Switch Theme:

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

View results
Author Message
Advert


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




Made in us
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord




Inside Yvraine

A.T. wrote:
Only when you factor in things like cover, special weapons, and artillery.
Not at all. My factor is ppm. 2 guardsmen are more durable than 1 marine against most weapons, point for point.

This entire thread concept is basically a exercise in how little people understand the power of horde armies in a low rof game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/19 04:47:23


 
   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

 Dysartes wrote:
How is your Mom's spaghetti, OP?


My mom passed away last October during the middle of this Covid mess, thank you.

It never ends well 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Boston

 BlaxicanX wrote:
A.T. wrote:
Only when you factor in things like cover, special weapons, and artillery.
Not at all. My factor is ppm. 2 guardsmen are more durable than 1 marine against most weapons, point for point.

This entire thread concept is basically a exercise in how little people understand the power of horde armies in a low rof game.


The removal of blast and templates as well. Shooty hordes are kept in check by the missions in 9th. Melee hordes... we're about to see.
   
Made in ca
Deranged Necron Destroyer






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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


A Necron Warrior should be equal to a Marine. That's how they were in the past, they've become weaker and weaker as time has moved on.

Girl Gamers are the best! 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 Galas wrote:

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

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

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

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


I largely agree. However, there's the obvious question of how wide the gaps between these units should be. e.g. should Marines be better than Orks because they have a much better armour save and can deplete them at range, but can still be overwhelmed by them in melee (as it was previously)? Or should they just be better than Orks in every way and able to mow them down not only at range but also in melee, which the Orks supposedly specialise in?

Another example - it used to be that Marines and Necrons were very similar. Necrons were more resilient against many weapons (same toughness and save but they had WBB) and their basic weapons were slightly better but they couldn't take special weapons or melee weapons and, despite Ld10, were quite vulnerable to morale - especially in melee. However, as editions went by, Necron Warriors got gradually weaker while Marines got stronger and stronger, to the point where Marines are now better in basically every way.

There's also another issue in that the core rules for 9th are so vapid and shallow that it's very hard to actually make units exceed Marines without just making them even tougher. How does one make Dire Avengers roughly on par with Marines without just turning them into Marine-equivalents? It seems all you can really do is make them glass-cannons and compensate for their lack of durability with a drastic increase in firepower.


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


Even if you did have fliers, it was still no guarantee that you'd be able to deal with enemy ones. IIRC it would take about 1500pts of Voidravens to kill a single Helldrake.

But yeah, even in the best case scenario, it's hard to think of a mechanic that felt more tacked-on than Fliers.

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

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


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

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


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


 insaniak wrote:

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

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

IIRC the 40k flyer rules were more or less copy/pasted from Forgeworld's apocalypse flyer rules. Although they obviously had to mess it up.

- In apocalypse both players bringing aircraft and/or AA was not unreasonable. 40k games were small enough that investing in AA would be a noticable chunk of points. Not to mention it was a brand new tacked on mechanic that wasn't even tacked onto all armies. Many people couldn't get AA, and many others simply didn't want to buy a new expensive and ugly model.

- Forgeworld flyers were typically only AV10-11. 40k flyers were often AV12, not unreasonable when they were just fast skimmers, but now they're flyers they're extremely resilient to the quintessential S7 autocannon AA.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/19 09:54:06


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Most of this thread is about people who clearly don't play 9th edition trying to solve problems that 9th edition doesn't have...

Too many dice rolls are mainly a problem due to an overabundance of re-rolls (counter-acted by the introduction of CORE and in general getting cut down with 9th codices), FNP everywhere (only selected units in 9th codices), a bunch of time consuming special rules with little to no effect (many getting curbed with new codices) and the trend of giving new models a smattering of different weapons that you need to roll separately.

Looking at the beast snagga rules, the last point is the only one that remains a problem in 9th, but there is no easy fix to that except to stop doing it.

I also, once again, would like to point out that "flamers are AA" is the very same as saying "I have no experience in 8th or 9th and should not be talking about either".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/19 10:41:09


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

Although I do agree that 9th has gone some way to curb the extent of rerolls, they have by no means removed a lot of them.

Speaking as a Space Marine player, rerolling dice is the default character effect, annoying 6+ FNPs are still easy to get, random 'blasts' and damage are still pretty common.

9th is a step back in the right direction, but we've not entirely there.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Agree, but I think this is a marine/early codex problem. Other codices usually have only character, if any at all handing out re-rolls to maybe one or two units.

Of course, since half the players are marines, every marine problem is a 40k problem...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/19 10:53:01


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Problem with dice rolling is not the volume of dice itself. I mean rolling 60 shots from a unit of 10 ork bikers seems a lot of dice rolling, but what it actually slows down the game is units like the repulsor which have tons of different guns that need to be resolved separately. One volley of rolls doesn't really slow down anything as long as it belongs to the same "batch".

Ork buggies with 3-4 weapons each and acting like single models once deployed is another perfect example of dice rolling that slows down the game, with the new codex all shots of the same type from the same squadron can be rolled together thankfully. Same for mek gunz. Resolving the firepower from 6 scrapjets or 6 smasha gunz used to take forever for 660 and (especially) 240 points units.

The existence of different weapons' profile is another thing that slows down the game: in 3rd orks had something like 15 profiles for ranged weapons and that was it. Now they have a ton, and there are also rules that allow to alter the values of those weapons. All things that need to be double checked frequently. How many different anti tank weapons do SM have now?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/19 10:57:04



 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

I agree up to a point, I don't like ever having to roll more than a handful of dice at a time, ideally only a comfortable handful, no dice spilling out!
Which is only a couple dozen, maybe a little more.

I totally agree on weapons though, this is made so much worse by the trend that every unique sculpt needs a unique profile. I wish they just conglomerated things a little more.
In Star Wars Legion, my AAT has about 4 different weapons which are all condensed into one "defence lasers" profile.
In 40k I'm sure they'd be 3 different weapons with at least 2 distinct profiles.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/19 11:02:30


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 kirotheavenger wrote:
In 40k I'm sure they'd be 3 different weapons with at least 2 distinct profiles.


And even if they have the same profiles, they get different BS so you can't roll them together anyways. Yes, I'm looking at you, scrapjet and squigbuggy.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Dive-Bombin' Fighta-Bomba Pilot






I am on team auras need to go. It slows down the games giving out boatloads of rerolls and kills balance. how do you balance a unit of say devastators points wise? do you just assume they will be rerolling hit and wound rolls and bake that into the cost of the devastators? how bout the captain or chapter master and LT? Do you point adjust them as if they were allowing rerolls on 4 units at a time or just 1? Personally I think all "aura" abilities should be changed "to choose a unit in each phase that unit can *insert aura ability)

10000 points 7000
6000
5000
5000
2000
 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

Regarding auras, something I was thinking about recently was that 40k doesn't have any common or universal mechanics beyond the most basic elements of the game (movement shooting, melee etc.), and the closest things it does have to common or universal mechanics are completely non-interactive.

What do I mean by this?

Well, it might be easier to start with a counter-example. In Warmahordes, every army is built around a central warlock or warcaster and a battlegroup of warbeasts or warjacks. The casters have pools of fury/focus which are used to cast spells, to boost their attacks and to protect themselves, though they can also be distributed to their battlegroup to help them boost rolls or activate certain abilities.

Obviously I'm simplifying here but the point is that you have a central resource-management mechanic that applies to all armies. Different warlocks and warcasters will have different abilities (some might be powerful melee characters in their own right, with others being entirely support-oriented) but all are spellcasters, using the same spellcasting mechanic. What's more, you also have a lot of ways of interacting with this mechanic - there are many abilities that can protect from spells in some way or which can remove buff/debuff spells from enemy units or other such.


To return to 40k, there isn't anything resembling a common ability or interaction of this kind. Some armies in 40k have psykers but others don't (and so have to basically just skip an entire phase of the game). Some armies have defining abilities (Resurrection Protocols, Acts of Faith, Power from Pain etc.) but there's no commonality between these elements. Acts of Faith work in an entirely different way to Resurrection Protocols and both work in an entirely different way to Power from Pain, with zero overlap or interactivity.

The closest thing 40k has to a universal mechanic is CPs and Stratagems. The issue, however, is that these aren't tied to any physical models (HQs aren't needed to 'cast' them, for example), so they feel totally disconnected from anything happening on the board. Further, there exists maybe a single stratagem-countering-stratagem in the entire game. Hence, whilst there is some tactical input on the part of the player using them, there exists basically no counterplay for the opponent.

Whilst not quite as universal, auras are similar in that there is very little that interacts with them. Though, unlike stratagems, they don't even require any sort of resource-management (making them even less interactive, as it means neither player has any control over them).

I bring this up because I wonder if it would help for 40k to pick a mechanic and build it into the core abilities for factions, rather than every faction having abilities that work in entirely different ways (making them very difficult to balance and also meaning that there is no 'jumping off point' for designers). For example, take Command Points but tie them to HQ/unit abilities instead of a CCG. Or maybe take Acts of Faith and give each army a pool of dice that it can spend on an appropriate ability.

I don't know, just musing to myself really.

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

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


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

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


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


 insaniak wrote:

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

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

I'm not so sure, I'd actually say 40k has many such central mechanics; strategems, psykers, auras.

The problem is they have no discipline and hardly any central vision.
Every faction needs to be newer and shiny than the one before, that's why you have all these crazy unique rules like Power from Pain or Miracles.

However, to many, this is the selling point. I know someone that buys pretty much every new thing shown because he loves the new unique rules for them.
That's what GW cares about, they don't care about grognards like me because we don't buy much in comparison.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





In terms of cutting down dice rerolls would definitely be the first step, along with reroll-like dice (excessive FnP and other wound ignoring rolls, exploding dice, etc)

A while back I played around with the idea of a streamlined 40k and ditched the basic armour saving throws as well (folded into the wound mechanic). Not tested enough to determine if it was a step too far but it was a lot less dice to roll.


 BlaxicanX wrote:
A.T. wrote:
Only when you factor in things like cover, special weapons, and artillery.
Not at all. My factor is ppm. 2 guardsmen are more durable than 1 marine against most weapons, point for point.
As mentioned in the previous post, it was 3-1 in the marines favour in points (and 8-1 in models) if a guard unit shot a marine unit ~3-4th edition, with just their basic weapons. Unless i've mis-added somewhere. Perhaps you were thinking of a different edition/ruleset, or different kind of comparison.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/19 14:28:50


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

I see people saying 'it's not the number of shots, it's rerolls/abilities/different guns/etc', but I've never played another game that has me doing as much borderline pointless dice rolling.

Even without any special abilities or Orders or rerolls or anything my basic Infantry Squad is throwing 19 dice in rapid fire range. Shooting at Marines requires an average of 32 dice rolls for an average result of one measly wound dealt. So we're rolling about 60 dice collectively for each model removed from the field.

It's at least a little better when he shoots back. A unit of Intercessors rapid-firing against Guardsmen results in an average of 42 dice rolls and 7 models removed. So 6 dice per model eliminated.

Throw in rerolls, stratagems, and other abilities and the number of dice goes up dramatically.

Compare to something like Dust, where an infantryman typically throws one die, hitting on the equivalent of a 5+. If he's staying stationary he gets to reroll it. If he hits, the target may get a save. And that's it. Or look at Apocalypse, where a unit of 30 models may roll fewer then ten dice to resolve the entire attack.

It doesn't have to be a carved-in-stone rule that each model only gets one die; it's the sequential process of each individual model rolling to hit -> rolling to wound -> rolling saves, not to mention multi-wound infantry, that produces a very high ratio of dice rolled to models removed. It fits the style of a skirmish game but feels out of place in a system with 50+ models per side.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/07/19 15:05:58


   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 catbarf wrote:
...Or look at Apocalypse, where a unit of 30 models may roll fewer then ten dice to resolve the entire attack...


On the extreme end of the scale in Black Powder Epic your infantry regiment is 100 men on five bases, and they're usually rolling three dice at range and six to eight in melee. It makes for a game that looks very big and very dramatic, but you can also play it in two hours easily enough. (They're also tightly-packed 15mm guys, so you can fit two thousand models in one box.)

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 catbarf wrote:
I see people saying 'it's not the number of shots, it's rerolls/abilities/different guns/etc', but I've never played another game that has me doing as much borderline pointless dice rolling.

Even without any special abilities or Orders or rerolls or anything my basic Infantry Squad is throwing 19 dice in rapid fire range. Shooting at Marines requires an average of 32 dice rolls for an average result of one measly wound dealt. So we're rolling about 60 dice collectively for each model removed from the field.

It's at least a little better when he shoots back. A unit of Intercessors rapid-firing against Guardsmen results in an average of 42 dice rolls and 7 models removed. So 6 dice per model eliminated.

Throw in rerolls, stratagems, and other abilities and the number of dice goes up dramatically.

Compare to something like Dust, where an infantryman typically throws one die, hitting on the equivalent of a 5+. If he's staying stationary he gets to reroll it. If he hits, the target may get a save. And that's it. Or look at Apocalypse, where a unit of 30 models may roll fewer then ten dice to resolve the entire attack.

It doesn't have to be a carved-in-stone rule that each model only gets one die; it's the sequential process of each individual model rolling to hit -> rolling to wound -> rolling saves, not to mention multi-wound infantry, that produces a very high ratio of dice rolled to models removed. It fits the style of a skirmish game but feels out of place in a system with 50+ models per side.


I'm sure I remember a little note back in the 3rd or 4th edition rulebook that talked about the way they use dice.

It basically said "Yeah, we know weapons like Assault Cannons fire far more shots than they roll dice but it makes more sense to just roll 4 dice that hit on 3s, rather than throwing 16 dice that only hit on 6s."

Presumably that philosophy was lost somewhere along the line.

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

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


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

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


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


 insaniak wrote:

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

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 vipoid wrote:
I'm sure I remember a little note back in the 3rd or 4th edition rulebook that talked about the way they use dice.

It basically said "Yeah, we know weapons like Assault Cannons fire far more shots than they roll dice but it makes more sense to just roll 4 dice that hit on 3s, rather than throwing 16 dice that only hit on 6s."

Presumably that philosophy was lost somewhere along the line.


I choose to believe that the number of dice is abstract/representative even in its current incarnation, because the idea of Rapid Fire literally representing two shots is nonsensical on its own and has absurd implications for the rest of the game.

Depending on the system, one die could be used to represent a burst of a few aimed shots, a soldier's entire fire output for a given timestep, or a fireteam's combat effectiveness- it all depends on chosen scale. 40K seems to hover around that first level, which is more common to skirmish games than mass battle ones, where the second or third are more common.

   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 catbarf wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
I'm sure I remember a little note back in the 3rd or 4th edition rulebook that talked about the way they use dice.

It basically said "Yeah, we know weapons like Assault Cannons fire far more shots than they roll dice but it makes more sense to just roll 4 dice that hit on 3s, rather than throwing 16 dice that only hit on 6s."

Presumably that philosophy was lost somewhere along the line.


I choose to believe that the number of dice is abstract/representative even in its current incarnation, because the idea of Rapid Fire literally representing two shots is nonsensical on its own and has absurd implications for the rest of the game.

Depending on the system, one die could be used to represent a burst of a few aimed shots, a soldier's entire fire output for a given timestep, or a fireteam's combat effectiveness- it all depends on chosen scale. 40K seems to hover around that first level, which is more common to skirmish games than mass battle ones, where the second or third are more common.


It's not so much that one dice currently equals one shot. Rather, it was the philosophy of trying to actually cut down on the number of dice needed to resolve a given weapon.

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

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


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

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


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


 insaniak wrote:

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

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

I've often toyed with the idea of a system which would use 2d6 (or some other suitable dice range), the BS of the unit, the number of models firing and the fire rate of the weapon to calculate the number of hits rather than rolling for all shots.

Though actually producing a working system from that has proven to be much more challenging

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/19 21:17:51


The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I've often toyed with the idea of a system which would use 2d6 (or some other suitable dice range), the BS of the unit, the number of models firing and the fire rate of the weapon to calculate the number of hits rather than rolling for all shots.

Though actually producing a working system from that has proven to be much more challenging

Isn't this basically how Battletech does it? I haven't played in years but that's how I vaguely remember it working.
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

Rihgu wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I've often toyed with the idea of a system which would use 2d6 (or some other suitable dice range), the BS of the unit, the number of models firing and the fire rate of the weapon to calculate the number of hits rather than rolling for all shots.

Though actually producing a working system from that has proven to be much more challenging

Isn't this basically how Battletech does it? I haven't played in years but that's how I vaguely remember it working.

Battletech is a little... different.

Basically to find the target number (rolled on with 2D6), you take the Gunnery Skill of the pilot, add your Movement Modifier (based on how you moved, +1 for Walk, +2 for Run, +3 for Jump), add their Movement Modifier (based on how far they moved, 3-4 is +1, 5-6 is +2, etc), add Range Modifier (Short is usually 0, Medium +2, Long, +4), and then insert any other modifications provided by weapons (ex. Pulse Lasers do a -2) other equipment (ex.Targeting Computer provides a -1 for direct fire weapons; Stealth Armor add +1 to Medium Range, +2 for Long Range), or terrain (ex. Light Woods are +1, Heavy Woods are +2).

If the target number goes in to 13, it is unhittable.

So short-hand would one could put it as:

BS+Shooter Movement+Target Movement+Range+Equipment+Terrain = Target number. Roll 2D6 to hit or exceed.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

 catbarf wrote:
I see people saying 'it's not the number of shots, it's rerolls/abilities/different guns/etc', but I've never played another game that has me doing as much borderline pointless dice rolling.



Yeah I think the message is being lost a bit here. Rerolls are exacerbating the underlying issue of having to work through 3 separate rolls to resolve an attack. Its great that 9th is cutting back on rerolls as Jidmah pointed out somewhat up the page - that doesn't change the fact that the resolution system still requires an unnecessarily large number of rolls to be rolled regardless (and that doesn't even begin to go into all the additional dice rolls like attrition in other parts of the game. I generally assume that people focus on the reroll aspect because they aren't necessarily familiar with other games and don't realize that other games offer other methods which accomplish the same thing without needing to make a multitude of rolls to do so.

This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in ca
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant






I voted Lemon Curry cause I don't know what it means but the other 2 didn't quite fit. I do believe things are a bit too much but also that 1 model 1 shot is too much in the other direction.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I've often toyed with the idea of a system which would use 2d6 (or some other suitable dice range), the BS of the unit, the number of models firing and the fire rate of the weapon to calculate the number of hits rather than rolling for all shots.

Though actually producing a working system from that has proven to be much more challenging


That's not as 'out there' as you might think, considering 2D6 combat resolution is a staple of hex-and-paper wargames. What you can do for 40K is plot the bell curve of a particular test and roughly map it to the results of a 2D6 roll.

For example, say I'm firing 6 dice at BS4+. The results look like this:
0 hits- 1.56%
1 hit- 9.38%
2 hits- 23.44%
3 hits- 31.25%
4 hits- 23.44%
5 hits- 9.38%
6 hits- 1.56%

Nice symmetrical bell curve. If I plot that to 2D6 as:
2: 0 hits
3: 1 hit
4-5: 2 hits
6-8: 3 hits
9-10: 4 hits
11: 5 hits
12: 6 hits

Then the odds are:
0 hits- 2.8%
1 hit- 5.6%
2 hits- 19.4%
3 hits- 44.4%
4 hits- 19.4%
5 hits- 5.6%
6 hits- 2.8%

Notice that this implementation is a bit more predictable than the 'real thing', aside from greater chance of 0 hits or 6 hits (not by much, though). You can plot the outcome in different ways to achieve different levels of reliability. So, the next step would be to make a chart with a discrete number of columns like the above, and set gradations- eg maybe you use the above table if you have a 'firepower' of 5-7 models firing. Greater or lesser BS would result in either a different method of counting (eg Marines count their numbers as 1.5x or whatever), or lateral shifts if the column layout is structured so that the firepower represented by a column is a fixed multiple of the one before it.

But really, once you've come to terms with the loss of granularity imposed by this type of resolution, it's not so far-fetched to apply the same sorts of shortcuts to the rest of the fire sequence. You can consolidate the attacker's firepower with the defender's resilience and any external factors to determine what column to roll on, and then use a single 2D6 roll as your bell curve result generator. Eg you're shooting on the above column, and you're in Rapid Fire range so you get a right column shift, but your target is Orks and they're tough so they impose a left column shift, and they're in cover so that's another shift left, but you're under Take Aim and that's a shift right, and it all cancels out to just rolling on the above table so throw your 2D6 and see what happens. Rather than layer in additional checks and re-rolls, those attributes that either increase or decrease your effectiveness mutually cancel, keeping the resolution quick.

Or just zoom out a little and take the Apocalypse approach. It's okay to roll individual dice to hit if you're rolling two dice for a Guard squad, rather than 37.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/20 03:40:12


   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

I remember when the Punisher Gatling Cannon came out which caused a stir with it's 20 shots, 5x as much as the theoretically similar assault cannon. Now that looks rather normal.

Granularity is a common argument for sticking with the same system, but the difference between 2 dice and 3 dice resolution is only a % or two any given direction, that's just not a noticable loss.

Similar to Dust, Starwars Legion has 2 dice in a roll. Attacker rolls to hit then defender rolls to save. Yet using very simple special rules they manage to make things feel interesting and unique.
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

 fraser1191 wrote:
I voted Lemon Curry cause I don't know what it means but the other 2 didn't quite fit. I do believe things are a bit too much but also that 1 model 1 shot is too much in the other direction.


Did the same. Likewise, no idea what Lemon Curry is, but it sounds like it could be delicious.

This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




One approach I'd like to see GW try is using something like a hybrid of the Apocalypse and existing degrading monster/vehicle mechanic for large units with lots of shots.

For example, Orks (pre-9th anyway) could fire 60 shots, then get DDD on around 10 of those, which is a lot of rolling and fishing for results. Instead of a linear approach where 1 more guy equals X more shots, just have a rule that a unit of 11-20 gets 2 hits per hit and 21-30 gets 3? You could further tune it to only work against infantry if you wanted. Similar approaches could work for SM Aggressors, who really don't need to be throwing 72 dice with re-rolls to hit and wound.

The only way we can reduce the dice rolling at this point is if GW adopt a system that doesn't blindly just add more shots as you get more guns. there are other ways to increase effectiveness. There are so many weapons out there with 3+ shots on fairly basic infantry models that we need a seismic shift on how the game resolves large units shooting. I don't see that happening any time soon. GW seems to think more dice equals more fun.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: