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.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

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"?

Yes. Games being accidentally won in the list building phase is going to be part of any game where players have to pick between different things. This is a desired outcome, an army with as many meltas as possible should beat a vehicle list and lose to a horde list.

 vict0988 wrote:
Yes. Games being accidentally won in the list building phase is going to be part of any game where players have to pick between different things. This is a desired outcome, an army with as many meltas as possible should beat a vehicle list and lose to a horde list.

There's an immense difference between skew lists playing rock/paper/scissors with other skew lists and current 40k, where 99% of winning a game is about bringing the obvious cookie cutter netlist with the obvious best options and playing "competitive" missions that create a nice predictable environment where the analysis that generated the netlist is guaranteed to be true. Despite the impressive word count of its rules 40k has the strategic depth of a puddle.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
...99% of winning a game is about bringing the obvious cookie cutter netlist...

Why don't you say something like "I feel like building a competitive list is too easy and has too big an impact on the outcome of the game" instead?

"competitive" missions that create a nice predictable environment where the analysis that generated the netlist is guaranteed to be true.

As opposed to being roulette to see if you get a mission that is winnable against your opponent's list or a 50/50 to see if you're the defender in a mission where being the defender is an auto-loss?

Despite the impressive word count of its rules 40k has the strategic depth of a puddle

40k doesn't have an impressive word count compared to previously. The codexes are very wide, but Stratagems do add a lot of depth to the game. If you don't know what Stratagems there are or how to ask for them, then you will be in major trouble, just if in Chess you haven't studied thousands of opening moves you are quickly going to get into a terrible board-state against a high-ranked player. Chess achieves it's depth without as many words (width) and that's good game design, but just because the ratio between 40k's width and depth is worse than that of Chess does not make 40k shallow. Good players consistently performing above average shows this to be true, while they sometimes have first-mover advantage there is also a tonne of skill. Even some of the best 40k players will admit to making mistakes, when people on the internet say that 40k is easy and they never make mistakes, how do you think that makes me think of those people?

tneva82 wrote:
Why not have every gun 24" rapid fire 1 S4 AP0?

Why not have every unit move 6"?

Why not have everything have T4?

Well if it was good enough for 3rd edition...

I guess my point was more that GW seem to realise now they have to try for a balanced game. Clearly they fail at that by degree - but its closer than it was.
But this just results in ever more complicated equations due to the need to stick things on both sides of the equation.

So if say Ork Shooting units are stuck at BS5+, then they need to carry buckets of dice so they can be as good as units which are say BS3+ with full rerolls.
But its unclear trying to make "Lootas" work with BS5+ is really good for the game. Why not just make them BS3+ and balance it that way? Is the game really getting much out of looking for 5s from a bucket of dice? Or assault units that need to kill Marines to be worth taking. But since they don't have S5 AP-3 etc (although we are chucking that out for free too) they need 4~ attacks a model.

Clearly a melta gun should be better into a tank than into a horde. But I'm not sure BS effects that very much.

I mean you could write the rules such that all attacks automatically hit, and balance accordingly. I guess that removes the scope of +1/-1 to hit, rerolls, exploding 6s etc - but I'm not sure those are the height of tactical genius/rules design/fun anyway.

Tyel wrote:

But its unclear trying to make "Lootas" work with BS5+ is really good for the game. Why not just make them BS3+ and balance it that way?

Lemme blow your mind: we can have Lootas hitting both on a 5+ and 3+ with the opposed checks mechanic I proposed earlier. So why think with static rolls when you can go fully dynamic? Lootas would have Ballistic Skill 4 (not '4+', just '4')) and if they fire at a Space Marine (Evasion 5) then they hit on a 5+, but if they fire at a Guardsman (Evasion 4) then it is a 4+, if they fire at a fellow Ork Boy (Evasion 3) then it is a 3+, and if they fire at a Land Raider (Evasion 2) then they can even get a nice 2+. Just an example, but you get the idea.

Tyel wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Why not have every gun 24" rapid fire 1 S4 AP0?

Why not have every unit move 6"?

Why not have everything have T4?

Well if it was good enough for 3rd edition...

I guess my point was more that GW seem to realise now they have to try for a balanced game. Clearly they fail at that by degree - but its closer than it was.
But this just results in ever more complicated equations due to the need to stick things on both sides of the equation.

So if say Ork Shooting units are stuck at BS5+, then they need to carry buckets of dice so they can be as good as units which are say BS3+ with full rerolls.
But its unclear trying to make "Lootas" work with BS5+ is really good for the game. Why not just make them BS3+ and balance it that way? Is the game really getting much out of looking for 5s from a bucket of dice? Or assault units that need to kill Marines to be worth taking. But since they don't have S5 AP-3 etc (although we are chucking that out for free too) they need 4~ attacks a model.

Clearly a melta gun should be better into a tank than into a horde. But I'm not sure BS effects that very much.

I mean you could write the rules such that all attacks automatically hit, and balance accordingly. I guess that removes the scope of +1/-1 to hit, rerolls, exploding 6s etc - but I'm not sure those are the height of tactical genius/rules design/fun anyway.

I bang on the drum about the BS thing pretty often, we're at the stage it's pretty easy to make even generally rubbish units hit on 3+ regularly, it's only really Orks being an outlier at this point and even then 4+ is considered "bad" widely and a common community opinion is "unit A was designed to be a specialist at Z so should hit on a 3+". Mathematically yes, a loota firing fewer shots at 3+ is easier to manage in the game, but it's not flavourful, orks are about being obnoxious, loud and doing things in a backwards way often. Rolling a bucket of dice shows that flavour imo more than "oh my loota is the same as a autocannon havoc now by stats/output".

 AtoMaki wrote:

Tyel wrote:

But its unclear trying to make "Lootas" work with BS5+ is really good for the game. Why not just make them BS3+ and balance it that way?

Lemme blow your mind: we can have Lootas hitting both on a 5+ and 3+ with the opposed checks mechanic I proposed earlier. So why think with static rolls when you can go fully dynamic? Lootas would have Ballistic Skill 4 (not '4+', just '4')) and if they fire at a Space Marine (Evasion 5) then they hit on a 5+, but if they fire at a Guardsman (Evasion 4) then it is a 4+, if they fire at a fellow Ork Boy (Evasion 3) then it is a 3+, and if they fire at a Land Raider (Evasion 2) then they can even get a nice 2+. Just an example, but you get the idea.

Could just have equal or beat the EV to hit.

Then can even give ork a 2BS, Everyone can aim if they don’t move.
But orks get a Dakka skill that gives +2 to aiming instead.
They not great shots, but they lay down firepower when they set there mind to it.

 vict0988 wrote:

As opposed to being roulette to see if you get a mission that is winnable against your opponent's list or a 50/50 to see if you're the defender in a mission where being the defender is an auto-loss?

nah, that would simply force you to bring a list that can do multiple missions.

GW could make a GT pack that has like X very distinct missions that reward different playstyles and unit types and then make the TO roll for them at the beginning of every round, that way players would need to bring lists that cover multiple strats instead of knowing that every missions is gonna be "hold 1-2-more" with a choice of secondaries that is mostly decided before getting to the table


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

40k doesn't have an impressive word count compared to previously. The codexes are very wide, but Stratagems do add a lot of depth to the game. If you don't know what Stratagems there are or how to ask for them, then you will be in major trouble, just if in Chess you haven't studied thousands of opening moves you are quickly going to get into a terrible board-state against a high-ranked player. Chess achieves it's depth without as many words (width) and that's good game design, but just because the ratio between 40k's width and depth is worse than that of Chess does not make 40k shallow. Good players consistently performing above average shows this to be true, while they sometimes have first-mover advantage there is also a tonne of skill. Even some of the best 40k players will admit to making mistakes, when people on the internet say that 40k is easy and they never make mistakes, how do you think that makes me think of those people?

The difference is that with Chess everything is in your face, and the only thing that matters is your strategy.

Needing to memorize countless stratagems to make optimal moves is nowhere near Chess.

Oh and strats don't add depth, they add the illusion of depth.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

As opposed to being roulette to see if you get a mission that is winnable against your opponent's list or a 50/50 to see if you're the defender in a mission where being the defender is an auto-loss?

nah, that would simply force you to bring a list that can do multiple missions.

GW could make a GT pack that has like X very distinct missions that reward different playstyles and unit types and then make the TO roll for them at the beginning of every round, that way players would need to bring lists that cover multiple strats instead of knowing that every missions is gonna be "hold 1-2-more" with a choice of secondaries that is mostly decided before getting to the table

If there are 9 missions, and I am choosing whether to take list A or list B. List A has an average chance of winning of 45% in every mission and a chance of going 5/0 1%. List B has a 50% chance of winning 6 missions, 70% chance of winning 1 mission and 40% chance of winning 2 missions and a 2% chance of going 5/0 then I will choose list B. You have not forced me to bring a list that can do multiple missions, not that most GT winning lists can't do multiple missions. Edit: Removed

...strats don't add depth, they add the illusion of depth.

Give me a definition for game design depth that excludes Strats.

 vict0988 wrote:

If there are 9 missions, and I am choosing whether to take list A or list B. List A has an average chance of winning of 45% in every mission and a chance of going 5/0 1%. List B has a 50% chance of winning 6 missions, 70% chance of winning 1 mission and 40% chance of winning 2 missions and a 2% chance of going 5/0 then I will choose list B. You have not forced me to bring a list that can do multiple missions, not that most GT winning lists can't do multiple missions. You're probably not a competitive player and you don't know what a competitive list looked like if it hit you in the face, just like the casuals that have whined about me bringing competitive lists when they were the ones bringing more competitive lists because fluffy can still be competitive and fluffy is not necessarily casual.

I was about to actually engage with you but then i reached this

 vict0988 wrote:

You're probably not a competitive player and you don't know what a competitive list looked like if it hit you in the face, just like the casuals that have whined about me bringing competitive lists when they were the ones bringing more competitive lists because fluffy can still be competitive and fluffy is not necessarily casual.

Yeah, have a nice day

 AtoMaki wrote:
Lemme blow your mind: we can have Lootas hitting both on a 5+ and 3+ with the opposed checks mechanic I proposed earlier. So why think with static rolls when you can go fully dynamic? Lootas would have Ballistic Skill 4 (not '4+', just '4')) and if they fire at a Space Marine (Evasion 5) then they hit on a 5+, but if they fire at a Guardsman (Evasion 4) then it is a 4+, if they fire at a fellow Ork Boy (Evasion 3) then it is a 3+, and if they fire at a Land Raider (Evasion 2) then they can even get a nice 2+. Just an example, but you get the idea.

Well yeah, we could do that - it would be like some version of the wounding chart but to hit.
But does it... add anything?

 vict0988 wrote:
If there are 9 missions, and I am choosing whether to take list A or list B. List A has an average chance of winning of 45% in every mission and a chance of going 5/0 1%. List B has a 50% chance of winning 6 missions, 70% chance of winning 1 mission and 40% chance of winning 2 missions and a 2% chance of going 5/0 then I will choose list B.

If list A has an average 50% chance of winning every mission, while list B has 60% in one mission, 50% in three missions, 40% in two missions, and 10% in the last, you're better off taking the well-rounded one and considerably more likely to go 5/0.

If the mission pack is set up such that going heavy skew wins you 5 out of 6 missions and auto-loses the last, that's a bad mission pack. That doesn't mean the only alternative is the current cookie-cutter symmetrical experience where every mission is functionally the same.

Tyel wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
Lemme blow your mind: we can have Lootas hitting both on a 5+ and 3+ with the opposed checks mechanic I proposed earlier. So why think with static rolls when you can go fully dynamic? Lootas would have Ballistic Skill 4 (not '4+', just '4')) and if they fire at a Space Marine (Evasion 5) then they hit on a 5+, but if they fire at a Guardsman (Evasion 4) then it is a 4+, if they fire at a fellow Ork Boy (Evasion 3) then it is a 3+, and if they fire at a Land Raider (Evasion 2) then they can even get a nice 2+. Just an example, but you get the idea.

Well yeah, we could do that - it would be like some version of the wounding chart but to hit.
But does it... add anything?

Of course it does! It adds more variance and thus increases the number of different situations you encounter during game and thus makes the game less of a borefest. Because that's the real thing you want to avoid: generalization leads to dullness and dullness leads to boredom, and when players get bored they stop playing (at best) or get pissed and start gaking all over the game (at worst). You might know this phenomenon from video game design where it is called "replayability".

It would mostly allow a better representation of being hard (or easier) to hit.

GW has the issue that they are very inconsistent when it comes to that, sometimes using invulnerable saves, sometimes using cover saves, sometimes using modifiers and other rarer rules.
An evasion table would allow to standardize all of that.

Moreover it could also be used as another lever to further differentiate anti-tank weaponry from anti-infantry. We could return to more granular wound table in which tanks cannot be wounded by small arms but with the downside of being easier to hit and thus more vulnerable to anti-tank weaponry, which in turn could be adjusted to be less effective against infantry.

 AtoMaki wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
Lemme blow your mind: we can have Lootas hitting both on a 5+ and 3+ with the opposed checks mechanic I proposed earlier. So why think with static rolls when you can go fully dynamic? Lootas would have Ballistic Skill 4 (not '4+', just '4')) and if they fire at a Space Marine (Evasion 5) then they hit on a 5+, but if they fire at a Guardsman (Evasion 4) then it is a 4+, if they fire at a fellow Ork Boy (Evasion 3) then it is a 3+, and if they fire at a Land Raider (Evasion 2) then they can even get a nice 2+. Just an example, but you get the idea.

Well yeah, we could do that - it would be like some version of the wounding chart but to hit.
But does it... add anything?

Of course it does! It adds more variance and thus increases the number of different situations you encounter during game and thus makes the game less of a borefest. Because that's the real thing you want to avoid: generalization leads to dullness and dullness leads to boredom, and when players get bored they stop playing (at best) or get pissed and start gaking all over the game (at worst). You might know this phenomenon from video game design where it is called "replayability".

Is there a compelling reason to not just use modifiers for that though? Fast Moving = -1 to hit, Large Target = +1 to hit, etc. I feel like that's an easier mechanic that can achieve similar results.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Is there a compelling reason to not just use modifiers for that though?

Optimally, you should be using both because opposed checks allow a greater variety of modifiers too so there is a lot more to do. The big drawback of the whole deal is, as you said, it gets really friggin' complex when done well, and the large number of variables make gaming a really challenging experience. And when you are sweating over variables you are not having fun.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Is there a compelling reason to not just use modifiers for that though?

Optimally, you should be using both because opposed checks allow a greater variety of modifiers too so there is a lot more to do. The big drawback of the whole deal is, as you said, it gets really friggin' complex when done well, and the large number of variables make gaming a really challenging experience. And when you are sweating over variables you are not having fun.

I'm not totally opposed to the idea of opposed checks, as traditionally CC worked that way. I'm just not sure making shooting work the same way is worthwhile for 40K. The big drawback to modifiers that is usually brought up, is that it drives some armies into 6+ 7+ to-hit territory too easily. I wonder if just starting everybody at a point lower (better) would be enough. If a Marine starts a 2+, Guardsman 3+ and Ork 4+, for example. Firing at Genestealers moving fast (-1) in cover (-1).

To the idea that Custodes Captains don't need better than a 2+, then why the hell do we pay 2-3 times more for one that any other 2+BS unit? Is a Lord Commissar really as good a shot as a Custodian? Doubtful. Is a Cannoness as good at shooting? She's about third the cost. Here's the thing:

Basing any unit in this game off what they CAN do is completely backwards. It's much more important to look at it as what they might do, for the cost. Right now, a Custodian Captain with a spear/axe will shoot twice, likely hit, but fail to wound most everything except IG. Even if the SC does wound, it's likely reduced to 1dam. So pointless to use them for shooting at all.

But a single Palatine for 50 points will get at least 1 or 2 wounds on a target in their shooting phase, and very easily to boot.

The point's system in this game completely invalidates any stupid dice mechanic. Because for 50 points a unit with a plasma pistol will outperform a Leader of the Emperor's personally created Guardians.

D12-20 will not fix this. Removal of broken gak like easy access plasma and melta weapons will.

I actually do support the suggestion of everyone back to basics. We all shoot 24" S4 AP0 D1 unless we take the extra gear to do differently. We are all T3 infantry unless you are a monster, or a vehicle.

Wipe the slate clean, pour clorox all over it, and flush it.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The big drawback to modifiers that is usually brought up, is that it drives some armies into 6+ 7+ to-hit territory too easily.

That's supposed to be a feature. You are not supposed to just brainlessly roll up on the field and expect that your unit will do just fine. You have to think about positioning, target selection, and squeezing out those positive modifiers from the situation to make your units work. Hence the aforementioned sweaty gaming experience.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
To the idea that Custodes Captains don't need better than a 2+, then why the hell do we pay 2-3 times more for one that any other 2+BS unit? Is a Lord Commissar really as good a shot as a Custodian? Doubtful. Is a Cannoness as good at shooting? She's about third the cost.

Don't Custodes Captains hit on 2s and reroll 1s? (did that change and I missed it?) They're basically not missing anyways.

Sure, make them 1+ just so I don't have to sit through the rolling.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The big drawback to modifiers that is usually brought up, is that it drives some armies into 6+ 7+ to-hit territory too easily.

That's supposed to be a feature. You are not supposed to just brainlessly roll up on the field and expect that your unit will do just fine. You have to think about positioning, target selection, and squeezing out those positive modifiers from the situation to make your units work. Hence the aforementioned sweaty gaming experience.

I agree, but I wouldn't want a ranged shootout to be totally uneventful because everyone's missing either.

They do not RR1s, since they aren’t Core.

But they do hit on a 2+, with a S4 AP-1 D2 gun.

A big part of GW's main design mechanic is to relay on fistfuls of dice. 40k is still mechanically a skirmish game, where each model shoots individually. That makes switching to d10s or 12s harder (but not impossible) simply because d6s can stack easier.

GW is finally at least playing with what they can with their core rules, for example, lifting the Stat cap at 10. That said, while I love things like wider dice ranges, opposed rolls, alternate activations, and all that other stuff, it's just not likely to happen since it won't merge well with the core of 40k.

I think that the core rules are actually quite good, GW just needs to ignore it's impulse to make codexes that are like RPG supplements. the IG book is a good step in the right direction, stripping out a lot of false choice.

I thought DUST had an interesting mechanic where base chance to hit and damage depended on weapon type and target as well as shooter/fighter

 JNAProductions wrote:
They do not RR1s, since they aren’t Core.

But they do hit on a 2+, with a S4 AP-1 D2 gun.

Ah yes, of course. Been a while.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I thought DUST had an interesting mechanic where base chance to hit and damage depended on weapon type and target as well as shooter/fighter

Waaaay back on 2nd ed weapons carried modifiers to hit too. I suppose Necromunda does now.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
They do not RR1s, since they aren’t Core.

But they do hit on a 2+, with a S4 AP-1 D2 gun.

Ah yes, of course. Been a while.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I thought DUST had an interesting mechanic where base chance to hit and damage depended on weapon type and target as well as shooter/fighter

Waaaay back on 2nd ed weapons carried modifiers to hit too. I suppose Necromunda does now.

yeah it does - I recall old school 40k : 0 but DUST has to hit number for each unit to hit "infantry" "tanks" and "Aircraft"

^Is that for just Unit but not Weapon? Like, weapon X has a to-hit for aircraft?

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Bull, don't try and claim there'd be fluff problems. If a Melta gun is beaming radio waves it'd be incredibly efficient at energizing metal, hence the bonus against vehicles.

So why doesn't it get a bonus against power armor, crisis suits, etc? Those are all made of metal too.

Power armor's primarily ceramic iirc, actually. Dunno about Crisis suits. But the idea being that it's plenty good at killing them, a vehicle is just a bigger block of metal so it gets a bonus because it's causing waves of electron movement in the object.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Hmmm. I kind of remember them being bad. I guess respectable enough for popping rhinos (AV 11) but that's about it. Once you hit AV12 they dropped off considerably - and sufficient bolters could pop AV10 light vehicles (most of which were bad anyway from memory).

How many Guard armies had "sufficient bolters"?

As I said, the Autocannon was the best weapon for the Guard. It would take out incoming Rhinos, and eliminate all the various speedy AV10 vehicles out there, and because Guard squads were so cheap weight of firepower could help you with AV12 Eldar units. And, because they fired 2 shots, and Guard hit 50% of the time, they were remarkably consistent.

You have to factor in the context of the weapon. Autocannons were rare in Marine armies, but also not especially useful. In a Guard army? Absolutely wonderful. Paired with a Plasma Gun for when things got closer, you could rip incoming forces apart, leaving them exposed for your bigger guns.

I do remember that Space Marines/CSM with the "Tank Hunters" ability (+1 AP against vehicles) made Autocannons pretty sexy.

Hecaton wrote:
Power armor's primarily ceramic iirc, actually. Dunno about Crisis suits. But the idea being that it's plenty good at killing them, a vehicle is just a bigger block of metal so it gets a bonus because it's causing waves of electron movement in the object.

Then why does it work against an Eldar wraithbone tank?

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Power armor's primarily ceramic iirc, actually. Dunno about Crisis suits. But the idea being that it's plenty good at killing them, a vehicle is just a bigger block of metal so it gets a bonus because it's causing waves of electron movement in the object.

Then why does it work against an Eldar wraithbone tank?

A Farseer did it

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Is that for just Unit but not Weapon? Like, weapon X has a to-hit for aircraft?

A unit has various weapons, targets and ranges for each:
so say a Konigsluther tank hunter mech can use its dual 128mm guns on Tanks and Infantry but not aircraft - and the effectiveness is also related to armour rating of the unit (if any) - some armour ratings are impervious to some weapons
but a Lothar Panzer II-D Mech, although its twin nebelwerfers can only attack Tanks and Infantry - its MG44 can fire at anything but only effect aircraft, infantry and light vehciles but not most tanks.

more info:

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/54/b5/54b5999f-602f-42a0-80a0-e41aec30b6fb/dust-tactics-rulebook.pdf