Switch Theme:

Go all the way with disallowing stacking of buffs or debuffs  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





Simply. No modifier whether its a buff or debuff should be allowed to stack.

I don't care how many different ways you have to do it, you shouldn't be allowed to buff a unit from a 4+ armor save to a 1+ armor save. That unit was likely pointed cheaply partly due to it having a 4+ armor save. And by stacking buffs to turn it into some 1+ or 2+ armor save unit, you have turned it from a correctly pointed unit into a ridiculous terminator like unit that shouldn't be a terminator unit in the first place.

GW went halfway with this when they said that to hit and to wound cannot be stacked. So, why not apply the same to everything else? Be it armor save or modifiers on toughness, etc. I bet almost all units are pointed based on their basic rules or stats and they are not pointed based on the "potential" stacking of buffs that can be applied on them by that particular army or faction.

I mean, if you do one strategem that makes a unit get go from a 4+ armor save to a 3+ armor save, or just stick it in cover. Well good for you. And that's fine. But when you can stack all sorts of buffs on that one unit that was supposed to be made of paper armor into a terminator equivalent, that's when you are intentionally looking to create something broken.

And in the arms race power creep, this just means that newer codex coming out need to have higher and higher AP weapons just to stay in the arms race. And then what happens to factions who are still using AP 0 weapons ? Do I still keep on hoping for my opponent to only roll 1s ? Most of my CSM marines are still using AP 0 bolters ... am I supposed to hope that somehow, new chaos bolters in my 9th edition codex are going to be AP 1 or 2 ?

On a side note. This special rule that ignores AP 1 or 2 should only be allowed to be applied on one single model. The solution is to shoot it with a high AP anti tank type of weapon. That is fine when its one model, like a character or a vehicle. When you can apply this special rule to an entire unit of 10 or 20 1W models, how am I supposed to handle this? We are specifically going against logic trying to shoot anti tank type weapons into such a unit of 1W models, and yet, most anti infantry weapons are not going to have AP 3 or better. The majority of armies out there are not running around with AP3 horde killing weapons. In fact, horde killing weapons are not designed with a high AP in mind... So, I feel stupid firing my anti tank weapons into such a unit, and firing my supposed to be effective against horde infantry weapons into such a unit feels like a futile effort as well... So, let me see. Either I am supposed to shoot like 120 or more bolter type shots to bear on into that one unit and hope the person rolls enough 1s or maybe 2s, or I am supposed to shoot more than 20 anti tank AP 3 or higher into it just to kill that one unit...

Like, have we reached the stage where we are supposed to design armies like that?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/13 02:06:53


 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





For your last row: Yes. That's the GW way. Up the combo's, roll over enemy.

Tactics has been gone away with over combos. Preferably from as many different sourcebooks as possible.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

So, if I have an AP-3 weapon, it can only reduce them to one point less than their save characteristic? Would make Terminator's invulns pointless, since they'd never be worse than a 3+.

And what about different kind of buff stacking? Say, +1 Strength and +1 to-wound. Would those stack?

I don't disagree with the general sentiment, that buff-stacking and combos are too prevalent and important in 40k. But this proposal needs a heck of a lot more work than just that statement.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

It mostly needs to re-write a lot, if not all, of the points costs, as most of the units are priced around those buffs and combos.

 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






So i can tell you that capping save at +1 does a lot to make terrain even more pointless than it normally is, that's a big drawback of Age of Sigmar.

Personally, what I've advocated for is classifying stat modifications from auras, powers, and stratagems as 'special effects' and capping the value you can get from those, while leaving the modifiers you can get from cover, moving and firing a heavy weapon, advancing and firing an assault weapon, etc uncapped.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




They should just do the same thing to saves that they did to hit and wound modifiers. Cap it at +1, but still allow additional modifiers to reduce AP.

So say for example Skitarii. They could never get a 2+ save again, they’d be capped at 3+ but say if they get shot by a melta gun they could use additional modifiers to reduce the AP enough to keep that 3+ save.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 JNAProductions wrote:
So, if I have an AP-3 weapon, it can only reduce them to one point less than their save characteristic? Would make Terminator's invulns pointless, since they'd never be worse than a 3+.

And what about different kind of buff stacking? Say, +1 Strength and +1 to-wound. Would those stack?

I don't disagree with the general sentiment, that buff-stacking and combos are too prevalent and important in 40k. But this proposal needs a heck of a lot more work than just that statement.


This. Also, I feel like the real root of the issue isn't necessarily stackable buffs/debuffs themselves but with GW's execution. 8th edition craftworld stackable to-hit penalties wouldn't have been nearly as big a deal if Alaitoc wasn't a thing. The new Cadian defense buffs are probably just unnecessary and a bit too generous for just representing, "These humans have grit!" And the offensive buffs be they rerolls, modifiers, or whatever have probably gone too far to be healthy for the game.

It's easier said than done, but just toning down the lethality of the game in general is probably a better fix than a blanket change like getting rid of all buff stacking. If we were to toss out 99% of the stratagems, psychic powers, and chapter tactics that basically boil down to, "Attack more betterer," I think the game might be in a healthier place.

(Not that you can't have some offense buffs in the game; it's just that we should probably be more selective about their inclusion and/or give them more drawbacks.)


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





Wyldhunt wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
So, if I have an AP-3 weapon, it can only reduce them to one point less than their save characteristic? Would make Terminator's invulns pointless, since they'd never be worse than a 3+.

And what about different kind of buff stacking? Say, +1 Strength and +1 to-wound. Would those stack?

I don't disagree with the general sentiment, that buff-stacking and combos are too prevalent and important in 40k. But this proposal needs a heck of a lot more work than just that statement.


This. Also, I feel like the real root of the issue isn't necessarily stackable buffs/debuffs themselves but with GW's execution. 8th edition craftworld stackable to-hit penalties wouldn't have been nearly as big a deal if Alaitoc wasn't a thing. The new Cadian defense buffs are probably just unnecessary and a bit too generous for just representing, "These humans have grit!" And the offensive buffs be they rerolls, modifiers, or whatever have probably gone too far to be healthy for the game.

It's easier said than done, but just toning down the lethality of the game in general is probably a better fix than a blanket change like getting rid of all buff stacking. If we were to toss out 99% of the stratagems, psychic powers, and chapter tactics that basically boil down to, "Attack more betterer," I think the game might be in a healthier place.

(Not that you can't have some offense buffs in the game; it's just that we should probably be more selective about their inclusion and/or give them more drawbacks.)


AP would still work normally, because the units and weapons are pointed correctly for AP. A weapon that is AP 3 or AP4 is pointed correctly, and it disguishes true anti tank weapons from the normal bolters. So, a high AP anti tank weapon like a lascannon with AP3 would reduce a armor save of a terminator by 3 when shooting at it. I was referring to buffs and debuffs. I don't really see AP as a debuff...

And yes, different type of buffs can still be applied, just not the same kind of buff. So you can put +1 strength and then a +1 to wound. It would be too complicated to restrict this as they buff different aspects of a unit. So far I don't think this is quite as bad a problem as the stacking of one particular aspect like armor save. GW just needs to be smart not to put in too many different ways to buff one aspect of a unit. They actually do know how to do this.

Like the DG codex already have disgustingly resiliant, so the codex is quite careful to not put in any strategems that further buffs their resilance or toughness. Now if they put in strategems like -1 to wound, 5++ FNP into the DG codex when it already has high toughness and disgustingly resilient, then it would be too oppressive even if we forbid the stacking of buffs and debuffs is present. This is just about being fair when designing the codex.

I mean, personally, I think the way you can create a ridiculous block of Deathwing storm shield terminators that can have transhuman, -1 to damage, invul, and then to be able to have an apocathary bring back a terminator is an example of being able to stack one aspect (resilience) too much. Even my proposed rule wouldn't stop such a unit from being just ridiculous to kill. (Luckily its such a massive commitment of points to a relatively slow moving unit, so the way to play it is to ignore it).
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Eldenfirefly wrote:

AP would still work normally, because the units and weapons are pointed correctly for AP. A weapon that is AP 3 or AP4 is pointed correctly, and it disguishes true anti tank weapons from the normal bolters. So, a high AP anti tank weapon like a lascannon with AP3 would reduce a armor save of a terminator by 3 when shooting at it. I was referring to buffs and debuffs. I don't really see AP as a debuff...

Sincere question not intended as a "gotcha": Why do you feel that AP is paid for but stackable to-hit modifiers aren't? For instance, my mandrakes cost X points. Presumably part of that points cost is based on the fact that they have a baked-in ability to be -1 to hit. But I can't improve that to a -2 via dense terrain, my Lightning Fast Reactions strat (costs CP), etc. What do you perceive the difference to be?


And yes, different type of buffs can still be applied, just not the same kind of buff. So you can put +1 strength and then a +1 to wound. It would be too complicated to restrict this as they buff different aspects of a unit. So far I don't think this is quite as bad a problem as the stacking of one particular aspect like armor save. GW just needs to be smart not to put in too many different ways to buff one aspect of a unit. They actually do know how to do this.

I mean, +1 Strength is the same as +1 to wound unless your target has a toughness that doesn't care (ex: An S4 and S5 wound T3 on a 3+ either way). And plenty of people were rightly annoyed by the reroll-everything chapter master + lieutenant combo last edition, so I feel it's probably innacurate to say that stacking multiple types of buffs is less of a big deal than stacking a single kind of buff. Respectfully, I'm wondering if you might be fixating on a single defensive boost (the new Cadian stuff) and trying to fix it with sweeping changes rather than a targeted solution.


Like the DG codex already have disgustingly resiliant, so the codex is quite careful to not put in any strategems that further buffs their resilance or toughness. Now if they put in strategems like -1 to wound, 5++ FNP into the DG codex when it already has high toughness and disgustingly resilient, then it would be too oppressive even if we forbid the stacking of buffs and debuffs is present. This is just about being fair when designing the codex.

Pretty sure DG still have access to Cloud of Flies (-1 to hit) and Transhuman Physiology, both of which contribute to their "durability." If you feel that DG aren't too durable at the moment, then this would serve as a counterpoint to your argument, right?


I mean, personally, I think the way you can create a ridiculous block of Deathwing storm shield terminators that can have transhuman, -1 to damage, invul, and then to be able to have an apocathary bring back a terminator is an example of being able to stack one aspect (resilience) too much. Even my proposed rule wouldn't stop such a unit from being just ridiculous to kill. (Luckily its such a massive commitment of points to a relatively slow moving unit, so the way to play it is to ignore it).

Again, I think you're kind of shooting down your own proposal. You've identified a "too durable" combo, but your proposal wouldn't do anything to fix that perceived problem. It would have a lot of probably unintended consequences for various other units though. So this feels like a change that would do more harm than good. :(


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





Wyldhunt wrote:
Eldenfirefly wrote:

AP would still work normally, because the units and weapons are pointed correctly for AP. A weapon that is AP 3 or AP4 is pointed correctly, and it disguishes true anti tank weapons from the normal bolters. So, a high AP anti tank weapon like a lascannon with AP3 would reduce a armor save of a terminator by 3 when shooting at it. I was referring to buffs and debuffs. I don't really see AP as a debuff...

Sincere question not intended as a "gotcha": Why do you feel that AP is paid for but stackable to-hit modifiers aren't? For instance, my mandrakes cost X points. Presumably part of that points cost is based on the fact that they have a baked-in ability to be -1 to hit. But I can't improve that to a -2 via dense terrain, my Lightning Fast Reactions strat (costs CP), etc. What do you perceive the difference to be?


And yes, different type of buffs can still be applied, just not the same kind of buff. So you can put +1 strength and then a +1 to wound. It would be too complicated to restrict this as they buff different aspects of a unit. So far I don't think this is quite as bad a problem as the stacking of one particular aspect like armor save. GW just needs to be smart not to put in too many different ways to buff one aspect of a unit. They actually do know how to do this.

I mean, +1 Strength is the same as +1 to wound unless your target has a toughness that doesn't care (ex: An S4 and S5 wound T3 on a 3+ either way). And plenty of people were rightly annoyed by the reroll-everything chapter master + lieutenant combo last edition, so I feel it's probably innacurate to say that stacking multiple types of buffs is less of a big deal than stacking a single kind of buff. Respectfully, I'm wondering if you might be fixating on a single defensive boost (the new Cadian stuff) and trying to fix it with sweeping changes rather than a targeted solution.


Like the DG codex already have disgustingly resiliant, so the codex is quite careful to not put in any strategems that further buffs their resilance or toughness. Now if they put in strategems like -1 to wound, 5++ FNP into the DG codex when it already has high toughness and disgustingly resilient, then it would be too oppressive even if we forbid the stacking of buffs and debuffs is present. This is just about being fair when designing the codex.

Pretty sure DG still have access to Cloud of Flies (-1 to hit) and Transhuman Physiology, both of which contribute to their "durability." If you feel that DG aren't too durable at the moment, then this would serve as a counterpoint to your argument, right?

Nope, DG does not have transhuman, and nope, Cloud of Flies is not -1 to hit... You are referring to the psychic spell Miasma of pestilence.


I mean, personally, I think the way you can create a ridiculous block of Deathwing storm shield terminators that can have transhuman, -1 to damage, invul, and then to be able to have an apocathary bring back a terminator is an example of being able to stack one aspect (resilience) too much. Even my proposed rule wouldn't stop such a unit from being just ridiculous to kill. (Luckily its such a massive commitment of points to a relatively slow moving unit, so the way to play it is to ignore it).

Again, I think you're kind of shooting down your own proposal. You've identified a "too durable" combo, but your proposal wouldn't do anything to fix that perceived problem. It would have a lot of probably unintended consequences for various other units though. So this feels like a change that would do more harm than good. :(


The stacking of different kinds of buffs is really hard to address simply. You would have to rewrite a whole host of strategems and even unit rules. Where as the stacking of buffs affecting a single specific stat like Armor save is definitely doable because they already did that on To Hit as well as To Wound.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Are 2+ Bullgryns that bad? You’d cap them at 3+ with their slabshields.

I really do feel you’re painting with too broad a brush. Hit the problem units, not the entire game-unless you’re doing a whole rewrite.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 JNAProductions wrote:
Are 2+ Bullgryns that bad? You’d cap them at 3+ with their slabshields.

I really do feel you’re painting with too broad a brush. Hit the problem units, not the entire game-unless you’re doing a whole rewrite.


Agreed. I think just taking a look at the various buffs/debuffs available to each faction and balancing them better would be the preferred approach. Every time someone tries to create a blanket rule for all armies it ends up hitting too many innocent units in the crossfire.
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





 JNAProductions wrote:
Are 2+ Bullgryns that bad? You’d cap them at 3+ with their slabshields.

I really do feel you’re painting with too broad a brush. Hit the problem units, not the entire game-unless you’re doing a whole rewrite.


No, 2+ Bullgyrns aren't broken. But 3+ Bullgyrns are fine too. Its not like a 3+ Bullgyrns is just going to fall over and die. Also, Imperial Guard haven't gotten their 9th ed codex yet. So, things can change. This is like forbidding the stacking of to hit and to wound modifiers. It was just done to address the worst of the combos. Like giving something -3 to hit so you can only hit it on 6s. But I am sure there are other non problem units that got hit too.

But here is the thing, just a -1 hit to hit already helps. You can't say it isn't anything. In that same vein, even a +1 to armor save is good already. We can't say that its useless right? Does it have to be stackable to +2 or even +3 armor save before we can claim a unit is worth using?

If you gave me a +1 armor save strategem to my army, to any of the codex I am using. Will I call it useless and never ever use it even stacking of armor save buffs is not allowed? Absolutely not! A +1 armor save is still a +1 armor save, and I bet there will be many situations I will use such a strategem to try and save a unit.

Will it make cover redundant? It definitely will not! You can't put your whole army into cover all the time. Only admech can do that, and even admech can only do that for 1 turn. And cover also provides obscuring, it also can provide -1 to hit. I fail to see how doing this will make cover redundant.

What this will do, is that units with a basic 2+ save and that are pointed for it will feel appropriately different from a unit that has a 5+ armor save or a 4+ armor save. It won't be a case of wow, this terminator cost 40 points, while this infantry model cost 8 points, but now I am going dump a bunch of stackable armor buffs and turn this 8 point infantry model into a terminator equivalent with a 2+ save... There is just no way you can balance out the points accurately in this case.

I think this will address the worst of the abuses, and it won't render the non-op units useless either. Let's face it, if you were relying so much on a +2 or even a +3 buff to your armor save on a unit in order to make it viable. then something is inherently wrong somewhere...

Let's use CSM as a hypothetical example because our codex isn't out yet. A cultist has a 6+ save and its 5 points a model. Is 5 points too cheap? Of course not, they die like flies since they only have a 6+ save. Now say the 9th ed CSM codex comes out and gives us legion trait that armor save by 1 to the whole army in a turn somehow, and a 3 CP strategem to further improve make a cultist unit to have a 3+ save. So we can now throw a bunch of 30 cultists into cover, use a 3 CP strategem and have basically terminator save cultists with a 2+ save. Now suddenly that 5 points per model sounds ridiculous when you are facing such a unit in a game.

But the basic datasheet of a cultist is with a 6+ armor save... you can't balance cultists by raising its points just because you gave so many ways to buff armor saves to the codex. Now if we limit the armor save buff to +1. Then no matter what, you can only have 5+ armor save cultists. Then keeping them at 5 points per model makes sense. Am I going to cry that I now don't get to run 2+ save cultists ? I should not! Because cultists were never supposed to be played like terminators in the first place. If I like 2+ save models so much, then I should just run terminators... and pay the points for them.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/16 04:56:52


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

So, this might hypothetically be an issue?

You’re not even doing this to address an actual issue in the game, just what MIGHT be an issue?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






You either have to ban all defensive buff stacking, just going after Sv characteristic or AP ignoring buffs is not good enough, combining a Sv buff with a toughness buff and a hit debuff is just as big a problem. Defensive buff stacking is healthier for the game than offensive buff stacking is because an invulnerable unit can be ignored as you target other units, but being able to turn any unit in your army into a killing machine is next to impossible to play around.
Wyldhunt wrote:
The new Cadian defense buffs are probably just unnecessary and a bit too generous for just representing, "These humans have grit!"

It's not even as good as -1 to wound in most cases, it's not an insane Stratagem on a 50-60 pt unit, it looks stronger than it is because it delivers 2 effects, but neither is that strong unless the unit is in cover and the buffs will rarely stack.

The +1 Sv until the end of the Shooting phase Stratagem that Astra Militarum have is really pathetic for such cheap models, expensive Necron elites should have weaker or more expensive Stratagem effects, not Stratagems that cost the same but are more powerful. It should probably have given a unit benefitting from light cover a 4++ or something like that, like cover used to provide for cheap models when they went to ground.

The worst part about the new Stratagem is the gotcha element, I shoot my 10 tesla Immortals at a 4+ Sv unit and then they magically turn into a 2+ Sv unit on turn one when I might have been able to split my shots but didn't because I didn't know about the new Stratagem, so assumed at worst it'd be a 3+. That's just the trouble of GW's release schedule.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/16 19:19:45


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 vict0988 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
The new Cadian defense buffs are probably just unnecessary and a bit too generous for just representing, "These humans have grit!"

It's not even as good as -1 to wound in most cases, it's not an insane Stratagem on a 50-60 pt unit, it looks stronger than it is because it delivers 2 effects, but neither is that strong unless the unit is in cover and the buffs will rarely stack.

To clarify, I wasn't even really commenting on how powerful the new Cadian stuff was. I just meant that "gumption" probably doesn't need to have such a big impact on a battle that it's mechanically represented by a stratagem that uses up a finite resource. Iyanden's craftworld trait supposedly represents something similar, and it just translates to morale immunity; not the ability to shrug off plasma wounds. As much as I like representing lore with rules, it does feel like GW is sort of cramming unnecessary buffs into the game to meet a rules writing quota.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldenfirefly wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Are 2+ Bullgryns that bad? You’d cap them at 3+ with their slabshields.

I really do feel you’re painting with too broad a brush. Hit the problem units, not the entire game-unless you’re doing a whole rewrite.


No, 2+ Bullgyrns aren't broken. But 3+ Bullgyrns are fine too. Its not like a 3+ Bullgyrns is just going to fall over and die. Also, Imperial Guard haven't gotten their 9th ed codex yet. So, things can change. This is like forbidding the stacking of to hit and to wound modifiers. It was just done to address the worst of the combos. Like giving something -3 to hit so you can only hit it on 6s. But I am sure there are other non problem units that got hit too.

Yes. There were. It's a lesson to be learned from.


But here is the thing, just a -1 hit to hit already helps. You can't say it isn't anything. In that same vein, even a +1 to armor save is good already. We can't say that its useless right? Does it have to be stackable to +2 or even +3 armor save before we can claim a unit is worth using?

Sometimes. Depends on the unit. Rangers are kind of hurting now that they can't get a stackable to-hit penalty and their save in cover is only as good as that of a dire avenger in cover. (And your proposed changes would make it so that their save in cover is actually worse than an avenger's.) You could definitely recost or redesign the casualties of your proposed change around said change, but we have to acknowledge that your change would create a lot of problems without a bunch of unspecified followup work.

If you gave me a +1 armor save strategem to my army, to any of the codex I am using. Will I call it useless and never ever use it even stacking of armor save buffs is not allowed? Absolutely not! A +1 armor save is still a +1 armor save, and I bet there will be many situations I will use such a strategem to try and save a unit.

Drukhari kind of have this. Hunt From the Shadows grants a unit in light cover an extra +1 to their saves. So I can take some ablative wounds in a scourge squad, boost their saves to a 2+ (from a 4+), and make my opponent chew through 5 or 6 cheap guys before they reach the expensive gun guys. I like the strat and use it situationally but not every game. If I could only boost their saves to a 3+ (so only as good as it is in cover), I feel like I'd go from using it rarely to almost never.


What this will do, is that units with a basic 2+ save and that are pointed for it will feel appropriately different from a unit that has a 5+ armor save or a 4+ armor save. It won't be a case of wow, this terminator cost 40 points, while this infantry model cost 8 points, but now I am going dump a bunch of stackable armor buffs and turn this 8 point infantry model into a terminator equivalent with a 2+ save... There is just no way you can balance out the points accurately in this case.

I understand the sentiment on paper, but what unit is, in practice, going from a 5+ save to a 2+ save and being a problem? Seems like the list of examples of this (which I encourage you to provide) would be short enough that we'd be better off solving those specific problems (if they are problems) rather than making sweeping changes that are likely to hurt other units in the crossifre.

This feels like a flawed solution looking for a possibly non-existent problem.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/17 00:04:54



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





The thing is, you prevent future such problems from cropping up once you do this. Plus you solve the worst of the existing problems arising from such stacking now.

Like take a look at -1 to hit. They already implemented this. So we can't stack anything beyond just a -1 to hit. Was this such a big issue in the past? It was for probably just one or two specific examples like that alpha legion Lord Discordant that could be made into a -3 or -4 to hit?

Again, taking the unhittable Lord DIscordant. How do you try and "fix" that specific problem? Raise the points for the Lord Discordant? That model already cost close to 200 points. And it was the combination of Alpha legion being able to use strategems and warlord trait to make one model in their army unhittable. Remove all such strategems from the Alpha legion ? There are plenty of times when having a -1 to hit is perfectly fine.

They did it, and even as a CSM player, I am perfectly fine with it. Because having an unhittable Alpha Legion Lord DIscordant in front of my whole army sounded absolutely dumb.

Not letting more than a +1 to the stacking of armor save buffs has the same pros and cos as not allowing the stacking of buffs for +1 to wound or -1 to hit. It prevents some of the worst current and potential future abuses, and it will still be a decent buff.

Another good example would be +1 to invul saves. In fact, Invul should be capped to 4++ at best in my opinion. But allowing the unlimited stacking of buffs allowed in the past for a unit to get some ridiculous 2++ invul save. Once you have this rule, you can never ever be allowed to buff an Invul by better than just +1. The problem isn't buffing something to a 4++ invul, which is actually quite common. The problem is that somewhere in some codex, players will find some way to buff something into a 3++ or even a 2++ if you aren't careful about this. So, disallowing the stacking of buffs to the same stat beyond just +1 prevents all such abuses now and in future.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/17 00:46:07


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Eldenfirefly wrote:
The thing is, you prevent future such problems from cropping up once you do this. Plus you solve the worst of the existing problems arising from such stacking now.

Like take a look at -1 to hit. They already implemented this. So we can't stack anything beyond just a -1 to hit. Was this such a big issue in the past? It was for probably just one or two specific examples like that alpha legion Lord Discordant that could be made into a -3 or -4 to hit?

Again, taking the unhittable Lord DIscordant. How do you try and "fix" that specific problem? Raise the points for the Lord Discordant? That model already cost close to 200 points. And it was the combination of Alpha legion being able to use strategems and warlord trait to make one model in their army unhittable. Remove all such strategems from the Alpha legion ? There are plenty of times when having a -1 to hit is perfectly fine.

They did it, and even as a CSM player, I am perfectly fine with it. Because having an unhittable Alpha Legion Lord DIscordant in front of my whole army sounded absolutely dumb.

Not letting more than a +1 to the stacking of armor save buffs has the same pros and cos as not allowing the stacking of buffs for +1 to wound or -1 to hit. It prevents some of the worst current and potential future abuses, and it will still be a decent buff.

Another good example would be +1 to invul saves. In fact, Invul should be capped to 4++ at best in my opinion. But allowing the unlimited stacking of buffs allowed in the past for a unit to get some ridiculous 2++ invul save. Once you have this rule, you can never ever be allowed to buff an Invul by better than just +1. The problem isn't buffing something to a 4++ invul, which is actually quite common. The problem is that somewhere in some codex, players will find some way to buff something into a 3++ or even a 2++ if you aren't careful about this. So, disallowing the stacking of buffs to the same stat beyond just +1 prevents all such abuses now and in future.
The Lord DIscordant relied on a Warlord Trait, a Legion Tactic, a Psychic Power, and a Prayer. Make the Warlord Trait "Infantry Only" and possibly the Prayer too. Bam, -2 max. Solved.

Do you have any examples of units that are ACTUALLY abusing rules like you claim they are?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Eldenfirefly wrote:
The thing is, you prevent future such problems from cropping up once you do this.

You also hurt some existing options in the game and shrink the design space for potentially perfectly good future options. "Future problems" could be prevented with good initial game design decisions or solved on a case by case basis as they arise. You're proposing creating problems now to prevent problems that may or may not exist in the future.

Plus you solve the worst of the existing problems arising from such stacking now.

Can you give some examples of these existing problems? Preferably three examples? Again, I'm not aware of this currently actually being a problem, and it seems like any such examples would be rare enough that they're probably better solved with specific examples.


Like take a look at -1 to hit. They already implemented this...

They did. It had some downsides. But regardless of those downsides, the fact that they already implemented this means that stackable to-hit penalties are a non-example; they're not currently a problem that needs fixing. What is a current problematic example of stacking buffs?


Another good example would be +1 to invul saves. In fact, Invul should be capped to 4++ at best in my opinion. But allowing the unlimited stacking of buffs allowed in the past for a unit to get some ridiculous 2++ invul save. Once you have this rule, you can never ever be allowed to buff an Invul by better than just +1. The problem isn't buffing something to a 4++ invul, which is actually quite common. The problem is that somewhere in some codex, players will find some way to buff something into a 3++ or even a 2++ if you aren't careful about this. So, disallowing the stacking of buffs to the same stat beyond just +1 prevents all such abuses now and in future.

Not having better than 4+ invul seems pretty contraversial on its own, but let's set that aside for now. What unit/combo do you feel is currently too powerful due to stackable invul buffs?


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





Err, I listed already two examples previously.

The 2++ invul unit because they stacked +1 to invul.

And the -3 or -4 to hit Alpha legion Character in front of the whole army tanking it ...

These all happened because one stat was allowed to be stacked by too many buffs.

I am not going to list the current example because it hasn't been changed and I am sure that faction's players will get butt hurt over it if I brought it up and jump in to say that it is perfectly fine just because GW hasn't done anything to address this yet.

But how many 8 point infantry models out there that starts with a 4+ that you can buff to an armor save of 1+ in cover. And now tell me how you can balance a 8 point infantry unit with such a terminator like save...

And changing the points on that unit won't help because they will just apply the same assortment of buffs to another unit to give it a terminator save as well.

But in the interest of keeping Cover relevant. Maybe we can designate Cover save from terrain as a special buff that can be stacked on armor save, but only specifically that. So you can have something that improves your armor save by 1, and you can sit in cover to improve by another 1 and that's it. So the maximum you can increase your armor save no matter what you do is by 2. Then Cover provided by terrain will remain relevant.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/17 03:42:59


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

The only 2++ I know of is the Shadowfield.

It really sounds like these issues don’t actually exist.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





 JNAProductions wrote:
The only 2++ I know of is the Shadowfield.

It really sounds like these issues don’t actually exist.


Previously, Daemons can use Grimoire, Cursed earth and Daemon of Tzeentch to have a 2++ invul save and rerolling 1s.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/17 03:46:32


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Eldenfirefly wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
The only 2++ I know of is the Shadowfield.

It really sounds like these issues don’t actually exist.


Previously, Daemons can use Grimoire, Cursed earth and Daemon of Tzeentch to have a 2++ invul save and rerolling 1s.
That was 7th edition, wasn’t it?

Which, okay, only two editions ago. But given what 8th was in terms of a refresh… not exactly a convincing argument.

What unit CURRENTLY abuses stacking rules?
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





 JNAProductions wrote:
Eldenfirefly wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
The only 2++ I know of is the Shadowfield.

It really sounds like these issues don’t actually exist.


Previously, Daemons can use Grimoire, Cursed earth and Daemon of Tzeentch to have a 2++ invul save and rerolling 1s.
That was 7th edition, wasn’t it?

Which, okay, only two editions ago. But given what 8th was in terms of a refresh… not exactly a convincing argument.

What unit CURRENTLY abuses stacking rules?


.... ok fine. At the risk of all the admech players then jumping on me ...

Admech warlord with Firepoint Telemetry Cache. Points at any admech core skitari unit in cover. Lets use a skitarii vanguard or a skitarii Ranger. Then put on Bulwark Imperative. So, now a 8 points per model unit now has the equivalent of a terminator in cover.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/17 03:55:40


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

So, if they restrict their movement to stay entirely in cover, use a Warlord Trait, and drop their entire army's movement by 3"...

You can get ONE unit to amazing saves. Shoot the other units, then.

Or, if that's truly problematic, adjust the Warlord Trait. Adjust Doctrinas. There's a lot you can adjust before blanket banning all stacking ever.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





Sometimes, that one unit is the one that is getting them the strangle hold VP, the direct assault VP and primaries VP. And that is game.

And other times, maybe there simply aren't any other good targets because everything else is behind obscuring, etc.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Eldenfirefly wrote:
Sometimes, that one unit is the one that is getting them the strangle hold VP, the direct assault VP and primaries VP. And that is game.

And other times, maybe there simply aren't any other good targets because everything else is behind obscuring, etc.


See the rest of JNA's post:

Or, if that's truly problematic, adjust the Warlord Trait. Adjust Doctrinas. There's a lot you can adjust before blanket banning all stacking ever.

You're proposing we create new problems to fix this one highly specific alleged problem. Like, even if we agreed that vanguard with a 2+ save was a problem (and I'm not saying it is or is not), you could just straight up drop Bulwark Imperative or Firepoint Telemetry Cache to accomplish the same amount of good without creating a cascade of unrelated issues.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Wyldhunt wrote:
I wasn't even really commenting on how powerful the new Cadian stuff was. I just meant that "gumption" probably doesn't need to have such a big impact on a battle that it's mechanically represented by a stratagem that uses up a finite resource. Iyanden's craftworld trait supposedly represents something similar, and it just translates to morale immunity; not the ability to shrug off plasma wounds. As much as I like representing lore with rules, it does feel like GW is sort of cramming unnecessary buffs into the game to meet a rules writing quota.

I don't like Chapter Tactics, they make it hard to mix units together and makes balancing backbreaking. I don't think the same is true of Stratagems. If Stratagems were a little more expensive then it would be okay if you had some units that benefit from none of your Stratagems because you'd still use up all your CP on your various other units.

You choosing or not choosing to use a Stratagem to make your unit survive longer is an interesting choice to me, chapter tactic choice is often obvious because either you build around the chapter tactic or you choose the chapter tactic that suits your army way better than any other because they're often very specific in the units they help or don't help (sucks to be an Iyanden Wraithlord or Wraithguard). The only way chapter tactics would be interesting is if everyone using a faction used the same list and that chapter tactic was the thing changing how you played, instead of just another layer on top of your list.

Should Cadians have this particular buff? Probably not, is this particular case a case of filling a quota? Smells like that to me and I have been complaining about the quotas that GW have been filling and the problems that it causes with bloat and making armies do things shouldn't which muddies sub-faction identity. Would I rather Iyanden had one less gumption Chapter Tactic and one or two more gumption Stratagems? 100%. It would be very neat if Iyanden not only lacked buffs for Wraithguard and Wraithlords but the buffs for Guardians and Wave Serpents cost something and weren't free.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/17 06:54:03


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: