can't compare them and yet you are However, this does not make sense to me. Capturing objectives was the primary way to win since 4th and only shifted to simply deleting your opponent completely because the power of units was cranked to eleven. I had to go all the way back to 3rd (and yes, I actually dug up the rulebooks to check) to find missions which required you to do nothing but shoot your opponent.
Is that really what tactical wargaming was about? Mindlessly killing the opponent with no regard for anything else? Sure, there are many bad things to say about the ITC-style 9th edition missions, but from your posts I gather that you seem to reject anything that doesn't allow you to win by simply annihilating your opponent?
if you want a resource management game that is more focused on the "list" and cumulative points generators that happen to use toy soldiers instead of just cards you play the latter.
These kind of statements are one of the reasons which led me to question if people are actually playing the game, as it feels completely disconnected from my gaming reality.
When I play, CP are not a central part of my game at all. Most stratagems are very situational or paid for before the game. Yes, you need to manage those resources, but that's really only marginally different from managing orders in an imperial guard army, psy dice or similar mechanics of past and present. In 8th the game really felt like everything revolved around maximizing CP and turning them into as much damage as possible, but 9th as a whole as pushed the whole stratagem system into the background - with fixed CP amounts, putting a damper on cherry picking factions and by actively removing combos from the stratagem section of new codices.
The list is just to make sure that I have all the tools to win - a list cannot make you win, but it can make you lose. If that were not the case, what's the point of list building to begin with?
For those of use who are NOT comp/meta players who love the lore of 40K in a way it truly effects how armies are built (and we want to just play with models we think look cool) and operate that have lived through all the old editions. it is the reason we keep gravitating back to 2nd, or 3rd-5th even with the known flaws.
What exactly is preventing you from doing that in 9th? While some models have been hit by the absolutely idiotic "no model, no rule" hammer, I don't think there ever was as a time where as many models were doing well in casual competitive environments.
The WS/init/cover mechanics that work together to represent an in universe experience is just a part of that overall discussion.
As you said 9th is a different game. The universe is still there, except it's WS/movement speed/terrain keywords/bespoke rules now.
For every example that paints the old system as more immersive, there is an example where 9th does it better. For every example of immersion-breaking logic in the new system, there is one in the old system.
If I had a dollar for every time someone used "slow and lumbering orks" as an example in this thread, I'd have a full unit of mek guns by now. Yet, not a single person complained how immersion breaking orks running exactly as fast as eldar was. I gave plenty of examples where a warrior using his WS to defend was immersion breaking, and there is an argument to be made that hitting two out of three strikes against gretchin isn't actually a good representation of a legendary fighter.
Initiative came with its own slew of immersion breaking problems - assuming you found the idea of a carnifex patiently waiting for 10 guardmen to hit it before rampaging through them immersive to begin with.
9th also has enabled a unit actually being able to catch another off guard, previously even a unit of storm boyz dropping out of a plane and smashing right into enemy defenders had to wait patiently until the eldar craftsman in armor picked up his rifle and hit him with the bud.
Neither system is inherently more immersive than the other. The only thing that matters is whether you want to immerse yourself in the system.
Maybe that's why I don't want to play 40k anymore, because what's on the tabletops of 9th doesn't resemble the games of 4th and 5th that brought me back in after a hiatus. Primaris Marines are fantastic models, but I wish they were fantastic models in a different game, you know?
Nurglitch wrote: Maybe that's why I don't want to play 40k anymore, because what's on the tabletops of 9th doesn't resemble the games of 4th and 5th that brought me back in after a hiatus. Primaris Marines are fantastic models, but I wish they were fantastic models in a different game, you know?
I definitely understand what you mean.
I think a lot of people feel the same.
8th obviously left a lot of people unhappy with the game as the rug was pulled out from under them. But unfortunately it's not as easy as simply moving on. I may no longer like the rules much, I still love the lore, the community, and have a large collection of models.
Jidmah wrote: If I had a dollar for every time someone used "slow and lumbering orks" as an example in this thread, I'd have a full unit of mek guns by now. Yet, not a single person complained how immersion breaking orks running exactly as fast as eldar was. I gave plenty of examples where a warrior using his WS to defend was immersion breaking, and there is an argument to be made that hitting two out of three strikes against gretchin isn't actually a good representation of a legendary fighter.
Initiative came with its own slew of immersion breaking problems - assuming you found the idea of a carnifex patiently waiting for 10 guardmen to hit it before rampaging through them immersive to begin with.
9th also has enabled a unit actually being able to catch another off guard, previously even a unit of storm boyz dropping out of a plane and smashing right into enemy defenders had to wait patiently until the eldar craftsman in armor picked up his rifle and hit him with the bud.
No one has complained about Orks being able to move like Eldar in this thread, but back in the days of 6th and 7th, the topic of returning the M stat would come up about once a quarter or so. The only problem I ever had with the idea was that some units would see a severe nerf from this addition, as demonstrated that Guardsmen were always listed as having a M of 4 (which was then denied as being a nerf ). The problem wasn't in the concept, but all the whining that would come about as people would find their precious units not being able to catch the Eldar any more. You don't here about it anymore because it has been brought back in to play.
With a unit like the Carnifex, I always thought about it as a case of momentum. Sometimes big things just move slower because of the energy it takes to move. It would make sense from a perspective of seeing them as a siege beast or anti-vehicle (when vehicles didn't fight back), the hive could afford them to be slow (Walkers threw that idea off, though). Thunder Hammers and Power Fists were definitely a balancing trick, though, not for any in-universe reason I could think of.
The great editions of the past were the reason 40k died in this area,
That sounds like 6th edition. in fact it was so bad even GW killed it after 14 months. prior to that 3rd-5th the gaming community was super active but 6th completely killed the game in our area. it recovered a bit with 7th but the formation spam at the end killed it again.
not because I live in a remote location - within 30 minutes of driving there were four GW stores and three FLGS with gaming tables.
Not a surprise we similarly have 2 other FLGS and a GW in the same radius.
Yes, you can house-rule those away, but are you really playing that old edition if you do?
Yes actually you are. unlike some other projects like Mezmorkis we made NO new rules, we just used the better versions of existing GW rules or additional rules that didn't exist in the 5th edition core mechanics. like grenade throwing, overwatch and snap fire because they made 5th even better. the fact that those editions were cross compatible made it possible.
Capturing objectives was the primary way to win since 4th and only shifted to simply deleting your opponent completely because the power of units was cranked to eleven. I had to go all the way back to 3rd (and yes, I actually dug up the rulebooks to check) to find missions which required you to do nothing but shoot your opponent.
Is that really what tactical wargaming was about? Mindlessly killing the opponent with no regard for anything else? Sure, there are many bad things to say about the ITC-style 9th edition missions, but from your posts I gather that you seem to reject anything that doesn't allow you to win by simply annihilating your opponent?
Perhaps you need to read your books a bit more. victory through destroying your enemy was not just a mission type it was the default win condition from 3rd-7th . much like killing the caster in warmachine, tabling your opponent was automatic victory. victory was decided at the end of the game, if you had nothing left on the table you could not contest or hold objectives to begin with and if you were using victory points(4th) or kill points (5th) the fact that you had nothing left made those a mute point.
Secondly yes the very nature of a tactical wargame is killing your opponent. it is not mindless, it is an objective that requires a good general to pull off. in fact the specific game type was actually named in the main rulebook seek and destroy (4th) and annihilation(5th)
but 9th as a whole as pushed the whole stratagem system into the background
That is the most disconnected thing i have ever heard. it moved CP spamming into the background however the strat system IS the game in 9th. if anything they made it even more important and expanded it in volume in 9th.
a list cannot make you win, but it can make you lose. If that were not the case, what's the point of list building to begin with?
Building a general take all comers list to deal with a bit of everything within the FOC made for good game play and avoided list tailoring. with the expansion of the various FOC formations 9th is nothing but list tailoring-
What exactly is preventing you from doing that in 9th? While some models have been hit by the absolutely idiotic "no model, no rule" hammer, I don't think there ever was as a time where as many models were doing well in casual competitive environments.
The lore based rules do not exist in 9th and what they replaced them with is mediocre at best. the point of the old lore based rules is that not only was it how the army would behave in the universe but it was also viable as an army.
For every example that paints the old system as more immersive, there is an example where 9th does it better.
I have yet to see one.
For every example of immersion-breaking logic in the new system, there is one in the old system.
You mean like the right front tread on my land raider can "see" an enemy so it can shoot all it's guns at it as if it were some kind of spinning top? VS having to face it in a way that LOS can be drawn from the actual weapon to see the target?
Or the very fact that infantry small arms can hurt a main battletank in any way from any direction in 9th?.
If I had a dollar for every time someone used "slow and lumbering orks" as an example in this thread, I'd have a full unit of mek guns by now. Yet, not a single person complained how immersion breaking orks running exactly as fast as eldar was.
I never saw anybody claim that nor did GW ever claim that was the intended effect.
I quote
INITIATIVE (i)
How alert a creature is and how quickly it reacts is shown by it's initiative. in close combat faster creatures gain a massive advantage over slower ones because they get to strike first
Also eldar have fleet of foot meaning that they are running faster than orks in that they can assault after running where as orks cannot.
It was a good implementation in a game system that required standardized movement stats for balance and also far easier to keep track of than the myriad of different move stats in 9th.
Neither system is inherently more immersive than the other. The only thing that matters is whether you want to immerse yourself in the system.
Could not disagree more. tell that to a chaos player who played his 3.5 codex, compared to what they did to them in 9th.
Building a general take all comers list to deal with a bit of everything within the FOC made for good game play and avoided list tailoring. with the expansion of the various FOC formations 9th is nothing but list tailoring-
A lot of armies can't build those general good armies though. Some can tailor lists to beat a specific opponent or specific build, but that often requires a much larger collection then 2000pts. And the worse situation is for those armies that can't even tailor or require a separate list for every opponent.
It was a good implementation in a game system that required standardized movement stats for balance and also far easier to keep track of than the myriad of different move stats in 9th.
But what about armies that had a higher I, but did not get a bonus movment comparing to other similar factions? I saw an old GK codex and in that GK had +2I weapons, right now they neither have better melee weapons then other marines nor do they have extra movment, they also had a rule that made it harder to target at range, and they do not have that even as a stratagem. I am sure other armies have the same problems.
I don't think the FOC was materially better at preventing skew than what we currently have.
The Battalion as it stands basically is the old FOC, albeit with 1 more troop requirement. But a lot of armies ran double FOC anyway back in the day.
As with a lot of mechanics in 40k, the FOC (or indeed current detachments) have the potential to limit skew. But they're poorly executed.
What makes something "elite", "troopers" or anything else is almost entirely arbitrary. Particularly "elites".
aphyon wrote: That sounds like 6th edition. in fact it was so bad even GW killed it after 14 months. prior to that 3rd-5th the gaming community was super active but 6th completely killed the game in our area. it recovered a bit with 7th but the formation spam at the end killed it again.
If I had to pick an exact point in time, I'd say the 5th edition GK codex started the decline and it went rapidly downhill from there. By the time 7th was released most of the people were already gone, and the few people who shortly returned for 7th were driven off soon after. When eldar codex hit you had some remaining eldar players literally go to MtG and WM/H events begging former 40k players for games to try it at least once.
Perhaps you need to read your books a bit more. victory through destroying your enemy was not just a mission type it was the default win condition from 3rd-7th . much like killing the caster in warmachine, tabling your opponent was automatic victory. victory was decided at the end of the game, if you had nothing left on the table you could not contest or hold objectives to begin with and if you were using victory points(4th) or kill points (5th) the fact that you had nothing left made those a mute point.
You really love your ad hominem attacks, don't you? Wiping out enemies was quite rare in earlier editions, and you still are extremely unlikely to win the game if you get tabled. Kill points also has been proven over and over again to be a horribly imbalanced mechanic, but I guess balanced games aren't what you are looking for to begin with?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I take out all the vitriol from your posts, the core seems to be that you primarily want from the game is rolling dice and blowing gak up while only dedicating a bare minimum of your game time to tactics, right? In that case I can see why you feel like 9th is not for you, the new missions indeed feel completely overblown for just playing a quick game, and stratagems only get in the way of tossing dice.
Secondly yes the very nature of a tactical wargame is killing your opponent. it is not mindless, it is an objective that requires a good general to pull off. in fact the specific game type was actually named in the main rulebook seek and destroy (4th) and annihilation(5th)
Open hostility mission pack in 9th, BRBpg. 272
That is the most disconnected thing i have ever heard. it moved CP spamming into the background however the strat system IS the game in 9th. if anything they made it even more important and expanded it in volume in 9th.
Care to elaborate? Just saying that I'm wrong is not an argument by itself. What armies are relying more on stratagems than before? Which 9th edition codices have more stratagems than their 8th edition incarnations?
Building a general take all comers list to deal with a bit of everything within the FOC made for good game play and avoided list tailoring. with the expansion of the various FOC formations 9th is nothing but list tailoring-
The vast majority of armies use a single battalion or combat patrol, both of which are more restrictive than the FOC. Outrider and vanguards are rarely used, and essentially just mirror 5th's characters shifting certain units to different slots. I'm also not sure how either system is related to list tailoring. Did you mean skew lists?
The lore based rules do not exist in 9th and what they replaced them with is mediocre at best. the point of the old lore based rules is that not only was it how the army would behave in the universe but it was also viable as an army.
Please give examples of "lore based rules". This is so vague it could pretty much refer to anything in either system.
For every example that paints the old system as more immersive, there is an example where 9th does it better.
I have yet to see one.
Tyrand Hive Tyrant charges a grot in a shrubbery as high as his toe causes him to lose all his initiative. Planes like Valkyries can be charged and destroyed by a terminator hitting it with a hammer. A model will never, ever die from a tank running it over unless it decides to stand still and stop it. Oval or rectangular models can pivot to get closer to the enemy and still fire guns as if stationary. If infantry can move through a wall, so can a battlewagon. If the battlewagon can't move through a ruin, then infantry is not allowed to use the door. A vehicle weapon cannot ever target anything other than what every other gun is targeting, even if it has a dedicated gunner and can't ever see the same target as another gun.
And those are just the ones of the top of my head.
You mean like the right front tread on my land raider can "see" an enemy so it can shoot all it's guns at it as if it were some kind of spinning top? VS having to face it in a way that LOS can be drawn from the actual weapon to see the target?
Open topped vehicles already allowed passengers to shoot out of tires or tracks in 5th. If you were shooting templates, you were even forced to do that because the template was not allowed to cover friendly models. There were even some guns which could never be shot for any reason because of how they were mounted. How is that immersive?
Or the very fact that infantry small arms can hurt a main battletank in any way from any direction in 9th?.
I'd argue that 14 space marines shooting a LRBT with bolters doing a little damage instead of none is more realistic. I mean at least one of those perfect warriors is going to hit that vision slit or put a dent in a gun barrel, right? It also never made sense how a terminator can be killed by a lasgun, but that same lasgun couldn't scratch a trukk or buggy who has an exposed ork driver wearing a leather vest for armor.
Also eldar have fleet of foot meaning that they are running faster than orks in that they can assault after running where as orks cannot.
Orks usually had fleet of foot during the turn they charged. In 9th eldar are more likely to fight first because they move faster, and can actually outrun slower combatants if they do not wish to fight them. Actual hit&run on the table feels much more in touch with eldar fluff than agility just being implied by two numbers that reduce damage taken in combat and allow them to fight first no matter what.
It was a good implementation in a game system that required standardized movement stats for balance and also far easier to keep track of than the myriad of different move stats in 9th.
Uhm... you are literally arguing in favor of a system which is a least exactly as hard to keep track of? 5th: Movement speed by unit type, fighting order decided by comparing values on two or more datasheets, hit roll decided by comparing two values on datasheets. 9th: Movement speed on datasheet, fighting order decided by fight first/last and players, hit roll on datasheet. You have brought up many good arguments for the old editions, but neither balance nor complexity are in favor of them.
Neither system is inherently more immersive than the other. The only thing that matters is whether you want to immerse yourself in the system.
Could not disagree more. tell that to a chaos player who played his 3.5 codex, compared to what they did to them in 9th.
Oh, you already have the 9th edition CSM codex? Please do share! But yeah, let's not move goalposts even further.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kirotheavenger wrote: I don't think the FOC was materially better at preventing skew than what we currently have. The Battalion as it stands basically is the old FOC, albeit with 1 more troop requirement. But a lot of armies ran double FOC anyway back in the day.
As with a lot of mechanics in 40k, the FOC (or indeed current detachments) have the potential to limit skew. But they're poorly executed. What makes something "elite", "troopers" or anything else is almost entirely arbitrary. Particularly "elites".
I really never had a single game with double FOC, at that scale we usually went full apoc.
But I agree - especially for infantry elite, fast attack and heavy seems to be handed out almost randomly. Might as well divide them by how commonly they are available instead of shoe-horning them into a semi-lore-based battle role.
For every example that paints the old system as more immersive, there is an example where 9th does it better.
I have yet to see one.
Tyrand Hive Tyrant charges a grot in a shrubbery as high as his toe causes him to lose all his initiative.
Planes like Valkyries can be charged and destroyed by a terminator hitting it with a hammer.
A model will never, ever die from a tank running it over unless it decides to stand still and stop it.
Oval or rectangular models can pivot to get closer to the enemy and still fire guns as if stationary.
If infantry can move through a wall, so can a battlewagon. If the battlewagon can't move through a ruin, then infantry is not allowed to use the door.
A vehicle weapon cannot ever target anything other than what every other gun is targeting, even if it has a dedicated gunner and can't ever see the same target as another gun.
And those are just the ones of the top of my head.
You mean like the right front tread on my land raider can "see" an enemy so it can shoot all it's guns at it as if it were some kind of spinning top? VS having to face it in a way that LOS can be drawn from the actual weapon to see the target?
Open topped vehicles already allowed passengers to shoot out of tires or tracks in 5th. If you were shooting templates, you were even forced to do that because the template was not allowed to cover friendly models.
There were even some guns which could never be shot for any reason because of how they were mounted. How is that immersive?
Or the very fact that infantry small arms can hurt a main battletank in any way from any direction in 9th?.
I'd argue that 14 space marines shooting a LRBT with bolters doing a little damage instead of none is more realistic. I mean at least one of those perfect warriors is going to hit that vision slit or put a dent in a gun barrel, right?
It also never made sense how a terminator can be killed by a lasgun, but that same lasgun couldn't scratch a trukk or buggy who has an exposed ork driver wearing a leather vest for armor.
Also eldar have fleet of foot meaning that they are running faster than orks in that they can assault after running where as orks cannot.
Orks usually had fleet of foot during the turn they charged.
In 9th eldar are more likely to fight first because they move faster, and can actually outrun slower combatants if they do not wish to fight them. Actual hit&run on the table feels much more in touch with eldar fluff than agility just being implied by two numbers that reduce damage taken in combat and allow them to fight first no matter what.
It was a good implementation in a game system that required standardized movement stats for balance and also far easier to keep track of than the myriad of different move stats in 9th.
Uhm... you are literally arguing in favor of a system which is a least exactly as hard to keep track of? 5th: Movement speed by unit type, fighting order decided by comparing values on two or more datasheets, hit roll decided by comparing two values on datasheets.
9th: Movement speed on datasheet, fighting order decided by fight first/last and players, hit roll on datasheet.
You have brought up many good arguments for the old editions, but neither balance nor complexity are in favor of them.
Got to agree with this
Don't get me wrong, I really liked 5th, but arguments that it was "more immersive" don't hold up under the same scrutiny we apply to 8th/9th.
Also, adding onto the "un-immersive" features - the relationship between Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles. A laspistol can kill a Riptide, but no chance against a Scout Sentinel? You can knock out a Dreadnought's leg, but not a Dreadknight's? Or, how about a squad support weapon incapable of firing at a much more suitable target, or just firing bolters at a Dread because the missile wanted a crack at it?
Neither system was free from mechanical awkwardness, and I'm personally much happier with the abstraction of "yeah, the vehicle has weak points all around, but can manoeuvre to bring all it's weapons to bear".
Don't get me wrong, I really liked 5th, but arguments that it was "more immersive" don't hold up under the same scrutiny we apply to 8th/9th.
I have seen the GK 5th ed codex, and it very much more impersive then the 8th ed one. A ton more options both as ranged and melee weapons go, grenades , cheap chaff units. Not sure how some of the psychic powers work, but at a glance they look much better then the GK codex ones, on top of that everey dreadnought, rhino and razorback is a psyker too. Even without full understanding of the 5th ed rules, I can say that the GK book was a lot more immersive then the book that exists right now. On top of that there seem to be options to play non GK armies with the book, so for inqusitorial players, if they happen to exist right now, the immersion is immeasurably bigger, because right now they can't immerse themself at all in to the game. Having no legal ways to play and all.
You really love your ad hominem attacks, don't you?
Where?
Wiping out enemies was quite rare in earlier editions, and you still are extremely unlikely to win the game if you get tabled. Kill points also has been proven over and over again to be a horribly imbalanced mechanic, but I guess balanced games aren't what you are looking for to begin with?
No it was not, it was a normal thing that happened. "lets just kill each other" was the standard quick game when we didn't feel like using objectives. you either got tabled or you lost so much that by turn 4 or 5 you conceded becuase you had almost nothing left, or nothing that you needed to kill a certain unit.
40k was a narrative game it wasn't designed to be balanced in the way people want it to be now. it was a game to hang out with your friends talk gak and toss some dice around.
all armies had flaws and strengths and it was your job as the general to exploit those on the table. most people played marines because aside from being the flagship brand they were also generalists that were good at everything but not great at it. other armies had a more focused dare i say harder learning curve.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I take out all the vitriol from your posts, the core seems to be that you primarily want from the game is rolling dice and blowing gak up while only dedicating a bare minimum of your game time to tactics, right?
In that case I can see why you feel like 9th is not for you, the new missions indeed feel completely overblown for just playing a quick game, and stratagems only get in the way of tossing dice.
1. there is no vitriol in my posts
2. No i want the tactics to be how i play my army on the table-maneuvering to use terrain to my advantage/strategic movement of units, target priority, countering my opponents tactics etc.. not which super gotcha combo of strats i can drop on my opponent, or games that are effectively over on turn 3 because my opponent ran over and stood on a spot first and there is no way i can bring it back later in the game once i am down the points curve.
Care to elaborate? Just saying that I'm wrong is not an argument by itself. What armies are relying more on stratagems than before? Which 9th edition codices have more stratagems than their 8th edition incarnations?
When 8th dropped there were a grand total of THREE strats for the entire game, then release after release through 8th and continued into 9th. there are so many strats now people cannot keep track of them all. general space marines alone have what 34? including things that should be wargear. now spread that across all factions-that's hundreds of stratagems,
Please give examples of "lore based rules". This is so vague it could pretty much refer to anything in either system.
easy example-
white scars-lore based rules
.born in the saddle
.mounted veterans
.hit and run
.power lances
.counter attack
.all units must be mechanized (rhinos razorbacks or drop pods for troops, oversized bike squads (10 instead of 6) as troops)
.heavy support limited to attack bike squads and variant predator hulls.
.units not allowed because they are to slow and/or do not fit the lore for the fighting style of the scars-
.devestator squads/centurions etc...
.land raiders (unless used as a dedicated transport for terminators)
.dreadnoughts
9th ed rules.....
.master of snares to keep enemies from running away
.strategic reserves
.the abiltiy to advance and then charge.
Or just about anything in the 3.5 chaos codex compared to anything they have now.
I play against a khorne berserker player who plays both 9th and 5th using the old codex and he loves the old lore based rules-8 man squads for the mark of khorne, blood frenzy, destroyer upgrades for vehicles, khornate chain axes that reduce armor saves to a 4+ etc...
Tyrand Hive Tyrant charges a grot in a shrubbery as high as his toe causes him to lose all his initiative.
flesh hooks=frag grenades
Planes like Valkyries can be charged and destroyed by a terminator hitting it with a hammer.
forge world rules only jump infantry can assault flying aircraft-if they go hover they become skimmer ground vehicles
A model will never, ever die from a tank running it over unless it decides to stand still and stop it.
Because troops are smart enough to get out of the way if they see an armored behemoth coming at them...unless they are suicidal or in the case of the deff rolla or the destroyer vehicle upgrade for khorne that causes wounds on the unit that does move out of the way.
Oval or rectangular models can pivot to get closer to the enemy and still fire guns as if stationary.
Pivoting in place for any vehicle was never counted as movement, and monsters could move and still fire 2 guns.
If infantry can move through a wall, so can a battlewagon. If the battlewagon can't move through a ruin, then infantry is not allowed to use the door.
Area terrain rule-is an abstract to represent a tangle of ruins or a forest etc.. represented by a difficult terrain test that slows infantry as it picks it's way through or a dangerous terrain test for vehicles trying to brute force it's way through. seriously i have enough trees at the shop to fill all the tree templates but that would make playing on the surface impossible that is why it is an abstract.
A vehicle weapon cannot ever target anything other than what every other gun is targeting, even if it has a dedicated gunner and can't ever see the same target as another gun
It is a balancing mechanic that existed in all the old editions. being able to split fire was a reward for a special units or a special bit of war gear that you paid extra for. rather it be power of the machine spirit or a superheavy that had enough crew to act independently in the moment.
Open topped vehicles already allowed passengers to shoot out of tires or tracks in 5th.
And you completely missed the point-land raiders or repulsors for that matter are not open topped nor do they have fire points what they do have is fixed mountings on different sides of the vehicle that can ALL shoot at a target that can only bee seen by a front road wheel or grav plate-makes no sense unless the tank twirls like a whirling dervish while firing all it's guns.
There were even some guns which could never be shot for any reason because of how they were mounted. How is that immersive?
i know of no vehicle that has that problem in 40K. prior to 8th ed
I'd argue that 14 space marines shooting a LRBT with bolters doing a little damage instead of none is more realistic. I mean at least one of those perfect warriors is going to hit that vision slit or put a dent in a gun barrel, right?
It also never made sense how a terminator can be killed by a lasgun, but that same lasgun couldn't scratch a trukk or buggy who has an exposed ork driver wearing a leather vest for armor.
ever heard of armored glass or periscopes? we have been using them on armored vehicles to prevent that very thing since WWII.
Also the crew of the ork trukk are technically not on the table, the trukk is. the crew is there for modeling purposes. they are considered to be part of the vehcile and are destroyed with it.
Orks usually had fleet of foot during the turn they charged.
In 9th eldar are more likely to fight first because they move faster, and can actually outrun slower combatants if they do not wish to fight them. Actual hit&run on the table feels much more in touch with eldar fluff than agility just being implied by two numbers that reduce damage taken in combat and allow them to fight first no matter what.
Orks had furious charge they only get fleet if they declare a waagh.
Some eldar units always fight first because of wargear like banshee masks, but they do not all have that. other units do have something like hit&run like swooping hawks with sky leap,
Uhm... you are literally arguing in favor of a system which is a least exactly as hard to keep track of?
5th: Movement speed by unit type, fighting order decided by comparing values on two or more datasheets, hit roll decided by comparing two values on datasheets.
9th: Movement speed on datasheet, fighting order decided by fight first/last and players, hit roll on datasheet.
You have brought up many good arguments for the old editions, but neither balance nor complexity are in favor of them
Hardly
All infantry move 6", all jump bike & fast move 12. vehicles move in the same 6" increments.
All units assault 6" except cav, beasts and leapers that assault 12.":
You hit in CC on a 3+ 4+ or a 5+ (unless your kharn) a chart that you have memorized after 2 games.
Initiative is on the unit data sheet which you have memorized after a couple games with your army. but it is also on the data sheet,
No need to keep track of variant move speeds or 30+ strats per factions or secondary objectives.
Oh, you already have the 9th edition CSM codex? Please do share!
But yeah, let's not move goalposts even further.
Don't be an ass you know they are using the last 8th ed codex in 9th.
Don't get me wrong, I really liked 5th, but arguments that it was "more immersive" don't hold up under the same scrutiny we apply to 8th/9th.
I have seen the GK 5th ed codex, and it very much more impersive then the 8th ed one. A ton more options both as ranged and melee weapons go, grenades , cheap chaff units. Not sure how some of the psychic powers work, but at a glance they look much better then the GK codex ones, on top of that everey dreadnought, rhino and razorback is a psyker too. Even without full understanding of the 5th ed rules, I can say that the GK book was a lot more immersive then the book that exists right now. On top of that there seem to be options to play non GK armies with the book, so for inqusitorial players, if they happen to exist right now, the immersion is immeasurably bigger, because right now they can't immerse themself at all in to the game. Having no legal ways to play and all.
That was the attempt to make the GKs a stand alone full army in 5th and many players felt it went overboard. while it did flesh out he inquisition quite a bit the 3rd ed codex was even more in line for what they were meant to be lore wise. but it restricted them to just being really good at fighting chaos and demons. where they worked better as an allied detachment (they had special rules for it) that was there to help the main imperial faction as they are often represented in the lore.
When i run my GKs in support i usually just run a terminator grand master with a terminator command squad and an assassin.
nemesis464 wrote: Coming back to 40k from 5th Ed and one of the weirder changes to me is how WS works.
Obviously a lot of stuff in warhammer doesn’t make all that much sense, but I don’t understand why they made WS as a flat value to hit, rather than comparing it to the martial prowess of you opponent? It wasn’t exactly a complicated system before.
Why should an Ork Boy hit a stationery tank on the same value as hitting a Phoenix Lord or Primarch? Comparing WS in the past felt a lot more immersive than only hitting on the same roll every time.
With so much stuff getting power-creeped towards WS 2/3+, it makes combat master special characters feel less special, as one of their qualities was always making lesser characters and units hit them on 4s or 5s.
Anyone feel the same?
They didn't want to confuse you whilst you read through 3 or 4 rulebooks to play the game
If GW thinks players get confused by the WS system then the developers themselves must have intelligence level of a toddler...
You really love your ad hominem attacks, don't you?
Where?
Wiping out enemies was quite rare in earlier editions, and you still are extremely unlikely to win the game if you get tabled. Kill points also has been proven over and over again to be a horribly imbalanced mechanic, but I guess balanced games aren't what you are looking for to begin with?
No it was not, it was a normal thing that happened. "lets just kill each other" was the standard quick game when we didn't feel like using objectives. you either got tabled or you lost so much that by turn 4 or 5 you conceded becuase you had almost nothing left, or nothing that you needed to kill a certain unit.
40k was a narrative game it wasn't designed to be balanced in the way people want it to be now. it was a game to hang out with your friends talk gak and toss some dice around. all armies had flaws and strengths and it was your job as the general to exploit those on the table. most people played marines because aside from being the flagship brand they were also generalists that were good at everything but not great at it. other armies had a more focused dare i say harder learning curve.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I take out all the vitriol from your posts, the core seems to be that you primarily want from the game is rolling dice and blowing gak up while only dedicating a bare minimum of your game time to tactics, right? In that case I can see why you feel like 9th is not for you, the new missions indeed feel completely overblown for just playing a quick game, and stratagems only get in the way of tossing dice.
1. there is no vitriol in my posts 2. No i want the tactics to be how i play my army on the table-maneuvering to use terrain to my advantage/strategic movement of units, target priority, countering my opponents tactics etc.. not which super gotcha combo of strats i can drop on my opponent, or games that are effectively over on turn 3 because my opponent ran over and stood on a spot first and there is no way i can bring it back later in the game once i am down the points curve.
Care to elaborate? Just saying that I'm wrong is not an argument by itself. What armies are relying more on stratagems than before? Which 9th edition codices have more stratagems than their 8th edition incarnations?
When 8th dropped there were a grand total of THREE strats for the entire game, then release after release through 8th and continued into 9th. there are so many strats now people cannot keep track of them all. general space marines alone have what 34? including things that should be wargear. now spread that across all factions-that's hundreds of stratagems,
Please give examples of "lore based rules". This is so vague it could pretty much refer to anything in either system.
easy example- white scars-lore based rules .born in the saddle .mounted veterans .hit and run .power lances .counter attack .all units must be mechanized (rhinos razorbacks or drop pods for troops, oversized bike squads (10 instead of 6) as troops) .heavy support limited to attack bike squads and variant predator hulls.
.units not allowed because they are to slow and/or do not fit the lore for the fighting style of the scars- .devestator squads/centurions etc... .land raiders (unless used as a dedicated transport for terminators) .dreadnoughts
9th ed rules.....
.master of snares to keep enemies from running away .strategic reserves .the abiltiy to advance and then charge.
Or just about anything in the 3.5 chaos codex compared to anything they have now.
I play against a khorne berserker player who plays both 9th and 5th using the old codex and he loves the old lore based rules-8 man squads for the mark of khorne, blood frenzy, destroyer upgrades for vehicles, khornate chain axes that reduce armor saves to a 4+ etc...
Tyrand Hive Tyrant charges a grot in a shrubbery as high as his toe causes him to lose all his initiative.
flesh hooks=frag grenades
Planes like Valkyries can be charged and destroyed by a terminator hitting it with a hammer.
forge world rules only jump infantry can assault flying aircraft-if they go hover they become skimmer ground vehicles
A model will never, ever die from a tank running it over unless it decides to stand still and stop it.
Because troops are smart enough to get out of the way if they see an armored behemoth coming at them...unless they are suicidal or in the case of the deff rolla or the destroyer vehicle upgrade for khorne that causes wounds on the unit that does move out of the way.
Oval or rectangular models can pivot to get closer to the enemy and still fire guns as if stationary.
Pivoting in place for any vehicle was never counted as movement, and monsters could move and still fire 2 guns.
If infantry can move through a wall, so can a battlewagon. If the battlewagon can't move through a ruin, then infantry is not allowed to use the door.
Area terrain rule-is an abstract to represent a tangle of ruins or a forest etc.. represented by a difficult terrain test that slows infantry as it picks it's way through or a dangerous terrain test for vehicles trying to brute force it's way through. seriously i have enough trees at the shop to fill all the tree templates but that would make playing on the surface impossible that is why it is an abstract.
A vehicle weapon cannot ever target anything other than what every other gun is targeting, even if it has a dedicated gunner and can't ever see the same target as another gun
It is a balancing mechanic that existed in all the old editions. being able to split fire was a reward for a special units or a special bit of war gear that you paid extra for. rather it be power of the machine spirit or a superheavy that had enough crew to act independently in the moment.
Open topped vehicles already allowed passengers to shoot out of tires or tracks in 5th.
And you completely missed the point-land raiders or repulsors for that matter are not open topped nor do they have fire points what they do have is fixed mountings on different sides of the vehicle that can ALL shoot at a target that can only bee seen by a front road wheel or grav plate-makes no sense unless the tank twirls like a whirling dervish while firing all it's guns.
There were even some guns which could never be shot for any reason because of how they were mounted. How is that immersive?
i know of no vehicle that has that problem in 40K. prior to 8th ed
I'd argue that 14 space marines shooting a LRBT with bolters doing a little damage instead of none is more realistic. I mean at least one of those perfect warriors is going to hit that vision slit or put a dent in a gun barrel, right? It also never made sense how a terminator can be killed by a lasgun, but that same lasgun couldn't scratch a trukk or buggy who has an exposed ork driver wearing a leather vest for armor.
ever heard of armored glass or periscopes? we have been using them on armored vehicles to prevent that very thing since WWII.
Also the crew of the ork trukk are technically not on the table, the trukk is. the crew is there for modeling purposes. they are considered to be part of the vehcile and are destroyed with it.
Orks usually had fleet of foot during the turn they charged. In 9th eldar are more likely to fight first because they move faster, and can actually outrun slower combatants if they do not wish to fight them. Actual hit&run on the table feels much more in touch with eldar fluff than agility just being implied by two numbers that reduce damage taken in combat and allow them to fight first no matter what.
Orks had furious charge they only get fleet if they declare a waagh.
Some eldar units always fight first because of wargear like banshee masks, but they do not all have that. other units do have something like hit&run like swooping hawks with sky leap,
Uhm... you are literally arguing in favor of a system which is a least exactly as hard to keep track of? 5th: Movement speed by unit type, fighting order decided by comparing values on two or more datasheets, hit roll decided by comparing two values on datasheets. 9th: Movement speed on datasheet, fighting order decided by fight first/last and players, hit roll on datasheet. You have brought up many good arguments for the old editions, but neither balance nor complexity are in favor of them
Hardly
All infantry move 6", all jump bike & fast move 12. vehicles move in the same 6" increments. All units assault 6" except cav, beasts and leapers that assault 12.": You hit in CC on a 3+ 4+ or a 5+ (unless your kharn) a chart that you have memorized after 2 games. Initiative is on the unit data sheet which you have memorized after a couple games with your army. but it is also on the data sheet,
No need to keep track of variant move speeds or 30+ strats per factions or secondary objectives.
Oh, you already have the 9th edition CSM codex? Please do share! But yeah, let's not move goalposts even further.
Don't be an ass you know they are using the last 8th ed codex in 9th.
Why is it ok for 5th to break immersion for gaming reasons but not for 9th? Why do you use "balance" as a justification when you lead with "40k is not meant to be balanced"? Why is realism important when shooting a piece of glass on a tank with self-propelled explosive shells, but not when shooting an ork in the face with bullets or lasers? Why is it possible to memorize two numbers on every datasheet after two games, but memorizing one is too complex?
You are literally applying double standards to everything. I get it. You really want to hate 9th with every fiber of your being. And you are absolutely free to do that, and to like whatever you want. Just don't try to rationalize it.
I think classic and modern edition editions of 40K both strive to reflect the context and lore, but do so in very different ways. Regardless of edition, we all have to take a leap of faith to rationalize the inherent abstractions in the rules, and some of us are going to have different preferences and interpret things differently.
Personally, I find the rationalizations of classic 40K rules to be more logical and more intuitive as a model/simulation of what I'm physically seeing. 8th/9th feels more abstracted to me overall. We can find counter-cases within each edition, but for me it's an overall feeling thing.
I also prefer, as a general matter of course, for there to be more nuance and depth baked into the core rules of the game, which gives more hook-points for different units to build on, rather than having more streamlined core rules with more special rules added to individual units to provide differentiation. WS & I stats were a good example of core rule implementations that created a good diversity in potential CC matchups and situations with very little added overhead.
Regarding editions overall....
It's hard to talk to players that started the game recently (8th or 9th) or even semi-recently (6th or 7th). I was explaining my ProHammer project to the person working at my local GW store. They just started playing 40K in 8th edition and immediately said "I always heard 6th edition was garbage!" Without experiencing earlier editions (namely 3rd - 5th) it's hard to convey the difference in experience to people.
And then try explaining the irony of critiques that get repeated about 2nd edition and "hero hammer" and all the dice and the complexity, and special cards, and die role modifiers .... which is basically what 9th has become.
One simple change to 9th that I think would be a big improvement would be to bring back front/side/rear for vehicles, just have 3 different Toughness values in the profile. They already have degrading statlines (I still prefer the old charts, more nuanced and immersive), it wouldn't be massively more complicated. Kind of annoys me that they removed this reward for out manouvering your enemy.
Mezmorki wrote: I think classic and modern edition editions of 40K both strive to reflect the context and lore, but do so in very different ways. Regardless of edition, we all have to take a leap of faith to rationalize the inherent abstractions in the rules, and some of us are going to have different preferences and interpret things differently.
Personally, I find the rationalizations of classic 40K rules to be more logical and more intuitive as a model/simulation of what I'm physically seeing. 8th/9th feels more abstracted to me overall. We can find counter-cases within each edition, but for me it's an overall feeling thing.
I also prefer, as a general matter of course, for there to be more nuance and depth baked into the core rules of the game, which gives more hook-points for different units to build on, rather than having more streamlined core rules with more special rules added to individual units to provide differentiation. WS & I stats were a good example of core rule implementations that created a good diversity in potential CC matchups and situations with very little added overhead.
I agree. I observed and played a few games of 4th, but I really started with AOBR which was 5th edition's starter set. 5th was a great edition which was really fun to play, and I can see how applying modern game development techniques to polish it could turn it into an absolutely great game.
The actual game that was though, isn't anywhere near the idolized prefect game many make it out to be. I loved many things about 5th, but every game also had quite a few things I hated. The best part of the game for me has always been the run for objectives in the last two turns, 9th really feels like having those fun two last turns stretched out to all five turns.
I really couldn't care less for 40k having stratagems or not, so one of the major differences between 5th and 9th doesn't phase me. With 9th throwing a massive spanner into CP combos available to orks and the DG codex outright removing them, they really don't feel much different than imperial orders or psychic powers.
Regarding editions overall....
It's hard to talk to players that started the game recently (8th or 9th) or even semi-recently (6th or 7th). I was explaining my ProHammer project to the person working at my local GW store. They just started playing 40K in 8th edition and immediately said "I always heard 6th edition was garbage!" Without experiencing earlier editions (namely 3rd - 5th) it's hard to convey the difference in experience to people.
And then try explaining the irony of critiques that get repeated about 2nd edition and "hero hammer" and all the dice and the complexity, and special cards, and die role modifiers .... which is basically what 9th has become.
Sadly, the same thing also works in reverse. Many critics complain about things that definitely were a problem in 8th, or even for only a short period of 8th, but have been toned down, removed or drifted into meaninglessness in 9th. There also is a huge deal of untruths that keep getting recycled and blown out of proportions, like flamers being the best anti-air or gretchin killing landraiders which doesn't really ever happen during real games. Some folks also seem to be forgetting that 5th wasn't in the 90s, the internet and dakkadakka were already a thing. It's always hilarious when someone tries to tell me how rules were and weren't read, when I made a few thousand of my posts in YMDC during 5th, about half as many in the tactics section. You can probably still find the battle reports I did at that time in dakka's databases.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ielthan wrote: One simple change to 9th that I think would be a big improvement would be to bring back front/side/rear for vehicles, just have 3 different Toughness values in the profile. They already have degrading statlines (I still prefer the old charts, more nuanced and immersive), it wouldn't be massively more complicated. Kind of annoys me that they removed this reward for out manouvering your enemy.
If it came with a chart defining angles for every vehicles and water-tight rules for when you are shooting what angle, I'd be game. The main reason I was glad to see it go were the arguments.
Having played 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th, I definitely find more to prefer about 8th and 9th than 5th-7th. 5th and 8th are my favorite editions, there are some things I really dislike about 9th and I wish I could just take what I like about 9th and add it to 8th.
5th:
Pros:
templates and vehicle damage tables are fun and immersive, IMO at least. I just like 'em.
in CONCEPT I like the morale system better. morale functions as it's supposed to in 5th: a way to affect enemy units combat abilities without detroying them. In practice, way way way way way WAY too much of the game ignored the morale system outright for it to ever come up.
Transports work as actual transports in 5th, for getting your models around faster.
Terrain actually works as a nice, abstracted thing and I like the way cover saves work much better in general. I like having a choice on defense to improve my cover save by givign up my offense.
Cons:
Melee units spend a lot of time in 5th feeling like absolute idiot dinguses. They sit around doing fething nothing if you deep strike them, get them out of transports, shoot basically any weapon, run slightly faster, etc. Melee is so unbelievably deadly and so unbelievably safe for melee units that it takes jumping through a flaming hoop of fire before GW will actually let you hit something with a pointed stick. One dude with a powerfist can basically insta-wreck a main battle tank as soon as he doinks into it.
vehicles are either indestructible unstoppable god-behemoths or they explode like firecrackers, there's zero middle ground.A system like this is more realistic, but in a game where you've got little weeny ork buggies and fething land raiders both falling under the same 'all or nothing' vehicle damage table is...a stretch.
Instant death sucks. I'm sorry. Double your toughness=your dead jim feels like trash. So does the all or nothing AP system, it should be OK, but man does anything that exits a transport in 5th feel like a wisp of plastic bag on the wind.
Generally, I love the concept of 5th, I have a ton of nostalgia for 5th, every time I go back and play fifth it's just so frustrating. I hate losing a whole unit to deep strike scatter. I hate tanks permanently immobilizing themselves on a 1 any time they tough terrain. I hate shooting a lascannon and exploding a huge tank instantly turn 1 before it gets to do anything.
In ProHammer I provide charts/tools for determining this, and really honed in making it as clear, quick, and simple as possible to determine. It works as follows:
(1) Define the "hull" for vehicles, which is the main body + wheels/tracks + full turrets + sponsons (antenna, pipes, etc. are not part of the hull).
(2) Identify the center point of the vehicle (midway along the length of its hull along the central axis).
(3) Place the facing arc template centered over the center point (which you can make from a transparent blast marker). Each arc is a clean 90-degrees.
(4) The arc in which an attacking model is positioned determines what facing is hit. If you're on the line, you hit whichever side has a higher AV between the two.
The above works really cleanly and simply for all manner of vehicles.
tneva82 wrote: If GW thinks players get confused by the WS system then the developers themselves must have intelligence level of a toddler...
No need to get personal.
By the end of 8th, I was convinced simplifying the rules was a good thing. They are a little oversimplified in some areas, but it's better than being overcomplicated.
The problem with WS was not the WS table itself. If you feel it's important, I'm sure there's a way to houserule it back in for your games. Tell me if you find them more enjoyable, may wish to try that myself.
The problem was with the number of modifiers, special rules, tables, charts, random dice rolls for abilities, etc. that went along with the WS table. One dispute about rules could sidetrack a game for half an hour.
I'll gladly sacrifice a WS table for not having to argue about rules. It's been years since I had a proper argument.
techsoldaten wrote: [The problem with WS was not the WS table itself. If you feel it's important, I'm sure there's a way to houserule it back in for your games. Tell me if you find them more enjoyable, may wish to try that myself.
The problem was with the number of modifiers, special rules, tables, charts, random dice rolls for abilities, etc. that went along with the WS table. One dispute about rules could sidetrack a game for half an hour.
I'm not following this at all. Earlier editions of the game, especially 3rd - 5th, had very few modifiers or re-rolls or other things that complicated die rolling and especially the WS chart. 8th and 9th has vastly more by way of modifiers, re-rolls, auras, multiple-saving throws, etc. that slow things down.
Honestly, most of the prohammer stuff sounds really good. Too bad it's an exercise of futility to convince my group of switching to another ruleset, especially considering how no one really has a problem with 9th.
Jidmah wrote: Honestly, most of the prohammer stuff sounds really good. Too bad it's an exercise of futility to convince my group of switching to another ruleset, especially considering how no one really has a problem with 9th.
I had the same issue with 9th age and WFB. A lot of the guys would rather play 8th because its familiar, even though 9th age is basically a fixed version of 8th.
Prohammer does look interesting, I'll need to take a good look at it. Personally I was always pretty happy with 3rd edition (with all the chapter approved stuff), it was enough for me, and had so much juice in it via white dwarf and the supplements. 6th ed WFB & 3rd 40k are still my favourite wargames.
Jidmah wrote: Honestly, most of the prohammer stuff sounds really good. Too bad it's an exercise of futility to convince my group of switching to another ruleset, especially considering how no one really has a problem with 9th.
I had the same issue with 9th age and WFB. A lot of the guys would rather play 8th because its familiar, even though 9th age is basically a fixed version of 8th.
Prohammer does look interesting, I'll need to take a good look at it. Personally I was always pretty happy with 3rd edition (with all the chapter approved stuff), it was enough for me, and had so much juice in it via white dwarf and the supplements. 6th ed WFB & 3rd 40k are still my favourite wargames.
I started a ProHammer game last night - I'm playing a Feral Ork list from the 2004 Chapter Approved for 3rd edition versus a 6th edition Imperial Guard list. So many boarboyz!
What we love about ProHammer is that it lets you use literally any codex from 3rd - 7th edition and they are cross-compatible. We occasionally run into odd edge cases where we need to translate a rule into ProHammer standard, but it's usually pretty straight forward.
techsoldaten wrote: [The problem with WS was not the WS table itself. If you feel it's important, I'm sure there's a way to houserule it back in for your games. Tell me if you find them more enjoyable, may wish to try that myself.
The problem was with the number of modifiers, special rules, tables, charts, random dice rolls for abilities, etc. that went along with the WS table. One dispute about rules could sidetrack a game for half an hour.
I'm not following this at all. Earlier editions of the game, especially 3rd - 5th, had very few modifiers or re-rolls or other things that complicated die rolling and especially the WS chart. 8th and 9th has vastly more by way of modifiers, re-rolls, auras, multiple-saving throws, etc. that slow things down.
You may have missed the part after the word 'modifiers' where I pointed to special rules, tables, charts, random dice rolls for abilities, etc.
If you'd like to argue that 8th and 9th are more complex and slower than previous editions, by all means. That's a very interesting perspective.
Jidmah wrote: Honestly, most of the prohammer stuff sounds really good. Too bad it's an exercise of futility to convince my group of switching to another ruleset, especially considering how no one really has a problem with 9th.
I had the same issue with 9th age and WFB. A lot of the guys would rather play 8th because its familiar, even though 9th age is basically a fixed version of 8th.
Prohammer does look interesting, I'll need to take a good look at it. Personally I was always pretty happy with 3rd edition (with all the chapter approved stuff), it was enough for me, and had so much juice in it via white dwarf and the supplements. 6th ed WFB & 3rd 40k are still my favourite wargames.
I started a ProHammer game last night - I'm playing a Feral Ork list from the 2004 Chapter Approved for 3rd edition versus a 6th edition Imperial Guard list. So many boarboyz!
What we love about ProHammer is that it lets you use literally any codex from 3rd - 7th edition and they are cross-compatible. We occasionally run into odd edge cases where we need to translate a rule into ProHammer standard, but it's usually pretty straight forward.
That does sound cool! Do you find playing one edition codex against another results in any balance issues?
9th edition has significantly MORE special rules and random dice rolls than 5th ever did.
The difference is that in 5th most of those were universal rules, so everyone was singing from the same sheet. For 9th, they're bespoke unit rules. (Although a lot of them are universal to the point people still use the old universal rules, eg 'feel no pain' and 'deepstrike'.
Cutting out the universal aspect of the rules just means GW has to resort to really wooly language if they ever want to refer to their rules.
kirotheavenger wrote: 9th edition has significantly MORE special rules and random dice rolls than 5th ever did.
The difference is that in 5th most of those were universal rules, so everyone was singing from the same sheet. For 9th, they're bespoke unit rules. (Although a lot of them are universal to the point people still use the old universal rules, eg 'feel no pain' and 'deepstrike'.
Cutting out the universal aspect of the rules just means GW has to resort to really wooly language if they ever want to refer to their rules.
This is a thread about how GW removed a random dice roll that affected every combat interaction in the game.
The issue isn't the number of rules that exist so much as the impact they have collectively on the game.
So could you be more specific about what you mean when you say there are more special rules and random dice rolls? I don't see that happening.
A vehicle weapon cannot ever target anything other than what every other gun is targeting, even if it has a dedicated gunner and can't ever see the same target as another gun
It is a balancing mechanic that existed in all the old editions. being able to split fire was a reward for a special units or a special bit of war gear that you paid extra for. rather it be power of the machine spirit or a superheavy that had enough crew to act independently in the moment.
Nevertheless, it was a stupid rule. It may have been for balancing purposes, but it felt punishing to bring a Heavy AT weapon in with the average squad of Infantry.
aphyon wrote:
There were even some guns which could never be shot for any reason because of how they were mounted. How is that immersive?
i know of no vehicle that has that problem in 40K. prior to 8th ed
Land Raider Redeemer was the biggest culperate, I believe. You couldn't use both Templates on the same target unless they were really spread wide and the Machine Spirit couldn't fire them.
Mezmorki wrote:I'm not following this at all. Earlier editions of the game, especially 3rd - 5th, had very few modifiers or re-rolls or other things that complicated die rolling and especially the WS chart. 8th and 9th has vastly more by way of modifiers, re-rolls, auras, multiple-saving throws, etc. that slow things down.
They existed, but were rather uncommon. The build up started in 6th and became really crazy in 7th with Formations and the Choice Detachments meaning that one model could have numerous layers of rules.
Then the loud outcry against USRs happened and:
kirotheavenger wrote:9th edition has significantly MORE special rules and random dice rolls than 5th ever did.
The difference is that in 5th most of those were universal rules, so everyone was singing from the same sheet. For 9th, they're bespoke unit rules. (Although a lot of them are universal to the point people still use the old universal rules, eg 'feel no pain' and 'deepstrike'.
Cutting out the universal aspect of the rules just means GW has to resort to really wooly language if they ever want to refer to their rules.
And GW seems to have a problem learning how to cut and paste between codices so they aren't worded consistently. I think the right amount of USRs is between 5th and 6th.
Don't get me wrong, I really liked 5th, but arguments that it was "more immersive" don't hold up under the same scrutiny we apply to 8th/9th.
I have seen the GK 5th ed codex, and it very much more impersive then the 8th ed one. A ton more options both as ranged and melee weapons go, grenades , cheap chaff units. Not sure how some of the psychic powers work, but at a glance they look much better then the GK codex ones, on top of that everey dreadnought, rhino and razorback is a psyker too. Even without full understanding of the 5th ed rules, I can say that the GK book was a lot more immersive then the book that exists right now. On top of that there seem to be options to play non GK armies with the book, so for inqusitorial players, if they happen to exist right now, the immersion is immeasurably bigger, because right now they can't immerse themself at all in to the game. Having no legal ways to play and all.
That's not what immersion means. You're talking about flavour.
Immersion is otherwise "realistic" - having more options doesn't necessarily equate to realism.
aphyon wrote:
Please give examples of "lore based rules". This is so vague it could pretty much refer to anything in either system.
easy example-
white scars-lore based rules
.born in the saddle
.mounted veterans
.hit and run
.power lances
.counter attack
.all units must be mechanized (rhinos razorbacks or drop pods for troops, oversized bike squads (10 instead of 6) as troops)
.heavy support limited to attack bike squads and variant predator hulls.
.units not allowed because they are to slow and/or do not fit the lore for the fighting style of the scars-
.devestator squads/centurions etc...
.land raiders (unless used as a dedicated transport for terminators)
.dreadnoughts
I'm curious about that "units not allowed" and "all units must be mechanised" part - when was this? If you're talking about Formations, they were an optional method of constructing the army, so not exactly "lore based rules".
Also, power lances were open to everyone. Not a unique White Scars addition.
Planes like Valkyries can be charged and destroyed by a terminator hitting it with a hammer.
forge world rules only jump infantry can assault flying aircraft-if they go hover they become skimmer ground vehicles
Um, no, in 5th, Valkyries could be charged by anything, just like any other normal vehicle could be. The same was true for Stormtalons, Stormravens, and Dakkajets.
A model will never, ever die from a tank running it over unless it decides to stand still and stop it.
Because troops are smart enough to get out of the way if they see an armored behemoth coming at them...unless they are suicidal or in the case of the deff rolla or the destroyer vehicle upgrade for khorne that causes wounds on the unit that does move out of the way.
Troops are also smart enough to get out of the way of a rampaging Carnifex.
A vehicle weapon cannot ever target anything other than what every other gun is targeting, even if it has a dedicated gunner and can't ever see the same target as another gun
It is a balancing mechanic that existed in all the old editions.
But it's not "immersive", is it? You've summed up exactly what the arguments in favour of 8th are - that liberties are taken with the game mechanics that might get in the way of "realism".
being able to split fire was a reward for a special units or a special bit of war gear that you paid extra for. rather it be power of the machine spirit or a superheavy that had enough crew to act independently in the moment.
Doesn't change that it made no sense for a hundred-year old veteran to not know where to fire their gun for maximum effectiveness.
There were even some guns which could never be shot for any reason because of how they were mounted. How is that immersive?
i know of no vehicle that has that problem in 40K. prior to 8th ed
Land Raider Redeemers couldn't bring both flamestorms to bear on a single target, unless it was exceptionally wide.
I'd argue that 14 space marines shooting a LRBT with bolters doing a little damage instead of none is more realistic. I mean at least one of those perfect warriors is going to hit that vision slit or put a dent in a gun barrel, right?
It also never made sense how a terminator can be killed by a lasgun, but that same lasgun couldn't scratch a trukk or buggy who has an exposed ork driver wearing a leather vest for armor.
ever heard of armored glass or periscopes? we have been using them on armored vehicles to prevent that very thing since WWII.
I don't see any armoured glass or periscopes on that nice exposed Trukk driver, or on an open-roofed Scout Sentinel. Or, for that matter, on a Land Speeder.
But sure, those vehicles *somehow* get armoured glass. I think Terminator armour is stronger than armoured glass, yes? So how does a lasgun kill a Terminator again?
Also the crew of the ork trukk are technically not on the table, the trukk is. the crew is there for modeling purposes. they are considered to be part of the vehcile and are destroyed with it.
Sure, for *game* purposes, they don't exist, but they *do* physically exist on the model - for immersion. Because that's what this is all about, right? "Immersion"? So, it would stand to reason that, as part of that "immersion", a guardsman could shoot the nice exposed driver of that trukk, because clearly, it *is* exposed.
the_scotsman wrote:Having played 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th, I definitely find more to prefer about 8th and 9th than 5th-7th. 5th and 8th are my favorite editions, there are some things I really dislike about 9th and I wish I could just take what I like about 9th and add it to 8th.
Yeah, pretty much the same here. 5th was nice, and so was 8th. I liked 8th best when it was Indexes.
Melee units spend a lot of time in 5th feeling like absolute idiot dinguses. They sit around doing fething nothing if you deep strike them, get them out of transports, shoot basically any weapon, run slightly faster, etc. Melee is so unbelievably deadly and so unbelievably safe for melee units that it takes jumping through a flaming hoop of fire before GW will actually let you hit something with a pointed stick. One dude with a powerfist can basically insta-wreck a main battle tank as soon as he doinks into it.
vehicles are either indestructible unstoppable god-behemoths or they explode like firecrackers, there's zero middle ground.A system like this is more realistic, but in a game where you've got little weeny ork buggies and fething land raiders both falling under the same 'all or nothing' vehicle damage table is...a stretch.
Instant death sucks. I'm sorry. Double your toughness=your dead jim feels like trash. So does the all or nothing AP system, it should be OK, but man does anything that exits a transport in 5th feel like a wisp of plastic bag on the wind.
Generally, I love the concept of 5th, I have a ton of nostalgia for 5th, every time I go back and play fifth it's just so frustrating. I hate losing a whole unit to deep strike scatter. I hate tanks permanently immobilizing themselves on a 1 any time they tough terrain. I hate shooting a lascannon and exploding a huge tank instantly turn 1 before it gets to do anything.
Yeah, also got to agree with these issues. 5th could be *incredibly* skewed at times, either with vehicles being way too randomly killable/durable, and especially Instant Death and the old AP system. There was no encouragement for moderate AP boosts if they didn't penetrate armour, and similarly not wanting to put your multiple-wound hero in combat because a squad sergeant could pop them instantly on a single failed save just did nothing for "immersion".
kirotheavenger wrote: 9th edition has significantly MORE special rules and random dice rolls than 5th ever did.
The difference is that in 5th most of those were universal rules, so everyone was singing from the same sheet. For 9th, they're bespoke unit rules. (Although a lot of them are universal to the point people still use the old universal rules, eg 'feel no pain' and 'deepstrike'.
Cutting out the universal aspect of the rules just means GW has to resort to really wooly language if they ever want to refer to their rules.
This is a thread about how GW removed a random dice roll that affected every combat interaction in the game.
The issue isn't the number of rules that exist so much as the impact they have collectively on the game.
So could you be more specific about what you mean when you say there are more special rules and random dice rolls? I don't see that happening.
Removed? No, you still roll to hit in combat.
Changed yes, but not removed.
That does sound cool! Do you find playing one edition codex against another results in any balance issues?
We do this all the time in the years we have been playing hybrid 5th.
I have ran codexes from 3rd, 4th, 5th 6th and 7th against each other under the core 5th rules set with those simple 15 rules crossovers without incident.
Land Raider Redeemer was the biggest culperate, I believe. You couldn't use both Templates on the same target unless they were really spread wide and the Machine Spirit couldn't fire them.
Only if you mount them in the back, nobody ever did. the diagram for the vehicle firing arcs allows you to crossover the firing arc of the sponson weapons allowing both flamer templates to hit targets in front.
I'm curious about that "units not allowed" and "all units must be mechanised" part - when was this? If you're talking about Formations, they were an optional method of constructing the army, so not exactly "lore based rules".
Also, power lances were open to everyone. Not a unique White Scars addition.
No this is 3rd edition rules(and 4th) for white scars army list restrictions fist appearing in white dwarf and later codified in index astartes. there were no formations. there were restrictions for specific lore themed armies-IE deathwing pure armies could only run terminators(troops) land raiders (heavy support/dedicated transports), and dreads(elites)
Also no space marine chapter had access to power lances other than white scars. there were power weapons, axes hammers fists etc...
Um, no, in 5th, Valkyries could be charged by anything, just like any other normal vehicle could be. The same was true for Stormtalons, Stormravens, and Dakkajets.
That is when they were treated as skimmers which were ground vehicles. if you used the FW flyer rules that existed prior to the introduction of those units into the core game that did not have flyer rules only jump units could assault them.
Troops are also smart enough to get out of the way of a rampaging Carnifex.
Vehicles had no weapon skill or normal close combat ability to lock you in close combat, carnifexes were effectively giant infantry.
Land Raider Redeemers couldn't bring both flamestorms to bear on a single target, unless it was exceptionally wide.
not true see above.
I don't see any armoured glass or periscopes on that nice exposed Trukk driver, or on an open-roofed Scout Sentinel. Or, for that matter, on a Land Speeder.
Vehicles and the crew count as a single unit that is why you didn't get to roll differently, when the vehicle was destroyed so was the entire crew.
Sure, for *game* purposes, they don't exist, but they *do* physically exist on the model - for immersion. Because that's what this is all about, right? "Immersion"? So, it would stand to reason that, as part of that "immersion", a guardsman could shoot the nice exposed driver of that trukk, because clearly, it *is* exposed.
Open topped vehicle rules-damage results are more severe to represent this.
I feel like 9th would be my favourite edition ever if you just ditched strategems and maybe fiddled around with balance a bit (or a lot).
GW only ever seems to take one step forwards, one step back in an endless juggling act.
Honestly, I love stratagems. i think it's something the game has been missing for a long time, and I think they got a little silly towards the end and beginning of 8th, but I have zero complaints with any stratagems in the 9th ed codexes so far.
Strats only became silly due to the insane amount of CP you could have in 8th and some of the more bonkers ones. The concept of a resource management mechanic that grants special abilities you get occasionally provides for some really cool moments.
In general my only complaint with strats is the imbalance between offensive and defensive stratagems. And offense and defense in general in 8th-9th. Give me free reign to rework the morale system, add in a few more standard player choices, and the main core framework of 9th and you've created my ideal version of 40k.
....OK, I do miss vehicle facing and template and blast weaponry. I'd add that back in. But good lord were the missions in fifth ever just an exercise in miserable pointlessness, how can anyone ever want to go back to the dreaded "Oops, rolled a 2, guess we're just not playing with a mission this time round and we're just killing each other" or the old classic "Emperor's Tie."
Also no space marine chapter had access to power lances other than white scars. there were power weapons, axes hammers fists etc...
In 6th edition Space Marines paid points for a generic Power Weapon, the form of which could be Sword, Axe, Maul or Lance. 7th miiight have been the same.
the_scotsman wrote: good lord were the missions in fifth ever just an exercise in miserable pointlessness, how can anyone ever want to go back to the dreaded "Oops, rolled a 2, guess we're just not playing with a mission this time round and we're just killing each other" or the old classic "Emperor's Tie."
And the terrible Annihilation mission, where you just counted up units destroyed for VPs regardless of the units worth? Heaven forbid you use an army that relies lots of small units . . . so dumb.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: That's not what immersion means. You're talking about flavour.
Immersion is otherwise "realistic" - having more options doesn't necessarily equate to realism.
Ones army having the rules to represent the stuff is has is not realism? Plus my army didn't get more options, it lost them. I didn't even know how many things it lost, because I managed to read the old codex last summer. And I am probably missing even more stuff, because I don't know how other armies played in 5th or what its core rules were.
Land Raider Redeemer was the biggest culperate, I believe. You couldn't use both Templates on the same target unless they were really spread wide and the Machine Spirit couldn't fire them.
Only if you mount them in the back, nobody ever did. the diagram for the vehicle firing arcs allows you to crossover the firing arc of the sponson weapons allowing both flamer templates to hit targets in front.
Nope, mounted in the forward position. If a unit was gathered up in front or in a conga line, one could not get both Templates on a target unit because it would require either not placing the narrow end at the Flamer or over the hull of the Land Raider.
Also no space marine chapter had access to power lances other than white scars. there were power weapons, axes hammers fists etc...
In 6th edition Space Marines paid points for a generic Power Weapon, the form of which could be Sword, Axe, Maul or Lance. 7th miiight have been the same.
White Scars were not the only ones to have exclusive access to Power Lances. In fact, most of the codices actually only listed Power Weapon as a purchasing option, even in 7th. So Power Lance was an option to whoever could purchase a Power Weapon. It was just very few people wanted Power Lances. They were rather anemic after the Charge, so most went for something more consistent.
Land Raider Redeemer was the biggest culperate, I believe. You couldn't use both Templates on the same target unless they were really spread wide and the Machine Spirit couldn't fire them.
Only if you mount them in the back, nobody ever did. the diagram for the vehicle firing arcs allows you to crossover the firing arc of the sponson weapons allowing both flamer templates to hit targets in front.
Still not true. Unless the target was very wide, or conga-lined in front, you wouldn't get both templates hitting it because they couldn't be placed over the tank itself.
I'm curious about that "units not allowed" and "all units must be mechanised" part - when was this? If you're talking about Formations, they were an optional method of constructing the army, so not exactly "lore based rules".
Also, power lances were open to everyone. Not a unique White Scars addition.
No this is 3rd edition rules(and 4th) for white scars army list restrictions fist appearing in white dwarf and later codified in index astartes. there were no formations. there were restrictions for specific lore themed armies-IE deathwing pure armies could only run terminators(troops) land raiders (heavy support/dedicated transports), and dreads(elites)
Then this has long been changed, from at least 5th onwards. And again, you had to choose to run Deathwing pure armies, but you could still take a squad of Deathwing normally, yes?
Again, my experience comes from 5th, so these rules have been gone for over a decade now.
Also no space marine chapter had access to power lances other than white scars. there were power weapons, axes hammers fists etc...
In 5th, power weapons were all generic. Any weapon could be a lance. In 6th-7th, power weapons became malleable, so any power weapon could be a lance. Ultramarines with power lances has been feasible for years, it's only since 8th that they can't be taken, but then you can proxy them in anyways, like any other irregular power weapon.
Um, no, in 5th, Valkyries could be charged by anything, just like any other normal vehicle could be. The same was true for Stormtalons, Stormravens, and Dakkajets.
That is when they were treated as skimmers which were ground vehicles. if you used the FW flyer rules that existed prior to the introduction of those units into the core game that did not have flyer rules only jump units could assault them.
I'm not talking about the FW flyer rules. I'm talking about the rules for 5th, for Valkyries, in the core game.
Stop moving the goalposts.
Troops are also smart enough to get out of the way of a rampaging Carnifex.
Vehicles had no weapon skill or normal close combat ability to lock you in close combat, carnifexes were effectively giant infantry.
Yeah - why *didn't* vehicles have weapon skill or close combat ability is the point being made here, especially when they're just as cumbersome and lumbering as a carnifex.
Land Raider Redeemers couldn't bring both flamestorms to bear on a single target, unless it was exceptionally wide.
not true see above.
Very much true, see above.
I don't see any armoured glass or periscopes on that nice exposed Trukk driver, or on an open-roofed Scout Sentinel. Or, for that matter, on a Land Speeder.
Vehicles and the crew count as a single unit that is why you didn't get to roll differently, when the vehicle was destroyed so was the entire crew.
Sure, but muh immersion tells me that I should be able to shoot the easily exposed crew that are on the model.
You can't have your "muh immersion" cake and eat it too. You're using gameplay to excuse flaws in "muh immersion" - yet if I tried to do the same with things like 8th' lack of facings, you'd scream about it.
Stop dodging the point, and accept that other editions had stupid logic too.
Sure, for *game* purposes, they don't exist, but they *do* physically exist on the model - for immersion. Because that's what this is all about, right? "Immersion"? So, it would stand to reason that, as part of that "immersion", a guardsman could shoot the nice exposed driver of that trukk, because clearly, it *is* exposed.
Open topped vehicle rules-damage results are more severe to represent this.
Doesn't help lasguns though, does it? Yet again, another immersion failure.
Karol wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: That's not what immersion means. You're talking about flavour.
Immersion is otherwise "realistic" - having more options doesn't necessarily equate to realism.
Ones army having the rules to represent the stuff is has is not realism?
No, it's not. That's not at all what "realism" means. We're talking about the concept of verisimilitude, you're talking about representation. Representation doesn't mean realism, in the same way that tanks being able to shoot all weapons from one facing is representative, but not realistic.*
*For what it's worth, I haven't got an issue that this isn't realistic.
Having the lasguns not being able to hurt the ork buggy is way less absurd than having them hurt titans, tanks, and knights... And then there was some other crazy stuff from 8th like tanks shooting from antennas...did they remove that in 9th?
Land Raider Redeemer was the biggest culperate, I believe. You couldn't use both Templates on the same target unless they were really spread wide and the Machine Spirit couldn't fire them.
Only if you mount them in the back, nobody ever did. the diagram for the vehicle firing arcs allows you to crossover the firing arc of the sponson weapons allowing both flamer templates to hit targets in front.
Nope, mounted in the forward position. If a unit was gathered up in front or in a conga line, one could not get both Templates on a target unit because it would require either not placing the narrow end at the Flamer or over the hull of the Land Raider.
Models didn't hit themselves with template weapons, otherwise tanks like the Immolator wouldn't be able to fire. You only needed LOS, of which the Land Raider could usually manage because the front of the tank was sloped. You could definitely hit the same model in front of a Redeemer.
Land Raider Redeemer was the biggest culperate, I believe. You couldn't use both Templates on the same target unless they were really spread wide and the Machine Spirit couldn't fire them.
Only if you mount them in the back, nobody ever did. the diagram for the vehicle firing arcs allows you to crossover the firing arc of the sponson weapons allowing both flamer templates to hit targets in front.
Nope, mounted in the forward position. If a unit was gathered up in front or in a conga line, one could not get both Templates on a target unit because it would require either not placing the narrow end at the Flamer or over the hull of the Land Raider.
Models didn't hit themselves with template weapons, otherwise tanks like the Immolator wouldn't be able to fire. You only needed LOS, of which the Land Raider could usually manage because the front of the tank was sloped. You could definitely hit the same model in front of a Redeemer.
That's not how I remember it from 5th through 7th. While I no longer have my copy of 5th Ed, my copies of 6th and 7th Ed both state that LOS on Vehicle Weapons is performed by the barrel of the individual gun. And the only way to do that is if the Template is going over the Vehicle's hull in the case of one of the sponsons. This is an illegal act.
terror51247 wrote:Having the lasguns not being able to hurt the ork buggy is way less absurd than having them hurt titans, tanks, and knights... And then there was some other crazy stuff from 8th like tanks shooting from antennas...did they remove that in 9th?
But, in all honesty, how often have you seen a Titan killed by lasguns?
And hey, if a lasgun can hurt a Riptide or Stormsurge or other Gargantuan Creature, it should be able to hurt a Knight. This is what I mean by those flaws in the 5th-7th system.
Land Raider Redeemer was the biggest culperate, I believe. You couldn't use both Templates on the same target unless they were really spread wide and the Machine Spirit couldn't fire them.
Only if you mount them in the back, nobody ever did. the diagram for the vehicle firing arcs allows you to crossover the firing arc of the sponson weapons allowing both flamer templates to hit targets in front.
Nope, mounted in the forward position. If a unit was gathered up in front or in a conga line, one could not get both Templates on a target unit because it would require either not placing the narrow end at the Flamer or over the hull of the Land Raider.
Models didn't hit themselves with template weapons, otherwise tanks like the Immolator wouldn't be able to fire. You only needed LOS, of which the Land Raider could usually manage because the front of the tank was sloped. You could definitely hit the same model in front of a Redeemer.
That's not how I remember it from 5th through 7th. While I no longer have my copy of 5th Ed, my copies of 6th and 7th Ed both state that LOS on Vehicle Weapons is performed by the barrel of the individual barrel. And the only way to do that is if the Template is going over the Vehicle's hull in the case of one of the sponsons. This is an illegal act.
That's how I remember it - the template came from the gun, and in most cases for the Redeemer, that prevented both guns from hitting the same target.
Posters here be like "Lasguns shouldn't vehicle because my realism" and then defend a game system where one army does a bunch of stuff without any interference from the other army.
In 6th edition Space Marines paid points for a generic Power Weapon, the form of which could be Sword, Axe, Maul or Lance. 7th miiight have been the same.
Sorry about that i should have been more clear. when the list was released for 3rd edition they were the only space marine chapter that used them. it worked because they had both hit and run as well as counter attack so the risk of loosing initiative be being forced to stay in CC with a lance was rare.
Nope, mounted in the forward position. If a unit was gathered up in front or in a conga line, one could not get both Templates on a target unit because it would require either not placing the narrow end at the Flamer or over the hull of the Land Raider.
I thought that might come up, a misunderstanding of the rules-
The rules state that you cannot place the template over friendly models, templates over the base of the firing model is allowed and as per the rules the base of the vehicle is it's hull. so long as the weapon mount has LOS to the target.
A fine example of why this was a thing-the SOB repressor (loved them had 2 in my old army). if you could not fire over the base/hull there would be no way to fire the repressors pintle mounted heavy flamer ever.
Then this has long been changed, from at least 5th onwards. And again, you had to choose to run Deathwing pure armies, but you could still take a squad of Deathwing normally, yes?
Again, my experience comes from 5th, so these rules have been gone for over a decade now.
Yes you could do a standard FOC army in that codex or you could run pure stand alone deathwing and ravenwing armies. i did note that our group allows players to run whichever codex they feel best fits the lore for the force they are playing. just as our khorne player runs the 3.5 codex and when i run tau or nids i run the 4th. i think it may have a bit to do with Andy still running the design department through 4th that he tried to stay true to the lore in the rules. although there were a few 5th ed codexes that actually represented some armies better, like necrons and blood angels (the latter having many themes revisited in the 30K rules)
This was the FOC for scars (special rules not pictured below that)
I'm not talking about the FW flyer rules. I'm talking about the rules for 5th, for Valkyries, in the core game.
Stop moving the goalposts.
I am not, i made it pretty clear our group uses the flyer rules in 5th problem solved
Yeah - why *didn't* vehicles have weapon skill or close combat ability is the point being made here, especially when they're just as cumbersome and lumbering as a carnifex.
They do, they are called walkers- a hybrid of vehicle and infantry- tracked or wheeled etc.. vehicles had their own version of close combat-running stuff over or ramming it. it is something we can identify with mentally because it is something that happens for real.
Sure, but muh immersion tells me that I should be able to shoot the easily exposed crew that are on the model.
You can't have your "muh immersion" cake and eat it too. You're using gameplay to excuse flaws in "muh immersion" - yet if I tried to do the same with things like 8th' lack of facings, you'd scream about it.
Stop dodging the point, and accept that other editions had stupid logic too.
No they didn't, if you want to be able to shoot the crew, those rules did exist in second edition. they were removed because they were to cumbersome unless you want 2 pages of rules for the damage flow chart against a leman russ ( i have the book, it doesn't really work when you move beyond a skirmish scale game)
But, in all honesty, how often have you seen a Titan killed by lasguns?
The fact that it is even possible is the problem.
And hey, if a lasgun can hurt a Riptide or Stormsurge
Well honestly many of us feel those should have been vehicles with an AV like a dreadnought
No, it's not. That's not at all what "realism" means. We're talking about the concept of verisimilitude, you're talking about representation. Representation doesn't mean realism, in the same way that tanks being able to shoot all weapons from one facing is representative, but not realistic.*
I don't know, if someone told me their WWII soviet army from summer 1944 should not have any tanks in it or artilery support, then it would be rather unrealistic to me, same way if someone said that because of a luck factor there should be an option for infantry to hurt a tank from 30" away. I get point blank shoting through vision slits, but not regular grunts doing stuff like that.
But, in all honesty, how often have you seen a Titan killed by lasguns?
The fact that it is even possible is the problem.
Lasguns cannot kill a titan, period. To even line up the minimum 50 lasgun shots while the titan is moving and killing stuff is already a nigh impossible task, and even then the chance is so low it might as well be zero. It's more likely for the princeps to randomly die of a stroke than for lasguns to kill the titan.
Insisting otherwise just proves that you have no clue what you are talking about.
Land Raider Redeemer was the biggest culperate, I believe. You couldn't use both Templates on the same target unless they were really spread wide and the Machine Spirit couldn't fire them.
Only if you mount them in the back, nobody ever did. the diagram for the vehicle firing arcs allows you to crossover the firing arc of the sponson weapons allowing both flamer templates to hit targets in front.
Nope, mounted in the forward position. If a unit was gathered up in front or in a conga line, one could not get both Templates on a target unit because it would require either not placing the narrow end at the Flamer or over the hull of the Land Raider.
Models didn't hit themselves with template weapons, otherwise tanks like the Immolator wouldn't be able to fire. You only needed LOS, of which the Land Raider could usually manage because the front of the tank was sloped. You could definitely hit the same model in front of a Redeemer.
That's not how I remember it from 5th through 7th. While I no longer have my copy of 5th Ed, my copies of 6th and 7th Ed both state that LOS on Vehicle Weapons is performed by the barrel of the individual barrel. And the only way to do that is if the Template is going over the Vehicle's hull in the case of one of the sponsons. This is an illegal act.
That's how I remember it - the template came from the gun, and in most cases for the Redeemer, that prevented both guns from hitting the same target.
The template from the weapon was explicitly permitted to touch/cover the model firing it, otherwise Immolators and such could not fire their flame weapons.
Also it's sorta moot because:
These are Redeemer sponsons double-hitting a model on a 25mm base, the smallest available, and still not passing over the tank.
). The problem wasn't in the concept, but all the whining that would come about as people would find their precious units not being able to catch the Eldar any more. You don't here about it anymore because it has been brought back in to play.
