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 do miss that low strength weapons not being able to damage high toughness/AV model. A las gun shouldn't be able to hurt a landraider.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I do miss that low strength weapons not being able to damage high toughness/AV model. A las gun shouldn't be able to hurt a landraider.

I get this sentiment, but I prefer things that need to roll to wound or not, even if it's a low chance. What's more fun? Rolling 20 dice and hoping for that low chance of wounding, or rolling nothing because nothing happens? While the second one may be "more accurate", the first is "more fun", because it lets the players do something, even if that something isn't very useful. It makes people be active in the game. I love the Murder Sword, but it's very anti-climactic when you get it to the targeted character, as it's straight hits=mortal wounds. That's crazy, since Chaos Lord that's likely wielding this is hitting on 2+ rerollable anyways. It's still okay, because it's still possible to flub, but it's not nearly as interesting or fun as attacking with a Power Fist. The Power Fist is much worse most of the time, but it's also more fun most of the time too.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I do miss that low strength weapons not being able to damage high toughness/AV model. A las gun shouldn't be able to hurt a landraider.

It usually doesn't. On the other hand we now don't have armies that can't be hurt my the majority of the opposing army

I think that the implementation of vehicle damage is the real problem. Tying the degrading capabilities of vehicles and monsters to wound brackets increases bookkeeping unnecessarily- most of them degrade in different ways, causing you to check the data sheet every turn to track the effects. They don't all make sense, either.

I think MEDGe implements this well with # of weapons that can be fired tied to the wound stat of large models on a 1-for-1 basis, and at half health they move at half their full movement characteristic. It's simple, makes sense, and you can remember it without staring at the rulebook.

They also kept some semblance of bigger models operating differently from regular infantry in that they can move through enemy units at the cost of receiving defensive fire, and into their rear arc to boot. Might be a nice addition (dreads and the like especially) to make them feel "right" instead of, say, rhinos "fighting" in CC with their doors, or something.

 Yarium wrote:


I get this sentiment, but I prefer things that need to roll to wound or not, even if it's a low chance. What's more fun? Rolling 20 dice and hoping for that low chance of wounding, or rolling nothing because nothing happens? While the second one may be "more accurate", the first is "more fun", because it lets the players do something, even if that something isn't very useful. It makes people be active in the game. I love the Murder Sword, but it's very anti-climactic when you get it to the targeted character, as it's straight hits=mortal wounds. That's crazy, since Chaos Lord that's likely wielding this is hitting on 2+ rerollable anyways. It's still okay, because it's still possible to flub, but it's not nearly as interesting or fun as attacking with a Power Fist. The Power Fist is much worse most of the time, but it's also more fun most of the time too.

Maybe, but you have to balance *fun* with *waste of time*. Look at overwatch for instance, it frequently takes a lot of time for very little if any effect - unless the unit being charged has flame throwers. Rather than an Obliterator Squad generating the profile of its weapons, then rolling and maybe getting 1 or 2 sixes, it makes more sense to just not have units able to over watch unless they have flamers or a special rule that lets them over watch on a 5+ maybe. Maybe its fun to imaging your guardsmen desperately spraying las guns at an income Zerker squad, but most of the time it just takes time to resolve for a negligible game impact.

More often then not when I'm doing that "Rolling 20 dice and hoping for that low chance of wounding" I am thinking to myself, why am I doing this, this is a waste of my time and my opponents time.

Another thing to think about is all vehicle army lists. In prior editions, players that didn't have enough "anti-tank" weaponry were pretty boned by these lists.
By allowing low strength weapons to at least have some chance to wound high T models, you mitigate this match up causing an immediate forfeit.
With Knight lists being around, I am thankful that all my guns can somehow contribute to the game rather than just being safely ignored while the Knight player takes out all weapons that can hurt them.

Maybe Lasguns shouldn't be able to take down a Land Raider, but Bolters surely should have an affect on Rhinos and Grav Tanks, even if minimal
Keeping both players engaged is an important part of the game.

-

 Yarium wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I do miss that low strength weapons not being able to damage high toughness/AV model. A las gun shouldn't be able to hurt a landraider.

I get this sentiment, but I prefer things that need to roll to wound or not, even if it's a low chance. What's more fun? Rolling 20 dice and hoping for that low chance of wounding, or rolling nothing because nothing happens? While the second one may be "more accurate", the first is "more fun", because it lets the players do something, even if that something isn't very useful. It makes people be active in the game. I love the Murder Sword, but it's very anti-climactic when you get it to the targeted character, as it's straight hits=mortal wounds. That's crazy, since Chaos Lord that's likely wielding this is hitting on 2+ rerollable anyways. It's still okay, because it's still possible to flub, but it's not nearly as interesting or fun as attacking with a Power Fist. The Power Fist is much worse most of the time, but it's also more fun most of the time too.

I find it fun to have to make strategic choices rather than just roll dice, things happen. This is one of the reasons I miss vehicle facings, since it required you to either hit a tank with an actual anti tank weapon or you had to maneuver and get behind it. Same with making sure weapons actually lined up a shot. I like that vehicles and MC work the same way but I think they simplified it a bit to much

 ServiceGames wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
This isn't that big of an issue as all vehicles etc. are weakened as they are damaged, but I do see the point of it in 8th. Before when the game was more complicated, it was fine as its more realistic, but there isn't really a need for realism in 8th as they got rid of a lot of realist rules. My main gripe is just the annoyance of having to remember how many wounds its taken and corresponding to the codex. I'd prefer it just be simplify and get rid of the damage as it isn't really going to change the dynamic of the game as everyone will be rid of the rule. Plus its not that realistic, we don't have infantry damage, they can for instance lose an arm and become half as effective. Plus the more damage they take the less effective they are and the longer the game needs to be. I think 8th was the perfect edition to just get rid of the idea. How does everyone else fell about vehicle etc. damage?

Warhammer 40K Wound Trackers

SG

I lolled. Have an exalt!

If the OP has trouble with tracking things like this they'd gak a brick if they played Warmachine or Battletech...

 akaean wrote:
Maybe, but you have to balance *fun* with *waste of time*. Look at overwatch for instance, it frequently takes a lot of time for very little if any effect - unless the unit being charged has flame throwers. Rather than an Obliterator Squad generating the profile of its weapons, then rolling and maybe getting 1 or 2 sixes, it makes more sense to just not have units able to over watch unless they have flamers or a special rule that lets them over watch on a 5+ maybe. Maybe its fun to imaging your guardsmen desperately spraying las guns at an income Zerker squad, but most of the time it just takes time to resolve for a negligible game impact.

More often then not when I'm doing that "Rolling 20 dice and hoping for that low chance of wounding" I am thinking to myself, why am I doing this, this is a waste of my time and my opponents time.

Completely understandable. And I agree with the other poster that I'd rather make decisions of consequence than "lulz, randumb". Still, just Monday night I watched a Blight-hauler get killed in Overwatch against the last 3 models in a guy's T'au force. They were new to the game, and for the T'au player, it was a moment of pride and accomplishment, regardless of the game's ultimate end! You don't need to look far to find people saying "And then, the Grot put through the last wound! It was hilarious!". I agree, it gets silly when rolling huge amounts of dice and having no effect time and again, but the spikes of hilarity are memorable. Back during 3rd, I had a Termagant (with Mutation to have a Venom Cannon) take out a Rhino by using Death or Glory, and getting the perfect set of dice. Anything less, pretty much, would've resulted in my Gaunt going squish, but it wasn't a waste of time, because it worked, and I remember it today, almost 20 years later.

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think degrading profile should not affect BS.

Arguably, it makes sense on most units. Targeting systems can be damaged, for example, or the pain from grievous wounds a large creature has suffered can affect their focus.
But I wouldn't be opposed to downgrading BS only happening at the lowest level (usually at 1/4 wounds)

-

Well when it becomes a -2 bs at the lowest profile. On a vehical that can't move and shoot without penalty. Now you are probably hitting on 6's. My redemptor dread suffers so badly from being degraded. Lightning fast reflexes I can't even hit!!!

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well when it becomes a -2 bs at the lowest profile. On a vehical that can't move and shoot without penalty. Now you are probably hitting on 6's. My redemptor dread suffers so badly from being degraded. Lightning fast reflexes I can't even hit!!!

I fail to see the problem here. Your unit takes a lot of damage and is minimally effective when it is badly shot up and about to die. Sorry that you have to cope with having less than optimal firepower, but hitting on 6s at the end is entirely appropriate.

 Elbows wrote:
No, it doesn't happen often - hardly ever. But if it is mathematically possible (after all it only takes what 1500 lasgun shots to kill a Land Raider?) the game is garbage. Personally people can continue to move to Bolt Action. If you're that angsty about game rules...good riddance.

You obviously never read the OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 ServiceGames wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
This isn't that big of an issue as all vehicles etc. are weakened as they are damaged, but I do see the point of it in 8th. Before when the game was more complicated, it was fine as its more realistic, but there isn't really a need for realism in 8th as they got rid of a lot of realist rules. My main gripe is just the annoyance of having to remember how many wounds its taken and corresponding to the codex. I'd prefer it just be simplify and get rid of the damage as it isn't really going to change the dynamic of the game as everyone will be rid of the rule. Plus its not that realistic, we don't have infantry damage, they can for instance lose an arm and become half as effective. Plus the more damage they take the less effective they are and the longer the game needs to be. I think 8th was the perfect edition to just get rid of the idea. How does everyone else fell about vehicle etc. damage?

Warhammer 40K Wound Trackers

SG

I lolled. Have an exalt!

If the OP has trouble with tracking things like this they'd gak a brick if they played Warmachine or Battletech...

I don't have a problem with tracking things. I'd just rather not as degrading damage doesn't make sense to me. Its completely arbitrary to degrade vehicles or big things, when nothing else is degraded. Its pointless, all it really says is vehicles and big things are 'special'. Considering that the rule is not realistic, its odd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ServiceGames wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
This isn't that big of an issue as all vehicles etc. are weakened as they are damaged, but I do see the point of it in 8th. Before when the game was more complicated, it was fine as its more realistic, but there isn't really a need for realism in 8th as they got rid of a lot of realist rules. My main gripe is just the annoyance of having to remember how many wounds its taken and corresponding to the codex. I'd prefer it just be simplify and get rid of the damage as it isn't really going to change the dynamic of the game as everyone will be rid of the rule. Plus its not that realistic, we don't have infantry damage, they can for instance lose an arm and become half as effective. Plus the more damage they take the less effective they are and the longer the game needs to be. I think 8th was the perfect edition to just get rid of the idea. How does everyone else fell about vehicle etc. damage?

Warhammer 40K Wound Trackers

SG

That's not the point I was making.

Ummmm....

The same thing happens in both of those games I mentioned.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Ummmm....

The same thing happens in both of those games I mentioned.

So.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well when it becomes a -2 bs at the lowest profile. On a vehical that can't move and shoot without penalty. Now you are probably hitting on 6's. My redemptor dread suffers so badly from being degraded. Lightning fast reflexes I can't even hit!!!

I fail to see the problem here. Your unit takes a lot of damage and is minimally effective when it is badly shot up and about to die. Sorry that you have to cope with having less than optimal firepower, but hitting on 6s at the end is entirely appropriate.

Then it shouldn't be paying for 13 wounds. It effectively only has 10 and really only 7 quality wounds. This unit is over 200 points.

I'd much prefer some kind of randomly generated damage result every-time you pass a wounds threshold. Like perhaps only 1 of the 3 degrading stats should be degrading on a D3.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well when it becomes a -2 bs at the lowest profile. On a vehical that can't move and shoot without penalty. Now you are probably hitting on 6's. My redemptor dread suffers so badly from being degraded. Lightning fast reflexes I can't even hit!!!

I fail to see the problem here. Your unit takes a lot of damage and is minimally effective when it is badly shot up and about to die. Sorry that you have to cope with having less than optimal firepower, but hitting on 6s at the end is entirely appropriate.

Then it shouldn't be paying for 13 wounds. It effectively only has 10 and really only 7 quality wounds. This unit is over 200 points.

I'd much prefer some kind of randomly generated damage result every-time you pass a wounds threshold. Like perhaps only 1 of the 3 degrading stats should be degrading on a D3.

Someone that is actually thinking rather than just throwing around snarky comments.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Ummmm....

The same thing happens in both of those games I mentioned.

So.

You attempt to point out that this is a feature unique to 40k and something that as a result, "makes no sense".

There are several games that use this (many more than I can mention off of the top of my head) as a way of representing degrading performance so it's hardly something that does not make sense if several companies in isolation of one another came to the same conclusion of how to best represent this.

GW themselves got it from AoS- It was one of the few things a LOT of players wanted ported over prior to 8th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well when it becomes a -2 bs at the lowest profile. On a vehical that can't move and shoot without penalty. Now you are probably hitting on 6's. My redemptor dread suffers so badly from being degraded. Lightning fast reflexes I can't even hit!!!

I fail to see the problem here. Your unit takes a lot of damage and is minimally effective when it is badly shot up and about to die. Sorry that you have to cope with having less than optimal firepower, but hitting on 6s at the end is entirely appropriate.

Then it shouldn't be paying for 13 wounds. It effectively only has 10 and really only 7 quality wounds. This unit is over 200 points.

I'd much prefer some kind of randomly generated damage result every-time you pass a wounds threshold. Like perhaps only 1 of the 3 degrading stats should be degrading on a D3.

Someone that is actually thinking rather than just throwing around snarky comments.

This right here, is irony.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Then it shouldn't be paying for 13 wounds. It effectively only has 10 and really only 7 quality wounds. This unit is over 200 points.

How are you paying for extra wounds? It's not like this is a single unit that degrades, every vehicle has the same rule so there is no cost difference. Your dread and a LRBT pay for the same "quality" wounds.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Ummmm....

The same thing happens in both of those games I mentioned.

So.

You attempt to point out that this is a feature unique to 40k and something that as a result, "makes no sense".

There are several games that use this (many more than I can mention off of the top of my head) as a way of representing degrading performance so it's hardly something that does not make sense if several companies in isolation of one another came to the same conclusion of how to best represent this.

GW themselves got it from AoS- It was one of the few things a LOT of players wanted ported over prior to 8th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well when it becomes a -2 bs at the lowest profile. On a vehical that can't move and shoot without penalty. Now you are probably hitting on 6's. My redemptor dread suffers so badly from being degraded. Lightning fast reflexes I can't even hit!!!

I fail to see the problem here. Your unit takes a lot of damage and is minimally effective when it is badly shot up and about to die. Sorry that you have to cope with having less than optimal firepower, but hitting on 6s at the end is entirely appropriate.

Then it shouldn't be paying for 13 wounds. It effectively only has 10 and really only 7 quality wounds. This unit is over 200 points.

I'd much prefer some kind of randomly generated damage result every-time you pass a wounds threshold. Like perhaps only 1 of the 3 degrading stats should be degrading on a D3.

Someone that is actually thinking rather than just throwing around snarky comments.

This right here, is irony.

I never said it was unique to 40k, I don't play any other games how would I know.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


I never said it was unique to 40k, I don't play any other games how would I know.

You see, there's this little thing called "inference". You should look it up.

Your OP implied the above and it's not hard for others to infer that from it.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


I never said it was unique to 40k, I don't play any other games how would I know.

You see, there's this little thing called "inference". You should look it up.

Your OP implied the above and it's not hard for others to infer that from it.

You mean 'Imply'.

I never even once mention 40k in the OP, just 8th so how you thought that...

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think degrading profile should not affect BS.

Arguably, it makes sense on most units. Targeting systems can be damaged, for example, or the pain from grievous wounds a large creature has suffered can affect their focus.
But I wouldn't be opposed to downgrading BS only happening at the lowest level (usually at 1/4 wounds)

-

Well when it becomes a -2 bs at the lowest profile. On a vehical that can't move and shoot without penalty. Now you are probably hitting on 6's. My redemptor dread suffers so badly from being degraded. Lightning fast reflexes I can't even hit!!!

That's a failure of the game designers to add a "natural 6s always hit" rule than poor design of vehicle damage charts

-

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think degrading profile should not affect BS.

Arguably, it makes sense on most units. Targeting systems can be damaged, for example, or the pain from grievous wounds a large creature has suffered can affect their focus.
But I wouldn't be opposed to downgrading BS only happening at the lowest level (usually at 1/4 wounds)

-

Well when it becomes a -2 bs at the lowest profile. On a vehical that can't move and shoot without penalty. Now you are probably hitting on 6's. My redemptor dread suffers so badly from being degraded. Lightning fast reflexes I can't even hit!!!

That's a failure of the game designers to add a "natural 6s always hit" rule than poor design of vehicle damage charts

-

I'm ambivalent on 6's always wounding. I hate the flavour and realism they took away, as a lasgun damaging a tank is silly. but its better for the game.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


I never said it was unique to 40k, I don't play any other games how would I know.

You see, there's this little thing called "inference". You should look it up.

Your OP implied the above and it's not hard for others to infer that from it.

You mean 'Imply'.

I never even once mention 40k in the OP, just 8th so how you thought that...

Wut.

In what way is 8th not 40k? Grimtuff just used the word imply. Are you living in a different reality where one word means two different things to you?

 Grimskul wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


I never said it was unique to 40k, I don't play any other games how would I know.

You see, there's this little thing called "inference". You should look it up.

Your OP implied the above and it's not hard for others to infer that from it.

You mean 'Imply'.

I never even once mention 40k in the OP, just 8th so how you thought that...

Wut.

In what way is 8th not 40k? Grimtuff just used the word imply. Are you living in a different reality where one word means two different things to you?

Jesus. I never said 8th is not 40k. I said I never said 40k, so I didn't how he can Imply, that I was comparing it to other game systems. If I said 40k instead of 8th, then maybe he could think that.

You're posting on a 40k subforum. Anyone with a functioning piece of grey matter between their ears can infer you're referring to 40k.

The fact you think this is an unusual feature, despite there being many other systems that use similar methods infers to the reader you may be unfamiliar with this fact.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I do miss that low strength weapons not being able to damage high toughness/AV model. A las gun shouldn't be able to hurt a landraider.

I actually agree. I feel as if, maybe, if T>2x S, than the attack fails. There should probably be a point where weapons are ineffectual. And vice versa - a lascannon should probably automatically wound, say, a marine. Or a grot.

 Grimtuff wrote:


You're posting on a 40k subforum. Anyone with a functioning piece of grey matter between their ears can infer you're referring to 40k.

The fact you think this is an unusual feature, despite there being many other systems that use similar methods infers to the reader you may be unfamiliar with this fact.

Wow. Do I have to spell everything out for you. I never said it was unusual in and of itself. I said its arbitrary, when you only have vehicle/big things being damaged or degraded, but for some reason infantry etc. can take a lascannon hit and still skip towards the enemy.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:


You're posting on a 40k subforum. Anyone with a functioning piece of grey matter between their ears can infer you're referring to 40k.

The fact you think this is an unusual feature, despite there being many other systems that use similar methods infers to the reader you may be unfamiliar with this fact.

Wow. Do I have to spell everything out for you. I never said it was unusual in and of itself. I said its arbitrary, when you only have vehicle/big things being damaged or degraded, but for some reason infantry etc. can take a lascannon hit and still skip towards the enemy.

Seeing as you edit everything multiple times as you make little sense of anything let's quote the OP in it's current state (currently on 3 edits) for posterity.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
This isn't that big of an issue as all vehicles etc. are weakened as they are damaged, but I do see the point of it in 8th. Before when the game was more complicated, it was fine as its more realistic, but there isn't really a need for realism in 8th as they got rid of a lot of realist rules. My main gripe is just the annoyance of having to remember how many wounds its taken and corresponding that to the codex. I'd prefer it just be simplify and get rid of the damage, as it isn't really going to change the dynamic of the game as everyone will be rid of the rule. Plus its not that realistic, we don't have infantry damage, they can for instance lose an arm and become half as effective. Plus the more damage they take the less effective they are and the longer the game needs to be. I think 8th was the perfect edition to just get rid of the idea. Plus you pay 200pnts for a unit that is only worth 200pnts for a few game turns. How does everyone else feel about vehicle etc. damage?

So, if this is edited again the above is the 3rd edit version.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:


You're posting on a 40k subforum. Anyone with a functioning piece of grey matter between their ears can infer you're referring to 40k.

The fact you think this is an unusual feature, despite there being many other systems that use similar methods infers to the reader you may be unfamiliar with this fact.

Wow. Do I have to spell everything out for you. I never said it was unusual in and of itself. I said its arbitrary, when you only have vehicle/big things being damaged or degraded, but for some reason infantry etc. can take a lascannon hit and still skip towards the enemy.

Seeing as you edit everything multiple times as you make little sense of anything let's quote the OP in it's current state (currently on 3 edits) for posterity.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
This isn't that big of an issue as all vehicles etc. are weakened as they are damaged, but I do see the point of it in 8th. Before when the game was more complicated, it was fine as its more realistic, but there isn't really a need for realism in 8th as they got rid of a lot of realist rules. My main gripe is just the annoyance of having to remember how many wounds its taken and corresponding that to the codex. I'd prefer it just be simplify and get rid of the damage, as it isn't really going to change the dynamic of the game as everyone will be rid of the rule. Plus its not that realistic, we don't have infantry damage, they can for instance lose an arm and become half as effective. Plus the more damage they take the less effective they are and the longer the game needs to be. I think 8th was the perfect edition to just get rid of the idea. Plus you pay 200pnts for a unit that is only worth 200pnts for a few game turns. How does everyone else feel about vehicle etc. damage?

So, if this is edited again the above is the 3rd edit version.

And this was the first one, which is quoted:

This isn't that big of an issue as all vehicles etc. are weakened as they are damaged, but I do see the point of it in 8th. Before when the game was more complicated, it was fine as its more realistic, but there isn't really a need for realism in 8th as they got rid of a lot of realist rules. My main gripe is just the annoyance of having to remember how many wounds its taken and corresponding to the codex. I'd prefer it just be simplify and get rid of the damage as it isn't really going to change the dynamic of the game as everyone will be rid of the rule. Plus its not that realistic, we don't have infantry damage, they can for instance lose an arm and become half as effective. Plus the more damage they take the less effective they are and the longer the game needs to be. I think 8th was the perfect edition to just get rid of the idea. How does everyone else fell about vehicle etc. damage?

Just spelling errors and grammar and adding that points thing that someone mentioned. Its the exact same. Still doesn't help you with your reading comprehension.

Listen are we going to argue pettily like this every time, just because we had a heated argument before, listen I'm over it, I suggest you do the same and let it go.