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.

So we need more special rules to negate special rules...

And people complain about bloat.

You do have a point about the USRs, but USRs that negate USRs is just going insane in the other way.

 Tyran wrote:
So we need more special rules to negate special rules...

And people complain about bloat.

I consider this a non-sequitur, or a complete misunderstanding of what is meant by 'bloat'.

 Tyran wrote:
You do have a point about the USRs, but USRs that negate USRs is just going insane in the other way.

Not even slightly. It's actually the sane way to do it. The insane way is having units that specifically ignore special rules, and then special rules that ignore those rules, and on and on we go. That's how you get rules bloat.

What I'm proposing is a simple scale:

1. This is a standard game rule (eg. compare Strength vs Toughness to determine the required result when rolling To Wound).
2. This is a special rule (Can only be Wounded on an X+, regardless of comparative Strength/Toughness).
3. This is a special rule that negates the one above (This weapon always wounds on comparative Strength/Toughness).

And that's where it stops.

It allows you to have the general rule that affects everybody normally (ie. how people take wounding hits), provides a special place for units that are so tough that they shouldn't be taking damage in the normal manner (ie. big honkin' monsters!), but provides an 'out' for weapons that are so powerful that they would normally would the things that normally ignore lesser weapons (ie. a Volcano Cannon vs a Daemon Primarch).

Anything beyond (a Marine Strike Cruiser) just wouldn't be within the scope of the game.

There are always going to be exceptions to exceptions; that's how rules tend to work. The key is to codify them within a consistent and concise system rather than let them run rampant with unique rules scattered to the winds. Then you do so in a way that scales as well as possible for the variety of units that you have included within your game, and ensure that there is enough granularity and stratification without bogging the game down in needless minute differences (this is why scalable (X) rules work so well). You will have to make compromises along the way*, but eventually you will can achieve something close to 'imperfect balance'.

And finally, with all this, you get to save the really special rules - the ones that exist outside of a universal structure - for the things that actually deserve them (special characters, narrative scenarios/units, special missions, etc.).


*eg. Orks really should have a FNP style save to show their inherent ability to flat out ignore grievous injuries, but in an army that can take so many models that would lengthen the game and add very little, so GW made 'em T5 instead - not perfect, but it'll do!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I wonder what kind of physiology an actual tank would have...

oh wait, that's right, none. Silly me they get wounded like plebs.

(A shadowsword wounds a Land Raider more easily than a Cadian Conscript)...

"A shadowsword wounds a Land Raider(with no stratagems or buffs or anything) more easily than a Cadian Conscript(with a stratagem burnt on it)".

That should be the correct statement, right?

Sorry can you put that in lore terms for me?

I know what is happening in the game state (the Doylist or "out of universe" explanation). My critique is that I don't understand what is happening in the narrative (in other words I don't understand the abstraction). I don't get the Watsonian (in-universe) explanation.

"The planet broke before the Guard did!"

There's your in-universe explanation.

Yes it's terrible. So is the new rule!

Well, since wounding represents anything from a critical injury to simply being on the outskirts of it...


The Land Raider was such a large target that the Shadowsword's Volcano Cannon, even winging it, suffered damage.
The Whiteshield was just a person, on foot, that was at the edge of the beam's effective area.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Well, since wounding represents anything from a critical injury to simply being on the outskirts of it...


The Land Raider was such a large target that the Shadowsword's Volcano Cannon, even winging it, suffered damage.
The Whiteshield was just a person, on foot, that was at the edge of the beam's effective area.

Ah, yes, well I am glad my Armageddon Hive Milita conscripts are also just people who are on foot, and look forwards to the same abstraction being consistently applied!

Sorry, you're not Cadians.

Your Hive Militia aren't wearing the appropriate uniforms. Everyone knows Cadian fatigues are top-shelf quality that won't catch fire from flashburns accompanying Volcano Cannon shots.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Sorry, you're not Cadians.

Your Hive Militia aren't wearing the appropriate uniforms. Everyone knows Cadian fatigues are top-shelf quality that won't catch fire from flashburns accompanying Volcano Cannon shots.

I couldn't have illustrated the absurdity of this stratagem better myself! Bravo!

The absurdity of it is that you've continued to complain about it so much while using an edge case("Cadian Conscripts being shot at by a Shadowsword!1!1") and also being someone who usually complains about a lack of "realism" while also ignoring the abstraction that comes from wargames.

Casualties don't necessarily mean "dead". It's models being no longer combat-effective. A Shadowsword's main cannon is described as being a focused laser. It's a big honkin' laser beam certainly...but there's a space for the argument that it's not going to just meatchunk everything around the beam when it hits.

You're only defending this because you love your Cadians so very very much.

At least be honest about it.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The absurdity of it is that you've continued to complain about it so much while using an edge case("Cadian Conscripts being shot at by a Shadowsword!1!1") and also being someone who usually complains about a lack of "realism" while also ignoring the abstraction that comes from wargames.

Casualties don't necessarily mean "dead". It's models being no longer combat-effective. A Shadowsword's main cannon is described as being a focused laser. It's a big honkin' laser beam certainly...but there's a space for the argument that it's not going to just meatchunk everything around the beam when it hits.

And for Cadians (but only one squad in a battle at a time, regardless of how big it is!) the likelyhood they will not be meatchunked by the cannon is literally doubled!

This is clearly an abstraction of...

well it obviously represents...

Er, well you can narratively explain it by....

...

Cadians are literally twice as hard to wound with volcano cannons as Mordians, Vostroyans, heck, even Baneblades.

But only one squad now and again, however big that battle is.

Murphy's Law is a harsh mistress.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Murphy's Law is a harsh mistress.

But only to people shooting at Cadians.

Murphy takes the day off for other targets..


(Except Primaris, can't forget them)


Yay abstraction! Consistency! Narrative!

Just play Cadians if you want the bonus, none of us care.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Just play Cadians if you want the bonus, none of us care.

Good talk!

 Kanluwen wrote:
Just play Cadians if you want the bonus, none of us care.

That's not true. You clearly care quite a bit. No one would go the sanity-shattering levels of cognitive dissonance that you manage defending this stuff if they didn't care.

You care deeply.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Just play Cadians if you want the bonus, none of us care.

Good talk!

What do you want? Me to say that it's "silly"?

Cool. It's silly. There's a bunch of things that need to happen to make it so choices matter more. And spoiler...it's going to have to start with actually differentiating between "Conscripts" and "Infantry Squads". Or between "Light", "Medium", and "Heavy" Infantry types as squads.

But meh. You just want to be upset over some random bit.

 Kanluwen wrote:
But meh. You just want to be upset over some random bit.

That's all you can do. Claim someone "wants" to be upset and then completely disregard (or misunderstand) the reasons why it makes them unhappy.

Complete and utter intellectual dishonesty. Bad faith in every sense of the expression.

And yes, I know you have me on ignore. Honestly, that makes this all the more fun for me.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The absurdity of it is that you've continued to complain about it so much while using an edge case("Cadian Conscripts being shot at by a Shadowsword!1!1") and also being someone who usually complains about a lack of "realism" while also ignoring the abstraction that comes from wargames.

Casualties don't necessarily mean "dead". It's models being no longer combat-effective. A Shadowsword's main cannon is described as being a focused laser. It's a big honkin' laser beam certainly...but there's a space for the argument that it's not going to just meatchunk everything around the beam when it hits.

Ok, you don't like the Volcano Cannon example, go back to my example of a charging chainclaw Contemptor but replace [Primaris] with [Cadians]: 15 feet tall, 14 tons, 6 foot chainclaws enveloped in power fields powered by hydraulics and servos. It hits 3 times (so no, "they dodged it!" excuses). What exactly makes those Cadians less likely to get spread all over the place than an Ork? Those "top-shelf" combat fatigues?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
What exactly makes those Cadians less likely to get spread all over the place than an Ork?

Kan plays Cadians, so he doesn't care. That's the simple answer. He doesn't want to admit it (and certainly never would), but that's the truth.

This is basically just the Cadian supplement from 7th edition all over again. Any Guard player wanting to remain competitive until our next codex will be forced to play as them.

I'm putting my cards on the table now, we're going to get:
- 2 more Cadian relics
- 2 more Cadian WT's.
- At least 5 more stratagems, some potentially linking to the Whiteshield keyword.
- 1 Army of Renown for Cadians. Possibly also linking to Whiteshields.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Just play Cadians if you want the bonus, none of us care.

Good talk!

What do you want? Me to say that it's "silly"?

Cool. It's silly. There's a bunch of things that need to happen to make it so choices matter more. And spoiler...it's going to have to start with actually differentiating between "Conscripts" and "Infantry Squads". Or between "Light", "Medium", and "Heavy" Infantry types as squads.

But meh. You just want to be upset over some random bit.

I see both sides, on one hand they made sure any unit can hurt any unit in 8th onwards to "even the field" then they're trying to backpeddle by making the cheapest chappies human infantry harder to kill than a lot of elite armoured heavy infantry.

The fact it's tied to a subfaction specific strat for 1 type of infantry is just odd, it breaks the abstraction away from any base in reality it might have had.

I'm the flip side, this is warhammer, it's not a hyper realistic war sim and they want to give a subfaction a little treat and some fun extras, which I'm all for, but they maybe shouldn't just give 1 subfaction the perks as it makes them the most appealing by default.

So a little of column A and a little of B for me, but I think all subfactions should get something or none do. Likewise this 1 example is just a bit of a lazy hamfist strat to make people buy lots of conscripts more than anything.

This is such a nothing burger for me, but after reading the reactions of some of you, I can understand better why you dislike the game in it's current state so much.

I don't agree at all, but I understand your own reasoning.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The absurdity of it is that you've continued to complain about it so much while using an edge case("Cadian Conscripts being shot at by a Shadowsword!1!1") and also being someone who usually complains about a lack of "realism" while also ignoring the abstraction that comes from wargames.

Casualties don't necessarily mean "dead". It's models being no longer combat-effective. A Shadowsword's main cannon is described as being a focused laser. It's a big honkin' laser beam certainly...but there's a space for the argument that it's not going to just meatchunk everything around the beam when it hits.

Ok, you don't like the Volcano Cannon example, go back to my example of a charging chainclaw Contemptor but replace [Primaris] with [Cadians]: 15 feet tall, 14 tons, 6 foot chainclaws enveloped in power fields powered by hydraulics and servos. It hits 3 times (so no, "they dodged it!" excuses). What exactly makes those Cadians less likely to get spread all over the place than an Ork? Those "top-shelf" combat fatigues?

Those 3 hits are spread across a unit, not to a single model. The hits might be grazes, etc.

This isn't D&D where you're making called shots to specific body parts. You're not making critical hits that just pop the guy in question.

Hitting means an attack has connected. Wounding means it wounded. Saves are a combination of armor and dodging.

Have fun with this new knowledge.

And, to be fair, a single Volcano Cannon wound (capable of turning a Leman Russ into mere scrap metal) can only kill ONE Grot or Guardsman.

The game doesn’t reflect the narrative well-this might be an egregious example, but it certainly ain’t the only one.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The absurdity of it is that you've continued to complain about it so much while using an edge case("Cadian Conscripts being shot at by a Shadowsword!1!1") and also being someone who usually complains about a lack of "realism" while also ignoring the abstraction that comes from wargames.

Casualties don't necessarily mean "dead". It's models being no longer combat-effective. A Shadowsword's main cannon is described as being a focused laser. It's a big honkin' laser beam certainly...but there's a space for the argument that it's not going to just meatchunk everything around the beam when it hits.

Ok, you don't like the Volcano Cannon example, go back to my example of a charging chainclaw Contemptor but replace [Primaris] with [Cadians]: 15 feet tall, 14 tons, 6 foot chainclaws enveloped in power fields powered by hydraulics and servos. It hits 3 times (so no, "they dodged it!" excuses). What exactly makes those Cadians less likely to get spread all over the place than an Ork? Those "top-shelf" combat fatigues?

Those 3 hits are spread across a unit, not to a single model. The hits might be grazes, etc.

This isn't D&D where you're making called shots to specific body parts. You're not making critical hits that just pop the guy in question.

Hitting means an attack has connected. Wounding means it wounded. Saves are a combination of armor and dodging.

Have fun with this new knowledge.

And that answers the question not one bit. The hits connected. AP-4 means no save. No dodging or armour. So what makes your little Cadians harder to wound than an Ork? Or a Rhino? What stops them having their entrails spread all over the battlefield like The Legions spread their pitiful little planet across the Void? What exactly is this rule abstracting?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

And that answers the question not one bit. The hits connected. AP-4 means no save. No dodging or armour. So what makes your little Cadians harder to wound than an Ork? Or a Rhino?

Ever tried to squash a fly with bare hands?

There's a reason mankind created that pinnacle of innovation, the rolled up newspaper.

Also, because Cadia's the best. Deal with it.

What stops them having their entrails spread all over the battlefield like The Legions spread their pitiful little planet across the Void?

Oh so we're doing RP stuff too now?

Hey, remember when The Legions had to try 13 times to get past one planet of "little Cadians"?

What exactly is this rule abstracting?

Once again, wounding =!= "entrails spread all over the battlefield".

Kanluwen wrote:Once again, wounding =!= "entrails spread all over the battlefield".

It does if there's no save. But I think I have my answer right here.

Kanluwen wrote:Also, because Cadia's the best. Deal with it.

Guess H.B.M.C. was right.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
What exactly makes those Cadians less likely to get spread all over the place than an Ork?

Kan plays Cadians, so he doesn't care. That's the simple answer. He doesn't want to admit it (and certainly never would), but that's the truth.

I see there's no point continuing this. Hope this stratagem and the rest of what Cadians get in this book keep the Guard going until they get their 9th edition codex and you have fun with it. Enjoy.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

And that answers the question not one bit. The hits connected. AP-4 means no save. No dodging or armour. So what makes your little Cadians harder to wound than an Ork? Or a Rhino?

Ever tried to squash a fly with bare hands?

Yes. Either I miss (due to hairs the fly has which can detect the minute pressure variations that precede something big intersecting with the fly's temporospatial coordinates), or the fly gets squished. Usually the latter

There's no answer you'd find acceptable, because you've chosen to come at this from the "personally offended" starting background.

I don't complain about Ork buggies with Ramshackle(an armywide special rule, by the by) mitigating some of the stuff(Autocannons, Plasma Guns) traditionally said to be used by the Imperium for dealing with those types of Ork vehicles.

It's a game. There's abstraction. If this Stratagem were a Regimental trait? Yeah, I'd have words on it being broken. But it's a stratagem. It's not going to be on every single unit at every single moment.


Additionally, what's the problem with it being Cadian only? Is it because it should be on EVERY SINGLE GUARDSMAN EVER? Or no Guardsman ever should be able to be harder to wound? Right now, the Cadian regimental doctrine is one of the least interesting and least representative of what they're supposed to be.

Regimental doctrines for Guard are a joke because we're supposed to believe that, armywise, this?

and this


are somehow the same level of protection as this?


For the record though, if you think this is bad just wait until you hear about Augmented Mounts for Death Riders(each time this model loses a wound, roll a D6--on a 5+, wound is not lost) or Cult of Sacrifice(characters and vehicles that are destroyed by an attack made by an enemy model but did not explode roll a D6, on a 4+ they get to make a final attack either shooting or in melee while units taking Combat Attrition tests ignore any or all modifiers).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 waefre_1 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

And that answers the question not one bit. The hits connected. AP-4 means no save. No dodging or armour. So what makes your little Cadians harder to wound than an Ork? Or a Rhino?

Ever tried to squash a fly with bare hands?

Yes. Either I miss (due to hairs the fly has which can detect the minute pressure variations that precede something big intersecting with the fly's temporospatial coordinates), or the fly gets squished. Usually the latter

See, harder to wound.