8th moaners too soon?

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.

**Maréchal des Logis Walter**

Gitdakka wrote:
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

(.....)
1: echoing previous posts, no wounds or no armour is only possible if the game involves little diversity. Toughness and armour are the characteristcs that define the model's physical resilience and it's ability to survive and said resilience is not dictated by one but by both woring together.

2: replacing a simple roll to wound by a whole range of special rules has got severel risks: those rules are sure to get broken at one point, because the more rules you create, the mor einteractions you create, the riskier it gets. They will be even less specific and efficient at representing the model's fictionnal capabilities. they will be a real pain to learn.

3: the wound thing could make tanks unkillable trhough dedicated weaponry if you keep them as you propose, infantry would get even more slaughtered while heavy would get some many wounds they would fall into a stupid system we're you literally need 30 shoot to kill a 30 man squad assuming they went through and the game as a whole would be a game of two opposites btween cardboard stuff and unkillable monsters, or creeps vesus heroes almost. Futhermore it keeps the stupid bolters can finish a leman russ off thing.

on your point 1. actually we have 3 stats to denote durability; toughness, save and wounds. If I would design 40k again from scratch I'm sure this could be made easier. in fact vehicles used to have armour value instead of armour save and toughness, and damage chart instead of wounds. so they had 3 stats reduced to two while still remaining differentiable in the game. you could for example now combine toughness and wounds into one stat. t1-3=1w t4=2w, t8=20w or something like that and just skip the wound roll. I dont see why it's important to have W and T seperate as the extreme values are not even used. ever seen a model with t8 and 1W? or how about T2 and 6W? No because those two stats are already combined to some extent. So why do we need them both?

I know man

And I advocate that the game turn back to that system for vehicules, because it gave more depth and was actually simpler, apart from fronting designation.

**Sgt. Cortez**

How was it simpler to have 3 different armor values for one unit and a whole damage chart and wound system dedicated to vehicles compared to the same two values you know from every unit in the game?

**Gitdakka**

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
How was it simpler to have 3 different armor values for one unit and a whole damage chart and wound system dedicated to vehicles compared to the same two values you know from every unit in the game?

It was not simple, just saing the idea of less stats has already been in the game. It could be reinvented by giving all models an armor value (same for all facings) instead of toughness and wounds.

I think W and T would be better to combine than T and sv+ though.

**the_scotsman**

Gitdakka wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
How was it simpler to have 3 different armor values for one unit and a whole damage chart and wound system dedicated to vehicles compared to the same two values you know from every unit in the game?

It was not simple, just saing the idea of less stats has already been in the game. It could be reinvented by giving all models an armor value (same for all facings) instead of toughness and wounds.

I think W and T would be better to combine than T and sv+ though.

I don't think that's the direction for the level of complexity that people want to be taking here.

Replacing T and Sv with "Strongness" and S and AP with "Murderiness" is not going to make the game more deeply tactical. Itd probably make it more balanced, just like 8th made the game more balanced than 7th was with respect to different armies appearing with powerful list builds. But it wouldn't make it more interesting.

**Primark G**

I doubt GW is going to replace S&T or go to d10/d12 dice any time soon.

**Gitdakka**

the_scotsman wrote:
Gitdakka wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
How was it simpler to have 3 different armor values for one unit and a whole damage chart and wound system dedicated to vehicles compared to the same two values you know from every unit in the game?

It was not simple, just saing the idea of less stats has already been in the game. It could be reinvented by giving all models an armor value (same for all facings) instead of toughness and wounds.

I think W and T would be better to combine than T and sv+ though.

I don't think that's the direction for the level of complexity that people want to be taking here.

Replacing T and Sv with "Strongness" and S and AP with "Murderiness" is not going to make the game more deeply tactical. Itd probably make it more balanced, just like 8th made the game more balanced than 7th was with respect to different armies appearing with powerful list builds. But it wouldn't make it more interesting.

Well not sure about that. Combing saves, T and wounds into say just wounds and save would let The game play out pretty much The same with all The unit balances. But it would reduce rolls by a third wich leaves more time for more tactical choices.

Dice rolls in themself does not add any more usefull complexity if the same end result can be reached by less. Stuff like pinning effects, moral that makes units perform unexpectedly, cover mechanics that includes flanking, I think that's what many people would want.

Also you could call The combined t and w stat toughness. No need to give it silly names.

**the_scotsman**

Gitdakka wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Gitdakka wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
How was it simpler to have 3 different armor values for one unit and a whole damage chart and wound system dedicated to vehicles compared to the same two values you know from every unit in the game?

It was not simple, just saing the idea of less stats has already been in the game. It could be reinvented by giving all models an armor value (same for all facings) instead of toughness and wounds.

I think W and T would be better to combine than T and sv+ though.

I don't think that's the direction for the level of complexity that people want to be taking here.

Replacing T and Sv with "Strongness" and S and AP with "Murderiness" is not going to make the game more deeply tactical. Itd probably make it more balanced, just like 8th made the game more balanced than 7th was with respect to different armies appearing with powerful list builds. But it wouldn't make it more interesting.

Well not sure about that. Combing saves, T and wounds into say just wounds and save would let The game play out pretty much The same with all The unit balances. But it would reduce rolls by a third wich leaves more time for more tactical choices.

Dice rolls in themself does not add any more usefull complexity if the same end result can be reached by less. Stuff like pinning effects, moral that makes units perform unexpectedly, cover mechanics that includes flanking, I think that's what many people would want.

Also you could call The combined t and w stat toughness. No need to give it silly names.

Except that you could no longer have a gun with low strength and good AP (like a Disintegrator or a Hotshot Lasgun) or high strength and poor AP (like a Grotzooka or a Stormeagle Rocket), and you could no longer have a model with low toughness and powerful armor (like a terminator) or high toughness and poor armor (like an Ork Battlewagon or a Great Unclean One).

dice rolls don't add useful complexity, but different spreads within the statistical matrix do. Having models that are hard to kill because they're difficult to hit, difficult to wound, or difficult to penetrate allows for a wider variety of useful weaponry - midstrength high-ROF or high accuracy for the former, high strength for the middle, and high pen for the latter.

You need that level of spread when you're talking about a sprawling game like 40k.

**Gitdakka**

the_scotsman wrote:
Gitdakka wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Gitdakka wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
How was it simpler to have 3 different armor values for one unit and a whole damage chart and wound system dedicated to vehicles compared to the same two values you know from every unit in the game?

It was not simple, just saing the idea of less stats has already been in the game. It could be reinvented by giving all models an armor value (same for all facings) instead of toughness and wounds.

I think W and T would be better to combine than T and sv+ though.

I don't think that's the direction for the level of complexity that people want to be taking here.

Replacing T and Sv with "Strongness" and S and AP with "Murderiness" is not going to make the game more deeply tactical. Itd probably make it more balanced, just like 8th made the game more balanced than 7th was with respect to different armies appearing with powerful list builds. But it wouldn't make it more interesting.

Well not sure about that. Combing saves, T and wounds into say just wounds and save would let The game play out pretty much The same with all The unit balances. But it would reduce rolls by a third wich leaves more time for more tactical choices.

Dice rolls in themself does not add any more usefull complexity if the same end result can be reached by less. Stuff like pinning effects, moral that makes units perform unexpectedly, cover mechanics that includes flanking, I think that's what many people would want.

Also you could call The combined t and w stat toughness. No need to give it silly names.

Except that you could no longer have a gun with low strength and good AP (like a Disintegrator or a Hotshot Lasgun) or high strength and poor AP (like a Grotzooka or a Stormeagle Rocket), and you could no longer have a model with low toughness and powerful armor (like a terminator) or high toughness and poor armor (like an Ork Battlewagon or a Great Unclean One).

dice rolls don't add useful complexity, but different spreads within the statistical matrix do. Having models that are hard to kill because they're difficult to hit, difficult to wound, or difficult to penetrate allows for a wider variety of useful weaponry - midstrength high-ROF or high accuracy for the former, high strength for the middle, and high pen for the latter.

You need that level of spread when you're talking about a sprawling game like 40k.

Yes then we agree. I think just like you that the save stat is good to keep. But like i keep saying I think T and W could be combined without loosing any real diversity.

**Tyel**

How can you combine T and W without creating a very shallow system?

**Martel732**

40K needs more detail and paramaters, not less.

**Blastaar**

Removing saves and going to S v. T might work, actually- GW hasn't been able to figure out how to get the save/AP system quite right, and I'm not convinced it can be done without some sort of issue.
Give everything an evasion stat, and change cover to do what it actually does- keep you from getting hit in the first place- and we might have a more tactical game on our hands. Plus units like termies might actually be good.

**Sim-Life**

Martel732 wrote:
40K needs more detail and paramaters, not less.

It's fine the way it is.

**Gitdakka**

Tyel wrote:
How can you combine T and W without creating a very shallow system?

This is an example i wrote conbining t and w stat. Also combing strength and damage.

old new
toughness
t1-3 1w -guardsmen
t4 2w -marines
t5 4w -bikes
t6 10w -trukks
t7 20w -rhinos
t8 30w -leman russes

armour saves remain same

ap reduce by one for all weapons to a minimum of one

strength
old new
1-3 1dmg
4-5 2dmg
6 3dmg
7 4dmg
8 5dmg
9 4+d6dmg

Units with feel no pain eq. gets 50% more wounds rounded up instead of their current rolls.
meltas are like the s9 dmg if within half range instead of their current rule

**Martel732**

Go to the crisis suit thead. It's not.

**Gitdakka**

Blastaar wrote:
Removing saves and going to S v. T might work, actually- GW hasn't been able to figure out how to get the save/AP system quite right, and I'm not convinced it can be done without some sort of issue.
Give everything an evasion stat, and change cover to do what it actually does- keep you from getting hit in the first place- and we might have a more tactical game on our hands. Plus units like termies might actually be good.

These are some cool ideas. Should it be bs vs evasion to find out hit chance?

**Blastaar**

Gitdakka wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Removing saves and going to S v. T might work, actually- GW hasn't been able to figure out how to get the save/AP system quite right, and I'm not convinced it can be done without some sort of issue.
Give everything an evasion stat, and change cover to do what it actually does- keep you from getting hit in the first place- and we might have a more tactical game on our hands. Plus units like termies might actually be good.

These are some cool ideas. Should it be bs vs evasion to find out hit chance?

That's the idea! It might even fix Eldar too: high evasion makes them hard to hit, but average/low T makes them easily damaged after that point.

**Vankraken**

Gitdakka wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Removing saves and going to S v. T might work, actually- GW hasn't been able to figure out how to get the save/AP system quite right, and I'm not convinced it can be done without some sort of issue.
Give everything an evasion stat, and change cover to do what it actually does- keep you from getting hit in the first place- and we might have a more tactical game on our hands. Plus units like termies might actually be good.

These are some cool ideas. Should it be bs vs evasion to find out hit chance?

We going "old WS comparison to hit in close combat" now boyz..... I thought people complained it was too clunky or something.

Also please no to removing S vs T. It's core to the game and it's important for differentiating different units and weapons from each other to help create some sense of variety. Lack of USRs and variety of unit/weapon types really limited that in 8th and yet we are trying to go further down the simplicity rabbit hole? If you want to really trim everything down we can just turn the game into risk so it's just a roll off between plastic figs.

**Gitdakka**

Blastaar wrote:
Gitdakka wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Removing saves and going to S v. T might work, actually- GW hasn't been able to figure out how to get the save/AP system quite right, and I'm not convinced it can be done without some sort of issue.
Give everything an evasion stat, and change cover to do what it actually does- keep you from getting hit in the first place- and we might have a more tactical game on our hands. Plus units like termies might actually be good.

These are some cool ideas. Should it be bs vs evasion to find out hit chance?

That's the idea! It might even fix Eldar too: high evasion makes them hard to hit, but average/low T makes them easily damaged after that point.

Sounds good! And also you could remove the annoying iv save on genestealers and give them high evasion instead. Could make flamers more desirable to hurt stuff with high evasion. Maybe flamers has something like +2bs rule. And tanks would have low evasion. Distance could increase evasion. Damn such a system would make so much sense! Bonus points that it does not add more rolls

**LunarSol**

Vankraken wrote:
Gitdakka wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Removing saves and going to S v. T might work, actually- GW hasn't been able to figure out how to get the save/AP system quite right, and I'm not convinced it can be done without some sort of issue.
Give everything an evasion stat, and change cover to do what it actually does- keep you from getting hit in the first place- and we might have a more tactical game on our hands. Plus units like termies might actually be good.

These are some cool ideas. Should it be bs vs evasion to find out hit chance?

We going "old WS comparison to hit in close combat" now boyz..... I thought people complained it was too clunky or something.

Also please no to removing S vs T. It's core to the game and it's important for differentiating different units and weapons from each other to help create some sense of variety. Lack of USRs and variety of unit/weapon types really limited that in 8th and yet we are trying to go further down the simplicity rabbit hole? If you want to really trim everything down we can just turn the game into risk so it's just a roll off between plastic figs.

WS comparison WAS clunky, but you could certainly do an accuracy vs evasion check in the same manner as the existing S/T check.

**ERJAK**

This thread prives what every other 'dakka redesigns a game' thread in the history of this site has proven:

No matter how many stupid decisions GW makes (rule of 3), or dumb mechanics they make(cover), they're still better than this place is at making games.

Especially when you consider that some of their worst decisions (rule of 3) are made as a direct result of community feedback.

**Gitdakka**

ERJAK wrote:
This thread prives what every other 'dakka redesigns a game' thread in the history of this site has proven:

No matter how many stupid decisions GW makes (rule of 3), or dumb mechanics they make(cover), they're still better than this place is at making games.

Especially when you consider that some of their worst decisions (rule of 3) are made as a direct result of community feedback.

And your post proves an other rule of dakka. Whenever someone has an idea, a user allways joins in to tell the creator of the idea that it's just a useless pile of gak.

**Maréchal des Logis Walter**

ERJAK wrote:
This thread prives what every other 'dakka redesigns a game' thread in the history of this site has proven:

No matter how many stupid decisions GW makes (rule of 3), or dumb mechanics they make(cover), they're still better than this place is at making games.

Especially when you consider that some of their worst decisions (rule of 3) are made as a direct result of community feedback.

Gak in sight, raise the alert...

More seriously that was not constructive.

**Gitdakka**

Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
This thread prives what every other 'dakka redesigns a game' thread in the history of this site has proven:

No matter how many stupid decisions GW makes (rule of 3), or dumb mechanics they make(cover), they're still better than this place is at making games.

Especially when you consider that some of their worst decisions (rule of 3) are made as a direct result of community feedback.

Gak in sight, raise the alert...

More seriously that was not constructive.

Typical day on dakka:

User1: you suck!
User2: you suck more!
User1: your rules are useless!
User2: well at least I play by the rules!
User1: beer and pretzels!
User2:... You suck! ....and so on

**jcd386**

The main issue with many of these changes is not that they wouldn't work in some kind of system, but that GW already has a massive game that has to be converted, with years of established units and the way those units are expected to behave.

There is probably a game that would work with just a roll to hit roll to damage if it was designed for it, but 40k is already too complicated to go down to that while still having the game feel like 40k and the units and weapons feel like they are supposed to.

**SHUPPET**

ERJAK wrote:
This thread prives what every other 'dakka redesigns a game' thread in the history of this site has proven:

No matter how many stupid decisions GW makes (rule of 3), or dumb mechanics they make(cover), they're still better than this place is at making games.

Especially when you consider that some of their worst decisions (rule of 3) are made as a direct result of community feedback.

Aren't you the guy who said taking a 6 different units is literally less list diversity than spamming one unit over and over?

I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about tbh. Seems like you're just salty your spam list was cut.

**Slayer-Fan123**

SHUPPET wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
This thread prives what every other 'dakka redesigns a game' thread in the history of this site has proven:

No matter how many stupid decisions GW makes (rule of 3), or dumb mechanics they make(cover), they're still better than this place is at making games.

Especially when you consider that some of their worst decisions (rule of 3) are made as a direct result of community feedback.

Aren't you the guy who said taking a 6 different units is literally less list diversity than spamming one unit over and over?

I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about tbh. Seems like you're just salty your spam list was cut.

ITT: Themed lists are considered spam and you're too lazy to fix the problem units

**Maréchal des Logis Walter**

jcd386 wrote:
The main issue with many of these changes is not that they wouldn't work in some kind of system, but that GW already has a massive game that has to be converted, with years of established units and the way those units are expected to behave.

There is probably a game that would work with just a roll to hit roll to damage if it was designed for it, but 40k is already too complicated to go down to that while still having the game feel like 40k and the units and weapons feel like they are supposed to.

To be honest they could have with the revamp they brought in 8th, but I believe they maybe wanted to simplify the rules rather than rethink them on many levels and so they didn't even consider implementing other things. Now it's true that these aren't things you can come about with and merge them into the current game, plus all what's been written is mere draft ideas. But that could be worth it, one day.

I still strongly believe GW hasn't changed it's marketing habits, but they understood they their reputation was getting worse and worse and they wanted to fix their fame as a company, rather than actually improve either the game or their attitude towards their player and shopping base, otherwise they would most likely have thought about overpricing, in particular. You can't blame them for making profit but you can bkame that the somewhat mock on you. It's a skeptical point of view but I stick to it.

**blackmage**

Seems like you're just salty your spam list was cut.

that is, hard to accept for who spent money buying 7 flyrants or 9 Pbc, that they cant play so much anymore at least in matched play but thank God Gw made for them the awesome narrative play they can play that and let tournament free of that ugly spam, thanks

**Jidmah**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
SHUPPET wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
This thread prives what every other 'dakka redesigns a game' thread in the history of this site has proven:

No matter how many stupid decisions GW makes (rule of 3), or dumb mechanics they make(cover), they're still better than this place is at making games.

Especially when you consider that some of their worst decisions (rule of 3) are made as a direct result of community feedback.

Aren't you the guy who said taking a 6 different units is literally less list diversity than spamming one unit over and over?

I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about tbh. Seems like you're just salty your spam list was cut.

ITT: Themed lists are considered spam and you're too lazy to fix the problem units

Please post an example of an army with a theme that has been made impossible by the rule of 3.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

blackmage wrote:
Seems like you're just salty your spam list was cut.

that is, hard to accept for who spent money buying 7 flyrants or 9 Pbc, that they cant play so much anymore at least in matched play but thank God Gw made for them the awesome narrative play they can play that and let tournament free of that ugly spam, thanks

Anyone who bought 7 flyrants or 9 pbc in 8th must have seen this coming. The very first GT winner of this edition got his investment in 7 storm ravens voided days after he won that event.

If you haven't caught on GW calling exterminatus on every OP spam list this edition, bad luck for you. Even if you did not expect the rule of 3, PBC and flyrant spam were going down one way or another, just like storm ravens, conscripts, brimstones and commanders before them.

One upside of the rule of 3 is that you no longer need get rid of two thirds of your army because the top spam army from last event go the axe.

**Peregrine**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
ITT: Themed lists are considered spam and you're too lazy to fix the problem units

ITT: nobody played themed lists back in 5th edition, when none of this "TAKE WHATEVER YOU WANT FORGE A SOUP NARRATIVE LOL" nonsense existed and you were limited to three copies of any non-troops unit because of the FOC.