Switch Theme:

Why do we roll to hit for variable shot weapons?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
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
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






The D3 and D6 shot mechanics are basically representative of small and large blasts. Basically - the random dice roll is determining the place of the "blast marker" - so why are we rolling to hit? Obviously Things like manticores are already broken even if we roll to hits with them BUT lots of units would become playable if these were auto hits. I'm not saying everything is properly balanced if they were auto hits - lots would need to be re-balanced but I just think it's silly to have to roll variable shots and then roll to hit.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in gb
Lesser Daemon of Chaos





UK

From a gameplay mechanic, I expect it is to distinguish them from flamer weapons.

Edit: I think it would be neat if blast weapons were a single roll to hit, followed by a roll for explosion radius if the initial shot connected e.g. Roll a single 4+ to hit, then every model in d6/2d3/etc takes that hit.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/23 12:53:28


Chaos undivided: 8300, Tau empire: 5600, Ork speed freaks: 1750

 
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 hippyjr wrote:
From a gameplay mechanic, I expect it is to distinguish them from flamer weapons.


But do they really need to be distinguished from flamer weapons? Does that distinction actually serve any function?

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
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 hippyjr wrote:
From a gameplay mechanic, I expect it is to distinguish them from flamer weapons.


But do they really need to be distinguished from flamer weapons? Does that distinction actually serve any function?


Yes because having things with 48+ inch range that Auto hit would be very strong, especially with the stats some of these guns have. I mean earthshaker cannons getting D6 auto hits from 240" away, at S9 AP-2 D3 damage that doesn't need LOS? They would also negate penalties to hit from moving.

Flamers are for the most part 8" range or less.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






Well we could balance it - For example anything with the blast rule couldn't shoot at flyers for or have to remain stationary to fire.

I think the randomized number of shots is more than enough to balance those weapons. No need to have a to hit afterwards. Things like manticores obviously need to be toned down. Things like nightspinners/fireprisms/riptides would actually become worth their points.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/23 13:48:35


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 Xenomancers wrote:
Well we could balance it - For example anything with the blast rule couldn't shoot at flyers for or have to remain stationary to fire.

I think the randomized number of shots is more than enough to balance those weapons. No need to have a to hit afterwards. Things like manticores obviously need to be toned down. Things like nightspinners/fireprisms/riptides would actually become worth their points.


I still disagree, because many units don't have to move to be effective, especially those with long range. At some level you would need to complicate the rules for a bunch of units, because auto hitting long range weapons that don't need LOS are super broken. I'd rather see a change to fixed number of shots, or softer curves on random rolls. Make blasts like 3D2 or 2D3, instead of 1 D6. OR reduce the points costs to make them worth it with less reliability. Or make more of them fixed damage (demolisher cannons with D6 shots doing say 6 damage would be decent). Or allow damage from blasts to carry over, rather than being confined to a single model.
'
Auto hits just breaks armies like astra millitarum. .

I mean you mention the fire prism, you don't think averaging 2 lascannon hits per turn is pretty strong? From 60" away on a very durable platform? It would also make the single shot variant on that weapon useless. Or the Nightspinner averaging 7 S7 hits? From 48" range.

Or as orks I'll be spaming SAG big meks, having untargetable shooting platforms that average 3-4 S7 AP -5 D2 hits from 60" range. For 100 points.


Auto hits is a bad and lazy fix to blast weapons, which I'm not even convinced are in that bad a place for armies with decent BS.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/23 15:55:57


 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Striking Scorpion




Seattle Area

I share the sentiment of disliking the random number of shots fired, but I don't think auto-hits are the answer.

Given the lack of composition restraints, the only thing keeping an army like AM from total domination is their mediocre BS.

High Str / High AP weapons that Autohit are *nuts* - I run 3 Hemlocks in my Iyanden army for this reason. They're expensive, short ranged, and my opponents still sometimes grumble about them

You've got to bear in mind that with the old blast/scatter rules (especially the really old rules from 3rd / 4th) there's a possibility that the weapon hits nothing at all.

Froth at the top, dregs at the bottom, but the middle - excellent 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






znelson wrote:
I share the sentiment of disliking the random number of shots fired, but I don't think auto-hits are the answer.

Given the lack of composition restraints, the only thing keeping an army like AM from total domination is their mediocre BS.

High Str / High AP weapons that Autohit are *nuts* - I run 3 Hemlocks in my Iyanden army for this reason. They're expensive, short ranged, and my opponents still sometimes grumble about them

You've got to bear in mind that with the old blast/scatter rules (especially the really old rules from 3rd / 4th) there's a possibility that the weapon hits nothing at all.
That is true - completely missing was possible - and this is kind of why people didn't use them to begin with. However - missing a blob of 50 conscripts would be pretty much impossible. I'd be cool with autohit blast with a random d6 - just make guard pay for their potential damage. No problem here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Well we could balance it - For example anything with the blast rule couldn't shoot at flyers for or have to remain stationary to fire.

I think the randomized number of shots is more than enough to balance those weapons. No need to have a to hit afterwards. Things like manticores obviously need to be toned down. Things like nightspinners/fireprisms/riptides would actually become worth their points.


I still disagree, because many units don't have to move to be effective, especially those with long range. At some level you would need to complicate the rules for a bunch of units, because auto hitting long range weapons that don't need LOS are super broken. I'd rather see a change to fixed number of shots, or softer curves on random rolls. Make blasts like 3D2 or 2D3, instead of 1 D6. OR reduce the points costs to make them worth it with less reliability. Or make more of them fixed damage (demolisher cannons with D6 shots doing say 6 damage would be decent). Or allow damage from blasts to carry over, rather than being confined to a single model.
'
Auto hits just breaks armies like astra millitarum. .

I mean you mention the fire prism, you don't think averaging 2 lascannon hits per turn is pretty strong? From 60" away on a very durable platform? It would also make the single shot variant on that weapon useless. Or the Nightspinner averaging 7 S7 hits? From 48" range.

Or as orks I'll be spaming SAG big meks, having untargetable shooting platforms that average 3-4 S7 AP -5 D2 hits from 60" range. For 100 points.


Auto hits is a bad and lazy fix to blast weapons, which I'm not even convinced are in that bad a place for armies with decent BS.

Well - for orks it seems the direction they have gone with their auto hit weapons would be to make them d3 - not d6. That would probably work there. The single shot fireprism is already the worst fire mode on that vehical - it should be 2d6 damage for the focused beam. Or do mortal woulds or something like a railgun on tau tanks.

I think the reason I dislike these weapons is their huge variability. It's way to high. At least something like 2d3 like you suggested would also be a decent fix.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/23 17:04:46


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Yeah the more I think about it I think the best fix might be softer curve on blast weapons on some blast weapons (large blasts being 2D3 or 3D2, small being 2D2) and allowing their damage to carry over. This would make them better at killing large hordes. As was the case in previous editions.

For instance if a demolisher cannon was

Heavy 1D3 S10 AP -3 D D6. You would be averaging 2 shots each of which is pretty likely to kill 3-4 single wound models if they hit.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






Blast weapons damage carry over - I like that.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Dallas area, TX

I like the idea purely from an "less steps to roll" perspective.
Game balance-wise, it wouldn't bee too hard to fix either

If Small blasts became D3 shots and Large blasts are D6, that then need to roll to hit, then making them auto-hit is a bit too good.
Maybe you could introduce a clause in the "Blast" keyword that any ability that is -1 to hit causes a -1 on your D6/D3 roll?

So firing a Heavy weapon "large" blast while moving would actually be D6-1 auto-hits,
Or against a Flyer, a blast would be D3-1 auto hits.

-

   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Galef wrote:
I like the idea purely from an "less steps to roll" perspective.
Game balance-wise, it wouldn't bee too hard to fix either

If Small blasts became D3 shots and Large blasts are D6, that then need to roll to hit, then making them auto-hit is a bit too good.
Maybe you could introduce a clause in the "Blast" keyword that any ability that is -1 to hit causes a -1 on your D6/D3 roll?

So firing a Heavy weapon "large" blast while moving would actually be D6-1 auto-hits,
Or against a Flyer, a blast would be D3-1 auto hits.

-

Yep - that could work too. except it lowers their damage potential. I personally think their damage potential should go up against massed infantry. Could have different modifiers vs different types of units but then we are back to things being to complicated. What do you think?

Large Blast type.
Vs Moster/Vehical d6-2 auto hits Vs Flyer D6-3 auto hits Vs infantry D6+2 auto hits. Or something to this effect?

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Drop Trooper with Demo Charge





Kalamazoo Michigan

I like the idea of damage dealt can carry over to other models, that is a simple way to be more effective against infantry.

One option for blast weapons is to have 2 different profiles one for infantry and one for vehicles. Infantry profiles use xD3 and vehicle profiles use xD6s. Give the infantry profile the options for per 10 infantry add 1 more D3 for # of attacks... etc.

Another thing that was totally forgotten when making the new rules is barrage weapons... Maybe a chance of splash attack over to nearby units for the weapons that had the barrage special rule? It doesn't make much sense for a character in the middle of a infantry blob have zero risk of taking a artillery hit...

Life before death, Strength before weakness, Journey before destination. 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





I guess another fix for "blast" weapons would be to up their shots so large blasts are something like 3 or 4D6, but make them all D 1. Part of the issue with blasts right now is that they are much better against single targets than hordes. The issue is if you give them more shots and keep random damage they swing even better against single targets, because their damage is multiplicative. Do D6 shots doing D6 Damage in theory can do up to 36 damage, but only ever kill 6 models. Keeping this and allowing damage to carry over makes them better against hordes in a similar manner as they are against single targets. If you changed them to more shots but damage 1 it would swing them far more in favor of killing infantry. So a battle cannon doing 4D6 shots at damage 1 would average 14 shots, and 7 hits (in a guard army).


One of my biggest disappointments in this edition was the lack of imagination in the use of weapon stats. In many cases it seems they just direct ported Small blast = D3, Large blast = D6.

If they varied both the Shots and damage from weapon to weapon more they could have created a large variety of different weapons that all serve a purpose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 easypeasylemonsquezy wrote:
I like the idea of damage dealt can carry over to other models, that is a simple way to be more effective against infantry.

One option for blast weapons is to have 2 different profiles one for infantry and one for vehicles. Infantry profiles use xD3 and vehicle profiles use xD6s. Give the infantry profile the options for per 10 infantry add 1 more D3 for # of attacks... etc.

Another thing that was totally forgotten when making the new rules is barrage weapons... Maybe a chance of splash attack over to nearby units for the weapons that had the barrage special rule? It doesn't make much sense for a character in the middle of a infantry blob have zero risk of taking a artillery hit...


The issue with that is that it would make barrage weapons character sniping weapons. I'm ok with weapons not hitting multiple units. It may not be as "realistic" but it is much easier to balance.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/23 19:00:16


 
   
Made in us
Drop Trooper with Demo Charge





Kalamazoo Michigan

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with that is that it would make barrage weapons character sniping weapons. I'm ok with weapons not hitting multiple units. It may not be as "realistic" but it is much easier to balance.


Yea very true, but I'd still wouldn't mind seeing the occasional option for splash damage. Perhaps no effect on characters or maybe a reduced chance to hurt characters. I feel it should have a chance to wound characters but not a reliable one.

Life before death, Strength before weakness, Journey before destination. 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 easypeasylemonsquezy wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
The issue with that is that it would make barrage weapons character sniping weapons. I'm ok with weapons not hitting multiple units. It may not be as "realistic" but it is much easier to balance.


Yea very true, but I'd still wouldn't mind seeing the occasional option for splash damage. Perhaps no effect on characters or maybe a reduced chance to hurt characters. I feel it should have a chance to wound characters but not a reliable one.


I mean the only way I could see doing it is, if this attack wipes out the target squad any further hits are applied to the nearest enemy unit to the target.

So if a character was standing next to 10 marines, and they get hit 11 times, if the first 10 hits wipe out the marines, the character would take the 11th hit. It would make sniping very hard except in cases where your character was standing next to a small unit.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 easypeasylemonsquezy wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
The issue with that is that it would make barrage weapons character sniping weapons. I'm ok with weapons not hitting multiple units. It may not be as "realistic" but it is much easier to balance.


Yea very true, but I'd still wouldn't mind seeing the occasional option for splash damage. Perhaps no effect on characters or maybe a reduced chance to hurt characters. I feel it should have a chance to wound characters but not a reliable one.


Counterpoint: The reason you can't target characters unless they're closest in terms of mechanics is to keep the character from getting shot off the table. Though it wouldn't be easy, "splash damage" could suddenly make all those guys you're trying to benefit with your aura a liability. I know this would severely punish the MSU-with-characters thing my current army is built around. Mechanically, it's lame for your opponent to be able to blast your expensive character off the table from across the board.

In terms of fluff, the idea is that your character is lucky/fated/cool enough to not get ganked by an anti-climactic random bit of shrapnel. Fluff-wise, it's lame for your opponent to be able to blast your named, backstory-toting character off the table from across the board.

And if we can agree that losing a character to some enemy artillery on turn 1 is lame (and maybe we can't), then we have a bit of a case against splash damage that can hurt characters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Galef wrote:
I like the idea purely from an "less steps to roll" perspective.
Game balance-wise, it wouldn't bee too hard to fix either

If Small blasts became D3 shots and Large blasts are D6, that then need to roll to hit, then making them auto-hit is a bit too good.
Maybe you could introduce a clause in the "Blast" keyword that any ability that is -1 to hit causes a -1 on your D6/D3 roll?

So firing a Heavy weapon "large" blast while moving would actually be D6-1 auto-hits,
Or against a Flyer, a blast would be D3-1 auto hits.

-

Yep - that could work too. except it lowers their damage potential. I personally think their damage potential should go up against massed infantry. Could have different modifiers vs different types of units but then we are back to things being to complicated. What do you think?

Large Blast type.
Vs Moster/Vehical d6-2 auto hits Vs Flyer D6-3 auto hits Vs infantry D6+2 auto hits. Or something to this effect?


I like this line of thinking. I think you could argue that a tank or MC have roughly the same "footprint" as a smallish infantry squad and thus don't need to cause a penalty to the weapon's number of hits though. Rather than a flat bonus to hitting "infantry," how about a bonus based on the number of models? Something like, "For every five models in the target unit (rounded down), add +1 to the number of hits caused by this weapon." So a small squad of marines or scions carefully making their way through a battlefield isn't especially easy to hit, but 10 guys all hanging around one another are prone to catching a bit more shrapnel than usual, and a 30 boy mob can't help but catch every shard of shrapnel a frag grenade produces.

I'd definitely impose a penalty to the number of hits equal to any penalties to a to-hit roll though. Guys with camo-cloaks, for instance, should arguably be harder to hit with a frag missile because you simply can't be sure where the "center" of the squad is.

I'm of a mixed mind regarding penalties for flyers. Sure, a vindicator (whose shell fires in an arc and then detonates on impact) should have a tough time lining up a shot against a plane, but don't night spinners basically fire a "net" of monofilament that should maybe be even better at hitting flyers than, for instance, bolters?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/24 00:34:44



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in gb
Hooded Inquisitorial Interrogator






 Xenomancers wrote:
The D3 and D6 shot mechanics are basically representative of small and large blasts. Basically - the random dice roll is determining the place of the "blast marker" - so why are we rolling to hit? Obviously Things like manticores are already broken even if we roll to hits with them BUT lots of units would become playable if these were auto hits. I'm not saying everything is properly balanced if they were auto hits - lots would need to be re-balanced but I just think it's silly to have to roll variable shots and then roll to hit.

I don't think they should be auto-hit, as I do feel that Ballistic Skill should have an effect on your ability to "place the blast". Personally I've just been ignoring random numbers of to-Hit rolls and allow the average every time, so Heavy D3 becomes Heavy 2, Heavy D6 becomes Heavy 4, Heavy 2D6 becomes Heavy 7 and so-on, i.e- you take the average number of shots and round up. Once you get used to what these are it's much faster than rolling to see how many dice you roll, and it eliminates a totally unnecessary random element from the game. Blasts are still distinguished in this case in that some will still fire more "shots" against larger units.

Given that the idea with 8th seems to have been to streamline a lot of things, rolling to find out how many dice to roll is a really bad choice for blast weapons IMO, as it slows the game down. It's fine for flamers etc. that auto-hit though, since ballistic skill isn't really much of a factor for the ability to spray fire onto things.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/29 11:27:21


   
Made in gb
Sneaky Striking Scorpion






This was such a huge nerf for weapons formerly known as blast.

I think this idea makes them perform how they used to without needing to bring back templates.

Former weapons with blast become: D3 shots + 2 auto hits

Large blast: D6 shots + 3 auto hits.

This effectively makes it more on par with how they used to be. Large blast if you rolled a hit on the scatter dice (2/6 chance) you would get up to 10 hits at most, that is in line with D6 (2/6 chance to get a 5 or 6, but you have to roll to hit with these) + 3 auto hits.

Maybe the numbers would need changing around a bit maybe more or less auto hits maybe varying amounts of D6's and D3's.

This achieves a more comparable amount of hits to 7th edition blasts and still takes into account the firers BS. What do you think?

~500pts Asuryani painted new colour scheme
~7500pts Asuryani assembled some with old colour scheme
 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 Korlandril wrote:
This was such a huge nerf for weapons formerly known as blast.

I think this idea makes them perform how they used to without needing to bring back templates.

Former weapons with blast become: D3 shots + 2 auto hits

Large blast: D6 shots + 3 auto hits.

This effectively makes it more on par with how they used to be. Large blast if you rolled a hit on the scatter dice (2/6 chance) you would get up to 10 hits at most, that is in line with D6 (2/6 chance to get a 5 or 6, but you have to roll to hit with these) + 3 auto hits.

Maybe the numbers would need changing around a bit maybe more or less auto hits maybe varying amounts of D6's and D3's.

This achieves a more comparable amount of hits to 7th edition blasts and still takes into account the firers BS. What do you think?


Actually it is very much the opposite of accounting for BS. If you look at your suggestion based on averages

Marines with 3+ BS using a large blast average 5 hits
Orks with 5+ BS average 4 hits. So improved BS nets you an average of 1 additional hit.

If you wanted to incorporate them you would need to do something like D6 + 6-BS auto hits to make BS meaningful. But this makes them crap for armies with Bad BS.

Auto hits are just a terrible idea for blast weapons, it makes them far too powerful. Especially because the negate the penalty for moving and firing what are typically heavy weapons.

I really do think the best fix is to allow damage to carry over for blast weapons. It ends up with a few weird interactions (Single storm shield terminator for example, would be better because he could deny all damage). But if you look at something like the Earthshaker cannon D6 Shots that do D3 damage at S9. So you average 3-4 shots, which is 1.5-2 hits, and likely 1-2 wounds. Right now against say conscripts this would kill 1-2 models. If you let damage carry over it kills between 1-6 models. With an average of about 4.

Then you re-do some of the gun stats to balance out various weapons. For example the mantacore might be a bit too good (it already is) averaging 7 shots, would kill about 7 models on average.
   
Made in gb
Sneaky Striking Scorpion






Breng77 wrote:
 Korlandril wrote:
This was such a huge nerf for weapons formerly known as blast.

I think this idea makes them perform how they used to without needing to bring back templates.

Former weapons with blast become: D3 shots + 2 auto hits

Large blast: D6 shots + 3 auto hits.

This effectively makes it more on par with how they used to be. Large blast if you rolled a hit on the scatter dice (2/6 chance) you would get up to 10 hits at most, that is in line with D6 (2/6 chance to get a 5 or 6, but you have to roll to hit with these) + 3 auto hits.

Maybe the numbers would need changing around a bit maybe more or less auto hits maybe varying amounts of D6's and D3's.

This achieves a more comparable amount of hits to 7th edition blasts and still takes into account the firers BS. What do you think?


Actually it is very much the opposite of accounting for BS. If you look at your suggestion based on averages

Marines with 3+ BS using a large blast average 5 hits
Orks with 5+ BS average 4 hits. So improved BS nets you an average of 1 additional hit.

If you wanted to incorporate them you would need to do something like D6 + 6-BS auto hits to make BS meaningful. But this makes them crap for armies with Bad BS.

Auto hits are just a terrible idea for blast weapons, it makes them far too powerful. Especially because the negate the penalty for moving and firing what are typically heavy weapons.

I really do think the best fix is to allow damage to carry over for blast weapons. It ends up with a few weird interactions (Single storm shield terminator for example, would be better because he could deny all damage). But if you look at something like the Earthshaker cannon D6 Shots that do D3 damage at S9. So you average 3-4 shots, which is 1.5-2 hits, and likely 1-2 wounds. Right now against say conscripts this would kill 1-2 models. If you let damage carry over it kills between 1-6 models. With an average of about 4.

Then you re-do some of the gun stats to balance out various weapons. For example the mantacore might be a bit too good (it already is) averaging 7 shots, would kill about 7 models on average.


BS in 7th did exactly the same in that it made SOME accounting of it in terms of scattering but if you rolled a hit you would hit even if it was an ork firing. And I have to strongly disagree that it doesn't do the opposite of accounting for BS, my method does account so it cannot be the opposite. I would agree if you said it only partially accounts for BS which is true and intentional. The same way as blasts were in 7th.

Now your comment about not being effected by moving is true and something I didn't think about. In conjunction with the shots you do need to roll to hit for which would take -1 to hit normally you can also add in if this model moves then it's -1 from the amount of auto hits. (Moving and firing penalty being so big is a my other issue with 8th but a minor issue at that and issue not to be dealt with in this thread to save going off topic.)

I like your idea for damage carrying over because it's quite simple but I do feel blast weapons have been significantly nerfed so need some improving which is why I suggested what I did. 2-3 auto hits doesn't seem that bad and -1 from these when moving should make them not too good.

~500pts Asuryani painted new colour scheme
~7500pts Asuryani assembled some with old colour scheme
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Autohits on a D3/D6 after actually landing the shot is actually balanced itself. Which blast weapon would REALLY be imbalanced by it?

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





The issue with auto-hits is that blast weapons were significantly buffed against single targets. Adding auto-hits makes them far too powerful in that regard.

Think about the earthshaker. If it got 3 auto-hits against a Rhino, that is easily doing 4 damage without taking into account any additional shots. In your method it is averaging 5 hits, probably 4 wounds at D3 damage, so that is 8 damage, on average to a single target. Blasts need a buff against infantry, more than they do against single models. As such something like damage carrying over works better in that regard. Add to that single damage blasts likely need more shots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Autohits on a D3/D6 after actually landing the shot is actually balanced itself. Which blast weapon would REALLY be imbalanced by it?


It is terrible for any army with low BS.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/29 14:23:32


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Breng77 wrote:
The issue with auto-hits is that blast weapons were significantly buffed against single targets. Adding auto-hits makes them far too powerful in that regard.

Think about the earthshaker. If it got 3 auto-hits against a Rhino, that is easily doing 4 damage without taking into account any additional shots. In your method it is averaging 5 hits, probably 4 wounds at D3 damage, so that is 8 damage, on average to a single target. Blasts need a buff against infantry, more than they do against single models. As such something like damage carrying over works better in that regard. Add to that single damage blasts likely need more shots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Autohits on a D3/D6 after actually landing the shot is actually balanced itself. Which blast weapon would REALLY be imbalanced by it?


It is terrible for any army with low BS.

The math is basically exactly the same and I took out more rolling. Then you just add caveats like +1 or +2 to weapons that deserve it and voila. We don't need such a heavy fix. Just a small amount of tweaking.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
The issue with auto-hits is that blast weapons were significantly buffed against single targets. Adding auto-hits makes them far too powerful in that regard.

Think about the earthshaker. If it got 3 auto-hits against a Rhino, that is easily doing 4 damage without taking into account any additional shots. In your method it is averaging 5 hits, probably 4 wounds at D3 damage, so that is 8 damage, on average to a single target. Blasts need a buff against infantry, more than they do against single models. As such something like damage carrying over works better in that regard. Add to that single damage blasts likely need more shots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Autohits on a D3/D6 after actually landing the shot is actually balanced itself. Which blast weapon would REALLY be imbalanced by it?


It is terrible for any army with low BS.

The math is basically exactly the same and I took out more rolling. Then you just add caveats like +1 or +2 to weapons that deserve it and voila. We don't need such a heavy fix. Just a small amount of tweaking.


The math is only the same over a long period of time. It makes those weapons less reliable. More shots = more reliability. 1 shot causing D6 hits means missing that shots yields no damage at all.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

I agree with Breng, I think the curve for blast weapons needs to stay as smooth as it can be; right now I think part of the problem with 40k is how 'spiky' it is: it's hard to calculate a given result against a unit with e.g. a Vanquisher cannon because you'll either feth off and do nothing or actually roll that 4+ and do 5-6 damage.

The Vanquisher is a fantastic tank hunter if it gets that 4+ and is the worst vehicle in the game if it doesn't. That's a huge problem and makes them hard to balance, because essentially you're balancing around an average. If your dice are hot, it's way undercosted, doing like 25-30 damage during a game. If your dice are not... then bad.
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I agree with Breng, I think the curve for blast weapons needs to stay as smooth as it can be; right now I think part of the problem with 40k is how 'spiky' it is: it's hard to calculate a given result against a unit with e.g. a Vanquisher cannon because you'll either feth off and do nothing or actually roll that 4+ and do 5-6 damage.

The Vanquisher is a fantastic tank hunter if it gets that 4+ and is the worst vehicle in the game if it doesn't. That's a huge problem and makes them hard to balance, because essentially you're balancing around an average. If your dice are hot, it's way undercosted, doing like 25-30 damage during a game. If your dice are not... then bad.


Absolutely Blast weapons are super hard to balance because when you have random shots and damage things are very up and down. If you balance based on average output it doesn't account for the rare time that you do 20+ damage.

Personally I would have liked to see most blast weapons get more shots and single damage or maybe 2 damage per shot. As I feel in previous editions they were mostly an anti-infantry weapon, now they are very much the opposite of that. As I said above it was a great disappointment to me that they didn't make more use of all the options they had for blast weapons. You could have some blast weapons meant to do anti-big target, and others be anti-infantry. Right now it feels like most skew toward big targets though as they simply don't get enough shots to plow through infantry and their extra damage is largely lost.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






I think D6 blast weapons should be D3+3. Ideally they would be D4+2 but GW are idiots.
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut





If of interest I could repeat my solution to the entire blast weapon issue. If anyone is interested, just say so.
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

That's a big negative, good buddy.

Blast weapons are ok as is.

If you consider previous editions, blast weapons were useless against single "big" monsters, and great against hordes. So what, exactly, was the point of a Demolisher cannon? I really blasted them Orks to pieces... hur hurr. Yup, still only got one damage on that Carnifex that I hit square in the chest.

First, you have random numbers of shots, representing how accurate the "scatter" was. You then roll to hit, representing the importance of ballistic skill. Although less effective against hordes, that was never the problem with blast weapons. You've got small arms for hordes. Make them work for you.

I honestly think the random piece is garbage, you should just get a fixed number of dice to roll. IE: Heavy 5 for a large blast, Heavy 3 for a Small Blast. Just adds another unnecessary roll to the game. But GW has their hard-on for random numbers, so that's what it is.

Honestly, Blast is not at all on my list of things to worry about, 40k or otherwise.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/30 03:05:53


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: