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.

Rerolls are not bad on a game design level ( except for the fact that they take more time to resolve).

They are much much much better than + and - modifiers.

A rr1 will always be an effectiveness increase of 16%, no matter who has it, which weapon it has and what it is shooting at. Same for rr1 hits or wounds. It is a mathematically nice way to give a fixed effectiveness buff. Direct modifiers depend a lot on who has them, and in the case of wounding modifiers also depends on the target.

Something that always has the same relative effect is easier to price that something which wildly changes in behaviour depending on conditions.

Full rerolls are a different matter.

Full reroll hits are better the worse BS you have. This means that applied in SM, it is fine. They all have the same BS mostly, so a full reroll to hit is a flat 33% increase in effectiveness. It is simply double the bonus of an rr1.
It gets sketchy when hit maluses appear, but luckily in 9th they are capped at -1.

Full rerolls to wound are dumb.
The effect is so variable and depends on so many conditions, that it cannot be balanced. In fact, Gman in the end was changed.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Alpha Legion Sorcerers dedicated to Nurgle have to find something else to do it seems.

You can still buff non-infantry, non-character, non-helbrute units though.

The Shokk-Jump Dragsta got boned though, it has a low RoF gun with +2 hit, because GW didn't want to give an ork BS3+.

So if you run around ruind doing back flips shoting your multi melta at a target in dense cover, you have the same chance of hiting it, if you stood still and aimed? Hilarious.

Karol wrote:
So if you run around ruind doing back flips shoting your multi melta at a target in dense cover, you have the same chance of hiting it, if you stood still and aimed? Hilarious.

You can dance your way toward your target, but only just as far as you could get there by walking. Move even a millimeter more and you can't shoot!

 Jidmah wrote:
The Shokk-Jump Dragsta got boned though, it has a low RoF gun with +2 hit, because GW didn't want to give an ork BS3+.

I hadn't thought of this... This is... rather unfortunate, to speak politely. :/

Let's hope Day 1 FAQ will fix these few units that got boned by the new rules.

 Jidmah wrote:


The Shokk-Jump Dragsta got boned though, it has a low RoF gun with +2 hit, because GW didn't want to give an ork BS3+.

I wouldn't be so sure. The new rule is clearly intented to cap overlapping bonuses and auras, while the +2 to hit on the main weapon of the SJD is an inner ability. It could be easily fixed by FAQing the model's datasheet: BS4+ base (it would make sense as the main weapon is handled by a Gretchin), +1 to hit for the Kustom Shokk Rifle, -1 to hit for the Rokkit Launcha.

Freeboterz dakkajets might suffer from the new rule though, as they hit on 3s only by stacking two different abilities/auras, but at least they can still be a useful tool to trigger the +1 to hit aura for other units.

True, basically all freeboota grot gunners are worthless now.

This rule seems like classic GW design: we're not actually solving a problem, we're just trading one problem for another.

Spoletta wrote:
Rerolls are not bad on a game design level ( except for the fact that they take more time to resolve).

I think the problem lies far more in auras being constant and free. It removes almost every meaningful decisions as you don't have to choose which unit to buff, nor allocate any resources to make it happen.

The only possible limit lies with how many units you can physically fit within 6" of a given model, though even that is rarely an issue given the ability to daisy-chain units (so all you need is for one model in a unit to have his foot in the aura).

While I like the fact that, for example, being -2 to hit will let you still be -1 to hit against something with +1 to hit, I dislike the fact it means Heavy weapons now have no downside to being used against "hard to hit" units.

 Castozor wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
I´m overall in favor of preventing ridiculous -x to hit modifiers, but this is a lazy fix. As said why not advance my assault weapons now or move my heavy weapon infantry squad if the target has -1 to hit anyway.

I understand this complaint, but if I view the rule from the lens of T'au or other mid to low BS units then it is probably more fair to cap at -1 instead of -2.

And honestly - how many scenarios were you shooting something and got upset, because running your assault weapons would put you at -2? Did those devastators shooting the aircraft actually have to move?

At least before it was an actual penalty, now there is no reason not to do it and that just feels wrong. If the enemy or me is fielding plague bearers there is no reason not to move unless you fear a charge now, not to mention the new obscure terrain does absolutely nothing for them. This is bad design in my mind, terrain should be useful for them as well, there is now 0 reason not to just park them into the open unless yu can avoid LOS otherwise and good luck with that on a 30 man squad. It's the same reason I have always hated that my friends IW ignored cover, so what reason exactly is there for me to move tactically then? Since there is 0 reason to do that as he ignores the rules anyway and now units with a -1 to hit when moving also can ignore that when the target has a modifier already.

Well, a 30 man likely never wants to be hiding. It still benefits from dense should the opponent want a +1 on them, but I realize that's also not likely. The other end of this is +1 to hit could become more common meaning stacking becomes more relevant - all speculation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
Rerolls are not bad on a game design level ( except for the fact that they take more time to resolve).

They are much much much better than + and - modifiers.

A rr1 will always be an effectiveness increase of 16%, no matter who has it, which weapon it has and what it is shooting at. Same for rr1 hits or wounds. It is a mathematically nice way to give a fixed effectiveness buff. Direct modifiers depend a lot on who has them, and in the case of wounding modifiers also depends on the target.

Something that always has the same relative effect is easier to price that something which wildly changes in behaviour depending on conditions.

Full rerolls are a different matter.

Full reroll hits are better the worse BS you have. This means that applied in SM, it is fine. They all have the same BS mostly, so a full reroll to hit is a flat 33% increase in effectiveness. It is simply double the bonus of an rr1.
It gets sketchy when hit maluses appear, but luckily in 9th they are capped at -1.

Full rerolls to wound are dumb.
The effect is so variable and depends on so many conditions, that it cannot be balanced. In fact, Gman in the end was changed.

I'm not sure that is correct. Higher BS is still better. A marine rerolling a 1 will get a hit 66% of the time. An ork will otherwise get a hit 33% of the time. If both of them get +1 they bpth get an addition 16% hits -- though the ork gets 50% more hits and the marine 25%, but that seems a better balance against marines.

 vipoid wrote:
This rule seems like classic GW design: we're not actually solving a problem, we're just trading one problem for another.

Spoletta wrote:
Rerolls are not bad on a game design level ( except for the fact that they take more time to resolve).

I think the problem lies far more in auras being constant and free. It removes almost every meaningful decisions as you don't have to choose which unit to buff, nor allocate any resources to make it happen.

The only possible limit lies with how many units you can physically fit within 6" of a given model, though even that is rarely an issue given the ability to daisy-chain units (so all you need is for one model in a unit to have his foot in the aura).

I think the issue is not auras, but auras providing re-rolls to something that is happening as often as hitting.

Auras should also get their own explicit rules, which include something like requiring a third or half of a unit's models to be within range of the aura to benefit from it to eliminate conga-lining.

 Jidmah wrote:


The Shokk-Jump Dragsta got boned though, it has a low RoF gun with +2 hit, because GW didn't want to give an ork BS3+.

I'd bet that one will take a FAQ.

 Jidmah wrote:

I think the issue is not auras, but auras providing re-rolls to something that is happening as often as hitting.

Auras should also get their own explicit rules, which include something like requiring a third or half of a unit's models to be within range of the aura to benefit from it to eliminate conga-lining.

I disagree. I think auras just need to be removed altogether. As should Stratagems.

Instead, give HQs Command abilities akin to those of AoS Heroes. Or, at the very least, tie the use of Stratagems to HQs (e.g. in order to use a stratagem on a unit, you have to have an appropriate HQ within 6" of it, maybe 12" if it's your Warlord).

As it stands, Stratagems are so divorced from the rest of the game that we might as well be tying the outcome of specific actions to an interim game of Yugioh.

 vipoid wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

I think the issue is not auras, but auras providing re-rolls to something that is happening as often as hitting.

Auras should also get their own explicit rules, which include something like requiring a third or half of a unit's models to be within range of the aura to benefit from it to eliminate conga-lining.

I disagree. I think auras just need to be removed altogether. As should Stratagems.

Instead, give HQs Command abilities akin to those of AoS Heroes. Or, at the very least, tie the use of Stratagems to HQs (e.g. in order to use a stratagem on a unit, you have to have an appropriate HQ within 6" of it, maybe 12" if it's your Warlord).

As it stands, Stratagems are so divorced from the rest of the game that we might as well be tying the outcome of specific actions to an interim game of Yugioh.

Auras are fine but should be targeted, no free aura to all within 6" (at least reroll auras, other ones are fine). I really hope they have addressed the SM reroll everything issue.....I know many of the people who are playtesters don;t like it, did they listen?

As for strats, many armies are going to be starting with a lot less CPs than what they were used to. This is a good thing (and many armies will have more). You will need some in list building, outflanking units, etc. I think it's a definite step in the right direction.

As to my Harlies and the to hit roll, LFR will still be decent for troupes and I won't have to waste the CP on skyweavers (since I'm probably spending quite a few on pivotal roles, relics, anyway)

 vipoid wrote:
I think the problem lies far more in auras being constant and free. It removes almost every meaningful decisions as you don't have to choose which unit to buff, nor allocate any resources to make it happen.

Once again, I feel like the solution is to remove 'always on' auras and switch them to the T'au Commander version - once per game for 1 turn and multiple captains/commanders/etc don't give extra uses.

 vipoid wrote:
Or, at the very least, tie the use of Stratagems to HQs (e.g. in order to use a stratagem on a unit, you have to have an appropriate HQ within 6" of it, maybe 12" if it's your Warlord).

As it stands, Stratagems are so divorced from the rest of the game that we might as well be tying the outcome of specific actions to an interim game of Yugioh.

I agree with the sentiment, but tying it to HQs would be fraught with problems. It would make assassins and the like massively powerful as an army could be denied acesss to Stratagems, but also mechanised armies like the Drukhari could find themselves having to footslog their HQs just to be able to use their strats.

Spoletta wrote:


Full reroll hits are better the worse BS you have. This means that applied in SM, it is fine. They all have the same BS mostly, so a full reroll to hit is a flat 33% increase in effectiveness. It is simply double the bonus of an rr1.
It gets sketchy when hit maluses appear, but luckily in 9th they are capped at -1.

If by "fine" you mean it's fine to have a faction that basically hits every shot they take...yeah, I guess. If the hit roll wasn't supposed to be a real part of the game for space marines and you weren't supposed to be able to realistically stop space marines from hitting you with nearly every shot they take.

Personally, if you're going to have a hit roll, I think it should be meaningful. Marines always hitting 75% of their shots no matter what, and usually hitting 88% or better, in the new system with a reroll bubble doesn't feel very meaningful.

In the current system, if you play space marines, you basically roll buckets of dice for very little effect because you end up hitting almost all the time. This feels like a tremendous amount of wasted effort, and it isn't much fun for the person on the receiving end either to watch you roll two sets of dice for 10 attacks and announce they hit you 9 of those times.

The way rerolls neuter minuses to hit is a big issue when you cap minuses to hit.

If you're going to cap modifiers at +1/-1 reroll bubbles should only ever allow you to reroll 1s too, to balance it out.

Is it too much to hope that we see plasma move to "unmodified 1's to hit" across the board, alongside this modifier change?

 Dysartes wrote:
Is it too much to hope that we see plasma move to "unmodified 1's to hit" across the board, alongside this modifier change?

Yes please. This may be unpopular, but I'd also like to see it move to not being re-rollable, and inflicting 1MW rather than killing outright.

Rerolls are not bad on a game design level ( except for the fact that they take more time to resolve).

In principle I agree, but rerolls taken to the "GW extreme" actually are bad. In some games, there can be so many rerolls that you practically play the game twice. It's too much.

It will be interesting to see what this modifier rule does to things like Eliminators. They can get enough buffs right now to essentially "auto-hit" w/their rifles. Wonder if we see a drop in their use now as they will become more expensive but slightly less capable.

 harlokin wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Is it too much to hope that we see plasma move to "unmodified 1's to hit" across the board, alongside this modifier change?

Yes please. This may be unpopular, but I'd also like to see it move to not being re-rollable, and inflicting 1MW rather than killing outright.

It can't do 1MW without being changed to the T'au system where Shas'ui'intern can tank the mortal wounds for Shas'vre'reqless, because it would cause multiple models to be wounded, which is not permitted under the rules. Since Primaris exist...

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Is it too much to hope that we see plasma move to "unmodified 1's to hit" across the board, alongside this modifier change?

Yes please. This may be unpopular, but I'd also like to see it move to not being re-rollable, and inflicting 1MW rather than killing outright.

It can't do 1MW without being changed to the T'au system where Shas'ui'intern can tank the mortal wounds for Shas'vre'reqless, because it would cause multiple models to be wounded, which is not permitted under the rules. Since Primaris exist...

Slays non character infantry. 1MW to all other units.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Castozor wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
I´m overall in favor of preventing ridiculous -x to hit modifiers, but this is a lazy fix. As said why not advance my assault weapons now or move my heavy weapon infantry squad if the target has -1 to hit anyway.

I understand this complaint, but if I view the rule from the lens of T'au or other mid to low BS units then it is probably more fair to cap at -1 instead of -2.

And honestly - how many scenarios were you shooting something and got upset, because running your assault weapons would put you at -2? Did those devastators shooting the aircraft actually have to move?

At least before it was an actual penalty, now there is no reason not to do it and that just feels wrong. If the enemy or me is fielding plague bearers there is no reason not to move unless you fear a charge now, not to mention the new obscure terrain does absolutely nothing for them. This is bad design in my mind, terrain should be useful for them as well, there is now 0 reason not to just park them into the open unless yu can avoid LOS otherwise and good luck with that on a 30 man squad. It's the same reason I have always hated that my friends IW ignored cover, so what reason exactly is there for me to move tactically then? Since there is 0 reason to do that as he ignores the rules anyway and now units with a -1 to hit when moving also can ignore that when the target has a modifier already.

Well, a 30 man likely never wants to be hiding. It still benefits from dense should the opponent want a +1 on them, but I realize that's also not likely. The other end of this is +1 to hit could become more common meaning stacking becomes more relevant - all speculation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
Rerolls are not bad on a game design level ( except for the fact that they take more time to resolve).

They are much much much better than + and - modifiers.

A rr1 will always be an effectiveness increase of 16%, no matter who has it, which weapon it has and what it is shooting at. Same for rr1 hits or wounds. It is a mathematically nice way to give a fixed effectiveness buff. Direct modifiers depend a lot on who has them, and in the case of wounding modifiers also depends on the target.

Something that always has the same relative effect is easier to price that something which wildly changes in behaviour depending on conditions.

Full rerolls are a different matter.

Full reroll hits are better the worse BS you have. This means that applied in SM, it is fine. They all have the same BS mostly, so a full reroll to hit is a flat 33% increase in effectiveness. It is simply double the bonus of an rr1.
It gets sketchy when hit maluses appear, but luckily in 9th they are capped at -1.

Full rerolls to wound are dumb.
The effect is so variable and depends on so many conditions, that it cannot be balanced. In fact, Gman in the end was changed.

I'm not sure that is correct. Higher BS is still better. A marine rerolling a 1 will get a hit 66% of the time. An ork will otherwise get a hit 33% of the time. If both of them get +1 they bpth get an addition 16% hits -- though the ork gets 50% more hits and the marine 25%, but that seems a better balance against marines.

They both get the same bonus with rr1.

A marine will hit 16,66% more attacks. The accuracy goes from 66% to 77%. 7/6 of the original value.

An ork will hit 16,66% more attacks. An ork goes from 33% to to 39%. 7/6 of the original value.

The BS of the models doesn't count in the least.

That's why in theory rr1 are a more manageable mechanic than straight modifiers. It doesn't matter who you are, you get the same bonus.

The drawback is that it takes more time to resolve than a straight modifier.

Spoletta wrote:
Rerolls are not bad on a game design level ( except for the fact that they take more time to resolve).

They are much much much better than + and - modifiers.

A rr1 will always be an effectiveness increase of 16%, no matter who has it, which weapon it has and what it is shooting at. Same for rr1 hits or wounds. It is a mathematically nice way to give a fixed effectiveness buff. Direct modifiers depend a lot on who has them, and in the case of wounding modifiers also depends on the target.

Something that always has the same relative effect is easier to price that something which wildly changes in behaviour depending on conditions.

Full rerolls are a different matter.

Full reroll hits are better the worse BS you have. This means that applied in SM, it is fine. They all have the same BS mostly, so a full reroll to hit is a flat 33% increase in effectiveness. It is simply double the bonus of an rr1.
It gets sketchy when hit maluses appear, but luckily in 9th they are capped at -1.

Full rerolls to wound are dumb.
The effect is so variable and depends on so many conditions, that it cannot be balanced. In fact, Gman in the end was changed.

That's...not...how that math works. A reroll 1 to hit on weapon that hit's on 3s is a .1667*.667 boost, which is 11% ish. A reroll 1 to hit on a weapon that hits on 5s is a .1667*.333 boost, which is 5.5%.

Full rerolls on a 3+ to hit are a .333*.667 boost or about 22.2% Full rerolls on a 4+ to hit are a .5*.5 boost, which is 25%. It's a bell curve. 4+ has the most benefit with it going down as it moves out from there.

A +1 modifier a 3+ to hit would be a flat 16.67% increase. +2 modifier on a 5+ to hit would be a flat 33.3% increase. Rerolls are always some fraction because it's the % chance you have to miss(or roll a 1 in the case of reroll 1s) on the first shot multiplied buy the chance to succeed the second shot, added to the base probability of success.

Your conclusion is correct, just none of that math is anywhere near correct.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


The Shokk-Jump Dragsta got boned though, it has a low RoF gun with +2 hit, because GW didn't want to give an ork BS3+.

I'd bet that one will take a FAQ.

I'll take that bet, orks tend to be completely forgotten when rules change. I'm ready to be pleasantly surprised by the new playtesters though.

Spoletta wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Castozor wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
I´m overall in favor of preventing ridiculous -x to hit modifiers, but this is a lazy fix. As said why not advance my assault weapons now or move my heavy weapon infantry squad if the target has -1 to hit anyway.

I understand this complaint, but if I view the rule from the lens of T'au or other mid to low BS units then it is probably more fair to cap at -1 instead of -2.

And honestly - how many scenarios were you shooting something and got upset, because running your assault weapons would put you at -2? Did those devastators shooting the aircraft actually have to move?

At least before it was an actual penalty, now there is no reason not to do it and that just feels wrong. If the enemy or me is fielding plague bearers there is no reason not to move unless you fear a charge now, not to mention the new obscure terrain does absolutely nothing for them. This is bad design in my mind, terrain should be useful for them as well, there is now 0 reason not to just park them into the open unless yu can avoid LOS otherwise and good luck with that on a 30 man squad. It's the same reason I have always hated that my friends IW ignored cover, so what reason exactly is there for me to move tactically then? Since there is 0 reason to do that as he ignores the rules anyway and now units with a -1 to hit when moving also can ignore that when the target has a modifier already.

Well, a 30 man likely never wants to be hiding. It still benefits from dense should the opponent want a +1 on them, but I realize that's also not likely. The other end of this is +1 to hit could become more common meaning stacking becomes more relevant - all speculation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
Rerolls are not bad on a game design level ( except for the fact that they take more time to resolve).

They are much much much better than + and - modifiers.

A rr1 will always be an effectiveness increase of 16%, no matter who has it, which weapon it has and what it is shooting at. Same for rr1 hits or wounds. It is a mathematically nice way to give a fixed effectiveness buff. Direct modifiers depend a lot on who has them, and in the case of wounding modifiers also depends on the target.

Something that always has the same relative effect is easier to price that something which wildly changes in behaviour depending on conditions.

Full rerolls are a different matter.

Full reroll hits are better the worse BS you have. This means that applied in SM, it is fine. They all have the same BS mostly, so a full reroll to hit is a flat 33% increase in effectiveness. It is simply double the bonus of an rr1.
It gets sketchy when hit maluses appear, but luckily in 9th they are capped at -1.

Full rerolls to wound are dumb.
The effect is so variable and depends on so many conditions, that it cannot be balanced. In fact, Gman in the end was changed.

I'm not sure that is correct. Higher BS is still better. A marine rerolling a 1 will get a hit 66% of the time. An ork will otherwise get a hit 33% of the time. If both of them get +1 they bpth get an addition 16% hits -- though the ork gets 50% more hits and the marine 25%, but that seems a better balance against marines.

They both get the same bonus with rr1.

A marine will hit 16,66% more attacks. The accuracy goes from 66% to 77%. 7/6 of the original value.

An ork will hit 16,66% more attacks. An ork goes from 33% to to 39%. 7/6 of the original value.

The BS of the models doesn't count in the least.

That's why in theory rr1 are a more manageable mechanic than straight modifiers. It doesn't matter who you are, you get the same bonus.

The drawback is that it takes more time to resolve than a straight modifier.

No they won't. You're imagining that the rerolled shot will automatically hit, but it won't. It also has to be greater than or equal to the model's ballistic skill.

A reroll 1 on a 3+ is a 72% chance to hit, or an 11% bonus. A reroll 1 on a 5+ to hit is a 38.8% chance to hit or a 5% bonus.

So I just realized that not everyone has the common percentages memorized so here we go.

Chances to hit:
Full Rerolls: 2+=97.2% 3+= 89%ish, 4+=75%, 5+= 55.5%, 6+= 30.5%

Reroll 1s: 2+=97.2%, 3+=72.2%, 4+=58.3%, 5+= 38.8%, 6+=19.4%

 harlokin wrote:
I wonder what they'll do with Lightning Fast Reactions.

I'm guessing they'll leave it as is. You can't stack it on Alaitoc anymore but there are plenty of things that aren't Alaitoc.

Shoot 36 shots.
Normally with a 3+ = 24 hits. (Asuming 6 1s, 6 2s, 6 3s etc).
Now reroll those 6 1s that miss.
Get 4 more hits.
Therefore 28/36 hits.
Which is 77%.
Which is 7/6 more hits than 66%.

 slave.entity wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
I wonder what they'll do with Lightning Fast Reactions.

I'm guessing they'll leave it as is. You can't stack it on Alaitoc anymore but there are plenty of things that aren't Alaitoc.

You are probably right, but at 2 CP it makes it fairly useless/niche. I mainly use it to protect the Venom carrying all my HQs.

 harlokin wrote:

 slave.entity wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
I wonder what they'll do with Lightning Fast Reactions.

I'm guessing they'll leave it as is. You can't stack it on Alaitoc anymore but there are plenty of things that aren't Alaitoc.

You are probably right, but at 2 CP it makes it fairly useless/niche. I mainly use it to protect the Venom carrying all my HQs.

Can use it on a raider.

The very optimistic - perhaps too optimistic - is that having taken away the ability to stack, it can be a 1 CP stratagem.
Which obviously doesn't change the power - but makes it more of an auto-use each turn sort of thing.