Switch Theme:

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

View results
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

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

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
When comparing two weapons firing at the same BS the number of hits is determined by the number of shots fired, not by BS.
Well no gak.

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

 
   
Made in us
Water-Caste Negotiator




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Are you factoring in, at all, what's being shot at?


Yes, obviously. That's the whole point of why ACs suck, post-buff HBs are equal or better against virtually every target. But what does that have to do with your complaint about not accounting for BS?
   
Made in gb
Banelord Titan Princeps of Khorne




Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Are you factoring in, at all, what's being shot at?


Yes, obviously. That's the whole point of why ACs suck, post-buff HBs are equal or better against virtually every target. But what does that have to do with your complaint about not accounting for BS?


Opportunity cost. If you have a 6 1 shot weapons your opportunities are severely limited. If you have a 4 shot weapon then you have a greater number of opportunities.

This factors in more at low BS, where only having 4 1 shot weapons will often result in 0 hits, whereas 4 4 shot weapons, even if less effective mean you have 2 hits per turn on average with a greater chance of punching above average.

The 1 shot weapon might be deadlier but that doesn't count for much if it never hits.

Add to that this entire debate is coming from a conversation about R&H in older editions, where a HB literally couldn't hurt the same things as an autocannon could.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/28 08:23:49


 
   
Made in us
Water-Caste Negotiator




Dudeface wrote:
The 1 shot weapon might be deadlier but that doesn't count for much if it never hits.


And the high-shot weapon doesn't count for anything if it fails to wound. Scoring hits is not the goal, removing enemy models/units from the table is, and the happy feelings of "accomplishing something" by getting hits have no value. This whole "as long as I get to keep rolling dice something can always happen" mindset is exactly the kind of lack of understanding of the math that casinos love to profit from.

If you want to have a meaningful comparison between options the only thing that matters is the end result, and in that end result BS is irrelevant unless the two options have different BS (which is not the case here).

Add to that this entire debate is coming from a conversation about R&H in older editions, where a HB literally couldn't hurt the same things as an autocannon could.


This entire debate comes from someone posting about their current R&H army, not older editions.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/28 08:28:49


 
   
Made in gb
Banelord Titan Princeps of Khorne




Not Online!!! wrote:
Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
They mean you can have more of the R&H troops therefore more of the heavy weapon and yes the BS does factor in, a BS 2+ anti armour weapon is reliable on the hit rate for a 1 shot weapon, at BS 6+ having multiple opportunities increases odds of success, even if the total theoretical damage output is the same on paper.


Neither of these things matter.

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

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


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


@G'V E

No, it was regards comments about their past edition usage. It came from someone using them now, but the point I was responding to was their past edition usage, much like several others.

But the point still stands that inaccurate fire makes it hard to point correctly, orks are sort of attempted to be built with this in mind. You take lots of shots because you expect few of them to do much, but dice are fickle and if you do get hit with rolls you're performing well beyond expectations. On paper you're right, mathematically a melta kills more marines than an autocannon does, but the autocannon has a higher potential damage ceiling if you roll well, which is why on low BS you need greater opportunities to roll more dice, to create chances.

Life doesn't follow napkin maths.
   
Made in us
Water-Caste Negotiator




Dudeface wrote:
No, it was regards comments about their past edition usage. It came from someone using them now, but the point I was responding to was their past edition usage, much like several others.


Ok. I will agree that in past editions ACs were a viable option, if you want to limit the scope of the discussion to past editions and not the original claim. BS is still irrelevant to that comparison though, ACs just happen to have far better (relative) stats in previous editions.

Life doesn't follow napkin maths.


Casinos love people who believe this.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Not really sure about this. To my mind napkin maths holds up.

I'm sort of confused what edition/rules we are using - but for simplicity lets say a melta gun kills a Marine 5/12s of the time. (1/2 hit, 5/6 wound, no save.)

An Autocannon shot kills a Marine 5/36 of the time. (1/2 hit, 5/6 wound, 2/3 save.)

So you can spin that round. If you have 3 meltas, the odds of doing nothing at all into marines is 7/12^3=19.85%. So about 1/5th of the time you shoot 3 meltas you'd do no damage.

By contrast with Autocannons the odds of doing nothing is 31/36. So 3 Autocannons is 31/36^6=40.77%. So you'd expect the three autocannons do nothing into marines double the time of the melta guns.

Does this change if you make the shooting unit BS6+? Well yes to an extent.
The melta goes to 1/6*5/6=5/36 to kill a Marine. The Autocannon round is 1/6*5/6*1/3=5/108.

So the odds of 3 meltas doing nothing becomes (31/36)^3=63.85%.
And 3 Autocannons becomes (103/108)^6=75.24%.

Whether the Autocannon is "relatively better" in this scenario is hard to say. The odds of the Melta doing some damage have fallen by a greater amount. But it's still more reliable. Tbh the odds of doing nothing in both is probably too high to be worth taking if its a common enough scenario.

But - and this is a factor that doesn't seem to have been covered, or I guess you are using special rules to get around it - the old autocannon (and heavy bolter) really suffered for being heavy. That's snapshots if you move - or indeed nothing at all (I think?) if we go back further. Less of a burden today perhaps - but still a potential consideration.

I guess its fine if the terrain is such you can deploy your guardsmen into cover with good view of the rest of the table, and they are going to stay there until turn 5 where you might try and sprint them on to an objective if everything else is dead. But I feel this sort of planet bowling ball set up went out with the ark(s of omen). Or you were asking to be immediately nuked because you'd be standing out of cover and guardsmen died to a stiff breeze.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Dudeface wrote:
But the point still stands that inaccurate fire makes it hard to point correctly, orks are sort of attempted to be built with this in mind. You take lots of shots because you expect few of them to do much, but dice are fickle and if you do get hit with rolls you're performing well beyond expectations. On paper you're right, mathematically a melta kills more marines than an autocannon does, but the autocannon has a higher potential damage ceiling if you roll well, which is why on low BS you need greater opportunities to roll more dice, to create chances.

Life doesn't follow napkin maths.


That's not some sagely salt-of-the-earth wisdom that the math nerds never accounted for because they don't know anything beyond averages. It's called standard deviation. You can visualize it with a bell curve.

And it does not work out to poor stats being better if you can fire a lot of low-accuracy shots- instead, the chance of you doing nothing increases. If you roll ten dice and need 5+, you're more likely to get zero successes than if you roll five dice and need 3+. That remote possibility of them all coming up 6s is offset by a substantially greater likelihood of them underperforming. It doesn't matter whether you're hitting on 3s or 5s before you get there.

In fact, if you rely on large numbers of unlikely-to-succeed trials to 'create chances', you may get that blowout success every once in a while, but the typical result (mode, not mean) is that you will perform below-average. So you're right, averages don't tell the whole story- except that the real-world implications are worse for high-volume low-strength weapons and worse for inaccurate platforms, not better.

GW not understanding this stuff either and using gambler logic to write their rules is part of the problem.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/11/28 14:46:46


   
Made in gb
Banelord Titan Princeps of Khorne




 catbarf wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
But the point still stands that inaccurate fire makes it hard to point correctly, orks are sort of attempted to be built with this in mind. You take lots of shots because you expect few of them to do much, but dice are fickle and if you do get hit with rolls you're performing well beyond expectations. On paper you're right, mathematically a melta kills more marines than an autocannon does, but the autocannon has a higher potential damage ceiling if you roll well, which is why on low BS you need greater opportunities to roll more dice, to create chances.

Life doesn't follow napkin maths.


That's not some sagely salt-of-the-earth wisdom that the math nerds never accounted for because they don't know anything beyond averages. It's called standard deviation. You can visualize it with a bell curve.

And it does not work out to poor stats being better if you can fire a lot of low-accuracy shots- instead, the chance of you doing nothing increases. If you roll ten dice and need 5+, you're more likely to get zero successes than if you roll five dice and need 3+. That remote possibility of them all coming up 6s is offset by a substantially greater likelihood of them underperforming. It doesn't matter whether you're hitting on 3s or 5s before you get there.

In fact, if you rely on large numbers of unlikely-to-succeed trials to 'create chances', you may get that blowout success every once in a while, but the typical result (mode, not mean) is that you will perform below-average. So you're right, averages don't tell the whole story- except that the real-world implications are worse for high-volume low-strength weapons and worse for inaccurate platforms, not better.

GW not understanding this stuff either and using gambler logic to write their rules is part of the problem.


Given we're displaying maths as the mathematical means, they should also be the modal here I would have thought? I know what standard deviation but I'm not a statistician by any measure. Regards the probabilities, you've got confused, the example at hand was 4 single shot high lethality weapons, vs 4 higher rate of fire lower lethality weapons, all hitting at BS 6+.

Contrary to what you've written you'll have to dumb it down for me to understand how 4 shots at 6+ is more likely to accomplish nothing than 8 shots at BS 6+, although in honesty I think you've simply not followed the examples and argument and assumed different hit rates.
   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





Monticello, IN

What in the OCD nitpicking feth happened to this thread?!?

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 gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Just Tony wrote:
What in the OCD nitpicking feth happened to this thread?!?


I think we've concluded the only problem with 7th was heavy bolters, and the only problem in 9th is autocannons.

GW are overjoyed.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

Also we should have two games - one for people who can do math and one for people who cannot/refuse too. That way the two groups need never meet and fight!

Print Hunter
Check out the latest 3D print model releases!  
   
Made in us
Water-Caste Negotiator




Dudeface wrote:
Contrary to what you've written you'll have to dumb it down for me to understand how 4 shots at 6+ is more likely to accomplish nothing than 8 shots at BS 6+, although in honesty I think you've simply not followed the examples and argument and assumed different hit rates.


Because, again, "accomplishing something" is defined by removing models and units from the table, not by scoring hits. The 8 shots are more likely to score one or more hits but far less likely to convert those hits into dead models, with the net result being that the low-volume weapon is more likely to remove one or more models from the table and will kill more models per game on average. And these facts remain true regardless of BS, unless the unit has different BS depending on the weapon selected (rapid fire vs. heavy on a unit that moved, etc).

What you're talking about is the fallacy casinos love to exploit with slot machines, where "almost winning" feels almost as good as an actual win. The casino has the slot machine make it look like the wheels were about to stop on a winning combination and makes a big show of how cool the near-win was and the gambling addict thinks "I almost won this time, I just need one more spin to get lucky!". Or, in the 40k version, you score a bunch of hits with a high-volume weapon and get the excitement of a near-win even if all those hits fail to wound and/or fail to get through saves. The low-volume weapon feels less effective because you don't get the exciting near-win on your failures, even if it has a higher overall chance of success.

(The exception, of course, is if GW makes a major balance mistake and creates a weapon that has both higher volume of fire and better strength/AP to convert hits into dead models. In that case the overpowered weapon becomes an auto-take regardless of BS.)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/28 18:09:38


 
   
Made in us
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets





 Just Tony wrote:
What in the OCD nitpicking feth happened to this thread?!?
Much like people discussing D&D. People cannot agree on what edition of 40k they prefer and thus it has evolved to math battles involving things because the alternative is people just shouting at each other that "4th is best!" "No, 5th!" "3rrrd!" In their own ways while someone does an eyeroll orkmoticon and snidely insults someone.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

Tyel wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
What in the OCD nitpicking feth happened to this thread?!?


I think we've concluded the only problem with 7th was heavy bolters, and the only problem in 9th is autocannons.


I knew there was something about each of those editions I hated!
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
What in the OCD nitpicking feth happened to this thread?!?
Much like people discussing D&D. People cannot agree on what edition of 40k they prefer and thus it has evolved to math battles involving things because the alternative is people just shouting at each other that "4th is best!" "No, 5th!" "3rrrd!" In their own ways while someone does an eyeroll orkmoticon and snidely insults someone.


Oh it is rather easy to find out. The edition they had the most fun playing for longest time was the best and most fun. And if on top of that their army had options for different type of lists or game play, they will call it the best edition GW ever created. Especialy if they play just one faction and maybe with expetion of eldar, where every edition, where they got a codex, was a good edition.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in ie
Regular Dakkanaut




I think the editions before my gaming group used the internet to netlist were a lot better.

People had to actually learn to play themselves, so came up with their own styles without worrying about what's optimal.

Well, some worried about having strong lists but they often weren't clever enough to really use them.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Dudeface wrote:
Contrary to what you've written you'll have to dumb it down for me to understand how 4 shots at 6+ is more likely to accomplish nothing than 8 shots at BS 6+, although in honesty I think you've simply not followed the examples and argument and assumed different hit rates.


I followed fine. You're not comparing two weapons that are identical except one gets twice as many shots; you're comparing a weapon that gets more shots to a weapon that is more likely to inflict damage on any given shot. If it's 8 shots that hit on 6 and wound on 5+ versus 4 shots that hit on 6 and wound on 3+, the second one is more reliable, even though the average is the same. It can't inflict 5+ wounds, but it's less likely to inflict 0.

The exact ballistic skill of the firing platform changes the delta between the two but not the basic principle. The low-volume, high-power weapon is more reliable at inflicting damage regardless of whether you're hitting on 2s or 6s.

Here's an extreme example: Gun #1 gets 6 shots, hitting on 6s, wounding on 6s. Each shot has a 1/36 chance to successfully wound, so a 35/36 chance to fail. The chance of all six failing at the same time is (35/36)^6, which comes to about 0.84 or 84%. Gun #2 gets 1 shot, hitting on 6s, and autowounds. It has a 1/6 chance of success, so a 5/6 chance to fail. Roughly 83%. Minutely lower chance of doing nothing, but doesn't have the minute chance of doing 2 or more wounds, either.

Now change the hit rate to 2+. The first gun is now successfully hitting and wounding 5/36 of the time, so has a 31/36 chance to fail. The chance of all six shots failing is (31/36)^6 or 41%. The single-shot auto-wound gun has a 5/6 chance of success, so a 1/6 chance to fail. That's a 17% failure rate. There's now substantially more of a difference (because the high-volume gun is now much more likely to get 2 or more wounds), but the same principle.

By the same token, two shots at BS5+ are less reliable (44% chance of doing nothing, 55% chance of 1 hit, 11% chance of 2 hits) than one shot at BS3+ (33% chance of doing nothing, 67% chance of 1 hit). The mathematical reason is exactly the same.

It just isn't true that a higher volume of fire at the cost of individual lethality makes low BS more reliable. Low BS is going to be unreliable regardless, but the way to make it most reliable is to use fewer, more lethal attacks. And if an autocannon is better than a heavy bolter at BS3+, then it's still better at BS5+; at no point does being inaccurate make a higher-volume but overall less effective weapon suddenly more viable. The fewer dice you roll, the more consistent and closer to average the outcome, regardless of how likely or unlikely those individual rolls are.

Players don't seem to get this. GW certainly doesn't. It is what it is.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/29 00:25:05


   
Made in de
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




So Guard and Orks should be BS5+ and Tau should be BS 4+?

This is all just ploin measuring until someone makes a worthy suggestion or presents an argument.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So Guard and Orks should be BS5+ and Tau should be BS 4+?

This is all just ploin measuring until someone makes a worthy suggestion or presents an argument.

Ya know, a D12 system would be able to help differentiate those differences a little better
   
Made in de
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




EviscerationPlague wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So Guard and Orks should be BS5+ and Tau should be BS 4+?

This is all just ploin measuring until someone makes a worthy suggestion or presents an argument.

Ya know, a D12 system would be able to help differentiate those differences a little better


The difference in ploin measurements, or Ballistic Skill? Because I'm still on the fence about changing the dice. I feel something intrinsic needs to change, but I think the dice is a red herring. I'd much prefer they bring back the wounding chart and make somethings incapable of wounding other things.

But I also think Custodes are a foolish faction to keep in the game, and that if you have "Sly Marbo" on your list you should auto-win the match.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So Guard and Orks should be BS5+ and Tau should be BS 4+?

This is all just ploin measuring until someone makes a worthy suggestion or presents an argument.


If you go back to the previous page, the original argument was that weapon balance was poor in older editions. Someone else responded by essentially saying 'no, those weapons that seem bad were actually better than the alternatives when inaccurate troops use them', which is not how that works.

So I guess my position is less of a specific suggestion and more of a general hope that someone at GW is required to learn probability before writing 10th so they stop writing bad rules based on these sorts of fallacies. We may not have 3rd Ed unkillable Falcons anymore, but we still get things like Iron Hands in SM2.0, or more commonly units like Tyranid Warriors where there's a clear best option among a couple of bad ones.

   
Made in gb
Banelord Titan Princeps of Khorne




 catbarf wrote:
Spoiler:
Dudeface wrote:
Contrary to what you've written you'll have to dumb it down for me to understand how 4 shots at 6+ is more likely to accomplish nothing than 8 shots at BS 6+, although in honesty I think you've simply not followed the examples and argument and assumed different hit rates.


I followed fine. You're not comparing two weapons that are identical except one gets twice as many shots; you're comparing a weapon that gets more shots to a weapon that is more likely to inflict damage on any given shot. If it's 8 shots that hit on 6 and wound on 5+ versus 4 shots that hit on 6 and wound on 3+, the second one is more reliable, even though the average is the same. It can't inflict 5+ wounds, but it's less likely to inflict 0.

The exact ballistic skill of the firing platform changes the delta between the two but not the basic principle. The low-volume, high-power weapon is more reliable at inflicting damage regardless of whether you're hitting on 2s or 6s.

Here's an extreme example: Gun #1 gets 6 shots, hitting on 6s, wounding on 6s. Each shot has a 1/36 chance to successfully wound, so a 35/36 chance to fail. The chance of all six failing at the same time is (35/36)^6, which comes to about 0.84 or 84%. Gun #2 gets 1 shot, hitting on 6s, and autowounds. It has a 1/6 chance of success, so a 5/6 chance to fail. Roughly 83%. Minutely lower chance of doing nothing, but doesn't have the minute chance of doing 2 or more wounds, either.

Now change the hit rate to 2+. The first gun is now successfully hitting and wounding 5/36 of the time, so has a 31/36 chance to fail. The chance of all six shots failing is (31/36)^6 or 41%. The single-shot auto-wound gun has a 5/6 chance of success, so a 1/6 chance to fail. That's a 17% failure rate. There's now substantially more of a difference (because the high-volume gun is now much more likely to get 2 or more wounds), but the same principle.

By the same token, two shots at BS5+ are less reliable (44% chance of doing nothing, 55% chance of 1 hit, 11% chance of 2 hits) than one shot at BS3+ (33% chance of doing nothing, 67% chance of 1 hit). The mathematical reason is exactly the same.

It just isn't true that a higher volume of fire at the cost of individual lethality makes low BS more reliable. Low BS is going to be unreliable regardless, but the way to make it most reliable is to use fewer, more lethal attacks. And if an autocannon is better than a heavy bolter at BS3+, then it's still better at BS5+; at no point does being inaccurate make a higher-volume but overall less effective weapon suddenly more viable. The fewer dice you roll, the more consistent and closer to average the outcome, regardless of how likely or unlikely those individual rolls are.


Players don't seem to get this. GW certainly doesn't. It is what it is.


Thank you very much for the lesson, I understand now.
   
Made in us
Powerful Ushbati





United States

I just don't understand these constant rules changes in warhammer. If Battletech can maintain the same system for over 35 years, why does GW have to change theirs ever 2.5 years.
   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





Monticello, IN

 Togusa wrote:
I just don't understand these constant rules changes in warhammer. If Battletech can maintain the same system for over 35 years, why does GW have to change theirs ever 2.5 years.


Because we enable them by buying those rules. Empirical "we", as I refuse to buy another ruleset from them until they come up with something actually good. W:TOW is tentative...

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 hu
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot





EviscerationPlague wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So Guard and Orks should be BS5+ and Tau should be BS 4+?

This is all just ploin measuring until someone makes a worthy suggestion or presents an argument.

Ya know, a D12 system would be able to help differentiate those differences a little better

You don't need D12 for that. A simple opposed check to hit (firer's BS vs target's Evasion or whatever) would add even more variance. But that would require players to memorize the chart for the opposing attributes, and we all know it is a no-go.

My armies:
14000 points 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Do you need variance? Why not have every unit be BS3+?
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Tyel wrote:
Do you need variance? Why not have every unit be BS3+?

Because some units are more adept at hitting their targets in the fluff than others and will thus achieve better results using the same firearm. I still haven't seen two units that are fluff-wise have very different abilities to hit that it is impossible to assign via the current system. In absence of a good reason to change and with the presence of the current system being simple it shouldn't be changed. Destroyers do not hit better than an Immortal because of fluff, they hit better because the 3rd edition codex writer used the name of the ability to say something and the 9th edition codex writer just kept it in the datasheet because it's always been in the datasheet. If they did need to hit better their BS could be raised to 2+. Do Custodes Captains need a better BS than the 2+ of their compatriots? No, it's really not important and you can only hit so accurately. If you're going beyond just "almost always hits the target" to "often gets critical hits" a D20 determining whether you hit wouldn't help. The rules being 100 pages long was terrible for new or returning players, in the same way that Stratagems are today.
   
Made in fi
5th God of Chaos (O'rly?)





Tyel wrote:
Do you need variance? Why not have every unit be BS3+?


Why not have every gun 24" rapid fire 1 S4 AP0?

Why not have every unit move 6"?

Why not have everything have T4?

2023 painted/bought: 143/140 
   
Made in us
Water-Caste Negotiator




tneva82 wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Do you need variance? Why not have every unit be BS3+?


Why not have every gun 24" rapid fire 1 S4 AP0?

Why not have every unit move 6"?

Why not have everything have T4?


Can you honestly say that this hypothetical game would have meaningfully less strategic depth than the current bloated mess of "oops I just won in the list building phase"?
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: