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.

What's wrong with that? Bearing in mind your firepower is only increased by 33%, you've practically just threw away your unit just by being impatient enough to waste 200% of firepower for 133% of it. Or it actually does give you the tactical edge, in which case you've commanded well. But in most situations, the command is not worth it.

i guess, im just worried someone's going to find a horribly broken way to exploit this, but well see.

I said that we just have to ignore points right now because it seems like it's getting in the way for some logical changes which you said you would accept. Especially particular points-cost anecdotes which are negligible atm and we can just fix the points cost later.

the thing is, it doesn't matter if points shift here or there a little bit, a sergeant with 2 power weapons is going to be 50ish points no matter what we do, even more so if we increase the veteran upgrade cost (which we should since its so much more valuable now). And yes it's sort of a logical penalty but think about how irritating it would be to model a character with 2 matching weapons, then pay the ridiculous points cost to use him, and the get a penalty for doing so? I dont want there to be an explicit penalty for people who want to go the expensive upgrade direction, because the implicit penalty of the upgrades is already there, because they will always cost more than the model having the upgraded stats base.

Yeah, I agree you won't be as prepares for combat but that doesn't mean every single model hits last. Some may still be sharp enough to hit at the same time. So we can give -1 Dexterity to portray that?

the risk of going this route is that there isn't enough penalty involved with just dropping dexterity a little bit. Yes not being able to shoot next turn is a harsh penalty, but the offensive version of Empty the Mag! Is going to be a very opportunistic order, and id like it if the player had to be sure about how safe he would be for melee combat, and be severely penalized for not taking that into effect. If two marine squads are fighting and one emptys the mag at the other, and i had an assault squad nearby that charges at that unit, i want that assault squad to tear them to shreds for not taking them into account, and with a -1 penalty theyre still hitting on 3+, whereas if they strike behind that assault squad and get chopped up without a chance to hit back, that is a properly painful punishment.

OOOOOOOOO here's an idea, that Must reroll all successful hits carries over into Melee, so if they get charged they are still hitting much less often than an equivalent unit. Id still like an "initiative" penalty involved though, but that may be overkill if we do this. Maybe make it the attacking unit gets to reroll all failed hit idk, i like this second direction better

Yeah I saw that

yeah lol, i guess were doing rerolls then, unless you've got a different system in mind?

And yes it's sort of a logical penalty but think about how irritating it would be to model a character with 2 matching weapons, then pay the ridiculous points cost to use him, and the get a penalty for doing so?

Ridiculous points cost?! Lower it?!?!? Gosh, I think it's clear that we should nerf double weapons a bit just because of how much it amplifies your combat capability. And coming with that, is a slight nerf to the points cost for another CCW. Think of how abundant it is right now for everyone just to be spamming double weapons because they don't care whether they can shoot or not, they just want to double their chop-chop effectiveness. Do you really want something to be able to double how much damage they can do in combat at the click of 15 points? Or do you want them to be able to increase their damage output by a good 33-67% for 10 points?

OOOOOOOOO here's an idea, that Must reroll all successful hits carries over into Melee, so if they get charged they are still hitting much less often than an equivalent unit.

Sounds like a plan:

Level 2: Empty The Mag!: The unit receives -1 Dexterity. It may fire double the amount of shots, but may not shoot next turn. It must re-roll all successful hits, even in close combat.

Ridiculous points cost?! Lower it?!?!? Gosh, I think it's clear that we should nerf double weapons a bit just because of how much it amplifies your combat capability. And coming with that, is a slight nerf to the points cost for another CCW. Think of how abundant it is right now for everyone just to be spamming double weapons because they don't care whether they can shoot or not, they just want to double their chop-chop effectiveness. Do you really want something to be able to double how much damage they can do in combat at the click of 15 points?

adding 1 extra attack is far from game breaking, especially since everything has double wounds now. And I don't know who is spammingg double weapons when theyre only possible on a small number of units? The only way i know to spam double weapon for marines beyond assault terminators at least is vanguard veterans, and at 25 points a piece before weapons and jump packs, thats easily approaching a 100 point model to get 3 attacks, two lightning claws and a jump pack. As for "lowering it?!?!?" Do you mean the cost of special Melee weapons or the cost needed to get a dual wielding model? I think most of the special weapon prices ive seen are decently costed, maybe play with 5 points here or there.

Or do you want them to be able to increase their damage output by a good 33-67% for 10 points?

i really dont understand what this means. If taking two weapons has the same effect its always had, just with a -1 to dexterity, theyre still hitting just as hard as before, theyre just a bit easier to hit back?

It'd be -1 Weapon Skill actually, not Dexterity. We could assume the wielder actually, if anything, gains some dexterity because he is able to block blows. What do you think? -1 Weapon Skill for +1 Dexterity? It means he has a smaller chance of pulverising things in one turn with his massively augmented strength but in return can maybe deflect blows more easily.

It'd be -1 Weapon Skill actually, not Dexterity. We could assume the wielder actually, if anything, gains some dexterity because he is able to block blows. What do you think? -1 Weapon Skill for +1 Dexterity? It means he has a smaller chance of pulverising things in one turn with his massively augmented strength but in return can maybe deflect blows more easily.

I was working under the assumption that the effects wouldn't stack. If im wielding 2 thunderhammers, i'm not hitting at 4X my strength, im hitting more often at 2X my strength. Same with power weapons. As for decreasing weapon skill and increasing dexterity, i think its still just a way to penalize something that already has implicit penalties attached to it. Having a few more effects isn't really going to improve or seriously alter anything, its just one more thing to keep in mind.

I had some ideas on changing some order names, let me know what you think.
Lionheart ==> For the Fallen!
Overwatch ==> Covering Fire!
Infiltrate ==> Flank!
Stay Put ==> Stand Your Ground

Having a few more effects isn't really going to improve or seriously alter anything, its just one more thing to keep in mind.

I don't want it to improve or seriously alter something, but I do want to alter it enough so that it has an impact on the game. It's not hard to know that you have decreased WS and increased D when wielding two weapons (except for double daggers, yeah!) I guess you could compare it to knowing that bikes give you +1 Toughness. Something like that.

Lionheart ==> For the Fallen!

Liking it.

Overwatch ==> Covering Fire!

Mm I prefer overwatch, but if you really want then whatever

Infiltrate ==> Flank!

Don't mind, like both

Stay Put ==> Stand Your Ground

That would be a great 'nother command but stay put is meant to be like "get down, don't move and wait" kind of command, I can see Stand Your Ground sort of being like a Last Stand command where you fight until the bitter end.

nfiltrate ==> Flank!
Don't mind, like both

Im trying to prevent confusion between the order Infiltrate and the USR Infiltrate. this actually causes problems with outflank then... ugh.

I don't want it to improve or seriously alter something, but I do want to alter it enough so that it has an impact on the game. It's not hard to know that you have decreased WS and increased D when wielding two weapons (except for double daggers, yeah!) I guess you could compare it to knowing that bikes give you +1 Toughness. Something like that.

Thats a good comparison, but its still just one more thing that doesnt really improve anything. I know you like realism, and most of these models are either purpose born for war, or trained for decades. Somewhere in there they likely trained with two weapons to the point where they dont suffer from it. Beyond that, its just such a broad change that different models and entire armies have to be considered. Tyranids all have 6 limbs, typically with 2 sets of arms, would they have to deal with this constantly? what about special characters that come base with 2 weapons like lilith hesperax from the dark eldar? Or the sisters of battle seraphim who wield two pistols in close combat? Its just a level of additional complexity that i dont see improving anything, and wed have to make special rules to say these models arnt affected, or raise their stats to account for this automatic decrease, neither of which are great directions if we want to keep them the same as they would be otherwise.

Im trying to prevent confusion between the order Infiltrate and the USR Infiltrate. this actually causes problems with outflank then... ugh.

Lol I'd we could work something out with Infiltrate and Outflank, don't wanna discuss it right now but they seem very very ripe for change.

Thats a good comparison, but its still just one more thing that doesnt really improve anything. I know you like realism, and most of these models are either purpose born for war, or trained for decades. Somewhere in there they likely trained with two weapons to the point where they dont suffer from it.

But if you just look at the other side here, yes it is realistic that they would be able to proficiently use two weapons, but what you're also saying is that the warrior is just as bad with one weapon as he is with two weapons. And he must've trained more with one weapon than two.

what about special characters that come base with 2 weapons like lilith hesperax from the dark eldar? Or the sisters of battle seraphim who wield two pistols in close combat? Its just a level of additional complexity that i dont see improving anything, and wed have to make special rules to say these models arnt affected, or raise their stats to account for this automatic decrease, neither of which are great directions if we want to keep them the same as they would be otherwise.

I think I've already got this figured out. Any wargear, that modifies the character's stat, that comes free with the character, has already been accounted for in the statline. Think about terminators. Do you want them to look like terminators on the stats, or do you want them to look like puny space marines then have to work out all the modifiers from the wargear. However any purchasable wargear has not been accounted for.

For Lilith Hesperax, perhaps she's trained so much with her two weapons that she IS in fact better with two than she is with one, so she would not lose WS.

So basically this means that anything that comes anyway, or is a mandatory upgrade, is innate to their stats already. I think that clears up a lot of clutter you put forward like the Tyranid limbs etc.

but what you're also saying is that the warrior is just as bad with one weapon as he is with two weapons

yeah exactly, he's exactly the same with one or two weapons, for better or for worse. And yes they probably trained with one weapon more but if their training lasted 2 decades, and they only devoted 5% of their time to wielding 2 weapons, thats still a whole year of doing only that.

I admit thats a pretty nifty way of resolving the problem, but its sill solving a problem that doesn't need to happen in the first place.

No but even if they have training with two weapons, they are STILL going to be better with one weapon because they have more training with one weapon! Losing weapon skill isn't a representation of their lack of training with double weapons, it's a representation of their training with double weapons COMPARED to their training with one.

I just really don't like adding in unnecessary penalties. Notice i said unnecessary, not inaccurate. Yes they would train less with two weapons, but think about how all the other modifiers in the game work. Bikes increase toughness because theres a big hunk of metal between you and the person shooting you, powerfists and thunderhammers offset their massive power bonus and ability to allow a model to wreck vehicles with low initiative, and weapons that are powerhouses without downsides are offset by massive prices, like relic blades. I would argue dual power weapons should be counted in that third category, and be offset by their prices. +1 attack will not be a collosal bonus, thats only a 50% increase in raw attack output on most models that can use them, usually with the downside of doubling the price of the model, which should be enough. And most of these dual wieldings are frankly rubbish. I don't think anyone is going to argue that dual wielding thunderhammers is at all points effective, and thats 60 points worth of upgrades, but the model looks cool and if someone wants to do this, i dont want to punish them even more than they would be already. The only truely worthwhile dual wielding for MEQ is dual lightning claws, and thats 30 points for rerolling wounds on one model while losing shooting, as only taking one doesnt give this reroll.

It's not a penalty. They get +1 Dexterity, remember? Not only is there the appeal to realism, but it's also a balancing act. Dual weapon models are usually very very brutal, but can fall down easily if your opponent wants that. This means they're very hit-and-miss (no pun intended), as in too unbalanced, ESPECIALLY when you raise the prices. I think raising the prices will only make it more unbalanced, as you're trying to put tons of damage on one end of the balance, and since it's so heavy on that end you have to balance it out by piling on point after point. I guess the analogy could be summed up that I don't want 100kg of strength balanced out with 100kg of points, it's just too extreme, it makes things more volatile, I would prefer something like 60kg of power balanced with 60kg of points i.e. a moderate amount.

Also in the rulebook I think it would be nifty if we explained why we put some rules in place with a simple sentence describing our reasoning. Kinda like how in the 40k rulebook you can often see they've put a "we assume that the model" etc.

Also in the rulebook I think it would be nifty if we explained why we put some rules in place with a simple sentence describing our reasoning. Kinda like how in the 40k rulebook you can often see they've put a "we assume that the model" etc.

this is a wonderful idea, lets be sure to do this. Maybe sprinkle little blocks in here or there titled [Designer Comments] or something alongside other methods.

Dual weapon models are usually very very brutal, but can fall down easily if your opponent wants that. This means they're very hit-and-miss (no pun intended), as in too unbalanced

this is exactly the point though. When you put points into a model, you are not increasing it in every area. Typically, you are putting points into a model to increase its combat ability, not its mobility or durability. So there is a balancing act of combat ability vs survivability, as in can i make full use of this model before he dies? If you make a Deathstar unit, its going to attract tons of fire, this is the real danger of upgrades, because by making it scary, you made it a higher target, so you either have to play smarter with it, or suffer the consequences. Youre right, it is unbalanced, but its unbalanced through the players acceptance of risk, because these upgrades push a model cost far above where a points formula Would say it should be asked on Wargear and Statline. Ifwe made rules that allowed it, I could make the most uber -Killy model ever conceived at the price of 2000 points, but there's no way one über model Could Defeat 2000 points worth of regular units, the weight of fire and ability to focus in on him ensures his destruction.

It's not a penalty. They get +1 Dexterity, remember

is that in addition to the WS penalty, or is it just a dex bonus? Either way, its still one more thing that doesn't make enough of a difference to justify. If i dual wield lightning laws, i get +2 power for power weapon, +1 attack for dual wielding, a reroll of failed wounds for lightning claw rules, and then any other effects for wielding two weapons. That's 4 effects to keep track of, more if i mastercraft, and i just dont see an advantage beyond realism. My perspective is that if absolute realism is a goal, there are game systems built with that at its core, but 40K is not and has never been terribly realistic, the fact Melee weapons still exist is proof of that. So while i like things to make sense, sometimes realism is an acceptable sacrifice if it would not be worth the extra complexity.

It does make a difference to justify. I am just tweaking it so that the STRENGTH of a dual-weapon model is PROPORTIONAL to the SURVIVABILITY of it. Do not interpret this the wrong way, I'm not saying the stronger it gets, it HAS to get tougher, I just want there to be enough correlation so that it's actually usable and balanced. In fact, it means that taking dual weapons actually increases your damage as well as defense, but ONLY enough to make it relative.

The way you put it made it seem like there were a lot of things to keep track of, when really it's easy peasy. It's second nature that another weapon gives another attack and +1D -1WS, power weapons means +2 Power, while lightning claws, you can think of something if you wanna change it (I don't know space marines). Also hope you're having fun with the new SM codex!

Also hope you're having fun with the new SM codex!

ugh what I've heard about it is really exciting, but at nearly $60 USD, i won't be able to pick it up for a while. My 5th edition BRB didnt cost that much .

The way you put it made it seem like there were a lot of things to keep track of, when really it's easy peasy. It's second nature that another weapon gives another attack and +1D -1WS, power weapons means +2 Power, while lightning claws, you can think of something if you wanna change it (I don't know space marines)

yes buts its tons of effects to keep track of, especially if we try to speed things up. Would it be an insurmountable learning curve? No of course not, look at how people understands current 40k rules, but its still a lot to juggle when taking everything else that can be going on into account. Imagine a biker unit dual wielding Power weapons, almost every single stat on their Statline would be altered from base.

It does make a difference to justify. I am just tweaking it so that the STRENGTH of a dual-weapon model is PROPORTIONAL to the SURVIVABILITY of it. Do not interpret this the wrong way, I'm not saying the stronger it gets, it HAS to get tougher, I just want there to be enough correlation so that it's actually usable and balanced. In fact, it means that taking dual weapons actually increases your damage as well as defense, but ONLY enough to make it relative.

the problem with this logic is that the real danger to a Melee deathstar unit, or any unit/model with lots of points tied up in upgrades, is that the place theyre going to die is not in Melee, its in shooting, because the opponent is going to do everything they can to avoid Melee with that unit. A unit of 10 vanguard veterans dual wielding lightning claws is one of the scariest units i can think of in 40K, but ignoring points problems, their wounds are going to come from shooting because no one in their right mind would charge into that. And if they do get into combat, if they wipe out the enemy unit, they'll just get shot down by every enemy unit in the area.

ugh what I've heard about it is really exciting, but at nearly $60 USD, i won't be able to pick it up for a while. My 5th edition BRB didnt cost that much

Pity :( GW really are just squeezing the lemon way too hard I doubt I will ever be able to get fully into 40k if it carries on this slope (I have 4000 points in total of all my armies and that has cost (my dad haha) thousands of pounds. The discussion we've had, I feel is really beneficial to me, and while I'm not even sure we'll (or at least me) even finish this thing, it's been really valuable - thanks.

yes buts its tons of effects to keep track of, especially if we try to speed things up. Would it be an insurmountable learning curve? No of course not, look at how people understands current 40k rules, but its still a lot to juggle when taking everything else that can be going on into account. Imagine a biker unit dual wielding Power weapons, almost every single stat on their Statline would be altered from base.

Nope hehe, the bikes' modifications will show on their statline already (like termy armour), however weapons won't affect the stats, only other wargear.

the problem with this logic is that the real danger to a Melee deathstar unit, or any unit/model with lots of points tied up in upgrades, is that the place theyre going to die is not in Melee, its in shooting, because the opponent is going to do everything they can to avoid Melee with that unit. A unit of 10 vanguard veterans dual wielding lightning claws is one of the scariest units i can think of in 40K, but ignoring points problems, their wounds are going to come from shooting because no one in their right mind would charge into that. And if they do get into combat, if they wipe out the enemy unit, they'll just get shot down by every enemy unit in the area.

That's the thing when you have such a high risk high reward unit which snatches a substantial amount of your points, they're so volatile and unreliable that they're close to unplayable. Unless they get a lucky charge, they're a complete waste - it's why raising the points costs insanely to accommodate for insane power boosts can't work. The small tweak should allow dual weapons to be popular, BECAUSE they're more reputable.

Pity :( GW really are just squeezing the lemon way too hard I doubt I will ever be able to get fully into 40k if it carries on this slope (I have 4000 points in total of all my armies and that has cost (my dad haha) thousands of pounds. The discussion we've had, I feel is really beneficial to me, and while I'm not even sure we'll (or at least me) even finish this thing, it's been really valuable - thanks.

i can kind of understand their problem, these are luxury goods, and once people have what they need they don't have to buy any more, but still its just plastic. The rapid pace of releases has done wonders for their popularity though, and i think the new sternguard box is one of the best they've ever produced.

Nope hehe, the bikes' modifications will show on their statline already (like termy armour), however weapons won't affect the stats, only other wargear.

yeah but a space marine biker can be described as a space marine with higher defense and higher mobility. Add in dual power weapons and its higher attacks, higher dexterity, higher strength... That's a lot of highers .

That's the thing when you have such a high risk high reward unit which snatches a substantial amount of your points, they're so volatile and unreliable that they're close to unplayable. Unless they get a lucky charge, they're a complete waste - it's why raising the points costs insanely to accommodate for insane power boosts can't work. The small tweak should allow dual weapons to be popular, BECAUSE they're more reputable.

im not sure of any other way to handle this though. The good news is that since power weapons no longer ignore armor, and instead just increase strength, they don't have to be quite as expensive, so that should help somewhat

yeah but a space marine biker can be described as a space marine with higher defense and higher mobility. Add in dual power weapons and its higher attacks, higher dexterity, higher strength... That's a lot of highers

Yea but you only have to keep track of 3 of them ^^ And it's true that a marine on a bike with dual power swords has this many changes, they have 3 extra pieces of equipment!

I think there is a nice opportunity to do something with bikes in combat. Because naturally the bikes would be super-hard to swing at but once they're immobilised they can get trampled.

The good news is that since power weapons no longer ignore armor, and instead just increase strength, they don't have to be quite as expensive, so that should help somewhat

That's absolutely true, I also think that if we expand a little bit the variety of points costs, so that they aren't 95% in multiples of 5. This is because right now, there are some instances of units costing 61 points or 121 points or what not (jetbikes/hawks), and most of the time I find that it's frustrating when you end up with 1496 points or something like that. So you either have to avoid that unit completely or fit a number of them in. And I don't think it would hurt if we expanded the number of off-increment models from 5% to 10% or so.

That's absolutely true, I also think that if we expand a little bit the variety of points costs, so that they aren't 95% in multiples of 5. This is because right now, there are some instances of units costing 61 points or 121 points or what not (jetbikes/hawks), and most of the time I find that it's frustrating when you end up with 1496 points or something like that. So you either have to avoid that unit completely or fit a number of them in. And I don't think it would hurt if we expanded the number of off-increment models from 5% to 10% or so.

so wait, do you like oddly costed models or not? If you want to get off the 5 point increment scale, something i think that would be really exciting is if imperial units stuck to multiples of 5 for the most part, while chaos and xenos move off of them for the most part. Obviously not a perfect direction, but a nice subtle way to differentiate the three factions of imperial, chaos, and xenos from each other. And yeah ending up with a couple of points left over is irritating, but upgrade cost changes to bring the odd unit costs up into simple multiples is a good solution, and otherwise subtle options that can take up those few points, like mastercrafting for imperial units, but a xenos version, would work nicely as well.

I think there is a nice opportunity to do something with bikes in combat. Because naturally the bikes would be super-hard to swing at but once they're immobilised they can get trampled.

maybe, but theyre still going to be just the normal model in close combat, so im not sure a penalty fits too well. Maybe give them some bonus like mounted charge or something, where if they move over a certain distance, but didnt turbo-boost, they get some bonus to strength if they charge into Melee. Most bikes don't want to get into Melee, since they typically have really nice guns on them or rely on hit and run tactics, so this might be an interesting way of giving them incentive to charge. Lets not try anything too crazy with bike special combat rules, otherwise were gonna piss off a lot of dark eldar players who like reavers .

so wait, do you like oddly costed models or not? If you want to get off the 5 point increment scale, something i think that would be really exciting is if imperial units stuck to multiples of 5 for the most part, while chaos and xenos move off of them for the most part. Obviously not a perfect direction, but a nice subtle way to differentiate the three factions of imperial, chaos, and xenos from each other.

Actually this is a really good idea! SM and IG would stick to 5 point gradations, while the weirderthe xenos, the weirder their points costs get. So tau might have a few off-points costs, while Dark Eldar would not have a single multiple of 5 points cost!

maybe, but theyre still going to be just the normal model in close combat, so im not sure a penalty fits too well. Maybe give them some bonus like mounted charge or something, where if they move over a certain distance, but didnt turbo-boost, they get some bonus to strength if they charge into Melee. Most bikes don't want to get into Melee, since they typically have really nice guns on them or rely on hit and run tactics, so this might be an interesting way of giving them incentive to charge. Lets not try anything too crazy with bike special combat rules, otherwise were gonna piss off a lot of dark eldar players who like reavers

Yeah, I think bikes shouldnt get hammer of wrath because you don't just drive into the enemy lol, you joust like cavalry. They should get extra strength for their momentum - they should also be able to get out of combat (hit and run), maybe using their dexterity (?) or mobility? Of course I don't want something completely extravagant because like you said it can get unnecessarily complicated.

they should also be able to get out of combat (hit and run), maybe using their dexterity (?) or mobility?

idk, i kinda feel like hit and run should be reserved for the really amazing bikes (eldar), but the idea of disengaging from Melee voluntarily is interesting... Maybe make it a dexterity check, where they have to "roll to hit" their opponents dexterity to disengage...food for thought

Actually this is a really good idea! SM and IG would stick to 5 point gradations, while the weirderthe xenos, the weirder their points costs get. So tau might have a few off-points costs, while Dark Eldar would not have a single multiple of 5 points cost!

ok i like the idea of more chaotic == more deviation, but we need to keep an eye on things to make sure the points are still roughly where they should be, this would be a really silly reason to destabilize points values over.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
How do you feel about for invulnerable saves and feel no pain, those saves may always be taken to save a wound? Unless the wound causes double wounds, in which case feel no pain would be ignored?

This would make sense for these saves, as they would more accurately represent energy shielding/dexterity/incorporeality, and insane bloodrage respectively. I never really liked the way invulnerable saves worked anyways, since its not like its something that would just be ignored since the armor save was better, it should have always had a chance of deflecting/blocking stuff, or dodging the attack, or just having it pass right through them.

Maybe make it a dexterity check, where they have to "roll to hit" their opponents dexterity to disengage...food for thought

Yeah, but I think we should only make it voluntary disengage when the disengaging unit has at least 3 more Mobility than the thing they're running from. Even then we must hesitate to make voluntary disengage carefree because I don't want them just disengaging then pewpewing that unit to death next turn.

this would be a really silly reason to destabilize points values over.

It shouldn't be a problem, 99% of the time you're going to be using a calculator to work out points and if you play Dark Eldar it's going to be a slick twist when you're adding up!

How do you feel about for invulnerable saves and feel no pain, those saves may always be taken to save a wound? Unless the wound causes double wounds, in which case feel no pain would be ignored?

This would make sense for these saves, as they would more accurately represent energy shielding/dexterity/incorporeality, and insane bloodrage respectively. I never really liked the way invulnerable saves worked anyways, since its not like its something that would just be ignored since the armor save was better, it should have always had a chance of deflecting/blocking stuff, or dodging the attack, or just having it pass right through them.

Of course, the whole idea that you can only take one save (armour, cover or invuln) is absolute ludicrousness. Invulns, consequently, will have to be nerfed slightly, because they don't care about the aggressor's firepower, it's got no counterplay to it. I hope to change this though.

Yeah, but I think we should only make it voluntary disengage when the disengaging unit has at least 3 more Mobility than the thing they're running from. Even then we must hesitate to make voluntary disengage carefree because I don't want them just disengaging then pewpewing that unit to death next turn.

i guess, the problem is that i dont know of any units that are going to have DEX 7 or higher beyond some ridiculous exceptions like the keeper or secrets. 98% of models are going to be sitting at the 3-5 ranges so far as i can tell. Genestealers would probably be around a 6, lictors would probably be a 7, maybe temple assassins from the grey knights codex would be at 7, and some eldar special characters would be up there too.

An alternative is a DEX check against the opponents Dexterity, and if succeeded, the opponent gets one free round of attacks before the unit disengages and begins its shooting phase.

shouldn't be a problem, 99% of the time you're going to be using a calculator to work out points and if you play Dark Eldar it's going to be a slick twist when you're adding up!

i meant to deviate from the points formula saying what they should cost based on stats, not so much list-building. There's going to be about a .5 to 1 point tolerance points-wise that we can play with, since thats the outputs i was getting with my D10 formula for points, so as long as its within that tolerance, i think well be in good shape.

Of course, the whole idea that you can only take one save (armour, cover or invuln) is absolute ludicrousness. Invulns, consequently, will have to be nerfed slightly, because they don't care about the aggressor's firepower, it's got no counterplay to it. I hope to change this though.

im not really sure how to nerf them, i think they'd function fine as is. A 5+ invulnerable, while awful in 40K, would be amazing in this system, since there's no saves otherwise. The danger is the really high ones (storm shield terminators cough cough). We probably need to look at the interplay between wounds and invulnerable saves, because if my chapter master has 8 wounds like it says he should, in terminator armor for DEF 8, and a 4+ invulnerable, he's gonna be nigh immortal to small arms fire, and very hardy against more powerful weaponry.

i guess, the problem is that i dont know of any units that are going to have DEX 7 or higher beyond some ridiculous exceptions like the keeper or secrets.

Exactly, most infantry cannot simply withdraw from combat; they'd get mowed down as they flee. I meant Mobility; only if you have 3 more mobility do you have the chance to hit and run.

i meant to deviate from the points formula saying what they should cost based on stats, not so much list-building.

I acknowledge what you're saying, I just want to tell you that I would take the liberty of decreasing/increasing a points cost by within 5 points, as long as it is honest to the all-round strength that we give it.

To be honest I think invulnerables are fundamentally flawed; they actually don't care about what they're being hit by; in other words, the way they respond to ALL types of fire is the same. It means that they die just as easily to P1 laser shots as they do to P12 laser shots.

Exactly, most infantry cannot simply withdraw from combat; they'd get mowed down as they flee. I meant Mobility; only if you have 3 more mobility do you have the chance to hit and run.

hmmm ok that's an interesting direction, so would hit and run let less dexterous units leave combat, or would it make it an auto-pass without need of the check? Also why mobility? Dexterity seems like it would make more sense for this.

To be honest I think invulnerables are fundamentally flawed; they actually don't care about what they're being hit by; in other words, the way they respond to ALL types of fire is the same. It means that they die just as easily to P1 laser shots as they do to P12 laser shots.

this logic only applies to shielding though, and there are so many other types of invulnerable saves in the game. Daemon incorporeality, harlequin agility, the sisters of battle blessing of the emperor, and the strength of the weapon has no role in these saves, as a STR1 shot would pass through a daemon as easily as a a STR12 shot, same with dodging and blessings. Shielding is but one type of invulnerable, so i think for the sake of simplicity its best to keep it in there, despite its somewhat less logical approach.

hmmm ok that's an interesting direction, so would hit and run let less dexterous units leave combat, or would it make it an auto-pass without need of the check? Also why mobility? Dexterity seems like it would make more sense for this.

I just don't think withdrawing from combat should be a universal move like running, only comparatively fast units should be able to.

this logic only applies to shielding though, and there are so many other types of invulnerable saves in the game. Daemon incorporeality, harlequin agility, the sisters of battle blessing of the emperor, and the strength of the weapon has no role in these saves, as a STR1 shot would pass through a daemon as easily as a a STR12 shot, same with dodging and blessings. Shielding is but one type of invulnerable, so i think for the sake of simplicity its best to keep it in there, despite its somewhat less logical approach.

What do demons have that do that? I know that there are some situations where the power of the weapon is ignored like dodging (but they should have like a SR called Dodge which can be ignored by blast/template) which would really only be Dodge (6+) or (5+). And what does the blessing do?

What do demons have that do that? I know that there are some situations where the power of the weapon is ignored like dodging (but they should have like a SR called Dodge which can be ignored by blast/template) which would really only be Dodge (6+) or (5+). And what does the blessing do?

Daemons invulnerable saves are attributed to them not having physical bodies, so sometimes attacks just pass right through them. Sister of battles blessing is a 6+ invulnerable every sister of battle has, to do with faith and prayers and stuff like that. Not sure how i like dodge as a special rule, but the idea of having blast negate it is a good idea, so it should work nicely. As for having invuln saves be variable with the weapons strength, i dont really see how that works, since its essentially just usual armor then, rather than a chance of something being deflected. Plus higher strength weapons already have a way to influence models like that, because their high strength means its easy to get most of the wounds on models, even if they have high defense, like terminators. I think toning down and scaling back the invulnerable saves from the current level insanity, like storm shield terminators, and making a 3+ incredibly rare, 4+ uncommon, and 5+ standardish would work nicely.

I know that, but I think we can both agree that invulnerable saves are only to be used in situations where the strength of the projectile is COMPLETELY ignored. Is it really the truth that Daemons can get hit by pellets and fall to the floor just as they can with stronger shots? Side note: would they be vulnerable to warp-opening weapons? (wraithcannon, d-cannon). For the sisters of battles blessing I can see where you're coming from, but 6+ may need changing; depends.

There could be some sort of thing which acts like an invuln but kinda like a lance, so the shield treats anything above Power (X) as Power (Y).

Is it really the truth that Daemons can get hit by pellets and fall to the floor just as they can with stronger shots?

Thats where strength vs defense comes in, the invuln save is just overlaid over that.

Side note: would they be vulnerable to warp-opening weapons? (wraithcannon, d-cannon).

From my understanding of these weapons, they just suck anything in the real world into the warp, and since the daemons are some weird sort of warp-matter thing in the real world, they get sucked in like everything else.

There could be some sort of thing which acts like an invuln but kinda like a lance, so the shield treats anything above Power (X) as Power (Y).

Maybe, but it feels a bit involved and its another rule of cool moment, and i like the idea of there just being some screw-you trait certain units have. For instance, the legion of the damned space marines are described as walking out of a volcano eruption after that same volcano erupted and killed the better half of an entire company of space marines, and as such they have a 3+ invulnerable save to show they arnt really "real". Terminators are described as being able to withstand anti-vehicle level weaponry since the crux terminatus protects them to a certain extent, same with iron halos and all the other invuln wargear the imperium has. Besides, itd be hard to take advantage of ridiculous invuln saves since theyre fairly rare, with the exception of the storm-shield which honestly needs to be nerfed hard.

Hello,

Interesting project, I have read the first few and last few pages at the moment, so am still not getting exactly what is going on but should do soon.

The commands sound really cool, I like them all.

You seemed to be back to D6s at one point, then i skipped a few pages and someone mentioned people buying d10s along with metric rulers, then their were some stats that had a suspicious looking 0.1666 hanging about.

So I know its a bit late in the thread, but oh well, I would suggest that if you still wanted more possible "rolls" (ie d10's d12s whatever) it might be best to use decks of playing cards. Just shuffle up and draw. Ace=1. Numbers are themselves. Either take the jack queen and king out or make them 11, 12 and 13 respectively.

Playing cards are quite easy to find, much easier than d10's at least.

The only problem I can see is that if you fire a sizeable number of shots in one go the chance that you get all 1's goes away (their are only 4 aces). This is increasingly an issue when you start to throw a lot of shots in one go. (30 homagaunts on the charge type stuff). Maybe shuffle a few packs together?. Re-set and shuffle again every X cards? I don't know.

Dast