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.

Things that GW has done to inconvenience older players that were accepted without issue, leading to record profits off the top of my head:

- introduction of blast templates
- Removal of blast templates
- introduction of FW specific unit codexes
- introduction of Force org requirements for CP
- introduction of painting rules
- introduction of RO3
- The introduction of Troop requirements
- The introduction of Primaris lore and units


People being inconvenienced by GW's decisions is so far below their GAF meter, that it might as well be their "rules committee"

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Things that GW has done to inconvenience older players that were accepted without issue, leading to record profits off the top of my head:

- introduction of blast templates
- Removal of blast templates
- introduction of FW specific unit codexes
- introduction of Force org requirements for CP
- introduction of painting rules
- introduction of RO3
- The introduction of Troop requirements
- The introduction of Primaris lore and units


People being inconvenienced by GW's decisions is so far below their GAF meter, that it might as well be their "rules committee"

How is that relevant? And that list is 100% subjective too

how does new lore "inconvenience" you? if you dislike what primaris was in game, yeah sure, but how does their lore factor in here?

It wasn't for me, but someone raised the argument that "player convenience" should be a factor in game making decisions. I personally wish the game was more complicated.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It wasn't for me, but someone raised the argument that "player convenience" should be a factor in game making decisions. I personally wish the game was more complicated.

Complexity is bad-or, at least, not something to strive for.
Depth is good, and sometimes complexity is a side-effect of adding depth.

So not trying to be a bully, but going to reiterate my question from the top of the previous page:

Are we sure Fezz isn't just trolling at this point? Because I've been trying to get clarification on what they're trying to say for a while now, and they seem to just be jumping between vague-yet-inflammatory statements rather than laying out a clear stance.

I'm not trolling, but I am ignoring you.

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It wasn't for me, but someone raised the argument that "player convenience" should be a factor in game making decisions. I personally wish the game was more complicated.

Complexity is bad-or, at least, not something to strive for.
Depth is good, and sometimes complexity is a side-effect of adding depth.

I think this is one of the biggest things hurting 40k right now. The pursuit of simplicity. Simplicity is nice, but it's not an end-goal like GW seems to be pursuing. Something should be as complex as it needs to be to function. If it's too complex, it becomes obtuse and difficult to work with. Some people can persevere beyond and really enjoy it. Like that one star trek game that is still popular within it's circle (the name escapes me). On the other hand, if you pursue simplicity and streamlining confidently, you begin shaving away everything that made it interesting and enjoyable. There's a sliding scale for tolerance for this, but I do think most agree that simplicity, in of itself isn't a good endgoal, rather it should be a result of clever rules design. I think the state of current 40k balance and their complete inability to properly balance any units with inherently superior upgrade options speaks to this.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It wasn't for me, but someone raised the argument that "player convenience" should be a factor in game making decisions. I personally wish the game was more complicated.

Complexity is bad-or, at least, not something to strive for.
Depth is good, and sometimes complexity is a side-effect of adding depth.

I think this is one of the biggest things hurting 40k right now. The pursuit of simplicity. Simplicity is nice, but it's not an end-goal like GW seems to be pursuing. Something should be as complex as it needs to be to function. If it's too complex, it becomes obtuse and difficult to work with. Some people can persevere beyond and really enjoy it. Like that one star trek game that is still popular within it's circle (the name escapes me). On the other hand, if you pursue simplicity and streamlining confidently, you begin shaving away everything that made it interesting and enjoyable. There's a sliding scale for tolerance for this, but I do think most agree that simplicity, in of itself isn't a good endgoal, rather it should be a result of clever rules design. I think the state of current 40k balance and their complete inability to properly balance any units with inherently superior upgrade options speaks to this.

Yeah. I kind of get the impression that they recognized on some level that other editions were getting bloated with low-impact rolls and convoluted special rule interactions and so forth, so they tried to cut off a lot of the excess and move in a genuinely better direction. But the compass they were using were cries for balance and the advice of people who run tournaments. So they ended up prioritizing fewer, theoretically simpler-to-balance options over flavorful, evocative options.

So instead of a bunch of formations or mix & match subfaction traits, we have a handful of approved playstyles in the form of detachments. And instead of a myriad of quirky wargear options with questionably-balanced individualized points costs, we get fewer options and a single pricetag for the unit that goes up if the most optimal wargear options are overperforming. Which does make a lot of sense if you're trying to give yourself a managable number of combinations to balance, but has some obvious downsides for those who aren't making tournament-level game balance their first concern.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It wasn't for me, but someone raised the argument that "player convenience" should be a factor in game making decisions. I personally wish the game was more complicated.

If that was me saying the inconvenience of having to buy a load of d12s for one of my units to be up to 8% more or less effective wasn't worth it, you're taking it wildly out of context and replying with a list of drivel. Which sadly is par for the course.

- introduction of blast templates
- Removal of blast templates
- introduction of FW specific unit codexes
- introduction of Force org requirements for CP
- introduction of painting rules
- introduction of RO3
- The introduction of Troop requirements
- The introduction of Primaris lore and units

- not an inconvenience directly as you needed 1 set between 2 and provided with the box sets
- only an inconvenience I'm that I had to get rid of stuff
- only an inconvenience if you chose to use them, didn't want to buy or 'source' the rules, which was easy enough, all of which could be said about most codexes
- not an inconvenience, some shuffling if you choose to game it
- most events have painting rules, it's an arbitrary rule for casual play
- rule of 3 has largely existed in some format for a long time, ergo, no an inconvenience unless you were either a. Got the bad touch with unit sizes or b. A jackass trying to take rules advantages, in which case it's self inflicted
- again, existed in some point for a lot of the game, unsure how its an inconvenience?
- literally a subjective complaint that may or may not have had any impact on anyone depending on viewpoint

 Tyran wrote:
Personally the only thing I believe that could shift the player's perceptions regarding rolls is changing Marines to 4+ in both BS/WS and also saves, because everything in the game is in one way or other compared to Marines for obvious reasons.

The issue isn't perception I think, but more a desire to avoid bad luck.

Say I hit on 3s, rerolling, and wound on 2s. On paper my damage is 8/9*5/6=74%.
Compared with say hitting on 4s and wounding on 3s: 1/2*2/3=33%.

So on paper, 4 of the above weapons would expect to produce around the same damage as 9 of the ones below.

But consider the probabilities of total failure. In the above, if I fire 2 such shots, my odds of not getting to the saves step are (0.26)^2=6.76%.
By contrast, if I fire 4 of the second profile, my odds of failure are (0.67)^4=20.15%. If I fire 5 my odds are (0.67)^5=13.5%.

You can argue this is counteracted by more shots giving odds of getting more hits through than the above profile - but in 40k you are usually not that bothered about "super-successes". This is because you can only kill a unit once. Failure to do damage is what messes up a turn (and potentially a whole game plan). As a result the first profile is going to typically be preferred if they are around the same points.

I think the only way to change this is to completely eliminate rerolls from all sources and give everyone "bad" BS etc. But even then I think people may not like it, as it gives luck too much influence on results. No one I think enjoys it when their units just don't do what they are meant to do in a game. And if this happens repeatedly, I think people get frustrated (I certainly do.)

Tyel wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Personally the only thing I believe that could shift the player's perceptions regarding rolls is changing Marines to 4+ in both BS/WS and also saves, because everything in the game is in one way or other compared to Marines for obvious reasons.

The issue isn't perception I think, but more a desire to avoid bad luck.

Say I hit on 3s, rerolling, and wound on 2s. On paper my damage is 8/9*5/6=74%.
Compared with say hitting on 4s and wounding on 3s: 1/2*2/3=33%.

So on paper, 4 of the above weapons would expect to produce around the same damage as 9 of the ones below.

But consider the probabilities of total failure. In the above, if I fire 2 such shots, my odds of not getting to the saves step are (0.26)^2=6.76%.
By contrast, if I fire 4 of the second profile, my odds of failure are (0.67)^4=20.15%. If I fire 5 my odds are (0.67)^5=13.5%.

You can argue this is counteracted by more shots giving odds of getting more hits through than the above profile - but in 40k you are usually not that bothered about "super-successes". This is because you can only kill a unit once. Failure to do damage is what messes up a turn (and potentially a whole game plan). As a result the first profile is going to typically be preferred if they are around the same points.

I think the only way to change this is to completely eliminate rerolls from all sources and give everyone "bad" BS etc. But even then I think people may not like it, as it gives luck too much influence on results. No one I think enjoys it when their units just don't do what they are meant to do in a game. And if this happens repeatedly, I think people get frustrated (I certainly do.)

Thusly we shift to a d4 where every action will have a minimum 50% chance of success via buffs and debuffs.

I get it doesn't "feel nice" for an action not to complete 75%+ of the time but that is very much a perception issue by definition. As you note there is a desire to eliminate chance and make everything predictable, at which point, why bother with dice at all?

Dudeface wrote:
Thusly we shift to a d4 where every action will have a minimum 50% chance of success via buffs and debuffs.

I get it doesn't "feel nice" for an action not to complete 75%+ of the time but that is very much a perception issue by definition. As you note there is a desire to eliminate chance and make everything predictable, at which point, why bother with dice at all?

Well... to go slightly devils advocate, why bother with dice?

I mean over the years (and this thread) there's been certain people who want tanks to be 100% immune to small arms - but if you point a melta or get a powerfist etc in their rear, they should have a 100% (or near 100%) chance to blow up. This then leads to conversations of whether getting melta's into the rears of tanks in 40k has ever actually been skillful but that never really goes anywhere.

I think dice are useful for keeping things a bit in flux. You have to change your decision making through the game in a way you arguably don't in something like Chess. Especially when you only get to make 5 "moves". But that doesn't change the fact that pointing your lascannons at an enemy tank, as you are supposed to, only to then roll a load of 1s, feels bad. (Much worse imo than pointing a load of bolters and plinking off a wound or two.)

You could however have a lot more actions auto-complete. Should for instance every psychic power require a 2+ roll? Are weapons that auto-hit, auto-wound, allow no saves etc somehow breaking 40k?

But equally I guess it varies. This is very much vibes and nostalgic memory - but I remember playing "New Necromunda" a few years back and people not really liking it compared with "old Necromunda" a few decades back. I remember (and this could be wrong and due to being children) Old Necromunda being very non-lethal, because your models were so "bad". 2nd edition rules with bad profiles and bad weapons meant that at least starting gangs could easily blaze away to no effect. Close combat was a bit more lethal if you got a big split on dice rolls, but could also be weak. It meant when Juves actually did anything it felt like an achievement. By contrast we found New Necromunda could easily see half a gang deleted in a turn because the odds just weren't that low. Maybe we were also playing wrong and throwing stuff into each other - but still. It didn't produce the same feelings (the fact we were 20~ years older may also have had an effect.)

But this sort of runs into the clash of whether 40k being a game where you roll some dice and "forge a narrative" win or lose, or its a competitive skill-based game, where making the right decision should improve your odds of winning, and having dice repeatedly say no gets frustrating. A game which just reduces down to who rolls the most 6s because luck is so dominant isn't interesting to me.

Tyel wrote:
The issue isn't perception I think, but more a desire to avoid bad luck.

Say I hit on 3s, rerolling, and wound on 2s. On paper my damage is 8/9*5/6=74%.
Compared with say hitting on 4s and wounding on 3s: 1/2*2/3=33%.

So on paper, 4 of the above weapons would expect to produce around the same damage as 9 of the ones below.

But consider the probabilities of total failure. In the above, if I fire 2 such shots, my odds of not getting to the saves step are (0.26)^2=6.76%.
By contrast, if I fire 4 of the second profile, my odds of failure are (0.67)^4=20.15%. If I fire 5 my odds are (0.67)^5=13.5%.

You can argue this is counteracted by more shots giving odds of getting more hits through than the above profile - but in 40k you are usually not that bothered about "super-successes". This is because you can only kill a unit once. Failure to do damage is what messes up a turn (and potentially a whole game plan). As a result the first profile is going to typically be preferred if they are around the same points.

I think the only way to change this is to completely eliminate rerolls from all sources and give everyone "bad" BS etc. But even then I think people may not like it, as it gives luck too much influence on results. No one I think enjoys it when their units just don't do what they are meant to do in a game. And if this happens repeatedly, I think people get frustrated (I certainly do.)

The root cause here is the number of stacking rolls. When you have to roll to hit, to wound, and then to beat armor, that's three separate rolls that pare down your starting number of dice. And when the most common defensive profile in the game puts that third step at a 33% chance of success, you need either a boatload of dice (producing swingy results) or high rates of success on the first two rolls to actually accomplish anything.

Food for thought: The first game Andy Chambers wrote after leaving the 40K team, Starship Troopers, has no roll to hit at all. Shooter skill is factored into the weapon profile, and each attack is resolved with a single attack roll followed by a single save roll, and even then only if the attack didn't reach a no-saves-allowed auto-kill threshold. Many other modern games also use two rolls, just roll to hit -> roll for armor.

Tyel wrote:
I just think the difference is so marginal.

I mean if you shoot 18 BS3+ S4 AP- shots at MEQ you will on average get 2 wounds through, so one dead Marine.
If you go from BS3+ to BS2+, that increases to 2.5.

In a world of going from BS5+/12 to BS4+/12, i.e. hitting 3/4 times, you'd expect to get 2.25 wounds through.

In a game which is often about "do I wipe that squad or not", this level of marginality really doesn't matter.

that’s not where the difference comes in, imho.
Should an officer telling a guardsmen ‘shoot better’ really make that guardsmen’s accuracy equal to a standard marine?

I think it would be best if guard represented realistic human accuracy under high stress conditions like combat, but that’s basically just a 6+ in a D6 system. In a D10 system that’s more like an 8+

johnpjones1775 wrote:
that’s not where the difference comes in, imho.
Should an officer telling a guardsmen ‘shoot better’ really make that guardsmen’s accuracy equal to a standard marine?

Why shouldn't it?

Guardsmen are trained individuals to start with, as much as people like to pretend that's not the case.

I think it would be best if guard represented realistic human accuracy under high stress conditions like combat, but that’s basically just a 6+ in a D6 system. In a D10 system that’s more like an 8+

"Realistic human accuracy" compared to what?

Seriously, why is there an obsession that Guardsmen have to constantly be degraded while nobody talks about Guardians, Cultists, Neophyte & Acolyte Hybrids, etc?

 Kanluwen wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
that’s not where the difference comes in, imho.
Should an officer telling a guardsmen ‘shoot better’ really make that guardsmen’s accuracy equal to a standard marine?

Why shouldn't it?

Guardsmen are trained individuals to start with, as much as people like to pretend that's not the case.

I think it would be best if guard represented realistic human accuracy under high stress conditions like combat, but that’s basically just a 6+ in a D6 system. In a D10 system that’s more like an 8+

"Realistic human accuracy" compared to what?

Seriously, why is there an obsession that Guardsmen have to constantly be degraded while nobody talks about Guardians, Cultists, Neophyte & Acolyte Hybrids, etc?

Because guardsmen is the catch-all term for these types of units.....

GEQ
MEQ
TEQ

are all terms that everyone is used to in wargaming, it's not a personal attack on your guardians, and no one is saying that the other armies' shitters shouldnt also be bad

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Should an officer telling a guardsmen ‘shoot better’ really make that guardsmen’s accuracy equal to a standard marine?

I think it would be best if guard represented realistic human accuracy under high stress conditions like combat, but that’s basically just a 6+ in a D6 system. In a D10 system that’s more like an 8+

Should a Marine with centuries of experience, cybernetic augmentations, and integral targetfinders and aim assistance really hit just 33% more often than a Guardsman in the first place?

Is there any particular evidence you're drawing from that says a trained soldier averages a 16.67% or 30% hit rate in combat? Is either of those values universal, unaffected by how far away the target is or whether they're shooting a human-sized or tank-sized target? Does an officer saying 'shoot better' actually improve hit rates at all under combat conditions?

Is there any reason to think that a single 'shot' in 40K actually literally means a single projectile, and not just a test of whether a given combatant can put out effective fire in the nonspecific timeframe represented by a single turn?

The mechanics are, from a realism/simulation perspective, nonsense to begin with. Adding greater granularity to abstract mechanics doesn't improve the fidelity of simulation.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
that’s not where the difference comes in, imho.
Should an officer telling a guardsmen ‘shoot better’ really make that guardsmen’s accuracy equal to a standard marine?

Why shouldn't it?

Guardsmen are trained individuals to start with, as much as people like to pretend that's not the case.

I think it would be best if guard represented realistic human accuracy under high stress conditions like combat, but that’s basically just a 6+ in a D6 system. In a D10 system that’s more like an 8+

"Realistic human accuracy" compared to what?

Seriously, why is there an obsession that Guardsmen have to constantly be degraded while nobody talks about Guardians, Cultists, Neophyte & Acolyte Hybrids, etc?

Because guardsmen is the catch-all term for these types of units.....

You didn't read the post I was quoting, hm?

Dude literally calls out officers with orders to Guardsmen.

GEQ
MEQ
TEQ

are all terms that everyone is used to in wargaming, it's not a personal attack on your guardians, and no one is saying that the other armies' shitters shouldnt also be bad

I'm well aware of the acronyms.

I'm also aware that Officers aren't in every "GEQ" army. Also, that "GEQ" hasn't really been a thing for some time now.

So if Custodes are the best soldiers in the Imperium, by raw skill, power, speed, and knowledge, shouldn't they be better than a Primaris Captain at shooting their weapon?

You can't 1-1 everything in this game on a d6 system.

A D8/10/12 would allow Custodes to hit on a 2+ (God level skill) and a Captain to hit on a 4+ (Near god level skill) and still not really break the game.

If we start by erecting the goalposts it should be easy to demonstrate where people should fall on the "Shooting skill level" (Example).

Custodes and other Primarch level character/units on one end, and Plague bearers/Grots on the other.

On a D10, for instance, I would argue the Custodes-like hits on a 2+. The Grots-like hit on a 9+, and the Guards-like hit on a 5+.

Obviously there is a ton of polishing for this to work, ie where does a servitor fall, etc? But for the most part I think this is a clear example of how we can setup the goal posts and have greater granularity with a >D6.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

I think it would be best if guard represented realistic human accuracy under high stress conditions like combat, but that’s basically just a 6+ in a D6 system. In a D10 system that’s more like an 8+

Well the rest of us want this to be playable/enjoyable, so you'll just have to pardon us if we reject you notion of what'd be "best".

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So if Custodes are the best soldiers in the Imperium, by raw skill, power, speed, and knowledge, shouldn't they be better than a Primaris Captain at shooting their weapon?

You can't 1-1 everything in this game on a d6 system.

A D8/10/12 would allow Custodes to hit on a 2+ (God level skill) and a Captain to hit on a 4+ (Near god level skill) and still not really break the game.

If we start by erecting the goalposts it should be easy to demonstrate where people should fall on the "Shooting skill level" (Example).

Custodes and other Primarch level character/units on one end, and Plague bearers/Grots on the other.

On a D10, for instance, I would argue the Custodes-like hits on a 2+. The Grots-like hit on a 9+, and the Guards-like hit on a 5+.

Obviously there is a ton of polishing for this to work, ie where does a servitor fall, etc? But for the most part I think this is a clear example of how we can setup the goal posts and have greater granularity with a >D6.

Why do you think Plaguebearers suck at hitting things?

And, more pertinently, you don't NEED to 1-to-1 everything. A Custode is, in a lot of ways, better than a Marine Captain. A Custodes Shield Captain is straight-up better than a Marine Captain. Just because they hit on the same die result doesn't mean they're equals.

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So if Custodes are the best soldiers in the Imperium, by raw skill, power, speed, and knowledge, shouldn't they be better than a Primaris Captain at shooting their weapon?

You can't 1-1 everything in this game on a d6 system.

A D8/10/12 would allow Custodes to hit on a 2+ (God level skill) and a Captain to hit on a 4+ (Near god level skill) and still not really break the game.

If we start by erecting the goalposts it should be easy to demonstrate where people should fall on the "Shooting skill level" (Example).

Custodes and other Primarch level character/units on one end, and Plague bearers/Grots on the other.

On a D10, for instance, I would argue the Custodes-like hits on a 2+. The Grots-like hit on a 9+, and the Guards-like hit on a 5+.

Obviously there is a ton of polishing for this to work, ie where does a servitor fall, etc? But for the most part I think this is a clear example of how we can setup the goal posts and have greater granularity with a >D6.

Why do you think Plaguebearers suck at hitting things?

And, more pertinently, you don't NEED to 1-to-1 everything. A Custode is, in a lot of ways, better than a Marine Captain. A Custodes Shield Captain is straight-up better than a Marine Captain. Just because they hit on the same die result doesn't mean they're equals.

I never said they are equal. I was trying to set goal posts. I made the case that they both hit on 2+, and there should be some difference in just that one aspect. Obviously there are greater details, but a Space marine, no matter what age, should miss more often than a Custode. Currently they do not.

And I said plague bearer, excuse me for not naming the right unit. I was talking about the shuffling zombie thing. I am not familair with their unit in 10th, but I thought they hit on a 6+, hence the example. If I'm wrong, there you go.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So if Custodes are the best soldiers in the Imperium, by raw skill, power, speed, and knowledge, shouldn't they be better than a Primaris Captain at shooting their weapon?

You can't 1-1 everything in this game on a d6 system.

A D8/10/12 would allow Custodes to hit on a 2+ (God level skill) and a Captain to hit on a 4+ (Near god level skill) and still not really break the game.

If we start by erecting the goalposts it should be easy to demonstrate where people should fall on the "Shooting skill level" (Example).

Custodes and other Primarch level character/units on one end, and Plague bearers/Grots on the other.

On a D10, for instance, I would argue the Custodes-like hits on a 2+. The Grots-like hit on a 9+, and the Guards-like hit on a 5+.

Obviously there is a ton of polishing for this to work, ie where does a servitor fall, etc? But for the most part I think this is a clear example of how we can setup the goal posts and have greater granularity with a >D6.

Why do you think Plaguebearers suck at hitting things?

And, more pertinently, you don't NEED to 1-to-1 everything. A Custode is, in a lot of ways, better than a Marine Captain. A Custodes Shield Captain is straight-up better than a Marine Captain. Just because they hit on the same die result doesn't mean they're equals.

I never said they are equal. I was trying to set goal posts. I made the case that they both hit on 2+, and there should be some difference in just that one aspect. Obviously there are greater details, but a Space marine, no matter what age, should miss more often than a Custode. Currently they do not.

And I said plague bearer, excuse me for not naming the right unit. I was talking about the shuffling zombie thing. I am not familair with their unit in 10th, but I thought they hit on a 6+, hence the example. If I'm wrong, there you go.

Poxwalkers. Not Plaguebearers.

And why? Why is that one specific detail something that HAS to be done, and not abstracted into the whole? I mean, obviously a Bolter should be better at wounding a T5 model (Plaguebearer, Terminator, Plague Marine) than a Lasgun, but currently they don't.

 catbarf wrote:
The root cause here is the number of stacking rolls. When you have to roll to hit, to wound, and then to beat armor, that's three separate rolls that pare down your starting number of dice. And when the most common defensive profile in the game puts that third step at a 33% chance of success, you need either a boatload of dice (producing swingy results) or high rates of success on the first two rolls to actually accomplish anything.

Food for thought: The first game Andy Chambers wrote after leaving the 40K team, Starship Troopers, has no roll to hit at all. Shooter skill is factored into the weapon profile, and each attack is resolved with a single attack roll followed by a single save roll, and even then only if the attack didn't reach a no-saves-allowed auto-kill threshold. Many other modern games also use two rolls, just roll to hit -> roll for armor.

Yeah. I think Bolt Action works like that. Warmahordes used to work like that (and may still do) - although with a slightly different 2D6 based rolls.

I'm not sure I want to completely re-write 40k, but they could be a lot more imaginative.

I'm not sure I'd want 40k to be completely re-written, but I think some of your ideas on suppression, crossfire and stuff are reasonable. I just think you might need alternate activations (on whatever system) for that to feel reasonable.

Dudeface wrote:
Thusly we shift to a d4 where every action will have a minimum 50% chance of success via buffs and debuffs.

I get it doesn't "feel nice" for an action not to complete 75%+ of the time but that is very much a perception issue by definition. As you note there is a desire to eliminate chance and make everything predictable, at which point, why bother with dice at all?

If someone did want to overhaul the game, one option would be to do something like:
* Give each weapon its own little chart.
* Make a single Attack roll for all weapons of that type instead of making multiple to-hit/to-wound rolls.
* Add and subtract modifiers based on relative strength/toughness, to-hit bonuses/penalties, etc.
* Compare your total to the weapon's chart. Then go up the chart one step for every X instances of that weapon being fired. (X might be 1 for relatively elite units or strong weapons, or it might be a much higher number if you're dealing with weaker units/weapons that rely on weight of fire.)
* The chart now tells you how many saves your opponent has to make. Or, if you want to roll save vs AP into the above modifiers, it just tells you how many wounds you inflict.

The upsides of that approach being that you don't need dozens of dice to resolve your lasblaster or lasgun attacks, and depending on how you build the chart, you could choose to make fumbles not be a thing. That is, you could decide that every time at least X bolters are firing at a target, they will force at least 1 save or do at least 1 damage. (Again, depending on specifics.) But obviously that would be a big change that would come with its own design problems.

catbarf wrote:

Food for thought: The first game Andy Chambers wrote after leaving the 40K team, Starship Troopers, has no roll to hit at all. Shooter skill is factored into the weapon profile, and each attack is resolved with a single attack roll followed by a single save roll, and even then only if the attack didn't reach a no-saves-allowed auto-kill threshold. Many other modern games also use two rolls, just roll to hit -> roll for armor.

I've pitched something like that at least once in proposed rules. We could combine either the to-hit/to-wound rolls (an "Attack" roll) or the to-wound/save rolls (a "Defense" roll). Then just adjust Wounds on everything to compensate for there being one fewer rolls filtering dice out of the pool.

Having recently played Spear Head, I don't hate how they approach things: with to-wound being a flat value instead of a comparison to toughness. To compensate, they just give some units worse to-hit or to-wound stats and then give a bunch of wounds to more durable models. Although the lean towards shooting in 40k might make that approach translate poorly given how easy it would be to concentrate offense in one place each turn.

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So if Custodes are the best soldiers in the Imperium, by raw skill, power, speed, and knowledge, shouldn't they be better than a Primaris Captain at shooting their weapon?

You can't 1-1 everything in this game on a d6 system.

A D8/10/12 would allow Custodes to hit on a 2+ (God level skill) and a Captain to hit on a 4+ (Near god level skill) and still not really break the game.

If we start by erecting the goalposts it should be easy to demonstrate where people should fall on the "Shooting skill level" (Example).

Custodes and other Primarch level character/units on one end, and Plague bearers/Grots on the other.

On a D10, for instance, I would argue the Custodes-like hits on a 2+. The Grots-like hit on a 9+, and the Guards-like hit on a 5+.

Obviously there is a ton of polishing for this to work, ie where does a servitor fall, etc? But for the most part I think this is a clear example of how we can setup the goal posts and have greater granularity with a >D6.

Why do you think Plaguebearers suck at hitting things?

And, more pertinently, you don't NEED to 1-to-1 everything. A Custode is, in a lot of ways, better than a Marine Captain. A Custodes Shield Captain is straight-up better than a Marine Captain. Just because they hit on the same die result doesn't mean they're equals.

I never said they are equal. I was trying to set goal posts. I made the case that they both hit on 2+, and there should be some difference in just that one aspect. Obviously there are greater details, but a Space marine, no matter what age, should miss more often than a Custode. Currently they do not.

And I said plague bearer, excuse me for not naming the right unit. I was talking about the shuffling zombie thing. I am not familair with their unit in 10th, but I thought they hit on a 6+, hence the example. If I'm wrong, there you go.

Poxwalkers. Not Plaguebearers.

And why? Why is that one specific detail something that HAS to be done, and not abstracted into the whole? I mean, obviously a Bolter should be better at wounding a T5 model (Plaguebearer, Terminator, Plague Marine) than a Lasgun, but currently they don't.

It doesn't HAVE to, but we are literally talking "Hopes for 11th Core rules". My hope is that we expand the dice system, and I am trying to provide examples, perhaps badly, of ways it might improve gameplay, in my own way of thinking.

 Kanluwen wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
that’s not where the difference comes in, imho.
Should an officer telling a guardsmen ‘shoot better’ really make that guardsmen’s accuracy equal to a standard marine?

Why shouldn't it?

Guardsmen are trained individuals to start with, as much as people like to pretend that's not the case.

I think it would be best if guard represented realistic human accuracy under high stress conditions like combat, but that’s basically just a 6+ in a D6 system. In a D10 system that’s more like an 8+

"Realistic human accuracy" compared to what?

Seriously, why is there an obsession that Guardsmen have to constantly be degraded while nobody talks about Guardians, Cultists, Neophyte & Acolyte Hybrids, etc?

because it’s an easy point of reference rather than listing off every single stupid faction, making posts stupidly long.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

I think it would be best if guard represented realistic human accuracy under high stress conditions like combat, but that’s basically just a 6+ in a D6 system. In a D10 system that’s more like an 8+

Well the rest of us want this to be playable/enjoyable, so you'll just have to pardon us if we reject you notion of what'd be "best".

how does the number of sides on the die you roll make the game less enjoyable?

johnpjones1775 wrote:
...how does the number of sides on the die you roll make the game less enjoyable?

The "make the game use d10s!" crowd has been around for a very long time. Dissect the argument, and it's pretty universally about the fact that to them the game isn't enjoyable unless their models have two more points in every stat than everyone else, because giving them only one more point in every stat than everyone else is unrealistic...

 catbarf wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Should an officer telling a guardsmen ‘shoot better’ really make that guardsmen’s accuracy equal to a standard marine?

I think it would be best if guard represented realistic human accuracy under high stress conditions like combat, but that’s basically just a 6+ in a D6 system. In a D10 system that’s more like an 8+

Should a Marine with centuries of experience, cybernetic augmentations, and integral targetfinders and aim assistance really hit just 33% more often than a Guardsman in the first place?

Is there any particular evidence you're drawing from that says a trained soldier averages a 16.67% or 30% hit rate in combat? Is either of those values universal, unaffected by how far away the target is or whether they're shooting a human-sized or tank-sized target? Does an officer saying 'shoot better' actually improve hit rates at all under combat conditions?

Is there any reason to think that a single 'shot' in 40K actually literally means a single projectile, and not just a test of whether a given combatant can put out effective fire in the nonspecific timeframe represented by a single turn?

The mechanics are, from a realism/simulation perspective, nonsense to begin with. Adding greater granularity to abstract mechanics doesn't improve the fidelity of simulation.

There have been several studies
“On killing the psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society” David grossman
“Men against fire” SLA Marshall
Being just a few.

Personally I believe that marines should be a lot more accurate than 33% above normal guardsmen without basically auto hitting, something that can’t really happen with the current system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
...how does the number of sides on the die you roll make the game less enjoyable?

The "make the game use d10s!" crowd has been around for a very long time. Dissect the argument, and it's pretty universally about the fact that to them the game isn't enjoyable unless their models have two more points in every stat than everyone else, because giving them only one more point in every stat than everyone else is unrealistic...

And who told you that? Sounds like your own bias.
But you deflected rather than answer the question


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
that’s not where the difference comes in, imho.
Should an officer telling a guardsmen ‘shoot better’ really make that guardsmen’s accuracy equal to a standard marine?

Why shouldn't it?

Guardsmen are trained individuals to start with, as much as people like to pretend that's not the case.

I think it would be best if guard represented realistic human accuracy under high stress conditions like combat, but that’s basically just a 6+ in a D6 system. In a D10 system that’s more like an 8+

"Realistic human accuracy" compared to what?

Seriously, why is there an obsession that Guardsmen have to constantly be degraded while nobody talks about Guardians, Cultists, Neophyte & Acolyte Hybrids, etc?

Because guardsmen is the catch-all term for these types of units.....

You didn't read the post I was quoting, hm?

Dude literally calls out officers with orders to Guardsmen.

GEQ
MEQ
TEQ

are all terms that everyone is used to in wargaming, it's not a personal attack on your guardians, and no one is saying that the other armies' shitters shouldnt also be bad

I'm well aware of the acronyms.

I'm also aware that Officers aren't in every "GEQ" army. Also, that "GEQ" hasn't really been a thing for some time now.

Do you really not understand the concept of an example?
Pick any GEQ and any common army you want.
GEQ is definitely still a thing…