Switch Theme:

One model, One shot, One wound  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Too many dice rolls in 40K?
Yes
No
Lemon Curry

View results
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
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

If we can accept the abstraction that the number of shots fired by a given weapon only represents those subset of rounds fired that have a high probability of hitting the target, then we could/should be able to accept the abstraction that after a point adding more guns increases the probability of those shots hitting instead of adding more shots. I.E. after 10 guys you no longer add dice to your pool, instead you go +1 to hit, and after 20 you go to +2 instead, etc.

Problem is there are already a lot of other sources for +1 to hit out there, so I don't think its a workable approach without a rewrite of a lot of other rules and a recalibration of how the team approaches handing out those types of abilities.

This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

40k has too many dice rolls for sure. 40k's bigger problem is that it wants to be a company or battalion level wargame in terms of model count, with strategic level units and abilities, and tactical or roleplay level detail and stats. It wants everything in the 40k universe to be both present and playable on the same small cramped battlefield, with every model being its own unique game piece and statline. As a result, in attempting to cover all those bases while also trying to keep everything unique, we got tons of stat bloat and ever increasing reasons to need to roll dice and larger dice pools.



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.  
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

It's wanting everything to be unique.
If people were just okay with their Ultramarines playing the same as their White Scars, or with their Dire Avengers feeling pretty much like Tempestus Scions we wouldn't have a lot of this problem.

I genuinely think you could map the majority of 40k to a Star Wars Legion type system rather well if you didn't mind a few units feeling essentially like some other units.
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





I think armies feeling different is probably a good thing? The armies being extremely different is one of the biggest appeals of 40k over other systems. 30k being a marine-fest with none of that diversity is the biggest reason even the marine players in my group have no interest in 30k.
   
Made in ca
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer





British Columbia

I've believed the layers of free rules based on how you painted your minis was a huge mistake.

I'd be perfectly happy with it returning to an aesthetic/lore preference.

Coming up on four years of "reroll failed morale" as my lone paint benefit might have influenced my stance a bit.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
That's what 7th edition is about. Yelling "Forge the Narrative Pussy!" while kicking your opponent in the dick.
 BlaxicanX wrote:
A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.


 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I think armies feeling different is probably a good thing? The armies being extremely different is one of the biggest appeals of 40k over other systems. 30k being a marine-fest with none of that diversity is the biggest reason even the marine players in my group have no interest in 30k.
Armies can feel different with similar units.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





 JNAProductions wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
I think armies feeling different is probably a good thing? The armies being extremely different is one of the biggest appeals of 40k over other systems. 30k being a marine-fest with none of that diversity is the biggest reason even the marine players in my group have no interest in 30k.
Armies can feel different with similar units.

Depends what you mean, since that statement can mean anything. "Dire Avengers being basically the same unit as Tempestus Scions" doesn't sound appealing to me, for example. I think diversifying unit profiles (IE Immortals being fully incomparable to marine troops now, whereas before they were basically the same unit with a better gun but fewer options) was one of the better changes 9th made.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Arachnofiend wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
I think armies feeling different is probably a good thing? The armies being extremely different is one of the biggest appeals of 40k over other systems. 30k being a marine-fest with none of that diversity is the biggest reason even the marine players in my group have no interest in 30k.
Armies can feel different with similar units.

Depends what you mean, since that statement can mean anything. "Dire Avengers being basically the same unit as Tempestus Scions" doesn't sound appealing to me, for example. I think diversifying unit profiles (IE Immortals being fully incomparable to marine troops now, whereas before they were basically the same unit with a better gun but fewer options) was one of the better changes 9th made.



The differences between units' rules can be more subtle yet still make them unique.
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

If you want everything to be totally unique, I'm not faulting you - that's a subjective opinion.
But 40k is a game so vast it's impossible to make every army that unique without the current level of rules bloat.

Personally, I hate the rules bloat and would gladly take more subtle differences between units and factions.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Plenty of games manage to create unique units from fewer stats than 40k uses, often with no, or one, special rule to differentiate similar units. It seems to be a peculiarly 40k thing to believe you need all this bloat just to make units different. There's also the fact that the combination of units taken as a whole gives armies their character, not looking at each one in a vacuum.

I think that's what 40k's lost sight of. It's all the more annoying because 40k includes a bunch of background information in each Codex that would allow them to point out the difference between various units from a fluff perspective while maintaining rules consistency and reducing bloat.

As a practical example, let's take the SM Incursor, Infiltrator and Tactical Marine units. Specifically, let's look at their standard guns. They all have Bolters. But GW have decided instead of 1 gun with a special rule on the unit modifying them very slightly, we need 3 different weapons with a different name and the same profile. That's pointless bloat. The special rules would exist whichever way you write those rules but doing it the GW way gives you 2 extra weapons in your 4-and-a-half page list of ranged weapons.
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

I'd love armies to be very different.

I don't like however having multiple units from a single codex that are basically the same thing. What's the point of having terminators, centurions, aggressors and bladeguard veterans? What's the point of having 5 or 6 different battle tanks? Or ork buggies? Make one single datasheet and give that unit/vehicle a few options in order to be able to play it in different ways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote:


As a practical example, let's take the SM Incursor, Infiltrator and Tactical Marine units. Specifically, let's look at their standard guns. They all have Bolters. But GW have decided instead of 1 gun with a special rule on the unit modifying them very slightly, we need 3 different weapons with a different name and the same profile. That's pointless bloat. The special rules would exist whichever way you write those rules but doing it the GW way gives you 2 extra weapons in your 4-and-a-half page list of ranged weapons.


Exactly, that's a perfect example of pointless bloat.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/21 07:57:50



 
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





I'm pretty sure it would be more rules text for all three units to carry a "Boltgun" but then having to specify in the special abilities section if that boltgun has AP-1 or whatever.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Or, you could just give all of them bolters and it would have next to no effect on most games.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Slipspace wrote:
It seems to be a peculiarly 40k thing to believe you need all this bloat just to make units different.


Hit the nail on the head.

Horus Heresy is far from perfect, but it does show how you can make armies composed of basically the same units play very differently from one another through:
A. A few unique units per faction.
B. Simple faction-wide special rules.
C. Enough flexibility in listbuilding to let you take advantage of A and B and build to distinct archetypes.

An army of drop pod assault Night Lords and an army of gunline Imperial Fists feel and play differently even though they're the same basic statline.

This is generally how historicals work, too. A German Gefreiter with a Kar98 and a Soviet Yefreytor with a Mosin-Nagant are both enlisted soldiers with bolt-action rifles and comparable training. On an individual basis they may not be that different. But a German platoon with a pair of MG42s in every squad, able to divide into fireteams with independent frontage, plays very differently from a Soviet platoon equipped entirely with rifles that must operate as a single cohesive unit. It is not necessary to come up with minute stat variations between German soldiers and Soviet soldiers to make them play distinctly.

Or look at Epic. Because the game isn't infantry-focused there isn't that much of a difference, stat-wise, between squads of Guard, Orks, or Marines. What makes them feel different is that Marines are elite and much harder to remove by morale and have great C&C, while Orks are dangerous and cheap but have awful C&C so getting them to do what you want is a struggle, and Guard are more or less average but have access to lots of organic fire support. Chaos Marines are, by the stats, the same as loyalists, but they lack ATSKNF and that makes them far more susceptible to morale, so they aren't nearly as stalwart as their loyalist counterparts. These are just some very simple, straightforward rules leveraging existing rules constructs (ie C&C and morale rules that actually matter), distinguishing units and armies from one another in flavorful ways without getting bogged down in minutiae.

I would agree with the idea that you don't strictly need Dire Avengers and Tempestus Scions to have radically different stats and abilities just to make Eldar and Guard feel distinct. It's a particularly apt example since the structure of those armies is so different- by design, Guard are going to be the slow rolling sledgehammer faction while Eldar are fast and surgical, so the way 'medium elite infantry with a short-ranged gun' fits into those paradigms will differ. Layer on some simple traits to reflect the character/flavor of each faction and you're good to go.

I don't begrudge anyone who enjoys the current amount of detail in some of the mechanics, but this is certainly not the only way to differentiate the factions. Particularly when some of the major distinctions aren't modeled in the first place- why should we care about the exact differences between a shoota and a bolter when an Ork Boy and a Space Marine are equally reactive and coordinated on the battlefield?

   
Made in us
Boosting Black Templar Biker






Completely agree with the above, I could easily see Dire Avengers and Tempestus Scions have very similar stats and weapon profiles.

I would love if 40k was more of "simple rules for your faction" to make them distinct instead of "six layers of rules for your faction oh and half your army is flooded with rules bloat". While complexity can be nice and is a fast route to depth, it also is a fast way to making the game difficult, slow, or obtuse to a newcomer.

Space Wolves being Space Marines that were good at the ol'counterattack was a fine differentiation. Since then we have a lot, lot, more options mechanically to make them different and GW is currently using every tool in the toolbox to do so. Makes for a fun betatesting environment but I think 40k would play a lot better if they were far more limiting in which levers they choose to pull when they try to make armies different.

Overly simple example: All Space Marines armies have the same unit and weapon profiles the difference comes from the <stratagems/rites of battle> they have access to.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/21 19:55:17


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Arachnofiend wrote:
I'm pretty sure it would be more rules text for all three units to carry a "Boltgun" but then having to specify in the special abilities section if that boltgun has AP-1 or whatever.


Nope, it's exactly the same amount of special rule text since you just move it from the weapon to the unit. What you do get though is one third of the number of different weapons across the units since they all now wield Bolters. TBH, I'd probably go further and just delete the special weapon rules from Infiltrators and Incursors anyway. They already have niches that they fill with their other abilities and equipment, they don't need special rules for their weapons too.
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

Slipspace wrote:
TBH, I'd probably go further and just delete the special weapon rules from Infiltrators and Incursors anyway. They already have niches that they fill with their other abilities and equipment, they don't need special rules for their weapons too.

This is what I would do, why does every unit need it's own bespoke bolter or bolt pistol?
I used to be able to remember every weapon profile by heart, now I need to check "did they get the bolter that's +1 AP, or +6 range?" every time.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

Well its interesting comparing the old system to today's.

Originally a Guardsman with a lasgun was 0-12" range +1 to hit, -1 armour save. All other stats equal.
That is at close range a 11.1% chance of wounding a marine.
At long range a 8.3% chance.

Today its rapid fire, no save mod.
Close range the same - 11.1%
Long range worse - 5.6%

But there are fewer modifiers so a simpler calculation to do.

But yes overall I would love to roll less dice. I love playing epic and while you get big loads of dice that means say one or 2 dozen (and there is no wound roll). In 40k to fire my lasgun squad at close range using orders I have 36 lasgun shots and D6 grenade shots.

Why can't first rank second rank order be changed to something like the wall of fire means it is impossible for the enemy to avoid being caught in the web of laser bolts. All lasguns auto hit.

Statistically that is the same result (18 hits) as rolling 36 dice, and I still have to do all the wound and armour stuff. But hey, that is starting to speed things up.

Currently things have got a little mental. This is a legitimate potential firing process.
Calculate number of shots and any modifiers. Roll shots. Roll to wound. Choose best armour save. Roll armour save. Roll damage. Roll feel no pain save.
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

It honestly seems like 40k assumes the dice rolls being the game in and of themselves.
The game is about positioning buff characters and utilising strategems to push your attacks and/or defence as far as you can.

This dominates every level of the game from army lists to tactics. There's very little opportunity to do much besides.

When playing Legion I have much more to consider; C&C, suppression, etc.
Yet also far less to keep track of; auras, strats, etc.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 kirotheavenger wrote:
It honestly seems like 40k assumes the dice rolls being the game in and of themselves.
The game is about positioning buff characters and utilising strategems to push your attacks and/or defence as far as you can.

This dominates every level of the game from army lists to tactics. There's very little opportunity to do much besides.

When playing Legion I have much more to consider; C&C, suppression, etc.
Yet also far less to keep track of; auras, strats, etc.


That's the main reason I don't view 40k as any sort of tactical experience and I'm generally sceptical of any claims about the depth and skill in the game. Other games require you to use positioning, movement and factors other than straight-up damage to win. 40k lacks almost any of that, barring some very superficial aura positioning and standing on objectives, most of which is just a case of remembering to do stuff. Too much of the game revolves around the dice rolls themselves, rather than having those rolls be the reward of utilising other mechanics like positioning and suppression.
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

Agreed with you slipspace.

This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in gb
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation




Elite close combat units were always a bit crap in wh and 40k if they only had one attack so i can see the argument for them having 2 though. Largely agree with OP though.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Dai wrote:
Elite close combat units were always a bit crap in wh and 40k if they only had one attack so i can see the argument for them having 2 though. Largely agree with OP though.


2 is fine, I think. The problem we have now is we're getting up to 3, 4 or even more attacks per model in close combat. I remember when the Indomitus box was being previewed and the designer was talking about the SM Outriders and explaining how great it was that they get 6 attacks each when they charge. I rolled my eyes so hard at that. In 3rd edition I don't think there were many models that got more than 3 or 4 attacks, and those were things like SM Captains or Hive Tyrants. Now some random biker gets 6 attacks. If he's a Blood Angels Outrider Sgt he gets 8 attacks in assault doctrine. It's just such an unsophisticated way to represent a unit's increased melee power.
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





Slipspace wrote:
Dai wrote:
Elite close combat units were always a bit crap in wh and 40k if they only had one attack so i can see the argument for them having 2 though. Largely agree with OP though.


2 is fine, I think. The problem we have now is we're getting up to 3, 4 or even more attacks per model in close combat. I remember when the Indomitus box was being previewed and the designer was talking about the SM Outriders and explaining how great it was that they get 6 attacks each when they charge. I rolled my eyes so hard at that. In 3rd edition I don't think there were many models that got more than 3 or 4 attacks, and those were things like SM Captains or Hive Tyrants. Now some random biker gets 6 attacks. If he's a Blood Angels Outrider Sgt he gets 8 attacks in assault doctrine. It's just such an unsophisticated way to represent a unit's increased melee power.
Exactly this.

This is how you get so so many more dice thrown around. 'Attack' creed is certainly a thing.
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

It's even worse when you get horde units like Orks throwing around 4 attacks per grunt that you see just how mind bogglingly bad the problem has become.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's even worse when you get horde units like Orks throwing around 4 attacks per grunt that you see just how mind bogglingly bad the problem has become.


I'd like to point out that a unit of ork boyz has never thrown about less attacks on average than it has in 9th.

In 5th getting your entire mob in combat was extremely easy, and they had 2 attacks base, one for charging and one for slugga+choppa. Throwing 80 dice plus nob was super easy.

In 9th you get only 10-12 models to fight on average, they have get an extra attack from the choppa and maybe one from being above 20. With the new codex you only get 4 attacks when the right kind of Waaagh! is called.

So, the number of dice you roll for boyz has almost halved - the only mind boggling part about this is how people still haven't understood that a good portion of melee horde units are just ablative wounds.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/22 13:25:27


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's even worse when you get horde units like Orks throwing around 4 attacks per grunt that you see just how mind bogglingly bad the problem has become.


Nah, due to the fighting phase rules it's very hard to get more than 10 dudes into engagement range. So in real life a 10 man SM squad rolls the same dice of a 30 man boyz squad. Typically 40 attacks at most. That's also my experience, my 10 Blood Claws typically rolls the same amount of dice (4 per model, hitting on 2s and with AP-1 or AP-2 on basic free stuff) of horde squads, if not more as boyz not always get their 4th attack.

10 man squads of wyches can have even more attacks though.

I practise it's not the horde squads that typically make players roll a ton of dice, it's the elite squads!! 6 Aggressors roll many more dice than 30 shoota boyz as another example, up to 108 vs 60+exploding 6s (or 90/60 if using the upcoming codex). Of course with much higher BS, AP in 1-2 turns and also access to re-rolls.


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Jidmah wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's even worse when you get horde units like Orks throwing around 4 attacks per grunt that you see just how mind bogglingly bad the problem has become.


I'd like to point out that a unit of ork boyz has never thrown about less attacks on average than it has in 9th.

In 5th getting your entire mob in combat was extremely easy, and they had 2 attacks base, one for charging and one for slugga+choppa. Throwing 80 dice plus nob was super easy.

In 9th you get only 10-12 models to fight on average, they have get an extra attack from the choppa and maybe one from being above 20. With the new codex you only get 4 attacks when the right kind of Waaagh! is called.

So, the number of dice you roll for boyz has almost halved - the only mind boggling part about this is how people still haven't understood that a good portion of melee horde units are just ablative wounds.


That's pretty much missing the point of what's being discussed. Attack inflation is a thing in 40k and it's fairly stupid that any unit could potentially throw 80 attack dice for any reason. Even 30 or 40 is unnecessary IMO. There are more elegant mechanics that could be used to represent the same thing as we have now.
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

Definitely. A lot of attacks per model can work in a system where you have limitations on how many models can attack.

For instance in WHFB, Witch Elves each had 3 attacks (1 base, +1 for 2 weapons, +1 for Frenzy). But only the models actually in base contact with an enemy model are able to make those 3 attacks. The rest either cannot attack or can only make 1 attack, depending on their position relative to a model in base contact.

LOTR has a similar situation when it comes to models equipped with spears. They can attack by being in base contact with a friendly model in base contact with an enemy, but can only make 1 attack when they do so, regardless of how many attacks they otherwise would have.

The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

Ah I thought Orks used to be 1 attack base and forgot about the bonus for charging.
So that particular problem has always been there
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: