Switch Theme:

Multiple wounds from higher strength: Replacing Instant Death with Overkill  [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 gb
Lieutenant Colonel




I was assuming that each wounding hit would get a save roll .

And it is impossible to correct 19 years of sales driven rules writing , with one or 2 fixes.

If this sort of rule was introduced , relative S and T values would have to be adjusted and probably re costed.

   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




"And it is impossible to correct 19 years of sales driven rules writing"

It's not sales driven. It's stupidity driven.
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




@Martel.
Ok, I will compromise.

''And it is impossible to correct 19 years of stupid sales driven rules writing''.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Lanrak wrote:
@Martel.
Ok, I will compromise.

''And it is impossible to correct 19 years of stupid sales driven rules writing''.


Fair enough. My primary point is that they sometimes overpower old kits and they FREQUENTLY put out new kits with terrible crunch that fail to sell.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Lanrak wrote:
I was assuming that each wounding hit would get a save roll.
I think we're saying the same thing, but do you mean save for each wounding hit = save for each individual wound resulting from a hit? Or am I alone in the wilderness and overly in love with my idea?

And it is impossible to correct 19 years of rules...with one or 2 fixes.
When I'm feeling cynical, I wonder how much outrage there would be about changing shooting to be a hit when d6 = your BS or less (not 7-BS or more), with BS>5 rerolls happening the same way except BS 7 = hit on a 6 + (1 or 2), etc. Would anyone really call this "Dumbing down the game for filthy casuals!", or am I overly jaded? But I agree absolutely. It's much more likely to get changes to individual USRs/rules/units/weapons/formations/codexes than a full rules rewrite, and those have happened before and been to the advantage of the game (e.g., the death of 6E Wave Serpent shenanigans). At the same time, those are patchwork fixes, not a correction to the rules as a whole.

...sales driven rules writing...
Ehh, if things change so that serious Eldar players buy US$115 models to gain an advantage, the rules are written so that WKs are undercosted in points terms and thus desirable in their own right, and as a result other serious players buy models specifically to counter WKs, that's successful sales-driven rules writing. Not to say, Martel, there aren't misfires, and that the sales-driven view hasn't driven people to WarmaHordes or whatever. I just wonder whether the natural attrition rate would have been very significantly lower if GW had not changed from a player-based approach.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Why didn't they do that in 6th then? They couldn't see that the WK was NOT an autoinclude in 6th? Of course they couldn't. Just like they didn't realize they made the 15 year old wave serpent king of the hill in 6th.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Kroot Stalker





Blackie wrote:Too complicated and T4 multiwounds models would be nerfed badly. Mid strenght weapons would become too powerful and I think that overpowered weapons (and units) should be nerfed, not the opposite, with S6-7 even more powerful than now.

Just make riptides AV11 with 4 HP and WK/stormsurges AV13 with 6 HP and no one would complain about MCs that can't be killed by a single shot like vehicles. FNP replaced with It Will Not Die, no invulns better than a 5+ allowed. With a 7+ they would explode, like any walker in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unusual Suspect wrote:


I think it would be reasonable to give Meganobz (and honestly, perhaps Orks in general) my modified Eternal Warrior 1 to represent their extraordinary hardiness against exceptionally damaging and otherwise fatal wounds (Perhaps Eternal Warrior 2 when Orks WAAAAGH!). I would propose something similar for Tyranids - perhaps Eternal Warrior 1 baseline for TMCs or Tyranids in general, and +1 to their Eternal Warrior if they're within Synapse range.

That would bring the Meganobz (and Tyranid Warriors, another unit that doesn't need a nerf) back into needing S8 or S9 to one-shot them.

Thoughts?


I don't like it as I think rules like Eternal Warrior should belong only to hero characters, not to standard elite models or even generic HQs. The point is units like meganobz don't need to be improved, but other units need to be nerfed. And nerfed badly. I don't think that improving other weapons/units would make the game more balanced, overpowered things need to be mutilated by increasing their points value and/or changing their stats.


We seem to have very different design philosophies, which is perfectly fine. I personally don't associate particular rules with particular types of units - rather, they're bundles of special qualities that should be applied where appropriate, and things like Orks, Tyranids, and Daemons, even when not special characters, seem like an appropriate place for a rule that makes them more resilient against this sort of overwhelming firepower. I would say that Eternal Warrior (2) or (3) would probably be rare to see except on Special Characters and the like.

I simply don't think that Meganobz are the ideal for a middle ground of balance. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Lanrak wrote:Hi folks.
My alternative to Instant Death and Eternal Warrior was simpler.

if you roll 2 more than you need to inflict a wound ,you inflict an extra wound.

EG if you only need a 2+ to wound, and you roll 4+You score an extra wound on the target model.(If you rolled a 6 you would score 2 extra wounds on the target model.)

This simply delivers a proportionally higher chance of causing extra wounds when the strength of the weapon hit is much higher than the toughness of the target.


Lanrak wrote:I was assuming that each wounding hit would get a save roll .

And it is impossible to correct 19 years of sales driven rules writing , with one or 2 fixes.

If this sort of rule was introduced , relative S and T values would have to be adjusted and probably re costed.



An interesting approach, though as stated, one that seems to absolutely require an adjustment of just about all S & T values - worthwhile if you're planning on doing that anyway, but it seems superficially to be more heavy-handed than my approach. Things like Poison and Fleshbane become very potent ID weapons. too.

Eldar Shortseer wrote:


I did want to ask again, for any type of multi-wound scenario (RAW ID or alternate systems), does anyone else see any value in saves vs. each wound individually? (Assume Eternal Warrior rules just mean a save vs. 1 wound as usual.)


I did touch upon that in my OP, in relation to making D weapons more reliable in their ability to inflict at least some damage, even in the face of the likes of good invuln or cover saves.

So long as the Overkill/extra wound mechanic is model-specific, rather than applied to units as a whole, it really is a question of how reliable you want overwhelming attacks to be in getting through defenses. Frankly, I think I prefer that sort of reliability, so if I were to rewrite Overkill today, it would probably use single-model unsaved-wound pools.
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




@Unusual Suspect.
In my experience of trying to 'fix' 40k rules over the last ten years or so.You often end up adding more complicated solution to fix the over complicated rules.
EG odd units and special rules cause you to abandon sound ideas, to try to work around GW plc s 'bad' development choices.

I would much prefer to use simpler ideas in the core rules to start with proportional results.This means we can get to the end goal without having to rely on so many all or nothing special rules that mess up intuitive game play.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Unusual Suspect wrote:


We seem to have very different design philosophies, which is perfectly fine. I personally don't associate particular rules with particular types of units - rather, they're bundles of special qualities that should be applied where appropriate, and things like Orks, Tyranids, and Daemons, even when not special characters, seem like an appropriate place for a rule that makes them more resilient against this sort of overwhelming firepower. I would say that Eternal Warrior (2) or (3) would probably be rare to see except on Special Characters and the like.

I simply don't think that Meganobz are the ideal for a middle ground of balance. We'll have to agree to disagree.


I understand and I respect it.

I think that anything in the game should be killed by 1-2 rounds of shooting or melee, I've always hated immortal units that do the entire job alone. That's why I totally appreciate the current rule for instant killing a multiwounds model and the possible explode result when you get a pen against a vehicle. IMHO if a T4 model suffer a s8+ unsaved wound he should die regardless of his number of wounds, he already had many other ways to survive it like armor, cover, invuln, look out sir, and other models in his unit that are closer to the shooter. If istant death is a problem play the army in order to try to avoid it.

Having the majority of an army with T4 and 6+ save, AV10 vehicles plus bikes and some T4 2+ armor is perfectly fine, it's relying on 150+ mid or high strenght shots in a single turn with BS3 or better and fired by units that are very hard to kill the mistake that needs to be fixed.

The game should go in a direction in which infantries and S4-5 shots become more common. A plasma gun has quite powerful stats with the current rules, but unfortunately there are some mistakes that make them seem useless. I'd go with nerfing all the overpowered units in the game rather than making some low-average options other overpowered items. D weapons for example should never exist in games with less than 3000 points.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/04 11:21:00


 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Maybe riptides shouldn't exist at all by that logic.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/05 17:10:40


 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe riptides shouldn't exist at all by that logic.


Riptides yes (and better with an appropriate cost), riptide wings absolutely not.

 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 Blackie wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Maybe riptides shouldn't exist at all by that logic.


Riptides yes (and better with an appropriate cost), riptide wings absolutely not.


Riptides can't be killed reliably by entire 2000 pt lists. That does not fit your model of the game. Especially if you nerf grav and destroyer weapons. They will then be truly immortal.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Kroot Stalker





This thread is not intended to be a discussion on the merits of Riptides in 40k.

This thread deals with the mechanics of multiple wounds, particularly replacements to ID.

If you want to discuss your own replacements for ID, feel free. If you want to discuss the proposed rule in the OP, feel free. If you want to discuss whether Riptides (or any other particular unit) should exist in WH40k, make your own thread, or find one of the hundreds of others where that is the topic.

Please stay on topic, thanks!
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




I think wounds inflicted should just be another stat on a given weapon. Certain high powered weapons should perhaps have a penalty to invulns even to deal with the mass proliferation of invuln saves.

Example:

Lascannon: S9 AP2 Damage: 2 wounds Invulns suffer -1

Hammerhead Railgun: S10 AP 1 Damage: 3 wounds Invulns suffer -3

Krak missile S8 AP 3 Damage: D2 wounds Invulns suffer -0

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/05 22:27:24


 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Kroot Stalker






Would your proposal replace the existing ID rules, or be a separate addition?

Would the wounds inflicted be on a per-model basis (akin to D weapons) or apply as part of the normal wound pool (thereby potentially allowing 3 separate models to be killed per Railgun shot, for example)?

An interesting approach.

That would require looking through every single weapon/power/effect in the game to assign appropriate numbers of wounds per shot, which would take a bit of work, but that could have merit.

It would also allow us to replace the one-size-fits-all D weapon effect with more nuanced rolls.

More work than I would prefer to do, assuming my own proposed Overkill rule is actually usable/workable/intelligible.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




No, get rid of overkill.

The wounds only go on a single model. If you want more than one kill, use the cluster submunition.

The only way to balance a game like this is be more specific with the rules and weapons. Making things simpler only makes fixes more ham-fisted.

I came up with this based off the idea that that hammerhead railgun should vaporize whatever it hits basically.

I think that maybe we can make the wounds caused also hull points taken. That means the hammerhead guaranteed one shots Russes that it penetrates. Seems reasonable to me. Two lascannon pens take down a land raider. That gives slow firing weapons some teeth again. Grey knights can have special weapons that have massive penalties to invuln saves.

Psycannon: S6 AP4 Salvo 3/6 Damage: 1 wound, 2 wounds vs demons, Invuln saves: -1, -3 for demons. Feth your screamer stars.

Keep plasma at damage: 1. Everyone is happy. In fact, some weaker lists get better because meganobz might survive some weapons. For example, I'd make most explosion weapons D2 wounds, since they aren't focused. That makes meganobz better vs demo cannons and ion accelerators. At the same time, Thunderwolves and other T5 stuff can't laugh off lascannons and krak missiles necessarily.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/03/05 23:44:19


 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

The point of changing the ID rule is that you don't like that a T3-4-5 model can be instant killed or that T6+ models can't?

Because I totally like the concept of instant kill a model that suffers a hit with high strenght. Same for vehicles, the possible explosions are a good thing.

So any change to the ID should go into the direction of creating the chance to kill T6+ models with a single wound, or at least with lesser shots than now.

That's why if S8+ weapons could cause D2-3 wounds it would sound a nice change, but also assuming that wounds caused by weapons that double the toughness ot the target keep the current mechanic of instant death. T3-4-5 should die if they suffer an unsaved wound with 6+/8+/10 strenght.

The possibility of killing even more models with a single high strenght shot is terrible. I agree with Martel732, get rid of Overkill.

 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




No get rid of the current instant death. That mechanic would be totally replaced by multiple wound weapons.
My system would eliminate the vehicle damage table as well. They fight until hull points are zero.

I would probably reassign new wound totals to everything as well as hull points. Maybe standard vehicles have four hull points and the hammerhead railgun and vanquisher cannon each cause 4 hull points on a pen.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/03/06 15:31:58


 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Ok I get your point. I do like the idea of killing a character/vehicle with a single powerful/lucky shot though, so the instant death and the damage table concepts (especially the explosion result) are very nice IMHO, and I wouldn't replace them. I would add something that gives the possibility to instant kill riptides and any other T6-7 units. Maybe not the GMC.

It can be ok if some weapons have the strenght to strip 4 HP on a pen, but you should give an equivalent weapon to every army then. That's the real problem about grav and D weapons, they're extremely powerful and only a few armies can use them.

 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Nope. Every army has a different scheme. Railguns and vanquisher cannons are signature weapons for those armies. I also hate the lucky shot gw crap and so wouldn't have any of that. But i do make the riptides defenses less effective vs powerful weaponry.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Then make some orks magic power klaws or tyranid blade that can strip 4 HP or some dark eldar super poisoned shots. The idea of getting super effective weapons only to a few armies is terrible. It's the reason why in any tournament more than 50% of the lists are selected among only two armies.

 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 Blackie wrote:
Then make some orks magic power klaws or tyranid blade that can strip 4 HP or some dark eldar super poisoned shots. The idea of getting super effective weapons only to a few armies is terrible. It's the reason why in any tournament more than 50% of the lists are selected among only two armies.


Do you think I'm that dumb? 4 HP strippers are going to be costly in points. Super effective weapons are fine as LONG AS THEY ARE COSTED APPROPRIATELY.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Martel732 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Then make some orks magic power klaws or tyranid blade that can strip 4 HP or some dark eldar super poisoned shots. The idea of getting super effective weapons only to a few armies is terrible. It's the reason why in any tournament more than 50% of the lists are selected among only two armies.


Do you think I'm that dumb? 4 HP strippers are going to be costly in points. Super effective weapons are fine as LONG AS THEY ARE COSTED APPROPRIATELY.


So what should they cost?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




I don't know yet. We're talking complete HP reassignment and complete wound reassignment and the reassignment of a damage to every weapon in the game.

I'd give the Tau tanks their pseudo-fast back, and let them split fire. The Hammerhead could easily be worth 220+ with these rules, since there is no vehicle damage table anymore. The Vanquisher something close, but less, because it would cause 4hps, but only 2 wounds since it is specialized. The Hammerhead rail gun should cause catastrophic damage to everything. It would be reliable than a distort weapon in my system. I was thinking D6-3 hull points or wounds, but no pen roll or wounding roll.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

D6-3 is incredibly unreliable. You score 0 wounds half the time.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Martel732 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Then make some orks magic power klaws or tyranid blade that can strip 4 HP or some dark eldar super poisoned shots. The idea of getting super effective weapons only to a few armies is terrible. It's the reason why in any tournament more than 50% of the lists are selected among only two armies.


Do you think I'm that dumb? 4 HP strippers are going to be costly in points. Super effective weapons are fine as LONG AS THEY ARE COSTED APPROPRIATELY.


I agree about the appropriate cost but if you introduce super weapons every army should have its typical magical tricks to annihilate the opponent. Like D weapons or free vehicles spam, give comparable options to everyone or cut them completely.

 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 Blackie wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Then make some orks magic power klaws or tyranid blade that can strip 4 HP or some dark eldar super poisoned shots. The idea of getting super effective weapons only to a few armies is terrible. It's the reason why in any tournament more than 50% of the lists are selected among only two armies.


Do you think I'm that dumb? 4 HP strippers are going to be costly in points. Super effective weapons are fine as LONG AS THEY ARE COSTED APPROPRIATELY.


I agree about the appropriate cost but if you introduce super weapons every army should have its typical magical tricks to annihilate the opponent. Like D weapons or free vehicles spam, give comparable options to everyone or cut them completely.


They're not super weapons. They are appropriate. Marines do not have the ranged anti-tank of Tau or Guard. They just don't. It's called differentiation of armies. If costs are appropriate, everyone doesn't need the same stuff.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

I've said comparable options, I didn't mean the same weapons but the chance to make every army on a similar level, keeping their typical way to fight. If you design a super tank that strips 4 HP I don't want the exact same things for other armies but of course they would need some other tricks that make them competitive as the ones that can strip 4 HP with a single shot.

When I read about options that look extremely powerful it doesn't seem to me that the change would make the game more balanced overall.

But we have a different idea about a super/appropriate weapon, IMHO a S9 ap2 one that can strip a single HP should already be among the best options available and the game should be designed into that direction, more infantries based. Or better, more expendable units based, with a lot of good-average-poor units and 1-2 that are slightly better. No superheroes that simply refuse to die, no weapons that can wipe out anything with average rolls.

That's why I would keep the instant death rule and the vehicles' damage table, I'd just make the most resilient and effective current units way easier to kill. And probably making GMCs and the most devastating stuff like D weapons legal only in bigger games like 2000+ points.Even an IK doesn't seem appropriate to me in an average game. That stuff belongs to apocalypse games.

 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Instant death and vehicle table need to go to help with costing units and to help get the game away from a "6" rolling contest.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: