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.

 vict0988 wrote:
Boni and bonii are not a thing.

WS comparisons in 30k are stupid. Space Marines should not get -1 to hit in melee faction-wide. There are tonnes of melee units that don't need the nerf to their damage output.

If you used all WS stats from 1-10 it might work. But the simplicity of using the same stat for most of an army, except for fluffy exceptions is much easier to keep track than a system where you have 5 different WS values in your list of and doesn't have the downside of some factions being -1 to hit. Melee damage output would not be insane if not for stat creep and you can still stat creep in 30k's system so saying it'd reduce lethality is a terrible argument.

My point is that the initiative stat provides all those little levers you could adjust and turn when designing a codex and balancing it with other codices which the current system does not provide.

Stats are not a balancing lever, they are a there to make units fluffy. Otherwise we could all just use our Xenos to proxy Space Marines.

What are you talking about? My argument was precisely that gw should in fact utilize a wider range of WS to make such a system work. Reintroducing it would absolutely decrease lethality in melee (if you also reduce the amount of re rolls, which was part of the argument I made) because it would simply reduce the number of successful hits in almost all instances.

Stats are there to make units fluffy and that is important like you said, but they are also absolutely a balancing lever.
Not one that should be turned and adjusted during an edition a la "this unit performs too well, let's reduce it's toughness or initiative" that would be stupid. They are balancing levers when designing and writing the codex, that should preferably also at least partly represent the factions fluff.

Having 5 different WS stats increases mental load too much for what it adds to the game. Lethality might be pushed back one step, but when GW is taking two steps every 3 years it's pointless to force them back one step and instead the goal should be to make the lethality stand still instead of constantly advancing.

Stats are there to make units fluffy and that is important like you said, but they are also absolutely a balancing lever.
Not one that should be turned and adjusted during an edition a la "this unit performs too well, let's reduce it's toughness or initiative" that would be stupid.

Forgive me for thinking that is what people want when they say stuff like this, after all it's what GW has done with Flayed Ones, Gretchin, HotE and AoC. Instead of calling it a balancing lever I would call it a way to express fluff.

Balance always comes down to pts-efficiency and pts is where to fix it if it's broken, because it's easier to calculate what effect changing Boys from 9 to 8 pts than changing them from T4 to T5 or giving them a new ability or Stratagem.

I think it'd be easier to have abilities to represent edge cases for extremely agile or extremely slow fighters instead of giving every unit in the game a stat for it. Having a tight core rule set is good in my book, I understand hating the bloat in Codexes, but I think it can be curtailed without the core rules bloating back up.

Tyel wrote:
I think the problem with multiple stats is always the wastage. I.E. being initiative 5 if you are fighting initiative 2 stuff. Surely you are paying over being initiative 3 or 4, but deriving no benefit. Its hard to balance that gap with points.

There were other benefits - better chance of catching/evading the enemy during a sweeping advance; better chance of passing initiative tests, better chance of performing hit and run (I think?)

Having 'unused' initiative is little different to having unused AP, or unused toughness, or night vision etc. etc. which aren't used in every matchup/situation.

 vict0988 wrote:
Having 5 different WS stats increases mental load too much for what it adds to the game. Lethality might be pushed back one step, but when GW is taking two steps every 3 years it's pointless to force them back one step and instead the goal should be to make the lethality stand still instead of constantly advancing.

I disagree that different WS stats and a comparison chart increase mental load too much. If you already partly can differentiate units by WS you don't need a myriad of special rules like we have now. You can still give out special abilities in addition, but you don't need as freaking many.

A comparison chart only seems daunting at first glance because the system behind is the same every combat.

Your point on lethality I agree with, but that was one of my premises, that GW watches lethality more carefully (specifically the proliferation of re rolls) if they don't then the premise is moot of course. I want to force them back one step like you said and keep it there. WS comparison can achieve that (in melee at least) IF you have an improved comparison chart and a wider distribution of WS like we established. Initiative of course plays into these considerations when designing a codex that way.

I'm not saying GW is going to this, I'm just saying that it can absolutely be done and imo it would be an improvement.

Tiberias wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Having 5 different WS stats increases mental load too much for what it adds to the game. Lethality might be pushed back one step, but when GW is taking two steps every 3 years it's pointless to force them back one step and instead the goal should be to make the lethality stand still instead of constantly advancing.

I disagree that different WS stats and a comparison chart increase mental load too much. If you already partly can differentiate units by WS you don't need a myriad of special rules like we have now. You can still give out special abilities in addition, but you don't need as freaking many.

We can get rid of most abilities without bringing back WS. Which Necrons abilities are you getting rid of by having 10 different WS stats in the codex instead of 3?

Flayed Ones Flesh Hunger giving them extra hits against non-vehicles. It doesn't need to exist anyway and replacing it with WS doesn't carry the same meaning since some vehicles would have high WS and others would have low WS.

Destroyers Hardwired for Destruction ability to re-roll 1s to hit can be removed without consequence or replaced with WS 2+, if Custodes can have WS2+ why not Destroyers?

Ophydian Destroyers Whipcoil Bodies that makes them -1 to hit in melee could be replaced, but guess what? It's already a stupid ability for them and I have no idea what their job is supposed to be, they need some kind of ability that sets them apart from the rest of Necrons melee units, giving them an even more generic bonus of higher WS wouldn't leave them any special role in the faction.

Remaining abilities also work against shooting, so now you need a dodge stat as well as some posters have suggested, it's starting to turn into an RPG instead of a battle game with so many stats. What about a scariness stat that every unit can have and will never be relevant because most units will ignore it? /sarcasm

A comparison chart only seems daunting at first glance because the system behind is the same every combat.

I think comparison charts are stupid and the mechanic behind the old chart were bad. It should just follow the same rules as for wound rolls. But you can't really argue with a static hit roll being the simplest option of them all. Most factions having only 2 different values makes it much easier as well.

How about rather than the all or nothing approach to initiative the following is implemented? Each unit is assigned an initiative value (the higher the better). Say it is a 1-10 spread like normal stats. When you enter melee each player does damage as normal. Then you compare initiatives. The unit with the highest Initiative does full damage. If the opponent's initiative is 1-2 less then it does 3/4 of the damage it rolled (round up for -1, down for -2). If the I is 3-4 less then it does 1/2 damage (round up for -3, down for -4). If the I is down 5-6 then 1/4 (rounding as above). If the I is down 7+ no damage is awarded as the unit is too slow to react.

You could then add modifiers for weapons, terrain and/or, charging. Yes, there's math involved but a slower unit charging/being charged by a faster unit still could get some licks in before it dies.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
How about rather than the all or nothing approach to initiative the following is implemented? Each unit is assigned an initiative value (the higher the better). Say it is a 1-10 spread like normal stats. When you enter melee each player does damage as normal. Then you compare initiatives. The unit with the highest Initiative does full damage. If the opponent's initiative is 1-2 less then it does 3/4 of the damage it rolled (round up for -1, down for -2). If the I is 3-4 less then it does 1/2 damage (round up for -3, down for -4). If the I is down 5-6 then 1/4 (rounding as above). If the I is down 7+ no damage is awarded as the unit is too slow to react.

You could then add modifiers for weapons, terrain and/or, charging. Yes, there's math involved but a slower unit charging/being charged by a faster unit still could get some licks in before it dies.

nah, thats way too complex (and poorly applicable)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
How about rather than the all or nothing approach to initiative the following is implemented? Each unit is assigned an initiative value (the higher the better). Say it is a 1-10 spread like normal stats. When you enter melee each player does damage as normal. Then you compare initiatives. The unit with the highest Initiative does full damage. If the opponent's initiative is 1-2 less then it does 3/4 of the damage it rolled (round up for -1, down for -2). If the I is 3-4 less then it does 1/2 damage (round up for -3, down for -4). If the I is down 5-6 then 1/4 (rounding as above). If the I is down 7+ no damage is awarded as the unit is too slow to react.

You could then add modifiers for weapons, terrain and/or, charging. Yes, there's math involved but a slower unit charging/being charged by a faster unit still could get some licks in before it dies.

nah, thats way too complex (and poorly applicable)

Especially since if there's an Initiative difference of 7+, you just... Never do damage.
Hell, an I1 model (Powerfist or other Unwieldy Weapon) just straight-up wouldn't be able to touch a Daemon Prince, if they retain their I8 stat, unless the Prince charges through terrain (dropping them to I1).

 vict0988 wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Having 5 different WS stats increases mental load too much for what it adds to the game. Lethality might be pushed back one step, but when GW is taking two steps every 3 years it's pointless to force them back one step and instead the goal should be to make the lethality stand still instead of constantly advancing.

I disagree that different WS stats and a comparison chart increase mental load too much. If you already partly can differentiate units by WS you don't need a myriad of special rules like we have now. You can still give out special abilities in addition, but you don't need as freaking many.

We can get rid of most abilities without bringing back WS. Which Necrons abilities are you getting rid of by having 10 different WS stats in the codex instead of 3?

Flayed Ones Flesh Hunger giving them extra hits against non-vehicles. It doesn't need to exist anyway and replacing it with WS doesn't carry the same meaning since some vehicles would have high WS and others would have low WS.

Destroyers Hardwired for Destruction ability to re-roll 1s to hit can be removed without consequence or replaced with WS 2+, if Custodes can have WS2+ why not Destroyers?

Ophydian Destroyers Whipcoil Bodies that makes them -1 to hit in melee could be replaced, but guess what? It's already a stupid ability for them and I have no idea what their job is supposed to be, they need some kind of ability that sets them apart from the rest of Necrons melee units, giving them an even more generic bonus of higher WS wouldn't leave them any special role in the faction.

Remaining abilities also work against shooting, so now you need a dodge stat as well as some posters have suggested, it's starting to turn into an RPG instead of a battle game with so many stats. What about a scariness stat that every unit can have and will never be relevant because most units will ignore it? /sarcasm

A comparison chart only seems daunting at first glance because the system behind is the same every combat.

I think comparison charts are stupid and the mechanic behind the old chart were bad. It should just follow the same rules as for wound rolls. But you can't really argue with a static hit roll being the simplest option of them all. Most factions having only 2 different values makes it much easier as well.

A lot of assumptions here honestly, who said you need 10 different WS stats across all necron datasheets?
You say comparison charts are stupid and you didn't like the old one but you don't even give a reason why or address that you could expand on the old chart to allow for 2+ and 6+ to hit depending on how far apart the comparing WS are.

Of course a static hit roll is simpler, I just think it also comes with a lot of drawbacks, chief among them the extreme lethality when you also introduce a lot of re-rolls....its also kinda dumb that an ork hits a space marine and a bloodthirster on the same static value but maybe that's just me.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
How about rather than the all or nothing approach to initiative the following is implemented? Each unit is assigned an initiative value (the higher the better). Say it is a 1-10 spread like normal stats. When you enter melee each player does damage as normal. Then you compare initiatives. The unit with the highest Initiative does full damage. If the opponent's initiative is 1-2 less then it does 3/4 of the damage it rolled (round up for -1, down for -2). If the I is 3-4 less then it does 1/2 damage (round up for -3, down for -4). If the I is down 5-6 then 1/4 (rounding as above). If the I is down 7+ no damage is awarded as the unit is too slow to react.

You could then add modifiers for weapons, terrain and/or, charging. Yes, there's math involved but a slower unit charging/being charged by a faster unit still could get some licks in before it dies.

nah, thats way too complex (and poorly applicable)

Especially since if there's an Initiative difference of 7+, you just... Never do damage.
Hell, an I1 model (Powerfist or other Unwieldy Weapon) just straight-up wouldn't be able to touch a Daemon Prince, if they retain their I8 stat, unless the Prince charges through terrain (dropping them to I1).

You say that like it is a bad thing.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
How about rather than the all or nothing approach to initiative the following is implemented? Each unit is assigned an initiative value (the higher the better). Say it is a 1-10 spread like normal stats. When you enter melee each player does damage as normal. Then you compare initiatives. The unit with the highest Initiative does full damage. If the opponent's initiative is 1-2 less then it does 3/4 of the damage it rolled (round up for -1, down for -2). If the I is 3-4 less then it does 1/2 damage (round up for -3, down for -4). If the I is down 5-6 then 1/4 (rounding as above). If the I is down 7+ no damage is awarded as the unit is too slow to react.

You could then add modifiers for weapons, terrain and/or, charging. Yes, there's math involved but a slower unit charging/being charged by a faster unit still could get some licks in before it dies.

nah, thats way too complex (and poorly applicable)

Especially since if there's an Initiative difference of 7+, you just... Never do damage.
Hell, an I1 model (Powerfist or other Unwieldy Weapon) just straight-up wouldn't be able to touch a Daemon Prince, if they retain their I8 stat, unless the Prince charges through terrain (dropping them to I1).

You say that like it is a bad thing.

Also why are we still comparing this to the old system (auto I1 on power fists, I1 when charging though terrain)? Unwieldy weapons could just be a flat -1 on your initiative depending on how the stat distribution is set up. I'm not saying thats exactly what they should be if they were to improve the initiative system, but comparing it to the old system makes no sense when literally nobody in this thread wants the old initiative system back exactly like it was.

Thank you Tiberius. That's what I was about to point out. I wasn't saying that weapons would give you an "I" rating, rather I was thinking that weapons would modify that rating. For instance I can see a polearm like weapon giving a bonus to your initiative in the first round of fighting but a penalty or no bonus in later rounds.

As to the problem of slower models not damaging faster models I would say that if you are that much slower than your opponent then you probably aren't hitting them in the first place let alone damaging them (7 is a big difference on a 10 point scale). I will admit that there would be a small chance of hitting/damaging a target that is almost literally able to run rings around you but, for the sake of the game, that chance is so small that I would ignore it.

IMHO that should be represented as part of the WS comparison in which a big enough difference in WS means you are hitting in 6s, initiative is just to binary. (And to arbitrary, I still do not understand why orks are slower than basic humans).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

.

Though there is something, and I know it’s in an existing game but I’m buggered if I can remember what it is, where casualties are removed at the end of the Game Turn.

So even if you have a truly stonking first turn and butter my army, I at least get a shot at some retribution,

Yes it’s a bit book keepy, but I think it’s something people would rapidly adapt to, and perhaps even welcome as whilst First Turn remains advantageous as you get to dictate the flow of the battle, it’s not as one sided as I hear it is now.

Apocalypse. Attacks apply blast markers but you don't make saving throws until the end of the turn. It also adds a bit of risk management as you can't be SURE that dreadnought is dead, no matter how much fire you put into it.....so at what point will you take the risk and move on to other targets? 50% sure? 90% sure? 99% sure? 99.9% sure?

 Tyran wrote:
IMHO that should be represented as part of the WS comparison in which a big enough difference in WS means you are hitting in 6s, initiative is just to binary. (And to arbitrary, I still do not understand why orks are slower than basic humans).

But that could be alleviated by a better distribution of the initiative stat.

Lets say a baseline space marine is I5 representing a superhuman soldier

Let's say a normal human and orks are I4

Meganobs are I3 and would gain other benefits to make up for that disadvantage like being able to use unwieldy weapons without penalty (whatever the exact penalty might be in our system)

On the other end of the spectrum you could make baseline eldar I5, with aspect warriors being I6 and howling banshees and harlequins beeing an exception with I7 since those are units specifically known for their acrobatics.

If you introduce a +d3 bonus for charging, alongside some penalties for unwieldy weapons you end up with a system that is not solely determined by the initiative Stat on the unit datasheet.
In prolonged combats the raw initiative value of the unit would play the main role in determining who goes first, which is why the introduction of WS comparison is crucial to even enable such prolonged combats due to reduced lethality.

Tyel wrote:
I think the problem with multiple stats is always the wastage. I.E. being initiative 5 if you are fighting initiative 2 stuff. Surely you are paying over being initiative 3 or 4, but deriving no benefit. Its hard to balance that gap with points.

But surely this applies to *all* stats to a lesser or greater extent? S9+ (whether on a gun or a melee model) is pointless against T4, compared to S8. S6-7 is likewise pointless compared to S5. S4 is pointless against T5, compared to S3. etc.

In the past, AP4 was pointless against models with a 3+ (or better) save, AP3 was pointless against models with a 2+ save, etc. Even with the new system, AP-4 is wasted over AP-2 if a model only has a 5+ save to begin with, or if its armour is just 2 points better than its invulnerable save. AP-1 is pointless against Marines because of their special rule.

By the same measure (as has been discussed repeatedly on these forums), a good armour save doesn't matter if your opponent has a lot of high-AP weapons in his arsenal.

Hell, even the movement stat can be overkill for a lot of units. There's literally a threat right now discussing DE Scourges - which have had at least 12" movement since their inception, whilst carrying weapons that require them to remain stationary.

My point is, arguing that initiative was bad because it was sometimes higher than it needed to be (or average-high but not enough to matter) seems ridiculous as the same argument could be applied to virtually any stat.

This isn't to say that initiative should be brought back, just that this isn't a reasonable reason not to bring it back.

If you want to add some spice, and complexity, to initiative then you could have a variable die roll added to initiative as well as weapon/terrain/charging penalties and bonii. So your charging (+2) pole arm wielding (+2) I 3 Orks have a chance against those drattingly fast I 8 Harlies. Each side gets to add a d3 to their total to see who strikes when.

Obviously the numbers are just made up but you get the point.

 vipoid wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I think the problem with multiple stats is always the wastage. I.E. being initiative 5 if you are fighting initiative 2 stuff. Surely you are paying over being initiative 3 or 4, but deriving no benefit. Its hard to balance that gap with points.

But surely this applies to *all* stats to a lesser or greater extent? S9+ (whether on a gun or a melee model) is pointless against T4, compared to S8. S6-7 is likewise pointless compared to S5. S4 is pointless against T5, compared to S3. etc.

In the past, AP4 was pointless against models with a 3+ (or better) save, AP3 was pointless against models with a 2+ save, etc. Even with the new system, AP-4 is wasted over AP-2 if a model only has a 5+ save to begin with, or if its armour is just 2 points better than its invulnerable save. AP-1 is pointless against Marines because of their special rule.

By the same measure (as has been discussed repeatedly on these forums), a good armour save doesn't matter if your opponent has a lot of high-AP weapons in his arsenal.

Hell, even the movement stat can be overkill for a lot of units. There's literally a threat right now discussing DE Scourges - which have had at least 12" movement since their inception, whilst carrying weapons that require them to remain stationary.

My point is, arguing that initiative was bad because it was sometimes higher than it needed to be (or average-high but not enough to matter) seems ridiculous as the same argument could be applied to virtually any stat.

This isn't to say that initiative should be brought back, just that this isn't a reasonable reason not to bring it back.

The issue is variety. If you've got T3/4 infantry up to T8 vehicles, I can find something for my high-S gun to shoot at. If you have anything at all in your army with a 3+ save and no invuln, I have a use for AP-4. Although ironically, the fact that most things with good saves also have invulns is precisely why AP-2 is the magic breakpoint and AP-4 is less valuable.

Meanwhile with Initiative, chances are that both of our armies are going to have pretty consistent values across all units. If I have I4 and I5 and you only have I2 and I3, my higher Initiative is completely wasted. And unlike, say, bringing a lascannon against an all-infantry army, that's not a skew list or edge case- my faction just wastes stat potential against your faction.

If the game had more mechanics that altered Initiative, then it could work better. If having super high Initiative meant you might strike simultaneously with an enemy in cover, or could take a heavy (Initiative-reducing) weapon while still hitting first, then there'd be utility to having high Initiative. But GW didn't do that; they just used strikes-first and strikes-last effects that negated all benefits of high Initiative. And similarly, if significantly exceeding the enemy's Initiative had some effect, then having 'excess' Initative would still be useful- you're right that S6-7 doesn't get you anything over S5 when shooting at T4, but at least if you hit the S8 breakpoint you wound on 2s.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If you want to add some spice, and complexity, to initiative then you could have a variable die roll added to initiative as well as weapon/terrain/charging penalties and bonii. So your charging (+2) pole arm wielding (+2) I 3 Orks have a chance against those drattingly fast I 8 Harlies. Each side gets to add a d3 to their total to see who strikes when.

Though having said the above, this brings me back to wondering why Initiative is such a binary mechanic. If there's potential for either the Orks or the Harlequins to get the first blow in, why is it going to be all of one unit or the other hitting first? I guess the chance for them to strike simultaneously evens it out a bit, but it still feels weird to me.

While I agree with you that, in reality, the whole unit wouldn't strike first/last. In reality the whole unit wouldn't share the exact same stats. Some members wouldn't be as strong/tough/fast as others. It's a game and as such reality has to be put aside for game mechanics.

I actually quite like how Battletech Alpha Strike does combat.

Movement is alternating

All attacks (there isn't a shooting and a melee phase, just an attack phase) happen during simultaneously. The player who has priority that turn will attack with all of their units, then the next player will attack with all of theirs. After all attacks have been resolved, casualties are removed.

It really makes it feel like a battle is going on and a lot less like I just have to wait one hour while my opponent removes half my army, either by shooting or melee.

Tiberias wrote:
A lot of assumptions here honestly, who said you need 10 different WS stats across all necron datasheets?
You say comparison charts are stupid and you didn't like the old one but you don't even give a reason why or address that you could expand on the old chart to allow for 2+ and 6+ to hit depending on how far apart the comparing WS are.

Of course a static hit roll is simpler, I just think it also comes with a lot of drawbacks, chief among them the extreme lethality when you also introduce a lot of re-rolls....its also kinda dumb that an ork hits a space marine and a bloodthirster on the same static value but maybe that's just me.

We agreed that you'd need a bigger spread of WS stats if WS was going to be something other than a set number. You mentioned WS 6 Meganobz as an example. I don't understand what wrong assumption I am making here. If Orks are going to range from WS 2 to WS 7, then Necrons would be the same right? Most Necron armies have 2 WS/BS stats, then there is a separate class of units with a different WS/BS stat, but it's all very easy to remember. If Wraiths are going to have a different WS than Scarabs and Ophydian Destroyers and Skorpekh Destroyers are going to have another 2 different WS stats you've already got more different stats and less formulaic stat distributions, which might give the units more different strengths and weaknesses and more interesting gameplay, but it would increase mental load.

I think the breakpoints for the old hit and wound system were unintuitive. I think the new systems are intuitive, I'm not sure how we could convince each other if you disagree with me. I think making hits on 2+ against units with half WS, 3+ against units with less WS, 4+ against units with equal WS, 5+ against units with more WS and 6+ against units with twice as much WS would keep things simple. Alternatively have both hit and wound rolls be automatic against things with 3 less, 2+ against things with 2 less, 3+ against things with 1 less, 4+ against things with the same, 5+ against things with 1 more, 6+ against things with 2 more and impossible against things with 3 more could work. The ability to wound on 6s against things with 3 more Toughness than your Strength did not make sense to me. In both cases you'd have to change stats to fit. I think going back to 8th edition Index characteristics for around half the units that have been stat-creeped is the best option.

A bolter hits a Bloodthirster and an Ork on the same value, Orks hitting Marines and Bloodthirsters on the same value should in theory make balancing things easier. GW's sole method of balancing things by listening to tournament data and community sentiment every 6 months to fix the mistakes made by their dartboard balancing while writing makes my point pretty weak, but I'd like GW to do more thorough reading and testing before they release stuff. I make very realistic demands of what I want GW to do with regards to balance and design.
*Keep it fluffy. Don't make lasguns more effective against vehicles than bolters.
*Make things that are inarguably better cost more pts than the alternative. A bolt pistol should cost more than a las pistol.
*Get an Indian on Fiverr to do a spreadsheet for weapon and datasheet pts-efficiency to get a range of acceptably balanced pts values for each option in the game. Anti-tank units should be pts-effective against most tanks and anti-infantry units should be effective against most infantry. Every unit should have losing match-ups.
*Have volunteers test 10-15 army lists for each faction that each spam 2-3 units in the faction that the list author thinks would well together theoretically using a sub-faction that seems optimal for the units. Have the volunteers compile data on which combos seem OP to determine whether initial costs based on spreadsheet numbers need to be adjusted up or down before release.

 vict0988 wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
A lot of assumptions here honestly, who said you need 10 different WS stats across all necron datasheets?
You say comparison charts are stupid and you didn't like the old one but you don't even give a reason why or address that you could expand on the old chart to allow for 2+ and 6+ to hit depending on how far apart the comparing WS are.

Of course a static hit roll is simpler, I just think it also comes with a lot of drawbacks, chief among them the extreme lethality when you also introduce a lot of re-rolls....its also kinda dumb that an ork hits a space marine and a bloodthirster on the same static value but maybe that's just me.

We agreed that you'd need a bigger spread of WS stats if WS was going to be something other than a set number. You mentioned WS 6 Meganobz as an example. I don't understand what wrong assumption I am making here. If Orks are going to range from WS 2 to WS 7, then Necrons would be the same right? Most Necron armies have 2 WS/BS stats, then there is a separate class of units with a different WS/BS stat, but it's all very easy to remember. If Wraiths are going to have a different WS than Scarabs and Ophydian Destroyers and Skorpekh Destroyers are going to have another 2 different WS stats you've already got more different stats and less formulaic stat distributions, which might give the units more different strengths and weaknesses and more interesting gameplay, but it would increase mental load.

I think the breakpoints for the old hit and wound system were unintuitive. I think the new systems are intuitive, I'm not sure how we could convince each other if you disagree with me. I think making hits on 2+ against units with half WS, 3+ against units with less WS, 4+ against units with equal WS, 5+ against units with more WS and 6+ against units with twice as much WS would keep things simple. Alternatively have both hit and wound rolls be automatic against things with 3 less, 2+ against things with 2 less, 3+ against things with 1 less, 4+ against things with the same, 5+ against things with 1 more, 6+ against things with 2 more and impossible against things with 3 more could work. The ability to wound on 6s against things with 3 more Toughness than your Strength did not make sense to me. In both cases you'd have to change stats to fit. I think going back to 8th edition Index characteristics for around half the units that have been stat-creeped is the best option.

In this particular instance I feel we are arguing semantics, of course you would have multiple values across a codex, but in all likelihood not 10 different WS values in one book. Of course I grant that the current system is the simpler option, but I don't think having different WS values would be a problem even if you apply them in a bigger spread. I like this conversation so let's play it out.

-Space Marines are always the benchmark to measure most things against in this setting so for this example let's give a baseline space marine WS 5 thus representing the baseline superhuman soldier
-Space Marine captains are WS 6 and super special characters like Ragnar Blackmane are WS 7
Thats space marines done. You can create exceptions like giving wulfen WS 6 for being crazed dedicated melee monsters for example.

-baseline guardsmen would be WS 3 across the board representing the standard human soldier
-there you can create exceptions like giving Sororitas, Scions and Catachan WS4 thus representing the pinnacle human soldiers that are not transhuman.

-orks are rather straight forward also imo: grots getting WS 2, ork boys WS 4, Ork nobs WS5 (thus being in line with a space marine), meganobz at WS6 (but probably at lower initiative, thus balancing out their good stats somewhat)

-Necrons I'd do like this
Scarabs at WS 2 but they get +1 to hit if 3 or more bases are in combat because they...well, swarm you
Necron warriors at WS 4
Flayed ones at WS 4, but with a million attacks at higher initiative than other necrons
melee focused Destroyers at WS 5
Lychguard and Praetorians at WS 6

-Eldar
Baseline guardian at WS 5
Aspect warriors at WS 6 (the more shooting focused like dark reapers could also be WS 5 with other buffs to their ranged abilities)
Banshees and harlequins at WS 7
Avatar of khaine at WS 9

Just also throwing in the bloodthister at WS 10, as an example of the classic pinnacle of that particular stat-hierarchy.

That's just throwing ideas around, but that's not that many different values per faction.

Also I made an improved WS comparison chart (well, improved according to my view) a while back, I'll try to find it and post it since it rather fits the discussion and provides a visual example of how a wider spread of WS distribution would work in practice.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If you want to add some spice, and complexity, to initiative then you could have a variable die roll added to initiative as well as weapon/terrain/charging penalties and bonii. So your charging (+2) pole arm wielding (+2) I 3 Orks have a chance against those drattingly fast I 8 Harlies. Each side gets to add a d3 to their total to see who strikes when.

Obviously the numbers are just made up but you get the point.

Thinking about it, I feel like a system with lots of initiative modifiers where higher initiatives still swing first would just give us all the same problems of the old and/or new system but with extra steps. You'd still end up with orks frequently having to pay a casualty tax even if they charged, and my harlequins would still sometimes get wiped out by charging enemies without getting to make a single attack in retaliation. All those modifiers and extra dice rolls would make the frustrating moments less common, but they'd still be there. (With the exact frequency of the frustrating moments depending on the exact numbers you used.) So I'm not sure a more complicated version of the all-or-nothing system would really be an improvement.

The more I think about it, what I miss about my space elves having high initiative wasn't that they struck first; it's that they almost always got to strike at all. Your death company charge my harlequins and wipe them out? Fair enough. Good for you. But surely my harlequins are going to drag some marines down with them. Related to this is the change from compared WS stats to flat to-hit values. If your ork boyz killed my harlequins, it was satisfying to know that they "earned it" despite hitting less often than they would have against, say, some WS3 guardsmen. Compared WS stats was essentially a -1 to hit for high-WS units.

So it's not that I miss attacking first. It's that I miss attacking at all and feeling like my unit's skill and reflexes were being factored into the result. If we're overhauling the initiative system, those are the things I'd like to see brought back. I'm not sure I actually care all that much who literally rolls their dice first.

 catbarf wrote:

The issue is variety. If you've got T3/4 infantry up to T8 vehicles, I can find something for my high-S gun to shoot at. If you have anything at all in your army with a 3+ save and no invuln, I have a use for AP-4. Although ironically, the fact that most things with good saves also have invulns is precisely why AP-2 is the magic breakpoint and AP-4 is less valuable.

I get what you're saying, but at the same time we literally have armies where every model has an invulnerable save, or a super-invulnerable save, or where every model is T7+ or where every model ignores AP-1.

 catbarf wrote:

Meanwhile with Initiative, chances are that both of our armies are going to have pretty consistent values across all units. If I have I4 and I5 and you only have I2 and I3, my higher Initiative is completely wasted. And unlike, say, bringing a lascannon against an all-infantry army, that's not a skew list or edge case- my faction just wastes stat potential against your faction.

If the game had more mechanics that altered Initiative, then it could work better. If having super high Initiative meant you might strike simultaneously with an enemy in cover, or could take a heavy (Initiative-reducing) weapon while still hitting first, then there'd be utility to having high Initiative. But GW didn't do that; they just used strikes-first and strikes-last effects that negated all benefits of high Initiative. And similarly, if significantly exceeding the enemy's Initiative had some effect, then having 'excess' Initative would still be useful- you're right that S6-7 doesn't get you anything over S5 when shooting at T4, but at least if you hit the S8 breakpoint you wound on 2s.

I mean, I certainly wouldn't object to having the old system but with more ways to vary initiative. Even at the time, I repeatedly argued that the old cover mechanics were bonked (since, apart from anything else, not all models had high initiative to begin with). More of an aside at this point, but IMO charging through cover should have stripped your unit of the extra attack you used to get from charging, rather than stripping you of initiative. That would have been a relatively even bonus across all armies.

Anyway, even if a given army doesn't have much variance in base initiative values, there's no reason why it couldn't have wargear/relics, psychic powers etc. to add bonuses to the initiative values of units or reduce the initiative of enemy models. Plus you could get circumstantial bonuses, like +1I for charging.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Thinking about it, I feel like a system with lots of initiative modifiers where higher initiatives still swing first would just give us all the same problems of the old and/or new system but with extra steps. You'd still end up with orks frequently having to pay a casualty tax even if they charged, and my harlequins would still sometimes get wiped out by charging enemies without getting to make a single attack in retaliation.

I don't think there is any system that can prevent one of these problems from existing. GW does that now by giving Harlequins some of the best defensive rules in the game (4+ Invulnerable Save and -1 to Hit time with Melee attacks), but that doesn't matter much when far too many attacks are being tossed around by any dedicated Close Combat unit.

For many editions now, I've felt that binary rules (fight first/last, eternal warrior, instant death as examples) are bad for the game. That's why I'm in favour of restoring the initiative stay. I agree the old numbers would need altering for some armies and units, but I'm convinced the old numbers could be close to ok if the two extra factors come into play.
Factor 1, charging improves your initiative.
Factor 2, when models on opposite sides have the same initiative value, the active player goes first. Given 9th edition's change to ongoing combat, that could be the non-active player wins ties.

I'd be interested in an apocalypse style both sides fight at full strength, then remove casualties at the end, but I feel that kind of change should be a whole of battle round change, not specific to combat.

The idea above for +d3 initiative for charging is intriguing. I could see that working. Similarly, I'd like to try altering the charge rules in line with this. No more failed charges leaving you standing in the open. Instead a failed charge roll removes your initiative bonus or permits overwatch.

Zustiur wrote:
For many editions now, I've felt that binary rules (fight first/last, eternal warrior, instant death as examples) are bad for the game. That's why I'm in favour of restoring the initiative stay. I agree the old numbers would need altering for some armies and units, but I'm convinced the old numbers could be close to ok if the two extra factors come into play.
Factor 1, charging improves your initiative.
Factor 2, when models on opposite sides have the same initiative value, the active player goes first. Given 9th edition's change to ongoing combat, that could be the non-active player wins ties.

I'd be interested in an apocalypse style both sides fight at full strength, then remove casualties at the end, but I feel that kind of change should be a whole of battle round change, not specific to combat.

The idea above for +d3 initiative for charging is intriguing. I could see that working. Similarly, I'd like to try altering the charge rules in line with this. No more failed charges leaving you standing in the open. Instead a failed charge roll removes your initiative bonus or permits overwatch.

I agree with this sentiment. I think the "fight first, fight last, chargers, non-chargers, interrupts" system is crazy convoluted. Initiative being added back feels like could reduce more rules bloat than it adds.

Zustiur wrote:
For many editions now, I've felt that binary rules (fight first/last, eternal warrior, instant death as examples) are bad for the game. That's why I'm in favour of restoring the initiative stay. I agree the old numbers would need altering for some armies and units, but I'm convinced the old numbers could be close to ok if the two extra factors come into play.
Factor 1, charging improves your initiative.
Factor 2, when models on opposite sides have the same initiative value, the active player goes first. Given 9th edition's change to ongoing combat, that could be the non-active player wins ties.

I'd be interested in an apocalypse style both sides fight at full strength, then remove casualties at the end, but I feel that kind of change should be a whole of battle round change, not specific to combat.

The idea above for +d3 initiative for charging is intriguing. I could see that working. Similarly, I'd like to try altering the charge rules in line with this. No more failed charges leaving you standing in the open. Instead a failed charge roll removes your initiative bonus or permits overwatch.

I think the system feels very binary because it is mostly static, and does not involve much player choice. My proposed fix would be something like:

- remove the artificial limitation on the stat itself, i.e. allow it to go over 10 for all intents and purposes
- no arbitrary ruling like always strike first or alway strike last
- increase base initiative a lot accross the board, i.e. have it be 7 or 8 for baseline troops and in the 14+ range for renowned specialists and characters
- add stuff that allows/includes boni and mali to initiative, i.e. shooting from overwatch reduces your own initiative if you're getting charged, shooting before charging reduces the attackers initiative and so on. Give large modifiers for stuff like defended obstacles, +3 I for the defender or such
- due to the larger granularity that was achieved by ''freeing'' the range of the stat, you can now have wargear or skills that come with slight, but not overwhelming bonuses. Have webguns influence initiative if fired from defense, have different types of grenades be better at suppressing the receivers of a charge, hell, bring back fear and terror or other psychological factors. Make stuff like shooting, throwing suppressive grenades or charging straight on actual decisions with up- and downsides. Dito for firing on overwatch, countercharging or defending obstacles.
-then, with all these mods, you can have ''higher Initiative strikes first''.

It's all about opening up decisions and interactions - do you use you chaff unit to charge first and tie the defenders up, to prevent them from shooting your elite squad on the charge? Do you want to risk a countercharge, putting your elites out of range themselves? Is shooting the squad behind the barricade worth striking after them, or do you want to throw grenades instead and strike first? Oh crap, three of your dudes got hit by the Webgun and strike after them anyway! Have stuff like certain artillery or support weapons have a suppressing quality, so you can have synergy between different units - the mortars keep the enemies heads down so your rough riders strike first on the charge, and so on.

After that, you can introduce all kinds of special rules for combat specialist, fire on the charge without penalty for Terminators, improved countercharge with orders for guard, being even better at defending that wall if you happen to be an Imperial Fist, and so on.

I don't really see the need to go over 10 when most of the initiative values were between 1 and 6. If nothing else I believe that this is a system that needs to be condensed because of how inherently binary it is.

 Tyran wrote:
I don't really see the need to go over 10 when most of the initiative values were between 1 and 6. If nothing else I believe that this is a system that needs to be condensed because of how inherently binary it is.

I agree, you don't need a range above 10 for initiative.

With WS, strength and toughness it could be worth a consideration because the comparison is different. For example I've never understood why GW was so afraid to go above T8 for such a long time.
But even within a range from 1-10 there is a lot of room to play with, you just actually have to utilize it.