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.

Orks should hit on a 5+ and ignore all hit modifiers.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Orks should hit on a 5+ and ignore all hit modifiers.

I agree, fair solution.

 Dysartes wrote:

I'd disagree that just sticking modifiers on solves the issue of weapon types being too permissive (and too similar, really) now - making players choose between maneuver and getting full firepower increases the number of tactical decisions to be made, rather than every being able to move and fire at full (or nearly full) effectiveness.

This is also my preference regarding modifiers in general, and I totally agree that setting up a hard choice leads to more interesting gameplay decisions than slapping a modifier on something. Not to mention modifiers and allowing compound actions both make the game longer.

Since we've talked about Andy Chambers a fair bit in this thread, I want to point out how he explicitly designed 3rd Ed (and many of the specialist games) to not use modifiers whenever possible.

Some 3rd Ed 40K examples:
-Rapid Fire controls the number of shots you get based on range and movement, not applying modifiers to the roll.
-Heavy is binary move-or-fire, not fire-with-a-penalty.
-Master-Crafted gives you re-rolls of 1s, rather than +1 to hit or whatever.
-AP system is all-or-nothing.
-Vehicles used two different damage tables for glancing hits vs penetrating hits.
-Cover provides a bonus save, not a change to hit chance.

The primary goal is to reduce cognitive burden, since you don't need to remember a bunch of modifiers. If I'm firing a master-crafted bolter at short range against a heavily-armored target in cover, I do not need to tally up bonuses and penalties and figure out an adjusted roll to hit; each of these is applied separately and independently at different stages of the process. It also speeds up resolution if penalties manifest as fewer dice rolled rather than rolls that need 5s or 6s to succeed.

More importantly, it is very easy for a purely modifier-based system to break if enough effects can be stacked, as we have repeatedly seen with modifiers in 8th Ed. They also don't affect armies equally, as -2 to hit is significant for Marines (cutting their effectiveness in half), crippling for Guard (effectiveness down to a third), and an existential problem for Orks. Then the patchwork fixes, like 9th's cap on penalties, means you get silliness like moving and shooting Heavy because there's no penalty if your target is already at -1 to hit. Separating out these effects into discrete mechanics makes it easier for them to coexist.

I guess I'm a hypocrite, because I have often been a proponent of heavier use of modifiers, but there is an elegance to modifier-free design. Really, I think the issue is that the current to-hit mechanic in particular- just a D6 roll against a fixed value- is too simplistic to wrap a bunch of secondary modifiers and effects into it, and more gentle modifiers to avoid breaking it don't have the kind of significant effect that I feel they ought to. Having to decide whether to move or fire, or move and shoot up to half range or stay still and shoot up to max range, has more impact on both weapon choice and moment-to-moment tactical decision-making than just a -1.

 Mezmorki wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

I'd disagree that just sticking modifiers on solves the issue of weapon types being too permissive (and too similar, really) now - making players choose between maneuver and getting full firepower increases the number of tactical decisions to be made, rather than every being able to move and fire at full (or nearly full) effectiveness.

This is also my preference regarding modifiers in general, and I totally agree that setting up a hard choice leads to more interesting gameplay decisions than slapping a modifier on something. Not to mention modifiers and allowing compound actions both make the game longer.

I don't see why the mechanics should be exclusive. I'd just use both. Infantry cannot move and fire a Heavy weapon. Firing into cover confers a -1 to hit.

This is the framework of 2nd ed, although 3rd introduced interesting additional mechanics involving weapons categories like Assault. I'd take a bit of all of it.

Re-rolls are less elegant than modifiers.

Having twice as many tables instead of one with modifiers is bloated and clunky.

 vict0988 wrote:
Re-rolls are less elegant than modifiers.

Having twice as many tables instead of one with modifiers is bloated and clunky.

I think re-rolls are a very useful mechanic to have in the tool bag. But yeah they have to be limited in use because it's such a pain at the large scale. Like, Twin Linked used to be re-rolls, and it was no problem because they were comparatively rare.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
How much of a difference do people think dialing some of the weapon types back to be less permissive would make?

For example:
- HEAVY going back to move or fire for INFANTRY*
- RAPID FIRE going back to n shots at full range if you don't move (or 2n at half range), but no longer able to Assault after firing*
- Codify a BASIC weapon type in the core rules (see the type introduced by the LoV recently, and do a pass through the games Assault/RF weapons to see which it should apply to - I'm thinking the Hot-Shot Lasgun for one).
- Have ASSAULT and PISTOL be the only weapon types (in the core rules) you can fire with before making an Assault (I'd also give this ability to DAKKA weapons).

* - With Relentless making a reappearance for INFANTRY units that can justify ignoring the movement elements of these, though not the "Can't Assault after firing" part of RF. Death Guard, Wraithguard and Terminators are examples that spring to mind.

I'd rather just make Rapid Fire weapons be -1 to hit if they move and Heavy -2. Bam, you solved problems.

Shame there's a max -1 to hit modifiers you'd have to remove and then just go back to "lol can't shoot me!" Eldar again.

As you might have seen in this forum, I'm ALL for stacking modifiers. I don't care if we gotta count five different ones just to get to a -1 to hit. The problem in 8th came from the fact there weren't a lot of natural ways to actually gain a +1 to hit, whereas there was a plethora of -1 to hit sources.

To clarify, you're happy having some armies literally unable to hit some opponents?

6s always hit, and not every unit is gonna be -3 to hit. That affects the higher BS armies like Marines, Eldar, and Custodes. That's not a bad thing and encourages sources of autohit (flamers), specific tools (AA platforms) or melee units.

Fact is, most complaints were from people building 100% shooting armies that wanted no opposition. Raven Guard and Eldar fliers with -2 to hit aren't a problem.

Tbh I have mixed feelings about 6s always hit. It's a fine rule, but it does put a cap on things which in turn can eliminate the need for making certain choices. Like going in to Cover might be meaningless once you've already incurred a -1 for moving fast or something.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Tbh I have mixed feelings about 6s always hit. It's a fine rule, but it does put a cap on things which in turn can eliminate the need for making certain choices. Like going in to Cover might be meaningless once you've already incurred a -1 for moving fast or something.

It sounds like you're referring to max cap of +/-1, not 6s always hitting.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Tbh I have mixed feelings about 6s always hit. It's a fine rule, but it does put a cap on things which in turn can eliminate the need for making certain choices. Like going in to Cover might be meaningless once you've already incurred a -1 for moving fast or something.

It sounds like you're referring to max cap of +/-1, not 6s always hitting.

If an ork moves with a heavy weapon then no amount of negative modifiers matter.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Tbh I have mixed feelings about 6s always hit. It's a fine rule, but it does put a cap on things which in turn can eliminate the need for making certain choices. Like going in to Cover might be meaningless once you've already incurred a -1 for moving fast or something.

It sounds like you're referring to max cap of +/-1, not 6s always hitting.

As dudeface says. At certain intersections the results are identical.

It's funny.... Ballistic Skill being represented as a X+ values makes a lot more sense in 3rd-7th edition where you don't have hit roll modifiers, than it does in 8th/9th.

Conversely, having BS be a range from 1-10 (with heroes have BS5, BS6, BS7, etc.) makes a lot more sense in 8th/9th where you DO have the potential for lots of modifiers to stack - so your elite ranged units with a high BS, targeters, etc. have a purpose (this is what 2nd edition did).

GW has their systems backwards.

 Mezmorki wrote:
It's funny.... Ballistic Skill being represented as a X+ values makes a lot more sense in 3rd-7th edition where you don't have hit roll modifiers, than it does in 8th/9th.

Conversely, having BS be a range from 1-10 (with heroes have BS5, BS6, BS7, etc.) makes a lot more sense in 8th/9th where you DO have the potential for lots of modifiers to stack - so your elite ranged units with a high BS, targeters, etc. have a purpose (this is what 2nd edition did).

GW has their systems backwards.

I think they just wanted to get rid of a chart, which is a reasonable goal.

If modifiers were back in full swing though, I wonder if it would be too weird to express high BS as 1+, 0+ and even -1+. That seems ok to me.

Edit: Just capping at 0 might be good enough anyways. That translated to a BS of 7 in 2nd. Max I recall was 8?

Max was 10. 2+ rerollable.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Max was 10. 2+ rerollable.

Was the reroll a thing in 2nd?

Oh, did the Avatar or some Daemon have 10?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Max was 10. 2+ rerollable.

Was the reroll a thing in 2nd?

Oh, did the Avatar or some Daemon have 10?

Oh, sorry. I missed the “2nd” bit.

I’m talking 3rd-7th era.

Hah. I don't even recall that rule for 3-7 either.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Hah. I don't even recall that rule for 3-7 either.

BS 6 or higher allowed for a reroll at -5 BS, effectively.

Neat, thanks! Seems reasonable since those models were pretty rare. I think Space Marines capped out at 5. I played Crons too but they're not known for outstanding marksmanship. I may have never used a model with BS 6.

GW utilizing the full range their current stats offer would be an improvement IMO.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
GW utilizing the full range their current stats offer would be an improvement IMO.

Which is tricky when people don't like anything that's less than above average in terms of ws/bs

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Tbh I have mixed feelings about 6s always hit. It's a fine rule, but it does put a cap on things which in turn can eliminate the need for making certain choices. Like going in to Cover might be meaningless once you've already incurred a -1 for moving fast or something.

It sounds like you're referring to max cap of +/-1, not 6s always hitting.

As dudeface says. At certain intersections the results are identical.

Yeah, that intersection is Ork shooting. Your point?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Tbh I have mixed feelings about 6s always hit. It's a fine rule, but it does put a cap on things which in turn can eliminate the need for making certain choices. Like going in to Cover might be meaningless once you've already incurred a -1 for moving fast or something.

It sounds like you're referring to max cap of +/-1, not 6s always hitting.

As dudeface says. At certain intersections the results are identical.

Yeah, that intersection is Ork shooting. Your point?

It's any 4+ to anything being affected by -3 or more.

So for your examples moving with a heavy weapon team, firing through a forest at a vehicle with smoke launchers would be a 4+ with -4 to hit.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Tbh I have mixed feelings about 6s always hit. It's a fine rule, but it does put a cap on things which in turn can eliminate the need for making certain choices. Like going in to Cover might be meaningless once you've already incurred a -1 for moving fast or something.

It sounds like you're referring to max cap of +/-1, not 6s always hitting.

As dudeface says. At certain intersections the results are identical.

Yeah, that intersection is Ork shooting. Your point?

My point I guess is that when you say that I'm referring to a cap on +1,-1, I am in fact not referring to that cap mechanic, and instead refering to the mechanic I was actually talking about, which is the "6+ always hits" mechanic.

The reason why they are not the same is because we're talking about potential alternative rulesets, with potentially other modifiers that could also stack.

 catbarf wrote:
More importantly, it is very easy for a purely modifier-based system to break if enough effects can be stacked, as we have repeatedly seen with modifiers in 8th Ed.

And with Hammer of the Emperor and Armour of Contempt.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
More importantly, it is very easy for a purely modifier-based system to break if enough effects can be stacked, as we have repeatedly seen with modifiers in 8th Ed.

And with Hammer of the Emperor and Armour of Contempt.

Lasguns that auto-wound Titans and armour saves that stop things that "Invulnerable" saves can't. Peak 9th edition 40k.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
More importantly, it is very easy for a purely modifier-based system to break if enough effects can be stacked, as we have repeatedly seen with modifiers in 8th Ed.

And with Hammer of the Emperor and Armour of Contempt.

Lasguns that auto-wound Titans and armour saves that stop things that "Invulnerable" saves can't. Peak 9th edition 40k.

Remember when an "Invulnerable" save was actually invulnerable, it could never be bypassed. kind of defeats the point of having one if you can ignore it.

Don't even get me started on the non-immersive concept that infantry small arms could do more than scratch the paint on armored fighting vehicles specifically designed to defeat them.

Even Andy addressed that with the armor class/wound system in DUST.

^Well . . . There was the C'tan blades, Necrodermis, and the Pariah weapon. Very limited though.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Well . . . There was the C'tan blades, Necrodermis, and the Pariah weapon. Very limited though.

True, but they were exceedingly rare bits of wargear not an entire class of weapons that ignored it.
The dread axe by itself only ignored invul saves, unless you put it on a greater demon that naturally ignored armor saves you still get an armor save. same with psy-cannons (demon hunters codex) designed specifically to kill demons that only have an invul save (except khorne). in the latter case having grey knights on the table means they get to come back on the table the next turn for free (demonic infestation). so, it is kind of a wash.