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.
While there are many many Rules providing Models with a -1 to Hit Bonus I feel like there should be a General +1 to Hit penalty for superheavys.
This would benefit the Game overall as currently superheavys have no downsides besides some of them being overcosted. Also they are HUGE. It just does not feel right that an imperial Knight is equally hard to hit as a bunch of gretchins.
Morkphoiz wrote: ...as currently superheavys have no downsides besides some of them being overcosted...
...It's enough of a downside to make every superheavy that isn't a Knight or a Guard Baneblade unplayable. When was the last time you saw a Fellblade on the table? A Stompa? A Scorpion? Tesseract Ark? (The Vampire has the excuse that it's out of production, but the Tesseract Ark and the Stompa aren't even Forge World.)
Throwing a blanket nerf to the unit type to fix a relatively short list of problem units isn't really going to fix much.
Morkphoiz wrote: ...as currently superheavys have no downsides besides some of them being overcosted...
...It's enough of a downside to make every superheavy that isn't a Knight or a Guard Baneblade unplayable. When was the last time you saw a Fellblade on the table? A Stompa? A Scorpion? Tesseract Ark? (The Vampire has the excuse that it's out of production, but the Tesseract Ark and the Stompa aren't even Forge World.)
Throwing a blanket nerf to the unit type to fix a relatively short list of problem units isn't really going to fix much.
Agree. This is a generally bad idea.
I have proposed some LoS and terrain rules a lot in the past. In those rules anything with the vehicle or monster keyword had a harder time getting cover from other units and anything titanic became substantially harder. If terrain was better and titanic units had a hell of a time gaining any benefit from them.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
I like the idea of this and have always thought it’s how the game should be, but I don’t think it would work well in isolation. In combination with a total overhaul of targeting and cover rules, with intervening terrain modifiers and high ground modifiers for having a good shooting position, and easier to hit units silhouetted on hilltops etc. Points would need rebalancing. And the fact that a 1 always fails makes these sorts of things much stronger for units that should be bad at shooting.
Also, I don’t necessarily accept that a baneblade is easier to hit than a 40 strong mob standing out in the open. Would you want a +1 to hit units over a certain model count? Or should a unit be harder to hit after it’s been whittled down to just one man? Character targeting rules for him? By introducing a +1 to hit superheavies it could open floodgates to make targeting an awful lot more complicated and slow the game right down.
I just don’t see it working well in the current rule set.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/27 02:35:03
I agree that it should always happen only on a natural 1. I disagree that it's fine that a weapons inherent drawback is removed from the game when shooting at a class of unit.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Me and my mates play overheat on a natural one and +1 to hit against units with “titanic”. Works quite well. We do say units with titanic themselves do not get the benefit.
If my Baneblade gets a to-hit penalty then why shouldn't a Rhino get a similar penalty? Why is it equally difficult to hit a single infantry model and a tank?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I always thought that giving +1 to hit all vehicle, monster and titanic units made sense. it's a much bigger target to hit!
Plasma guns should just be changed to a natural 1, and I think it's fair to say that if anyone was to make a change to the rules, this would be included!
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
Peregrine wrote: If my Baneblade gets a to-hit penalty then why shouldn't a Rhino get a similar penalty? Why is it equally difficult to hit a single infantry model and a tank?
Because your hull alone is bigger than the size of four Rhinoes?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
While I get the OP's idea
I have to say this has so many interactions that don't seam to be be considered to be a viable suggestion.
We have 5 available to hit values, don't get me wrong I think there is far too many negative modifiers but the game is what it is.
A 6+ to hit without a special rule is effectively making the units useless against too many builds.
So we're now down to 4 values from 2+ to 5+,
So let's take a unit primed to benifit and loose from your rule a shadowsword, it base hits on a 4+, 3+ against titanic now thats 4+, 2+., with strategums that can boost that to 3+,1+.
So you tone down the base BS to 5+, but it now can't hit anything with more than -1 to hit and guard players will be salty as that they are paying 500 points to hit on a 5+, especially when it's getting hit by Tau on a 3+, and quite possibly a 2+, rerolling 1's via 5 markerlights. And eldar are hitting on a 2+ base.
The ideas isn't unsound however with GW insisting on a D6 and 1's always fail the design space isn't big enough for all these modifiers.
skchsan wrote: It's better to give TITANIC units -1 to hit against non-TITANIC units.
I like this proposal, it makes them a more cumbersome weapons platform. It would also be a good idea to bring back Primary and Secondary weapons, so that heavy bolters etc are still OK at shooting, but the massively powerful weapons should be turned on the massively powerful units.
It does make for some unrealistic uses, though, as you get Vulcan megabolters which aren't any good for clearing infantry.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
skchsan wrote: It's better to give TITANIC units -1 to hit against non-TITANIC units.
I like this proposal, it makes them a more cumbersome weapons platform. It would also be a good idea to bring back Primary and Secondary weapons, so that heavy bolters etc are still OK at shooting, but the massively powerful weapons should be turned on the massively powerful units.
It does make for some unrealistic uses, though, as you get Vulcan megabolters which aren't any good for clearing infantry.
I think it's a fair trade off for a unit that does either:
1. soak up majority of opponents' firepower
2. guaranteed to survive to round 3, where majority of the games are decided by, unless taken down in turn 1 under above condition.
Realistically, a titan attempting to shoot at infantries would be no different than an aircraft providing support fire via strafing run - in that sense, it's more of an area coverage offense and not a pin-pointed shooting attack.
Think AT-AT's supplemented by stormtroopers during the Battle of Hoth - notice how the AT-AT's fire in the general direction of the troops and rarely directly hit them. Pin-point firepower is delegated to the infantries whereas the AT-AT provide overall support fire.
Alternatively, you can make the proposed rule as a part of the weapon abilities and not an inherent unit type restriction.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/05/28 16:06:07
Peregrine wrote: If my Baneblade gets a to-hit penalty then why shouldn't a Rhino get a similar penalty? Why is it equally difficult to hit a single infantry model and a tank?
Because your hull alone is bigger than the size of four Rhinoes?
And a Rhino is bigger than four tactical marines, so why should both be hit on a 4+?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: Think AT-AT's supplemented by stormtroopers during the Battle of Hoth - pin-point firepower is delegated to the infantries whereas the AT-AT provide overall support fire.
The problem is that 40k, being a very shallow game, has no concept of suppression or "support fire" or whatever. All that matters is total wounds caused and there is no difference between accurate single shots and less-accurate buckets of dice if both have the same average wounds inflicted. Making LoW less accurate just means that they get out-shot by their points in conventional units and are never seen again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
some bloke wrote: but the massively powerful weapons should be turned on the massively powerful units.
If TITANIC units can only effectively engage other TITANIC units then they might as well not exist. There's no reason for your opponent to have a TITANIC unit in their army as it can't engage conventional units effectively, so there's no reason to bring a TITANIC unit to counter your opponent's. The best counter to TITANIC units is simply to keep TITANIC units out of your own list, give them nothing to shoot at, and ignore the useless paperweight while you finish off the rest of their army. Both players know this, so only clueless newbies will ever put a TITANIC unit on the table.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/28 16:12:38
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: If my Baneblade gets a to-hit penalty then why shouldn't a Rhino get a similar penalty? Why is it equally difficult to hit a single infantry model and a tank?
Because your hull alone is bigger than the size of four Rhinoes?
And a Rhino is bigger than four tactical marines, so why should both be hit on a 4+?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: Think AT-AT's supplemented by stormtroopers during the Battle of Hoth - pin-point firepower is delegated to the infantries whereas the AT-AT provide overall support fire.
The problem is that 40k, being a very shallow game, has no concept of suppression or "support fire" or whatever. All that matters is total wounds caused and there is no difference between accurate single shots and less-accurate buckets of dice if both have the same average wounds inflicted. Making LoW less accurate just means that they get out-shot by their points in conventional units and are never seen again.
Well, the point is to provide a specific niche for titanic LOW units rather than keeping them at "auto-take" "I-WIN" button.
some bloke wrote: but the massively powerful weapons should be turned on the massively powerful units.
If TITANIC units can only effectively engage other TITANIC units then they might as well not exist. There's no reason for your opponent to have a TITANIC unit in their army as it can't engage conventional units effectively, so there's no reason to bring a TITANIC unit to counter your opponent's. The best counter to TITANIC units is simply to keep TITANIC units out of your own list, give them nothing to shoot at, and ignore the useless paperweight while you finish off the rest of their army. Both players know this, so only clueless newbies will ever put a TITANIC unit on the table.
TITANIC units will be more effective against other TITANIC units, not ONLY effective against them. The density of firepower per point on typical titanic LOW far exceed that of any other types of units. The balance should generally follow the pattern where durability is inversely related to offensive capabilities. It severely breaks the balance where a unit is both ultra-durable and deadly-offensive.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/28 16:19:00
Peregrine wrote: If my Baneblade gets a to-hit penalty then why shouldn't a Rhino get a similar penalty? Why is it equally difficult to hit a single infantry model and a tank?
Because your hull alone is bigger than the size of four Rhinoes?
And a Rhino is bigger than four tactical marines, so why should both be hit on a 4+?
Because a Rhino, while being more than four times larger than a Tactical Marine, isn't big enough that it could feasibly translate to a bonus to hit using 40k's abstraction system, while a Baneblade being hit as easily as a Nurgling is ludicrous.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
skchsan wrote: It's better to give TITANIC units -1 to hit against non-TITANIC units.
Eh i cant see the justification for this as a titanic model will generally be a larger more stable platform most of the time.
Imagine trying to poke at an ant with a skewer.
You talking shooting or punching?
because imagine trying to aim from a moving honda civic vs the top of a 4 story building.
That mass makes a difference for stability not that the game is "realistic" but even on a baneblade id imagine it being a pretty smooth ride.
No, you're the titan (the human with the skewer) and the ants are the infantries. It doesn't matter how big or massive the source of the shot is. All that matters is how small the target is compared to the shooter.
What's easier to hit? A watermelon at rest or a blueberry at rest?
Peregrine wrote: If my Baneblade gets a to-hit penalty then why shouldn't a Rhino get a similar penalty? Why is it equally difficult to hit a single infantry model and a tank?
Because your hull alone is bigger than the size of four Rhinoes?
And a Rhino is bigger than four tactical marines, so why should both be hit on a 4+?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: Think AT-AT's supplemented by stormtroopers during the Battle of Hoth - pin-point firepower is delegated to the infantries whereas the AT-AT provide overall support fire.
The problem is that 40k, being a very shallow game, has no concept of suppression or "support fire" or whatever. All that matters is total wounds caused and there is no difference between accurate single shots and less-accurate buckets of dice if both have the same average wounds inflicted. Making LoW less accurate just means that they get out-shot by their points in conventional units and are never seen again.
Well, the point is to provide a specific niche for titanic LOW units rather than keeping them at "auto-take" "I-WIN" button.
some bloke wrote: but the massively powerful weapons should be turned on the massively powerful units.
If TITANIC units can only effectively engage other TITANIC units then they might as well not exist. There's no reason for your opponent to have a TITANIC unit in their army as it can't engage conventional units effectively, so there's no reason to bring a TITANIC unit to counter your opponent's. The best counter to TITANIC units is simply to keep TITANIC units out of your own list, give them nothing to shoot at, and ignore the useless paperweight while you finish off the rest of their army. Both players know this, so only clueless newbies will ever put a TITANIC unit on the table.
TITANIC units will be more effective against other TITANIC units, not ONLY effective against them. The density of firepower per point on typical titanic LOW far exceed that of any other types of units. The balance should generally follow the pattern where durability is inversely related to offensive capabilities. It severely breaks the balance where a unit is both ultra-durable and deadly-offensive.
Except having LoW isn't an automatic I win button as much as some people keep preaching that it is, every single event win with "knight's" the quintessential LoW only list turns out to be soup and always includes infantry. Mono knight lists are way down in performance comparatively.
You want an auto win list your really talking alitoc flyer spam.
Also you seem to be under the impression that knights titans and superheavy tanks bring more firepower per point that just regular tanks, they don't Russes bring more Wounds per point than a knight which is in a better place than almost every titan.
Im not sure what this would fix, and would require extensive recosting of lots of units and weapons, most of which dont have any issues right now.
Big balance issues are largely isolated to a couple units, and have largely been resolved with recent balance updates already.
The bigger issues with superheavies is the issue of skewed scale. It's hard to look at most superheavies and call them overpowered, hell most aren't even very good for what they cost. The problem is that the game wants to insist on RPG levels of detail for individual infantry models alongside gigantic units that are abstracted the wrong direction, and playing with a lance of knights or an entire company of tanks is fundamentally a different proposition than playing with a platoon of infantry, and the game hasn't ever managed to handle that correctly.
A +1 to hit modifier wont help those issues unfortunately, it'll just make superheavies bad. The fundamental nature of what the game intends to encompasse really needs to be addressed and broken into different scales/systems.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Backspacehacker wrote: Super heavies already have a massive down side, points, lack of mobility.
Points sure. but mobility? most knights move 12. i think the brass scorpion last i checked could charge to the other-side of the table in a single turn.
ofc it depends on what kind of table you are playing but super dense munda style tables will also hurt normal tanks as well.
Backspacehacker wrote: Yes they move 12 but when you have less then 5 units on the table, board control is a very hard thing to do.
Well thats less a mobility issue as it is an "Elite" issue. its the same problem that a custodes army would have.
this is just nit picking though.
Yes Super heavies have problems. some are way better than others. i dont think a blanket +1 to hit is going to work well. at least not until the game moves to a d12.
This really just feeds into the kill it faster mentality of competitive, why not go the other way?
Titanic units have a -1 to hit units without the titanic keyword. Keeps the rules changes to the model at hand, the fire power concentration is moved heavily in the direction of things you'd expect titanic units to shoot at and it'd be a reasonable excuse to drop some other titanic unit's points values without completely skewing the game in their favor. Also, give armigers and actual reason to exist. Tweak any anti-air weapons they have to have +2 instead of +1 and you wind up with a reason to consider anti-air weapons even.
