Switch Theme:

Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)!  [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
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Gathering the Informations.

epronovost wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:

Ehh..."superhuman" is subjective.


No it's not. Humans can't live for thousands of years (even with magic rejuvenation drugs, humans seldom live more than a few centuries and guardsmen don't have access to such things), Eldars do. Eldars can dodge bullets with relative ease and have superhuman reflex and run as fast as horses. They have senses sharper than any human. They are all psykers. They are also more intelligent and completely obsessive to a point that humans cannot comprehend unless they are mentally ill.

The "they are all psykers" bit is a bit of a misnomer. They all have some level of psychic activity. Unless they're Warlocks, Farseers, or one of the other specialists actually engaged in those Paths it isn't really a big deal.

Worth mentioning that wraithbone is "psychic" plastic. Part of the psyker bit with Aeldari is that they use it to interact with wraithbone.

But the comparison is better than you seem to think. Cadians, Death Korps, Steel Legion, or Mordians? They aren't too far off the mark from what the Aspect Warriors are, comparatively: continually training and martially competent.


A human can only train for a few years and perform for a few more before age catches up with him. An Eldar can fight and train for centuries continuously. No Guardsmen can do that. Hell most Space Marines or Sisters (thanks to rejuvenat can't do that). The eldest Space Marines isn't considered old by Eldar standards.

Cadians and Death Korps are basically starting to train at warfare from 7-8 years old up until they're 15-17, when they'll start to be inducted into reserve positions to get put into mainline combat.

Additionally, Aspect Warriors are considered an aberration not the rule. They can't shed their warmask, and are stuck on their Path. It results in them isolating themselves from Aeldari society at large at the Aspect Temples. The age thing is kind of pointless in that regard.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/14 04:59:36


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





epronovost wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:

Ehh..."superhuman" is subjective.


No it's not. Humans can't live for thousands of years (even with magic rejuvenation drugs, humans seldom live more than a few centuries and guardsmen don't have access to such things), Eldars do. Eldars can dodge bullets with relative ease and have superhuman reflex and run as fast as horses. They have senses sharper than any human. They are all psykers. They are also more intelligent and completely obsessive to a point that humans cannot comprehend unless they are mentally ill.

But the comparison is better than you seem to think. Cadians, Death Korps, Steel Legion, or Mordians? They aren't too far off the mark from what the Aspect Warriors are, comparatively: continually training and martially competent.


A human can only train for a few years and perform for a few more before age catches up with him. An Eldar can fight and train for centuries continuously. No Guardsmen can do that. Hell most Space Marines or Sisters (thanks to rejuvenat can't do that). The eldest Space Marines isn't considered old by Eldar standards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
first off the guard isn't a monolith. Some regiments possess incredible infantry, and the lasgun has incredible variation in its capabilities.


Yeah, and comparatively speaking the lasgun is poor compared to a thing like a bolter, a gauss weapon or even a shuriken weapon.


If your're playing them right all you want to do is sit there in your deployment zone and roll dice.


Or you are using Breacher teams and crisis suits to make a "Tau bomb", a staple of the Tau style since their inception (well not with Breachers, but Tau air cavalry was something you could do and make work for a long time).
You're reinforcing the idea that standard infantry squads should be good for nothing other than staying still in the backline. Under no circumstances should you be able to advance and engage in more dynamic play with them. Get battlesuits or specalized infantry if you want to do that!

That's the whole probelm with standard infantry and why no one runs them. Their role is to sit there and / or die.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




That Whiteshield stratagem would have been nice pre-DE and Ad-Mech. Now the lethality of the game has increased so much that multiple blobs of 30 conscripts can be killed in a single turn.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
You're reinforcing the idea that standard infantry squads should be good for nothing other than staying still in the backline. Under no circumstances should you be able to advance and engage in more dynamic play with them. Get battlesuits or specalized infantry if you want to do that!

That's the whole probelm with standard infantry and why no one runs them. Their role is to sit there and / or die.
That's why I like the Actions system that GW introduced in 9th. I think that should be expanded upon to give things other stuff to do.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

H.B.M.C. wrote:This is why the "lose more" morale mechanics should be replaced with a pinning/suppression mechanic.

Unit fails a "morale test"? Can't hold an objective! Unit fails a "suppression test"? Can't advance/charge/has to go to ground/whatever.


This would instantly make the game more interesting.

More die cuz some died is a fething lame excuse for morale.
   
Made in gb
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot





Luton, England

Where does the creep end? The base rules of this edition are great but the continued cycle of upping resilience -> upping damage -> upping resilience -> upping damage is pilling on meaningless rules bloat and making the game a whole lot worse.

Example: This edition has from the start increased wounds on infantry models and also increased the general AP of standard attacks (doctrines, choppas, blade artists etc...) - then they have upped the standard damage of many weapons and given many armies army wide invulnerable saves (Seriously: Sisters, Drukhari, admech, 1KSons, Daemons, Deathwing/Ravenwing, custodes, Harlies, Beast Snaggas and now BT all have access to army wide ++) - then they have given many units -1 damage abilities and are starting to bring in ignore invulnerable save abilities! Where does it end?

I think the game would be much better if the codex's stuck with the base rules levels, it would make everything alot easier to balance and take alot less rules that end up just being list design decisions where you can manage to randomly counter an opponents ability - that approach would likely sell less new books to people though.....

Apologies for the salt, I'm not normally negative towards the game but the continuing spiral of this rule trumps the last rule, trumps the previous rule is really sucking the excitement out of new releases.

The base game has a great set of offensive VS defensive rules to play with. Weapons have Str, AP, Damage, hit modifiers and number of attacks - defensively we have T, saves, wounds, hit modifiers and FNP. They should be using these paramitters to make units more deadly/resilient (resilience is the main thing they keep adding bespoke rules for).
Vehicles should have more wounds added and they should explore Toughness higher than 8, this increases survivability but doesnt require remembering any new rules and it doesn't fully negate certain armies rules or weapon choices - adding flat unmodifiable rules that ignore the base rules of attacks (like invuln saves and can't be wounded on less than) is just stupid and very hard to balance as they have the same effect on a bolter as they do a volcano cannon - I haven't even mentioned the new relics that turn all damage into 1 damage for F's sake!

30,000pts
12,000pts
2,000pts
4,000pts
4,000pts
2,000pts
4,000pts
2,000pts 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







epronovost wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Unit fails a "morale test"? Can't hold an objective! Unit fails a "suppression test"? Can't advance/charge/has to go to ground/whatever.


I got to admit that the moral rules of the game would deserve to gain some depth.

Given there doesn't appear to be a faction in the game with morals - though there are some which you could describe as amoral rather than immoral - the lack of moral rules seems to fit.

The lack of morale rules in a wargame, on the other hand...

 Kanluwen wrote:
Additionally, Aspect Warriors are considered an aberration not the rule. They can't shed their warmask, and are stuck on their Path. It results in them isolating themselves from Aeldari society at large at the Aspect Temples. The age thing is kind of pointless in that regard.

Aspect Warriors can absolutely move from the Path of the Warrior - it's Exarchs who are stuck. Part of the background for Warlocks used to be that they'd completed the Path of the Warrior before moving onto the Path of the Seer, and were calling on some of their old skills when going into combat, if not to the same extent as when they were an Aspect Warrior.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Voss wrote:
epronovost wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Cadians are evidently superhumans. They can survive volcano cannon shots better than any other type of Guardsman.



But not as well as actual tough superhumans like Space Marines, Orks or Necrons unfortunately for them.


Barring special faction traits (like BT vowing to have a 5++, or iron hands having bits of metal stuck on for their 6++), all of those die slightly easier than a cadian does. S16, D2d6 and -5 AP just doesn't care.*


*assuming some random supplement or other hasn't changed the stats again.


You forgot transhuman physiology strat which is just a better version of that of the Cadian or the beast snagga equivalent one.
==
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Kanluwen wrote:
epronovost wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Guardsmen range from being equivalent to Aspect Warriors for the Aeldari('career soldiers' who are locked into one methodology of warfare) to the Guardians of the Aeldari('volunteer soldiers' who go to war maybe once in their lifetime, then never go again).


Except that Aeldari are superhumans with a more advanced technology and train for literal millennia while guardsmen for a decade and a half at best. That's not a great comparison.

Ehh..."superhuman" is subjective.

But the comparison is better than you seem to think. Cadians, Death Korps, Steel Legion, or Mordians? They aren't too far off the mark from what the Aspect Warriors are, comparatively: continually training and martially competent.
Sure, both Guardsmen and Aspect Warriors are highly trained proffessional soldiers. Aspect Warriors have always been better though, because they build on a superior base. Truly superior Guardsmen form Veteran squads, which would still probably be inferior to Aspect Warriors in terms of raw ability, Eldar just being faster by nature.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Dysartes wrote:


 Kanluwen wrote:
Additionally, Aspect Warriors are considered an aberration not the rule. They can't shed their warmask, and are stuck on their Path. It results in them isolating themselves from Aeldari society at large at the Aspect Temples. The age thing is kind of pointless in that regard.

Aspect Warriors can absolutely move from the Path of the Warrior - it's Exarchs who are stuck. Part of the background for Warlocks used to be that they'd completed the Path of the Warrior before moving onto the Path of the Seer, and were calling on some of their old skills when going into combat, if not to the same extent as when they were an Aspect Warrior.
Yeah, this. Exarchs are functionally Eldar Space Marines. They cannot return to 'normal life' and do nothing but train, pray, and hone their skills wearing millenia-old armor infused with the spirits of dead exarchs.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/14 13:40:10


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Gathering the Informations.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Additionally, Aspect Warriors are considered an aberration not the rule. They can't shed their warmask, and are stuck on their Path. It results in them isolating themselves from Aeldari society at large at the Aspect Temples. The age thing is kind of pointless in that regard.

Aspect Warriors can absolutely move from the Path of the Warrior - it's Exarchs who are stuck. Part of the background for Warlocks used to be that they'd completed the Path of the Warrior before moving onto the Path of the Seer, and were calling on some of their old skills when going into combat, if not to the same extent as when they were an Aspect Warrior.

Fair call! I didn't really feel the need to differentiate between the Exarch and the rest of the Temple under their stewardship.

I still feel like it's a good comparison.
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 WisdomLS wrote:

I think the game would be much better if the codex's stuck with the base rules levels, it would make everything alot easier to balance and take alot less rules that end up just being list design decisions where you can manage to randomly counter an opponents ability - that approach would likely sell less new books to people though.....


As with the people claiming that the core rules are fantastic and that the codices are the only problem, I think those arguing for just playing the "base game" forget just how little content is actually in the "base game".

I sincerely hope, for example, that you don't expect any of your units to have special rules. Don't forget that if you're just playing the "base game" then that means no special rules for anyone. And I don't just mean 'no super-extra-special bespoke rules' because, having removed USRs, every special rule in 40k is now a bespoke special rule.

Expect your character to have an invulnerable save and/or FNP? Sorry, those are exclusively special rules and bespoke ones at that.

Deep Strike? Infiltrate? I see no such USRs in the rulebook.

If you think a game with nothing but dry unit statlines and dry weapon statlines sounds fun (and in a ruleset that only cares about killing and killing more) then I can only say that we fundamentally disagree on what makes a game interesting. To me at least, it sounds like the first draft of a game designed by a man whose head has been replaced by a filing cabinet.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 vipoid wrote:
 WisdomLS wrote:

I think the game would be much better if the codex's stuck with the base rules levels, it would make everything alot easier to balance and take alot less rules that end up just being list design decisions where you can manage to randomly counter an opponents ability - that approach would likely sell less new books to people though.....


As with the people claiming that the core rules are fantastic and that the codices are the only problem, I think those arguing for just playing the "base game" forget just how little content is actually in the "base game".

I sincerely hope, for example, that you don't expect any of your units to have special rules. Don't forget that if you're just playing the "base game" then that means no special rules for anyone. And I don't just mean 'no super-extra-special bespoke rules' because, having removed USRs, every special rule in 40k is now a bespoke special rule.

Expect your character to have an invulnerable save and/or FNP? Sorry, those are exclusively special rules and bespoke ones at that.

Deep Strike? Infiltrate? I see no such USRs in the rulebook.

If you think a game with nothing but dry unit statlines and dry weapon statlines sounds fun (and in a ruleset that only cares about killing and killing more) then I can only say that we fundamentally disagree on what makes a game interesting. To me at least, it sounds like the first draft of a game designed by a man whose head has been replaced by a filing cabinet.


You obviously know what they meant....

Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in us
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets





 vipoid wrote:
 WisdomLS wrote:

I think the game would be much better if the codex's stuck with the base rules levels, it would make everything alot easier to balance and take alot less rules that end up just being list design decisions where you can manage to randomly counter an opponents ability - that approach would likely sell less new books to people though.....


As with the people claiming that the core rules are fantastic and that the codices are the only problem, I think those arguing for just playing the "base game" forget just how little content is actually in the "base game".

I sincerely hope, for example, that you don't expect any of your units to have special rules. Don't forget that if you're just playing the "base game" then that means no special rules for anyone. And I don't just mean 'no super-extra-special bespoke rules' because, having removed USRs, every special rule in 40k is now a bespoke special rule.

Expect your character to have an invulnerable save and/or FNP? Sorry, those are exclusively special rules and bespoke ones at that.

Deep Strike? Infiltrate? I see no such USRs in the rulebook.

If you think a game with nothing but dry unit statlines and dry weapon statlines sounds fun (and in a ruleset that only cares about killing and killing more) then I can only say that we fundamentally disagree on what makes a game interesting. To me at least, it sounds like the first draft of a game designed by a man whose head has been replaced by a filing cabinet.
Ah yes, because by taking such a very specific view. We can say that the core book has no units either. The core book has nothing interesting at all to offer since you can't play a game with no unit statlines or units. Seriously this is how you chose to frame things?
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
You obviously know what they meant....


I'm astonished that someone who claims to possess the power to read minds across time and space is wasting their time on an internet forum.

Surely you should be out using that power to make your fortune?

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





Even if the core rulebook had USRs, unit special rules wouldn't be core rules they'd be codex rules. Since we're apparently ignoring that the core rules tell you exactly how to read a datasheet.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/14 16:58:32


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




epronovost wrote:
Voss wrote:
epronovost wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Cadians are evidently superhumans. They can survive volcano cannon shots better than any other type of Guardsman.



But not as well as actual tough superhumans like Space Marines, Orks or Necrons unfortunately for them.


Barring special faction traits (like BT vowing to have a 5++, or iron hands having bits of metal stuck on for their 6++), all of those die slightly easier than a cadian does. S16, D2d6 and -5 AP just doesn't care.*


*assuming some random supplement or other hasn't changed the stats again.


You forgot transhuman physiology strat which is just a better version of that of the Cadian or the beast snagga equivalent one.
==
¨

Which only works on half the marines since for some weird reason only Primaris and Deathwing terminators get to be transhuman space marines.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
And it's completely irrelevant unless you really enjoy pointing such a gun at infantry.
It's completely relevant. It's a level of incongruity that shouldn't be in the game.


Unless you want to move to a D12 or D20 system so you accurately reflect how a giant cannon will vaporize a dude then you have to deal with what the system has to work with.

   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





to me it has never been clearer that 40k needs to be completely redesigned as a game. i consider 2,000 points to be just a tedious mess of 3 hours. Sometimes amusing to watch a battle report on youtube, but incredibly underwhelming to go through all the effort to set everything up, just for the game to play out in this ridiculous strategem fog of war.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
And it's completely irrelevant unless you really enjoy pointing such a gun at infantry.
It's completely relevant. It's a level of incongruity that shouldn't be in the game.


Unless you want to move to a D12 or D20 system so you accurately reflect how a giant cannon will vaporize a dude then you have to deal with what the system has to work with.


The problem isn't and has never been the size of the dice. The problem is and has always been GW's insistence on artificially holding certain stats in place while buffing the whole rest of the game around them. If you roll back ten years of stat creep you may find that the game can work perfectly well with a larger range of scales/sizes than GW currently supports, and still using just d6s.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





 vipoid wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
You obviously know what they meant....


I'm astonished that someone who claims to possess the power to read minds across time and space is wasting their time on an internet forum.

Surely you should be out using that power to make your fortune?


I really hate this obtuse way of arguing on the internet. It's so childish.


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
And it's completely irrelevant unless you really enjoy pointing such a gun at infantry.
It's completely relevant. It's a level of incongruity that shouldn't be in the game.


Unless you want to move to a D12 or D20 system so you accurately reflect how a giant cannon will vaporize a dude then you have to deal with what the system has to work with.


The problem isn't and has never been the size of the dice. The problem is and has always been GW's insistence on artificially holding certain stats in place while buffing the whole rest of the game around them. If you roll back ten years of stat creep you may find that the game can work perfectly well with a larger range of scales/sizes than GW currently supports, and still using just d6s.


This particular complaint is that infantry can't be buffed otherwise this massive gun doesn't make sense. How exactly are you allowing any such buffs without changing the dice or creating some byzantine rules exceptions?


   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 Sim-Life wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
You obviously know what they meant....


I'm astonished that someone who claims to possess the power to read minds across time and space is wasting their time on an internet forum.

Surely you should be out using that power to make your fortune?


I really hate this obtuse way of arguing on the internet. It's so childish.


Well if people are going to claim to know my precise mindset whilst entirely ignoring my point, I'm not sure what you expect.

Know the funny thing?

No, contrary to VladimirHerzog's psychic powers, I actually didn't know what the person I responded to was arguing for. Maybe Index era? Though even that, quite apart from being dull as dishwater, still included stuff well outside of the "base rules".

The point I was trying to make was that people who argue for just using the core rules (or some variation thereof) seem not to appreciate just how shallow and anaemic the base rules are. I gave the example of USRs because the core rules don't have any USRs to draw upon (so it's not like you can argue for basing every faction around the use of those rules).

And if you're going to make the argument (as others already have) that special rules are fine because the core rules allow for their eexistence then that just puts us right back to where we started. The core rules allow for stratagems, thus any number of stratagems is fine. The core rules allow for armies to bloat themselves to death with bespoke special rules (indeed, given that there are no USRs, the use of bespoke special rules is all but mandated), thus armies can just bloat themselves to death with special rules as they are currently.

My point is, the core rules are the problem, not the solution, and any attempt to 'get back to them' only serves to highlight that fact. Because you either accept them for the shallow, lifeless rules that they are (and play Warhammer 40k - A Game of Spreadsheets) or else you accept that any supposed cut-off point between the core rules and the current state of the game is going to be entirely arbitrary. Because if you include not only the core rules but anything technically allowed by the core rules then, by definition, you include absolutely everything currently in the game as it stands.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/14 19:28:31


 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Daedalus81 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
And it's completely irrelevant unless you really enjoy pointing such a gun at infantry.
It's completely relevant. It's a level of incongruity that shouldn't be in the game.


Unless you want to move to a D12 or D20 system so you accurately reflect how a giant cannon will vaporize a dude then you have to deal with what the system has to work with.


The problem isn't and has never been the size of the dice. The problem is and has always been GW's insistence on artificially holding certain stats in place while buffing the whole rest of the game around them. If you roll back ten years of stat creep you may find that the game can work perfectly well with a larger range of scales/sizes than GW currently supports, and still using just d6s.


This particular complaint is that infantry can't be buffed otherwise this massive gun doesn't make sense. How exactly are you allowing any such buffs without changing the dice or creating some byzantine rules exceptions?



I think the complain is more along the line that against a weapon designed to destroy super heavy vehicles you shouldnt even be able to buff survivability on a normal human. If you used a D100 2-100 should still wound.

If you made it only work on weapons below str 8 like the new orc version I wouldn't mind as much but for a str 16 gun?

It is like increasing my own chances of surviving a direct missile(nuclear warhead or not) strike by about 100000000%. I would still instantly die. Changing the amount of 0s in the odds(larger dice) changes nothing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/14 19:35:45


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

 Kanluwen wrote:


I do not think that is such a wild set of circumstances to be 100% all the time active. Stop pretending that it is.


I think it’s fairly easily currently using a cheap pysker to get +2 save on a squad (cover or take cover), this new option means I have more tools in order to boost blobs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
epronovost wrote:
(and people endlessly complained about it, especially Marines fan who were offended that an army filled with anti-tank weapons would wreck their elite infantry like any random guardsman.


I think there are multiple fixes for that, personally I like making it harder to hit infantry with anti tank weapons (and harder to hit tanks with dedicated anti infantry weapons).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/14 21:36:01


 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




The_Real_Chris wrote:
I think there are multiple fixes for that, personally I like making it harder to hit infantry with anti tank weapons (and harder to hit tanks with dedicated anti infantry weapons).


Except it would be both a bit strange (why would a cannon struggle to hit infantry or a grenade launcher or a lascannon, a precise beam of light, than a rifle) and also it would leave the problem of weapons clearly designed for twin tasks like plasma guns, autocannons, battle cannon, etc. usually, anti-tank weapons have a low shot count and are thus not ideal for targeting infantry due to the point system. That's a "fix" with its own set of issue that would create its own legitimate gripe. It's a solution that to me makes sense for some weapons like missile launchers or grenade launcher (shooting krak projectiles) or maybe some heavy tank guns like the previously mentioned Volcano Cannon.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/14 22:48:20


 
   
Made in ca
Hauptmann




Hogtown

epronovost wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
I think there are multiple fixes for that, personally I like making it harder to hit infantry with anti tank weapons (and harder to hit tanks with dedicated anti infantry weapons).


Except it would be both a bit strange (why would a cannon struggle to hit infantry or a grenade launcher or a lascannon, a precise beam of light, than a rifle) and also it would leave the problem of weapons clearly designed for twin tasks like plasma guns, autocannons, battle cannon, etc. usually, anti-tank weapons have a low shot count and are thus not ideal for targeting infantry due to the point system. That's a "fix" with its own set of issue that would create its own legitimate gripe. It's a solution that to me makes sense for some weapons like missile launchers or grenade launcher (shooting krak projectiles) or maybe some heavy tank guns like the previously mentioned Volcano Cannon.


There are a few ways around it. Many historical games give infantry a better "save" against a round fired from a tank's main turret weapon. This represents the fact that it's actually incredibly difficult to hit a single person who can go to ground, and whose squad can spread out, with a projectile fired from a cannon that's intended to pierce rather than burst. I'd imagine a shot fired from a melta weapon could be analogous to this. You're not letting off a quick succession of shots from a bolter or other semi-automatic or automatic weapon that has a great chance of hitting a single person, but taking one shot from a weapon intended to hit a large target. The truth is that it's actually quite difficult to hit a target at range in a firefight.

That save is then reduced or removed when firing a high explosive round at an infantry unit which is liable to be caught in the shrapnel explosion. Plasma cannons or anti-infantry weapon-launched grenades for example.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/10/15 00:36:35


Thought for the day
 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
And it's completely irrelevant unless you really enjoy pointing such a gun at infantry.
It's completely relevant. It's a level of incongruity that shouldn't be in the game.


Unless you want to move to a D12 or D20 system so you accurately reflect how a giant cannon will vaporize a dude then you have to deal with what the system has to work with.


Granularity of the dice has absolutely nothing to do with a mechanic clunkily making a tank more vulnerable to immensely damaging weapons than squishy infantrymen.

For the stratagem as a whole, there are lots of ways to model increased durability within a D6 system without Transhuman-style rules. Eg you could write it as giving them +1T and thus make them more resilient to small arms without affecting how they stand up to anti-Titan weapons.

For the core game mechanics, a '4x S = auto wound' mechanic wouldn't be unreasonable either. There's no meaningful difference in how dead a Catachan hit by a Volcano Cannon is versus a Catachan hit by a Volcano cannon- and it'd at least be better verisimilitude than true grit and courage allowing a Cadian to take it on his grizzled chin.

At a very basic level, it's an annoyingly inconsistent way to boost Guardsman resilience that further feeds into wombo-combo design and adds more rules to keep track of, rather than working within the framework established by the core rules.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/15 01:50:47


   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Las wrote:
There are a few ways around it. Many historical games give infantry a better "save" against a round fired from a tank's main turret weapon. This represents the fact that it's actually incredibly difficult to hit a single person who can go to ground, and whose squad can spread out, with a projectile fired from a cannon that's intended to pierce rather than burst. I'd imagine a shot fired from a melta weapon could be analogous to this. You're not letting off a quick succession of shots from a bolter or other semi-automatic or automatic weapon that has a great chance of hitting a single person, but taking one shot from a weapon intended to hit a large target. The truth is that it's actually quite difficult to hit a target at range in a firefight.

That save is then reduced or removed when firing a high explosive round at an infantry unit which is liable to be caught in the shrapnel explosion. Plasma cannons or anti-infantry weapon-launched grenades for example.


That could be an idea of reducing the strength (or give a "to wound" penalty to anti-tank weapon) to represent the fact they aren't ideal at getting infantry, but that's precisely the thing that some don't like; the idea that a tank can be "wounded" more easily than an infantryman by a massive weapon. That's why I am personally in favor of those "cannot be wounded bellow X threshold" stratagem. They do add survivability to infantry and can be seen to represent their grit, determination, insensitivity to pain, stupid luck, but also tactical reaction to being targeted by intense enemy fire. At that point between a malus to hit or to wound or a save bonus, its only a question of "vehicle", but the result, what especially matter in gameplay in my opinion, remains the same. All three could be use to represent a faction favored tools or "personality", eldar get malus to wound because they are fast, guards to armor because they know how to hug cover, space marines to toughness for their capacity to shrug of nearly mortal wound, etc.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/15 01:55:28


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 catbarf wrote:

Granularity of the dice has absolutely nothing to do with a mechanic clunkily making a tank more vulnerable to immensely damaging weapons than squishy infantrymen.

For the stratagem as a whole, there are lots of ways to model increased durability within a D6 system without Transhuman-style rules. Eg you could write it as giving them +1T and thus make them more resilient to small arms without affecting how they stand up to anti-Titan weapons.

For the core game mechanics, a '4x S = auto wound' mechanic wouldn't be unreasonable either. There's no meaningful difference in how dead a Catachan hit by a Volcano Cannon is versus a Catachan hit by a Volcano cannon- and it'd at least be better verisimilitude than true grit and courage allowing a Cadian to take it on his grizzled chin.

At a very basic level, it's an annoyingly inconsistent way to boost Guardsman resilience that further feeds into wombo-combo design and adds more rules to keep track of, rather than working within the framework established by the core rules.


+1T is a nice thought, but it doesn't have anywhere near the same effect. Autowound would be ok, I guess? But it just seems kind of pointless to have just to assuage a minor inconsistency -- which I dare say would be considered bloat.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/15 02:57:52


   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Gathering the Informations.

Easiest solution, IMO, is just to add the "Antimaterial" or "Antivehicle" keyword to certain weapons.

Give it a + to Wound/Hit v Vehicles/Monsters and a - to Wound/Hit v Infantry, Bikers, and Cavalry.

Not like there is no precedent either. We had antiaircraft as a rule for how long?
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: