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.

 Hellebore wrote:


You can actually reflect experience and skill in the stats, rather than having to invent new weapons in order to show why sternguard are better than normal tacticals.

Don’t get me started on the 20+ variations of bolt weapons the last couple editions. New Space Marine unit? Assign it a new “master crafted blessed augmented bolt carbine with adjustable scope” with barely slightly different stats than the “Cawl pattern anointed bolt long rifle with sawed-off barrel” . . .

Give me the one page of weapon stats for standard guns in 40k in the old 3rd edition rulebook. Yes, all standard weapons for all factions instead of 20+ boltguns, a dozen+ plasma weapon variations, etc.

 Mezmorki wrote:
You all are funny. You recognize the issues caused by GW over simplifying the core rules and then wanting to add a bunch more to make up for it (thus making it more complex again). Classic 40K handled this all nice in a single die roll (WS vs WS) with initiative dictating attack order. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

But it was broke.

Are you sure you don't feel this way, because your avatar is a model that benefitted greatly from that system?

Pretty sure Kharandras was better in 2nd, and he's not advocating for that.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Pretty sure Kharandras was better in 2nd, and he's not advocating for that.

An elf was almost always WS5+ AND I5+ meaning they'd always go first and hit the most.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Pretty sure Kharandras was better in 2nd, and he's not advocating for that.

An elf was almost always WS5+ AND I5+ meaning they'd always go first and hit the most.

Heaven forbid non-Space Marines be good at something?

 vipoid wrote:
I think an evasion stat would definitely help.

As it stands, 40k is really struggling to give fast, lightly-armoured units appropriate defences without just resorting to 'moar armour' (see the new Kabalite Warriors).

There's also the other aspect, in that units have just as much difficulty hitting a Land Raider or Imperial Knight from 10ft away as they do hitting a turbo-boosting Reaver on the other side of the table.

There could also be modifiers to the Evasion stat. e.g. models could get +1 Evasion if the attacker isn't within half range with a non-Pistol weapon. Maybe +1 evasion when in cover, instead of the current bonus to armour save?

Could help make the game less lethal (especially at range).

There used to be initiative before the culling that was 8th and the dumbing down of 40k, now made worse with the gathering and continuous AoS ification and Magic ification of the hobby.

Lately, I feel a bit sweet and sour about the fact. “I told you so” usually doesn’t feel good, as is the case in this case...

nemesis464 wrote:
Coming back to 40k from 5th Ed and one of the weirder changes to me is how WS works.

Obviously a lot of stuff in warhammer doesn’t make all that much sense, but I don’t understand why they made WS as a flat value to hit, rather than comparing it to the martial prowess of you opponent? It wasn’t exactly a complicated system before.

Why should an Ork Boy hit a stationery tank on the same value as hitting a Phoenix Lord or Primarch? Comparing WS in the past felt a lot more immersive than only hitting on the same roll every time.

With so much stuff getting power-creeped towards WS 2/3+, it makes combat master special characters feel less special, as one of their qualities was always making lesser characters and units hit them on 4s or 5s.

Anyone feel the same?

I think a better question to ask is "Why can't these game companies make ONE system, ONE edition" and run it forever? To me, the fact that the system has to chance ever X years is a bit silly at this point.

Yup. Why can’t GW make a good system and maintain that, including new releases of 20 yr old core unit models for main factions?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Pretty sure Kharandras was better in 2nd, and he's not advocating for that.

An elf was almost always WS5+ AND I5+ meaning they'd always go first and hit the most.

And strength 3 with strength bonuses typically wrecking that initiative score (e.g. attacks last) that elf wounded less than strength 4 units.

 Hellebore wrote:
IMO they could fix a lot of issues with the game regarding fast light units and relative power if they did the following:

Reintroduce Initiative.

Make WS and BS comparative rolls AGAINST Initiative.

you don't need Initiative to determine who strikes first if it reflects the unit's speed by how EASILY it can be hit.

I'm quoting this mainly in support and the fact I've been saying this for most of this thread. There's just too much sense in it.

Remember when Lelith was Initiative 9? This is one of the best examples of how a basic defensive stat could have had an impact when properly used for their fluff.

 Mezmorki wrote:
You all are funny. You recognize the issues caused by GW over simplifying the core rules and then wanting to add a bunch more to make up for it (thus making it more complex again). Classic 40K handled this all nice in a single die roll (WS vs WS) with initiative dictating attack order. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Reminds me of another great irony. People loved to beat on 2nd edition because it had all these time consuming modifiers and re-rolls and special action cards all over the place that bogged the game down, made batch rolling hard, etc. 9th edition is right back there, what with die roll modifiers sprinkled all over the place like glitter at a my little pony convention. Not to mention the re-rolls and special action cards (ahem stratagems) bogging it all down again.

What the point of a streamlined rule set if you have to even more rule bloat on top of it to make up for an overly simple core?

Exalted and posted here because i think that it is important re the OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Spoiler:

 Hellebore wrote:
IMO they could fix a lot of issues with the game regarding fast light units and relative power if they did the following:

Reintroduce Initiative.

Make WS and BS comparative rolls AGAINST Initiative.

you don't need Initiative to determine who strikes first if it reflects the unit's speed by how EASILY it can be hit.

I'm quoting this mainly in support and the fact I've been saying this for most of this thread. There's just too much sense in it.

Remember when Lelith was Initiative 9? This is one of the best examples of how a basic defensive stat could have had an impact when properly used for their fluff.

That 9 represented so much, not only physical speed, but also supernatural instincts and training etc. Now gone to make room for a card game. Cards make money. Initiative stats do not.

The advantage of using Initiative, is that it's been a part of the game since 1st ed.

You can basically take 9th ed rules, 2nd ed statlines and WS/BS vs I comparison rolls, and you've got a pretty good game imo.

It would also be very easy to make Fight first rules add +3 to initiative and Charging add +4 as far as that goes.

Normal fight last rules could be -3 and super fight last (judicar) could be -4.

Models swinging at initiative 0 would not be able to be chosen until everything else has swung.

WS vs WS could be handled the same way ST vs T is (this would go along way to balance all the + to hit stuff as well. No reason for a marine to be hitting EVERYTHING on a 2+ in assault).

 jeff white wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Remember when Lelith was Initiative 9? This is one of the best examples of how a basic defensive stat could have had an impact when properly used for their fluff.

That 9 represented so much, not only physical speed, but also supernatural instincts and training etc. Now gone to make room for a card game. Cards make money. Initiative stats do not.

Very true in regards to the instincts and training, which is why she had a Special rule to give her an Invul Save for defense because Initiative was only advantageous for going first in combat and Sweeping. Now consider the impact if that ultimate Initiative also affected people hitting her in the first place.

Initiative was not removed to make room for a card game, it was just left over after they removed its meaning, so it was dropped. Adding the stat back in would mean new cards, too, so...

 Eihnlazer wrote:
It would also be very easy to make Fight first rules add +3 to initiative and Charging add +4 as far as that goes.

Normal fight last rules could be -3 and super fight last (judicar) could be -4.

Models swinging at initiative 0 would not be able to be chosen until everything else has swung.

WS vs WS could be handled the same way ST vs T is (this would go along way to balance all the + to hit stuff as well. No reason for a marine to be hitting EVERYTHING on a 2+ in assault).

One of the reasons to use initiative or a defensive stat is to help make stat lines more diverse, and ork can have a high WS, better than a Eldar guardian but a Eldar guardian can still be faster and better suited to defensive fighting than a imperial guard.
Fighting first should probably just be a turn based thing, even potentially removing the strike back as a standard rule, and moving it to a rule that’s rarely given as a all the time thing.

Something like a order for IG like, hold the ground, bayonets at the ready. Giving a unit the ability to fight back in combat, and strike first if they are charged. Creating more situations for players to think ahead rather than the glut of responses GW favours now.

Togusa wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:
Coming back to 40k from 5th Ed and one of the weirder changes to me is how WS works.

Obviously a lot of stuff in warhammer doesn’t make all that much sense, but I don’t understand why they made WS as a flat value to hit, rather than comparing it to the martial prowess of you opponent? It wasn’t exactly a complicated system before.

Why should an Ork Boy hit a stationery tank on the same value as hitting a Phoenix Lord or Primarch? Comparing WS in the past felt a lot more immersive than only hitting on the same roll every time.

With so much stuff getting power-creeped towards WS 2/3+, it makes combat master special characters feel less special, as one of their qualities was always making lesser characters and units hit them on 4s or 5s.

Anyone feel the same?

I think a better question to ask is "Why can't these game companies make ONE system, ONE edition" and run it forever? To me, the fact that the system has to chance ever X years is a bit silly at this point.

You mean like classic battletech?

In over 30 years it has been effectively the same core rules set. the only major changes they made were fixing the anti-missile system so it made a difference (1 ammo for every firing instead of one ammo for every missile shot down-pretty important when 1 ton of ammo was 12) catalyst changed a few of the damage charts around when they took over and moved the max tech rules and old charts into an "optional rules" book.

Insectum7 wrote:

That would go some distance to dealing with something that always kinda bugged me, which is that Vehicles aren't harder to hit than infantry. Like, are you really going to miss a Monolith? The counterpoint to that is that taking out such a vehicle requires hitting weak points, and those could still be hard to hit, but opening up a stat that modifies defense could provide for some interesting opportunities.

They already had that fixed in 4th. If you remember vehicles didn't have a CC attack(except for the 30K mechanicus land raider/explorator that had a combat claw, and tau flechette launchers) but they could try to run people over with tank shock (it became really good and thematic with the old 3.5 chaos vehicle upgrades-remember when all those saw blades on a khorne rhino did something?). the vehicle owner had to trade off more accurate shooting for being harder to hit in close combat. going from being hit automatically for not moving to a 4+/6+ the faster they went. they also introduced ramming so they could effectively CC attack another vehicle in the movement phase (very useful if you had all your guns blown off). you also only hit the armor you were facing requiring tactical maneuvering (not the BS Jervis Johnson came up with in 5th- hitting on 3+ always against rear armor-.because in his words "you deserve it" if you get into CC with a vehicle-you don't deserve **** in a tactical war game-you earn it by being the better general)

Thats why our group still uses those rules in our hybrid 5th ed games- they were a good tactical and immersive element in the game.

 Mezmorki wrote:
You all are funny. You recognize the issues caused by GW over simplifying the core rules and then wanting to add a bunch more to make up for it (thus making it more complex again). Classic 40K handled this all nice in a single die roll (WS vs WS) with initiative dictating attack order. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

It was broken and essentially only worked well for eldar.

It feels almost 4 years too late to be protesting this change... jussayin. The old editions exist if you preferred those mechanics. The new edition is what it is and won’t be changing anytime soon. Make your choice and move on!

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It feels almost 4 years too late to be protesting this change... jussayin. The old editions exist if you preferred those mechanics. The new edition is what it is and won’t be changing anytime soon. Make your choice and move on!

The OPs question was answered on page 1, the topic has just meandered all over the place about rules changes in various editions. including problems, fixes and preferences.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Pretty sure Kharandras was better in 2nd, and he's not advocating for that.

An elf was almost always WS5+ AND I5+ meaning they'd always go first and hit the most.

Heaven forbid non-Space Marines be good at something?

You mean a boost to Eldar and none other? Orks gained a ton from the change now that they weren't always swinging last against everything and often given often weak WS scores, Tyranids don't have to suffer the issues of their better assault units not having assault grenades and thus being penalized by cover. Which of course Imperium and Eldar had in Spades. Not to mention how GW always felt that "Big Monsters need WS3!"

Notice how everyone's discussing how much this system benefits Eldar units, but forgets that there's other xenos melee units in the game.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
You all are funny. You recognize the issues caused by GW over simplifying the core rules and then wanting to add a bunch more to make up for it (thus making it more complex again). Classic 40K handled this all nice in a single die roll (WS vs WS) with initiative dictating attack order. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

It was broken and essentially only worked well for eldar.

I dunno. I remember my hive tyrant wrecking face...

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Pretty sure Kharandras was better in 2nd, and he's not advocating for that.

An elf was almost always WS5+ AND I5+ meaning they'd always go first and hit the most.

Heaven forbid non-Space Marines be good at something?

You mean a boost to Eldar and none other? Orks gained a ton from the change now that they weren't always swinging last against everything and often given often weak WS scores, Tyranids don't have to suffer the issues of their better assault units not having assault grenades and thus being penalized by cover. Which of course Imperium and Eldar had in Spades. Not to mention how GW always felt that "Big Monsters need WS3!"

Notice how everyone's discussing how much this system benefits Eldar units, but forgets that there's other xenos melee units in the game.

Eldar players have always been as bad and entitled as the so called typical Marine player. Only difference is the number of models released.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Eldar players have always been as bad and entitled as the so called typical Marine player. Only difference is the number of models released.

You mean 40k players? We gotta stop thinking that specific armies have entitled players.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Notice how everyone's discussing how much this system benefits Eldar units, but forgets that there's other xenos melee units in the game.

To be fair, Eldar was a race known for speed and elegance, but weak as kittens, and still cost more than their stats often provided.

Tyranids are the beast faction made up of numerous species. Their small bugs tended to be very quick while many of their big bugs were slow. As a side note, a Genestealer's Initiative was pretty good when compared to an Eldar Guardian, hehe.

Re: Battletech not changing its rules.

Clans. Dark Age. Battleforce. Alpha Strike.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Pretty sure Kharandras was better in 2nd, and he's not advocating for that.

An elf was almost always WS5+ AND I5+ meaning they'd always go first and hit the most.

Heaven forbid non-Space Marines be good at something?

You mean a boost to Eldar and none other? Orks gained a ton from the change now that they weren't always swinging last against everything and often given often weak WS scores, Tyranids don't have to suffer the issues of their better assault units not having assault grenades and thus being penalized by cover. Which of course Imperium and Eldar had in Spades. Not to mention how GW always felt that "Big Monsters need WS3!"

Notice how everyone's discussing how much this system benefits Eldar units, but forgets that there's other xenos melee units in the game.

It benefitted Genestealers, Lictors, Tyrants, Slaneesh daemons, Dark Eldar, occasionally Ork Nobs on the charge when they doubled their initiative. . . It was just another way to meaningfully diversify models.

Not to mention Daedelus gives incorrect "elf" stats, Aspect Warriors were all WS4, not 5, for example.

Plus, Orks with their natively lower Initiative actually hit harder to compensate. It's almost like things can be rebalanced if required.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Eldar players have always been as bad and entitled as the so called typical Marine player. Only difference is the number of models released.

I've never played Eldar.

 Stormonu wrote:
Re: Battletech not changing its rules.

Clans. Dark Age. Battleforce. Alpha Strike.

Clans was more additional equipment and forces more than changing its rules, unless you include Zelbrigen, but that was always optional.

Dark Age was Clix from WizKids, not original creator or even trying to continue the same game. In a way that would be like referring to Kings of War for Age of Sigmar. Less said the better on that somewhat disastrous front (models were well done, though).

Alpha Strike is as much a different scale of ruleset as Kill Team or Epic 40K is.

 Argive wrote:
I dunno. I remember my hive tyrant wrecking face...

Yeah, unless there was a small shrubbery at the feet of your charge target, then even tau fire warriors were given a shot to hit the pinnacle of evolution before it was allowed to kill them.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I dunno. I remember my hive tyrant wrecking face...

Yeah, unless there was a small shrubbery at the feet of your charge target, then even tau fire warriors were given a shot to hit the pinnacle of evolution before it was allowed to kill them.

Friendly reminder that adopting one past rule does not mean you have to adopt ALL past rules. . .

 Jidmah wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I dunno. I remember my hive tyrant wrecking face...

Yeah, unless there was a small shrubbery at the feet of your charge target, then even tau fire warriors were given a shot to hit the pinnacle of evolution before it was allowed to kill them.

What does that have to do with the WS comparison chart per se? Nobody claimed that all old charge and melee rules are desirable now in their entirety.

 Charistoph wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Remember when Lelith was Initiative 9? This is one of the best examples of how a basic defensive stat could have had an impact when properly used for their fluff.

That 9 represented so much, not only physical speed, but also supernatural instincts and training etc. Now gone to make room for a card game. Cards make money. Initiative stats do not.

Very true in regards to the instincts and training, which is why she had a Special rule to give her an Invul Save for defense because Initiative was only advantageous for going first in combat and Sweeping. Now consider the impact if that ultimate Initiative also affected people hitting her in the first place.

Initiative was not removed to make room for a card game, it was just left over after they removed its meaning, so it was dropped. Adding the stat back in would mean new cards, too, so...

Actually the defensive element existed in the fact that casualties were removed immediately, before having a chance to strike in the first place... but sure, more could be done.

Yes GW will find a way to sell cards out of it but unnecessary...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I dunno. I remember my hive tyrant wrecking face...

Yeah, unless there was a small shrubbery at the feet of your charge target, then even tau fire warriors were given a shot to hit the pinnacle of evolution before it was allowed to kill them.

Hey, there was a grot hiding in that bush, and that grot stopped a tank earlier in the afternoon...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Notice how everyone's discussing how much this system benefits Eldar units, but forgets that there's other xenos melee units in the game.

To be fair, Eldar was a race known for speed and elegance, but weak as kittens, and still cost more than their stats often provided.

Tyranids are the beast faction made up of numerous species. Their small bugs tended to be very quick while many of their big bugs were slow. As a side note, a Genestealer's Initiative was pretty good when compared to an Eldar Guardian, hehe.

Stealers were bad em effs...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aphyon wrote:

Spoiler:

Togusa wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:
Coming back to 40k from 5th Ed and one of the weirder changes to me is how WS works.

Obviously a lot of stuff in warhammer doesn’t make all that much sense, but I don’t understand why they made WS as a flat value to hit, rather than comparing it to the martial prowess of you opponent? It wasn’t exactly a complicated system before.

Why should an Ork Boy hit a stationery tank on the same value as hitting a Phoenix Lord or Primarch? Comparing WS in the past felt a lot more immersive than only hitting on the same roll every time.

With so much stuff getting power-creeped towards WS 2/3+, it makes combat master special characters feel less special, as one of their qualities was always making lesser characters and units hit them on 4s or 5s.

Anyone feel the same?

I think a better question to ask is "Why can't these game companies make ONE system, ONE edition" and run it forever? To me, the fact that the system has to chance ever X years is a bit silly at this point.

You mean like classic battletech?

In over 30 years it has been effectively the same core rules set. the only major changes they made were fixing the anti-missile system so it made a difference (1 ammo for every firing instead of one ammo for every missile shot down-pretty important when 1 ton of ammo was 12) catalyst changed a few of the damage charts around when they took over and moved the max tech rules and old charts into an "optional rules" book.

Insectum7 wrote:

That would go some distance to dealing with something that always kinda bugged me, which is that Vehicles aren't harder to hit than infantry. Like, are you really going to miss a Monolith? The counterpoint to that is that taking out such a vehicle requires hitting weak points, and those could still be hard to hit, but opening up a stat that modifies defense could provide for some interesting opportunities.

They already had that fixed in 4th. If you remember vehicles didn't have a CC attack(except for the 30K mechanicus land raider/explorator that had a combat claw, and tau flechette launchers) but they could try to run people over with tank shock (it became really good and thematic with the old 3.5 chaos vehicle upgrades-remember when all those saw blades on a khorne rhino did something?). the vehicle owner had to trade off more accurate shooting for being harder to hit in close combat. going from being hit automatically for not moving to a 4+/6+ the faster they went. they also introduced ramming so they could effectively CC attack another vehicle in the movement phase (very useful if you had all your guns blown off). you also only hit the armor you were facing requiring tactical maneuvering (not the BS Jervis Johnson came up with in 5th- hitting on 3+ always against rear armor-.because in his words "you deserve it" if you get into CC with a vehicle-you don't deserve **** in a tactical war game-you earn it by being the better general)

Thats why our group still uses those rules in our hybrid 5th ed games- they were a good tactical and immersive element in the game.

Those were good times. I liked 4th but I lost a lot ...