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.

I'm all about nerfing the scatterbike. But there are a lot of problems, and many of them are subtle. Subtle to the point that it MAY be easier to adjust points. A points increase is a nerf as well. That's all I'm saying.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm all about nerfing the scatterbike. But there are a lot of problems, and many of them are subtle. Subtle to the point that it MAY be easier to adjust points. A points increase is a nerf as well. That's all I'm saying.

So can you stop trying to use the fact that S6-spam is too good against everything as a justification to change the entire system instead of just changing the S6-spam?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm all about nerfing the scatterbike. But there are a lot of problems, and many of them are subtle. Subtle to the point that it MAY be easier to adjust points. A points increase is a nerf as well. That's all I'm saying.

So can you stop trying to use the fact that S6-spam is too good against everything as a justification to change the entire system instead of just changing the S6-spam?

No, because there are a LOT of other problems that require a system change. Like all the units with 2+ armor, when some should be better than others, but all should be better than 3+. There is nothing between 2+ and 3+ and we need it badly. An Imperial knight is no tougher on the side than a dreadnought or the front of a Chimera? Nope. We need more possible AVs as well. Only having five choices: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 is also becoming disastrous. All these lack of granularity problems are interrelated and difficult to address in the current system. S6 shouldn't be THAT much better than S5, but it is. Spamming just makes it even BETTER.

Martel732 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm all about nerfing the scatterbike. But there are a lot of problems, and many of them are subtle. Subtle to the point that it MAY be easier to adjust points. A points increase is a nerf as well. That's all I'm saying.

So can you stop trying to use the fact that S6-spam is too good against everything as a justification to change the entire system instead of just changing the S6-spam?

No, because there are a LOT of other problems that require a system change. Like all the units with 2+ armor, when some should be better than others, but all should be better than 3+. There is nothing between 2+ and 3+ and we need it badly. An Imperial knight is no tougher on the side than a dreadnought or the front of a Chimera? Nope. We need more possible AVs as well. Only having five choices: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 is also becoming disastrous. All these lack of granularity problems are interrelated and difficult to address in the current system. S6 shouldn't be THAT much better than S5, but it is. Spamming just makes it even BETTER.

Problems like...?

Durability is not solely a function of armour save; T, Wounds, and Invulnerable saves all matter.

Are you telling me that a Centurion (T5/2W/2+), a Terminator (T4/1W/2+/5++) and a Broadside (T4/2W/2+) can't be differentiated enough by the three other variables they get to deal with beyond armour?

A 6-HP Imperial Knight that's immune to the vehicle damage table and has a built-in Invulnerable save is no tougher than the side of a Dreadnaught or the front of a Chimera? Really?

"Are you telling me that a Centurion (T5/2W/2+), a Terminator (T4/1W/2+/5++) and a Broadside (T4/2W/2+) can't be differentiated enough by the three other variables they get to deal with beyond armour? "

Yes, that's what I'm saying because toughness on infantry only has two main values, 3 and 4, and wounds only have two main values, 1 and 2. There is not enough granularity. Period.

This lack of granularity is how terminators end up being what they are.

Also, the magical bump from T4 to T5 and then onto T6 needs to go away as well.

Martel732 wrote:
"Are you telling me that a Centurion (T5/2W/2+), a Terminator (T4/1W/2+/5++) and a Broadside (T4/2W/2+) can't be differentiated enough by the three other variables they get to deal with beyond armour? "

Yes, that's what I'm saying because toughness on infantry only has two main values, 3 and 4, and wounds only have two main values, 1 and 2. There is not enough granularity. Period.

This lack of granularity is how terminators end up being what they are.

Also, the magical bump from T4 to T5 and then onto T6 needs to go away as well.

These "main values" and the "magical bump" you're talking about are constructs of the units that have been designed for this system, not of the fact that we're using d6s.

I'd also appreciate it if you could establish your conclusion by establishing your conclusion instead of by repeating yourself. Tell me why the current system lacks granularity without using the phrase "there is not enough granularity" for a couple of paragraphs.

Well we can agree to disagree on this topic. The fix that works best in my mind involves a die shift. It's an easy way to remove a lot of rerolls and a lot of units stepping on each other's toes.

If you don't agree, I'm happy to read counter proposals. I don't care for Lanrak's tables as they currently are constituted, but they are one possibility I admit.

But personally, I think it would add a lot of list building strategy if terminators were 2+, broadsides/Riptides 3+, marines 4+, aspect armor 5+, etc on a D10.

Even if we keep the AP system, there is now a broad spectrum of APs possible that will clearly differentiate the different weapons. (Like the problem bolters currently have)

We can also stretch the toughness values since we now take tests on a D10. We can slot the scatterlaser in a niche where it is actually not very effective vs marines or medium vehicles.

Martel732 wrote:
...Well we can agree to disagree on this topic...

...I didn't agree to disagree. I'm tired of Proposed Rules getting clogged up with people spouting the "change the dice, solve all problems!" line without a shred of reasoning behind it.

Repeatedly saying "but d10s will give us much-needed granularity!" doesn't prove that d10s will provide much-needed granularity. And telling me "...we can agree to disagree on this topic..." isn't going to convince me you're taking this position for an actual reason.

Well I just posted it up above. More armor types lead to more weapon types. That alone helps break up the stagnation a lot. Assuming you keep the AP system.