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.

Hey guys !

What would you think of that new rule with high strength weapons regarding the number of wounds caused ?

- Instant Death on Strength = Toughness x 2 still the same.
- Weapons with a Strength of 8 or above cause 2 wounds per unsaved wound
- Weapons with a Strength of 8 or above and an AP of 2 or 1 cause instead 3 wounds per unsaved wound
- Weapons with a Strength of D cause D3+1 wounds on a To Wound roll of a 2 to 5 and D6+6 on a roll of a 6

___

Basically, making single shot high strength weapons good against something other than vehicles. It makes more sense that a Multi-Melta would seriously damage a Carnifex or Ripride if it has the chance to slag a Land Raider.

It would also not compete with Grav or Plasmas and actually make S8+ weapons (anti-tank weapons) have some punch again. Grav and Plasmas would have their niche against elite infantry and Grav would have an edge against MCs while Plasma would threaten lighter vehicles more reliably.

Finally, it's also a nod to 2nd Edition (where most of the content and units came from), where these kind of weapons would each inflict multiple wounds (2d6 for a Lascan while a Carnifex had 10 wounds. With an average of 7 wounds, it's quite similar to the 3 wounds it would inflict as of yet).

I think just this change could fix tons of balance issues that 40k currently has.

I'm particularily interested in knowing which unit would become really, really overpowered because of this rule ! Or which units would become utterly useless.

I don't really see why you need the AP part. It seems to needlessly complicate it.

pm713 wrote:
I don't really see why you need the AP part. It seems to needlessly complicate it.

It is simply to pair with the AP1 AP2 boost to the vehicle damage table, but I agree it's not necessary.

Multiple wounds is really something that could be interesting in 40k. Currently it's primarily all or nothing; just Instant Death vs Eternal Warrior (not counting D weapons).

However, the extras shouldn't be automatic. If a lascannon inflicts 3 wounds, that means it only takes two shots to kill most Monstrous Creatures, and lascannons are plentiful.

Really, a system of multiple wounds requires a rebalancing of everything that has multiple wounds, and that's difficult and bordering on game overhaul. Lascannons and meltas really don't need to be 3x more effective against multi-wound models (wounding most on 2+ with no save, remember). How can we fix that? We could give them more wounds, but that makes them even more resistant to weapons below that Strength threshold.

I think if you're looking for parity with vehicles, it might be better to institute a "Critical Hit" table of sorts. Weapons beyond a certain Strength threshold could get to roll on a table when they hit, and the results would negatively impact the target. Rather than an additional roll, though, this would be better as a modifier to the To Wound roll; some sort of mechanic that directly plays off the To Wound values, like counting how much the To Wound value is beaten by (ie rolling a 3 for a 2+ To Wound equals 1 on the table).

This is just something I thought of on the spot. I don't think it's necessary, but it could be cool if people want such a thing.

@Frozen Ocean : I completely see your points !

But Grav are plentiful as well and the extra cost doesn't make them prohibitive. Really, the idea was to help out single shot high strength weapons find their good spot in the largely MC dominated meta.
The issue right now is that, when available if you don't take Grav you're putting yourself at a disadvantage in the meta. And I'm not talking against weaker MCs like Tyranids or Daemons (which are pretty balanced), but about the undercosted stuff like Wraithknights and Riptides.
Armies without access to Grav are just left in the dust. Armies without access to the high ROF weapons in general are left in the dust.

The idea needs to be refined, like every idea ever ( ), but I feel it's a step in the right way !

Did you know that when they were introduced in 2nd edition, the single shot high strength weapons did have the ability to deal multiple wounds ?
When wounding, a Lascannon would inflict 2d6 wounds. With an average of 7, and a Carnifex having 10 total wounds, it would take 2 shots to fell the beast.

Because GW will never nerf, I was suggesting a buff. Buffs are well received by the community in general.

I think that this would be better implemented on a per-weapon basis, like Age of Sigmar's Damage characteristic which allows weapons to inflict multiple wounds as a basic attribute.

Of course I'd like to see this alongside all vehicles moving to just be a mass of Toughness and Wounds with good armour, in which case multi-wound weapons with good strength and AP would be the only reliable way to bring them down quickly.

I think it would work well, but perhaps not as you have proposed it. I would think something more like.
S = T+3 deals 2 wounds
S = T+4 deals 3 wounds
S = T+5 deals 4 wounds etc.

That way you end up with a damage table that looks like

S = T wounds on 4+
S = T +1 wounds on 3+
S = T +2 wounds on 2 +
S = T+3 wounds on 2+ deals 2 wounds
S = T+4 wounds on 2+ deals 3 wounds
S = T+5 wounds on 2+ deals 4 wounds etc.

Then let Strength D simply count as S 11 for these calculations.

You can then make Eternal warrior have those weapons deal -1 or -2 wounds minimum 1. You could make it a scale. So Eternal Warrior(3)- reduces wounds dealt by a single attack by 3, minimum 1. In fact you could make instant death simply an ability that deals multiple wounds as well like Instant Death(2) means every wound dealt counts as 2 wounds.

Then make Vehicles simply work on the Toughness scale instead of being a seperate thing.

I think the problem should be addressed from the MC/GMC side, rather then the weapon side.

I like the idea in principle, though I have a few ideas for refinement:

1) All multiple wounds inflicted - except by Destroyer weapons - are saved separately, to include all forms of discounting a wound: armor, cover and invulnerable saves, Feel No Pain, Reanimation Protocols, Paradox Of Duality, etc. Thus, multiple wounds due to a single heavy hit are saved exactly like multiple wounds from multiple hits. In fact, maybe the better mechanic is that hits generate multiple hits that all roll to wound separately. The rationale here is to reduce swingy all-or-nothing results, where a near-certain kill gets entirely negated by a lucky 6+ from Night Fighting or the like.

2) Eliminate ID due to "doubling out" - that has the strange effect of making T3 multiwound models almost irrelevant, and makes the jump from T4 to T5 more relevant than it might otherwise be. (Personally, I'd also eliminate Explodes!, but that's a matter for a separate thread). Instead, all wounds from a weapon with a Strength greater than or equal to double a unit's majority Toughness are doubled after all other bonuses are considered and before saves are rolled. Therefore, if you get hit with a weapon that would cause a double-out condition now, you're probably still dead, but maybe not. This makes ID rare and valuable, and also gives T3 characters a reasonable chance to survive. Also, S=2T denies FNP, as it does now - some guys are just way too resilient without that.

3) The following conditions apply, generating multiple hits/wounds:
- Weapons with the Fleshbane, Melta or Lance special rules generate an additional hit for each successful to-hit roll against a Monstrous Creature or Gargantuan Creature. This effect does not stack if the weapon has more than one of these rules.
- AP1 weapons that successfully roll to wound may roll to wound a second time. This additional wound must be allocated to the same model as the first; if that model has already been removed as a casualty, the extra to-wound roll is lost. (I'm omitting AP2 here because I really don't want grav weapons to deal exploding wounds.)
- Ordnance and Primary Weapons cause an additional hit per hit against all non-vehicle models. This stacks with the benefits of Fleshbane, Melta and Lance if the target is an MC or a GC.
- D works like it does now, and does not gain bonuses for AP1; reduce the 6 on the D chart to "d3+3, no saves of any kind allowed". (Trouble now, is that D is too good...)

The rationale here is that we don't necessarily want meltas to be the automatic go-to weapon for skragging everything, but they should be a good choice. The exploding-hits mechanic is a little weird in that it does allow one shot to kill multiple models in some cases, which is a little strange, but I'm trying not to make wound allocation too weird. Think of it as a shot blasting through one guy to kill another, if that makes more sense.

For some examples:

A) A battle cannon fires at a unit of Space Marines, hitting five models. This generates ten hits (because the battle cannon is Ordnance 1), so ten to-wound rolls.
B) A heat lance fires at a Nemesis Dreadknight. If it hits, it scores two hits: one for hitting, one because it has Lance, for two to-wound rolls. If successful, each of these rolls to wound again, because it's an AP1 weapon.
C) A meltagun fires at a Crisis Suit. It inflicts one hit, despite having Melta, because the target is Infantry, not a Monstrous Creature. However, if that roll wounds, it rolls again (AP1), and then doubles these inflicted wounds (because S=2T).


Now, this leaves lascannons being fairly ineffective, which I'd like to remedy. I kinda like the S8-causes-multiple-hits/wounds idea proposed in the OP, but I think that's sticky against models with a very high T, especially the Tyranid GCs which are already overcosted. Another possible patch might be to give them Fleshbane (barely matters otherwise because they're S9), or possibly AP1.

What about S8+ weapons causing an extra hit per hit inflicted if they also have the Heavy weapon type?

As far as balance, this makes Fire Dragons and Crisis Suits really deadly all of a sudden, likewise things like Dominions and Sternguard. But maybe it's the buff they need against MCs.

GreyCrow wrote:
@Frozen Ocean : I completely see your points !

But Grav are plentiful as well and the extra cost doesn't make them prohibitive. Really, the idea was to help out single shot high strength weapons find their good spot in the largely MC dominated meta.
The issue right now is that, when available if you don't take Grav you're putting yourself at a disadvantage in the meta. And I'm not talking against weaker MCs like Tyranids or Daemons (which are pretty balanced), but about the undercosted stuff like Wraithknights and Riptides.
Armies without access to Grav are just left in the dust. Armies without access to the high ROF weapons in general are left in the dust.

The idea needs to be refined, like every idea ever ( ), but I feel it's a step in the right way !

Did you know that when they were introduced in 2nd edition, the single shot high strength weapons did have the ability to deal multiple wounds ?
When wounding, a Lascannon would inflict 2d6 wounds. With an average of 7, and a Carnifex having 10 total wounds, it would take 2 shots to fell the beast.

Because GW will never nerf, I was suggesting a buff. Buffs are well received by the community in general.

I knew that, but 2nd Edition was full of complex mechanics that 7th doesn't have, so transplanting a limited number of elements into an edition that doesn't support it needs a lot of work to fit comfortably. If we give all MCs 2x/3x wounds for a system with S8+ weapons causing multiple wounds, anything S7 and lower will be practically useless against them.

Also, if we're open to making our own rules, we should fix grav rather than "fixing" things around it.

Nobody will accept a nerf to their units. People will rage that they bought Devastators just to get the new Cannon bits if it is just as good as any other weapons.

That's why GW doesn't nerf things but pushes the creep further. Because they would lose business if they nerfed. Now they're losing business because they don't nerf, maybe they should start buffing

People probably would accept nerfs to their units. If someone told me Eldar bikes went back to their old rules I'd be pretty happy.

FW has a rule called Severing Cut on one of the Leviathan Dreadnought weapons. Perhaps that becomes more mainstream instead of adding a more complicated system.

I propose that when rolling to wound, you get to roll 2 wounds on models with eternal warrior if the weapon str is 2x the model toughness or has instant death.

or just to make stuff on par with Str D. Any to wound of instant death now does d3 wounds. Roll the d3 wounds before rolling To Wound to determine how many To Wound rolls are made.

You could always make it so it does extra wounds based on the excess from what you would need to roll normally.

so a las cannon against a marine would wound on a 2+ but you rolled 5. so you do an extra 3 wounds so long as it connects.

while against a T8 MC you need a 3+ and you roll a 5. then you do 2 wounds for that hit and so on.

higher ST weapons need a boost but i could kinda see this method getting out of control real quick.

another option is you could do a critical effect. where if you roll a 6+ on a weapon that would wound on a 2 or some other criteria will do a thing on a 6.

EDIT: another issue with the based from to wound one would be that it effects ID and feths over multi wound t6 guys. which people will complain about i figure.

I like the concept, but it'd be very hard to balance and likely too effective. What if it was scaled the other way? Normally the chart caps with a To Wound of 2+ being the best possible. What if every point of Str beyond that causes an additional wound?

So T6 takes 1 wound on 2+ against Str8, 2 wounds on 2+ against Str9, and 3 wounds on 2+ against S10. Or maybe just a flat 2 wounds for, in this example, Str9+.

The issue with these mechanics is that, although they make sense and are cool, they really aren't needed, and the inherent upset to the already-fragile balance of the game might be too difficult to manage.

Or just make any attacks better than a 2+ on the chart deal d3 wounds

its the GW way

so a las cannon against a T6 will deal D3 wounds if not saved.

Would also make taking missile launchers a little more worth it since it can punk bike dudes.

@ Desubot and Frozen Ocean

That's more or less what I was thinking! If a weapon's strength is 3+ over the targets toughness it will inflict 2 wounds on the model rather than 1.

So yeah, strength 8 weapons would inflict two wounds on toughness 5 models, strength 9 weapons would inflict two wounds on toughness 5 and toughness 6 models, and strength 10 weapons would inflict two wounds on toughness 6 and toughness 7 models.

And Ordinance weapons could also inflict an extra wound as well. So a strength 8 ordinance weapon would inflict three wounds on toughness 5 models. This makes up for them reducing the accuracy of the vehicles other weapons.

I have ordinance doing d3 wounds to monstrous creatures, and ap1 weapons being able to roll to wound against monstrous creatures a second time if they caused an unsaved wound.

One idea I've been tumbling around with is rerolls to wound similar to the high BS score chart. So a line on the chart would have two spots where they would need a 2+ to wound then behind that it would say 2+/6+, then 2+/5+ etc. It would make really high strength weapons that hit do significantly more damage and combined with the rules I listed above bring the difference between monsters and vehicles a bit closer together.

You could always go the higher ST does more wounds and give ordnance weapons concussive and strike down.

its more useful way of controlling vs just out right killing.