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.

 Galas wrote:
In age of Sigmar "many" weapons have 2 or 3 as damage, but I haven't see one that does a flat 6 in damage. Normally the ones that can do so much damage are always a d6.
I have seen some that do 1d3 in damage, but I think 2 and 3 as flat damage are more common.

The sword wielded by a Spirit of Durthu and the flail used by a Wrath of Khorne Bloodthirster both deal 6 Damage if either model is at full health, and I think there are a few others. Not really related but the Glottkin have a ranged attack that deals 2D6 Damage!

I would expect if a Lascannon - i.e. what is currently a 20 point heavy weapon that is widely available to Imperial armies - does D6 Damage, things like Volcano Cannons will probably deal 2D6 or even 3D6 Damage (or maybe just lots of mortal wounds)

 JimOnMars wrote:
One thing I don't like about the degradation profiles for all units (and bespoke rules in general) is that we are all going to have to memorize all of them.

How long will it be before we get threads on dakka about "that guy" who conveniently "forgets" to degrade his unit?

That's not really applicable. What about the guy who conveniently forgets to reduce hull points? Or Warp Charge dice?
Just saying, I think you are looking for an issue where it doesn't exist in a considerable fashion. No offense.
Source; hasn't been an issue in AoS.

Caederes wrote:

 Galas wrote:
In age of Sigmar "many" weapons have 2 or 3 as damage, but I haven't see one that does a flat 6 in damage. Normally the ones that can do so much damage are always a d6.
I have seen some that do 1d3 in damage, but I think 2 and 3 as flat damage are more common.

The sword wielded by a Spirit of Durthu and the flail used by a Wrath of Khorne Bloodthirster both deal 6 Damage if either model is at full health, and I think there are a few others. Not really related but the Glottkin have a ranged attack that deals 2D6 Damage!

I would expect if a Lascannon - i.e. what is currently a 20 point heavy weapon that is widely available to Imperial armies - does D6 Damage, things like Volcano Cannons will probably deal 2D6 or even 3D6 Damage (or maybe just lots of mortal wounds)

I can totally see something like a Bloodthirsters cutting in half in one single blow a Dreadnought or the cannon of a Baneblade bringing utter destruction to the enemies of the empire. But thats why you pay so many points for them!

Neronoxx wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
One thing I don't like about the degradation profiles for all units (and bespoke rules in general) is that we are all going to have to memorize all of them.

How long will it be before we get threads on dakka about "that guy" who conveniently "forgets" to degrade his unit?

That's not really applicable. What about the guy who conveniently forgets to reduce hull points? Or Warp Charge dice?
Just saying, I think you are looking for an issue where it doesn't exist in a considerable fashion. No offense.
Source; hasn't been an issue in AoS.

If he isn't marking the unit's wounds, we'll know. If it had 8 wounds, I take one off, but he refuses to change it to 7, we'll know, because it's marked.

If he "forgets" his ballistic skill goes down at 7, we better be prepared to remind him.

ClockworkZion wrote:I think 40K players are going to need to get in the habit of game aids, something that it was reliably light in before but are common in a lot of other systems.
I forsee people making cards for their derading units and tracking them Warmahordes style. Though I expect the cards will be MtG style for no reason.

I've been hoping for 40K unit cards for years. When they first started coming out with the Tactical Cards in 6th, I initially thought (and hoped) they'd include unit cards. My hope is they'll be 3X5 or slightly larger, playing card size is too small for my tired old eyes.

Aren't they doing unit cards for at least Stormcasts now in AoS?

Neronoxx wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
One thing I don't like about the degradation profiles for all units (and bespoke rules in general) is that we are all going to have to memorize all of them.

How long will it be before we get threads on dakka about "that guy" who conveniently "forgets" to degrade his unit?

That's not really applicable. What about the guy who conveniently forgets to reduce hull points? Or Warp Charge dice?
Just saying, I think you are looking for an issue where it doesn't exist in a considerable fashion. No offense.
Source; hasn't been an issue in AoS.

While I tend to agree with you on this, how do you know it hasn't been an issue in AOS ?

 streetsamurai wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
One thing I don't like about the degradation profiles for all units (and bespoke rules in general) is that we are all going to have to memorize all of them.

How long will it be before we get threads on dakka about "that guy" who conveniently "forgets" to degrade his unit?

That's not really applicable. What about the guy who conveniently forgets to reduce hull points? Or Warp Charge dice?
Just saying, I think you are looking for an issue where it doesn't exist in a considerable fashion. No offense.
Source; hasn't been an issue in AoS.

While I tend to agree with you on this, how do you know it hasn't been an issue in AOS ?

Cheaters always exist. You can't judge a system based in that people will cheat with it. (Only if the system is specially easy to cheat with it, maybe?) Personally I have never seen anyone forgot to degrade their Gargantuant Creatures. We always keep a D20 at the side of the model. Obviously, YMMV, IMO, ATSKNF, etc...

 Galas wrote:
The problem with a universal degradation rule, even separated in types (Tanks, walkers, etc...) is that even if you distribute the degradation evenly in all of the stats, meele units will suffer more than shooting ones? Why?
Because to a meele walker/vehicle/monster, etc... the loss of movement will hurt much more than a shooting one. And boom, you began with meele being more weak than shooting.

Which can be accounted for in the various units' points costs.

There's no particular reason that two similar models shouldn't be affected the same by damage just because one of them has a melee weapon and the other doesn't, other than for artificial game balance.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not every model inside of those types would start with the same stats so even if they follow the same rules you'd still need to check their profiles to get an idea of what their weakened stats would look like.

That really depends on how complicated the applied system is. If results are applied consistently in a standard, simple manner, then so long as you know the unit's starting profile there is no need to refer back to their card to figure out what it should be at any given time.

 Galas wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
One thing I don't like about the degradation profiles for all units (and bespoke rules in general) is that we are all going to have to memorize all of them.

How long will it be before we get threads on dakka about "that guy" who conveniently "forgets" to degrade his unit?

That's not really applicable. What about the guy who conveniently forgets to reduce hull points? Or Warp Charge dice?
Just saying, I think you are looking for an issue where it doesn't exist in a considerable fashion. No offense.
Source; hasn't been an issue in AoS.

While I tend to agree with you on this, how do you know it hasn't been an issue in AOS ?

Cheaters always exist. You can't judge a system based in that people will cheat with it. (Only if the system is specially easy to cheat with it, maybe?) Personally I have never seen anyone forgot to degrade their Gargantuant Creatures. We always keep a D20 at the side of the model. Obviously, YMMV, IMO, ATSKNF, etc...

Case in point..

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/725278.page

Player caught cheating on camera at the X Wing Worlds.

 insaniak wrote:
I would have gone with something more like 'Below half Wounds, drop all stats by one. Below a quarter wounds, halve remaining Movement value.' Applies to everyone evenly, and is one single formula to remember, regardless of what you're using that day.

That sounds dangerously like a universal rule that might govern more than one unit! We cannot have that.

All must be bespoke. All will be bespoke. We will be bespoke!!!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I would have gone with something more like 'Below half Wounds, drop all stats by one. Below a quarter wounds, halve remaining Movement value.' Applies to everyone evenly, and is one single formula to remember, regardless of what you're using that day.

That sounds dangerously like a universal rule that might govern more than one unit! We cannot have that.

All must be bespoke. All will be bespoke. We will be bespoke!!!

Well, you heard it. He has bespoken... *badumm tssss*

insaniak's right, of course.

Having a different chart for every single big creature is just artificial game balance and there is no reason why a decent hit from a Lascannon somehow has a completely different effect on two units just because one is good at shooting (and doesn't care about HTH) and one is the opposite.

A far simpler and elegant solution would have simply been something along the lines of:

25%-50% wounds = -1 To Hit with HTH and Shooting, halve movement, halve attacks (round up for both)
25% or lower wounds = -2 To Hit with HTH and Shooting, halve movement again, halve attacks (round up for both).

And that's it. For all my bespoke jokes (that ryhmes! HA!), this is a simpler method that would require far less back and forth. As was said earlier, as long as you know the profile of the unit you are using then the above makes things easier.

 SickSix wrote:
My dream of a defiler heavy CSM army may come true! Woot!

The coming of the Defiler Kingdoms has long been prophetic. Let it happen!!!

 Ssgt Carl wrote:
Well, you heard it. He has bespoken... *badumm tssss*

That actually made me grin. Thank you.

 insaniak wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The problem with a universal degradation rule, even separated in types (Tanks, walkers, etc...) is that even if you distribute the degradation evenly in all of the stats, meele units will suffer more than shooting ones? Why?
Because to a meele walker/vehicle/monster, etc... the loss of movement will hurt much more than a shooting one. And boom, you began with meele being more weak than shooting.

Which can be accounted for in the various units' points costs.

There's no particular reason that two similar models shouldn't be affected the same by damage just because one of them has a melee weapon and the other doesn't, other than for artificial game balance.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not every model inside of those types would start with the same stats so even if they follow the same rules you'd still need to check their profiles to get an idea of what their weakened stats would look like.

That really depends on how complicated the applied system is. If results are applied consistently in a standard, simple manner, then so long as you know the unit's starting profile there is no need to refer back to their card to figure out what it should be at any given time.

Comsidering players can often fail to properly do basic addition when building an army (not maliciously, just basic errors) expecting them to mentally adjust a statline based on the number of wounds alone is silly. The charts are going to be here for those who need them, and for those who don't they'll memorize the units they need anyways even if it's not a "standard, simple manner".

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Comsidering players can often fail to properly do basic addition when building an army (not maliciously, just basic errors) expecting them to mentally adjust a statline based on the number of wounds alone is silly. The charts are going to be here for those who need them, and for those who don't they'll memorize the units they need anyways even if it's not a "standard, simple manner".

I'm not saying 'Don't have charts'. I'm saying 'Don't make the system so complicated that charts are required to play the game.'

Having every vehicle with its own chart goes into the latter category. It's edging (for me) too far into 'too little return for the effort required' territory.

Because the current edition doesn't require you to ever check rules. Everyone has them memorized.

That's not what he said.

I'd really love for this thread to go one page without someone deliberately misrepresenting what insaniak has been saying. Guy's been like an immovable island of calm in a sea of bespoke madness, and no one has shown him any respect for his well-reasoned and well-thought out answers.

Jjohnso11 wrote:
Because the current edition doesn't require you to ever check rules. Everyone has them memorized.

Even being in favour of unique-unit degradation charts, this is a strawman.
They aren't saying that. Their point is actually very reasonable and to a more streamlined and competitive game version of 40k, it will work better.

But as I'm a filthy narrative guy, personally I prefer my units to be special snowflakes. For all the hate H.B.M.C has for bespoken rules I love them all!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
there is no reason why a decent hit from a Lascannon somehow has a completely different effect on two units just because one is good at shooting

Hows about the fact that the thing that's good at shooting is likely to have alot of fiddly bits dedicated to shooting? a machine designed to swing a hammer is not likely to have lots of targeting computers or distance calculating optics that can be mashed up by a penetrating anti tank hit.

Similarly, a good penetrating hit on a motorcycle is likely to have a bigger effect on its ability to drive really fast than it would reduce the ability of a building to drive really fast.

Now we aren't throwing around 4 books per army I don't see the problem with opening the units page to see what it degrades to, having a standard across the board for all large models probably wouldn't be as balanced as giving each unit it's own unique treatment and it'll get to the point where everyone ends up knowing them by heart any way.

 Stormonu wrote:

I've been hoping for 40K unit cards for years. When they first started coming out with the Tactical Cards in 6th, I initially thought (and hoped) they'd include unit cards. My hope is they'll be 3X5 or slightly larger, playing card size is too small for my tired old eyes.

Aren't they doing unit cards for at least Stormcasts now in AoS?

One of the two guys who taught me how to play 40k way back in 3rd edition (Chris, I'm talking about you!) used unit cards all the time. They've always been an option that almost everyone just never chose to use.

there's also the possibility that there IS a generic damage table, and that 'bespoke' elements supersede the stuff on that generic table.

 Galas wrote:

Jjohnso11 wrote:
Because the current edition doesn't require you to ever check rules. Everyone has them memorized.

Even being in favour of unique-unit degradation charts, this is a strawman.
They aren't saying that. Their point is actually very reasonable and to a more streamlined and competitive game version of 40k, it will work better.

But as I'm a filthy narrative guy, personally I prefer my units to be special snowflakes. For all the hate H.B.M.C has for bespoken rules I love them all!

This goes without saying. But then, Strawmens are pretty much a dakka speciality

 insaniak wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Comsidering players can often fail to properly do basic addition when building an army (not maliciously, just basic errors) expecting them to mentally adjust a statline based on the number of wounds alone is silly. The charts are going to be here for those who need them, and for those who don't they'll memorize the units they need anyways even if it's not a "standard, simple manner".

I'm not saying 'Don't have charts'. I'm saying 'Don't make the system so complicated that charts are required to play the game.'

Having every vehicle with its own chart goes into the latter category. It's edging (for me) too far into 'too little return for the effort required' territory.

It's not a matter of complexity as much it is a matter of memorization, retention and generally not goofing things up by accident. No matter what you do if there is a statline problems can occur and requiring you to look at changing stats is no more difficult than looking up stats normally when you forget something.

You're basically complaining about needing to do something most players do all the time out of habit. And whilenat is your right to dislike something, it seems rather silly to complain about it when it's no different than checking statlines and unit information in a codex normally. And if you use an army builder (or make one in like Excel) like most players (especially tournament players) you can easilly have all your stats one 1-2 pages negating needingnan entire book just to check them making this "looking up stuff" complaint rather pointless, wouldn't you agree?

So is the game being shorter to play purely going to be because of positioning due to removal of templates, and trimming down the rules, or do you think they are going to make the process of shooting stuff off the table quicker too? That would suck for an army that needs to get close to do anything.

 Stormonu wrote:
Aren't they doing unit cards for at least Stormcasts now in AoS?

Yes they are. Though you don't want to forget to bring your magnifying glass if you want to use them...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's not what he said.

I'd really love for this thread to go one page without someone deliberately misrepresenting what insaniak has been saying. Guy's been like an immovable island of calm in a see of bespoke madness, and no one has shown him any respect for his well-reasoned and well-thought out answers.

Stating no one has been respectful is rather dishonest.

Just because we don't see eye to eye on a concept or believe that there is even an issue doesn't automatically mean we're disrespectuf to the person with the idea. Now if we start attacking the person in question over their ideas (through name callng, attacking heir credibility or generally claiming they aren't respectful of us) then we have a problem.

The fact is that many of us rather feel that the degrading units stuff works just fine as presented and that a "simple system" could actually cause imbalances in the rules by favoring certain units over others (shooting over melee), not actually solve anything (player informtion retention skills when required to adjust statlines even in a singular manner) and lose flavor (neglecting how some its may react to being hurt differently than others, like a Helbrute attacking more but at a lower WS to represent it's crazed fury for being hurt).

Could the game water it down to a single method for all models that degrade or do degrade models in a specific manner b type? Yes. Sould it? Depends on what you want the system to do and represent. I feel that such a forced change wouldn't improve the system in any meaningful way and only cause us to lose more flavorful aspects of the various units, but that's just my take on it.

At the end of the day I will say what I've been saying: if something doesn't work right, or suffers from being too complex or unwieldly we have the advantage of finally having a living ruleset. It can be fixed after launch so if something doesn't sound right now and turns out to be broken after we get some game time in then we can petition changes instead of just sucking it up and dealing with it. As it stands without games these things may look scary or disappointing but with the whole game in hand and some play time we'll be able to form true objective opinions aout everything instead of being limited to snippets of rules and the occasional statline peek.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

macluvin wrote:
So is the game being shorter to play purely going to be because of positioning due to removal of templates, and trimming down the rules, or do you think they are going to make the process of shooting stuff off the table quicker too? That would suck for an army that needs to get close to do anything.

Basic weapons seem to be a bit weaker, at least to horde units like Guard and Orks who generally have 5+ or worse saves. So shooting from the generic weapons will likely not be the tool to remove models in large numbers. Special weapons may not even be the best tool as the flamer has a high potential for damage output but still doesn't have a rend value (maybe if it can light a unit on fire and turn failed saves into more wounds, but as is I'm not holding out for it to be a horde killer). Basically as it stands right now it looks like the best weapons for just straight removinng models with little to no saves are going to be in melee or be heavy weapons that can do large nmbers of wounds and have a signifigant rend value.

Only time will tell for sure but I feel like we may see basic shooting be reduced to a way to soften a unit or finish a heavilly wounded unit off rather than be the only tool used to remove a unit from the table (bar any extreme cases of high numbers of hits and wounds and no passed saves of course).

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Stating no one has been respectful is rather dishonest.

It's hyperbole, not dishonesty. Learn the difference.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Just because we don't see eye to eye on a concept or believe that there is even an issue doesn't automatically mean we're disrespectuf to the person with the idea. Now if we start attacking the person in question over their ideas (through name callng, attacking heir credibility or generally claiming they aren't respectful of us) then we have a problem.

Cute.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The fact is that many of us rather feel that the degrading units stuff works just fine as presented and that a "simple system" could actually cause imbalances in the rules by favoring certain units over others (shooting over melee), not actually solve anything (player informtion retention skills when required to adjust statlines even in a singular manner) and lose flavor (neglecting how some its may react to being hurt differently than others, like a Helbrute attacking more but at a lower WS to represent it's crazed fury for being hurt).

I can see how a flat chart that has negatives to HTH would be imbalanced for shooty units that don't care (ie. big Tau things) just as how a flat chart that has negatives to shooting would be imbalanced for HTH units that don't care about shooting (Dinobots), but how would a system such as the one I suggested be imbalanced? You're worried about problems between HTH and shooting, but if you're reducing everyone's HTH and shooting by the same amount, what difference would it make? Why would that be imbalanced?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Could the game water it down to a single method for all models that degrade or do degrade models in a specific manner b type? Yes. Sould it? Depends on what you want the system to do and represent. I feel that such a forced change wouldn't improve the system in any meaningful way and only cause us to lose more flavorful aspects of the various units, but that's just my take on it.

My biggest fear when GW started going on and on about how great everything will be when it's bespoke was that we'd get a lot of similar rules that use the same basic mechanics but are all just slight variations on the same thing. This fear has been realised with the degradation table. Rather than a simple rule that governs all big/massive creatures/vehicles, every single one will have their own 'bespoke' table. This isn't a good way to right rules. It is inelegant.

Yes, you can memorise it. Yes it won't matter if you've only bought 1 or 2 of them to a game. But it is still bad rules design, and given the far better option is a straight degradation table that affects everyone equally, favouring neither HTH or shooting, and acting at percentage of wounds rather than specific wound amounts per unit, I don't know why they wouldn't do that.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
At the end of the day I will say what I've been saying: if something doesn't work right, or suffers from being too complex or unwieldly we have the advantage of finally having a living ruleset. It can be fixed after launch so if something doesn't sound right now and turns out to be broken after we get some game time in then we can petition changes instead of just sucking it up and dealing with it. As it stands without games these things may look scary or disappointing but with the whole game in hand and some play time we'll be able to form true objective opinions aout everything instead of being limited to snippets of rules and the occasional statline peek.

I'd love to share your optimism, but right now "Living Rulebook" is naught but a cool buzzword to put in your marketing material. They have to show they're willing to fix things that are broken.

 Stormonu wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:...
Aren't they doing unit cards for at least Stormcasts now in AoS?

Even better, for the new units at least, the rules:
1. Are included in the assembly instructions for the box set.
2. Can be downloaded as one-page quick summary (same info) for free from the order page of the box set for the model(s).

Hopefully, they'll do the same thing for the 40k stuff in 8th.

On the memorizing charts thing, I only ever got to play 40k every couple of weeks at my most playing-est time.
I never did memorize the Strength v. Toughness or WS v. WS charts.
I had enough hard core players "remember" them often enough that I took to checking them just about every time we rolled.

Since when has GW ever used percentages for stats changes?

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
Also having seen a lot of tanks in person, the ones made to take a hit have fat armour all over, fair enough not the same all over but none of this no armour on back rubbish, but almost all have very little on the top yet in game top hits counted as side hits, so it was never 'realistic' or tactical. It's not like by angling your facing you could bounce another tanks shots. It was just a needless abstraction for scale and setting.

Such as? Guess M1A2 Abrams is not tank made to take a hit then. After all it's easier to knock out that one from side or rear than from front...

There's actually reason why people try to shoot those from side/rear and why tanks generally point forward. Toughest armour lies funnily enough in the front. And there's logical REASON why that's so and not same elsewhere. If Abrams tried to have same armour everywhere it would be frigging heavy and lot slower(assuming it could move to begin with). That or they would have to sacrifice front armour.

And lol at hard to determine shapes...Really? Takes like few microseconds. In corner cases maybe few seconds. Lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Again, not that big of a deal. It adds less time than chucking templates saves, let alone all the other things they're doing to make the game faster.

That's kind of the point, though... They've stripped out a bunch of stuff to make the game faster, and then chosen to add unneccessary processes elsewhere.

Yes, checking the unit card isn't particularly time-consuming as a one-off. That doesn't change the fact that not needing to check the unit card is faster.

Yunno what would also be faster? Flat to wound rolls.

How's so? Whether you roll 3+ or 4+ doesn't change the speed.

It takes less than a fraction of a second to know the number you need to roll. No different to looking at number in card.

Might just as well go roll a dice to see who won game if you are so obsessed with speed...