Switch Theme:

Sad news - reroll auras are not going away  [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
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan




On the Internet

Making Invuls intI Ward Saves leads to them either being Tho but better (because lower numbers and not rolling vs damage) or into a save for a save followed by a FnP save.

It'a just not good design.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




 ClockworkZion wrote:
Making Invuls intI Ward Saves leads to them either being Tho but better (because lower numbers and not rolling vs damage) or into a save for a save followed by a FnP save.

It'a just not good design.

I wouldn't have FnP saves in the game at all. Rolling for FnP saves on 2 damage weps with 1 wound models, 1 at a time, is much more egregious.
   
Made in us
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan




On the Internet

Darsath wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Making Invuls intI Ward Saves leads to them either being Tho but better (because lower numbers and not rolling vs damage) or into a save for a save followed by a FnP save.

It'a just not good design.

I wouldn't have FnP saves in the game at all. Rolling for FnP saves on 2 damage weps with 1 wound models, 1 at a time, is much more egregious.

Then you take away the only way mortal wounds can be mitigated for tougher models.

And if you say Invuls should counter mortals then you break the mechanical balance I mentioned earlier.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




 ClockworkZion wrote:
Darsath wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Making Invuls intI Ward Saves leads to them either being Tho but better (because lower numbers and not rolling vs damage) or into a save for a save followed by a FnP save.

It'a just not good design.

I wouldn't have FnP saves in the game at all. Rolling for FnP saves on 2 damage weps with 1 wound models, 1 at a time, is much more egregious.

Then you take away the only way mortal wounds can be mitigated for tougher models.

And if you say Invuls should counter mortals then you break the mechanical balance I mentioned earlier.

Mortals shouldn't have a save against them by design. It's kind of what they are meant to be. And yes, this idea wouldn't work in 40k as it is right now because it has been designed with a different intention. Armies like DG rely on their FnP as part of their identity, and Mortal wounds are more abundant than at the beginning.
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Darsath wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Making Invuls intI Ward Saves leads to them either being Tho but better (because lower numbers and not rolling vs damage) or into a save for a save followed by a FnP save.

It'a just not good design.

I wouldn't have FnP saves in the game at all. Rolling for FnP saves on 2 damage weps with 1 wound models, 1 at a time, is much more egregious.


Just roll one for each shoot and if you roll your FNP value reroll that dice. That only works with multidamage weapons agaisnt single wound models but it speeds it.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





Iron Hands came out nearly 3 yeaes after the edition launched.

And at launch the edition WAS faster.

3 years of bloat from all the releases will of course slow the game down. We went from a very barebones start to one full of rules bloat from stuff like all the Marine rerolls. Using its end state to critique where it started from is fallacious at best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And one of the biggest things being mentioned is the 20% less army" which means 20% less movement, die rolls and engagements per game.


Iron Hands coming out 3 years later has what do with any of it? The play testers were involved throughout the edition. Iron Hands was play tested by these very same people. It still made it out. What's your point with the timeline on that?

"at launch" So, "Index 40k ≠ 8th edition". Yes, smaller games of index 40k WERE faster. But 2000 point games, even in index 40k (while still faster than where we are now) were still longer than they should have been for the "fastest edition ever". Even at the time, you could see posts like that popping up only a short period post-launch. People were already talking about game length. So it was clearly a problem pretty quick. Now let's add in the fact that the play testers would have to have had at least beta rules for the first codex or two for a while prior to 8th starting and would still have been able to say "Guys, this isn't faster". So the fact that smaller index 40k games (index 40k never having been intended to be the "new edition" and ALWAYS having been intended to be temporary) did not take as long is kind of meaningless.

20% less army? Maybe. Like I said before, using "8th ed points" you need to get down closer to 1650 or 1500 before you see an appreciable decrease in play-time. So far, we haven't seen that. It's been about the equivalent of a squad or so. If one squad is causing anyone to play a significantly longer game ... they have bigger problems than the rule set ....

And no, the end state is BASED on where we started. Which is with a core system based largely around rerolls as a core mechanic. As well as the other items I've mentioned ad nauseum. It is in fat the core rules themselves causing games to take longer. Rerolls, strats and weight of dice. These are what the game has largely been based on even in Index 40k. Now that even GW apparently sees the game is too slow, what are the core rules going to be based on? So far, from what we've seen - rerolls, and strats. No word yet on amount of dice obviously, but it's not looking good ...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/27 20:39:41


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Realistically rerolls don't really slow the game down much. Far less than someone having to roll 40+ dice in a single roll.

stronger covers rules are only going to slow the game down more. Also interestingly IMO the best change from 7th to 8th was first turn deep strike being allowed. That certainly sped the game up because it forced action.That should be brought back but with some limitations like maybe on 1/4th of your army can be in reserve or only 1 unit can come in first turn. That kind of stuff.

Smaller table will shorten the game some but the increased cover bonus is just going to slow things down BIG TIME. Huge mistake IMO.

Also - with cover playing such a huge roll in the game now. Players should be able to place the cover themselves and have veto powers and such on certain pieces of terrain.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/27 20:56:27


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 se
Bonkers Buggy Driver with Rockets




Sweden

Why do we even need rerolls? Hit-wound-save-fnp that is already 1296 possible outcomes for that simple roll sequence. You cant tell me this needs more granularity....
Something needs to be tougher? Increase its toughness, wounds, save or hit modifier. Something needs to be more destructive in some way? Give it more rate of fire, strength, ap, mortal wounds or whatever. Why is rerolls needed in addition to these already existing systems?

Brutal, but kunning!  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Kanluwen wrote:

If auras would be a number of units, then they would not be auras.

The new Necron unit is a targeted buff, not an aura. Targeted buffs have existed and will continue to exist.


Yes, I understand the semantics, which are irrelevant to the thought.

   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Gitdakka wrote:
Why do we even need rerolls? Hit-wound-save-fnp that is already 1296 possible outcomes for that simple roll sequence. You cant tell me this needs more granularity....
Something needs to be tougher? Increase its toughness, wounds, save or hit modifier. Something needs to be more destructive in some way? Give it more rate of fire, strength, ap, mortal wounds or whatever. Why is rerolls needed in addition to these already existing systems?


Because the game uses a D6 system.

In a D6 system flat bonuses have really big effects.

Rerolls offer granularity in the design if you want to give a minor bonus.
   
Made in se
Bonkers Buggy Driver with Rockets




Sweden

Spoletta wrote:
Gitdakka wrote:
Why do we even need rerolls? Hit-wound-save-fnp that is already 1296 possible outcomes for that simple roll sequence. You cant tell me this needs more granularity....
Something needs to be tougher? Increase its toughness, wounds, save or hit modifier. Something needs to be more destructive in some way? Give it more rate of fire, strength, ap, mortal wounds or whatever. Why is rerolls needed in addition to these already existing systems?


Because the game uses a D6 system.

In a D6 system flat bonuses have really big effects.

Rerolls offer granularity in the design if you want to give a minor bonus.

But rerolling 3+ to hit vs 2+ to hit is like no difference. 89% hit chance vs 83% hit chance, at the cost of time. Where are the effects so huge vs flat stats bonuses? I dont see the gain here.

Brutal, but kunning!  
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Gitdakka wrote:
Why do we even need rerolls? Hit-wound-save-fnp that is already 1296 possible outcomes for that simple roll sequence. You cant tell me this needs more granularity....
Something needs to be tougher? Increase its toughness, wounds, save or hit modifier. Something needs to be more destructive in some way? Give it more rate of fire, strength, ap, mortal wounds or whatever. Why is rerolls needed in addition to these already existing systems?

I agree with you in a sense. With the change in str vs T from 7th to 8th. There should be a lot more weapons with str 14 and 16 or even 18 for example. There could be a lot more T 9 and 10 models too - It seems carry over from 7th eddition with +1 to a stat make something "better" but they really don't. Str 5 spam is just SO effective in this eddition because Toughness was never full exploited as a defensive stat. Between number of shots compared to damage a high str weapon can do and the prevalence of invune saves. spaming lower str light AP weapons is the most effective. It's a big reason why marines do so well currently. They have TONs of shots with ap on them and they almost always hit! If there were more T9 and T10 units in the game that would not work. Melta being str 8 is also a big WTF - Melta should double its str vs armor or something. Anyways my point is. If my choice between weapons is a gun with 6 shots that will wound on 5's at worst and often on 3s vs it's desired target vs a 1 shot weapons that wounds on a 3s at best vs anything its worth shooting at....why would I choose anything else. Don't care if it slows the game down...it is more effective.

I agree refining the stats on units would also work. However - rerolls do offer a degree in-between buffing the stats of things.

Also a big reason why I initially liked the reroll aura on captains is it felt like the captain finally did something instead of just being a tax like in pervious editions. I think a good solution has been pointed out that you just limit the number of units these auras can effect so they don't scale as hard as they usually do. It would also give me a reason to move units out of the aura and explore other opportunity costs. Moving out of an aura to contest and objective is a choice currently because aura effects all units in range. If it had a max of 2 or 3 even I think it would be a big improvement.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/27 21:50:48


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
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan




On the Internet

At work so I'll keep this short: I only mentioned Iron Hands because they were brought up as prooof of the claims made at the START of 8th were false.

Trying to say playtesters were wrong about the edition because it stopped playing like it did when they made the statements is frankly insultingly poor as an arguement.

And from what I heard the playtesters had said "nerf Iron Hands, this is too strong" and GW tried to claim it was fine. Stop trying to discredit playsters over GW's choices.
   
Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade




At work so I'll keep this short: I only mentioned Iron Hands because they were brought up as prooof of the claims made at the START of 8th were false.


Nobody suggested that Iron Hands had anything to do with how the edition started. I didn't even imply that. I said they were an example of how it doesn't seem to matter that GW has play testers because IH still made it to release. They are the worst example by far,but they are one of MANY examples that should not have made it to release if play testers were catching what they are supposed to catch AND PROVIDED GW USED THEM PROPERLY AND ACTUALLY LISTENED. Clearly one of those things didn't happen, so why should I be excited that they're now claiming "EVEN MOAR PLAY TESTING". The joke amongst most of the community especially at the start of 8th was "Oh - we get it - WE are the beta ..."

Trying to say playtesters were wrong about the edition because it stopped playing like it did when they made the statements is frankly insultingly poor as an arguement.
And from what I heard the playtesters had said "nerf Iron Hands, this is too strong" and GW tried to claim it was fine. Stop trying to discredit playsters over GW's choices.


If you're going to debate w/someone, at least read their posts fully? I don't want derail the thread anymore and you are definately not reading (or at least completely misunderstanding - it's fine that happens) what I'm writing, but I've said, multiple times now, that it's entirely possible testers caught everything and it was ignored. I also said it's entirely possible they were simply asked to work in a manner that would have actively prevented them from discovering the obvious things. The FACT remains, that, for whatever the reason, having play testers completely failed to prevent GW from making the same mistakes they always make in every edition almost without fail.

As far as how the edition started? Like I said, it was less than a month - month and a half at best before we started realizing the game wasn't as fast as advertised. We discovered this with all the same info the play testers would have had prior to the initial release of 8th ...
So again, why should I care what any of the testers have to say now? They were consistently off-base and/or ignored by GW all the way through 8th - so what changed that all of a sudden the same people doing the same thing will now suddenly have positive results? The one thing I'll give you - I don't know if it's true or not, but supposedly the GSC dex got delayed because play testers raised a huge fuss about it being too powerful. So if that's true - that's one for them ...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/28 00:18:07


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Gitdakka wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Gitdakka wrote:
Why do we even need rerolls? Hit-wound-save-fnp that is already 1296 possible outcomes for that simple roll sequence. You cant tell me this needs more granularity....
Something needs to be tougher? Increase its toughness, wounds, save or hit modifier. Something needs to be more destructive in some way? Give it more rate of fire, strength, ap, mortal wounds or whatever. Why is rerolls needed in addition to these already existing systems?


Because the game uses a D6 system.

In a D6 system flat bonuses have really big effects.

Rerolls offer granularity in the design if you want to give a minor bonus.

But rerolling 3+ to hit vs 2+ to hit is like no difference. 89% hit chance vs 83% hit chance, at the cost of time. Where are the effects so huge vs flat stats bonuses? I dont see the gain here.


3+ rerollable isn't the only roll being made in a game.

BS 5 basic accuracy 33%
BS 4 basic accuracy 50%
BS 3 basic accuracy 66%
BS 2 basic accuracy 83%

BS5 with rr1 39%
BS4 with rr1 58%
BS3 with rr1 77%
BS2 with rr1 96%

BS5 with full rr 55%
BS4 with full rr 75%
BS3 with full rr 88%
BS2 with full rr 96%

BS 5 with +1 to hit 50%
BS 4 with +1 to hit 66%
BS 3 with +1 to hit 83%
BS 2 with +1 to hit 83%

If you don't use the rerolls, your only achieveable values are: 33%, 50%, 66%, 83%. You can add 17% if you include mali. A total of 5 possible values.
By adding rerolls to the picture, you gain: 39%, 55%, 58%, 75%, 77%, 88%, 96%. If you consider the interaction with mali, you also get 20% and 30%.

By including rerolls you triple the possible accuracy values of a model.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/28 05:38:06


 
   
Made in se
Bonkers Buggy Driver with Rockets




Sweden

@speletta
I still don't see the purpose of having +-6-8% accuracy compared to the base roll chances instead of just using the regular +-16%. You could also add auto hit instead of that extreme 96% hit chance, because 96 bolter hits compared to a 100 is not really important in the grand scheme of the game right?

I just dont understand why a hit chart inculding those tiny value shifts would be more fun than the five regular hit chances (16, 33, 50, 66, 83, autohit). I mean this is just the hit roll. There are lots of other offence vs defence rolls to follow. I think the time saved by not having rerolls would justify a simple hit chart.

Brutal, but kunning!  
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Full rerolls are mostly useless and indeed better covered by a +1 to hit in many cases.

Rr1 is unfortunately a necessity in a D6 system.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/28 08:39:32


 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Isnt the problem with re-rolls not the small buff to hit on a single roll, but the fact that armies are rolling 100+ dice per turn. A 6-8% higher hit chance on one shot isn't much, but with 100+ dice its can mean 5 msu models rolling extra wounds, which then can mean easier spread of fire.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





There is surely an issue right now with masses of dice being rolled. Rerolls only make it worse.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




The added granularity from rerolls isn't worth the cost in dice-rolling, certainly not for full rerolls, and certainly not for a faction that hits on 3+ to begin with. And it definitely isn't worth the cost in a world with modifiers capped at +1/-1, because in that environment it actually reduces granularity by making it impossible to go below 75% accuracy for the faction that has easiest access to it.

I don't think reroll 1s is worth it either, but it doesn't bother me (or anyone else). Whenever people talk about rerolls being a problem 99% of the time it is full rerolls they're talking about.

   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





No, 99% of the time they are talking about the Chapter Master stratagem.

I think that solving ONE stratagem is better than changing a whole mechanic.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




It's not only that, though it's mostly that. MA/EC spam with single entity units is a problem too, particularly EC in eldar lists. Especially since those let you reroll wounds, too.

EC has the added problem of making it difficult to balance CWE single entity units because they get such a massive bonus from it that they end up being borderline overpowered with it, but borderline underpowered without it.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Spoletta wrote:
No, 99% of the time they are talking about the Chapter Master stratagem.

I think that solving ONE stratagem is better than changing a whole mechanic.

How does that work for the chapter masters that are actual data sheets? (Shrike etc)
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




IMO aura and faction-based rerolls should be 1s only; the full reroll should be reserved for strats and unit or weapon specific abilities (e.g. lightning claws, or tankbustas' reroll ability).

Stuff like the troupe master's reroll wounds aura is ok because it is so limited in effect (melee only, and the faction has nothing above S5 weapons). Though you could change that too if you just compensated by giving quins some actual high S melee options.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/28 14:10:15


 
   
Made in it
Wild Wyrdboy with Minderz




Italy

yukishiro1 wrote:
IMO aura and faction-based rerolls should be 1s only; the full reroll should be reserved for strats and unit or weapon specific abilities (e.g. lightning claws, or tankbustas' reroll ability).

Stuff the troupe master's reroll wounds aura is ok because it is so limited in effect (melee only, and the faction has nothing above S5 weapons). Though you could change that too if you just compensated by giving quins some actual high S melee options.


I'd go even further. Auras shouldn't grant generic re-rolls, but only to some specific units. I mean that auras shouldn't work for friendly <FACTION> units but only for single specific units.

Like Badrukk that grants the aura only for Flash Gitz, all the other characters with similar auras should give their bonus only to a single specific unit. A SM Captain who only gives his re-rolls to Hellblasters for example or an Archon who only buffs Ravagers.

Orks 7000
Space Wolves 5000
 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





That would promote skewed lists and castiling even more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 bullyboy wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
No, 99% of the time they are talking about the Chapter Master stratagem.

I think that solving ONE stratagem is better than changing a whole mechanic.

How does that work for the chapter masters that are actual data sheets? (Shrike etc)


I have less of an issue with those.

First of all they all come with a theme to them and a cost to reflect the full package.

You want Shrike? Then you also get the bonus to jump packs and phobos in the package. plus a decent beatstick with quite a good mobility. You are paying 50 points more over a generic primaris captain for it. He is also easier to kill than the generic alternative.

It encourages you to play to the theme, since you are already paying for it. I like it. Everything that adds theme is good. We can discuss about it being undercosted, but the concept is fine.

All the chapter masters are like him, with the exception of Marneus. Ultramarine stick is to big flexible, so it makes sense that the Chapter Master is not tied to a specific theme. He also pays for it with an hefty cost.

I have big issues with the current CM stratagem because it is a generic "I need to make a marine list, let's start with a captain to use the stratagem". Also, it makes zero sense that first founding chapters can use it when they already have a Chapter Master.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/28 14:32:58


 
   
Made in it
Wild Wyrdboy with Minderz




Italy

Spoletta wrote:
That would promote skewed lists and castiling even more.



It's the exact opposite since only 1-3 units in the any codex would get the benefit of a re-roll aura. Like Flash Gitz for orks, which are the only dudes in their faction that can benefit from a re-rolling 1s aura. I don't see why SM or any other faction should get possible re-rolls for everyone.

This way the majority of the units would play differently than castling since they'd get no bonus from characters' auras.

Orks 7000
Space Wolves 5000
 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




yukishiro1 wrote:
IMO aura and faction-based rerolls should be 1s only; the full reroll should be reserved for strats and unit or weapon specific abilities (e.g. lightning claws, or tankbustas' reroll ability).

Stuff like the troupe master's reroll wounds aura is ok because it is so limited in effect (melee only, and the faction has nothing above S5 weapons). Though you could change that too if you just compensated by giving quins some actual high S melee options.


I am still firmly of the opinion that reroll auras should not be 'Always On'.

Make them all once per game for one turn.

It makes it a far more strategic ability - do you hit it for turn one alpha strike? Save it for later when your opponent's reserves start showing up?

At that point, the CM strategem is not quite so auto-take.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Spoletta wrote:
No, 99% of the time they are talking about the Chapter Master stratagem.

I think that solving ONE stratagem is better than changing a whole mechanic.


Get rid of it. No one else gets custom chapter masters. Custom chapters only go up to captain. Done.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/28 16:18:40


 
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Terminator with Lightning Claws



Sioux Falls, SD

Well with the leaks today we can see that auras are still 100% a thing.

Violence is never the answer, violence is always the question. And the answer is always yes.

 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: