Switch Theme:

Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)!  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




 Daedalus81 wrote:
 catbarf wrote:

Granularity of the dice has absolutely nothing to do with a mechanic clunkily making a tank more vulnerable to immensely damaging weapons than squishy infantrymen.

For the stratagem as a whole, there are lots of ways to model increased durability within a D6 system without Transhuman-style rules. Eg you could write it as giving them +1T and thus make them more resilient to small arms without affecting how they stand up to anti-Titan weapons.

For the core game mechanics, a '4x S = auto wound' mechanic wouldn't be unreasonable either. There's no meaningful difference in how dead a Catachan hit by a Volcano Cannon is versus a Catachan hit by a Volcano cannon- and it'd at least be better verisimilitude than true grit and courage allowing a Cadian to take it on his grizzled chin.

At a very basic level, it's an annoyingly inconsistent way to boost Guardsman resilience that further feeds into wombo-combo design and adds more rules to keep track of, rather than working within the framework established by the core rules.


+1T is a nice thought, but it doesn't have anywhere near the same effect. Autowound would be ok, I guess? But it just seems kind of pointless to have just to assuage a minor inconsistency -- which I dare say would be considered bloat.



Its pure bloat this way too, but at least +1T is less stupid and less wildly inconsistent with the setting.
The window for the best solution has passed: don't do it at all.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Daedalus81 wrote:
+1T is a nice thought, but it doesn't have anywhere near the same effect. Autowound would be ok, I guess? But it just seems kind of pointless to have just to assuage a minor inconsistency -- which I dare say would be considered bloat.


I would argue that a mechanic which serves solely to make infantry more resilient to S6+, meaning generally anti-light-armor weapons, is rather pointless and bloaty to begin with. It's the bonus to armor saves that's far more impactful.

But taking a step back, what's the problem that this is solving? If there's a general issue with Guard durability, allowing a single unit within a specific subfaction to be more durable is the wrong way to fix it. It's not like Cadians are specially known for deflecting autocannon shells with their biceps and thus need this to properly represent their fluff.

   
Made in us
Long-Range Black Templar Land Speeder Pilot






 CEO Kasen wrote:
All they can do is shuffle numbers... or add more bloat and hope everyone comes out balanced with equal amounts of mechanical lard.

Late to the party but I have to say this is my favorite bit of imagery in the thread.

Disappointed to hear we're getting more stratagem combos to make things more durable. Equally disappointed that we're playing a killy / durable arms race since the only solution is to tack on more layers of rules. I've been enjoying the games of 9th this year, but that's because I've always enjoyed take and hold objectives. I'd enjoy the game a whole lot more without so many bandaids.
   
Made in us
Hacking Interventor





 The Red Hobbit wrote:
 CEO Kasen wrote:
All they can do is shuffle numbers... or add more bloat and hope everyone comes out balanced with equal amounts of mechanical lard.

Late to the party but I have to say this is my favorite bit of imagery in the thread.


Thanks! Always do love it when those get appreciated.

"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"

-Tex Talks Battletech on GW 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




This particular complaint is that infantry can't be buffed otherwise this massive gun doesn't make sense. How exactly are you allowing any such buffs without changing the dice or creating some byzantine rules exceptions?


Mortal wounds were fine. Should have been something like triple your toughness is a mortal wound rather than a regular wound. So a Guardsmen being wounded by a lascannon just turns them into a pink mist. A space marine getting hit by an S12 weapon turns them into pink mist. Could work all the way up to T6.

Which would make super heavy weapons actually feel devastating.
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





Jarms48 wrote:
This particular complaint is that infantry can't be buffed otherwise this massive gun doesn't make sense. How exactly are you allowing any such buffs without changing the dice or creating some byzantine rules exceptions?


Mortal wounds were fine. Should have been something like triple your toughness is a mortal wound rather than a regular wound. So a Guardsmen being wounded by a lascannon just turns them into a pink mist. A space marine getting hit by an S12 weapon turns them into pink mist. Could work all the way up to T6.

Which would make super heavy weapons actually feel devastating.


If we had USRs back we could call it something like Instant Death.


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Daedalus81 wrote:

+1T is a nice thought, but it doesn't have anywhere near the same effect.


Well...yes. That's the entire complaint. The effect is too strong and leads to incongruity like the volcano cannon scenario.

One of GW's problems seems to be they try to reuse certain rules concepts rather than come up with something more appropriate. So the "wound rolls of X always fail" is fine for SM (up to a point) but when thoughtlessly expanded to other factions gets weird really fast. They also tend to write rules that flat-out break the basic rules rather than working within them. so instead of changing stats they do things like this.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

epronovost wrote:

Except it would be both a bit strange (why would a cannon struggle to hit infantry or a grenade launcher or a lascannon, a precise beam of light, than a rifle) and also it would leave the problem of weapons clearly designed for twin tasks like plasma guns, autocannons, battle cannon, etc. usually, anti-tank weapons have a low shot count and are thus not ideal for targeting infantry due to the point system. That's a "fix" with its own set of issue that would create its own legitimate gripe. It's a solution that to me makes sense for some weapons like missile launchers or grenade launcher (shooting krak projectiles) or maybe some heavy tank guns like the previously mentioned Volcano Cannon.


Well, having played around with crew served stuff and AT gear it is hard enough to hit vehicles, try hitting an infantryman with a javelin. Though ironically that is changing. While you are still unlikely to hit an infantryman with a tank round (hence the constant development of alternative projectiles to target stuff like crew served weapons that can hurt them), stuff like hellfires that can deal with certain tonnages of vehicles are now used as very expensive ways of hitting individuals.

Still the idea of my melta taking time to focus and being better to hit a hit tank than a crouching, scampering gretchin is fine to me. It would be a trait added to statlines - ie a missile launcher would be
When attacking with this weapon, choose one of the profiles below.
Frag missile 48" Heavy D6 4 0 1 Blast
Krak missile 48" Heavy 1 8 -2 D6 AntiTank (-1 to hit INFANTRY)

Doing things like that makes it easier to do other changes to the game like upping the damage of AT weapons and upping the wounds of vehicles to deal with the issues around that.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 Sim-Life wrote:
Jarms48 wrote:
This particular complaint is that infantry can't be buffed otherwise this massive gun doesn't make sense. How exactly are you allowing any such buffs without changing the dice or creating some byzantine rules exceptions?


Mortal wounds were fine. Should have been something like triple your toughness is a mortal wound rather than a regular wound. So a Guardsmen being wounded by a lascannon just turns them into a pink mist. A space marine getting hit by an S12 weapon turns them into pink mist. Could work all the way up to T6.

Which would make super heavy weapons actually feel devastating.


If we had USRs back we could call it something like Instant Death.


It doesn’t need to be instant death. Just make those wounds that are triple strength become mortals.
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

No need to. Wounds that are triple strenght typically come from shots with high AP and high D.

They already provide "instant death" to the target.

Consider S9 vs T3 or S12 vs T4. No target would survive a hit that also wounds. Unless invulns, which is the point of having an invulnerable save and used to work against shots that could give instand death even in the past.


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




That’s simply incorrect, with the abundance of transhuman, invul saves, save modifiers, etc.

Something like a Quake Cannon or Volcano Cannon should devastate any unit of Primaris. Except it doesn’t, cause they’ll either pop transhuman or save it on their invul. Even say a Volcano Cannon shooting a unit of Bullgryn, the amount of stacking save modifiers they can receive means they can still save on 4+ armour against AP-5.
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

The flesh is weak… maybe a USR representing the effect of armor crunching energy on living things could solve such problems. To my mind, power armor doesn’t completely stop arms from blowing off given violent enough concussive force, and it cannot be as tough as a tank hull in the face of high energy weapons. The maggot on the inside is turned to gravy, either way…

   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




Slipspace wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

+1T is a nice thought, but it doesn't have anywhere near the same effect.


Well...yes. That's the entire complaint. The effect is too strong and leads to incongruity like the volcano cannon scenario.

One of GW's problems seems to be they try to reuse certain rules concepts rather than come up with something more appropriate. So the "wound rolls of X always fail" is fine for SM (up to a point) but when thoughtlessly expanded to other factions gets weird really fast.


Truthfully, transhuman isn't really fine. The version that other factions got (weapons below S8 still fail to wound on a 1-3 [or 1-2]) is actually fine. It gives a benefit but acknowledges there are limits (and that limit is functionally dedicated AT weapons).

This one wouldn't get nearly as much talk time if it was a general guard strat and it was limited to S5 or below.


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Voss wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

+1T is a nice thought, but it doesn't have anywhere near the same effect.


Well...yes. That's the entire complaint. The effect is too strong and leads to incongruity like the volcano cannon scenario.

One of GW's problems seems to be they try to reuse certain rules concepts rather than come up with something more appropriate. So the "wound rolls of X always fail" is fine for SM (up to a point) but when thoughtlessly expanded to other factions gets weird really fast.


Truthfully, transhuman isn't really fine. The version that other factions got (weapons below S8 still fail to wound on a 1-3 [or 1-2]) is actually fine. It gives a benefit but acknowledges there are limits (and that limit is functionally dedicated AT weapons).

This one wouldn't get nearly as much talk time if it was a general guard strat and it was limited to S5 or below.



Ok, that's fair. Make it like Ramshackle, but for weapons under S7 ( S5 would be pretty useless, I think ). It does make the rule a little harder to remember over ones that get used more frequently ( e.g. Ramshackle ).

   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




I dunno. I wouldn't want to try telling Trajann he can't kill that Rhino with JUST his miseracordia. S5 weapons should still be powerful.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: