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.

I have been struggling to come to a conclusion what exactly rubbed me the wrong way about 8th.

There are several things that could be changed with reasonable chances to improve the game over all. But the big picture is such that for the size of the overhaul GW did somewhat of an OK job.
Sure:
The constant FAQs are a pain in the seating organ.
Lots of units are not prized appropriately.
The order of codex release is questionable.
Attempts of balancing know issues have been often lackluster and/or over the top.
And the roll for first turn might as well be the roll for who wins if exaggerated.

But those and other things weren't it.
Something else bothered me and it took me quite a while find out what it was.

It was the lack of class.
Classes actually. Warhammer 40000 used to have armor values for vehicles and I am glad they are gone.
Everybody now has toughness and a number of wounds. Good.

However it feels like most of the weapons used to destroy larger models inflict 2 , d3 or d6 damage per hit.
Which averages out to 2, 2 and 3,5 damage respectively. Do you notice something?

This is the perfect range to kill elite infantry, a class GW tried to implement with giving for example terminators an extra wound.
A class that is basically dead. Instead the horde army prevailed. With their ability to mow down vehicles with mass single damage shots in a pinch.
The flat wound chart did ...wonders for the game. I wonder... who's idea that thing was.

Anyway.

My attempt to remedy is in the following broad strokes:
(Everything with points adjustments obv.)

-Increase the amount of wounds for monster and vehicles by about 20%.

-Increase the amount of damage per hit for dedicated anti tank weapons by around 1 point per hit.

-Get rid of d6 damage rolls if possible. Make that a special trait of a few weapons. There is enough suspense with hit/wound/save rolls already. No need for the letdown of the "ping" lascannon.

-Use that riddance to diversify the damage values of anti tank weapons.

-Get rid of as many 2 (and d3) damage values as possible. Either reduce to 1 for anti infantry of increase to 3 or more against big targets.


This is supposed to remove the middle ground of offensive values and therefor elevate the defensive one of 2W models.

For all of you who read my ramblings, the question:
Where am I wrong? It is highly unlikely that I just solved warhammer. So lets discuss this in as civil manner as possible. (I am aware I ask this in on the internet but a man must be allowed to dream.)

Oh an better late than never:
Happy new year to everybody!

Honestly I don't see that many actual weapons with flat 2 damage. Beyond that you are talking about averages, which is really where your argument comes apart. D3 damage weapons average 2 damage but are just as likely to do 1 or 3 damage as they are to actually do 2. So 3 shots are likely to do 6 damage to a vehicle, but likely to only do 4 or 5 to elite 2 wound infantry. The same holds true for D6 damage those weapons are decidedly better against the "vehicle/monster" class than they are against elite infantry.

The problem as I see it is that re-rolls are too common. Plasma weaponry (the bane of elite infantry) is priced taking overheat into account for its bonus damage profile, but when most armies using it easily get re-roll 1s to hit that can be spread to multiple squads it is too easy to get around that downside.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That said moving to a static damage number for all weapons would make them easier to cost.

Breng77 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That said moving to a static damage number for all weapons would make them easier to cost.

They're kind of already cutting back on the d3 damage rolls. The heavy venom cannon and skull cannon are two examples I can think of off the top of my head.

Plasma weapons and rerolls are an issue. I feel like they should have a rule where even if they reroll they should be killed. I think I've seen one model from plasma this edition and that was with rerolls so basically down to bad luck.

It's especially a problem with Ultramarine Hellblasters.

I mean I lose at least 1 model every game to overcharge even with re-rolls. But in say a 10 man helblasters squad without re-rolls your average on overcharge would be 3 lost models the first time you shot.

For easy math let's use 9 helblasters rapid firing and overcharging. Without re-roll 1s, in 100 trials you average 12 hits and 3 ones. So that is 2-3 dead models (possible that one model rolls 2 ones)

With re-roll 1s, 0.5 1s occur and 14 hits. So 1 model dies every 2 rounds of shooting

The other issue is plasma on cheap models I don't care if my guardsman dies if I kill your elite squad or big tank. The risk of overcharging is much large on big models. Makes me kind of feel like overheat should have been D3 mortal wounds like it is on tanks, rather than dead model.

1 model every game isn't all that much though compared to benefits.

Before at least often expensive units had some protection against overheat. Now it's just blam.

I think this is a very reasonable post, much more reasonable than I've come to expect from Dakka! You've outlined an objectively true fact about the game; lots of things deal multiple damage, which means models with 2 wounds rarely see see the benefit of having that second wound. However, I have to say that, from experience, the random D3 and D6 mechanics work fine in regards to multi-wound models. Say you're firing 4 Lascannons into a group of Terminators from a Havoc squad. You get lucky and score 4 hits, and 3 wounds. The Terminators make one 5++ save, but the other 2 go through. This should be a simple 2 Terminators dead, but when you roll that "1" for the first Lascannon's damage, you only end up killing 1 Terminator, even though your second roll was a 3. If it were reversed, you'd have killed a Terminator and at least wounded the other, but now the other is at full strength instead! So frustrating!

This is what I like about the random damage mechanic and multi-wound models. Even though the extra wounds don't really help too much, it does protect the squad from random-damage weapons better than it does against flat damage weapons.

Where I do find there is a problem is in the sheer quantity of random-damage and flat damage weapons. Plasma right now is the problem child of the new system, but don't kid yourself; Grav is also very good (and only doesn't appear because Plasma seems to just do everything Grav does, but better). I'm thinking that perhaps Overheated Plasma Guns shouldn't be doing the extra point of damage, or should have a damage of D3 instead of 2. Against 2-wound models the D3 is only ever a good thing, as you either die like normal 66% of the time, but 33% of the time the model absorbs two Plasma hits. Against big things like vehicles and monsters, the D3 damage averages out to the same as 2 damage, so there shouldn't be any major difference, except a stray Plasma shot with 3 wounds left could kill the model sometimes (though it'll have extra resistance to Plasma at 2 wounds left, so this should balance out).

I like the idea of damage reduction for elite infantry.

It's a mechanic that is already in the game for some characters such as Abaddon, who reduces incoming damage by half to a minimum of 1.

Perhaps either that or a simple -1 to damage (minimum 1) would make Terminators and their equivalents in other factions just that little bit hardier.

High damage stuff would still insta-kill them, but they wouldn't be quite as afraid of Autocannons and Plasma as they are now.

I agree with some of what you are saying, but not the first part. The constant FAQs and heavy handed rebalancing is a huge improvement on GWs prior policy of "do nothing until next release". Any order of codex release is also way better than playing with your sixth edition codex 5-8 years into 7th edition. But 8th edition has a glaring problem with 2W models. They are just very hard to balance in a way that gives them reasonable durability against both small arms and multi-damage weapons.

Take the intercessor for example. After several point decreases since the index they are now quite durable against small arms. The old 8th edition adage that everything kills marines better than Guardsmen no longer holds true for Intercessors. But intercessors still fold like wet paper against overcharged plasma. As will Bikes, Nobz, Hellhounds, Stealthsuits, Terminators (except the 3W variety) etc.

The problem is somewhat compounded by high Toughness units almost always having a good armour save, and multi-wound infantry also almost always having a good armour save. A profile like T6 W2 Sv6+ is absent from the game, or at the least very rare. This has a number of consequences: Any weapon that is effective at killing tanks can also be effectively employed against 2-wound models like primaris marines, Terminators, jetbikes etc. Another consequence is that high strength AP0 weapons (like the multilaser) are absent from the game.

I don't know if there are any easy fixes to this, but there certainly needs to be found a way of fixing the biggest offender, which is the plasma-gun. I see three possible fixes:

A) Remove the overcharged profile from plasma-weapons.

B) Change the undercharge profile to S7 AP-2 D1 and the overcharged profile to S8 AP-3 D1. Overheating is resolved before rerolls and modiefiers.

C) Change the undercharge profile to S4 AP-2 D2 and the overcharged profile to S4 AP-4 D2. Overheating is resolved before rerolls and modifiers.

With fix A and B plasma stops being the scourge of W2 models. With fix C plasma is changed to a specialist weapons targeting only W2, but stops being a useful anti-tank weapon.

Classes is a terrible mechanic that I'm glad are gone.

You see this laser? It burns through cerimite at 300 kilojoules, unless you wiegh over 500 pounds, then it goes into 600 kilojoules mode...

Vehicles got a buff to Wounds overall to represent their durability and anti-armor weapons got a buff to damage. Some elite infantry are so unapologeticly small base tanks that they should fear anti-tank weapons (stares at his opponents 250pt assault centurions)

Classes are a concept that sooner or later finds itself revealing itself as an arbitary keyword. Better to just be honest and provide the stat changes directly to the statline.

Undercharge profile Rapid fire 1 S7 Ap-3 D1, overcharged profile Heavy 2 S8 Ap-3 D2 overheats on unmodified 1's before rerolls.

This way you make it risky to overcharge and harder to use in deep strike.

Spoletta wrote:
overheats on unmodified 1's before rerolls.

Other people have suggested this too, and it is a terrible idea.This would hurt expensive elite infantry disproportionately. No one cares if some IG troopers fry themselves, so they can overcharge with impunity, but it would basically prevent expensive models such as Hellbalsters from overcharging.

I'd agree with most of the points of this post.

I'd also say that there needs to be more chaff clearing guns. s6 +1ap or s2 hell of shots.

I think +1ap mods would help protect "elites" and would help clearing hordes of t3/4 5+ models.

Also I really agree with the poster that toughness and save are too closely related. Vehicles and monsters should have toughness increased by 1 around the board but saves should be a 5+ (4+ for special units) and anti-armor weapons should be modified to take this into account. t7 flyers\eldar\tau\nids, t8 tanks\marines\necrons, t9 landraiders\IG\orcs, t10 knights\mag, t11 morty?

Anti-tank weapons should be s7-12 -1-0ap, anti-elite weapons s4-6 -2 to -4 ap, anti-infantry s3-6 0 to -1ap lots of shots and anti horde weapons at s3-6 ap 0 to +1?

Elites can focus on high saves and vehicles/monsters can focus on high toughness as ways to defend themselves.

Just some thoughts, haven't mathhammered it out or even thought too hard about points costs but the theme would imply weapons something like:
Dark reapers 3x s5 -2 1w or 1x s8 -1 3w
plasma rf1 s6 -3 1w or s8 -1 2w
las cannon s10 -1 d6
Dark lances s9 -2 d6
melta ass1 s12 -2 d6
assault cannon ASSAULT 12 s4 +1 ap
flamers would be 12" d6+d3 per 5 models after 10, s4 +1 ap
Las rifle s3 +1 ap
Hurricane bolter rf 10 s2 0ap
storm bolter ass 6 s3 +1ap
bolter rf 1 s4 -1ap
primaris heavy bolter heavy 1 s6 -2 ap d3w
p. ass bolter ass 2 s4 -1 ap
p. rf bolter rf2 s4 0 ap
Oblits would have different profiles they would have to roll for or choose at beginning of game? (anti-infantry/anti elite/anti armor)

I feel this edition missed out on having more specialized weapons and that's why cheese armies are so effective. You just spam the "best" weapon but if weapons were more clearly defined by what they can kill reasonably for their points I think much more varied TAC lists would evolve and it wouldn't be "as many asscannons as you can fit around Gman" or "over 9000 dark reapers" or "cawlbots rollout" or "commanders assemble"...

The premise is not that heavy anti-tank weapons shouldn't be able to kill elite infantry (at least I hope not!).

The premise of the game is that if they're firing heavy anti-tank weapons at your elite infantry, they're not firing them at your tanks, right?

I mean, antitank weapons shouldn't not kill elite infantry. They're fething antitank weapons.

If a lascannon blast can nuke a Sentinel, it should damn well be able to nuke a Terminator.

I actually have a bigger problem with D3 damage than D6. D3 works for mortal wounds but there is no rational reason why an exorcist can't do 3 and there are a bunch of other things that should be doing 3 as well. Also, they use the 'does additional hits against large units' thing far too little.

Basically a bunch of tanks that have D6-D3 or D3-D3 should gain 'does an addition X hits against large units' and then units/weapons like the Exorcist that are more focused on armor pen should be D6-3.

This has always been a problem of 40k
Specific Weapons were too good or too weak against the supposed target and at the same time too good against something else

So in 8th specific Anti-Infantry is too weak against infantry but too good against monster/tanks
elite infantry is stuck in the middle as Anti Tanks works too good against them


Main issue, no fixed damage values and everyone can wound anything (so AntiTank is just RNG and increased ROF on Anti Infantry just makes it better against everything else)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The premise is not that heavy anti-tank weapons shouldn't be able to kill elite infantry (at least I hope not!).

The premise of the game is that if they're firing heavy anti-tank weapons at your elite infantry, they're not firing them at your tanks, right?

I mean, antitank weapons shouldn't not kill elite infantry. They're fething antitank weapons.

If a lascannon blast can nuke a Sentinel, it should damn well be able to nuke a Terminator.

This isn't even napkin math and my numbers are probably a bit off but the point I'm trying to illustrate probably still holds:

I'd argue that anti-tank weapons should not be able to kill elite infantry in a point efficient manner.
Las cannons (25 points on a marine 3+ but no cost for platform) ppw vs elite infantry (t4 s2+ 2w) models they come in around 80 points per kill (84% chance per shot of doing 2w or more) or 68 points per wound roll (2/3 hit, 5/6 wound, 1/3 save, 5/6 more than 1w, 25 point cost of weapon)
vs tanks they cost about 20 ppw (3.5 average on a d6 and save of 3+)
Now those 82 points per kill or 42 ppw look really different when we consider THE COST OF THE TARGET (this is where elite infantry get screwed)
Turning your 80 pp kill spent into a close to 2 points spent-1 point killed return when shooting elite infantry
vs a 20-1 (or worse) when shooting chaff
or even the same 2-1 when shooting the target they are supposed to be shooting (tanks, which for 150ish points you get 12ish wounds so 13ish points paid per wound vs 21 points paid per damage)
so the most efficient target for that las cannon to shoot at is very close between the elite infantry and the tank based on how much your opponent is paying for those wounds vs how much you are paying to inflict them.

People have run the numbers on bolters/las guns/other "anti-horde" weapons and they bear out the same. Marginally more efficient at killing the "right" target but still really good at killing elites.

It gets even worse for the outliers like assault cannons supported by gman or dark reapers or plasma or shining spears or oblits or smite which all kill infantry AND elite infantry AND tanks at a relatively efficient PPW (30ish).

IMHO there needs to be more distinction between good targets for anti-tank and good targets for anti-elite and good targets for anti-chaff.

Fluff wise it makes sense that a las-cannon can blast apart anything smaller than a building but from a crunch perspective anti-tank weapons being as efficient against elite-troops and tanks and anti-chaff weapons being as efficient against chaff as elites is why elite models are finding a tough time finding the table in competitive arenas.

I like what you're trying to do here OP. I'm not sure if you're proposed solution is the correct one or if it would be wildly imbalanced etc but I completely agree that elite infantry have died a death because they are too juicy a target for anti armour fire. Perhaps have the weapons do only 1 damage against infantry and d3, d6 etc against vehicles? Make them more effective against their intended targets.

I know this may sound naive but how are people defining "elite" units? Is it based on fluff, Wd, Sv or some combination?

Any infantry unit that costs more than 15-16 ppm is elite. Of course, a 50ppm Custodes is more elite than a 18ppm Intercessor. But they are both elite.

I think, 9-14ppm is the range of "Medium" infantry. 8 or lower is Light infantry, and when you enter 3-4ppm is chaff.

bananathug wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The premise is not that heavy anti-tank weapons shouldn't be able to kill elite infantry (at least I hope not!).

The premise of the game is that if they're firing heavy anti-tank weapons at your elite infantry, they're not firing them at your tanks, right?

I mean, antitank weapons shouldn't not kill elite infantry. They're fething antitank weapons.

If a lascannon blast can nuke a Sentinel, it should damn well be able to nuke a Terminator.

This isn't even napkin math and my numbers are probably a bit off but the point I'm trying to illustrate probably still holds:

I'd argue that anti-tank weapons should not be able to kill elite infantry in a point efficient manner.
Las cannons (25 points on a marine 3+ but no cost for platform) ppw vs elite infantry (t4 s2+ 2w) models they come in around 80 points per kill (84% chance per shot of doing 2w or more) or 68 points per wound roll (2/3 hit, 5/6 wound, 1/3 save, 5/6 more than 1w, 25 point cost of weapon)
vs tanks they cost about 20 ppw (3.5 average on a d6 and save of 3+)
Now those 82 points per kill or 42 ppw look really different when we consider THE COST OF THE TARGET (this is where elite infantry get screwed)
Turning your 80 pp kill spent into a close to 2 points spent-1 point killed return when shooting elite infantry
vs a 20-1 (or worse) when shooting chaff
or even the same 2-1 when shooting the target they are supposed to be shooting (tanks, which for 150ish points you get 12ish wounds so 13ish points paid per wound vs 21 points paid per damage)
so the most efficient target for that las cannon to shoot at is very close between the elite infantry and the tank based on how much your opponent is paying for those wounds vs how much you are paying to inflict them.

People have run the numbers on bolters/las guns/other "anti-horde" weapons and they bear out the same. Marginally more efficient at killing the "right" target but still really good at killing elites.

It gets even worse for the outliers like assault cannons supported by gman or dark reapers or plasma or shining spears or oblits or smite which all kill infantry AND elite infantry AND tanks at a relatively efficient PPW (30ish).

IMHO there needs to be more distinction between good targets for anti-tank and good targets for anti-elite and good targets for anti-chaff.

Fluff wise it makes sense that a las-cannon can blast apart anything smaller than a building but from a crunch perspective anti-tank weapons being as efficient against elite-troops and tanks and anti-chaff weapons being as efficient against chaff as elites is why elite models are finding a tough time finding the table in competitive arenas.

Right but I think this is a deliberate design decision.

Elite infantry usually fill roles within the army, and they have to pay for the weapons to fill those roles, though it depends on what you're talking about. When you say elite infantry, I think Terminators, Paladins, Battlesuits, and Custodes.

Galas has a different version of elite infantry though, which includes things like Primaris.

As soon as you include Primaris in the running, though, your point evaporates that they're not seeing play. I've seen tons of Primaris Marines on the table. I think I've played against more Primaris Marine armies than Tau or Necron armies on the battlefield.

There are four "classes" in 8th ed, I tend to call them target profiles but to each their own. Each target profile has different weapons that are best for engaging it, some examples:

Light Infantry Requirements:
Str: Low
AP: Low
Rate Of Fire: High
Damage: Low
Unit Examples: Necron warriors, Imperial guard, Guardians, poxwalkers.
Weapon Examples: heavy bolter, scatter laser, Tesla, Hurricane bolter, chainsword.

Heavy Infantry Requirements:
Str: Low
AP High
Rate of fire: Medium
Damage: Low to Medium
Unit Examples: Space marines, Necron Immortals, Terminators, Tyranid warriors, Aspect warriors.
Weapon Examples: Plasma Cannon, dark reaper launchers, Grav Cannon, battle cannon, power sword, smite.

Light Vehicle Requirements (includes monsters as well):
Str: Medium
AP: Medium
Rate of fire: Low to medium
Damage: High
Unit Examples: Land speeders, venom, Annihilation Barge, dreadnoughts
Weapon Examples: Autocannon, Tesla destructor, krak grenades, Power fists, assault cannon, battle cannon.

Heavy Vehicle requirements (includes monsters as well):
Str High
AP: High
Rate of fire: Low
Damage: High
Unit Examples: LRBT, land raider, Monolith, imperial knights
Weapon examples: lascannon, Melta Weapons, krak missile.

In the current system any weapon can be used on any target profile, so the questions is always one of efficiency. Las Cannons kill heavy infantry dead, but so do plasma guns and they do it for a fraction of the price, and faster. You could take down a land raider with heavy bolters, but it's far quicker and more efficient to just use las cannons. Everyone is looking for a silver bullet like grav was in 7th ed, but such a thing doesn't exists. people like to complain about plasma for instance, but plasma can't kill light infantry fast enough, and just don't cut the mustard when it comes to heavy vehicles. If you don't believe me, Load up on plasma and go fight an AM army, odds are you'll get wrecked. This is why Primaris marines can't stand on their own, they don't have an answer to heavy vehicles. The hard truth is that people tend to overestimate the effectiveness of weapons that counter their list, thus since there are more marines players, there are more gripes about plasma.

With that said one thing I do agree with is that the big weapons feel way to swingy, I know that it will average out over many shots, but from moment to moment it feels awful. If we could change all of the D6 damage weapons to 2+1d3 I think the play experience would be much better. It only inches the average up a little (3.5 -> 4) but with a tighter range I think they will play much better even if the maximum is lower.

 Crimson wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
overheats on unmodified 1's before rerolls.

Other people have suggested this too, and it is a terrible idea.This would hurt expensive elite infantry disproportionately. No one cares if some IG troopers fry themselves, so they can overcharge with impunity, but it would basically prevent expensive models such as Hellbalsters from overcharging.

Good point, then a model which overheats also inflicts D6 Str4 damage autohits to his unit, this should make it a bit less attractive for cheap models.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


As soon as you include Primaris in the running, though, your point evaporates that they're not seeing play. I've seen tons of Primaris Marines on the table. I think I've played against more Primaris Marine armies than Tau or Necron armies on the battlefield.

Yeah, but I think that's mainly because the Primaris are new, shiny and look awesome, not because they're particularly great in the actual game.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

Good point, then a model which overheats also inflicts D6 Str4 damage autohits to his unit, this should make it a bit less attractive for cheap models.

You can just remove the overheat profile altogether if the aim is that no one should ever want to use it.

The overcharge should be dangerous, not the standard weapon profile.

Overcharge is simple to fix; have GW change the rule to essentially a "natural, unmodified roll of '1'" etc. In typical GW fashion (sadly), they came out with a rule which was logical...and then proceeded to make so many characters, rules, stratagems, etc...that the rule gets lost because it becomes completely ignored (much like Morale in 7th edition, etc.).

If you create a rule - don't dogpile two dozens rules on top of it which expressly allow players to ignore it.

 Grimgold wrote:
There are four "classes" in 8th ed, I tend to call them target profiles but to each their own. Each target profile has different weapons that are best for engaging it, some examples:

Light Infantry Requirements:
Str: Low
AP: Low
Rate Of Fire: High
Damage: Low
Unit Examples: Necron warriors, Imperial guard, Guardians, poxwalkers.
Weapon Examples: heavy bolter, scatter laser, Tesla, Hurricane bolter, chainsword.

Heavy Infantry Requirements:
Str: Low
AP High
Rate of fire: Medium
Damage: Low to Medium
Unit Examples: Space marines, Necron Immortals, Terminators, Tyranid warriors, Aspect warriors.
Weapon Examples: Plasma Cannon, dark reaper launchers, Grav Cannon, battle cannon, power sword, smite.

That means that Grey Knights, by and large are neither of these catagories. Storm bolter St low AP low RoF low Dam low. According to your chart GKs are extra low troops that cost at least 21PPM (which other people consider "elite").

 Elbows wrote:
Overcharge is simple to fix; have GW change the rule to essentially a "natural, unmodified roll of '1'" etc. In typical GW fashion (sadly), they came out with a rule which was logical...and then proceeded to make so many characters, rules, stratagems, etc...that the rule gets lost because it becomes completely ignored (much like Morale in 7th edition, etc.).

I already explained why that's a bad idea.

Sure, and I disagree.

 Elbows wrote:
Sure, and I disagree.

Why?

A gun exploding is a gun exploding. You don't want it to explode on your fancy infantry? Don't overcharge it. Simple as that. You don't want to run the risk, don't buy them.