Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 04:44:08
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
This came up in a conversation today, where the basic premise was that currently in 9th edition Eldar (a race that designs all its technology and training around being as evasive as possible, to the point where they no longer wear 'protective' armour) are easier to kill than an ork in a tshirt.
So as a caveat - I personally did not like the 8th edition shenanigans of stacking up -4 / -6 etc to-hit modifiers, making units impossible to hit. It was too much, and it made things boring. Blame GW for leaving so many obvious loopholes and stacking opportunities open.
(Lets forget for a moment this recently got partly fixed by making 6s always hit. )
However... capping it at +1/-1... has issues.
An example:
Alaitoc Ranger unit, hiding in a forest. Should be -3 to hit, under the old rules. They're sneaky dudes, from a sneaky race, wearing camouflage. Makes sense.
However it gets capped at -1...
So now we throw in a Custodes unit. Big hulking dude.
He wants to fire his gun... it's a -1 to hit.
Well then he decides to advance first. -2 to hit still -1 to hit
Decides to fire both his weapon profiles. -3 to hit still -1 to hit
So a custodes can now run around the map, jumping and firing his weapons wildly in the air (any Halo fans out there?), and is exactly as accurate as a trained assassin firing his rifle from his snipers nest.
I think a change needed to be made... but I'm not sure this was the right change. Perhaps it can be fixed with a tweak, maybe +2/-2 being the cap instead... it would certainly be more reasonable.
Alternatively, they could change the army's that use this from -1 to hit modifiers, to something else. Maybe "enemy weapons range is reduced by 6inches", or a change to the armour save maybe. Alternatively, a bunch of units need to go down in price by a significant amount (but the best place to read recommendations on this is the Goonhammer site).
But I'd guess GW won't be making any changes like this for a year or so. The imperium just got another huge buff, and they're selling their speshmareens.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 04:51:28
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
What about putting a cap on -1s to hit imposed by enemy/terrain.
Compare your +s to the Enemy/Terrain based -s. Cap either way at 1. Impose any self inflicted -s Advancing, Combi Weapon etc. Afterwards.
|
BlaxicanX wrote:A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 05:01:03
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I would say so, but one of the reasons for this is that the game now directly affects the dice roll more, so the impact is larger.
Previously if you had WS modifier, you compared it to your opponent's WS. So it wasn't always effective.
But now that everything is a flat X+ to hit, you're basically prevented from changing the roll or it skews the results too much.
The consequence being the design space for rule effects shrinks - it's now pretty much just a T, Sv and W game now.
unless they invent a special rule for the eldar or other armies (genestealers now have a flat invulnerable save, because it's easier in the his paradigm than giving them a negative to hit like they had in 2nd ed for running), there is not much design space to represent hard to hit hit glass cannons anymore.
In this current paradigm, the best you can do is either a universal invulnerable save to represent reflexes, extra wounds to represent your ability to get out of the way so no hit lands properly, or some arbitrary rule that breaks the core mechanics like - All aeldari models can't be hit on better than a 4+ regardless of modifiers.
Speed hasn't been a real defence since 2nd ed - and once they took initiative away, it wasn't even a defence in Melee anymore.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 05:02:42
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Eldarain wrote:What about putting a cap on -1s to hit imposed by enemy/terrain.
Compare your +s to the Enemy/Terrain based -s. Cap either way at 1. Impose any self inflicted -s Advancing, Combi Weapon etc. Afterwards.
Funny you should say that, the reason this came into my head today was because I was reading the new terrain rules and saw 'Dense Cover' gives a -1 to be hit, and thought "wow, that's totally useless".
Cover modifiers should definitely be excluded from the cap.
I did also think the same thing as you - self inflicted modifiers (like advancing) should also be excluded from the cap. I'm not forcing you to advance, you're choosing to do it, I shouldn't be the one punished for it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 05:05:46
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Niiru wrote: Eldarain wrote:What about putting a cap on -1s to hit imposed by enemy/terrain.
Compare your +s to the Enemy/Terrain based -s. Cap either way at 1. Impose any self inflicted -s Advancing, Combi Weapon etc. Afterwards.
Funny you should say that, the reason this came into my head today was because I was reading the new terrain rules and saw 'Dense Cover' gives a -1 to be hit, and thought "wow, that's totally useless".
Cover modifiers should definitely be excluded from the cap.
I did also think the same thing as you - self inflicted modifiers (like advancing) should also be excluded from the cap. I'm not forcing you to advance, you're choosing to do it, I shouldn't be the one punished for it.
the rule loses its effect if you create too many exceptions to it though. And if you have to balance a rule by creating lots of exceptions then it's probably not a good rule.
Maybe they'll introduce a hit 'save' - if you're super dodgy then you get a save against successful hits before they're rolled to wound. Then you get your armour save after that.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 05:09:18
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Hellebore wrote:
In this current paradigm, the best you can do is either a universal invulnerable save to represent reflexes, extra wounds to represent your ability to get out of the way so no hit lands properly, or some arbitrary rule that breaks the core mechanics like - All aeldari models can't be hit on better than a 4+ regardless of modifiers.
Speed hasn't been a real defence since 2nd ed - and once they took initiative away, it wasn't even a defence in Melee anymore.
This is the problem thought - elite armies like Harlequins pay a big premium for their stats, and two of the things they pay a lot for is a 4++ and a -1 to be hit. They already have this, so the -1 to be hit can't be swapped for an invuln (unless they improve it to a 3++, but that won't happen). It just means they're more fragile than they already were. And they were already glass cannons. Now they're... biscuit cannons.
Initiative was eldars main defence back in the old days, but that got removed and eventually replaced with -1 to hit, which has now also been removed. So far thought it hasn't been replaced with anything.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 05:14:26
Subject: Re:Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
The dark hollows of Kentucky
|
Making 6s always hit was enough. This change favors elite armies over armies with inherently poor BS and WS. The worst a marine can hit is now on 4s, while boyz can be pushed to hitting on 6s. It's the way cover affects armour saves all over again. Gw overcompensated hard.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 05:16:46
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Niiru wrote: Hellebore wrote:
In this current paradigm, the best you can do is either a universal invulnerable save to represent reflexes, extra wounds to represent your ability to get out of the way so no hit lands properly, or some arbitrary rule that breaks the core mechanics like - All aeldari models can't be hit on better than a 4+ regardless of modifiers.
Speed hasn't been a real defence since 2nd ed - and once they took initiative away, it wasn't even a defence in Melee anymore.
This is the problem thought - elite armies like Harlequins pay a big premium for their stats, and two of the things they pay a lot for is a 4++ and a -1 to be hit. They already have this, so the -1 to be hit can't be swapped for an invuln (unless they improve it to a 3++, but that won't happen). It just means they're more fragile than they already were. And they were already glass cannons. Now they're... biscuit cannons.
Initiative was eldars main defence back in the old days, but that got removed and eventually replaced with -1 to hit, which has now also been removed. So far thought it hasn't been replaced with anything.
Yup. GW have decided that space marines are the force the game should be built around, and speed and dodgy ness is not their defining trait.
Hence why Necrons are released alongside them in the newest edition - necrons are the closest xenos army to marines in stats - they rely on T, W and Sv to stay alive.
Eldar have always been an army GW struggles with because they have so much variety which is so different (no armies have statlines like wraithguard alongside stalines like guardians) - the crafworld army is like every imperial faction smushed together, trying to balance that is difficult and they inevitably end up with one or two broken units that are used and the rest are ignored.
This new paradigm has a lot of extra wounds being handed out, so it's possible they will just give harlequins +1 wound each. Personally I'd rather 3++ and 1W, to reinforce that glass cannon aspect, but we'll just have to wait and see.
The most I expect for the craftworlds is 2 wound aspects maybe. god forbid they actually make them soft and hard at the same time...
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 05:20:01
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Posts with Authority
|
Looks like you found the first "game breaking" thing from the 9th ed rules as far as I'm concerned. This means that as long as an enemy unit is in cover, I can just ignore any and all penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons, firing assult weapons while advancing, as well as any penalties for firing both combi-weapons. L4M3
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/10 05:20:52
"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 05:26:30
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
tauist wrote:Looks like you found the first "game breaking" thing from the 9th ed rules as far as I'm concerned. This means that as long as an enemy unit is in cover, I can just ignore any and all penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons, firing assult weapons while advancing, as well as any penalties for firing both combi-weapons. L4M3
Put another way, a one-legged space marine firing a lascannon while running / hopping, is exactly as accurate as a land raider firing a lascannon while standing still, if they're both aiming at the same guy hiding in a bush. So even 'big guns never tire' becomes unnecessary.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 05:44:21
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
With a D6 design space largely built around the median values, there is always going to be weirdness, there just isn't enough to work with. 40k isn't the only game to get stung by that problem, and it should be clear that anything capable of a -3 modifier or more in a D6 design space that has little or no "+" modifiers is going present problems and should be avoided in the first place as a result and a different mechanic used if necessary.
Capping at 6's can run into issues at the opposite end, where you get Guard or Ork units that can zip around all they want and not care too much, while the elite units eat the full impact of -3 to hit.
A 2d6 design space (where say an Ork may hit on an 8, a Guardsmen would hit on a 7, a Guardian on a 6, a Space Marine on a 5, and a Custodes on a 4) would allow for dramatically more flexibility and differentiation, but doesn't work in a game where you may be rolling 40 attacks at once.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/10 05:45:00
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 06:01:02
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Vaktathi wrote:With a D6 design space largely built around the median values, there is always going to be weirdness, there just isn't enough to work with. 40k isn't the only game to get stung by that problem, and it should be clear that anything capable of a -3 modifier or more in a D6 design space that has little or no "+" modifiers is going present problems and should be avoided in the first place as a result and a different mechanic used if necessary.
Capping at 6's can run into issues at the opposite end, where you get Guard or Ork units that can zip around all they want and not care too much, while the elite units eat the full impact of -3 to hit.
A 2d6 design space (where say an Ork may hit on an 8, a Guardsmen would hit on a 7, a Guardian on a 6, a Space Marine on a 5, and a Custodes on a 4) would allow for dramatically more flexibility and differentiation, but doesn't work in a game where you may be rolling 40 attacks at once.
It works better when you're using the dice as the mediator between two values, rather than as a direct result unto itself.
ie the S vsT table (and the modern one which is more skewed at the ends) works fine with a D6 - it could work fine with any dice value really, because it's used as a comparison rather than as a static score.
Which IMO is what they should have done with BS, rather than changed WS to be more like it, they should have shifted BS to be more like WS.
So long as modifiers stay away from Dice, and stick to stats, then the effect is less pronounced.
ie BS 6 Vs I 6 = 4+ to hit. -2 to BS changes it to a 5+, -3 or more to a 6+.
I understand that the direct roll is simpler mechanically, but ... it's also simpler mechanically and that's what causes issues like this one.
Using the dice as a comparator and not applying modifiers to the dice value directly avoids these issues, but it does make the maths a little more involved.
I would have just applied the current SvsT table to WS and BS and called it a day...
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 06:11:28
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
If you increase cap it helps bs3 and 2 armies more than others. Do marines really need more buff?
|
2024 painted/bought: 109/109 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 06:15:42
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Yes.
|
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 06:18:19
Subject: Re:Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Gadzilla666 wrote: Making 6s always hit was enough. This change favors elite armies over armies with inherently poor BS and WS. The worst a marine can hit is now on 4s, while boyz can be pushed to hitting on 6s. It's the way cover affects armour saves all over again. Gw overcompensated hard.
But then marines were largely ignoring those negatives through rerolls.
This would only hurt Orks if they had the ability to stack negatives themselves, which they typically don't. I think the tailpipe smoke is the only voluntary one available.
The crazy negative modifiers came from primarily elite armies or were used to protect primarily elite units.
If anything it makes full rerolls less relevant.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 06:19:10
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
tneva82 wrote:If you increase cap it helps bs3 and 2 armies more than others. Do marines really need more buff?
No it doesn't?
-2 to hit
Ork normally hits on a 5+, in 8th and 9th hits on a 6+ (6s always hit),so no change.
Space marine on a 3+, in 8th hits on a 5+, but in 9th hits on a 4+
The cap helps space marines more than anyone else. Automatically Appended Next Post: Hellebore wrote:
I would have just applied the current SvsT table to WS and BS and called it a day...
I actually like this idea. Means -1 is a standard which is common, as -2 won't have much effect on most armies, but stealth armies that can stack to -3 or -4 then get an additional stage of stealth out of it. Same as strength now, where S4 to S5 is a decent jump in power, but after that the next bump is double-toughness so you'd need 8 or more.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/10 06:22:21
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 06:29:08
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
There is definitely an oddity in - assuming they live long enough to attack - a Conscript finding it equally as easy (or hard) to hit a Bloodthirster or Hive Tyrant in melee as they do a Nurgling or a Ripper Swarm.
|
2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG
My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote:This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote:You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling. - No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 07:02:30
Subject: Re:Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
The dark hollows of Kentucky
|
Daedalus81 wrote: Gadzilla666 wrote: Making 6s always hit was enough. This change favors elite armies over armies with inherently poor BS and WS. The worst a marine can hit is now on 4s, while boyz can be pushed to hitting on 6s. It's the way cover affects armour saves all over again. Gw overcompensated hard.
But then marines were largely ignoring those negatives through rerolls.
This would only hurt Orks if they had the ability to stack negatives themselves, which they typically don't. I think the tailpipe smoke is the only voluntary one available.
The crazy negative modifiers came from primarily elite armies or were used to protect primarily elite units.
If anything it makes full rerolls less relevant.
That's why loyalists need full rerolls taken away. Rerolling everything to hit was a bad idea. Rerolling 1s isn't so bad, but rerolling everything is too much. Yes, this makes full rerolls less relevant, but that's because it makes so many other things less relevant. Is your target already behind dense cover? Go ahead and move with that heavy weapon, or advance with that assault weapon.
It also devalues armies and units that rely on not being hit in the first place as their primary source of durability. And as the OP points out in their Custodes example, it's kind of silly.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 07:10:58
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought
|
D10 helps with this.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 07:17:16
Subject: Re:Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Gadzilla666 wrote:
That's why loyalists need full rerolls taken away. Rerolling everything to hit was a bad idea. Rerolling 1s isn't so bad, but rerolling everything is too much. Yes, this makes full rerolls less relevant, but that's because it makes so many other things less relevant. Is your target already behind dense cover? Go ahead and move with that heavy weapon, or advance with that assault weapon.
It also devalues armies and units that rely on not being hit in the first place as their primary source of durability. And as the OP points out in their Custodes example, it's kind of silly.
I don't play marines, but I still remember eldar running around with -2/-3 to hit, no melee possible, armies. It was not very fun to non eldar players. And given the option of me having fun, and someone playing other armies having it, I learned that it is smarter to go for your own fun, because the chance is GW is not going to give you fun rules in the future. Being costed like a truck and hiting on +6 is not very fun. And if marines could have been bad for most of 8th, then maybe all those xeno players are going to have to live with the fact, that now they are going to have to wait for 9-12 months to have fun.
|
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 07:23:16
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot
Hanoi, Vietnam.
|
Would a to hit table that compares "accuracy" vs "evasiveness" in the same vein as the to wound table be a terrible idea?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 07:53:29
Subject: Re:Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
The dark hollows of Kentucky
|
Karol wrote: Gadzilla666 wrote:
That's why loyalists need full rerolls taken away. Rerolling everything to hit was a bad idea. Rerolling 1s isn't so bad, but rerolling everything is too much. Yes, this makes full rerolls less relevant, but that's because it makes so many other things less relevant. Is your target already behind dense cover? Go ahead and move with that heavy weapon, or advance with that assault weapon.
It also devalues armies and units that rely on not being hit in the first place as their primary source of durability. And as the OP points out in their Custodes example, it's kind of silly.
I don't play marines, but I still remember eldar running around with -2/-3 to hit, no melee possible, armies. It was not very fun to non eldar players. And given the option of me having fun, and someone playing other armies having it, I learned that it is smarter to go for your own fun, because the chance is GW is not going to give you fun rules in the future. Being costed like a truck and hiting on +6 is not very fun. And if marines could have been bad for most of 8th, then maybe all those xeno players are going to have to live with the fact, that now they are going to have to wait for 9-12 months to have fun.
So, since the rules on modifiers to hit unfairly favored Eldar at one point it's ok if they now unfairly favor other factions? You do realize that the rules don't have to tilt the tables heavily in one way or the other right? It's better to have an even playing field than to have things swing back and forth constantly.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 0096/06/10 08:03:30
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Hungry Ghoul
Germany
|
Bring back the "Initiative" stat.
Make the hit rolls a compared roll between BS / WS and I (as it was in darker times before...) - the same way, a wound roll is resolved.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 08:07:22
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Yes. I don't remember xeno players being sad that marines were laughable . There was a ton of L2P and "you take gulliman and a lot of razorbacks" which of course didn't help one bit, if you played IH or DA.
I am genuinely suprised, that people think that after 8th people are somehow going to have much sympathy to eldar player. And that them being at -3 to hit should be the natural way.
It doesn't sound to me much like non marine players being worried about balanced. They only worry that their armies aren't the best of the best right now.
Eldar players win ratios were what, 2-3% under that of IH, and they went mental about it, as if this was the end of the world.
Seems to me that w40k is swingy as hell. The difference is that, armies like eldar were in the very powerful camp for a very long time, and now act suprised. As if they didn't knew that other armies were unplayable bad for a very long time. I am all for eldar getting a GK level of fun for 2-3 editions. After then they can go back to being super powerful. Yeah, eldar being back to good, when I hit 21 sounds nice.
|
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 08:21:53
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Nibbler wrote:Bring back the "Initiative" stat.
Make the hit rolls a compared roll between BS / WS and I (as it was in darker times before...) - the same way, a wound roll is resolved.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of an edition where attack rolls have been WS (or BS) vs. I - prior to 8th, WS was compared to WS, while you took your BS away from 7, then applied modifiers to get the value you needed to roll to hit.
WS vs WS made sense and, frankly, BS vs. I doesn't seem that bad an idea, subject to testing.
|
2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG
My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote:This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote:You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling. - No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 08:24:54
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Karol wrote:Yes. I don't remember xeno players being sad that marines were laughable . There was a ton of L2P and "you take gulliman and a lot of razorbacks" which of course didn't help one bit, if you played IH or DA.
Well, yes, like all codices are full with bad choices , thanks to gw's ruleswriting, when was the last time you saw an aspect warrior, or possessed beyond the bomb shenanigans?
I am genuinely suprised, that people think that after 8th people are somehow going to have much sympathy to eldar player. And that them being at -3 to hit should be the natural way.
Because there are people here that care about the state of the game as a whole and not their egotistical faction, just becaus ei play R&H and CSM doesn't make it fun to roffle over a marine player, GK , tau, etc. Quite to the contrary, if the only fun you garner from this game is rolling over an opponent with the most op broken bs then i feel like you should go play Starcraft 2 competitively.
It doesn't sound to me much like non marine players being worried about balanced. They only worry that their armies aren't the best of the best right now.
Then you are not paying attention, people complained all through 8th about the most broken issue lists. For good reasons.
Eldar players win ratios were what, 2-3% under that of IH, and they went mental about it, as if this was the end of the world.
Do you honestly think it is good for the health of the game, when one faction has a not even 1/10 chance on a win just for existing in such a state? Do you think that is longterm healthy? Maybe you forgot, but i think you were atleast as close to just stop playing GK at some point in 8th, now imagine if more people drop out? That is devastating potentially, especially to smaller communities. Which will then affect the hobby as a whole. Bad rules suport goes also hand in hand with bad model support. Why do you think certain factions just died out in certain areas.
Seems to me that w40k is swingy as hell. The difference is that, armies like eldar were in the very powerful camp for a very long time, and now act suprised. As if they didn't knew that other armies were unplayable bad for a very long time. I am all for eldar getting a GK level of fun for 2-3 editions. After then they can go back to being super powerful. Yeah, eldar being back to good, when I hit 21 sounds nice.
That is just spite for the sake of spite mate, if you want to live with such a philosophy, by all means, but the implication is simple, that such balance issues (which atleast got somewhat quickly resovled to a degree) will make the game lose people faster then anything, since you weren't around since 7th i 'll give you a hint, it was bad, to the point where my local store literally kicked GW nearly out of it's sortiment, and it hasn't recovered to the same degree even now.
The hobby is worse off everytime GW pulls something like this, like the initial 9th ed pts, like IH, like formations.
Condoning such behaviour because your community has a lot of gak holes in it, which are not even concerned about a fair match is a sure fire way to make it go poof.
|
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 08:27:48
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot
Hanoi, Vietnam.
|
Yes, but I think most people would agree that it shouldn't be. Karol wrote:I am all for eldar getting a GK level of fun for 2-3 editions. After then they can go back to being super powerful. Yeah, eldar being back to good, when I hit 21 sounds nice.
That's a childishly spiteful position to take, and doesn't make you seem like a very sportsmanlike opponent.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/10 08:30:12
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 11:16:18
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Hungry Ghoul
Germany
|
Dysartes wrote:Nibbler wrote:Bring back the "Initiative" stat.
Make the hit rolls a compared roll between BS / WS and I (as it was in darker times before...) - the same way, a wound roll is resolved.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of an edition where attack rolls have been WS (or BS) vs. I - prior to 8th, WS was compared to WS, while you took your BS away from 7, then applied modifiers to get the value you needed to roll to hit.
WS vs WS made sense and, frankly, BS vs. I doesn't seem that bad an idea, subject to testing.
You are completely right, that's how it worked in the past. Got that confused somehow... (thank you for clearing that up)
But at this stage, I really think the Initiative stat would give us a tool to compare swiftness between different units.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 11:29:00
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Posts with Authority
|
I've long thought the D6 needs to change to some other die (D8/D10/D12), this issue seems to be another case validating my thoughts.
But if we must keep using D6, I kinda like the BS vs. I idea and using the same table as S vs. T. Its a simple table to remember and everyone already uses it, so adopting it also for shooting attacks should be quite easy.
|
"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/08/10 11:30:16
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Ginjitzu wrote:Karol wrote:I am all for eldar getting a GK level of fun for 2-3 editions. After then they can go back to being super powerful. Yeah, eldar being back to good, when I hit 21 sounds nice.
That's a childishly spiteful position to take, and doesn't make you seem like a very sportsmanlike opponent.
Don't mention the s word around Karol - you'll get some anecdote about it being sportsmanlike to destroy someone's joint in inter-school wrestling...
|
2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG
My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote:This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote:You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling. - No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... |
|
 |
 |
|