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.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I think there needs to be a balance between randomness and averages. We've all had bad turns where the dice just don't go our way and it really sucks and with how lethal 40k is now a bad turn will basically result in an auto-lose. You need some kind of mitigation in the system so that you can adjust the odd in your favor when you need to. Even if it was just something as simple as using CP to roll two dice and choose one.

I think we have too many re-roll abilities as it is and is making the edition too solved and slows the game down with too many dice being rolled and then re-rolled. Some re-roll or innate bonuses is fine (like how the old BS 6+ used to give re-rolls but the models who had access to that level of to-hit rolls in their shooting were few and far between) but when basically every model gets access to some form of re-roll on every attack is a problem. I know 9th walked it back a bit with CORE but it hasn't really solved the problem.

Over the editions GW has been layering on more and more dice into what units can output in terms of attacks at both range and melee, and then adding in so many re-rolls has only caused more issues. If we saw a lot less dice per model (say most models only getting a single shot or melee attack instead of a handful) it'd be less of a problem, but honestly re-rolls should be a highly limited resource.

I loved the fact that the old BS chart has BS6+ and it never mattered since there was always a source of rerolling to hit or old Twin Linked. I think maybe only one model off the top of my head ever used it and that was the Vindicare to the best of my recollection.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I loved the fact that the old BS chart has BS6+ and it never mattered since there was always a source of rerolling to hit or old Twin Linked. I think maybe only one model off the top of my head ever used it and that was the Vindicare to the best of my recollection.

I mean Celestine was BS7 but she had an auto-hitting shooting attack.

I think there were some Phoenix Lords that might qualify, but the point was more that the game worked alright with a much more limited amount of re-rolls and less dice being rolled.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I loved the fact that the old BS chart has BS6+ and it never mattered since there was always a source of rerolling to hit or old Twin Linked. I think maybe only one model off the top of my head ever used it and that was the Vindicare to the best of my recollection.

Until 5e GK it was just the top eldar and DE characters, and Telion.
The Autarch and Archon were the only non-named BS6+ models IIRC.

5e GK had no less than seven BS6+ models. As ClockworkZion mentions the 5e celestine (not the WH one) also had BS 7, but didn't have a gun.

A.T. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I loved the fact that the old BS chart has BS6+ and it never mattered since there was always a source of rerolling to hit or old Twin Linked. I think maybe only one model off the top of my head ever used it and that was the Vindicare to the best of my recollection.

Until 5e GK it was just the top eldar and DE characters, and Telion.
The Autarch and Archon were the only non-named BS6+ models IIRC.

5e GK had no less than seven BS6+ models. As ClockworkZion mentions the 5e celestine (not the WH one) also had BS 7, but didn't have a gun.

I did forget about the Eldar characters, but they often didn't utilize it due to mostly using pistols.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I loved the fact that the old BS chart has BS6+ and it never mattered since there was always a source of rerolling to hit or old Twin Linked. I think maybe only one model off the top of my head ever used it and that was the Vindicare to the best of my recollection.

I mean Celestine was BS7 but she had an auto-hitting shooting attack.

I think there were some Phoenix Lords that might qualify, but the point was more that the game worked alright with a much more limited amount of re-rolls and less dice being rolled.

I guess you could rebuild the system to work around that, so you could have a BS/WS range with 12 possible values, with only the highest value allowing you to hit on 2+ and the re-roll also hitting on a 2+. You could then do a lot more +-1 hit interaction and mitigate issues like orks losing half their shooting if there is a forest on the board.

Speaking of twinlinked, one of the things I do genuinely enjoy of 8th/9th is that twinlinked simply became double shoots.

It was weird that you had these clearly double barreled guns, or even two guns stiched together, and that only gave you re-roll to hit.

I knew 1-2 of the rules team members when I was active on twitter. I know they try REALLY hard and themselves are sometimes frustrated with trying to keep up with the meta and new models/armies/etc

However, I miss 8th. I miss silly old rules that made armies unique like the GSC DS table. Now everything is just more ap, more shots, more damage. That and adding layers of rules to make sure everyone has doctrines. Its annoying to keep up with. I have 10 armies over here and 4 I'll never touch because of it.

Kya_Vess wrote:
I knew 1-2 of the rules team members when I was active on twitter. I know they try REALLY hard and themselves are sometimes frustrated with trying to keep up with the meta and new models/armies/etc

However, I miss 8th. I miss silly old rules that made armies unique like the GSC DS table. Now everything is just more ap, more shots, more damage. That and adding layers of rules to make sure everyone has doctrines. Its annoying to keep up with. I have 10 armies over here and 4 I'll never touch because of it.

I mean welcome to the sanitized game that is warhammer 40k 9th ed.
It feels really batman.

Kya_Vess wrote:
I knew 1-2 of the rules team members when I was active on twitter. I know they try REALLY hard and themselves are sometimes frustrated with trying to keep up with the meta and new models/armies/etc

I'm trying to remain diplomatic here, but if they truly are trying "really hard" then they need to hire better rules writers. I can understand if there are pressures from other parts of the business interfering with their work or if timescales for production are so tight they can't test properly, but if the excuse is essentially "we're trying but we're not good enough" then that's more worrying.

As for struggling to keep up with the meta...that's part of their job. You need to accept you can't catch everything in testing but that just means as a designer you need to be keeping an eye on what happens once your work is out in the wild. Looking at how players use and abuse a new Codex should literally be scheduled into their weekly diaries. If they're not having meetings at least every couple of weeks to look at the prevailing meta trends they're failing to do their job.

 Tyran wrote:
Speaking of twinlinked, one of the things I do genuinely enjoy of 8th/9th is that twinlinked simply became double shoots.

It was weird that you had these clearly double barreled guns, or even two guns stiched together, and that only gave you re-roll to hit.

This was not introduced in 8th/9th. This was in 6th when TL turned from reroll hit into double shots

Slipspace wrote:

Kya_Vess wrote:
I knew 1-2 of the rules team members when I was active on twitter. I know they try REALLY hard and themselves are sometimes frustrated with trying to keep up with the meta and new models/armies/etc

I'm trying to remain diplomatic here, but if they truly are trying "really hard" then they need to hire better rules writers. I can understand if there are pressures from other parts of the business interfering with their work or if timescales for production are so tight they can't test properly, but if the excuse is essentially "we're trying but we're not good enough" then that's more worrying.

As for struggling to keep up with the meta...that's part of their job. You need to accept you can't catch everything in testing but that just means as a designer you need to be keeping an eye on what happens once your work is out in the wild. Looking at how players use and abuse a new Codex should literally be scheduled into their weekly diaries. If they're not having meetings at least every couple of weeks to look at the prevailing meta trends they're failing to do their job.

One of the biggest issues was definitely Covid. Like we've seen them start to write better rulesets that were more cleanly defined and better internally balanced only for Covid to hit and a bunch of stuff to start coming out recently that would have been worked on largely when the UK was in lockdown and playtesting was likely nigh impossible to do properly.

 Mezmorki wrote:
I guess you are just going to have to think less of me and my so-called "ProHammer." I will not be engaging with you anymore. Cheers.

You are not alone.

I have a lot of respect for your project - takes dedication. You have been completely open and generous with your time explaining the rationale behind your rules set. I have not been able to use them, no gaming here, but someday I hope to try them out.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:
From an earlier discussion (here or in one of the other recent threads), I liked the idea of having games be smaller and then give players sideboards. It could be a way for GW to still push larger "armies" and more forces (heck, they could bump it up to 2,500 points) but then have it so that players are limited to say only fielding 1,500 points at any given time. Force players to make strategic choices about what reserves to bring and how to manage their army around that. Would be great for reducing the number of units on the table at the start of the game.

I am Still interested in this approach. People can bring their 2k collection and list, and the scenario can then force some on the spot decision making... tough choices!

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Speaking of twinlinked, one of the things I do genuinely enjoy of 8th/9th is that twinlinked simply became double shoots.

It was weird that you had these clearly double barreled guns, or even two guns stiched together, and that only gave you re-roll to hit.

This was not introduced in 8th/9th. This was in 6th when TL turned from reroll hit into double shots

This is not correct.

I liked how 2nd had it. Normal number of shots but if you hit both weapons hit.

 Eldarain wrote:
I liked how 2nd had it. Normal number of shots but if you hit both weapons hit.

IIRC 2nd edition was like 8th - 'linked' weapons shot together as a single attack but you still rolled for each of them.

While the 3e twinlinked does add rerolls it did reduce the overall number of dice and pulled in damage by a fair amount. The early books also replaced a number of twin-linked weapons with alternate profiles (i.e. twin handflamers were treated as a flamer).

A.T. wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
I liked how 2nd had it. Normal number of shots but if you hit both weapons hit.

IIRC 2nd edition was like 8th - 'linked' weapons shot together as a single attack but you still rolled for each of them.

While the 3e twinlinked does add rerolls it did reduce the overall number of dice and pulled in damage by a fair amount. The early books also replaced a number of twin-linked weapons with alternate profiles (i.e. twin handflamers were treated as a flamer).

This is not correct (sorry couldn't help it )

 Eldarain wrote:
This is not correct (sorry couldn't help it )

Ah, i'd only read the previous page under vehicle armament where linked weapons were described as "two or more linked weapons are operated by a single action and fire together at the same target", and didn't think to turn over.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Lemme be clearer, individual model points cost can remain the same, but weapons, upgrades etc should cost way more than currently.

This biases special and heavy weapons to more durable platforms as the units become too glass cannon and their death becomes more painful. If the unit is still "efficient" then people will use whatever tools available to make sure they strike without taking casualties first -- deepstrike, pods, etc.

My point was more-irony

If you think GW is currently doing a really bad job do something else.......like another current GW product.

i understand GW is the white elephant in the room, but you will never wean yourself/group off the poison unless you make the effort.

What I'm suggesting is only 1 part of the whole. Unit abilities, weapon profiles etc will be adjusted as well.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Speaking of twinlinked, one of the things I do genuinely enjoy of 8th/9th is that twinlinked simply became double shoots.

It was weird that you had these clearly double barreled guns, or even two guns stiched together, and that only gave you re-roll to hit.

This was not introduced in 8th/9th. This was in 6th when TL turned from reroll hit into double shots

Did they revert it back, then? HH has TL providing a re-roll and GW still has previews of 8th Ed up where they talk about TL changing from re-roll to double shots.

Edit: And man, is it ironic to read early overviews of 8th praising how the elimination of re-rolls for TL sped up the game...

 Tyran wrote:
It was weird that you had these clearly double barreled guns, or even two guns stiched together, and that only gave you re-roll to hit.

In our rules that we did ages ago, Twin-Linked weapons kept their re-roll, but if the first To Hit roll was a natural 6, you got two hits. It was a nice little boost.

Slipspace wrote:

Kya_Vess wrote:
I knew 1-2 of the rules team members when I was active on twitter. I know they try REALLY hard and themselves are sometimes frustrated with trying to keep up with the meta and new models/armies/etc

I'm trying to remain diplomatic here, but if they truly are trying "really hard" then they need to hire better rules writers. I can understand if there are pressures from other parts of the business interfering with their work or if timescales for production are so tight they can't test properly, but if the excuse is essentially "we're trying but we're not good enough" then that's more worrying.

As for struggling to keep up with the meta...that's part of their job. You need to accept you can't catch everything in testing but that just means as a designer you need to be keeping an eye on what happens once your work is out in the wild. Looking at how players use and abuse a new Codex should literally be scheduled into their weekly diaries. If they're not having meetings at least every couple of weeks to look at the prevailing meta trends they're failing to do their job.

I'll never defend GW as a whole but I do feel for those particular people. Only because I've been a part of growing companies who went from small to very large a few times, and the results are almost always the same. The designers are stuck dealing with other moving parts, moving parts that have more say, and they're mixed between justifying anything, especially rules with $. 2 years ago they were trying to balance but were stuck at having to do updates with all those little prophecy booklets. Now it looks like they got their way to finally do updates online. But lets face it. It's VERY apparent there's a push to up the rules with new model lines to get people excited.

I'm just saying the rules team is stuck behind bosses with entirely different focuses, and thats not changing ANY time soon. That's our reality until sales go down.

I have removed some heated discussion and booped some snoots, please remember that if you really dislike something or someone's comment, there's an ignore feature and report button. Thank you to those who utilized it. Carry on.

 Tyran wrote:
Speaking of twinlinked, one of the things I do genuinely enjoy of 8th/9th is that twinlinked simply became double shoots.

It was weird that you had these clearly double barreled guns, or even two guns stiched together, and that only gave you re-roll to hit.

No weirder than, say, exactly 3 rounds, no more, no less, always coming out of a heavy bolter when fired.

I have no preference between the two options, but, as ever, people are super-selective when they start talking about what does or doesn't feel realistic in the game.

The # of shots is very arbitrary for some reason.

Racerguy180 wrote:
The # of shots is very arbitrary for some reason.

I've always imagined it as a single attack. Like it's not three shots, it's three short bursts represented by three dice.

I mean, yeah. It's an abstraction. It's not firing exactly 3 shots every time anymore than regular Squaddies are firing 1 shot at a time.

Who honestly would think that?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I mean, yeah. It's an abstraction. It's not firing exactly 3 shots every time anymore than regular Squaddies are firing 1 shot at a time.

Who honestly would think that?

Whoever designed the Repulsor?

Tyel wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I mean, yeah. It's an abstraction. It's not firing exactly 3 shots every time anymore than regular Squaddies are firing 1 shot at a time.

Who honestly would think that?

Whoever designed the Repulsor?

Nah, that thing is using the time honored tactic of Death Blossom.