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.

Dudeface wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Perhaps the issue isn't whether orks should be 2 wounds or not compared to marines, but maybe the wounds system needs exploding out a little further generally.

5 wound terminators, 3 wound marines, nobz elite crons, 2 wound orks, sisters, aspects, basic cron infantry, 1 wound daemonettes, guardsmen, eldar guardians etc.

We know this isn't happening. If "the durable faction" did not get extra wounds, this is just yet another in a long line of cakes marines get to have and eat too.

I did see a (totally unsubstantiated) rumor that the Eldar army-wide rework bonus was going to be "-1 to hit if the model moved this turn, +1BS if the model didn't move" which I really REALLY hope they don't do, because army-wide -1 to hit would feel like absolute garbage to play with currently. It basically hands your opponents army-wide move and shoot heavy, army-wide advance and shoot assault, army-wide ignore dense cover, etc.

"my eldar is faster, he moves 7"

"oh well, all my orks move 5+D6 now, so, guess not."

Army wide -1 to hit doesn't work as a mechanic within 9th. Even playing vs a single flyer inevitably feels dumb at some point because anything that wants to target the flyer just suddenly starts sprinting around and repositioning freely because whatever, you're gonna be at -1 anyway might as well.

We know it isn't, I was wondering if it should, whether GW didn't go far enough.

Yeah. I think it's pretty clear at this point that the profile of defenses within the game need to be expanded in order to force an opponent to bring a wider array of weaponry to deal with threats.

W2 marines across the board is a good idea. Conceptually, -1 to hit across the board eldar could be a good idea, I just don't think it works with the current cap system implementation. Having a faction be durable because it has a lot of high-AV W2 bodies and a faction be durable because it doesn't care about how many wounds you deal at once the models just get up and a faction be durable because it has a lot of low-AV W1 cheap bodies and a faction be durable because it has a lot of -1 to hit and yadda yadda yadda is fantastic. Any given faction SHOULD make a particular type of weapon greatly less useful because it creates a natural incentive to build less deadly TAC lists rather than spamming nothing but the same weapons.

Right now, in the meta we're in, people are spamming basically nothing but D2 weaponry because those defensive upgrades are being handed out piecemeal. Maybe orks with the ghazzy list is strong enough to punish that, hopefully, I don't know. Maybe Necrons with a warrior swarm+Ctan could. It'd be nice to see the meta organically punishing the massive quantity of W2 armies trying to tailor to kill W2 targets.

Galas wrote:But personally for Boyz I believe they should be split like in dawn of war between Choppa Boyz and Shottah Boyz with some special rules based in how many you take to make viable both having small squads of 10 shota/choppa boyz and big hordes of them.

Dawn of War was limited by its build paradigm so had to be split. Units would be built one way and you would have to upgrade each and every individual one. A pain in the arse (at best) for a unit of 30, and that doesn't even include that you'd have to do again with the reinforcements.

This isn't as necessary with Tabletop. Now if they were separated by Special Rules, that MAY be why they would need to be separated.

Yeah, thats I'm saying, giving them basically two special rules, one for squads of 10 and other for squads of 20+ to give them a place in two sizes (Different for choppa and shotta boyz) . Maybe not even special rules (because they are normal troops) but different number of special weapons options, etc... and allow trukk boyz, horde boyz, etc... all to have a place.

but only if we get 'ard boys update and armor back aswell.

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, thats I'm saying, giving them basically two special rules, one for squads of 10 and other for squads of 20+ to give them a place in two sizes (Different for choppa and shotta boyz) . Maybe not even special rules (because they are normal troops) but different number of special weapons options, etc... and allow trukk boyz, horde boyz, etc... all to have a place.

When I attempted my homebrew of 7th, I made rules for Orks where you got bonuses depending on the squad size, and a near max squad would get a decent ability to use on a LD roll. It wasn't perfect but it was something. Then for Tyranids they got various abilities depending which Synapse creature was near them.

Then for Tyranids they got various abilities depending which Synapse creature was near them.

That's a good fix for synapse. I always thought it should be something that comes with a reward, rather than the zero sum game that currently exists.

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, thats I'm saying, giving them basically two special rules, one for squads of 10 and other for squads of 20+ to give them a place in two sizes (Different for choppa and shotta boyz) . Maybe not even special rules (because they are normal troops) but different number of special weapons options, etc... and allow trukk boyz, horde boyz, etc... all to have a place.

Which brings to mind the complaints about Special Rules bloat.

Not saying it as my complaint, just that others would, because internet.

The issue is not really with the special rules though, but the fact that GW couldn't write decent USR, instead wrote quasi USR special rules and mucked up there aswell (hence the higher ammount of FAQ text) and the ammount some factions have compared to others.

the_scotsman wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Perhaps the issue isn't whether orks should be 2 wounds or not compared to marines, but maybe the wounds system needs exploding out a little further generally.

5 wound terminators, 3 wound marines, nobz elite crons, 2 wound orks, sisters, aspects, basic cron infantry, 1 wound daemonettes, guardsmen, eldar guardians etc.

We know this isn't happening. If "the durable faction" did not get extra wounds, this is just yet another in a long line of cakes marines get to have and eat too.

I did see a (totally unsubstantiated) rumor that the Eldar army-wide rework bonus was going to be "-1 to hit if the model moved this turn, +1BS if the model didn't move" which I really REALLY hope they don't do, because army-wide -1 to hit would feel like absolute garbage to play with currently. It basically hands your opponents army-wide move and shoot heavy, army-wide advance and shoot assault, army-wide ignore dense cover, etc.

"my eldar is faster, he moves 7"

"oh well, all my orks move 5+D6 now, so, guess not."

Army wide -1 to hit doesn't work as a mechanic within 9th. Even playing vs a single flyer inevitably feels dumb at some point because anything that wants to target the flyer just suddenly starts sprinting around and repositioning freely because whatever, you're gonna be at -1 anyway might as well.

if they do that I hope they explictly make it an exception to the "max -1 penalty" (so long as they provide limiters so eldar aircraft can't once again be at -3 to hit)

Eldar do, IMHO need SOME sort of "speed is armor" special rule.

Or, we would make AA more available and actually decent against the intended target?

And no another flyer alone doesn't count as decent AA.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Or, we would make AA more available and actually decent against the intended target?

And no another flyer alone doesn't count as decent AA.

back in 6th and 7th AA was almost essential, (as I'm sure you remember) problem was if you took it and a flier didn't show up, you wasted points and FOC slots. and if you didn't take AA and an aircraft showed up..

of course, oddly this could be addressed in 9th easily eneugh with a strat. Let's use Guard as an example, since everyone is familer with the guards tanks. you could have a strat called "ground targeting auspex" that allows you to turn the Hydra into a anti-ground unit. you could likewise have a start that allows say... a lemen RUss exterminator (thats the one with the autocanons) to function an an anti-air unit

IMO the problem is there are too few variants of defensive mechanisms. Dodging, force fields, space magic and godly protection are all displayed by invulnerable saves. I think there needs to be some changes to that.

-1 to hit is just a terrible mechanic to spread around because of the way it interacts with low BS values. As armies are designed in a way that most units share the same BS, there is no way to plan or play around this.

Agile units (which includes most eldar) should be getting dodge saves, to portrait the chance of completely dodging a shot. Essentially this would be the same as invulnerable saves.

Force fields like iron halo, KFF or ion shields have never made sense to me as something that has a random chance to work or not. Instead these should always work and catch the first X damage taken per turn, which obviously should be a different value for a knight's ion shield than for a KFF.

I maintain that adding an Evasion stat is the way to go here, with BS compared to Evasion for shooting, while WS would then be compared to WS for close combat - moving to fixed to-hit scores is a move I dislike, as we're entered a paradigm where a Conscript finds it as easy to hit a Grot as a Bloodthirster in melee, while the Bloodthirster finds it no more of a challenge to strike one of his brethren than he does a Guardsman or even a building.

Adding such a stat gives you a lever to pull to illustrate an agility-based defense, without including additional dodge/invul saves.

When it comes to hard-to-kill units, you can then illustrate such difficulty off four different stats before such saves come into play:
- Hard to hit (with shooting) in the first place? High Evasion
- Hard to cause injury to? High Toughness
- Hard to cause a serious injury to (with basic weapons)? High Wounds
- Defends itself via armour? Armour saves as appropriate.

The defensive profile of any unit can then be described by looking at a set of these values. A Banshee is likely to have higher E than a Guardian, but both will be beaten by a Harlequin - but all three will be higher than a Guardsman, for example.

Evasion in such a manner would punish low BS armies overly though dysartes.
And to hit allready shows the skill involved with the -1 against air targets beeing a better representation of the more difficult to target nature of a flyer....

one can of course disagree with that representation but adding in an additional checks seems overly punishing for some factions and in many ways worse through the added checks implemented than a flat modifier.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Evasion in such a manner would punish low BS armies overly though dysartes.
And to hit allready shows the skill involved with the -1 against air targets beeing a better representation of the more difficult to target nature of a flyer....

Depends on how you benchmark it, and how you implement it. Off the top of my head, I'd imagine Harlequins, Lelith Hesper-thingy, and maybe Imperial Assassins (at least the Callidus) as being the top end of the curve, with the Hammerfall Bunker (and other pieces of immobile scenery) at the bottom of the curve.

I'd say we could look at the current S vs T table as a starting point, but I suspect it hits 6+ to hit too early. I've not tried crunching numbers on this, as you can tell.

Not to mention that, putting it bluntly, a low BS faction should have problems hitting things when shooting. That's kinda the point of having a low BS...

Not Online!!! wrote:
one can of course disagree with that representation but adding in an additional checks seems overly punishing for some factions and in many ways worse through the added checks implemented than a flat modifier.

I wasn't talking an additional check, btw - BS vs. Evasion would replace the current fixed BS+ nonsense, in the same way WS vs. WS would again replace the WS+ nonsense.

I just hope Eldar are finally going to get that big model range revamp they have needed for like two decades.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

mrFickle wrote:

Don’t Orks have a strategy or something that allows you to bring a load of slain units back to life?

No, as usual you're thinking of Space Marines.

Yeah, marines are well known for their use of "Unstoppable green tide" /s

I've always suspected the Salamanders were a little less than honest....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
Thinking about it, wouldn’t it make sense for Orks to go to 2W in their new book?
They are supposed to be tough as nails and can shrug off absurd damage and keep fighting.
Keep the crappy 6+ save and up their wound count.
Feels like it makes sense.

Maybe. Personally, I would welcome smaller, more powerful units for more points but it would definitely change the entire feel of the army. 2W marines "feel" right when you play with or against them, I doubt that orks would feel right.
That said, most infantry units orks have don't work because they cost, fight and shoot as much as marines, but have the durability of guardsmen, so 2 wounds might be the solution to that.

Personally I think the basic guardsman should be S3 T3 2W, and a lasgun should be S3 AP0 and D2D (as in 1-3=1 Damage, 4--6= 2 damage) damage, and the rest of the armies should get based out from there on stat lines. I'd like to see (almost) all the basic troops get 2+ wounds(going up for troops that already have more than 1), Almost all the basic weapons get the 50/50 1D/2D treatment (or going up if they already do better etc based on that guard/lasgun baseline). That should add roughly 33% more durability to troops/infantry, some more "clutch" moments to the games you can laugh about afterwards with your mates/buddies depending on which side of the pond you're on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Evasion in such a manner would punish low BS armies overly though dysartes.
And to hit allready shows the skill involved with the -1 against air targets beeing a better representation of the more difficult to target nature of a flyer....

one can of course disagree with that representation but adding in an additional checks seems overly punishing for some factions and in many ways worse through the added checks implemented than a flat modifier.

What would happen is like the old WS chart.

If you are an Assault Marine you have WS4, you want to punch your Chapter Master in the mouth. He is WS6. 4 vs 6 you need a 5+ to punch him.

In THEORY, and ASSUMING I have this evasion stat correct -

You are an Ork Boy. You have BS 3. You want to shoot a Guardsman. They have Evasion 3. Everything they have is 3, so Evasion would be too. You hit the Guardsman on a 4+. You are an Ork Boy, you want to shoot a Tactical Space Marine, they are Evasion 4. You hit on 5's. To only hit on 6's a Boy would have to shoot at some super Harlequin with an Evasion of 7+

It's not a bad idea, but it is more involved than being suggested. It doesn't hurt the low BS armies. It hurts the "high" BS armies with only the one attack vector - i.e. Tau (I mean I get Tau aren't BS4/5/whatever anymore but they still put the high value on BS). And it hurts lower model count lower shots per round armies like Custodes. Custodes are balanced to hit X% of the time. Take away a significant % of that on a lower number of attempts, and they're going to lose more.

The flaw with the WS chart was removing Multiple Combatants. If you charged a Bloodthirster with 30 grots (and we'll assume all 30 make it in range just to explain the mechanic) The first Grot might have WS3, and 1 attack. The second Grot has WS4 and 2 attacks. The third is WS5/3A, fourth WS6/4A, and so on until the 30th is WS 32 with 30A. Giving Evasion a similar mechanic will offset high Evasion vs high RoF, but if its on a per-model basis or worse per shot, it's going to take all day just to shoot one turn. I suppose the idea there then would be to do it per unit, or let the volume from each unit determine the penalty/bonus if any. Or both.

I've been saying for a while (on other forums) that the Eldar are almost embarrassing in some ways. It's more or less the same army with the same models and the same fluff as in 1998. Meanwhile the Imperium has gained Knights, Sisters, Admech and multiple SM chapters, as well as a primarch. Not bad for an archaic, crumbling civilisation that's surrounded, embattled and corrupted on every level...

I would like to see a total revamp of Eldar. More emphasis on them being extremely specialised, extremely hard-hitting and extremely fragile. No more point cuts to make up for crap rules.

Unfortunately Space Marines have become so wildly exaggerated in the fluff that they have become Marvel's Avengers, and the xenos races have become nameless bad guys who don't even get name tags. I cannot see GW making anything more powerful than them, which means the Eldar will probably always be inferior model for model. EDIT: And with CPs now dominating the game, there is no motivation for GW to revisit the rules. Just give them new stratagems to make up for outdated, boring, inferior rules.

Outnumbered and inferior. It 's not looking good for the Craftworlders.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Evasion in such a manner would punish low BS armies overly though dysartes.
And to hit allready shows the skill involved with the -1 against air targets beeing a better representation of the more difficult to target nature of a flyer....

one can of course disagree with that representation but adding in an additional checks seems overly punishing for some factions and in many ways worse through the added checks implemented than a flat modifier.

evasion dispropotionally impacting armies that are inaccurate with their shooting?

Say it ain't so?

Next you'll tell me that armies relying on invulnerable saves for defense are unfair against armies that use a lot of the AP stat.

So lets make some 2021 predictions beyond dexes- the weird off the wall stuff that no one is talking about since Codex refreshes are the most impactful things to think about.

We are going to kick Nurgle's ass in 2021 with a vaccine; that will allow Tournies to return. I expect this means fewer video previews and more convention previews; I also suspect a tournament format that caters to Crusade play; it will be very, very different from the current tourney format- like imagine the 3 month Flashpoint Pariah campaign played in its entirety over a weekend. Invite a team of BL authors and have them write a novel based entirely on the results of the Tourney. For any of you who are pen and paper RPG convention players, think D&D/ RPGA Living City style tournies. I think World of Darkness also had persistent world RPG tournament events.

Speaking of Flashpoint: it eliminates the need for campaign books like Vigilus or PA. Mission pack after mission pack and all of them awesome.

We will finally get to see some of the WH TV shows that have been previewed, and there might be associated tie-in model releases.

Increasing amounts of gender parity in units for some armies (Guard, Aeldari, etc).

Every full Codex faction that doesn't already have bespoke scenery gets some (plastic spore chimnies please). Supreme Commanders for full Codex armies that don't have them. More fliers and LOW for factions that lack them, though this won't be appropriate for all full codex factions yet.

They might finish ALL dexes in 2021, but maybe they'll need a bit of time out of 22 to do it.

Rerelease KT (Confirmed); maybe some small action on the Apocalypse front, and maybe a new 40k Warhammer Quest game to fill the BSF void.

Combat Patrol Boxes continue to replace start collecting boxes (Confirmed). More terrain options. Maybe a new faction, but I suspect that's early 22.

Ongoing APP improvements; by the end of 2021, it might almost be good? Perhaps Crusade tracking functionality?

I think the next CSM army to be released will end up being one of the slightly lesser known factions:
Iron Warriors, with a Perturabo mini
Night Lords with a retcon which has Konrad Curze alive
Red Corsairs with Huron in command.

I think the World Eaters would be used as the big bad for their own edition, such as 10E, the same for Word Bearers and their own Daemon Primarch.

the_scotsman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Evasion in such a manner would punish low BS armies overly though dysartes.
And to hit allready shows the skill involved with the -1 against air targets beeing a better representation of the more difficult to target nature of a flyer....

one can of course disagree with that representation but adding in an additional checks seems overly punishing for some factions and in many ways worse through the added checks implemented than a flat modifier.

evasion dispropotionally impacting armies that are inaccurate with their shooting?

Say it ain't so?

Next you'll tell me that armies relying on invulnerable saves for defense are unfair against armies that use a lot of the AP stat.

HA, how about you play a BS5+ army that doesn't AUTO hit on a 6+ with the 8th ruleset and not turn rather averse to such suggestions?

Things I expect to see in 2021:

1: I expect the codex release stuff for Marines won't be finished until early 2021 when the dark angels supplement comes out. so I kinda expect the first model release of 2021 to be marines.
2: I expect CSMs will get their codex reasonably fast, as I can't see GW leaving them in "one wound limbo" for that long.I doubt they'll get any new kits.
3: I DON'T expect a massive line revamp in 2021. I think they'll space it out a bit.
4: I do expect at least one xenos army to get a sizeable release. although I kinda suspect this will be new stuff.
5: I expect Imperial Aeronautica to introduce a thunderhawk Mini, and GW to do a playful "finally a plastic thunderhawk" campaign.
6: I expect the continuing covid situation to have production issues continue to plague GW

Not Online!!! wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Evasion in such a manner would punish low BS armies overly though dysartes.
And to hit allready shows the skill involved with the -1 against air targets beeing a better representation of the more difficult to target nature of a flyer....

one can of course disagree with that representation but adding in an additional checks seems overly punishing for some factions and in many ways worse through the added checks implemented than a flat modifier.

evasion dispropotionally impacting armies that are inaccurate with their shooting?

Say it ain't so?

Next you'll tell me that armies relying on invulnerable saves for defense are unfair against armies that use a lot of the AP stat.

HA, how about you play a BS5+ army that doesn't AUTO hit on a 6+ with the 8th ruleset and not turn rather averse to such suggestions?

An Evasion stat, implemented properly, will mean you hit some targets easier than you do now, some with the same difficulty and, yes, some with more difficulty.

This would be true for models of all current BS values. It also fits with the verisimilitude of the setting - are you really going to try to tell me a Conscript (or an Eliminator) is going to find it as difficult to shoot a Hammerfall Bunker as it is an advancing Ork Boy, as it is a Crimson Hunter Exarch travelling at full speed?

BrianDavion wrote:
Things I expect to see in 2021:

1: I expect the codex release stuff for Marines won't be finished until early 2021 when the dark angels supplement comes out. so I kinda expect the first model release of 2021 to be marines.
2: I expect CSMs will get their codex reasonably fast, as I can't see GW leaving them in "one wound limbo" for that long.I doubt they'll get any new kits.
3: I DON'T expect a massive line revamp in 2021. I think they'll space it out a bit.
4: I do expect at least one xenos army to get a sizeable release. although I kinda suspect this will be new stuff.
5: I expect Imperial Aeronautica to introduce a thunderhawk Mini, and GW to do a playful "finally a plastic thunderhawk" campaign.
6: I expect the continuing covid situation to have production issues continue to plague GW

As this is actually on topic I, suspect your probably correct.

I also suspect 2021 will end with atleast 1 probably 2-3 factions still on 8th edition codex's.
Hopefully GW finally release a CA that's based on something other than rounding errors as a balance pass.

 Dysartes wrote:
An Evasion stat, implemented properly, will mean you hit some targets easier than you do now, some with the same difficulty and, yes, some with more difficulty.

This would be true for models of all current BS values. It also fits with the verisimilitude of the setting - are you really going to try to tell me a Conscript (or an Eliminator) is going to find it as difficult to shoot a Hammerfall Bunker as it is an advancing Ork Boy, as it is a Crimson Hunter Exarch travelling at full speed?

Sure, but in reality we know that GW will just drop a common evasion stat on every race, with eldar on top, marines right behind them and necrons and orks will not be able to evade at all because "hurr durr slow and lumbering".

Essentially, this is the same reason why initiative was such a failure, and I really don't trust GW to implement evasion well enough so that codices that aren't some designer's pet army won't be stuck with a a bullseye painted on their backs for years.

And yes, I realize that "GW sucks at writing rules" isn't constructive.

Ice_can wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Things I expect to see in 2021:

1: I expect the codex release stuff for Marines won't be finished until early 2021 when the dark angels supplement comes out. so I kinda expect the first model release of 2021 to be marines.
2: I expect CSMs will get their codex reasonably fast, as I can't see GW leaving them in "one wound limbo" for that long.I doubt they'll get any new kits.
3: I DON'T expect a massive line revamp in 2021. I think they'll space it out a bit.
4: I do expect at least one xenos army to get a sizeable release. although I kinda suspect this will be new stuff.
5: I expect Imperial Aeronautica to introduce a thunderhawk Mini, and GW to do a playful "finally a plastic thunderhawk" campaign.
6: I expect the continuing covid situation to have production issues continue to plague GW

As this is actually on topic I, suspect your probably correct.

I also suspect 2021 will end with atleast 1 probably 2-3 factions still on 8th edition codex's.
Hopefully GW finally release a CA that's based on something other than rounding errors as a balance pass.

Let it be known, I actually agree for the most part with Brian for a change.

 Jidmah wrote:


And yes, I realize that "GW sucks at writing rules" isn't constructive.

Immutable facts of life rarely are.