Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2020/08/11 07:50:43
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
Tyel wrote: If this goes into "muh Xenos meta" I think you have to wait and see.
My cynical view is that Tau are still okay - if not perhaps top tier. On paper its a downgrade - but there was an awful lot of "tau are awful, codex is broken, oh look they seem to have won quite a few tournaments" back in 8th. So I'm sort of suspect on people banging the same old drum as if that victorious interlude never happened. They were never in say the Necron spot.
CWE are probably in a worse space, because they are clearly pointed on the basis of Alaitoc (and old Ynnari) cheese, which I think has deservedly been nerfed. But they probably need a genuine rebalance (i.e. not what's happened) to take account of that. Harlies are in a decent spot.
Even DE are a bit odd, because while I'd say tehy are in a bad spot *on points* venoms/raiders are excellent mechanisms to jump all over the primary, so its sort of a wait and see there too. Not sure DE players (especially people who adopted them in 8th) will necessarily like the build, but they may not be bottom tier as thought.
Would like to see some results to back up that theory that Tau are okay.
Xeno armies at the moment are concerned as marines, custodes came out of the edition change hot and marines are getting their 9th edition codex shortly which people are not looking forward to after the OP cheese from Marines 2.0
When one codex is still taking 50% or more of the top ten lists their is a balance problem.
Conversely I don't think the to hit cap should be changed, if you went to bring back stacking hit mods you have to put in a cap somewhere.
Larger Negative to hit modifiers also favour better BS armies anyway, enjoy even more only playing against Primaris.
Tau loose 66% of their hit rate against a -2 thats a bit much.
Unbuffed Marines loose 50% and Custodes only 40%.
The real issues is Marines with CM only loose 40% of their hits against -2
Negative to hit modifiers is not the way to improve balance as your punishing the worse shooting armies more than the problem child Codex.
Marin wrote: It looks like GW team is to much of space marines fanboys to use their little imagination to balance other factions rules. For instance 2CP strat that negate higher STR weapons is not a problem but 2 CP strat that give you -1 to hit is big problem. First example excuse is because its close to the lore and the second is problem because the feel bad regardless of the lore. There is easy fix to modifiers to hit, just make them unable to modify you more than 5+, that way armies with bad BS will not suffer and you will not delete glasscannon army its main defense, just because i cant kill 240 pts flyer with 1 dread so i`m so sad and i`m crying
That makes the problem worse actually. Why bother stacking modifiers beyond -2 at the most? It literally has no effect on 1 full army and half of some others. Majority of armies are no worse off than with a -1, only marines and eldar are slightly bothered by this, but since you've gone from affecting everyone fairly to 75% of the game not being any different, people simply wouldn't bother stacking - to hit since it's wasted 75% of the time.
Because taking hits on 4's to hits on 6's is a 66% reduction in firepower
Against Marines its not even close give them a Chapter master and they still hit at a rate better than 4+.
Check again, they proposed making it so you can never hit on worse than a 5+, so that's a 33% reduction and no different than is in the game now with the current system in place. The only things it impacts are hitting on 2's and 3's, but given a -2 would barely affect: IG, Nids, GSC, Tau, some effect on ad mech and would have next to no impact on Orks at all - if your meta contains those then your -2 to hit is essentialy as redundant as it is now a lot of the time
Marin wrote: It looks like GW team is to much of space marines fanboys to use their little imagination to balance other factions rules. For instance 2CP strat that negate higher STR weapons is not a problem but 2 CP strat that give you -1 to hit is big problem. First example excuse is because its close to the lore and the second is problem because the feel bad regardless of the lore. There is easy fix to modifiers to hit, just make them unable to modify you more than 5+, that way armies with bad BS will not suffer and you will not delete glasscannon army its main defense, just because i cant kill 240 pts flyer with 1 dread so i`m so sad and i`m crying
That makes the problem worse actually. Why bother stacking modifiers beyond -2 at the most? It literally has no effect on 1 full army and half of some others. Majority of armies are no worse off than with a -1, only marines and eldar are slightly bothered by this, but since you've gone from affecting everyone fairly to 75% of the game not being any different, people simply wouldn't bother stacking - to hit since it's wasted 75% of the time.
Because there are units that hit on 2s, there are plus to hit modifiers and full rerolls.
If you took loads of -3 to hit as a just in case you say some custodes then got paired up against Orks, you've still wasted points as you have now. The difference is now those Orks don't care at all about it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/11 07:52:27
2020/08/11 07:54:01
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
Tyel wrote: If this goes into "muh Xenos meta" I think you have to wait and see.
My cynical view is that Tau are still okay - if not perhaps top tier. On paper its a downgrade - but there was an awful lot of "tau are awful, codex is broken, oh look they seem to have won quite a few tournaments" back in 8th. So I'm sort of suspect on people banging the same old drum as if that victorious interlude never happened. They were never in say the Necron spot.
CWE are probably in a worse space, because they are clearly pointed on the basis of Alaitoc (and old Ynnari) cheese, which I think has deservedly been nerfed. But they probably need a genuine rebalance (i.e. not what's happened) to take account of that. Harlies are in a decent spot.
Even DE are a bit odd, because while I'd say tehy are in a bad spot *on points* venoms/raiders are excellent mechanisms to jump all over the primary, so its sort of a wait and see there too. Not sure DE players (especially people who adopted them in 8th) will necessarily like the build, but they may not be bottom tier as thought.
Would like to see some results to back up that theory that Tau are okay.
Xeno armies at the moment are concerned as marines, custodes came out of the edition change hot and marines are getting their 9th edition codex shortly which people are not looking forward to after the OP cheese from Marines 2.0
When one codex is still taking 50% or more of the top ten lists their is a balance problem.
Conversely I don't think the to hit cap should be changed, if you went to bring back stacking hit mods you have to put in a cap somewhere.
Larger Negative to hit modifiers also favour better BS armies anyway, enjoy even more only playing against Primaris.
Tau loose 66% of their hit rate against a -2 thats a bit much.
Unbuffed Marines loose 50% and Custodes only 40%.
The real issues is Marines with CM only loose 40% of their hits against -2
Negative to hit modifiers is not the way to improve balance as your punishing the worse shooting armies more than the problem child Codex.
Marin wrote: It looks like GW team is to much of space marines fanboys to use their little imagination to balance other factions rules. For instance 2CP strat that negate higher STR weapons is not a problem but 2 CP strat that give you -1 to hit is big problem. First example excuse is because its close to the lore and the second is problem because the feel bad regardless of the lore. There is easy fix to modifiers to hit, just make them unable to modify you more than 5+, that way armies with bad BS will not suffer and you will not delete glasscannon army its main defense, just because i cant kill 240 pts flyer with 1 dread so i`m so sad and i`m crying
That makes the problem worse actually. Why bother stacking modifiers beyond -2 at the most? It literally has no effect on 1 full army and half of some others. Majority of armies are no worse off than with a -1, only marines and eldar are slightly bothered by this, but since you've gone from affecting everyone fairly to 75% of the game not being any different, people simply wouldn't bother stacking - to hit since it's wasted 75% of the time.
Because taking hits on 4's to hits on 6's is a 66% reduction in firepower
Against Marines its not even close give them a Chapter master and they still hit at a rate better than 4+.
Check again, they proposed making it so you can never hit on worse than a 5+, so that's a 33% reduction and no different than is in the game now with the current system in place. The only things it impacts are hitting on 2's and 3's, but given a -2 would barely affect: IG, Nids, GSC, Tau, some effect on ad mech and would have next to no impact on Orks at all - if your meta contains those then your -2 to hit is essentialy as redundant as it is now a lot of the time
That's why it's better than just a flat -2 cap as it effects the problem codex more while not making all BS4+ armies unplayable.
Though really just squating the dang CM strategum would help alot. But really right now we either need the 8th edition codex's or points that make some sence as right now 9th is a mess.
2020/08/11 08:13:26
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
Tyel wrote: If this goes into "muh Xenos meta" I think you have to wait and see.
My cynical view is that Tau are still okay - if not perhaps top tier. On paper its a downgrade - but there was an awful lot of "tau are awful, codex is broken, oh look they seem to have won quite a few tournaments" back in 8th. So I'm sort of suspect on people banging the same old drum as if that victorious interlude never happened. They were never in say the Necron spot.
CWE are probably in a worse space, because they are clearly pointed on the basis of Alaitoc (and old Ynnari) cheese, which I think has deservedly been nerfed. But they probably need a genuine rebalance (i.e. not what's happened) to take account of that. Harlies are in a decent spot.
Even DE are a bit odd, because while I'd say tehy are in a bad spot *on points* venoms/raiders are excellent mechanisms to jump all over the primary, so its sort of a wait and see there too. Not sure DE players (especially people who adopted them in 8th) will necessarily like the build, but they may not be bottom tier as thought.
Would like to see some results to back up that theory that Tau are okay.
Xeno armies at the moment are concerned as marines, custodes came out of the edition change hot and marines are getting their 9th edition codex shortly which people are not looking forward to after the OP cheese from Marines 2.0
When one codex is still taking 50% or more of the top ten lists their is a balance problem.
Conversely I don't think the to hit cap should be changed, if you went to bring back stacking hit mods you have to put in a cap somewhere.
Larger Negative to hit modifiers also favour better BS armies anyway, enjoy even more only playing against Primaris.
Tau loose 66% of their hit rate against a -2 thats a bit much.
Unbuffed Marines loose 50% and Custodes only 40%.
The real issues is Marines with CM only loose 40% of their hits against -2
Negative to hit modifiers is not the way to improve balance as your punishing the worse shooting armies more than the problem child Codex.
Marin wrote: It looks like GW team is to much of space marines fanboys to use their little imagination to balance other factions rules. For instance 2CP strat that negate higher STR weapons is not a problem but 2 CP strat that give you -1 to hit is big problem. First example excuse is because its close to the lore and the second is problem because the feel bad regardless of the lore. There is easy fix to modifiers to hit, just make them unable to modify you more than 5+, that way armies with bad BS will not suffer and you will not delete glasscannon army its main defense, just because i cant kill 240 pts flyer with 1 dread so i`m so sad and i`m crying
That makes the problem worse actually. Why bother stacking modifiers beyond -2 at the most? It literally has no effect on 1 full army and half of some others. Majority of armies are no worse off than with a -1, only marines and eldar are slightly bothered by this, but since you've gone from affecting everyone fairly to 75% of the game not being any different, people simply wouldn't bother stacking - to hit since it's wasted 75% of the time.
Because taking hits on 4's to hits on 6's is a 66% reduction in firepower
Against Marines its not even close give them a Chapter master and they still hit at a rate better than 4+.
Check again, they proposed making it so you can never hit on worse than a 5+, so that's a 33% reduction and no different than is in the game now with the current system in place. The only things it impacts are hitting on 2's and 3's, but given a -2 would barely affect: IG, Nids, GSC, Tau, some effect on ad mech and would have next to no impact on Orks at all - if your meta contains those then your -2 to hit is essentialy as redundant as it is now a lot of the time
That's why it's better than just a flat -2 cap as it effects the problem codex more while not making all BS4+ armies unplayable.
Though really just squating the dang CM strategum would help alot. But really right now we either need the 8th edition codex's or points that make some sence as right now 9th is a mess.
I'd definitely love for re-rolls to be toned right down, the targeted buffs seem a better option, 1 unit in 6" or 2 if you're a chapter master may re-roll 1's would be enough imo.
2020/08/11 13:30:39
Subject: Re:Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
I'm chuckling a little bit because you basically pulled the opposite of a tautology there, "thing A is false because thing A is true" rather than "thing A is true because thing A is true".
Although we're talking about entirely different things when it comes to rerolls being "too much"; you care that is slows the game down and I don't care about that at all because a game where multiple units in multiple forces can require 90+ dice to resolve an attack was never going to be fast.
No. That wasn't my point. Space marines, even at the launch of the 1.0 dex STILL had a build that was winning tournaments and considered OP. Why was that? Oh yeah. REROLLS!
They were ALWAYS a problem from every possible angle. 2.0 just focused on the problem and blew it clear out of the water. Your premise that "these were never a problem UNTIL 2.0" is a little off base imo. 2.0 took them and just made them a bigger problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/11 13:31:22
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
2020/08/11 14:32:47
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
-1 cap is good. That's really the limit of what a D6 dice curve can handle given you really only have 5 functional values on it.
That said, the one thing I think SHOULD stack with that cap is the Heavy/Assault penalties. Those are self imposed and capping them removes the choice that makes them interesting in the first place.
2020/08/11 14:54:56
Subject: Re:Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
I'm chuckling a little bit because you basically pulled the opposite of a tautology there, "thing A is false because thing A is true" rather than "thing A is true because thing A is true".
Although we're talking about entirely different things when it comes to rerolls being "too much"; you care that is slows the game down and I don't care about that at all because a game where multiple units in multiple forces can require 90+ dice to resolve an attack was never going to be fast.
No. That wasn't my point. Space marines, even at the launch of the 1.0 dex STILL had a build that was winning tournaments and considered OP. Why was that? Oh yeah. REROLLS!
They were ALWAYS a problem from every possible angle. 2.0 just focused on the problem and blew it clear out of the water. Your premise that "these were never a problem UNTIL 2.0" is a little off base imo. 2.0 took them and just made them a bigger problem.
Yeah, SM players just tend to forget that the first ~4 months of competitive 8th ed was Guilliman in the middle of a gun parking lot and Chapter Master Sanguinoli Guacamole (whoever the flying one is, Michaelangelo Donatello Rerollioni Jumpacko) flying around with a bunch of stormravens.
SM didn't spend all of 8th the worst army, they ended up the worst army having been steadily creeped out, then they got rocketed back up to top dog with 2.0. I would hazard a bet that SM spent more time during 8th as the most competitive army than any other faction including CWE, Ynnari or Guard.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2020/08/11 15:11:07
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
LunarSol wrote: -1 cap is good. That's really the limit of what a D6 dice curve can handle given you really only have 5 functional values on it.
That said, the one thing I think SHOULD stack with that cap is the Heavy/Assault penalties. Those are self imposed and capping them removes the choice that makes them interesting in the first place.
Well GW shouldn't be writing off a D6
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/08/11 15:36:13
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
LunarSol wrote: -1 cap is good. That's really the limit of what a D6 dice curve can handle given you really only have 5 functional values on it.
That said, the one thing I think SHOULD stack with that cap is the Heavy/Assault penalties. Those are self imposed and capping them removes the choice that makes them interesting in the first place.
Well GW shouldn't be writing off a D6
surprisingly, I do agree.
D10 all day every day.
2020/08/11 15:38:23
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
LunarSol wrote: -1 cap is good. That's really the limit of what a D6 dice curve can handle given you really only have 5 functional values on it.
That said, the one thing I think SHOULD stack with that cap is the Heavy/Assault penalties. Those are self imposed and capping them removes the choice that makes them interesting in the first place.
Well GW shouldn't be writing off a D6
surprisingly, I do agree.
D10 all day every day.
an d8 would allready represent a massive improvement...
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2020/08/11 15:39:04
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
LunarSol wrote: -1 cap is good. That's really the limit of what a D6 dice curve can handle given you really only have 5 functional values on it.
That said, the one thing I think SHOULD stack with that cap is the Heavy/Assault penalties. Those are self imposed and capping them removes the choice that makes them interesting in the first place.
Plenty of games (eg Bolt Action) work fine with stacking modifiers getting your normally 3+ to hit up to a 6+ or rendered outright impossible. The use of a D6 does not in any way preclude heavy modifiers, it's just a game design issue.
40K's problem is just that these modifiers are often innate rather than contextual so they're always active, and few mechanisms are provided to counteract them. In something like Heavy Gear it is very easy to face enemies that are nearly impossible to hit due to high movement, strong electronic warfare, and intervening terrain, but you can counteract those with bonuses to hit from firing at short range or staying stationary to shoot, and generally speaking it is rarely outright impossible to hit the enemy.
The Battletech PC game provides another great example, where rapid movement gives you evasion markers that can make you outright impossible to hit- but each incoming shot strips off an evasion marker whether it hits or not, so concentrated fire rapidly ramps up in effectiveness.
In 40K if your opponent gets a -1 to hit for being a particular subfaction and then another -1 to hit for being an airplane, there is not a lot you can do as a BS4+ army- you don't have any consistent ways to get bonuses to hit to offset the penalties. Having these defensive buffs turn off when within a certain distance is a better idea and makes them counterable, but then there is still the issue where BS3+ armies with rerolls are affected far less than BS4+ armies without rerolls.
A hard cap is a clunky way of addressing this issue. I still like the suggestion from the first page, to make hitting the enemy work similarly to the wound table, with BS compared to a defensive stat. It stretches out the upper (5+ to hit) and lower (3+ to hit) bounds, evening out the playing field a bit and making it much harder to stack defensive buffs to the point of only being hit on 6s.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/11 15:40:10
LunarSol wrote: -1 cap is good. That's really the limit of what a D6 dice curve can handle given you really only have 5 functional values on it.
That said, the one thing I think SHOULD stack with that cap is the Heavy/Assault penalties. Those are self imposed and capping them removes the choice that makes them interesting in the first place.
Well GW shouldn't be writing off a D6
surprisingly, I do agree.
D10 all day every day.
an d8 would allready represent a massive improvement...
Hell, even on a D8 system, say that Guard are all now at BS5+, you throw them at a -2 to hit, that's still a 25% chance to hit compared to 16.7% as of now.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/08/11 17:03:02
Subject: Re:Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
I'm chuckling a little bit because you basically pulled the opposite of a tautology there, "thing A is false because thing A is true" rather than "thing A is true because thing A is true".
Although we're talking about entirely different things when it comes to rerolls being "too much"; you care that is slows the game down and I don't care about that at all because a game where multiple units in multiple forces can require 90+ dice to resolve an attack was never going to be fast.
No. That wasn't my point. Space marines, even at the launch of the 1.0 dex STILL had a build that was winning tournaments and considered OP. Why was that? Oh yeah. REROLLS!
They were ALWAYS a problem from every possible angle. 2.0 just focused on the problem and blew it clear out of the water. Your premise that "these were never a problem UNTIL 2.0" is a little off base imo. 2.0 took them and just made them a bigger problem.
Yeah, SM players just tend to forget that the first ~4 months of competitive 8th ed was Guilliman in the middle of a gun parking lot and Chapter Master Sanguinoli Guacamole (whoever the flying one is, Michaelangelo Donatello Rerollioni Jumpacko) flying around with a bunch of stormravens.
SM didn't spend all of 8th the worst army, they ended up the worst army having been steadily creeped out, then they got rocketed back up to top dog with 2.0. I would hazard a bet that SM spent more time during 8th as the most competitive army than any other faction including CWE, Ynnari or Guard.
Some of us don't play Ultramarines you know. Some of us didn't start playing in 8th until after Codex Creep (tm) had already set in. Not all SM players are forgetful, some of us never saw OP Marines in the first place. I drew a clear line between pre- and post- codex 2.0, so you're talking about four months of being competitive out of a two year run before the codex 2.0 cluster-[censored] threw game balance out the window.
Was the Girly-man parking lot ever as meta-defining as Ynarri/CWE Flyer Spam/Castellans? I never got that impression from these forums, but I wasn't there when it happened so I honestly don't know.
Edit: This was the exchange:
Me: "Marines had full rerolls for most of 8th prior to Codex 2.0 and it barely drug them into the mid-tier. It wasn't until Marines had 6 pages of strats and 3 pages of relics and super-doctrines that they became a problem"
Tycho: "No, that's wrong, marines were mid-tier because of the rerolls, and they became a problem when they got a bunch of strats and relics and super-doctrines layered on top."
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/08/11 17:25:57
To be fair, marine re-rolls pushed them over the top super early with things like the Guilliman + 5 stormravens list, which was promptly smashed into the ground by a panicking GW.
Then it was Guilliman + asscan razorbacks, which eventually also got smashed into the ground only after a bit of dominance.
So it's not like marines were "never" OP. It's just that I think Marine players don't remember those days because they weren't 'casually' OP (i.e. you had to specifically tailor your list tournament-style).
But the theme behind all that OPness was the rerolls in the first place.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/11 17:31:51
2020/08/11 17:41:19
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
LunarSol wrote: -1 cap is good. That's really the limit of what a D6 dice curve can handle given you really only have 5 functional values on it.
That said, the one thing I think SHOULD stack with that cap is the Heavy/Assault penalties. Those are self imposed and capping them removes the choice that makes them interesting in the first place.
Well GW shouldn't be writing off a D6
surprisingly, I do agree.
D10 all day every day.
an d8 would allready represent a massive improvement...
Hell, even on a D8 system, say that Guard are all now at BS5+, you throw them at a -2 to hit, that's still a 25% chance to hit compared to 16.7% as of now.
it would also allow to strengthen the terrain rules again.
which is something gw has considerable down streamlined.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2020/08/11 17:45:12
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
To be fair I argued as hard as anyone else that Marine rerolls were a problem, but not because of the power level or the time involved.
I had an issue with it because unlike practically everyone else Marine rerolls are an aura so everything in the army is designed around standing next to Guilliman, regardless of whether you can take him or not. That's terrible design, but nothing there is an inherent issue with rerolls themselves.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/11 17:48:13
Me: "Marines had full rerolls for most of 8th prior to Codex 2.0 and it barely drug them into the mid-tier. It wasn't until Marines had 6 pages of strats and 3 pages of relics and super-doctrines that they became a problem"
In fact, it had the Gman build as THE top-tier list to the point that it caused multiple and near instant FAQs after Allesio Cavatore attended a major - what was it? Adepticon? And yes, while they were not around at the top as long as CWE, they were pretty darned oppressive - there just wasn't much you could do against it.
Tycho: "No, that's wrong, marines were mid-tier because of the rerolls, and they became a problem when they got a bunch of strats and relics and super-doctrines layered on top."
That's not really what I said though is it? I said the rerolls were a problem from the word "go" (form every angle - not JUST the "power angle" ) and they got even worse when 2.0 came out. Now you add in everything ON TOP of the rerolls, and you go from a book with 1 or 2 (there was another build at one point early on but I can't recall it atm) broken builds and a ton of average builds, to a book with mostly broken builds ...
) not all Marine chapters had access to the same level of reroll shenanigans
Patently false. Gman was souped into MANY strong lists (that were just shy of the actual OP UM one), and on top of that, ALL chpaters get access to that same boatload of non-Gman rerolls. When you can pack a reroll for almost everything a unit does in a single turn, there IS an inherent issue. Period. Rerolls are fine as a game mechanic, but GW used them as a crutch with the Marine books and that's been an issue from the word "go".
To be fair, marine re-rolls pushed them over the top super early with things like the Guilliman + 5 stormravens list, which was promptly smashed into the ground by a panicking GW.
Then it was Guilliman + asscan razorbacks, which eventually also got smashed into the ground only after a bit of dominance.
So it's not like marines were "never" OP. It's just that I think Marine players don't remember those days because they weren't 'casually' OP (i.e. you had to specifically tailor your list tournament-style).
But the theme behind all that OPness was the rerolls in the first place.
This guy gets it ...
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/08/11 17:56:16
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
2020/08/11 17:49:14
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
The Newman wrote: To be fair I argued as hard as anyone else that Marine rerolls were a problem, but not because of the power level or the time involved.
I had an issue with it because 1) not all Marine chapters had access to the same level of reroll shenanigans, and 2) unlike practically everyone else Marine rerolls are an aura so everything in the army is designed around standing next to Guilliman, whether you can take him or not. That's terrible design, but nothing there is an inherent issue with rerolls themselves.
BS3 converts to a hit ratio of 66%
BS3 with Reroll 1's converts to 77%
BS3 with CM rerolls converts to 89%
BS 2 converts to 83%
Marines with a CM shoot better than BS2 does.
2020/08/11 18:22:08
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
The Newman wrote: To be fair I argued as hard as anyone else that Marine rerolls were a problem, but not because of the power level or the time involved.
I had an issue with it because 1) not all Marine chapters had access to the same level of reroll shenanigans, and 2) unlike practically everyone else Marine rerolls are an aura so everything in the army is designed around standing next to Guilliman, whether you can take him or not. That's terrible design, but nothing there is an inherent issue with rerolls themselves.
BS3 converts to a hit ratio of 66%
BS3 with Reroll 1's converts to 77%
BS3 with CM rerolls converts to 89%
BS 2 converts to 83%
Marines with a CM shoot better than BS2 does.
Bs3 with rerolls being better than Bs2 is irrelevant to whether including rerolls is bad design, especially when the only army with Bs2 standard also has rerolls. Where it runs into bad design is when the faction doesn't function without reroll aura spam because every unit is designed assuming it will have those rerolls all the time.
Giving myself a moment to cool down and think abou5 it, I can't say 40k wouldn't probably be in a better spot if rerolls were mostly eliminated. Points would be even more out of whack than they already are and "shoot/fight twice" abilities would need a rebalancing because that's proportionally stronger without rerolls, but overall it probably wouldn't be a bad thing.
40k definataly would be far better balanced without the CM strategum and the damn amount of rerolls.
1 They lead to odd situations where costing the unit appropriately is impossible.
It's either overcosted without the buffs or OP with them.
2 Rerolls slow the game down horrifically, units like aggressors are bad enough but when you opponents got rerolls upon rerolls with that many dice it just takes forever.
2020/08/11 19:10:11
Subject: Re:Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
Giving myself a moment to cool down and think abou5 it, I can't say 40k wouldn't probably be in a better spot if rerolls were mostly eliminated. Points would be even more out of whack than they already are and "shoot/fight twice" abilities would need a rebalancing because that's proportionally stronger without rerolls, but overall it probably wouldn't be a bad thing.
Purely anecdotal data incoming, but honestly, I think you hit the nail on the head with that. My regular group started to get fed up with the game length of 8th so we started playing a "home brew" version from time to time where both rerolls, and what strats you could use were severely limited, and the games tended to go faster and play better. You are correct in that some rebalancing would need to happen, but honestly, there are just WAY too many rerolls right now than are healthy.
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
2020/08/11 19:15:39
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
I'm not following how lack of rerolls makes shoot/fight twice abilities comparatively stronger. If anything, it makes them weaker; it's a no-brainer to put a Big Expensive Thing near all your re-roll sources and buffs and then pop shoot/fight twice every turn.
I'm guessing it is something to do with such strats/abilities being the only way to spike your damage with that unit, as opposed to the improved accuracy doing so.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2020/08/11 19:35:09
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
catbarf wrote: I'm not following how lack of rerolls makes shoot/fight twice abilities comparatively stronger. If anything, it makes them weaker; it's a no-brainer to put a Big Expensive Thing near all your re-roll sources and buffs and then pop shoot/fight twice every turn.
Proportionately stronger. I think what Newman means is that right now a unit that shoots/fights twice without a lot of rerolls isn't that much stronger than a unit that shoots/fights once with full rerolls, but if you got rid of most or all rerolls the shoot/fight twice abilities (which are much rarer) would have a greater effect on how good that unit is.
Yeah, SM players just tend to forget that the first ~4 months of competitive 8th ed was Guilliman in the middle of a gun parking lot and Chapter Master Sanguinoli Guacamole (whoever the flying one is, Michaelangelo Donatello Rerollioni Jumpacko) flying around with a bunch of stormravens.
SM didn't spend all of 8th the worst army, they ended up the worst army having been steadily creeped out, then they got rocketed back up to top dog with 2.0. I would hazard a bet that SM spent more time during 8th as the most competitive army than any other faction including CWE, Ynnari or Guard.
Yeah those IH or IF players totaly digged the fact that Gulliman based armies were powerful. And you can't imagine how GK players were happy when GW finaly decided to nerf those OP Gulliman lists by rising the points or razorbacks, storm ravenes etc Now GK at that time didn't really have access to re-rolls, but it was the fairness that mattered.
I don't get the arguments from xeno players, when they accouse all marines of player that one tournament build, even from another codex, but when someone brings up stuff like spears or dark reapers, they of course never used them, and they never played alaitoc. In fact if one would trust the claims, practicaly no one would be playing alaitoc or the good xeno lists.
this makes as much sense as telling BA players that their army was good, they just needed to play a lot of IG and a castellan and limit their BA models to 15 scouts and 2 jump pack captins.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2020/08/11 20:06:11
Subject: Re:Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
Haven't seen anyone in the discussion claim to be a Xenos player? Until recently I played Marines and DG. I shelved the Marines around the time Iron Hands came out and moved on to Mechanicus and Tsons, but yeah, everything I've said here was from the point of view of someone who played marines throughout a good chunk of 8th.
EDIT:
Sorry forgot the OP was mentioning Eldar
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/11 20:40:04
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
2020/08/11 20:55:38
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
The Newman wrote: To be fair I argued as hard as anyone else that Marine rerolls were a problem, but not because of the power level or the time involved.
I had an issue with it because unlike practically everyone else Marine rerolls are an aura so everything in the army is designed around standing next to Guilliman, regardless of whether you can take him or not. That's terrible design, but nothing there is an inherent issue with rerolls themselves.
Ah what i call obliterators syndrom, Tell me though what to do about it, cost Units without rerolls? Watch the world burn, cost them at half capacity rerolls?still too good. Cost Units as If allways under such aura influenced and stratagems etc? Well that specific unit with that specific Setup still performs, but what about those that don't take that combination?
See rerolls are just a 3rd of the issue , stratagems and other abilites/traits the other 2...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/11 21:19:20
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2020/08/11 23:26:23
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
Dysartes wrote: I'm guessing it is something to do with such strats/abilities being the only way to spike your damage with that unit, as opposed to the improved accuracy doing so.
catbarf wrote: I'm not following how lack of rerolls makes shoot/fight twice abilities comparatively stronger. If anything, it makes them weaker; it's a no-brainer to put a Big Expensive Thing near all your re-roll sources and buffs and then pop shoot/fight twice every turn.
Proportionately stronger. I think what Newman means is that right now a unit that shoots/fights twice without a lot of rerolls isn't that much stronger than a unit that shoots/fights once with full rerolls, but if you got rid of most or all rerolls the shoot/fight twice abilities (which are much rarer) would have a greater effect on how good that unit is.
On consideration I probably should have said "and throw all the shoot/fight twice abilities in the bin along with all those rerolls", doubling your damage output is inherently stronger than any reroll can possibly be.
The argument (not your argument AnomanderRake, I'm swinging back to the general topic now) is that rerolls are abusive and slow the game down, how about this thought exercize: a D6 system with two different levels of rerolls has almost as many accuracy brackets as a D20 system. Who here really thinks they could resolve 3 Centurions (54 shots) or a decent Daemonette charge (30-45 swings) rolling D20s and looking for a 5+ faster than they could roll the same number of D6s picking out and rerolling the 1s? I know I couldn't do it. D12s have the same problem. You'd be making it feel better but it wouldn't actually improve anything.
But then what do you do about dexes that were Designed around such stratagems and stacking ablities /rerollauras.
Basically the cleanest Way imo would be to just drop the pretense of auras stratagem and other abilites can be balanced when coexisting...
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2020/08/11 23:48:46
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
The rule should have been max +/- 1 to hit or wound excluding modifiers from terrain and movement. You're in cover so I can ignore the penalty to fire on the move with a heavy weapon is just dumb.
I said the rerolls were a problem from the word "go" (form every angle - not JUST the "power angle" ) and they got even worse when 2.0 came out. Now you add in everything ON TOP of the rerolls, and you go from a book with 1 or 2 (there was another build at one point early on but I can't recall it 
