Switch Theme:

Which Would You Prefer: 10th ed Reset, or More of the Same?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Which would you prefer?
10th is more of the same
10th is a larger reset
No opinion - want to see results

View results
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
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
I'd argue that the Missile Launcher could be useful especially in the 3-7 era because it's got the blast option (that used a real blast!), and the Heavy couldn't fire at a different target than the squad.
Frags? In what world did 3rd/4th/5th Guard need Frags? And wasting lasguns? Firing Lasguns was a waste of time. I spend most of my games never using my Lasguns. Guardsmen were ablative wounds for the Special/Heavy. Their weapons weren't ornamental like Officer weapons, but they certainly shouldn't be used if things were going well.
The question isn't whether or not you should have been taking MLs or not in your meta, or firing your Lasguns, either. The question is whether or not there is some situations in which the ML is the right choice. In a meta that's heavy with swarms of light troops, the Frags can get more hits. If the opponent is bunching up in cover where the Blast hits more models and they're going to get a cover save anyways (making the AP of the HB useless), Frags can have an advantage. They also have more range, and occasionally 36" doesn't cut it and 48" will.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
But if your Infantry are on "kill-gaunts-duty", the frag has a place...
Heavy Bolters were cheaper and better at it. Frag Missiles needed mass to work, it's why 4 Grenade Launchers was almost passable, and why 4 Missile Launchers was the de factor default for most Devastator squads at the time.
HBs might have been cheaper and often better at killing infantry, but HBs lack the option to go AT like the Missile Launcher.

Not sure what "4 Missile Launchers was the de factor default for most Devastator squads at the time" means then. . . are you saying that MLs are good?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
... and you still have a serviceable AT option.
The point is it was a compromise - it was kinda ok at two things rather than being good at one thing. You had 6 turns to make your mark, meaning you would fail 3 of those turns, and weapons that were jack of all trades didn't really belong. You needed things that worked when they hit, or were consistent. Missile Launchers were neither of those things.
I'll never agree with that premise. Switching roles via ammunition can be a valuable tool to have in the toolbox. Frags may not have been as good at killing light infantry as HBs, but they're certainly better at it than Lascannons. Kraks may not be as good as Lascannons for AT, but they're certainly better than HBs. Every time you optimize your choice you lose the ability to do the opposite role, and MLs are specifically balanced so that you always have something reasonable, even if not the best.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
For a time in 3rd I used more Flamers than the norm because I fought a lot of Orks, Guard, Nids and Dark Eldar, for example. The weapon met the opponents I was encountering. It was more optimal for me than the typical Las/Plas of the time.
I used a lot of flamers as well. 4 of them. In 2 Command Squads. With Drop Troops. Eliminated far more than they were ever worth.
Right, well . . . "You were totally wrong to choose flamers. Everybody knows that Plasma is/was the optimal choice. Flamers have no role in 40K and the only reason you think that they do is because you're a filthy casual." right?

Here's a thought exercise. Say you have 8 Infantry Squads. You can give them HBs, Lascannons, or Missile Launchers. If you arms 4 with HBs (because they're specialized anti-infantry) and 4 Lascannons (specialized anti-tank), and you have one turn to inflict damage on a single target that presents itself (because sometimes you have to kill a specific unit in an emergency). Like, are there targets where 8 Krak missiles will outperform 4 Las and 4 HBs? Are there targets where 8 Frags will outperform 4 Las and 4 HB? Seems like there would be.

Edit: Some math (ignoring to-hit roll since it's doesn't change the comparative outcomes)
4 HBs and 4 Las against Gaunt blobs: (4x3x.666x.83)+(4x.83)=9.95
8 Frag Missiles against Gaunt blobs: (8x6x.666x.666)=21.2

4 HBs and 4 Las against a Dreadnought (AoC+-1Damage): (4x3x.333x.333)+(4x.666x.666x2.5)=5.7
8 Krak Missiles against a Dreadnought (AoC+-1Damage): (8x.666x.5x2.5)=6.66

^see that's kind of interesting.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/11/26 17:51:27


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




EDIT: You're not doing blast template so never mind LOL

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/26 19:40:01


 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Dudeface wrote:
Spoiler:
Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Maybe, but you don't know how the rest of the army is outfitted and what roles they're expected to play.


There is nothing about the rest of the army that can make ACs viable.

A pts change will do it. A bolter being better than a lasgun is okay if the pts reflect it.


That's not the point. The claim was that ACs could be a viable choice (ignoring fluff or aesthetic factors) right now in Blindmage's existing army. You could fix the problem by changing point costs but right now they both have the same cost and hypothetical re-balancing of legends rules that do not get updates has nothing to do with the post you quoted.


Autocannons are better vs t6 and the same vs t7, not saying it justifies their existence but if you play into a lot of t6 monsters/transports then autocannons are better (working on bs4+).

T5 hits, wound roll, converted
Hb 1.5 x 0.5 = 0.75
Ac 1 x 0.67 = 0.67

T6
1.5 x 0.33 = 0.5
1 x 0.67 = 0.67

T7
1.5 x 0.33 = 0.5
1 x 0.5 = 0.5

Good job showing just how bad the current wounding table is. Now, let's see what happens if we revert to the old wounding table.

For those who are only familiar with 8th/9th edition, this changes the breakpoints for wounding on 2s/6s, so that instead of needing to "double out" Strength/Toughness to reach those points, you instead need to be +/- 2 or more. For example, a S3 weapon hitting a T5 target would need 6s to wound (instead of the current 5s), while a S7 weapon hitting the same T5 target would need 2s to wound (instead of the current 3s). Now, let's see how this changes the balance of heavy bolters and autocannons (working with BS4+, same as above):

T5 hits, wound roll, converted
Hb 1.5 x 0.5 = 0.75
Ac 1 x 0.83 = 0.83

T6 Same as current wounding table

T7
Hb 1.5 x 0.16 = 0.250
Ac 1 x 0.5 = 0.5

And for further comparison

T4
Hb 1.5 x 0.66 = 1
Ac 1 x .83 = 0.83

T3
Hb 1.5 x 0.83 = 1.245
Ac 1 x 0.83 = 0.83

So, with the old wounding table, heavy bolters are superior at dealing with light/medium infantry, while autocannons are superior at dealing with heavy infantry/light armour, which is exactly how they're supposed to work in lore, as shown by vict0988 on the previous page.

The current wounding table is garbage, and is a major contributor to the loss of clearly defined roles for many weapons. It needs to go.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Gadzilla666 wrote:

The current wounding table is garbage, and is a major contributor to the loss of clearly defined roles for many weapons. It needs to go.

Very much so, yes.

Here's a fun observation. FRAG Missiles are actually BETTER against Dreadnoughts than Heavy Bolters. T7 means they have the same to-wound (5+), AoC means the HBs AP is ignored, and Duty Eternal means the HB only does one wound.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




So the newest "version" of HBs was clearly a calculated choice to upgun the existing model in order to more easily deal with multi-wound infantry (Primaris). Now that everyone and their dog has two wounds, it's something of a banality. If you dropped it back to H3 S5 AP1 D1, it would even out the silly cast of characters that is the Space Marine Armory.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Insectum7 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

The current wounding table is garbage, and is a major contributor to the loss of clearly defined roles for many weapons. It needs to go.

Very much so, yes.

Here's a fun observation. FRAG Missiles are actually BETTER against Dreadnoughts than Heavy Bolters. T7 means they have the same to-wound (5+), AoC means the HBs AP is ignored, and Duty Eternal means the HB only does one wound.

The latter two are fixes that shouldn't have happened by competent rules writers though
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






^Agree. The weird, discordant math is a result of weird, discordant rules.

If they'd just gone with the old to-wound chart, knocked off an AP point off everything (rather than AoC), and dumped the -1 to Damage, the game would probably be in a better place.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/11/27 00:52:15


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in ca
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin





Stasis

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

Plus, like I said, R&H aren't even a real army. They're a legends-only pseudo-army with few units, no updates since early 9th, and no stratagems/WLTs/etc to keep up with real armies. By even putting a R&H army on the table at all you're conceding that you aren't interested in list optimization. Which is absolutely fine! Not all games need to be competitive matches where you try to win in the list building phase. But taking sub-optimal units and armies for lore or aesthetic reasons isn't relevant to the rule issues we're talking about.


I enjoy the simplicity of the army, the lore and aesthetic are why I love the faction.

The army is perfectly legal and has rules. You have no cause to rip it down. It's not my fault they Legended it.

213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL
(she/her) 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Insectum7 wrote:
(AoC+-1Damage)
Yeah and right from the start of this I've been talking about the 3rd-7th era, so...

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
(AoC+-1Damage)
Yeah and right from the start of this I've been talking about the 3rd-7th era, so...
So was I, but I'm just also looking at the current interactions too.

The theory remains the same though, through those editions too. The math gets weirder though, because of the old AP system creating breakpoints, and how do you calculate blasts?

Although the dreadnought example is really easy, since Heavy Bolters can't even hurt a Dreadnoughts front armor. Are 8 Missile Launchers better than 4 Lascannons? That's an easy 'yes'.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/11/27 01:10:37


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Insectum7 wrote:
^Agree. The weird, discordant math is a result of weird, discordant rules.

If they'd just gone with the old to-wound chart, knocked off an AP point off everything (rather than AoC), and dumped the -1 to Damage, the game would probably be in a better place.

I don't think -1D for a defense is a bad rule EVERYWHERE. Like, for Helbrutes, it's a neat rule, and I'd like to have seen it applied to Daemon Engines overall. However, it was stuck on EVERY Dread and Dread equivalent. That's a no-no.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Insectum7 wrote:^Agree. The weird, discordant math is a result of weird, discordant rules.

If they'd just gone with the old to-wound chart, knocked off an AP point off everything (rather than AoC), and dumped the -1 to Damage, the game would probably be in a better place.

Right. They should have fixed what was causing the problems, instead of leaving it there, and just throwing more rules at it. Don't even get me started on the whole invulnerable saves, weapons that ignore those invulnerable saves, and "super" invulnerable saves that can't be ignored mess.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
(AoC+-1Damage)
Yeah and right from the start of this I've been talking about the 3rd-7th era, so...

Heh. You're not the only one.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






^I mean, the whole of the post in response to HBMC I was also talking 3-7. I just brought the last bit into the current edition to broaden the excercise, because not all of the conversation was limited to 3-7. Again, the principles remain the same. You can split your weapons into specialties, and that's what most people do. But sometimes it's advantageous to get rid of a single target more immediately, and being able to put more weapons on it even if individually less effective than specialists, can be a decent choice.




And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

Sadly neither the HB nor AC has ever really matched those descriptions play-wise.
   
Made in us
Water-Caste Negotiator




 Blndmage wrote:
I enjoy the simplicity of the army, the lore and aesthetic are why I love the faction.

The army is perfectly legal and has rules. You have no cause to rip it down. It's not my fault they Legended it.


Sure. It's legal. And I'm sure you have great fluff and amazingly painted models for it. But it's still a bottom-tier army from GW's dumping ground for stuff they don't want to support anymore, and once you get into deliberately taking bad options you're no longer dealing with the game design issues this conversation is about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Now, let's see what happens if we revert to the old wounding table.


Yep. We definitely need the old table back to have any hope of properly differentiating the various weapons, even if it means doing some major re-balancing to work with it. And TBH MEQs need to go back to having a single wound so we can scale back a bunch of the stat inflation.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/27 05:36:18


 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^Agree. The weird, discordant math is a result of weird, discordant rules.

If they'd just gone with the old to-wound chart, knocked off an AP point off everything (rather than AoC), and dumped the -1 to Damage, the game would probably be in a better place.

I don't think -1D for a defense is a bad rule EVERYWHERE. Like, for Helbrutes, it's a neat rule, and I'd like to have seen it applied to Daemon Engines overall. However, it was stuck on EVERY Dread and Dread equivalent. That's a no-no.


Without it dreadnoughts would not be played. the -1D and stuff like the primaris dread was one of the few things keeping marines afloat for some time. And custodes entire army is based around the fact that they spam the living hell out of dreadnoughts with -1D. Without it and damage efficiency other armies have right now, playing the army right now would make no sense. And it is not like it makes the elite armies the best thing in the world. GK NDK were again an example where without the -1D and/or inv the unit loses a ton of its efficiency, can't be replaced by anything and the army drops in efficiency a lot.

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. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Its the usual problem that GW can't be consistent - and just doesn't design rules in a holistic way.

So for example, while its arguably not the most eloquent design, -1 damage on Dreads (and potentially other things) could be entirely reasonable because it stops 2 damage being the auto-take into everything which was the accusation of 8th edition. Giving some variety of defensive stats is a good idea.

But since GW don't think on that basis, they just chucked it out as a buff to dreads who need it because dreads seemed to be collectively viewed as bad. As they would then go on to chuck buffs on about half the units in the game.

I feel the most bizarre example of this is Ork vehicles (sorry Orks) and Ramshackle. Especially with the new Buggies, koptas etc Orks have the potential to bring a significant number of light vehicles. I.E. exactly the sort of thing you should be pointing autocannons at. But the Ramshackle rule (-1 damage if below S8) makes them the worst thing to use. (You could even double down further with Snakebites...)

From a sensible gameplay design view point - it should be precisely the opposite - where they get a defensive buff versus big S8+ weapons. This means you are motivated to bring some Autocannons (or whatever your faction equivalent is) for a more TAC style list. Rather than "yes, the same weapons that will work into a T9 super-heavy are also the optimal weapons for blowing up trukks."

I'm sure someone would come in going "but but but the fluff, a melta gun should do more damage than an autocannon to any vehicle" - but I'm not sure that holds up, given the fluff has been - and will continue to be - cut and changed as needs require. I.E. "Ork vehicles are ramshackle affairs, with a great many parts that don't actually serve any useful purpose. As a result the single-target shots of Lascannons and Melta guns that punch straight through these elements are often less effective than a hail of shells from an autocannon that should find a critical component". Done.

I can't really get overly excited about the old to wound table - because much like the old AP system, I feel it had been solved, and people leaned on GW to include "solutions" in their codexes. The good factions (Eldar, Tau, Marines etc) got them. The suck factions mostly did not. I realise this always prompts a response of "3rd to 7th evolution didn't have to lead us to 7th" - but it did. It may have been a bit better really early on (i.e. 3rd) - but given I was about 12-18~ for that edition my play experience was probably less optimised than would be the case today. Everyone playing White Dwarf-esque soft-Highlander armies has always produced more balanced games than "here is my starcannon spam, enjoy."
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Or maybe they're the right options for the army context in which they're deployed, because other people might make different composition decisions and play in different local metas?


I doubt it, given that R&H are a bottom-tier "army", autocannons are equal or worse than heavy bolters against virtually ever target type now that they're both D2, and frag missiles are horribly ineffective even against the things they're supposed to be good at killing. Those choices may be 100% appropriate based on lore or having models that look cool but there's no competitive argument for them regardless of meta.



oh boi. AC and ML were top choices in the past for R&H, for a multitude of reasons for Infantry support squads in small armies.

For one unlike guard squads R&H squads had worse BS and more members for cheaper, making the Krak actually a nice option.

For two, same with AC.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Karol wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^Agree. The weird, discordant math is a result of weird, discordant rules.

If they'd just gone with the old to-wound chart, knocked off an AP point off everything (rather than AoC), and dumped the -1 to Damage, the game would probably be in a better place.

I don't think -1D for a defense is a bad rule EVERYWHERE. Like, for Helbrutes, it's a neat rule, and I'd like to have seen it applied to Daemon Engines overall. However, it was stuck on EVERY Dread and Dread equivalent. That's a no-no.


Without it dreadnoughts would not be played. the -1D and stuff like the primaris dread was one of the few things keeping marines afloat for some time. And custodes entire army is based around the fact that they spam the living hell out of dreadnoughts with -1D. Without it and damage efficiency other armies have right now, playing the army right now would make no sense. And it is not like it makes the elite armies the best thing in the world. GK NDK were again an example where without the -1D and/or inv the unit loses a ton of its efficiency, can't be replaced by anything and the army drops in efficiency a lot.

That is untrue, if the pts were low enough they would be played. SM vehicles other than Dreadnoughts do see occasional play and they don't have -1D, that's the proof that you are wrong. There are teeny-tiny things that are viable in 40k and huge giant things that are viable, there are tiny things that are awful and huge things that are awful, it just comes down to points. Not whether a unit has X or Y super powerful ability or whether it's a horde unit that can capture objectives and deny board control which is super important in 9th, those are rationalisations made after it is discovered that a unit is pts-efficient enough to be viable. Brimstone Horrors aren't going to be killing much of anything, so obviously if they're viable it's because they're doing something else pts-efficiently. If multi melta Attack Bikes are viable then it's going to look like it's because they are mobile and deal lots of damage. If Brimstones are bad then you can point out how they don't do any damage and if Attack Bikes are bad then you can point how how they'll die to a single dark lance shot. It's like astrology calendars.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

 vict0988 wrote:
Karol wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^Agree. The weird, discordant math is a result of weird, discordant rules.

If they'd just gone with the old to-wound chart, knocked off an AP point off everything (rather than AoC), and dumped the -1 to Damage, the game would probably be in a better place.

I don't think -1D for a defense is a bad rule EVERYWHERE. Like, for Helbrutes, it's a neat rule, and I'd like to have seen it applied to Daemon Engines overall. However, it was stuck on EVERY Dread and Dread equivalent. That's a no-no.


Without it dreadnoughts would not be played. the -1D and stuff like the primaris dread was one of the few things keeping marines afloat for some time. And custodes entire army is based around the fact that they spam the living hell out of dreadnoughts with -1D. Without it and damage efficiency other armies have right now, playing the army right now would make no sense. And it is not like it makes the elite armies the best thing in the world. GK NDK were again an example where without the -1D and/or inv the unit loses a ton of its efficiency, can't be replaced by anything and the army drops in efficiency a lot.

That is untrue, if the pts were low enough they would be played. SM vehicles other than Dreadnoughts do see occasional play and they don't have -1D, that's the proof that you are wrong. There are teeny-tiny things that are viable in 40k and huge giant things that are viable, there are tiny things that are awful and huge things that are awful, it just comes down to points. Not whether a unit has X or Y super powerful ability or whether it's a horde unit that can capture objectives and deny board control which is super important in 9th, those are rationalisations made after it is discovered that a unit is pts-efficient enough to be viable. Brimstone Horrors aren't going to be killing much of anything, so obviously if they're viable it's because they're doing something else pts-efficiently. If multi melta Attack Bikes are viable then it's going to look like it's because they are mobile and deal lots of damage. If Brimstones are bad then you can point out how they don't do any damage and if Attack Bikes are bad then you can point how how they'll die to a single dark lance shot. It's like astrology calendars.


Sometimes pts/efficiency aren't even a consideration. For ex; I know multiple Ork players that'll happily use Morkanaughts/Gorkanaughts/stompas - simply because they like the idea of these things/like the models. People can do all the math they like "proving" how bad these things are play-wise & it won't deter these players.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Now, let's see what happens if we revert to the old wounding table.


Yep. We definitely need the old table back to have any hope of properly differentiating the various weapons, even if it means doing some major re-balancing to work with it. And TBH MEQs need to go back to having a single wound so we can scale back a bunch of the stat inflation.

I don't disagree with your latter point. But that really would require a "full reset", as there has been a lot of stat inflation to get everyone else caught up with Marines. Definitely not opposed to the idea though.

Tyel wrote:Its the usual problem that GW can't be consistent - and just doesn't design rules in a holistic way.

So for example, while its arguably not the most eloquent design, -1 damage on Dreads (and potentially other things) could be entirely reasonable because it stops 2 damage being the auto-take into everything which was the accusation of 8th edition. Giving some variety of defensive stats is a good idea.

But since GW don't think on that basis, they just chucked it out as a buff to dreads who need it because dreads seemed to be collectively viewed as bad. As they would then go on to chuck buffs on about half the units in the game.

I feel the most bizarre example of this is Ork vehicles (sorry Orks) and Ramshackle. Especially with the new Buggies, koptas etc Orks have the potential to bring a significant number of light vehicles. I.E. exactly the sort of thing you should be pointing autocannons at. But the Ramshackle rule (-1 damage if below S8) makes them the worst thing to use. (You could even double down further with Snakebites...)

From a sensible gameplay design view point - it should be precisely the opposite - where they get a defensive buff versus big S8+ weapons. This means you are motivated to bring some Autocannons (or whatever your faction equivalent is) for a more TAC style list. Rather than "yes, the same weapons that will work into a T9 super-heavy are also the optimal weapons for blowing up trukks."

I'm sure someone would come in going "but but but the fluff, a melta gun should do more damage than an autocannon to any vehicle" - but I'm not sure that holds up, given the fluff has been - and will continue to be - cut and changed as needs require. I.E. "Ork vehicles are ramshackle affairs, with a great many parts that don't actually serve any useful purpose. As a result the single-target shots of Lascannons and Melta guns that punch straight through these elements are often less effective than a hail of shells from an autocannon that should find a critical component". Done.

I can't really get overly excited about the old to wound table - because much like the old AP system, I feel it had been solved, and people leaned on GW to include "solutions" in their codexes. The good factions (Eldar, Tau, Marines etc) got them. The suck factions mostly did not. I realise this always prompts a response of "3rd to 7th evolution didn't have to lead us to 7th" - but it did. It may have been a bit better really early on (i.e. 3rd) - but given I was about 12-18~ for that edition my play experience was probably less optimised than would be the case today. Everyone playing White Dwarf-esque soft-Highlander armies has always produced more balanced games than "here is my starcannon spam, enjoy."

What exactly are the "solutions" to the old to-wound chart that your referring to? And do you think that similar solutions haven't been implemented for the current one? Do you find the current to-wound chart superior, and if so, how? Because I can't think of any way that it isn't inferior.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Gadzilla666 wrote:
What exactly are the "solutions" to the old to-wound chart that your referring to? And do you think that similar solutions haven't been implemented for the current one? Do you find the current to-wound chart superior, and if so, how? Because I can't think of any way that it isn't inferior.


Well once you are S6 and up you are wounding T4 on 2s - which was a huge percentage of things in the game. You are also insta-deathing T3 characters - which is nice. This was part of the advantage of Scatbikes - whose S6 meant they could punch down Marines (sure no AP, but if they'd been AP4 it would have often been wasted), murder GEQ characters and also glance to death anything AV12 or lower. (So most things from some angle).

I don't know if the new system is superior exactly - I think GW broke it by offensive creep all through 2021 and has spent the last year trying to fix it with defensive creep. But I do think its theoretically a more balanced system, without all the tipping points of the old version.
   
Made in us
Water-Caste Negotiator




 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I don't disagree with your latter point. But that really would require a "full reset", as there has been a lot of stat inflation to get everyone else caught up with Marines. Definitely not opposed to the idea though.


Yeah, that's the premise of this thread: a full reset. The game desperately needs one, it's just a question of whether GW has the ability to do it or not. And based on their record of incompetence so far the answer is almost certainly "no".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:
oh boi. AC and ML were top choices in the past for R&H, for a multitude of reasons for Infantry support squads in small armies.

For one unlike guard squads R&H squads had worse BS and more members for cheaper, making the Krak actually a nice option.

For two, same with AC.


BS is irrelevant when comparing weapon options. If the AC is pointless at BS 2+ it's exactly equally bad at BS 6+. And ACs and HBs have the same cost for R&H.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/27 21:02:25


 
   
Made in gb
Banelord Titan Princeps of Khorne




Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I don't disagree with your latter point. But that really would require a "full reset", as there has been a lot of stat inflation to get everyone else caught up with Marines. Definitely not opposed to the idea though.


Yeah, that's the premise of this thread: a full reset. The game desperately needs one, it's just a question of whether GW has the ability to do it or not. And based on their record of incompetence so far the answer is almost certainly "no".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:
oh boi. AC and ML were top choices in the past for R&H, for a multitude of reasons for Infantry support squads in small armies.

For one unlike guard squads R&H squads had worse BS and more members for cheaper, making the Krak actually a nice option.

For two, same with AC.


BS is irrelevant when comparing weapon options. If the AC is pointless at BS 2+ it's exactly equally bad at BS 6+. And ACs and HBs have the same cost for R&H.


They mean you can have more of the R&H troops therefore more of the heavy weapon and yes the BS does factor in, a BS 2+ anti armour weapon is reliable on the hit rate for a 1 shot weapon, at BS 6+ having multiple opportunities increases odds of success, even if the total theoretical damage output is the same on paper.
   
Made in us
Water-Caste Negotiator




Dudeface wrote:
They mean you can have more of the R&H troops therefore more of the heavy weapon and yes the BS does factor in, a BS 2+ anti armour weapon is reliable on the hit rate for a 1 shot weapon, at BS 6+ having multiple opportunities increases odds of success, even if the total theoretical damage output is the same on paper.


Neither of these things matter.

AC and HB have the same cost, whether it's 6 HBs vs 6 ACs or 1 HB vs 1 AC or 10 HBs vs 10 ACs the relative value of HBs and ACs is exactly the same and HBs are the clear winner.

BS is only relevant if you don't understand statistics and/or value the good feelings of "accomplishing something" by hitting even if you fail to do any damage. Hitting is not the goal, dead models is, and the higher hit rate of ACs is more than offset by the lower wound rate, failed save rate, and inflicted damage.
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
They mean you can have more of the R&H troops therefore more of the heavy weapon and yes the BS does factor in, a BS 2+ anti armour weapon is reliable on the hit rate for a 1 shot weapon, at BS 6+ having multiple opportunities increases odds of success, even if the total theoretical damage output is the same on paper.


Neither of these things matter.

AC and HB have the same cost, whether it's 6 HBs vs 6 ACs or 1 HB vs 1 AC or 10 HBs vs 10 ACs the relative value of HBs and ACs is exactly the same and HBs are the clear winner.

BS is only relevant if you don't understand statistics and/or value the good feelings of "accomplishing something" by hitting even if you fail to do any damage. Hitting is not the goal, dead models is, and the higher hit rate of ACs is more than offset by the lower wound rate, failed save rate, and inflicted damage.


Bold statement chief, that i don't understand statistics whilest i clearly pointed to that being the case in the past and in the past the hb most definetly didn't cost the same as the ac and struggled severly due to AV and toughness working far better

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/27 22:05:20


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in mx
Huge Hierodule




Mexico

There is the issue that different rules interact with different BS differently.

Poor BS is more affected by modifiers and full re-rolls (re-rolls of 1 have the same effect regardless of BS). And in 3rd-7th blasts were less affected by BS than non-blast weapons.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Tyel wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
What exactly are the "solutions" to the old to-wound chart that your referring to? And do you think that similar solutions haven't been implemented for the current one? Do you find the current to-wound chart superior, and if so, how? Because I can't think of any way that it isn't inferior.


Well once you are S6 and up you are wounding T4 on 2s - which was a huge percentage of things in the game. You are also insta-deathing T3 characters - which is nice. This was part of the advantage of Scatbikes - whose S6 meant they could punch down Marines (sure no AP, but if they'd been AP4 it would have often been wasted), murder GEQ characters and also glance to death anything AV12 or lower. (So most things from some angle).

I don't know if the new system is superior exactly - I think GW broke it by offensive creep all through 2021 and has spent the last year trying to fix it with defensive creep. But I do think its theoretically a more balanced system, without all the tipping points of the old version.

The situation with Scatbikes that you're describing was exactly the same kind of "offensive creep" that you're referring to happening with the current system. I don't see how either wounding table avoids that if gw goes down that road, as they did in both 7th and now in 9th. In both cases it's a matter of gw lacking any discipline in the codex writing process.

And I don't understand how the current wounding table is more "balanced", as the way it flattens everything just leads to mid strength high RoF weapons with multi-damage being king, as they're "good enough" against most targets.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Yeah if you don't think that the potential or statistical average amount of hits you can get (ie. the Ballistic Skill) is important to working out the efficacy of weaponry, then really what are you trying to prove?

Yes, the idiotic 8th/9th To Wound chart skews things a bit, making weight of fire sometimes more important than relative strength/toughness values, but the amount of hits you get in the first place will always be important.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/11/27 22:59:16


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Water-Caste Negotiator




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah if you don't think that the potential or statistical average amount of hits you can get (ie. the Ballistic Skill) is important to working out the efficacy of weaponry, then really what are you trying to prove?


It isn't relevant at all, this is simple math. BS is multiplicative and multiplying two probabilities (AC and HB, for example) by the same number does not change their relative values. If a HB is 50% more effective than an AC against a given target at BS 2+ then it will be 50% more effective against that target at BS 6+. Obviously both weapons will be considerably less effective at the lower BS and the unit as a whole may be ineffective but the relative value of the two options remains constant.

[Yes, the idiotic 8th/9th To Wound chart skews things a bit, making weight of fire sometimes more important than relative strength/toughness values, but the amount of hits you get in the first place will always be important.


When comparing two weapons firing at the same BS the number of hits is determined by the number of shots fired, not by BS.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: