Switch Theme:

One model, One shot, One wound  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Too many dice rolls in 40K?
Yes
No
Lemon Curry

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 fr
Regular Dakkanaut




 Stormonu wrote:
One of the things that has really turned me away from 40K is the buckets of dice lethality that has mired the game in endless rolls. I despise that marines have been moved to 2 wounds, and overall would like to see the amount of dice rolling greatly reduced.

Personally, I'd like to see the standard infantry models go down to a stat line where they make ONE attack, and can survive ONE wound. The one attack represents enough time to take focus to get off a single shot or 3-shot burst from an automatic weapon.

That doesn't preclude some guns (or skilled characters) getting more shots/attacks - I can certainly see the likes of Assault cannons getting two, maybe three shots or the same with Heavy stubbers/Heavy bolters.

Same with wounds - monsters, vehicles, bikes, heroes and everything else bigger than a trooper could be rated for more wounds. Tweak the toughness stat where possible to change the chance of getting a significant wound that removes the model from the table, rather than just plopping extra wounds on the target. D2 and higher wound weapons could then be fewer in number (perhaps changing D2 weapons to have higher Strength instead?) and more significant as anti-tank weapons. And personally, I'd prefer if blast weapons could only hit a target once (split tank guns into multiple profiles - say, HEAT for anti-personnel & AP for anti-vehicle/monster).





I agree with the poll question, i don't agree with "one model one shot one wound".

GW should start by removing rerolls, double shots, ability to shoot during another phase than shooting, AP being given by doctrines, stratagems or abilities.

Then we will see.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/18 14:49:20


 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

 BlaxicanX wrote:


 Insectum7 wrote:
A Space Marine was already harder to take down than a Guardsman or Ork Boy.
Point for point, this has historically been false.


Specially because everytime someone does this comparison they use the bolter as a comparison. The bolter was a weapon to kill chaff infantry. What people used to obliterate space marines was the insane amount of high AP firepower the game has had for more than 15 years.

I don't care that it took 20 bolters rounds to kill a marine vs 5 to an ork boy/guardsmen. My space marines didn't spend the last 10 years dying like flyes to flasguns and bolters.


The sames goe to the typical "back in the day an ork boy killed X marines and now..." Ork boyz are horde units with light attacks. They excel at killing other chaff units like space marines can't. Of course they aren't good to kill space marines and haven't been for decades.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





I quite like the old one shot distant, two shots close small arms encouraging mobility. But yes the dice are out of control at times, I remember the first time I faced a primaris tank in 8th and it took five minutes to run through all of the different guns, rerolls, and stratagems for that one vehicle shooting.


 BlaxicanX wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
A Space Marine was already harder to take down than a Guardsman or Ork Boy.
Point for point, this has historically been false.
Only when you factor in things like cover, special weapons, and artillery.

In 3e-4e an exchange of small arms between marines and guard would favour the marines 3-1 in points value (something like 8 dead guardsmen per marine), and those odds would improve as the guard lost extra models to morale and missed out on shots due to range - much easier to get 10 marines within 12" of a guard blob than 80 guardsmen within 12" of a marine squad.

But how relevant that is ties into how important the chaff troops units are on the table, and how many bigs guns they'll typically be presented with.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/18 15:14:29


 
   
Made in gb
Enginseer with a Wrench




Bath

Altima wrote:


Ignoring that S4 weapons are anti tank weapons and that the armies space marines are facing are supposed to be every bit as tough and competent as they are...



but thats the problem. 40k is so bonkers that what would be light anti-vehicle weaponry in a "real life" setting is the baseline small arm. Superhumans in power armour wielding fully automatic grenade launchers are the baseline for the games power curve, not regular humans with weapons equivalent to a modern assault rifle. they have been since the game started.

and because of this, everyone is geared towards fighting enemies with that level of toughness because they are exceedingly common. I remember 3rd ed eldar armies loaded with AP3 starcannon plasma weapons in every squad, vast numbers of armour ignoring power swords, etc, and other anti-marine nonsense. No one was killing marines with bolt fire, they were using 8 marines to cover the 2 special/heavy weapons guys that had the marine killing weaponry.

that might be part of the problem. A 3rd ed tac squad would have a single plasma gun, maybe a plasma pistol on the sgt, and a heavy bolter or missile launcher. now we have hellblasters and eradicators running around with more dedicated anti-MEQ firepower than some 3rd ed armies in a single squad.

but i think the others have it right, its not the base "hit, wound, save" rolls that are the problem, the problem is all the bells and whistles that go on around it as factions try to cave a design niche out of a very crowed design space. I was in a game yesterday, and got charged by space wolf assault intercessors twice, once when the SW player could deploy all his tricks and a 2nd time he couldn't. dispite having a greater number of attacks being thrown at me, the latter charge took about half as long as the 1st, because their was no re-rolling of X, no exploding hits on Y, and no +1 because it was a full moon, or the skald was on the 3rd verse of the saga while Jupiter was ascending, etc etc. All because grey marines need to find a way to be "good at melee" without standing on red marines toes, or the other red marines toes, or the orks, etc, etc.


if i was given total creative freedom on the next 40K*, there would be a full scale-shift of re-rolls back to being a rarity, something that only HQ could have themselves and only grant 1 or 2 total to another unit... make their use much more strategic, rather than automatic.


*i'd also likely cause a mass exodus of 40K fans as destroyed the game they love, but hey, i'd have fun doing so.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/18 15:24:04


Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? "
But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll.
"Tommy", Rudyard Kipling
Exporitor force kappa-Tercia 500pts Coven of XVth 1000pts
Western Host 1000 pts
 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 vipoid wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
I mean, 7th felt like it did a pretty good job overall of integrating aircraft, super heavies, and vehicles.


I would have to disagree on this point.

Unless you were lucky enough to have Grav or D-weapons, playing against Knights felt like your opponent was making up the rules as you went along.

"Yeah, my army ignores this rule, and that rule, oh and that rule as well, oh, and they're immune to everything short of "explodes", and even that doesn't kill them. Oh no, even though they're the size of a skyscraper, you still can't shoot them lest you hit the guardsmen in melee with them. But they can still shoot while in combat and can also make melee attacks against stuff in the vicinity. Oh and it's as fast as a DE skimmer, because why wouldn't it be?"

And then you had the joys of fliers which, once again, required specialised equipment if you wanted to do anything more than plink away at them ineffectually.

"Cool, so your Helldrake can basically go anywhere it likes, damaging 1-2 of my transports each turn whilst also barbequing any units inside them, and if I want to kill it I would need to somehow spend my 2000pts entirely on Ravagers and have every single one of them fire at it. Truly this is a fun and balanced concept that fits neatly into the game."

Sorry but these are some of the worst-integrated and unfun elements to ever make it into 40k.


 Arachnofiend wrote:
Curiosity question for people who agree with the OP here, how do you feel about the change to Disgustingly Resilient moving it away from an army wide FNP?


I can understand moving away from the FNP save (which can be a real pain with D2 weapons against multi-wound infantry). However, the replacement is a little odd in that it seems to be antithetical to the idea of Plague Marines. My understanding was that they were supposed to be especially resilient against small-arms fire but still able to be taken out with heavier ordnance, yet the new rules are almost the opposite - giving no protection against small arms and instead only helping against heavy weapons.

Tbh, I find myself wondering whether a simpler solution would have been to give Plague Marines an extra wound (and other stuff more wounds as appropriate). So with the current rules, Plague Marines would have 3 wounds, though ideally they'd have two and all other non-Primaris Marines would go back to 1. It would have made them much more resilient against low-damage weapons (especially since they're also T5), whilst still leaving them vulnerable to heavier weapons.

(Note: when I suggest that Plague Marines have 2 wounds and all other Marines 1, this would also be with the assumption that a bunch of weapons, like Heavy Bolters, wouldn't have been upgraded to D2 in order to deal with 2-wound Marines.)
I'd rather have a system that punishes players for trying to ignore a part of the game rather than have flamers attacking aircraft., grav tanks ramming aircraft, and tanks being shot to shreds by small arms.

The weaponry in 40k is so strong if you get hit by anything your toughness really shouldn't be saving you. It's your armor. I'd rather the game have a higher baseline damge and allow for more ways to modify your defences via terrain and positioning.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Galas wrote:
 BlaxicanX wrote:


 Insectum7 wrote:
A Space Marine was already harder to take down than a Guardsman or Ork Boy.
Point for point, this has historically been false.


Specially because everytime someone does this comparison they use the bolter as a comparison. The bolter was a weapon to kill chaff infantry. What people used to obliterate space marines was the insane amount of high AP firepower the game has had for more than 15 years.

I don't care that it took 20 bolters rounds to kill a marine vs 5 to an ork boy/guardsmen. My space marines didn't spend the last 10 years dying like flyes to flasguns and bolters.


The sames goe to the typical "back in the day an ork boy killed X marines and now..." Ork boyz are horde units with light attacks. They excel at killing other chaff units like space marines can't. Of course they aren't good to kill space marines and haven't been for decades.
"Shpeeeesh Maaahreeeeenns!"

Galas I don't think I could disagree with you more. Imo you are the very face of the problem with modern balance between troops.

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
Boosting Black Templar Biker






I don't think the game as a whole has too many rolls. I do think it has too many rerolls but that may be a separate topic

I also think that certain units have absurd amounts of dice to throw around like Aggressors and Space Marine Grav Tanks. I don't mind when a Gorkanaught throws a bucket of dice at someone, I find it weird when a space marine tank has infinite dakka. Not really their swim lane in my opinion.
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 BlaxicanX wrote:
Reducing granularity almost never works out well. This would favor horde armies as you've lessened the gap between horde infantry and elite infantry, meanwhile sheer numbers still grants the "buckets of dice" you're complaining about.

Under a 1-1-1 rule how would you balance a 10-man tactical squad against say, a 40-man conscript blob?

 Insectum7 wrote:
A Space Marine was already harder to take down than a Guardsman or Ork Boy.
Point for point, this has historically been false.
Then that's a points issue not a fundamental design issue with the games systems........

I also have never seen a guard squad effectively advance or take out other infantry. I've only ever seen plasma vets do that. Most standard infantry exist to stand there in cover on an objective, or to literally die as cannon fodder. I'm not sure that's conducive to dynamic gameplay.

Furthermore rolling 40 dice to hit, then rolling 20 dice, then your opponent rolling 7 dice, then calculating the final results which are statistically going to be 2-3 wounds IS far too many dice for negligible results.
   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





I voted yes BUT

I think 40k's thing is rolling loads of dice all at once. It feels good. The issue is stuff like rerolls and rolling to see how many rolls you make. It slows a lot of stuff down, especially when you're picking 1s out of the aforementioned loads of dice then rolling additional dice for each 6 you rolled then rerolling any of THOSE dice that were a 1.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/18 18:13:50



 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
I'd rather have a system that punishes players for trying to ignore a part of the game rather than have flamers attacking aircraft., grav tanks ramming aircraft, and tanks being shot to shreds by small arms.


Ah yes, clearly it's my fault as a player that GW gave my army 0 anti-knight weapons.

My sincere apologies for "trying to ignore a part of the game" by not playing Eldar or Space Marines.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 vipoid wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
I'd rather have a system that punishes players for trying to ignore a part of the game rather than have flamers attacking aircraft., grav tanks ramming aircraft, and tanks being shot to shreds by small arms.


Ah yes, clearly it's my fault as a player that GW gave my army 0 anti-knight weapons.

My sincere apologies for "trying to ignore a part of the game" by not playing Eldar or Space Marines.
Echoing this point. Heavily.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 JNAProductions wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
I'd rather have a system that punishes players for trying to ignore a part of the game rather than have flamers attacking aircraft., grav tanks ramming aircraft, and tanks being shot to shreds by small arms.


Ah yes, clearly it's my fault as a player that GW gave my army 0 anti-knight weapons.

My sincere apologies for "trying to ignore a part of the game" by not playing Eldar or Space Marines.
Echoing this point. Heavily.
Which again isn't a fundamental design flaw or a problem with the philosophy of how units should interact. It's a codex problem that can be changed and should have been addressed back then.


However I do have problems fundamentally with all knight lists. An army of all superheavies, is just something that shouldn't happen, and the same holds true for an army of all supersonic aircraft. They break the idea of a combined arms game which is where I'd like to see 40k go.

If knights were heavy support options like free blades kind of are in the lore they'd be fine. A whole army of them is just asking for games to be determined by what you bring to them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/18 19:43:39


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 Sledgehammer wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
I mean, 7th felt like it did a pretty good job overall of integrating aircraft, super heavies, and vehicles.


I would have to disagree on this point.

Unless you were lucky enough to have Grav or D-weapons, playing against Knights felt like your opponent was making up the rules as you went along.

"Yeah, my army ignores this rule, and that rule, oh and that rule as well, oh, and they're immune to everything short of "explodes", and even that doesn't kill them. Oh no, even though they're the size of a skyscraper, you still can't shoot them lest you hit the guardsmen in melee with them. But they can still shoot while in combat and can also make melee attacks against stuff in the vicinity. Oh and it's as fast as a DE skimmer, because why wouldn't it be?"

And then you had the joys of fliers which, once again, required specialised equipment if you wanted to do anything more than plink away at them ineffectually.

"Cool, so your Helldrake can basically go anywhere it likes, damaging 1-2 of my transports each turn whilst also barbequing any units inside them, and if I want to kill it I would need to somehow spend my 2000pts entirely on Ravagers and have every single one of them fire at it. Truly this is a fun and balanced concept that fits neatly into the game."

Sorry but these are some of the worst-integrated and unfun elements to ever make it into 40k.


 Arachnofiend wrote:
Curiosity question for people who agree with the OP here, how do you feel about the change to Disgustingly Resilient moving it away from an army wide FNP?


I can understand moving away from the FNP save (which can be a real pain with D2 weapons against multi-wound infantry). However, the replacement is a little odd in that it seems to be antithetical to the idea of Plague Marines. My understanding was that they were supposed to be especially resilient against small-arms fire but still able to be taken out with heavier ordnance, yet the new rules are almost the opposite - giving no protection against small arms and instead only helping against heavy weapons.

Tbh, I find myself wondering whether a simpler solution would have been to give Plague Marines an extra wound (and other stuff more wounds as appropriate). So with the current rules, Plague Marines would have 3 wounds, though ideally they'd have two and all other non-Primaris Marines would go back to 1. It would have made them much more resilient against low-damage weapons (especially since they're also T5), whilst still leaving them vulnerable to heavier weapons.

(Note: when I suggest that Plague Marines have 2 wounds and all other Marines 1, this would also be with the assumption that a bunch of weapons, like Heavy Bolters, wouldn't have been upgraded to D2 in order to deal with 2-wound Marines.)
I'd rather have a system that punishes players for trying to ignore a part of the game rather than have flamers attacking aircraft., grav tanks ramming aircraft, and tanks being shot to shreds by small arms.

The weaponry in 40k is so strong if you get hit by anything your toughness really shouldn't be saving you. It's your armor. I'd rather the game have a higher baseline damge and allow for more ways to modify your defences via terrain and positioning.


7th edition had tanks die in one hit and immobilize themselves on small bushes. People think that just because it had shooting rules that made it really difficult to tell exactly what a wave serpent or venom or nightscythe was allowed to shoot, that it was somehow less game-y than the current system. It wasn't, it was just even crueler to vehicles than the current edition is.

People pay 80pts for Rhinos in a lot of lists now. In 7th they were only a consideration whent they were FREE.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/18 19:42:25


2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





ERJAK wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
I mean, 7th felt like it did a pretty good job overall of integrating aircraft, super heavies, and vehicles.


I would have to disagree on this point.

Unless you were lucky enough to have Grav or D-weapons, playing against Knights felt like your opponent was making up the rules as you went along.

"Yeah, my army ignores this rule, and that rule, oh and that rule as well, oh, and they're immune to everything short of "explodes", and even that doesn't kill them. Oh no, even though they're the size of a skyscraper, you still can't shoot them lest you hit the guardsmen in melee with them. But they can still shoot while in combat and can also make melee attacks against stuff in the vicinity. Oh and it's as fast as a DE skimmer, because why wouldn't it be?"

And then you had the joys of fliers which, once again, required specialised equipment if you wanted to do anything more than plink away at them ineffectually.

"Cool, so your Helldrake can basically go anywhere it likes, damaging 1-2 of my transports each turn whilst also barbequing any units inside them, and if I want to kill it I would need to somehow spend my 2000pts entirely on Ravagers and have every single one of them fire at it. Truly this is a fun and balanced concept that fits neatly into the game."

Sorry but these are some of the worst-integrated and unfun elements to ever make it into 40k.


 Arachnofiend wrote:
Curiosity question for people who agree with the OP here, how do you feel about the change to Disgustingly Resilient moving it away from an army wide FNP?


I can understand moving away from the FNP save (which can be a real pain with D2 weapons against multi-wound infantry). However, the replacement is a little odd in that it seems to be antithetical to the idea of Plague Marines. My understanding was that they were supposed to be especially resilient against small-arms fire but still able to be taken out with heavier ordnance, yet the new rules are almost the opposite - giving no protection against small arms and instead only helping against heavy weapons.

Tbh, I find myself wondering whether a simpler solution would have been to give Plague Marines an extra wound (and other stuff more wounds as appropriate). So with the current rules, Plague Marines would have 3 wounds, though ideally they'd have two and all other non-Primaris Marines would go back to 1. It would have made them much more resilient against low-damage weapons (especially since they're also T5), whilst still leaving them vulnerable to heavier weapons.

(Note: when I suggest that Plague Marines have 2 wounds and all other Marines 1, this would also be with the assumption that a bunch of weapons, like Heavy Bolters, wouldn't have been upgraded to D2 in order to deal with 2-wound Marines.)
I'd rather have a system that punishes players for trying to ignore a part of the game rather than have flamers attacking aircraft., grav tanks ramming aircraft, and tanks being shot to shreds by small arms.

The weaponry in 40k is so strong if you get hit by anything your toughness really shouldn't be saving you. It's your armor. I'd rather the game have a higher baseline damge and allow for more ways to modify your defences via terrain and positioning.


7th edition had tanks die in one hit and immobilize themselves on small bushes. People think that just because it had shooting rules that made it really difficult to tell exactly what a wave serpent or venom or nightscythe was allowed to shoot, that it was somehow less game-y than the current system. It wasn't, it was just even crueler to vehicles than the current edition is.

People pay 80pts for Rhinos in a lot of lists now. In 7th they were only a consideration whent they were FREE.
Yes, you should fear anti tank weapons in a tank. The trick is to take them out with a different unit and then move them in. That's not a problem, that's a feature.

I agree on difficult terrain.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/18 19:53:57


 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 Sledgehammer wrote:


Furthermore rolling 40 dice to hit, then rolling 20 dice, then your opponent rolling 7 dice, then calculating the final results which are statistically going to be 2-3 wounds IS far too many dice for negligible results.


You're assuming this is 30k where everything has the same profile. Those 40 dice to hit deal 2-3 wounds on armored tough guys, but 10+ on cheaper models.

Fire proper anti elite weapons against armored models and you won't have negligible results .


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Blackie wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:


Furthermore rolling 40 dice to hit, then rolling 20 dice, then your opponent rolling 7 dice, then calculating the final results which are statistically going to be 2-3 wounds IS far too many dice for negligible results.


You're assuming this is 30k where everything has the same profile. Those 40 dice to hit deal 2-3 wounds on armored tough guys, but 10+ on cheaper models.

Fire proper anti elite weapons against armored models and you won't have negligible results .
That's just an illustration of guardsmen shooting marines. Of course it shouldn't be effective. That was my point. My other point is that we do be rolling a lot of dice, often times for negligible effect. Look at the orks, they always have them throw tons of dice around only for very little to hit home, and that is across the board for that faction. There are better ways of doing resolving damage that could take less time.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/07/18 20:04:31


 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Orks rolls tons of dice since decades, and no one complained about dice rolling in 3rd or 5th. Even now in 9th it's not guardsmen or orks that annoy people with endless dice rolling.

In fact I also play a SM chapter and I've got the feeling that I'm rolling way more dice with then, rather than orks.

If you want granularity, and armies with very different stats, you need something like guardsmen or orks shooting/fighting, again it's not 30k where everything is an elite unit .


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Blackie wrote:
Orks rolls tons of dice since decades, and no one complained about dice rolling in 3rd or 5th. Even now in 9th it's not guardsmen or orks that annoy people with endless dice rolling.

In fact I also play a SM chapter and I've got the feeling that I'm rolling way more dice with then, rather than orks.

If you want granularity, and armies with very different stats, you need something like guardsmen or orks shooting/fighting, again it's not 30k where everything is an elite unit .
Let me be more specific then. Do we need a to wound roll to have a necessary amount of granularity? Is there something that can supplement it? Could you expand the armor save system with more modifiers? You could effectively eliminate 33% of the dice rolls if you got rid of the to wound roll.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Blackie wrote:
...If you want granularity, and armies with very different stats, you need something like guardsmen or orks shooting/fighting, again it's not 30k where everything is an elite unit .


Adsecularii, Auxilia infantry, Militia infantry, Militia conscripts...

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in nl
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

Lemons. Yes, too many dice but worse problems, and the suggested solution doesn’t address any of those so… thanks for the fish.

   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

 Insectum7 wrote:
 Galas wrote:
 BlaxicanX wrote:


 Insectum7 wrote:
A Space Marine was already harder to take down than a Guardsman or Ork Boy.
Point for point, this has historically been false.


Specially because everytime someone does this comparison they use the bolter as a comparison. The bolter was a weapon to kill chaff infantry. What people used to obliterate space marines was the insane amount of high AP firepower the game has had for more than 15 years.

I don't care that it took 20 bolters rounds to kill a marine vs 5 to an ork boy/guardsmen. My space marines didn't spend the last 10 years dying like flyes to flasguns and bolters.


The sames goe to the typical "back in the day an ork boy killed X marines and now..." Ork boyz are horde units with light attacks. They excel at killing other chaff units like space marines can't. Of course they aren't good to kill space marines and haven't been for decades.
"Shpeeeesh Maaahreeeeenns!"

Galas I don't think I could disagree with you more. Imo you are the very face of the problem with modern balance between troops.


I mean, ideally all troops should be competitively balanced, having a place in most lists.

If you are curious, the troops (If one unit here is not a troop, I would make it one) I feel, by stats (Thats mean 1vs1 because by points it should not exist a "better" troop)) should be and feel more powerfull than marines (Marine Troops and most "troop like" units like assault, devastators, reivers, etc...) are Nobz (in meele), Tyranid Warriors (everything), Inmortals (Range and resilience), Custodes (everything), Katapron Servitors (range and resilience), Plague marines (everything), Rubric Marines (Range and resilience), Sonic Marines (Range) , Khorne Berzerkers (Meele), Harlequin Troopes.

The troops I feel should feel as powerfull as marines are Dire Avengers, CSM, and Genestealers (much faster and deadly in meele but much squishier and 0 shooting).

I'm probably forgetting something. Everything else, sisters, imperial guard, tau troops, ork boyz, necron warriors, etc... should not be able to go 1vs1 and in many times not even 1vs2 or 1vs3 agaisnt a marine (points and balance should account for all of that).

But stuff like and Imperial Guardsmen will never be as good as killing marines as marines killing him, because marines are or should be bullies of weaker stuff, and cheap infantry without ways to hurt heavy infantry should be, by pure balance, innefective agaisnt them. But just give a guardsmen squad a plasma gun and see how they recover half their cost in a single shooting phase. And that was the problem with marines.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/07/19 00:54:01


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Galas wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Galas wrote:
 BlaxicanX wrote:


 Insectum7 wrote:
A Space Marine was already harder to take down than a Guardsman or Ork Boy.
Point for point, this has historically been false.


Specially because everytime someone does this comparison they use the bolter as a comparison. The bolter was a weapon to kill chaff infantry. What people used to obliterate space marines was the insane amount of high AP firepower the game has had for more than 15 years.

I don't care that it took 20 bolters rounds to kill a marine vs 5 to an ork boy/guardsmen. My space marines didn't spend the last 10 years dying like flyes to flasguns and bolters.


The sames goe to the typical "back in the day an ork boy killed X marines and now..." Ork boyz are horde units with light attacks. They excel at killing other chaff units like space marines can't. Of course they aren't good to kill space marines and haven't been for decades.
"Shpeeeesh Maaahreeeeenns!"

Galas I don't think I could disagree with you more. Imo you are the very face of the problem with modern balance between troops.


I mean, ideally all troops should be competitively balanced, having a place in most lists.

If you are curious, the troops (If one unit here is not a troop, I would make it one) I feel, by stats (Thats mean 1vs1 because by points it should not exist a "better" troop)) should be and feel more powerfull than marines (Marine Troops and most "troop like" units like assault, devastators, reivers, etc...) are Nobz (in meele), Tyranid Warriors (everything), Inmortals (Range and resilience), Custodes (everything), Katapron Servitors (range and resilience), Plague marines (everything), Rubric Marines (Range and resilience), Sonic Marines (Range) , Khorne Berzerkers (Meele), Harlequin Troopes.

The troops I feel should feel as powerfull as marines are Dire Avengers, CSM, and Genestealers (much faster and deadly in meele but much squishier and 0 shooting).

I'm probably forgetting something. Everything else, sisters, imperial guard, tau troops, ork boyz, necron warriors, etc... should not be able to go 1vs1 and in many times not even 1vs2 or 1vs3 agaisnt a marine (points and balance should account for all of that).

But stuff like and Imperial Guardsmen will never be as good as killing marines as marines killing him, because marines are or should be bullies of weaker stuff, and cheap infantry without ways to hurt heavy infantry should be, by pure balance, innefective agaisnt them. But just give a guardsmen squad a plasma gun and see how they recover half their cost in a single shooting phase. And that was the problem with marines.
There are a lot of ways to go with space marines in both the lore and on the table top. In the first and 2nd Gaunt's Ghosts books, guardsmen are taking down Chaos Space Marines with lasguns on highpower. In other books, Space Marines are taking on entire planets with a single squad. The question we have to ask ourselves when choosing between the two ends of the spectrum, is what is more fun in a wargame, and what is more profitable for a company? I personally don't think running around with just a couple of models is conducive to either more fun, or more profit.

As for troops, I'd rather see small arms get much deadlier across the board, restrict specialist weapons so that, you know they are "specialist" and / or tighten their effectiveness toward a narrower path. Standard infantry and rifles play a frustratingly small role in the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/19 01:06:39


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Back in my day my Guard had tons of squads, because we still had the platoon structure, and Guard squads existed to stand around firing their heavy and special weapons all game, and sometimes swarming into HTH to either beat things with overwhelming numbers, or stall things whilst everyone pulled back to a new firing line.

No idea how Guard work now...

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Curiosity question for people who agree with the OP here, how do you feel about the change to Disgustingly Resilient moving it away from an army wide FNP?
GW's sudden move away from army-wide FNP is no doubt a way to speed things up. The problem with what they did with DG is two-fold however:

1. DG armies aren't usually that big unless you are just spamming Poxwalkers, so removing this from their limited amounts of Marines, Terminators and a few other things wasn't strictly necessary.
2. Their replacement helps make them more resilient against higher damage weapons, but D1 weapons still affect them in the same way (yes, I know they have W2 now, but that's an all-Marine thing, not a DG thing).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/19 01:19:43


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

 
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





 vipoid wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
I'd rather have a system that punishes players for trying to ignore a part of the game rather than have flamers attacking aircraft., grav tanks ramming aircraft, and tanks being shot to shreds by small arms.


Ah yes, clearly it's my fault as a player that GW gave my army 0 anti-knight weapons.

My sincere apologies for "trying to ignore a part of the game" by not playing Eldar or Space Marines.

Fliers are even funnier since they introduced an entirely new class of models and then introduced ANOTHER entirely new class of anti-air models so you could deal with them. Good luck if neither of type of model was introduced for your army!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/19 01:57:32


 
   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





West Lafayette, IN

So basically 3rd edition

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Arachnofiend wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
I'd rather have a system that punishes players for trying to ignore a part of the game rather than have flamers attacking aircraft., grav tanks ramming aircraft, and tanks being shot to shreds by small arms.


Ah yes, clearly it's my fault as a player that GW gave my army 0 anti-knight weapons.

My sincere apologies for "trying to ignore a part of the game" by not playing Eldar or Space Marines.

Fliers are even funnier since they introduced an entirely new class of models and then introduced ANOTHER entirely new class of anti-air models so you could deal with them. Good luck if neither of type of model was introduced for your army!
it's almost like factions should get AA if they don't have it, rather than claiming that a system that rewards hovering in the back lines, or moving as slowly as possible to remain away from enemy troops (In other words, behaving in the exact opposite as to how aircraft act. You know, flying around the battlefield.) is anything but worse. Lets advocate for a system where flamers, small arms, and jet pack infantry can either assault Aircraft, or hit them with a -1! It's not like they're traveling at supersonic speeds and odd angles!

Who doesn't have any AA ability except maybe chaos demons? Failure for a codex is not failure for a system.

This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2021/07/19 02:53:00


 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Boston

From a Necron perspective, marines are no longer a list I even think about when I try to design a list.

No matter how GW rearranges the stats on marines, they can't seem to break their awesome fluff/terrible tabletop paradigm for marines.

Marines suffer from being vulnerable to every attack vector in the game save units protected by transhuman. It's hard to not see DG as just marines that work correctly at this point.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/19 03:27:13


 
   
Made in nl
Fixture of Dakka





Look I make balloon animal

 Sledgehammer wrote:
There are a lot of ways to go with space marines in both the lore and on the table top. In the first and 2nd Gaunt's Ghosts books, guardsmen are taking down Chaos Space Marines with lasguns on highpower. In other books, Space Marines are taking on entire planets with a single squad. The question we have to ask ourselves when choosing between the two ends of the spectrum, is what is more fun in a wargame, and what is more profitable for a company? I personally don't think running around with just a couple of models is conducive to either more fun, or more profit.

Gaunt's Ghosts and whatever story in which Space Marines take on an entire planet with a single squad are aberrations. In most lore Space Marines aren't represented like that. We shouldn't choose between these two outer ends of the spectrum, rather we should simply ignore these outliers and assume that on average a Space Marine is equal to about 5-10 unaugmented soldiers (and for gameplay balance I'd suggest to stick with 5).

And I think the success of the Custodes shows that low model count armies can definitely work and be fun. And properly balanced Space Marines would still have a lot more models than the Custodes, so I don't think there is a problem here.

Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
There are a lot of ways to go with space marines in both the lore and on the table top. In the first and 2nd Gaunt's Ghosts books, guardsmen are taking down Chaos Space Marines with lasguns on highpower. In other books, Space Marines are taking on entire planets with a single squad. The question we have to ask ourselves when choosing between the two ends of the spectrum, is what is more fun in a wargame, and what is more profitable for a company? I personally don't think running around with just a couple of models is conducive to either more fun, or more profit.

Gaunt's Ghosts and whatever story in which Space Marines take on an entire planet with a single squad are aberrations. In most lore Space Marines aren't represented like that. We shouldn't choose between these two outer ends of the spectrum, rather we should simply ignore these outliers and assume that on average a Space Marine is equal to about 5-10 unaugmented soldiers (and for gameplay balance I'd suggest to stick with 5).

And I think the success of the Custodes shows that low model count armies can definitely work and be fun. And properly balanced Space Marines would still have a lot more models than the Custodes, so I don't think there is a problem here.
Yup that's pretty much my point. I'm not sure I agree that for every platoon of guard there should be one five man tac squad either....

I'm against armies being THAT elite because they don't really feel like an army anymore. An army on the Table top should aim to have around 40 models at 2,000 points at the very least. Anything less just doesn't quite feel right.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/07/19 03:59:04


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Orks rolls tons of dice since decades, and no one complained about dice rolling in 3rd or 5th. Even now in 9th it's not guardsmen or orks that annoy people with endless dice rolling.

In fact I also play a SM chapter and I've got the feeling that I'm rolling way more dice with then, rather than orks.

If you want granularity, and armies with very different stats, you need something like guardsmen or orks shooting/fighting, again it's not 30k where everything is an elite unit .
Let me be more specific then. Do we need a to wound roll to have a necessary amount of granularity? Is there something that can supplement it? Could you expand the armor save system with more modifiers? You could effectively eliminate 33% of the dice rolls if you got rid of the to wound roll.



Do we need an armor save roll? If a soldier gets wounded, obviously their armor failed to protect them.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: