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.
2020/08/25 23:33:52
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Karol wrote: I think the only way to deal with it is to give each weapon a stat vs infantry, and one vs tanks or monsters.
This seems like it would achieve the exact same thing as simply having different profiles for infantry and tanks/monsters, yet would require vastly more effort and take up far more space. .
But it would remove the problem of weapons ment to be anti horde or anti meq being too good vs vehicles or monsters.
If the sniper bolter, is suppose to be a sniper weapon, then it should have a stat line that punishs infantry and a set of special rules that maybe helps it hurt characters, or that can be done through stratagems.
As someone else in the thread said, we shouldn't be running in to situation where all of the sudden the sniper rifle is also a prime anti tank weapon.
It would also help differentiate between weapons. The heavy bolter could have more shots and do more damage to infantry, while the AC be better vs tanks. And not, as again someone mentioned here, the heavy bolter out shining the clearly heavier weapon at anti tank.
And I say this in light of primaris getting their unit of primaris heavy bolter armed marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your knight (we're going to assume knight here, because the 40k rules aren't designed for and don't actually work for real titans; getting shanked by dudes is hardly the biggest of their problems) doesn't get shanked to death by a squad of dudes with knives, though
I have seen 15 BA scouts charge and heavily damage a knight crusader in a single turn of melee, multiple times.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/25 23:35:25
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.
2020/08/25 23:46:03
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
I did actually routinely kill Knights with Daemonettes in 8th edition since they didn't get their invuln in combat. In fact a local Knight player still believes my Daemonettes are a greater threat to his knights than my Keepers and will prioritize larger Daemonette squads over my monsters.
That was impossible in earlier editions and so literally the definition of a Knight getting shanked to death by dudes with knives claws.
(20 Daemonettes, 61 attacks, 40 hits, just over a quarter of the Knight's health from models as strong as Guardsmen)
2020/08/26 00:00:36
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't see how your complaint about higher strength, higher AP weapons relates to the complaint that a lasgun can plink a wound off a tank.
They both directly result from the same things: a vehicle stat profile that allows infantry rifles to fish for 6s and anti-infantry weapons to wound on 5s, with those vehicles saving 2/3 of the time at best.
If vehicles had 2+ saves, this would be less of a problem. Basic rifles would have their effectiveness halved, AP-1 weapons would be substantially less effective. Stalker bolt rifles would still be viable anti-tank and autocannons would be useless, but it'd be a step in the right direction.
If we used the pre-8th wound table (not even going back to the armor value system, literally just treating them like 7th Ed Monstrous Creatures), making heavy bolters only able to wound vehicles on 6s, stalker bolt rifles only able to wound light vehicles (T7), and lasguns unable to wound vehicles at all, then that would fix all three examples in one fell swoop.
The problem is not lasguns, or heavy bolters, or stalker bolt rifles. It's the mechanics they all share that make them each behave unintuitively against vehicles and gives rise to unexpected balance problems.
And if we want to talk about 'feels-bad' moments, having your tanks get shot off the board by bolt rifles is far more of a feels-bad moment than not getting to roll a bunch of lasgun shots that, in the end, will most likely do nothing except waste time.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's complaining about the wrong thing. If you want to complain about stalker bolt rifles or heavy bolters complain about those; neither will be fixed by making lasguns completely unable to hurt tanks.
Completely missing the forest for the trees.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/08/26 00:01:23
By mechanics you mean the abismally ungranular wounds chart catbarf right?
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.
2020/08/26 00:09:20
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
I completely agree that vehicles should have 2+ saves. It's always struck me as odd that vehicles have the same armor as your typical armored infantrymen. That's a solution that would actually improve the gameplay experience instead of arbitrarily declaring certain units to be simply physically unable to harm others no matter what. That was bad before 8th and it was one of the best changes they made. If your plan is being undone by lasguns plinking wounds off tanks you need a better plan, not a new wound table. If you think specific weapons are too good at harming vehicles complain about those - though I'm not sure it's really a great complaint, a heavy bolter SHOULD be able to harm a tank, just like a disintegrator should. If they do it better than AT (which is not usually true, btw - it's usually just that they don't do it enough worse to be a big issue) that's because the weapons are badly statted.
Moving back to the pre-8th wound table would be a disaster after a whole edition balanced around the new table.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I did actually routinely kill Knights with Daemonettes in 8th edition since they didn't get their invuln in combat. In fact a local Knight player still believes my Daemonettes are a greater threat to his knights than my Keepers and will prioritize larger Daemonette squads over my monsters.
That was impossible in earlier editions and so literally the definition of a Knight getting shanked to death by dudes with knives claws.
(20 Daemonettes, 61 attacks, 40 hits, just over a quarter of the Knight's health from models as strong as Guardsmen)
Daemonettes are nothing like dudes with knives (i.e. hand weapons). Daemonettes have massive AP on 6s, and that is a rule specifically designed to simulate their ability to cut through, well, any armor at all.
If your daemonettes had a normal S:U AP0 profile, they'd do all of 2.25 wounds to that knight.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 00:13:57
2020/08/26 00:21:21
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Insectum7 wrote: Do professional soldiers spend clips of ammunition firing at MBTs with their battle rifles?
Because I do it all the time in the game. Why? Because it's waaay more effective than it should be.
Do professional soldiers shout “Drive me closer, I want to hit them with my sword”?
Do they take chainsaws shaped as axes and go running at the enemy?
I'm going to take a risk and say that the way models behave in 40k is very, very different from how professional soldiers behave.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2020/08/26 00:26:27
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
yukishiro1 wrote: I didn't say that. If in his conception of reality rifles shouldn't be able to harm tanks that's a subjective opinion I'm not going to argue with except to say I disagree. But that is different than saying rifles can't harm tanks. That's just objectively wrong.
The reason people don't shoot rifles at tanks is because they don't want to die and there are better ways to fight a tank on foot, not because it's inherently impossible to damage a tank with a rifle. But because the game doesn't simulate any of those other ways and because game models don't care about dying, they will make different choices than real humans.
"It's not realistic" isn't a great argument at the best of times, but it's especially unconvincing when, well, it actually is realistic.
So by your own admission, infantry spraying lots of bullets at a tank is NOT realistic, even if you could potentially damage optics, etc. However, the game encourages me to do it because as has been shown, the effective Anti-Armor fire from a squads basic weapons is actually more than that of the dedicated anti-armor weapon the specialist carries. You think that's modeled well in game terms?
Do you think that falling back is well modeled in the game? It's far harder for me to believe that someone you are engaged in hand to hand combat with simply lets you walk backwards calmly, standing there with a dumb look on their face while your friends blow them off the earth.
Do you think it's well modeled that a grot standing on an objective controls it against a full squad of terminators (unless they're grey knight or custodes terminators...)?
Do you think it's well modeled that the vehicle shooting in combat rules makes it smart to charge a tank with grots just to tie it up? Do you think it's well modeled that said tank can fire its lascannons at said grots while they are literally crawling all over the tank, far too close to actually be shot at with a weapon like a lascannon?
Do you think it's well modeled that units start the game within easy shooting distance of one another? What have they been doing before T1? Just chillin' until someone gives the signal that it's ok to start shooting?
We could come up with literally dozens of other examples of the way the game is modeled that are much more problematic from a perspective of realism than a lasgun occasionally being able to plink a wound off a vehicle.
The game is an abstraction. I think it works just fine that a squad of guardsmen shooting continuously at a tank an entire 5 game could plink off half its wounds. That doesn't strike me as vaguely unreasonable.
But again, then we're not getting into what's realistic, we're getting into your opinions of how the game should play. You think a lasgun shouldn't be able to harm a tank not because it is impossible in reality but because you think the chance is low enough that it should be modeled in game as impossible. That's a very different argument. It's the opposite of an argument from realism - it's an argument that we should disregard realism in favor of modeling what is probable rather than what is possible.
You're missing the point. The fact that the game is an abstraction isn't up for debate, so you can save on keystrokes to that regard.
The debate is whether the abstractions function well from a game decision making perspective. When the squads basic rifles are more reliable at doing damage than the dedicated anti armor weapon, I have a problem.
But they aren't. You're saying 9 normal guns are more effective than one anti-tank gun. So basically your complaint is that the anti-tank gun isn't more than 9x as effective as the normal guns.
I'm taking your word on the math btw, I don't know what specific example you're referencing.
2020/08/26 01:03:30
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Orks vs Imperial Knights, 7th edition. There was nothing more aggravating, tedious , or hopeless in 40k-dome than playing a game where the models in your army that could deal with the enemy could be counted on one hand.
I could not care a lick about realism or "immersion", I'm fine with the sysyem as is as long as that never happens again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 01:05:34
Luke_Prowler wrote: Orks vs Imperial Knights, 7th edition. There was nothing more aggravating, tedious , or hopeless in 40k-dome than playing a game where the models in your army that could deal with the enemy could be counted on one hand.
I could not care a lick about realism or "immersion", I'm fine with the sysyem as is as long as that never happens again.
The problem there isn't with the old wounding chart but with gw creation an entire faction of super heavy vehicles and not giving all other factions the tools necessary to deal with them. Pure knights armies are automatically a skew list, if gw insists on making them a viable faction then they should make sure other factions have weapons that can interact with them and make those more accessible.
2020/08/26 01:19:13
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Luke_Prowler wrote: Orks vs Imperial Knights, 7th edition. There was nothing more aggravating, tedious , or hopeless in 40k-dome than playing a game where the models in your army that could deal with the enemy could be counted on one hand.
I could not care a lick about realism or "immersion", I'm fine with the sysyem as is as long as that never happens again.
You know what was really crappy about that situation? The fact that 7th made it so that @#$*ing TANKBUSTAS couldn't use more than one meltabomb in CC with a vehicle.
There was a lot wrong with that edition, but I still preferred the general AV rules over their current incarnation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 01:20:55
It is curious that in a thread that is about profile changes, people are so centered on base mechanics, which take decades to change if they ever do. I don't expect GW to touch the wounding chart in a very long time.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/08/26 01:30:32
2020/08/26 01:53:19
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Luke_Prowler wrote: Orks vs Imperial Knights, 7th edition. There was nothing more aggravating, tedious , or hopeless in 40k-dome than playing a game where the models in your army that could deal with the enemy could be counted on one hand.
I could not care a lick about realism or "immersion", I'm fine with the sysyem as is as long as that never happens again.
The problem there isn't with the old wounding chart but with gw creation an entire faction of super heavy vehicles and not giving all other factions the tools necessary to deal with them. Pure knights armies are automatically a skew list, if gw insists on making them a viable faction then they should make sure other factions have weapons that can interact with them and make those more accessible.
Like, maybe, changing the wound chart so that everything has a theoretical change to hurt everything else, no matter how slim, with the side effect that mid-range weapons become more of a threat to heavily armored targets as well?
GW implemented the solution, you just don't like it for <reasons>.
P.S. You can now easily make entire armies of tanks too, if you want to.
Skew lists are powerful enough already, there is no reason to make them even more powerful by making it actually impossible for people to hurt stuff if they come up against a bad skew. Going back to the old wound chart would require repointing every single unit and weapon in the game, as well as changing the profiled on a lot of stuff that only has the T values it does because of the new chart (e.g. T5 plague marines really don't work on the old chart, not with the easy access to T6 with the psychic power)...for the grand benefit of making games even more likely to be won or lost at the list-building stage, rather than while actually playing? Seems like an awfully weird hill to want to die on. It doesn't improve anyone's game experience to know they've lost before they've even rolled a dice because the collection of miniatures they've taken don't stack up well against the ones the other guy has taken.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/08/26 02:08:10
2020/08/26 02:23:48
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Luke_Prowler wrote: Orks vs Imperial Knights, 7th edition. There was nothing more aggravating, tedious , or hopeless in 40k-dome than playing a game where the models in your army that could deal with the enemy could be counted on one hand.
I could not care a lick about realism or "immersion", I'm fine with the sysyem as is as long as that never happens again.
The problem there isn't with the old wounding chart but with gw creation an entire faction of super heavy vehicles and not giving all other factions the tools necessary to deal with them. Pure knights armies are automatically a skew list, if gw insists on making them a viable faction then they should make sure other factions have weapons that can interact with them and make those more accessible.
Like, maybe, changing the wound chart so that everything has a theoretical change to hurt everything else, no matter how slim, with the side effect that mid-range weapons become more of a threat to heavily armored targets as well?
GW implemented the solution, you just don't like it for <reasons>.
P.S. You can now easily make entire armies of tanks too, if you want to.
Skew lists are powerful enough already, there is no reason to make them even more powerful by making it actually impossible for people to hurt stuff if they come up against a bad skew. Going back to the old wound chart would require repointing every single unit and weapon in the game, as well as changing the profiled on a lot of stuff that only has the T values it does because of the new chart (e.g. T5 plague marines really don't work on the old chart, not with the easy access to T6 with the psychic power)...for the grand benefit of making games even more likely to be won or lost at the list-building stage, rather than while actually playing? Seems like an awfully weird hill to want to die on. It doesn't improve anyone's game experience to know they've lost before they've even rolled a dice because the collection of miniatures they've taken don't stack up well against the ones the other guy has taken.
Who said I was willing to die on that hill? Letting lasguns fish for 6s to wound knights didn't solve the problem, it only created the side effect of letting those mid- strength mid-AP weapons threaten heavily armoured units. The better fix would have been giving more and better anti-tank weapons to armies like Orks instead of having them fish for those 6s. If you bring a list without any anti-tank weapons, when they are available to you, you're probably bringing your own skew list. The rules should encourage balanced TAC lists.
And the "reasons" many of us don't like the new wounding table is because we prefer a wargame, not a game that borrows heavily from ccgs and video games.
2020/08/26 02:28:55
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
yukishiro1 wrote: It was stupid that some weapons just couldn't harm some units. It was neither realistic nor balanced.
Not realistic?
Ok, take your favorite assault rifle, as much ammo as you please, and go shoot up a modern main battle tank (Abrams, etc your choice). Come back & tell us all about it once you've caused any type of significant damage to it. Scouring the paint off it doesn't count.
Then repeat the experiment with an axe.....
yukishiro1 wrote: A lasgun hurting a vehicle once every 36 hits is not a problem.
Just absurdly unbelievable.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's terrible for game balance when certain units just can't harm other units at all. Invincible units are neither fun to play nor play against. It rewards skew too much and shifts even more of the game to list-building rather than actually playing. Nobody enjoys a game where you reveal lists and discover your opponent has hard counters to your stuff and the game is essentially over before it starts.
Hey, if you're bad at list building & don't bring AT weapons to a game where you're very likely to encounter tanks/knights/etc? Then you deserve to get rolled, you should feel bad, & ideally you'll learn to bring some AT next time.
2020/08/26 02:48:01
Subject: Re:Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
You're welcome to your opinion re: the game needing more games won and lost at the list-building stage, more feel bad moments, and more people deserving to "get rolled" and "feel bad." Luckily, GW seems to agree with me, rather than with you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 02:48:56
2020/08/26 03:01:02
Subject: Re:Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
yukishiro1 wrote: Like, maybe, changing the wound chart so that everything has a theoretical change to hurt everything else, no matter how slim, with the side effect that mid-range weapons become more of a threat to heavily armored targets as well?
So... is it that:
1. The change to the wound chart doesn't make infantry weapons suddenly able to seriously threaten tanks,
Or:
2. The change to the wound chart gave an army (Orks) without much access to anti-tank weapons the ability to go toe-to-toe with an all-heavy-tank-profile army and stand a fighting chance.
Because it can't be both. Either lasguns and shootas don't credibly threaten Knights and the change to the wound chart doesn't actually fix Orks, or lasguns and shootas now can credibly threaten Knights and, by extension, are actually legitimately a threat to tanks.
yukishiro1 wrote: You're welcome to your opinion re: the game needing more games won and lost at the list-building stage, more feel bad moments, and more people deserving to "get rolled" and "feel bad."
Honest to god question, have you ever played a WW2 historical or modern combat game? Literally anything involving combined arms that isn't 40k?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 03:01:24
I never said anything about orks, who actually have a ton of S8 now. Are you confusing me with someone else? I wouldn't suggest trying to use shoota boys to shoot down knights, even with the new wound chart that's still a 6 and you need to be wounding on 5+ to really threaten anything. Boys are decent at killing T7 vehicles, though, whereas under the old chart they'd be totally ineffective.
Why would whether I've played WW2 historical games impact whether it's a good idea to have more 40k games determined in the list-building phase, and whether more people deserve to "get rolled" and "feel bad?" Why the constant need to try to make things personal? Can't you just discuss the topic without making it into a personal sniping contest?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 03:14:45
2020/08/26 03:17:01
Subject: Re:Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
yukishiro1 wrote: You're welcome to your opinion re: the game needing more games won and lost at the list-building stage, more feel bad moments, and more people deserving to "get rolled" and "feel bad." Luckily, GW seems to agree with me, rather than with you.
Is that really why you prefer the new wounding table? Or is it because, as you stated in the Land Raider thread, that you prefer large expensive models, most of which are what suffer the most from the change to the wounding table, are "more bad than good" in the game? Do you actually think the new wounding table is good for the game as a whole or do you just like the fact that it makes it easier for mid-strength mid-AP weapons, which are primarily carried by those smaller, cheaper units you prefer, to render those big models you don't like being in the game less relevant?
Do you prefer the new wounding table because it makes it easier to kill a Baneblade or knight without bringing actual anti-tank weapons?
2020/08/26 03:17:40
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
yukishiro1 wrote: And the wound chart does encourage and reward balanced TAC lists.
It's been argued that it encourages spamming mid-strength, AP1-2, multishot weapons since those weapons are reasonable against every potential target. Harder limitations encourage diversity.
Heck, I spent most of 8th edition Lauding the Grav Cannon becasue of just that reason. It's better against infantry than the Heavy Bolter, and better against vehicles than a Lascannon. So there's less reason to bring either of those, and instead just spam Grav (and Plasma).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 03:31:54
.
Bonespitta's Badmoons 1441 pts. 
