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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be frank, I think they made the wrong choice. Rather than making WS hit on a flat number like BS did, they should have made BS hit on a comparative number like WS did.

That way, units with "dodges" or "evades" or "sensor scramblers" or "cover" or whatever could be harder to hit in a more coherent way than just modifiers.

You know what....yeah, yeah i agree, that way cover could add and or subtract to this.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


This problem exists because GW started putting "-1 to hit" on loads of things as special rules. If you look at other GW-adjacent systems with d6 to-hit and to-hit modifiers (Mordheim/Necromunda, WHFB, Bolt Action) you'll find that almost universally the only modifiers are moving and shooting, cover, and range. If they'd written their BS values to accommodate a modifier system instead of just copy-pasting the BS values from modifier-less 7th, and recognized that the system simply doesn't support that many modifiers, the no-modifiers-cap band-aid patch wouldn't have been necessary.

The problem is that when GW discovers a new "tool" they tend to use it a lot. Last edition it was -1 to this modifiers and this edition it seams to be -1D and various versions of transhuman.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


This problem exists because GW started putting "-1 to hit" on loads of things as special rules. If you look at other GW-adjacent systems with d6 to-hit and to-hit modifiers (Mordheim/Necromunda, WHFB, Bolt Action) you'll find that almost universally the only modifiers are moving and shooting, cover, and range. If they'd written their BS values to accommodate a modifier system instead of just copy-pasting the BS values from modifier-less 7th, and recognized that the system simply doesn't support that many modifiers, the no-modifiers-cap band-aid patch wouldn't have been necessary.

The problem is that when GW discovers a new "tool" they tend to use it a lot. Last edition it was -1 to this modifiers and this edition it seams to be -1D and various versions of transhuman.

It genuinely amazes me how often they addresses community complaints by doing the most unintuitive thing they can think of. It's almost like they're a bunch of narcissists who can't admit that they screwed up, so they preform these gymnastics (that are really more like elbow drops from the top rope) like capping flyers universally, limiting modifiers to +/-1 and giving everyone Transhuman to try fix the problem while also not admitting that they did something wrong.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I find the d10 or d12 suggestions interesting because I aren't sure it would solve much. To part over like for like, or near to, using marines as a baseline would hit on a 7/8. People would still want their units to be hitting on a 7/8, because otherwise they're unreliable and overpriced. This doesn't change the current situation, it just adds a couple more "acceptable" results without removing the issue.

Bingo! Give the man a point.

Yep. There are actually studies on this (they favor RPGs, but the psychology is the same). There is a definitely trend towards people expecting a ~60% chance of success as the 'normal,' whether people are rolling d20s, d6s or anything in between. People get real uncomfortable with 50/50, and anything worse generally 'feels' appalling. And war games that do switch to other dice keep roughly the same success/failure ratios- its mostly window dressing.

At that point, you have to start looking at the costs of specialty gaming dice and if adopting them has a gatekeeper effect on your intended audience (as opposed to d6s they can pick up just about anywhere)

I've said before that if you were to convert WS and BS to a comparison roll against Initiative, you'd get all the variation you need and you can go back to 2nd ed statlines.


IMO the issue is not the variation in the roll per se, it's where the focus of variation is. When it's a comparison roll, your focus on variation is the stat - do my Grey Knights have a better WS than normal marines?

When the stat is the literal roll, any variation is the dice roll.

It's partly psychological in effect, but there are also two levels of variation in a comparison roll, the actual number you need to roll and the fact this changes depending on opponent.


Fixed number rolls also look more abstract in a profile (a bit subjective) especially when they're inverse to the quality of other stats - lower is better,

Yeah. You could give stationary range targets *Evasion 0* (or whatever stat) and guns auto hit, if used by trained soldiers. Yay! Your men are successful and not stupid. Evasion 0 could also be used by tanks at close range for example.

Eldar could be like Evasion 6, so even in the open folks like Guard only hit them on a 5 or 6+. But Guard could have an order like, say, First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire that reduces the evasion of target models, because it is harder to dodge a coordinated volley or whatever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And Blast weapons could reduce or ignore Evasion as well.

Some good points and suggestions there, but a good part of my point or issue was that the community seem to be unable to accept units that don't hit above average. These suggestions restore purpose and variance, but the community will still be clamouring for tau with native 67% hit rates, celebrating when entire books cross that threshold and decrying using that are 50% or worse at a task.

As much as you can break the stats out with different uses for the stat, the point is people don't like anything less than above average.

 Hellebore wrote:
I've said before that if you were to convert WS and BS to a comparison roll against Initiative, you'd get all the variation you need and you can go back to 2nd ed statlines.


IMO the issue is not the variation in the roll per se, it's where the focus of variation is. When it's a comparison roll, your focus on variation is the stat - do my Grey Knights have a better WS than normal marines?

When the stat is the literal roll, any variation is the dice roll.

It's partly psychological in effect, but there are also two levels of variation in a comparison roll, the actual number you need to roll and the fact this changes depending on opponent.


Fixed number rolls also look more abstract in a profile (a bit subjective) especially when they're inverse to the quality of other stats - lower is better,

Yes, it is the comparison that should mean something. And the use of Initiative to mitigate BS with ranged weapons perhaps in certain contexts, such as in the open and having advanced or run, or simply as a blanket dodgy-ness characteristic that translates into H2H also. It should be more difficult to hit a harlequin or a skittering 'nid in the open than to hit an oak in the same context. Good idea...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
Some good points and suggestions there, but a good part of my point or issue was that the community seem to be unable to accept units that don't hit above average. These suggestions restore purpose and variance, but the community will still be clamouring for tau with native 67% hit rates, celebrating when entire books cross that threshold and decrying using that are 50% or worse at a task.

As much as you can break the stats out with different uses for the stat, the point is people don't like anything less than above average.

Maybe this attitude might change a bit if the comparison between units made a difference, and units were costed using a standard set of criteria with special abilities costed in as add-ons rather than every nut and its uncle having a list of special rules on the back of a card that mostly add up to the same dynamics as another unit but with a different name...

Dudeface wrote:
Some good points and suggestions there, but a good part of my point or issue was that the community seem to be unable to accept units that don't hit above average. These suggestions restore purpose and variance, but the community will still be clamouring for tau with native 67% hit rates, celebrating when entire books cross that threshold and decrying using that are 50% or worse at a task.

As much as you can break the stats out with different uses for the stat, the point is people don't like anything less than above average.

Yeah.

Few people like losing a game because you just can't seem to roll up any damage. One such game can occasionally be funny (although less so if you are at a tournament). Twice is frustrating. More and you are starting to flip tables. Unfortunately if there's a reasonable chance for this to happen, there's a relatively high chance for it to happen successively. And if you have 3 games in a row where your tank that you've paid for and painted does absolutely nothing there's a tendency to start thinking the tank sucks, the game sucks, you know what I'm going to play something else.

Unfortunately across the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of games a year, such a run of luck is bound to happen to someone - but you don't want it happening to lots of people. GW want to avoid it, and most players seem to want to avoid it.

Tyel wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Some good points and suggestions there, but a good part of my point or issue was that the community seem to be unable to accept units that don't hit above average. These suggestions restore purpose and variance, but the community will still be clamouring for tau with native 67% hit rates, celebrating when entire books cross that threshold and decrying using that are 50% or worse at a task.

As much as you can break the stats out with different uses for the stat, the point is people don't like anything less than above average.

Yeah.

Few people like losing a game because you just can't seem to roll up any damage. One such game can occasionally be funny (although less so if you are at a tournament). Twice is frustrating. More and you are starting to flip tables. Unfortunately if there's a reasonable chance for this to happen, there's a relatively high chance for it to happen successively. And if you have 3 games in a row where your tank that you've paid for and painted does absolutely nothing there's a tendency to start thinking the tank sucks, the game sucks, you know what I'm going to play something else.

Unfortunately across the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of games a year, such a run of luck is bound to happen to someone - but you don't want it happening to lots of people. GW want to avoid it, and most players seem to want to avoid it.

Understood, but it comes back to why even bother having a variable value for hitting, or even a hit roll at all in that case? Moreover, what is representing the units skills as a combatant at that point.

Ork players seem to not care overly (as much as there were requests for bs 4+ boyz pre codex), arguably if you can make the lower chance of success have some reasonable probability by inflating number of shots or making it so that one hit that does connect is worth it, I feel would be a better solution.

Just tired of the game becoming a mathematical experience with no setting relevance and things only being considered if they're nigh on 100% reliable.

To my mind there should be 2 separate tables for shooting and melee. The shooting table should have more modifiers to hit from a base number. Say a guardsman has a base 4+ to hit but then modifiers come into play such as did he move? Is he shooting into cover/concealment? Is the target large or small, fast or slow? All these things make a difference when you shoot at something.

Now melee should have few, if any, modifiers. But, the fighting ability of your opponent makes a vast difference. So your ability to fight should be compare to your opponents' ability to fight. Thus we come back to the old cross reference table with maybe a few modifiers. So your typical guardsman may know which end of his knife points toward the enemy (melee 5+) but his opponent may be a melee specialist (like a banshee) who has a melee score of 3+. You cross reference the skills and viola you find out what the guardsman needs to hit the banshee.

All of this should be separated from the ability to damage which should be done on a cross reference scale (Strength vs Armor).

At least IMHO.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
To my mind there should be 2 separate tables for shooting and melee. The shooting table should have more modifiers to hit from a base number. Say a guardsman has a base 4+ to hit but then modifiers come into play such as did he move? Is he shooting into cover/concealment? Is the target large or small, fast or slow? All these things make a difference when you shoot at something.

Now melee should have few, if any, modifiers. But, the fighting ability of your opponent makes a vast difference. So your ability to fight should be compare to your opponents' ability to fight. Thus we come back to the old cross reference table with maybe a few modifiers. So your typical guardsman may know which end of his knife points toward the enemy (melee 5+) but his opponent may be a melee specialist (like a banshee) who has a melee score of 3+. You cross reference the skills and viola you find out what the guardsman needs to hit the banshee.

All of this should be separated from the ability to damage which should be done on a cross reference scale (Strength vs Armor).

At least IMHO.

So, you want to play 2nd ed.

I started playing in 2nd. It wasn't too bad except for the various dice needed for all the weapons. There are far worse choices that could be made.

2nd ed groups are out there and they tend to be having way more fun and way less arguments than 9th players. I just wish it wasn't so expensive to build an era accurate army.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
The problem is cap on modifiers. Once GW introduced "6 always hits" they should have been able to go crazier with modifiers. Instead we get silly stuff like "can't be hit/wounded on 1-3" instead of just letting the Custodes Blade Champ do a -2 to hit in melee. And then your Phoenix Lords can have a BS/WS1+ so they still hit him on a 3+.

The problem with the no cap on modifiers is that it opened up another can of worm entirely. I flew in the Aeldari air force as an Alaitoc officer and I managed to just create negative player experience for people with it.

And that's a problem with using the same exact values as prior editions. Why can't Sternguard be BS2+ for example? Why can't Iron Hands have a trait that says "ignore the first negative modifier for rolling to hit"?

The designers aren't creative.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
The problem is cap on modifiers. Once GW introduced "6 always hits" they should have been able to go crazier with modifiers. Instead we get silly stuff like "can't be hit/wounded on 1-3" instead of just letting the Custodes Blade Champ do a -2 to hit in melee. And then your Phoenix Lords can have a BS/WS1+ so they still hit him on a 3+.

The problem with the no cap on modifiers is that it opened up another can of worm entirely. I flew in the Aeldari air force as an Alaitoc officer and I managed to just create negative player experience for people with it.

And that's a problem with using the same exact values as prior editions. Why can't Sternguard be BS2+ for example? Why can't Iron Hands have a trait that says "ignore the first negative modifier for rolling to hit"?

The designers aren't creative.

Its not that they aren't creative (...) it's that they're limiting themselves rules-wise in order to appear more tournament-y. The fewer different rules there are the easier balance should be, unfortunately the world doesn't work that way. For GW rules writers at least.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Orks still hit on BS 5+ though so these changes are not uniform.

I think the increases are being done mostly on units that are expensive pointwise and you can't really spam to make up for its lack of BS/WS. Take for example the Plaguburst Crawler. If it were to back to BS 4+ the whole platform would need to drop down to 110-120 points due to how unreliable the platform is.

Very much this. The old Forgefiends hit and wounded harder than the ones now, because you could push them with Daemonforge. Without Daemonforge they just weren't very useful. So axe DF, give them BS3, and they're decent.

These changes are also not universally one direction. Tzaangors went from WS3 to WS4 so they can never get to 2s to hit.

Voss wrote:

At that point, you have to start looking at the costs of specialty gaming dice and if adopting them has a gatekeeper effect on your intended audience (as opposed to d6s they can pick up just about anywhere)

I think speciality dice being gate keeping is very weak. I've never used dice where they weren't provided somehow. Mtg is "easy" to get dice, not that you need them. I've never played a board game where they weren't provided.

All the dice I've bought for 40k I've gotten through GW. Except d20s which are spin downs from mtg but those are for large vehicles.

If GW provided the correct dice at their stores or online I'd say it's a non issue. Besides if they were planning a new edition with different dice I'd like to think they'd know to create a surplus to sell

 fraser1191 wrote:

Voss wrote:

At that point, you have to start looking at the costs of specialty gaming dice and if adopting them has a gatekeeper effect on your intended audience (as opposed to d6s they can pick up just about anywhere)

I think speciality dice being gate keeping is very weak. I've never used dice where they weren't provided somehow. Mtg is "easy" to get dice, not that you need them. I've never played a board game where they weren't provided.

All the dice I've bought for 40k I've gotten through GW. Except d20s which are spin downs from mtg but those are for large vehicles.

If GW provided the correct dice at their stores or online I'd say it's a non issue. Besides if they were planning a new edition with different dice I'd like to think they'd know to create a surplus to sell

GW already provides D10s through the Wounds Dice.

Dudeface wrote:


Ork players seem to not care overly (as much as there were requests for bs 4+ boyz pre codex), arguably if you can make the lower chance of success have some reasonable probability by inflating number of shots or making it so that one hit that does connect is worth it, I feel would be a better solution.

Just tired of the game becoming a mathematical experience with no setting relevance and things only being considered if they're nigh on 100% reliable.

Ork players don't care overly much because we had hopes GW would address how piss poor shoota boyz were. Sadly, we were mistaken. BS4 Shoota boys wouldn't even fix the problem either mind you. But I would love to see a faction rule for orkz that our BS can never be increased to 6+ and I would really like to see Shootas get 1-2 more shots each. Dakka 5(3) would make them okish, a unit of 10 would cost 90pts and at "Half range" IE 9' they would put out 50 shots for 16 hits, 8 wounds and against a Marine profile thats 2.6dmg or 1 dead Marine. Not good by any stretch of the imagination, but a hell of a lot better than the 1.6 they currently do...especially since you have to be at 9' range for that to happen.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Orks still hit on BS 5+ though so these changes are not uniform.

I think the increases are being done mostly on units that are expensive pointwise and you can't really spam to make up for its lack of BS/WS. Take for example the Plaguburst Crawler. If it were to back to BS 4+ the whole platform would need to drop down to 110-120 points due to how unreliable the platform is.

Orkz getting forgotten about as trends happen is nothing new.. in facts, it is its own trend. Troops got tougher in 8th and 9th! Boyz got weaker. Everyone ignores morale for the most part! Orkz are crushed by it. etc etc

I'd like to see fewer WS3 units, thats for sure but as a friendly reminder, Ork boyz used to be BS4+

 Platuan4th wrote:
2nd ed groups are out there and they tend to be having way more fun and way less arguments than 9th players. I just wish it wasn't so expensive to build an era accurate army.

Felt that way at the time…

Voss wrote:
...At that point, you have to start looking at the costs of specialty gaming dice and if adopting them has a gatekeeper effect on your intended audience (as opposed to d6s they can pick up just about anywhere)...

I suspect the advantage disappears when you consider that proprietary-dice games tend to have you rolling 3-6 dice per action (I did roll twelve-dice attacks in MCP once, but my opponent was very incautious about clustering up against Daredevil), versus GW's occasional 100+ dice pools.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
To my mind there should be 2 separate tables for shooting and melee. The shooting table should have more modifiers to hit from a base number. Say a guardsman has a base 4+ to hit but then modifiers come into play such as did he move? Is he shooting into cover/concealment? Is the target large or small, fast or slow? All these things make a difference when you shoot at something.

Now melee should have few, if any, modifiers. But, the fighting ability of your opponent makes a vast difference. So your ability to fight should be compare to your opponents' ability to fight. Thus we come back to the old cross reference table with maybe a few modifiers. So your typical guardsman may know which end of his knife points toward the enemy (melee 5+) but his opponent may be a melee specialist (like a banshee) who has a melee score of 3+. You cross reference the skills and viola you find out what the guardsman needs to hit the banshee.

All of this should be separated from the ability to damage which should be done on a cross reference scale (Strength vs Armor).

At least IMHO.

So, you want to play 2nd ed.

2nd Ed comes with a whole lot more baggage than just opposed rolls.

I'm not keen to see sustained fire dice or individual combats make a return, but using the current S-vs-T mechanic to make melee combat opposed WS-vs-WS and ranged combat BS-vs-Evasion (or equivalent) could help address a number of issues.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarsif wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
The problem is cap on modifiers. Once GW introduced "6 always hits" they should have been able to go crazier with modifiers. Instead we get silly stuff like "can't be hit/wounded on 1-3" instead of just letting the Custodes Blade Champ do a -2 to hit in melee. And then your Phoenix Lords can have a BS/WS1+ so they still hit him on a 3+.

The problem with the no cap on modifiers is that it opened up another can of worm entirely. I flew in the Aeldari air force as an Alaitoc officer and I managed to just create negative player experience for people with it.

This problem exists because GW started putting "-1 to hit" on loads of things as special rules. If you look at other GW-adjacent systems with d6 to-hit and to-hit modifiers (Mordheim/Necromunda, WHFB, Bolt Action) you'll find that almost universally the only modifiers are moving and shooting, cover, and range. If they'd written their BS values to accommodate a modifier system instead of just copy-pasting the BS values from modifier-less 7th, and recognized that the system simply doesn't support that many modifiers, the no-modifiers-cap band-aid patch wouldn't have been necessary.

Bingo. Crimson Hunters having a -2 to hit is fine as long as more units have the abilities to hit or counter aircraft. For example, Hunters/Stalkers could've had a rule where they ignore the first 1 to 2 negative modifiers to hit on TOP of a bonus to hit aircraft. I mean, it SHOULD be hard to hit Crimson Hunters, but dedicated aircraft killers should still be able to have a crack at it.

So like I said, GW rules writers are just boring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
The problem is cap on modifiers. Once GW introduced "6 always hits" they should have been able to go crazier with modifiers. Instead we get silly stuff like "can't be hit/wounded on 1-3" instead of just letting the Custodes Blade Champ do a -2 to hit in melee. And then your Phoenix Lords can have a BS/WS1+ so they still hit him on a 3+.

The problem with the no cap on modifiers is that it opened up another can of worm entirely. I flew in the Aeldari air force as an Alaitoc officer and I managed to just create negative player experience for people with it.

And that's a problem with using the same exact values as prior editions. Why can't Sternguard be BS2+ for example? Why can't Iron Hands have a trait that says "ignore the first negative modifier for rolling to hit"?

The designers aren't creative.

Its not that they aren't creative (...) it's that they're limiting themselves rules-wise in order to appear more tournament-y. The fewer different rules there are the easier balance should be, unfortunately the world doesn't work that way. For GW rules writers at least.

You'd have a point if they actually succeeded at balancing. So my point still stands.