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.

What if modifiers, all of them, for any stat, never stacked (i.e. a die roll could never have anything more than a +1 or -1 applied to it no matter how many overlapping rules could apply)?

I just had this thought, I'm sure others have too, but the more I think about it, the more I like it. I think it would really help the game.

Or, never stacked beyond a certain point. So max -2 or +2 for example.

Or in a more complex way you can't modify the dice roll more than twice, i.e. a +1 and a re-roll, or +2.

List examples of where modifiers are stacking and its a problem. Then we can compare how not stacking would impact the game.

New GK tides of the warp that allows -1 to hit in cover and combine it with a storm raven etc etc. There's a few of them around, think eldar flyers can do the same trick in some way.

Edit: I have no issue with the new GK rules, just providing an example as requested.

AL Chaos possessed bomb. Disco lord in front is -3/-4 to hit, possessed are concealed, can't be targeted, behind them are characters protected by the no shooting at characters rule.

It would probably help but I'd prefer something more nuanced. If GW hadn't been stupid enough to get rid of USRs they could have used that system to prevent modifiers getting out of hand by having a general -1 to hit rule name that most units use that doesn't stack with itself and then a small selection of additional -1 to hit rules that can stack with the basic rule.

It's kind of mandatory on a D6 curve simply because there's not a huge usable band for +/-2 on it. The main issue that comes up when you stop stacking is the interaction of buffs and debuffs, but 40k rarely debuffs in a way that creates a problem like this.

With this kind of thing, the common solution is to say "if more than one modifier is active, apply the highest modifier to the roll".

You still get a wider range, but it means you cant stack lots of -1s to get a huge number

Hellebore wrote:
With this kind of thing, the common solution is to say "if more than one modifier is active, apply the highest modifier to the roll".

You still get a wider range, but it means you cant stack lots of -1s to get a huge number

Are there any modifiers in 40k that aren't +/-1?

Space Marine Eliminators have +2 on one firing mode.

So "only apply the highest modifier" is going to be identical to "no modifiers greater than +/-1", except for Eliminators.

I think "each player may only apply a single modifier to a roll" would be best. That means you could have a player negate a +1 to with a -1, or vice versa.

Mainly, this would reign in the strength of units with intrinsic -1's to hit, since they couldn't be stacked with other sources (no Alpha Legion with Mark of Nurgle, no Alaitoc that also Lightning-Fast Reflexes, no Venoms ALSO using Lightning-Fast Reflexes, no Flyers with a Dark Prayer on them, etc.). I think that's a GREAT thing. It's already a very powerful ability, so this just makes it that these abilities force you to spread out -1's to hit rather than dumping them on the same unit, which I think is more the intent of the designers anyways.

The other side is stacking +1's to hit and wound, but that doesn't happen much outside of Chaos Space Marines.

AP is a modifier and it gets up to -5.

There are several ways you can stack AP with strategems and auras in armies. This would just stop that happening.

Hellebore wrote:
AP is a modifier and it gets up to -5.

There are several ways you can stack AP with strategems and auras in armies. This would just stop that happening.

Not really. AP is a single modifier to a roll, and many auras and stratagems in these armies don't impose additional penalties to the roll, but rather a change to the AP. That would be unaffected by this.

 Lance845 wrote:
List examples of where modifiers are stacking and its a problem. Then we can compare how not stacking would impact the game.

This was my first thought. Outside of Alaitoc flyers and disco lords, are they any examples of stackable +/- that are really causing havoc? I don't feel like shadow spectres and warp spiders are defining the meta right now.

 Yarium wrote:

Hellebore wrote:
AP is a modifier and it gets up to -5.

There are several ways you can stack AP with strategems and auras in armies. This would just stop that happening.

Not really. AP is a single modifier to a roll, and many auras and stratagems in these armies don't impose additional penalties to the roll, but rather a change to the AP. That would be unaffected by this.

That's a problem of language due to this concept not being part of the games rules when it was written. Marine doctrines plus their other bonuses can turn bolters into plasma guns in terms of AP. You can override all of them by stating "no matter how a dice modifier is applied, whether as an addition, replacement etc, you can only every pick the highest value. They never stack."

The proposal as currently described in the OP technically means AP will never be more than-1

What about leadership modifiers? Currently Night Lords and anyone else with Ld modifiers (space marines with the appropriate chapter tactic, ancients, Reivers and warlord traits etc).

Leadership is already so ineffective in this edition that to make use of units with Ld shenanigans is all about manuevreing to stack these modifiers.

Aash wrote:
What about leadership modifiers? Currently Night Lords and anyone else with Ld modifiers (space marines with the appropriate chapter tactic, ancients, Reivers and warlord traits etc).

Leadership is already so ineffective in this edition that to make use of units with Ld shenanigans is all about manuevreing to stack these modifiers.

I think reasonable people could say that, because Ld debuffing lists are so meh even with the official rules, making them more meh with this particular change is kind of a moot point. Morale needs a rework in general.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Aash wrote:
What about leadership modifiers? Currently Night Lords and anyone else with Ld modifiers (space marines with the appropriate chapter tactic, ancients, Reivers and warlord traits etc).

Leadership is already so ineffective in this edition that to make use of units with Ld shenanigans is all about manuevreing to stack these modifiers.

I think reasonable people could say that, because Ld debuffing lists are so meh even with the official rules, making them more meh with this particular change is kind of a moot point. Morale needs a rework in general.

I was addressing the OP in that the implication of removing stacking from all modifiers would be particularly harsh where Ld modifiers are used. I do agree though that morale and Ld as a whole should be reworked.

Aash wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Aash wrote:
What about leadership modifiers? Currently Night Lords and anyone else with Ld modifiers (space marines with the appropriate chapter tactic, ancients, Reivers and warlord traits etc).

Leadership is already so ineffective in this edition that to make use of units with Ld shenanigans is all about manuevreing to stack these modifiers.

I think reasonable people could say that, because Ld debuffing lists are so meh even with the official rules, making them more meh with this particular change is kind of a moot point. Morale needs a rework in general.

I was addressing the OP in that the implication of removing stacking from all modifiers would be particularly harsh where Ld modifiers are used. I do agree though that morale and Ld as a whole should be reworked.

Morale either needs to go away as a universal rule (brought back as a Codex-wide rule for things like Imperial Guard and as a bespoke rule for CSM Cultists and Ork Grots, possibly other units) or made to affect EVERYONE to at least some degree.

Theres a pretty interesting rule in the 7.Ed rule book about ballistic skills over 6+.

Ballistic Skill of 6 or Better
Very rarely, a model may have a Ballistic Skill of 6 or even more. If a model has BS 6 or higher, it gains a re-roll whenever it rolls a 1 To Hit with ranged attacks. The second roll usually has a lower chance of hitting, and the number needed is given in the chart below after the slash.

Firer's BS BS6 BS7 BS8 BS9 BS10
Roll needed to hit 2/6 2/5 2/4 2/3 2/2

I don't mean to go back to this specific system, just that the idea of representing rolls beyond or below the current 6+/2+ spread by having a baked in re-roll with an ensuing increasing or decreasing target is a pretty interesting way of expanding the very compacted implementation we currently have.

If we were to implement this in both direction, we would end up with a ballistic skill with 15 separate probabilities of being successful.

Firer's Ballistic Skill_______BS1___BS2___BS3__BS4__BS5___BS6____BS7___BS8__BS9____BS10___BS11___BS12__BS13___BS14___BS15
Roll needed to hit_________2/6+___2/5+___2/4+__2/3+__2/2+___6+_____5+_____4+____3+_____2+_____2/6+___2/5+___2/4+____2/3+____2/2+
Percentage chance to hit___2.7%__5.5%__8.3%__11%__13%__16.6%__33.3%__50%__66.6%__83.3%___86%___88%___91.6%__94.3%___97.1%

For something like this, we'd still need the "no re-rolling a re-roll rule" and i don't really see it being useful to keep the current design philosophy of re-roll aura's/abilities. It could be expanded to other mechanics as well, like Save's and such.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Morale either needs to go away as a universal rule (brought back as a Codex-wide rule for things like Imperial Guard and as a bespoke rule for CSM Cultists and Ork Grots, possibly other units) or made to affect EVERYONE to at least some degree.

Agreed. Morale as a function of # of models destroyed has highly inconsistent effect/impact in the game.

One alternative could be to track the number of wounds lost, make up some math on how to check it against Ld, on fail provides negative modifier to WS/BS.

And no, it's not more bookkeeping since you're tracking wounds ALL THE TIME anyways.

 skchsan wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Morale either needs to go away as a universal rule (brought back as a Codex-wide rule for things like Imperial Guard and as a bespoke rule for CSM Cultists and Ork Grots, possibly other units) or made to affect EVERYONE to at least some degree.

Agreed. Morale as a function of # of models destroyed has highly inconsistent effect/impact in the game.

One alternative could be to track the number of wounds lost, make up some math on how to check it against Ld, on fail provides negative modifier to WS/BS.

And no, it's not more bookkeeping since you're tracking wounds ALL THE TIME anyways.

I don't mind moral in terms of how it's done.

For me I dislike the result of failed morale. The fact say a terminator (I know Da termi's are fearless but I am on about other termi's) fails and runs away. A single roll can get rid of two wounds that is 30" away from a board edge. And no one can kill him first or anything, or stop him? re group?

I believe just go back to they simply "run away" and run 2d6" to the controlling players board edge of deployment. Then at start of next turn make a leadership test, if pass they stop running and count as simply having fallen back. If they fail they run another 2d6".