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.

That's makes some sense. I always wonder why people use abbreviations in forums - as if there wasn't the space to write actual words. Ah well.

Anyhow, I think it is desirable that weapons using single attack dice can kill multiple wound creatures so that multiple wound creatures play the same game a vehicles and single wound creatures. Currently in 40k weapons with 2+ attacks have significant advantages over single attack weapons because of the knock-on effects of rolling several dice. Increasing the number of possible hits also increases the likelihood of causing at least one wound, giving some weapons with lower strength but more attacks more flexibility than weapons with higher strength but fewer attacks, because they can be effectively used against lower toughness and more numerous targets as well as higher toughness and less numerous targets, instead of just lower toughness and more numerous targets to complement the higher strength weapons with fewer attacks that only work efficiently against targets with a higher toughness but lower numbers. Being useful against a wider selection of targets promotes 'no-brainer' weapons, so that some like the Plasma Gun are taken regardless of their cost and risk because the flexibility is so valuable, and more valuable than taking two specialized weapons (because only one option is available, etc).

One Hit KO, yes. I use abbreviations to save time, presumably the same reason you opt not to proofread your posts.

I am not sure that your response answers my question. How does your version of ID change any of the stuff you just mentioned? Lascannons will still only be good against tough but less numerous targets, and plasma guns will still be good against both kinds of targets. How would your suggestion shake up the game other than making high S single-shot weapons better at what they already do?

Proof-read my own work? I don't proof-read my own work because I'm the last person that'll spot any mistakes in that work, not because it takes time.

My response answers your question, but I'll see if I can re-word it. My two possible replacements for Instant Death change the game by making Instant Death universal, and not limited to vehicles, and model with T5-. In particular my second proposal makes Lascannons far better against tough but less numerous targets than a flexible weapon like Plasma Guns can be - the jack of all trades is a master of none. My suggestion would shake up the game by putting Monstrous Creatures on the same playing field as Walker Vehicles, giving high strength weapons a proportionately better armour defeating power than lower strength weapons with equivalent AP, and give lower strength weapons a better outside chance of wounding.

OK, heres the thing. I would personaly prefer yakface's rule over yours beacause your rule tryes to replace a ID,rule that almost always wins the game and/or blows away most of the opponents force. now, on the other hand, not only do you have an opposite set of fingers and a thumb, but yakface's rule is alot simpler and is overall a better rule, because it does not replace ID.

your supposed "simpler rule" sucks royally.

Oh, well then, in the face of such eloquent and well-reasoned criticism how could I not be convinced?

Look, mate, just take what's been dished out! you cant handle defeat so you winge about it! Oh, and by the way, dont even try to use big words to cover up sarcasm, it doesnt work.

I think Choppa Boy said what we all tried to say earlier, but you didn't seem to get. We simply prefer the idea Yakface offered. Other reasons aside, it is simply more 'attractive' to the people who have posted. Did anyone seem to like your idea better?

StoneFoxx

Oh, I understand that people prefer Yakface's idea. That's been rather clear. Wehrkind seems to be okay with it. I'm just curious about what motivates people's preferences, precisely. All Choppa_Boy managed to do is be rude (though rather amusingly, so I won't hold breaking forum rules against him).

So far objections seem to be predicated on misunderstandings of my proposals and their complexity. So far I think only tegeus-Cromis has offered substantive criticism about the extra rolling that both of my proposals can require, and the extra decision the second proposal entails. I'd point out that the extra rolls are only allowed on previous rolls to wound of 6, so the actual amount of time is actually about equal to rolling a D3 for wounds whenever any unsaved attack whose strength is equal to or greater than the model's toughness rolls a 6 to wound.

The extra work is negligible, and my proposals offers a much greater range of effects.

I'm going to have to go with Yakface's aswell. It is simpler. the D3 can be achieved on a normal D6 aswell, so its not as complicated as you made out earlier. But the current one is even simpler (that or i'm just heaps used to it).

My two possible replacements for Instant Death change the game by making Instant Death universal, and not limited to vehicles, and model with T5-.

I guess I just don't think it's very important to do so, especially since the odds of it actually happening are not high.

In particular my second proposal makes Lascannons far better against tough but less numerous targets than a flexible weapon like Plasma Guns can be - the jack of all trades is a master of none.

So like I said, you'd be making lascannon-type weapons better at what they are already good at. Given that people already spam as many lascannons as they feasibly can, is this really needed?

tegeus-Cromis: So why don't you think it's important? Important for what?

But you raise a good point about people taking Lascannons in preference to all other options. Of my two proposals I don't think the first one discourages people from taking Lascannons, but I do think it encourages people to take high strength weapon that don't match the Lascannon's AP. Autocannons, for example, become more useful against Monstrous Creatures and that fits with the Autocannon's description in Codex: Chaos Marines at least

The second proposal likewise does not discourage people from taking Lascannons, but it does encourage people to use them for what they're good for rather than as an all-purpose weapon because it improves all weapons, and not simply high-strength weapons. Like the first proposal it improves weapons like the Autocannon by allowing them to leverage their high Strength against lower Strength weapons with more attacks and equal AP. It does, however, discourage abusive abundance of weapons like Lascannons because the capacity for extra wounds is balanced by the increased capacity for zero wounds.

By such a proposal, I imagine that a player will not wish to waste high strength weapons (and the points spent on them) on killing lower toughness models when they are more reliably killed by lower strength weapons with more attacks. I suggest the second proposal promotes a preference for a diversity of weapons to handle a diversity of targets efficiently.

So why don't you think it's important? Important for what?

By "important", I basically just mean "desirable (to me)." It is a matter of indifference to me whether or not you "mak[e] Instant Death universal, and not limited to vehicles, and model with T5-." I do not think it will really improve the game.

Of my two proposals I don't think the first one discourages people from taking Lascannons, but I do think it encourages people to take high strength weapon that don't match the Lascannon's AP. Autocannons, for example, become more useful against Monstrous Creatures and that fits with the Autocannon's description in Codex: Chaos Marines at least

But unless I'm misreading you, lascannons will still be better, because you still have to get past their save.

Even if it did improve autocannons and similar weapons, I don't think this would have much of an effect on the game: these weapons are already desirable as a cost-efficient anti-skimmer measure.

The second proposal likewise does not discourage people from taking Lascannons, but it does encourage people to use them for what they're good for rather than as an all-purpose weapon because it improves all weapons, and not simply high-strength weapons.

Who uses lascannons as all-purpose weapons? People use them to kill vehicles, MCs and, failing that, TEqs/MEqs. I don't see your proposal changing that.

Like the first proposal it improves weapons like the Autocannon by allowing them to leverage their high Strength against lower Strength weapons with more attacks and equal AP.

So you're buffing autocannons and nerfing heavy bolters relative to other heavies. Given that autocannons are already competitive and HBs are neglected, how would this be a good thing?

It does, however, discourage abusive abundance of weapons like Lascannons because the capacity for extra wounds is balanced by the increased capacity for zero wounds.

How does this apply to lascannons any more than autocannons?

By such a proposal, I imagine that a player will not wish to waste high strength weapons (and the points spent on them) on killing lower toughness models when they are more reliably killed by lower strength weapons with more attacks. I suggest the second proposal promotes a preference for a diversity of weapons to handle a diversity of targets efficiently.

I don't see how any of your proposed rules would help as far as these issues are concerned. It is not as if you are actually making lascannons any worse at killing Marines, or HBs any better at killing Guardsmen. The current ideal weapon/ideal target categories will remain entirely untouched.