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.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
My idea for powers is this.

Cast the number equal to your mastery, pass on a leadership check modified by the warp charge level

IE primas casts on a ld check of 10(assuming your caster is Ld 10)

Warp charge one cast on a LD 9
Warp charge two on ld 8
Warp charge three on ld7

Then to deny you need to "fail" a ld check result modified by your mastery leave above or below the caster

Is if I had a primas case as a level 2 caster, and you are a level one caster, you need to roll a 12 if you are level 2 11 or 12

If I cast a warp charge 3 pass on a 7 or less you deny on a 8 or more as an equal leave caster

The system allows you to get easie spells off, well, eaiser( while making them harder to deny while also making harder spells harder to make yet eaiser to deny.

It would pretty well and sped things up we came up with it on the fly so we still need to work out things like physic hoods and such

I would recommend that a enemy psyker can deny any power who's target or caster is within 12" of them. Which means they can deny buffs, and makes psyker positioning important for boosting defenses against powers. Psychic hoods can increase that range by 6".

I want to understand the Deny better.

So a ML 2 psyker casts whatever.

A ML 1, ld 10, psyker attempts to deny.

So if their mastery level was equal it would be a 11+ that denied.. but because he is weaker he -1 from his test result... effectively needing a 12 to deny? This is further modified by the mastery level of the spell. +3 to deny result and -3 to cast result for a 3 Warp Charge power.


The only problem here is a lower leadership model actually has a higher chance to Deny the Witch. A Deny roll would have to be a default of 10ld... or more correctly 2d6-ML+WC cost.11+ to succeed

IllumiNini wrote:Again, Re-rolls are not a bad mechanic in and of itself. It's when it gets abused that is the problem. For example: 3x TL Lascannons? That's reasonable. 15x shots from 3x stationary Grac Cannons getting re-rolls because of Grav Amps? No thanks. It just needs to be toned down, not removed.

Rerolls are unnecessary at best and game-breaking at worst.

Do the math. 12 TL lascannons (by current rules) at BS 4:

12 X 2/3 = 8 hits; 4 misses
4 X 2/3 = 8/3 hits, 4/3 misses
Total: 10 2/3 hits

12 TL lascannons, assuming that TL conferred a +1 BS mod:

12 X 5/6 = 60/6 = 10 hits

2/3s of a hit. That's the difference. That's it. You're wasting all of that time, and you're opening up the game to all kinds of broken bullgak, for 2/3s of a hit every 12th shot, assuming BS 4.

You want to try BS 3?

12 TL lascannon shots at BS 3, assuming current rules:

12/1 X 1/2 = 6 hits, 6 misses
6/1 X 1/2 = 3 hits, 3 misses
9 shots total

12 TL lascannon shots at BS 3, assuming my rules change:

12/1 X 2/3 = 24/3
8 shots total.

1 shot per 12 TL shots. One. You're wasting all of that time re-rolling things and allowing game-breaking combinations for 1 extra shot in 12.

Is it really worth it?

Let's even go with BS 1:

BS 1 twin linked, 12 shots:

12/1 X 1/6 = 2 hits, 10 misses
10/1 X 1/6 = 10/6 hits, 50/6 misses

Result: 3 2/3 hits

BS 2, 12 shots:

12/1 X 1/3 = 12/3
4 hits.

It's a difference of 1/3 of a hit every 12 shots.

The only time it matters:

1. When we are dealing with 2+ rerollables. And feth 2+ rerollables.
2. When using a weapon with the Gets Hot! special rule. And fact is, blast weapons with the Gets Hot! special rule don't get to reroll anyway. so why should non-blast weapons get it?

If you could flesh this idea out properly, I could get behind this idea. Being a BT player: Not only would I like to see this idea fleshed out in great detail, but I'd like to see what you think this means for the opposite side (i.e. Denying the Witch)..

Very simple:

Make the psychic test a basic leadership test. Specify in advance that each psyker may use x number of powers per shooting phase. Rework all psychic powers so that you are no better or worse off for using a psychic power than for using a shooting attack or running. Give a one page, codex specific list of psychic powers for each army. You then pick whichever psychic powers you want, up to the number of psychic powers that each psyker can know.

Naturally, some psykers would come with powers that they automatically know.

I suppose you could have slightly stronger psychic powers, assuming appropriate restrictions: "You must exhaust two chances to use a psychic power and pass two separate leadership tests to harness this power."

And then simply remove the deny the witch roll, except for model/unit specific cases.

Again, it would improve game balance and make the game go much faster.

Your not even taking to wound or armor saves into account when you are doing your math.

Lets just say for gaks and giggle we are going up again MEQ.

And now lets say we have a squad of terminators that deep strike on them with twinlinked storm bolters (On deep strike they are twin linked)

So for benefit of the doubt lets round up

10 bolter shots twin linked

10 *2/3 = 6.6666 -> 7
3 misses
3*2/3 = 2

9 hits total

to wound on a toughness 4, needs 4s

9*2/3 = 6 wounds

Marines save of a 3+

thats 3 wounds unsaved not counting things like FNP which is highly possible in today's games

Besides you example is hardly even tangible, if your getting shot at something that has 12 TW Laz cannon, your are fighting a Death start and its doing its job.

Hell lets even now assume thats being shot at MEQ, thats 12*2/3 = 8
4*2/3 = 2.666-> 3
11 hits

again we can say to wound is going to be on 2s

11*5/6 = 9.1666 -> 9

now your marines are going to get cover saves, of 4+ because if you are in the open, you dont have any real right to complain because you are not playing right by leaving yourself in the open with a unit with 12 TL Laz cannons running around. so still 4+ cover save

9*2/3 = 6 wounds

if you go to ground +1 to that save

9/2 = 5 wounds.

So even though YES you are getting 11 hits, that still, if we assume perfect rolling statistics, you are only going to get 6 wounds if you are in ruins.

TL is not the problem. You are asking for it to be removed, but you are basing your entire logic here off of a unit that has 12 TL laz canons which wtf are you fighting with that, and on top of that you are not even counting wounds or saves.

So again, you are trying to make arguments for rules you dont even understand, and are to lazy to even flush out the full run down of those hits, wounds, and saves.

I think he's arguing that it's more complicated for little-to-no benefit.

But it's not that much more complicated-it's pretty basic statistics.

Edit: Also, how would Twin-Linked work on Overwatch? Is it still +1 BS? Does that work against fliers? What if I have Bolter Drill and Twin-Linked? Or Bolter Drill, Twin-Linked, and PE? Do I get BS 4 Snap Shots?

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Your not even taking to wound or armor saves into account when you are doing your math.

TL doesn't directly affect armor saves or to wound rolls. That's why I didn't take it into account. This is not rocket science.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think he's arguing that it's more complicated for little-to-no benefit.

But it's not that much more complicated-it's pretty basic statistics.

Edit: Also, how would Twin-Linked work on Overwatch? Is it still +1 BS? Does that work against fliers? What if I have Bolter Drill and Twin-Linked? Or Bolter Drill, Twin-Linked, and PE? Do I get BS 4 Snap Shots?

You seem to have missed this.

 Traditio wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Your not even taking to wound or armor saves into account when you are doing your math.

TL doesn't directly affect armor saves or to wound rolls. That's why I didn't take it into account. This is not rocket science.

But you cant bitch about twin linked before you even go though all of your wounds and saves Thats sill math to be taken into account, and needs to be taken into account.

Again, your example is wimsical, who the hell is running around with 12 TL laz cannons? Because if a single unit is getting shot with 12 TL laz cannons, your opponent wants them dead one way or another.

Again, like everyone has been saying your ideas of "Fixing" the rules only break more units or make units worse. This will not actually fix anything.

Your lack of understanding of the rules clouds your judgement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think he's arguing that it's more complicated for little-to-no benefit.

But it's not that much more complicated-it's pretty basic statistics.

Edit: Also, how would Twin-Linked work on Overwatch? Is it still +1 BS? Does that work against fliers? What if I have Bolter Drill and Twin-Linked? Or Bolter Drill, Twin-Linked, and PE? Do I get BS 4 Snap Shots?

You seem to have missed this.

Was that toward me or him? Because his system is more complicated then TL is now and one thing 40k does not need is more modifiers to rules.

gak snap shotting at a 4+ what would that do to the lions blade strike force that over watches at full BS, now i would be hitting on 2s? lol

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think he's arguing that it's more complicated for little-to-no benefit.

It's not just more complicated. It's more time consuming. If you have a TL dakkafex, I have to wait for you to roll 12 dice. I then have to wait for you to count out how many 1s, 2s and 3s you got. I then have to wait for you to reroll those. I then have to wait for you to count up the 1s, 2s and 3s and remove those. I then have to wait for you to to add the result of the 4s, 5s and 6s you just got to the 4s, 5s and 6s that you already rolled. I then have to wait for you to roll to wound.

If TL just added +1 BS, I'd have to wait for you to roll 12 dice, remove the 1s and the 2s, and then roll to wound.

And it's not just "little to no benefit." That's the BEST case scenario.

The more serious result is OP cheese like 2+ rerollables.

Edit: Also, how would Twin-Linked work on Overwatch? Is it still +1 BS?

Yes. It's so statistically insignificant that it wouldn't even matter all that much.

Does that work against fliers?

Yes.

What if I have Bolter Drill and Twin-Linked?

How do they interact now? Yes, I understand that rules which specifically say "reroll 1s" would get somewhat more of a more significant buff, but I don't think it would be significant enough to justify having both sets of rules.

r Bolter Drill, Twin-Linked, and PE? Do I get BS 4 Snap Shots?

You don't get that now! Twin-linked simply overrides the others in those cases currently. I'm suggesting an even greater simplification.

"Regardless of the rule, you get +1 to BS (or whatever other stat). These benefits do not stack. Period."

But how do we know which rules overwrite others? Preferred Enemy rerolls ones, Hatred rerolls all hits, Master-Crafted lets you reroll one hit... What if I have all three of those?

And why would they overwrite each other? It's pretty clear how they interact in the BRB normally-you only ever reroll a die once, so Twin-Linked, Bolter Drill, and PE cannot stack. But under your system, they're just modifiers.

Also, my captain (BS 5) with a Twin-Linked Bolter (BS 6), Bolter Drill (BS 7) and PE (from joining a Skitarii Squad with a Warlord, BS 8) is now absolutely no better at shooting than a bog-standard captain (BS 5).

This system for twinlinked im sorry kid, is dumb, and one of the stupidest rule suggestions, you are trying to make a system more complicated then it needs to be to effect nothing, and in turn making over watch more powerful.

Reroll misses a hell of a lot simpler then +1 to your BS skill

What even has a 2+ rerollable thats not a jink? Is there eldar tom foolery that does that? because i have never run into it.

If all this stems form bikes, which looking over your entire thread here these all seems to be stemming for a saltyness about bikes then you are playing against a bike army wrong. Template weapons, and GG bike armies, which is the only thing that can easily access 2+ rerollable jink.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But how do we know which rules overwrite others? Preferred Enemy rerolls ones, Hatred rerolls all hits, Master-Crafted lets you reroll one hit... What if I have all three of those?

And why would they overwrite each other? It's pretty clear how they interact in the BRB normally-you only ever reroll a die once, so Twin-Linked, Bolter Drill, and PE cannot stack. But under your system, they're just modifiers.

Also, my captain (BS 5) with a Twin-Linked Bolter (BS 6), Bolter Drill (BS 7) and PE (from joining a Skitarii Squad with a Warlord, BS 8) is now absolutely no better at shooting than a bog-standard captain (BS 5).

Again this is because OP has no concept of how rules interact with one another.

I honestly bet OP is a pissed off kid who went up against a bike army, got wrecked, and decided to come to Dakka and talk about how great his changes are and would balances everything, by nerfing bikes.

Oh, and PE on 12 BS 3 Lascannons nets you 7 hits, by the way. (About.)

So you just nerfed Twin-Linked and buffed Preferred Enemy. To make them the exact same rule.

How does that work in Close Combat, by the way? Preferred Enemy, Shred, Hatred, Master-Crafted...

 JNAProductions wrote:
But how do we know which rules overwrite others?

I think that this would actually be pretty easy. Preferred enemy (x) would read: "Add +1 to your ballistic skill when firing against an enemy model of the type (x). When resolving the to-wound roll of a shooting attack against an enemy model of the type (x), you succeed at wounding on a roll of 1 less than you otherwise would have needed. This cannot cause instant death. In close combat, resolve to hit rolls as 1 better than it would have otherwise been against an enemy model of the type x. When resolving the to-wound roll of a close combat attack of an enemy model of the type (x),you succeed at wounding on a roll of 1 less than you otherwise would have needed. Any such roll cannot be improved, by this or by any other rule, by more than 1. This rule cannot be used to cause a reroll."

Or some such thing.

Preferred Enemy rerolls ones, Hatred rerolls all hits, Master-Crafted lets you reroll one hit... What if I have all three of those?

PE and Hatred would both increase the stat by 1, but would not stack with each other or with master crafted. Master-crafted would increase the stat used for one roll by 1, but would not stack with the others.

And why would they overwrite each other?

In order to obtain roughly the same effect as now, except minus the cheese.

Also, my captain (BS 5) with a Twin-Linked Bolter (BS 6), Bolter Drill (BS 7) and PE (from joining a Skitarii Squad with a Warlord, BS 8) is now absolutely no better at shooting than a bog-standard captain (BS 5).

That is correct. I don't see this as problematic.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Oh, and PE on 12 BS 3 Lascannons nets you 7 hits, by the way. (About.)

So you just nerfed Twin-Linked and buffed Preferred Enemy. To make them the exact same rule.

How does that work in Close Combat, by the way? Preferred Enemy, Shred, Hatred, Master-Crafted...

Good point, now we need to talk about that too

You have shred, master crafted, digital weapons.

you.....you dont see how a BS 8 captain is the same as a BS 5 captain....in what world do you live in.

So now anything above BS 5 is worthless, and your gonna say that with a straight face.

There is a big problem with that, so waht does that BS 8 on assasins do for them now? they are no different from BS 5 models.

What happens to cypher? whos whole character is being BS10, no gets hot, now he is the same as a BS5 marine but costs 190 points.

 Traditio wrote:
Preferred enemy (x) would read: "Add +1 to your ballistic skill when firing against an enemy model of the type (x). When resolving the to-wound roll of a shooting against an enemy model of the type (x), you succeed at wounding on a roll of 1 less than you otherwise would have needed. This cannot cause instant death. In close combat, resolve to hit rolls as 1 better than it would have otherwise been against an enemy model of the type x. When resolving the to-wound roll of a close combat attack of an enemy model of the type (x),you succeed at wounding on a roll of 1 less than you otherwise would have needed. Any such roll cannot be improved, by this or by any other rule, by more than 1. This rule cannot be used to cause a reroll."

Do you... Do you not see how that's a LOT more complicated than "Reroll ones when rolling to-hit and to-wound"?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Preferred enemy (x) would read: "Add +1 to your ballistic skill when firing against an enemy model of the type (x). When resolving the to-wound roll of a shooting against an enemy model of the type (x), you succeed at wounding on a roll of 1 less than you otherwise would have needed. This cannot cause instant death. In close combat, resolve to hit rolls as 1 better than it would have otherwise been against an enemy model of the type x. When resolving the to-wound roll of a close combat attack of an enemy model of the type (x),you succeed at wounding on a roll of 1 less than you otherwise would have needed. Any such roll cannot be improved, by this or by any other rule, by more than 1. This rule cannot be used to cause a reroll."

Do you... Do you not see how that's a LOT more complicated than "Reroll ones when rolling to-hit and to-wound"?

It's more complicated in phrasing, but less complicated in practice.

Because all I'm really saying is: "Hey, you know that 3 you would have needed? You need a 2 now. No, you can't make that 2 smaller. Period."

 Traditio wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Preferred enemy (x) would read: "Add +1 to your ballistic skill when firing against an enemy model of the type (x). When resolving the to-wound roll of a shooting against an enemy model of the type (x), you succeed at wounding on a roll of 1 less than you otherwise would have needed. This cannot cause instant death. In close combat, resolve to hit rolls as 1 better than it would have otherwise been against an enemy model of the type x. When resolving the to-wound roll of a close combat attack of an enemy model of the type (x),you succeed at wounding on a roll of 1 less than you otherwise would have needed. Any such roll cannot be improved, by this or by any other rule, by more than 1. This rule cannot be used to cause a reroll."

Do you... Do you not see how that's a LOT more complicated than "Reroll ones when rolling to-hit and to-wound"?

It's more complicated in phrasing, but less complicated in practice.

Because all I'm really saying is: "Hey, you know that 3 you would have needed? You need a 2 now. No, you can't make that 2 smaller. Period."

No its not

You have spent the last 2 pages trying to explain it, and make it work every time we bring something up and your saying it still less complicated then, reroll misses.

So now PE is absolutely useless when you needed 2s before. So you just took the MOST USEFUL part of PE and made it useless. That's a massively radical change for basically no benefit.

Backspacehacker wrote:No its not

Yes it is.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So now PE is absolutely useless when you needed 2s before. So you just took the MOST USEFUL part of PE and made it useless. That's a massively radical change for basically no benefit.

Its talking to a brick wall man, the kid wants to live in his own little bubble of "Muh super simple rules that over write rules," is better then current tl rule

 JNAProductions wrote:
So now PE is absolutely useless when you needed 2s before. So you just took the MOST USEFUL part of PE and made it useless. That's a massively radical change for basically no benefit.

I fully admit that what I'm proposing would nerf 2+ rerollables.

That's the point.

 Traditio wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:No its not

Yes it is.

Ok, then in one post, write the rule, as if it was in the rule book. Go, nothing more nothing less.

Oh, also, PE is now crazily more useful when you needed 6s, because you just DOUBLED your chances of Hitting/Wounding. Whereas normally, it would increase your chances by (1/6 chance of rolling a 1, then 1/6 chance of a 6) 1/36th, for a total of 7/36th.

Also, how does that interact with "Only on 6s"? My Skitarii often have PE thanks to Warlord, and their Rad Carbines do bonus wounds on 6s. Do they get that on 5s with PE?

Backspacehacker wrote:Ok, then in one post, write the rule, as if it was in the rule book. Go, nothing more nothing less.

You're not grasping the phrasing vs. practice distinction. Even if it takes me an entire page to explain it, the practice isn't necessarily more complicated.

Because, again, what I'm saying ultimately boils down to:

You need 1 less on your roll. You cannot get better than 1 less on your roll. You cannot reroll.

I think that both of you fully understand what I mean. That's why you in particular are displaying such vitriol against the idea.

 Traditio wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:Ok, then in one post, write the rule, as if it was in the rule book. Go, nothing more nothing less.

You're not grasping the phrasing vs. practice distinction. Even if it takes me an entire page to explain it, the practice isn't necessarily more complicated.

Because, again, what I'm saying ultimately boils down to:

You need 1 less on your roll. You cannot get better than 1 less on your roll. You cannot reroll.

I think that both of you fully understand what I mean. That's why you in particular are displaying such vitriol against the idea.

So you want to make a rule that you cant even write out yourself?

We understand, and we are pointing out how this "fix" gets more and more complicated as we go on, because of other rules, this one rule change would need to change every other rule


All this compaired to the current rules

<special rule that allows reroll of to hit/to wound>

may never re-roll the same dice more then once per to hit and to wound phase.

Thats the current rules, short sweet and to the point.

How does this interact if you normally can't wound? Can PE Bolters now hurt a Wraithknight?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Oh, also, PE is now crazily more useful when you needed 6s, because you just DOUBLED your chances of Hitting/Wounding.

Do you think that this would be game-breaking? In practice, would this actually be a significant issue?

Understand, JNA, that there are tradeoffs. Yes, it means that PE becomes stronger for things that need 5s and 6s. But it also removes 2+ rerollables.

I think that's a darned good trade off.

Also, how does that interact with "Only on 6s"? My Skitarii often have PE thanks to Warlord, and their Rad Carbines do bonus wounds on 6s. Do they get that on 5s with PE?

It wouldn't interact at all. If you want to deal bonus wounds, then roll 6s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
How does this interact if you normally can't wound? Can PE Bolters now hurt a Wraithknight?

No.

So, as part of your proposed changes, you want to make PE Overwatch twice as effective as regular Overwatch. My Skitarii Vanguard thank you!

(I don't. Assault is already weak enough without making Overwatch more powerful, which your changes do.)

Edit: And why can't they? Following the logical progression, they would need to roll 7s to wound, so +1 to that would be 6s. It makes sense.

 Traditio wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Oh, also, PE is now crazily more useful when you needed 6s, because you just DOUBLED your chances of Hitting/Wounding.

Do you think that this would be game-breaking? In practice, would this actually be a significant issue?

Understand, JNA, that there are tradeoffs. Yes, it means that PE becomes stronger for things that need 5s and 6s. But it also removes 2+ rerollables.

I think that's a darned good trade off.

Also, how does that interact with "Only on 6s"? My Skitarii often have PE thanks to Warlord, and their Rad Carbines do bonus wounds on 6s. Do they get that on 5s with PE?

It wouldn't interact at all. If you want to deal bonus wounds, then roll 6s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
How does this interact if you normally can't wound? Can PE Bolters now hurt a Wraithknight?

No.

Its not a good trade off when you need to rewrite all the rules.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, as part of your proposed changes, you want to make PE Overwatch twice as effective as regular Overwatch. My Skitarii Vanguard thank you!

(I don't. Assault is already weak enough without making Overwatch more powerful, which your changes do.)

Edit: And why can't they? Following the logical progression, they would need to roll 7s to wound, so +1 to that would be 6s. It makes sense.

Totally, i mean, bolters can wound wraithknights under his logic, sounds great to me man.

I'd agree-you're proposing what's essentially a rewrite of the entire rules... Without actually fixing a darn thing.

If you want to do a complete rewrite, more power to you! That's a great idea! Just actually put effort in.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'd agree-you're proposing what's essentially a rewrite of the entire rules... Without actually fixing a darn thing.

If you want to do a complete rewrite, more power to you! That's a great idea! Just actually put effort in.

Not half assed, make it up as you go along and as we point out the issues.