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.

6 being rend AND directed on the same roll I don't like at all. It should be 6s to hit is directed, 6s to wound is rending.
This would be no more complicated than Pathfinders 5/6s being AP1.

The issue is complexity. I agree the rend/directed may be a bit much, but lets look at the logistics:

IG Veteran Squad:
3 Snipers
1 Sarge
6 Lasguns

Shooting at a target 22" away. Rolls 9 dice.
You must roll 3 sniper dice and 6 lasgun dice.
Then you would have change the color of all the sniper dice that rolled 6's.
So now lets say rolled 2 6's.
Now you have 2 Sniper(directed) dice, 1 Sniper(non-directed) dice, and 6 Lasgun dice.
It seems clunky.

Statistically this way a BS4 sniper has a:
66% Hit
16.667% are Directed Hits
33% Wound
8.3% Chance of a Directed Wound
2.75% chance of a Rending Directed Wound

Lets look at the other way:
66% Hit
33% Wound
11% Change to Rend/Direct.

Is there a way to meet in the middle without over complicating the die roll process?

I would just roll the sniper dice first, then all the lasgun dice together.
As I said it's no more complex than the current Pathfinder system.

What if we remove the "Snipers get directed hits" altogether, and replace it with the Sniper rending wounds get a 4+ to be directed?

BS4 Snipers would be:
66% Hit
33% Wound
11% Rend
5.5% Rend and are Directed

It does add a roll, but I think it works cleaner with batch rolling.

Also, 5.5% to snipe someone sounds more worth the opportunity cost than 2.75% does, while remaining not overpowered.

So a squad of ten would have a 55% chance of sniping one person, 27.5% chance of sniping two, etc.
Yeah that works for me.

Ratlings competing with Stormtroopers is how it SHOULD be.

I can't understand this debate over snipers.I mean, if i recall correctly, all characters can do directed hits, and there are definietly more characters than snipers. You know, because there are maybe 4 races that can have snipers (IG, SM, Crons and Eldar).

True, but most characters cannot be fielded in squads of 10, nor do alot of them have 36" rending weapons =)

Tapeworm711 wrote:True, but most characters cannot be fielded in squads of 10, nor do alot of them have 36" rending weapons =)

This, I'm not scared of directed hits from storm bolters or bolt pistols.

Tapeworm711 wrote:True, but most characters cannot be fielded in squads of 10, nor do alot of them have 36" rending weapons =)

But there are plenty of characters in every army (except nidz, but GW hates nidz so it doesn't matter). And characters do directed hits in CC too. So your blob commissar is screwed either way.

AtoMaki wrote:

Tapeworm711 wrote:True, but most characters cannot be fielded in squads of 10, nor do alot of them have 36" rending weapons =)

But there are plenty of characters in every army (except nidz, but GW hates nidz so it doesn't matter). And characters do directed hits in CC too. So your blob commissar is screwed either way.

But in these rules, its only on to wounds of 6. So its balanced.

Tapeworm711 wrote:

AtoMaki wrote:

Tapeworm711 wrote:True, but most characters cannot be fielded in squads of 10, nor do alot of them have 36" rending weapons =)

But there are plenty of characters in every army (except nidz, but GW hates nidz so it doesn't matter). And characters do directed hits in CC too. So your blob commissar is screwed either way.

But in these rules, its only on to wounds of 6. So its balanced.

Even for characters? Because that doesn't make any sense.

I say directed hits are good as they are.

AtoMaki wrote:

Tapeworm711 wrote:

AtoMaki wrote:

Tapeworm711 wrote:True, but most characters cannot be fielded in squads of 10, nor do alot of them have 36" rending weapons =)

But there are plenty of characters in every army (except nidz, but GW hates nidz so it doesn't matter). And characters do directed hits in CC too. So your blob commissar is screwed either way.

But in these rules, its only on to wounds of 6. So its balanced.

Even for characters? Because that doesn't make any sense.

I say directed hits are good as they are.

This leads to an interesting argument.

If only IC's were characters, I might be inclined to agree with you. But as it stands now, any Sergeant/Squad Leader gets to do it too. Do we really need PF Sergeants picking exactly which models he squishes? Then you get into the scenario of Your character directing wounds as well.

It seems to boil down to Directed Hit Hammer. Squads will be taken as ablative wounds for the directed hit machines. It just needlessly escalates things.

Having something fun happen on a six is almost always fun and not too crazy OP (Tesla, Rend, ect)


Another proposition is to remove the idea of "Characters" altogether. Squad Leaders are just that, leaders of the squad for LOS purposes and a few other mechanics.

But Directed hits are reserved for IC's only. Then you could probably put them back to always happening on CC, and happen for point blank shooting attacks. (another option for snipers. Always directed if target is within 12")

Hrmmmmmm.

Tapeworm711 wrote:
If only IC's were characters, I might be inclined to agree with you. But as it stands now, any Sergeant/Squad Leader gets to do it too. Do we really need PF Sergeants picking exactly which models he squishes? Then you get into the scenario of Your character directing wounds as well.

It seems to boil down to Directed Hit Hammer. Squads will be taken as ablative wounds for the directed hit machines. It just needlessly escalates things.

Characters with power weapons can handle PF characters easily. Tactics and counter-tactics. If you take out directe hits or nerf them into a random and totally unpredictable thing, then you just remove a tactical asset that is mostly usuable by everyone. It's a bit like removing "pinning" (or its 6th ed reincarnation) only because squads could be pinned and how totally unfair is that.

I know removing the EV chart for a "To-Hit" modifier is much easier, what the EV does allow is for items that give bonuses to not provide any effect because of the ineffectiveness of a paticular model.

With EV, a BS1 model shooting at an EV4 target hits on 6+. With targetters, this makes the target EV3 (for being counted as not moving) but still hits on 6+. This shows that even with targetters, poor ballistic skill could not be over compensated for.

Without EV, just straight modifiers, a BS1 model shooting hits on 6+. With targetters, you now hit on 5+.

Now if this is part of the point of removing EV, to allow items to always be useful, that is another story. Just thought I would mention it.

Zyllos wrote:I know removing the EV chart for a "To-Hit" modifier is much easier, what the EV does allow is for items that give bonuses to not provide any effect because of the ineffectiveness of a paticular model.

With EV, a BS1 model shooting at an EV4 target hits on 6+. With targetters, this makes the target EV3 (for being counted as not moving) but still hits on 6+. This shows that even with targetters, poor ballistic skill could not be over compensated for.

Without EV, just straight modifiers, a BS1 model shooting hits on 6+. With targetters, you now hit on 5+.

Now if this is part of the point of removing EV, to allow items to always be useful, that is another story. Just thought I would mention it.

In my version, targeters make it so you do not suffer to hit modifiers. so a BS1 model hits EVERYTHING on 6's, except tanks on 5's. With Targeters, its the exact same result.

Now a BS4 model needs 4's to hit a Jink unit. With a Targeter he would beed 3's.

Not sure how that is any different (and simpler)

I still need to flesh out the higher BS rules:
A) BS's over 5 can ignore a "-1" for ever BS over 5.
B) Implement the re-roll system from 5th. with +1 modifiers applied the to secondary roll for BS's over 5.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AtoMaki wrote:

Tapeworm711 wrote:
If only IC's were characters, I might be inclined to agree with you. But as it stands now, any Sergeant/Squad Leader gets to do it too. Do we really need PF Sergeants picking exactly which models he squishes? Then you get into the scenario of Your character directing wounds as well.

It seems to boil down to Directed Hit Hammer. Squads will be taken as ablative wounds for the directed hit machines. It just needlessly escalates things.

Characters with power weapons can handle PF characters easily. Tactics and counter-tactics. If you take out directe hits or nerf them into a random and totally unpredictable thing, then you just remove a tactical asset that is mostly usuable by everyone. It's a bit like removing "pinning" (or its 6th ed reincarnation) only because squads could be pinned and how totally unfair is that.

First off: Pinning needs to be addressed. Its quite useless. I'm put that on my to-do.

I'm willing to take the IC/Characters/Directed hits thing in any direction. It just needs to jive with the rest of the rules. As it stands now, the Squad Leader succession plan is stupid. Needs to be fixed. But I would like to avoid a situation where people can lose track of whether or not a model is a character or just a leader.

I've looked over the ruleset and changed my opinion slightly.

I'm fine with the changes we have made to the sniper weapons. (50% to be directed on rends)

But after looking over the directed hits rule, most scary weapons are either coarse or two-handed, and therefore cannot use directed hits. Therefore its much simpler to just have character's attacks ALWAYS be directed.

I would like to consider changing the definition of a 'character':

Characters are:
• any unit with the "Unique" Unit type
• any unit with the "Character" subtype ( ie. Infantry(Character) )
• any unit with the "Independent Character" special rule.
• any Monstrous Creature

I think having sergeants and squad leaders be character favors too much the imperium armies. Nids have no access to special gear for their unit leadres, necrons are in the same boat (although Lords and Crypteks in this case would work).


Pinning:

As it stands now, it "Shakes" a unit. Which is virtually useless as it mostly prevents a unit from running away. They still get to move/fire ect.

Perhaps Pinning should cause "Stunned" instead.

D) STUNNED
A stunned unit is subject to the following
penalties:
• It cannot perform Combat, Move, Psychic,
Shooting, Strike and Support actions.
• A stunned unit automatically passes any Morale
check for casualties, pinning or terror.
• A model in a stunned unit is not allowed to
change its facing during a Consolidation.

Might be a bit overkill though.

Tapeworm711 wrote:
I'm fine with the changes we have made to the sniper weapons. (50% to be directed on rends)

Could you clarify the exact mechanic to which you refer?

Tapeworm711 wrote:
But after looking over the directed hits rule, most scary weapons are either coarse or two-handed, and therefore cannot use directed hits. Therefore its much simpler to just have character's attacks ALWAYS be directed.

Attacks are only in assault, so you mean not shooting ever? And it's ambiguous whether you wanted to get rid of coarse there. And if you're not getting rid of coarse, and they can still do it with shooting, then their attacks always are directed anyway. So not sure what you're getting at.

Tapeworm711 wrote:
I would like to consider changing the definition of a 'character':

Characters are:
• any unit with the "Unique" Unit type
• any unit with the "Character" subtype ( ie. Infantry(Character) )
• any unit with the "Independent Character" special rule.
• any Monstrous Creature

There are not very many "Character" subtypes. Are you sure this is what you mean? Squad upgrade guys are almost universally not "Character".

DarknessEternal wrote:There are not very many "Character" subtypes. Are you sure this is what you mean? Squad upgrade guys are almost universally not "Character".

There are not currently, but it seems it's the new way of doing things. Grey Knights, Necrons, and Corsair Eldar in IA11 all use the (character) subtype.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Tapeworm711 wrote:
I'm fine with the changes we have made to the sniper weapons. (50% to be directed on rends)

Could you clarify the exact mechanic to which you refer?

Tapeworm711 wrote:
But after looking over the directed hits rule, most scary weapons are either coarse or two-handed, and therefore cannot use directed hits. Therefore its much simpler to just have character's attacks ALWAYS be directed.

Attacks are only in assault, so you mean not shooting ever? And it's ambiguous whether you wanted to get rid of coarse there. And if you're not getting rid of coarse, and they can still do it with shooting, then their attacks always are directed anyway. So not sure what you're getting at.

Tapeworm711 wrote:
I would like to consider changing the definition of a 'character':

Characters are:
• any unit with the "Unique" Unit type
• any unit with the "Character" subtype ( ie. Infantry(Character) )
• any unit with the "Independent Character" special rule.
• any Monstrous Creature

There are not very many "Character" subtypes. Are you sure this is what you mean? Squad upgrade guys are almost universally not "Character".

The sniper rule I proposed could be written like this:

Bullseye:
For every wound that rends from a sniper weapon, roll a D6. On a 4+ this wound become directed. Use the same rules as directed hits from characters for details.

Sorry if I confused anyone.

My vision for Directed hits is EXACTLY as written in the leak, except for changing what a character is.

I DO NOT want every squad leader to be a character. I dont think it adds anything to the game, except another rule to remember and apply. Again I don't see squad leaders as characters being an "Even boost" across codicies. Some benefit from this more than others. By eliminating it entirely and applying my new "what is a character" rules, I believe most books benefit much more evenly.

Especially because as casualties are taken, you get in scenarios where some squads would have Squad Leaders that are characters and other would have Leaders who are not. It seems like entirely way too much bookkeeping.

I went through most of the codices I have, and looked at my new "character rules", I could not find a unit that SHOULD have it, that did not gain it by my new rules. Again i'm not counting squad leaders.

Playing nids and crons, squad leaders have been a pain in the butt. Trying to keep straight which faceless gaunt is supposed to be "leading" makes me want to go punch a baby.

Although, I'm not to hip on MCs being characters. I think there are one or two items in the most recent books that my make that a bit much, need to take a look.

I don't know that I like Monstrous Creatures sniping Power Fists either.

Agree on the Nids / Necron squad thing 1000%. My solution to that is you can just pick a model to lead that squad when its required: LOS, embarking, Morale Check, ect.

The only abuse I see is theoretically your better able to embark in transports than "real" squad leaders, but im not sure there is any tremendous advantage to that anyways.

I debated the MCs = character thing myself, figured I would include that for the debate. You are probably right. If your PF which is taken so that it can get in a few licks on that MC, can get sniped by that MC before you get to attack.........that does seem rather silly. And makes PF almost worthless.

I would like to consider changing the definition of a 'character':

Characters are:
Any Non-Vehicle Non-Monstrous Creature unit with the following:
• the "Unique" Unit type
• and/or the "Character" subtype ( ie. Infantry(Character) )
• and/or the "Independent Character" special rule.

Tapeworm711 wrote:Agree on the Nids / Necron squad thing 1000%. My solution to that is you can just pick a model to lead that squad when its required: LOS, embarking, Morale Check, ect.

The only abuse I see is theoretically your better able to embark in transports than "real" squad leaders, but im not sure there is any tremendous advantage to that anyways.

I debated the MCs = character thing myself, figured I would include that for the debate. You are probably right. If your PF which is taken so that it can get in a few licks on that MC, can get sniped by that MC before you get to attack.........that does seem rather silly. And makes PF almost worthless.

I would like to consider changing the definition of a 'character':

Characters are:
Any Non-Vehicle Non-Monstrous Creature unit with the following:
• the "Unique" Unit type
• and/or the "Character" subtype ( ie. Infantry(Character) )
• and/or the "Independent Character" special rule.

There are 1-2 MCs that should probably have it (Hive Tyrant/Swarmlord...C'tan already are), but yeah I can definately see how nasty they would be for picking out PFs and such.

We can always make exception to the rule. We can add it to the "Hive Commander" special rule or something. The C'tan are slaves now, so im not sure they deserve it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Version 0.4


Version 0.4
• Actually changed walkers this time......Page 112.
• Removed “Covering Fire”
• Changed “Regroup” to allow any squad to attempt.
• Changed shooting to hit back to 5th edition (7-BS), and added rules for modifiers.
• Removed “Psychic Counter”
• Removed ALL “Squad Leader” references”
• Changed definition of “Character”
• Removed Flyers / Gargantuan Creatures / Super Heavy
• Changed “Squadron Discipline”. Free extra armour and immunized removes model from unit.

Link:
http://tinyurl.com/6wp2zur

Version 0.5
• Pinning now Stuns instead of shakes (as does going to ground)
• Replaced sniper’s directed hits with: Bulls eye: For each wound that rends, on a 4+ that wound is directed. (perhaps clunky)
• Changed stunned to allows “Combat” and “Strike” actions.
• Changed “Regain Combat readiness” to change Stunned->Dazed for your units, and Dazed=>Normal for enemy units.
(Stunned/Dazed have the same gameplay effects, they just differ in when they recover)


Link:
http://tinyurl.com/6wp2zur

I think this is the extent of the major changes that the document needed.

What we are left with seems to be a much more streamlined version of the leak, that uses a lot of stuff from 5th that worked well. The biggest controversy is the switching of the phases, which I understand is a hard thing to get over. But the pros far outweigh the cons. You get to make all of your movement at one time which significantly speeds up the turns.

I would appreciate any feedback from play tests at this point. Anecdotal evidence at this point will just make us go round and round in circles.

Let me know what you think.

Any way to save this as a document?

ctrl+a, ctrl+c, windows key, type "wordpad" without the "", hit enter, click in the typespace, ctrl+v.

DarknessEternal wrote:Any way to save this as a document?

if you sign into google docs, you should be able to "Download Original".

Then you can use the bookmarks and hyperlinks.

Codex updates will be messed around too? Because Eldar Fortune is one very puzzling change and looks like sloppy copy-paste from Guide.