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.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

I feel like the obvious approach here is to lower the base number of shots (which can be random or not; doesn't really matter) and then make the number of extra shots from Blast either higher or variables. That is, you could make Blast into Blast(X) where X is the number of extra shots you get per 5 models in the enemy unit. Currently, Blast weapons are functionally Blast(1). This would mean that you could make (random example) a frag missile Blast(2). So it wouldn't really be more effective against small units, but its effectiveness against larger squads would scale up quickly making it more effective against hordes of gaunts and what have you.

Basically, if the point of Blast is to make a weapon anti-horde, then there's an easy way to adjust that dial so that they scale better *specifically* against hordes. But we don't really need the number of shots to be random. The to-hit roll already models the idea that sometimes blast weapons miss entirely.

I agree, especially where the higher strength Blast weapons are concerned. Too many things like Battlecannons or Doomsday Cannons have a swingy number of random shots, plus the bonus for Blast, which can turn them into anti-everything weapons. If you want a weapon to be good against hordes you can give it 1-2 shots base, but then give it a better Blast bonus to make it less effective against the "wrong" target and more effective against the thing you want it to shoot at. If you want it to be more of an anti-tank or anti-heavy infantry weapon you could even just remove Blast from it and give it a smaller number of random shots, or a fixed number of shots.

GW's fixation on random shots is just weird.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
I assume they mean that a havoc launcher would be

4 shots + blast bonus

instead of

D6 shots + blast bonus

Yes - this basically. But I'd also have a harder limit on the blast bonus. Have the rule be something "Blast (X). If targeted at a unit with 10+ models, this weapon gets X more shots".
You can then balance accordingly with other options in the roster. I don't think we need to see the variability of 5/10/15/20 etc.

In part because so few units are able to get that large any more anyway. Clearing Boyz is useful whereas I don't think mowing down Termagants comes up much. Almost any not-dedicated anti-tank weapon will do the job fine.

Slipspace wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

I feel like the obvious approach here is to lower the base number of shots (which can be random or not; doesn't really matter) and then make the number of extra shots from Blast either higher or variables. That is, you could make Blast into Blast(X) where X is the number of extra shots you get per 5 models in the enemy unit. Currently, Blast weapons are functionally Blast(1). This would mean that you could make (random example) a frag missile Blast(2). So it wouldn't really be more effective against small units, but its effectiveness against larger squads would scale up quickly making it more effective against hordes of gaunts and what have you.

Basically, if the point of Blast is to make a weapon anti-horde, then there's an easy way to adjust that dial so that they scale better *specifically* against hordes. But we don't really need the number of shots to be random. The to-hit roll already models the idea that sometimes blast weapons miss entirely.

I agree, especially where the higher strength Blast weapons are concerned. Too many things like Battlecannons or Doomsday Cannons have a swingy number of random shots, plus the bonus for Blast, which can turn them into anti-everything weapons. If you want a weapon to be good against hordes you can give it 1-2 shots base, but then give it a better Blast bonus to make it less effective against the "wrong" target and more effective against the thing you want it to shoot at. If you want it to be more of an anti-tank or anti-heavy infantry weapon you could even just remove Blast from it and give it a smaller number of random shots, or a fixed number of shots.

GW's fixation on random shots is just weird.

Absolutely. I kind of wonder if the random shots on blast weapons is an artefact from some idea that got scrapped in early testing for 8th but never fully removed. Like maybe they were kicking around the idea of having blasts auto-hit like flamers and the variable number of Attacks was their way of balancing that out/representing misses.

But yeah, fully agree on anti-tank blasts being low Attacks with a Blast(X) of whatever value you want them to have. If any.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
I assume they mean that a havoc launcher would be

4 shots + blast bonus

instead of

D6 shots + blast bonus

Yes - this basically. But I'd also have a harder limit on the blast bonus. Have the rule be something "Blast (X). If targeted at a unit with 10+ models, this weapon gets X more shots".
You can then balance accordingly with other options in the roster. I don't think we need to see the variability of 5/10/15/20 etc.

In part because so few units are able to get that large any more anyway. Clearing Boyz is useful whereas I don't think mowing down Termagants comes up much. Almost any not-dedicated anti-tank weapon will do the job fine.

Distinguishing between 5 and 10 is nice because it means that the Blast rule is relevant when facing elite armies like marines who generally don't have any units with 11+ models in them. Distinguishing between 15 and 20 is less relevant, but I guess units like my guardian defenders with their mandatory 11 models appreciate not getting treated like a 20-man horde. Also, actual horde units probably appreciate blasts losing effectiveness as they take losses. My necron warrior blobs certainly did the last time barbgaunts were firing into a 20-warrior blob.

 catbarf wrote:
while the to-hit system that precedes it is still completely unaffected by how far away you are from the target, how big it is, how fast it's moving, or what weapon you're using.

I think I understand what you are trying to communicate, but this is a hyperbolic statement.

Every weapon in the game has a maximum range, which is an effect on the to hit system when someone is too far away; rapid fire weapons have rapid fire range and number of rapid fire shots in addition to a maximum range- another effect on the to-hit system based on range. We have the Lone operative rule, which can be used to indicate both speed and stealth; we have stationary bonuses for heavy weapons, and those are always in effect for vehicle mounted weapons, even when they are moving. We have invulnerable saves to reflect model speed.

I think your point is that the systems we do have for impacted the to-hit rule are from such widely varied sources that they don't FEEL like they are related to range or positioning, and that a more elegant ranged combat system might replace the hodge podge of what we do have with something easier that made more sense to a greater number of people.

And that's a fair point. It's debatable, to be sure, but it's certainly a valid premise.

In isolation, rules that affect the to-hit roll, while present, are limited. But there are additional rules which address these issues be preventing damage from happening- so Lone Operative IS a range effect (you can't hit me from more than 12" away), while the Wyches wired reflex inulnerable save is not a range effect- but both do work to limit the potential to damage a target. Would taking some of those non-range effects and rewriting them to rely more on the to-hit roll itself make the game better/ easier?

Maybe.

Not to put words in their mouth, but I think catbarf is referencing how it's weird that a point-blank shot at something the size of a tank still misses just as often as a max-distance shot against a gretchen.

"You couldn't hit the broad side of a barn!"
"Well, sure, but it's not like I get a to-hit bonus against the barn."

EDIT: I do think that range-related rules could be explored as an alternative to or part of to-hit modifiers. We could hand out more variations on lone op. Maybe instead of to-hit penalties or always counting as being in cover, sneaky units have a rule that lets them perform the "hide" action that grants them 18" Lone Op. Maybe that 18" shrinks to 12" if they're wholly on area terrain. Maybe we lean into things like rapid fire and melta that functionally make weapons more powerful if you get close. Maybe we do the opposite and make sniper rifles and artillery less effective up close. It feels like there's room to play around with that sort of thing.

To me, I'm less concerned about the thematic accuracy of a blast weapon missing, vs the thematic inaccuracy of an Anti tank cannon shell only killing 1 soldier if it lands inside a squad of models.

Was there ever a time during 40k when squads were treated as a single unit, and not multiple little units? I.E. A single Vanquisher round hits a squad of 20 conscripts. It does 1 wound, for 12 damage, and you now have 8 Conscripts?

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Distinguishing between 5 and 10 is nice because it means that the Blast rule is relevant when facing elite armies like marines who generally don't have any units with 11+ models in them. Distinguishing between 15 and 20 is less relevant, but I guess units like my guardian defenders with their mandatory 11 models appreciate not getting treated like a 20-man horde. Also, actual horde units probably appreciate blasts losing effectiveness as they take losses. My necron warrior blobs certainly did the last time barbgaunts were firing into a 20-warrior blob.

I guess if I was going full heresy, I wouldn't even have the blast rule work based on unit strength. I'd have it work based on unit type.

So you want a gun to kill dedicated horde units (boyz, gaunts, cultists, maybe 20 man Necron warrior blobs and there's not much else...)? They can all acquire some sort of keyword, and these guns can interact with that.

It seems silly to me that your weapons get a bonus if a 5 man unit of Marines is at full strength - but not if one has died along the way. It seems to make more sense to go "these weapons are specifically designed to shred the kind of units that appear in a mass" than arguing over when a horde becomes a horde. To a degree you can argue that's covered in wounds/armour saves - but I don't see why 10 Hormagants should be treated as say 10 Howling Banshees. I don't feel they'd move in remotely the same way. And they aren't actually frozen in space while the other player gets their turn.

I'm pretty sure all the D3/D6 shots on Blast weapons stems from them transplanting templates into 8th's rules. Small were D3, large was D6. Much like how AP4 became -1, AP3 -2, AP2 -3 etc. I suspect they had this idea for them to auto-hit like flamers, but that proved too good, so we ended up with random shots and then rolling to hit separately process. Which has never really conveyed the feeling of firing a high explosive weapon in the direction of clumped up models.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
To me, I'm less concerned about the thematic accuracy of a blast weapon missing, vs the thematic inaccuracy of an Anti tank cannon shell only killing 1 soldier if it lands inside a squad of models.

Was there ever a time during 40k when squads were treated as a single unit, and not multiple little units? I.E. A single Vanquisher round hits a squad of 20 conscripts. It does 1 wound, for 12 damage, and you now have 8 Conscripts?

Unless you want to talk about how Mortal Wounds get allocated , nope.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Not to put words in their mouth, but I think catbarf is referencing how it's weird that a point-blank shot at something the size of a tank still misses just as often as a max-distance shot against a gretchen.

I think that's what he meant too, and it's a valid point.

I know that sometimes arguing semantics makes me look like a dick, but I'm just trying to cut down on misinterpretations.

ccs wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
To me, I'm less concerned about the thematic accuracy of a blast weapon missing, vs the thematic inaccuracy of an Anti tank cannon shell only killing 1 soldier if it lands inside a squad of models.

Was there ever a time during 40k when squads were treated as a single unit, and not multiple little units? I.E. A single Vanquisher round hits a squad of 20 conscripts. It does 1 wound, for 12 damage, and you now have 8 Conscripts?

Unless you want to talk about how Mortal Wounds get allocated , nope.

But notably, blasts used to use templates that scattered to determine how many hits you got. So a vanquisher could potentially kill a single soldier if the blast scattered in such a way that only a single model was hit. So "inside a squad" is a little nebulous. In 10th, if you roll low on your number of attacks and/or roll badly on your to-hit rolls, that's your equivalent of the template scattering to hit one model.

Tyel wrote:
I guess if I was going full heresy, I wouldn't even have the blast rule work based on unit strength. I'd have it work based on unit type.

So you want a gun to kill dedicated horde units (boyz, gaunts, cultists, maybe 20 man Necron warrior blobs and there's not much else...)? They can all acquire some sort of keyword, and these guns can interact with that.

It seems silly to me that your weapons get a bonus if a 5 man unit of Marines is at full strength - but not if one has died along the way. It seems to make more sense to go "these weapons are specifically designed to shred the kind of units that appear in a mass" than arguing over when a horde becomes a horde. To a degree you can argue that's covered in wounds/armour saves - but I don't see why 10 Hormagants should be treated as say 10 Howling Banshees. I don't feel they'd move in remotely the same way. And they aren't actually frozen in space while the other player gets their turn.

The idea behind blasts is that larger squads will occupy more space and more have targets to potentially hit. So the number of models is directly tied to the benefits you receive from the blast rule. If you've whittled a squad of hormagaunts down to the last one or two bugs, then the fact that they used to have friends shouldn't somehow make them easier to hit. What you'd end up modeling with that approach is that the last few models in a gaunt squad are somehow explosion magnets. A frag missile would weirdly be better at killing two remaining gaunts than it is at killing two gaunts in a 20-bug-swarm because you'd still be generating extra hits from Blast, but you'd only have a couple of bodies to apply the wounds to.

The fashion in which some models move around doesn't seem as relevant here as sheer space occupied. Which, for non-vehicle/monster squads, is probably best/most easily reflected by squad size.

I'm pretty sure all the D3/D6 shots on Blast weapons stems from them transplanting templates into 8th's rules. Small were D3, large was D6. Much like how AP4 became -1, AP3 -2, AP2 -3 etc. I suspect they had this idea for them to auto-hit like flamers, but that proved too good, so we ended up with random shots and then rolling to hit separately process. Which has never really conveyed the feeling of firing a high explosive weapon in the direction of clumped up models.

Yeah, I think your theory is correct. Although punishing models for clumping up was a bad mechanic, and I'm glad it's gone.

If you want Infantry weapons to act like AT weapons thematically, or have the ability to do so, based entirely off Extremely situational head cannon, but do not want tank weapons to literally behave like tank weapons thematically, because it would "punish" infantry players,

Then just remove tanks from the game. You don't want tanks, you want an infantry skirmish game.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If you want Infantry weapons to act like AT weapons thematically, or have the ability to do so, based entirely off Extremely situational head cannon, but do not want tank weapons to literally behave like tank weapons thematically, because it would "punish" infantry players,

Then just remove tanks from the game. You don't want tanks, you want an infantry skirmish game.

No, they don't want it because it takes forever to spread your hordes out to maximum coherency.
That's not fun for EITHER player.

The thing is that current blast weapons aren't inherently anti-horde. Yes there are a few blast weapons that do specialize at anti-horde stuff, but a lot of them are generalist weapons like the battlecannon (which is the poster child of blast weapons) or anti-tank like the demolisher and thermal cannon (or anti-super-heavy like the volcannon cannon).

Railroading blast weapons as inherently anti-horde stuff might have some weirder interactions down the line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
[
But notably, blasts used to use templates that scattered to determine how many hits you got. So a vanquisher could potentially kill a single soldier if the blast scattered in such a way that only a single model was hit. So "inside a squad" is a little nebulous. In 10th, if you roll low on your number of attacks and/or roll badly on your to-hit rolls, that's your equivalent of the template scattering to hit one model.

I don't think the vanquisher has ever been a blast weapon.

 Tyran wrote:
The thing is that current blast weapons aren't inherently anti-horde. Yes there are a few blast weapons that do specialize at anti-horde stuff, but a lot of them are generalist weapons like the battlecannon (which is the poster child of blast weapons) or anti-tank like the demolisher and thermal cannon (or anti-super-heavy like the volcannon cannon).

Railroading blast weapons as inherently anti-horde stuff might have some weirder interactions down the line.

I feel like there are probably some blast weapons that don't really need to be blast these days. If you want a thermal cannon to functionally just be for killing tanks, you can remove blast. If you want it to also be more effective the larger an enemy squad is, let it have blast. Guns that are intended to be "blasts" that clear out lots of infantry models but you don't want them to do *that much* damage to vehicles should probably just have their profile broken up into a single-shot non-blast profile and a multi-shot blast profile.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
[
But notably, blasts used to use templates that scattered to determine how many hits you got. So a vanquisher could potentially kill a single soldier if the blast scattered in such a way that only a single model was hit. So "inside a squad" is a little nebulous. In 10th, if you roll low on your number of attacks and/or roll badly on your to-hit rolls, that's your equivalent of the template scattering to hit one model.

I don't think the vanquisher has ever been a blast weapon.

My bad. Was thinking of the vindicator's demolisher cannon. But yeah, see above about just giving it multiple profiles to reflect what you're shooting at. This would have been a problem if we were still using templates, but nowadays you can just give it a statline to better reflect what it's targeting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If you want Infantry weapons to act like AT weapons thematically, or have the ability to do so, based entirely off Extremely situational head cannon, but do not want tank weapons to literally behave like tank weapons thematically, because it would "punish" infantry players,

Then just remove tanks from the game. You don't want tanks, you want an infantry skirmish game.

No, they don't want it because it takes forever to spread your hordes out to maximum coherency.
That's not fun for EITHER player.

I'm not entirely sure what Fez is referring to in this post to be honest. But yeah, slowing the game down to perfectly space your horde is a pain for everyone. And also a punishment for melee armies that have to clump up when they pile in. As satisfying as templates could be for the attacker, they were a real slap in the face to ork boyz and hormagaunts back in the day.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
...What you'd end up modeling with that approach is that the last few models in a gaunt squad are somehow explosion magnets. A frag missile would weirdly be better at killing two remaining gaunts than it is at killing two gaunts in a 20-bug-swarm because you'd still be generating extra hits from Blast, but you'd only have a couple of bodies to apply the wounds to...

IIRC there were some Blast or Blast-like weapons that had a rule stating that models could only be hit once per attack with extra attacks discarded, which I assume was done specifically to avoid the sort of situation you're describing. We could always bring that back as a core part of any hypothetical new Blast rules.

Also, you were technically correct to say that Vanquishers had Blast at some point - the 3e IG 'dex has Vanquishers as armed with standard Battle Cannons that had a special AT shell they could fire instead. I want to say that was the only time they did, though.

 waefre_1 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
...What you'd end up modeling with that approach is that the last few models in a gaunt squad are somehow explosion magnets. A frag missile would weirdly be better at killing two remaining gaunts than it is at killing two gaunts in a 20-bug-swarm because you'd still be generating extra hits from Blast, but you'd only have a couple of bodies to apply the wounds to...

IIRC there were some Blast or Blast-like weapons that had a rule stating that models could only be hit once per attack with extra attacks discarded, which I assume was done specifically to avoid the sort of situation you're describing. We could always bring that back as a core part of any hypothetical new Blast rules.

In this hypothetical scenario, our two remaining gaunts would still be more death prone than the first two gaunts because even if only two hits are allowed to "stick," you're still rolling a bunch of extra to-hit rolls. I guess you could limit the max number of attacks (not hits) to the number of models in the unit, but that feels off too. And regardless, it still just seems more intuitive to me that the blast rule would care about the number of models in the squad; not the general "vibes" of the unit or how it looked prior to taking damage. 10 terminators should be easier to blast than 5 gaunts. 20 gaunts should be easier to blast than 5 gaunts.

I feel like trying to change blast to operate off a target unit's key word is probably just creating design problems for ourselves unnecessarily.

That said, I do like the idea of blasts and torrents being more effective against swarms. (And have pitched as much in the proposed rules section.)

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, I know this will NEVER happen, but all these issues could be resolved by throwing out the D6. A D10 or best case scenario, D12, would be perfect. The D6 is holding the game back mathematically. You can't make things stronger or weaker without a 16-18% shift. That's too much.

I suggested this earlier in this thread and got torn apart., lol.

I'm with you though; the d6 is a real limiter in this game.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
The idea behind blasts is that larger squads will occupy more space and more have targets to potentially hit. So the number of models is directly tied to the benefits you receive from the blast rule. If you've whittled a squad of hormagaunts down to the last one or two bugs, then the fact that they used to have friends shouldn't somehow make them easier to hit. What you'd end up modeling with that approach is that the last few models in a gaunt squad are somehow explosion magnets. A frag missile would weirdly be better at killing two remaining gaunts than it is at killing two gaunts in a 20-bug-swarm because you'd still be generating extra hits from Blast, but you'd only have a couple of bodies to apply the wounds to.

The fashion in which some models move around doesn't seem as relevant here as sheer space occupied. Which, for non-vehicle/monster squads, is probably best/most easily reflected by squad size.

I just think its arbitrary.

If you had templates back, you could hit multiple units. It seems silly to me that shooting a unit of 20 gets special rules is a thing, but if I have 4 units of 5 on top of each other, its not. The reason for this was "gameyness". Big units with the massive 8/9th edition buff stack were a problem. I don't feel that's so much of an issue in 10th.

I feel if you want Blast to be anti-horde, its better done via keywords. It represents these weapons being high shrapnel Area of Effect weapons. These weapons are designed to act in an extra dimension beyond toughness and saves versus certain types of typically (although arguably not always, although Necron Warrior lore gets nerfed every expansion) soft targets.
I think its adding extra computational time, and not adding much to the game.

You've talked about how templates could miss - but surely that's easily simulated by just rolling dice to determine how many hits you get?

If you bring back blast templates, you make things like the Battle Cannon better than a Punisher. You can't do templates without radically altering the current state. You literally cannot fix the wounding state of this game. You either gut it entirely and redo it, which means every unit/weapon profile, or you do this minor tweaks every book, that invariably hack off an entire faction of players, while shifting the meta towards a different faction.

Or we can all just admit that balance is impossible with a non-binary game system, and everything will always be broken, uneven, and skewed.

Tyel wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
The idea behind blasts is that larger squads will occupy more space and more have targets to potentially hit. So the number of models is directly tied to the benefits you receive from the blast rule. If you've whittled a squad of hormagaunts down to the last one or two bugs, then the fact that they used to have friends shouldn't somehow make them easier to hit. What you'd end up modeling with that approach is that the last few models in a gaunt squad are somehow explosion magnets. A frag missile would weirdly be better at killing two remaining gaunts than it is at killing two gaunts in a 20-bug-swarm because you'd still be generating extra hits from Blast, but you'd only have a couple of bodies to apply the wounds to.

The fashion in which some models move around doesn't seem as relevant here as sheer space occupied. Which, for non-vehicle/monster squads, is probably best/most easily reflected by squad size.

I just think its arbitrary.

If you had templates back, you could hit multiple units. It seems silly to me that shooting a unit of 20 gets special rules is a thing, but if I have 4 units of 5 on top of each other, its not. The reason for this was "gameyness". Big units with the massive 8/9th edition buff stack were a problem. I don't feel that's so much of an issue in 10th.

I'm open to hearing pitches for making blasts the "don't put units near each other" rule, but:
A.) You'd want to do it in a way that doesn't punish people for not meticulously spacing units every time they move. Otherwise you just end up slowing down the game and encouraging tedious levels of meticulous model placement.
B.) I'm not sure units standing near each other is that big a deal these days? It would have been more interesting in 8th/9th with auras all over the place. But now, I'm not sure it would do much.

I feel if you want Blast to be anti-horde, its better done via keywords. It represents these weapons being high shrapnel Area of Effect weapons. These weapons are designed to act in an extra dimension beyond toughness and saves versus certain types of typically (although arguably not always, although Necron Warrior lore gets nerfed every expansion) soft targets.
I think its adding extra computational time, and not adding much to the game.

I feel like you're maybe getting a little lost in the abstraction and also maybe conflating concepts. A "horde" is just a large number of models regardless of how squishy or crunchy they are. Generally hordes tend to be on the squishy side, but not always. If you want a weapon that is good at hurting soft, lightly armored units, we already have the Attacks, Strength, and AP stats to reflect that. Dire Avengers are good at killing those targets without needing a Blast special rule. An anti-horde weapon is one that gets better when dealing with lots of models regardless of their squishiness or crunchyness. The Blast rule currently attempts to do this by scaling based on the number of models. Some blasts have good Strength, AP, and Damage to deal with crunchier hordes while other Blasts are better suited for squishy hordes, but they're all anti-horde.

tldr; Horde = lots of models. Anti-horde = good against lots of models. Having Blasts get better vs more models is a decent way to give blast weapons a niche as anti-horde weapons.

You've talked about how templates could miss - but surely that's easily simulated by just rolling dice to determine how many hits you get?

You could, sure. Or just use a to-hit roll with however many attacks. As I said earlier, it's not really necessary to give blasts a random number of attacks.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:If you bring back blast templates, you make things like the Battle Cannon better than a Punisher. You can't do templates without radically altering the current state. You literally cannot fix the wounding state of this game. You either gut it entirely and redo it, which means every unit/weapon profile, or you do this minor tweaks every book, that invariably hack off an entire faction of players, while shifting the meta towards a different faction.

Or we can all just admit that balance is impossible with a non-binary game system, and everything will always be broken, uneven, and skewed.

Feels like you're insisting on jumping to extremes to avoid acknowledging that other people have good points. You certainly could overhaul the game entirely and make something cool. But the game can be reasonably fun with the current system and has been fun with variations on that system. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Feels like you're being hyperbolic because people pointed out d12s aren't a cure all.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Clinto wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, I know this will NEVER happen, but all these issues could be resolved by throwing out the D6. A D10 or best case scenario, D12, would be perfect. The D6 is holding the game back mathematically. You can't make things stronger or weaker without a 16-18% shift. That's too much.

I suggested this earlier in this thread and got torn apart., lol.

I'm with you though; the d6 is a real limiter in this game.

In defense of the d12 thing... The added granularity *would* make it easier to bring back stacking to-hit modifiers. Which in turn could open up space to have things like crossfire mechanics, to-hit modifiers based on distance from the target, etc. Which could be cool. It's not a magic bullet, but it could be cool. Of course, it still runs into all the usual criticisms of the suggestion, and those criticisms probably keep the "let's use d12s" proposal from working in a vacuum.

PenitentJake wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
while the to-hit system that precedes it is still completely unaffected by how far away you are from the target, how big it is, how fast it's moving, or what weapon you're using.

I think I understand what you are trying to communicate, but this is a hyperbolic statement.

It's not hyperbole, it's just literal. None of those things are represented as part of the to-hit roll, the mechanic that ostensibly models the likelihood of hitting the target.

The value you need to roll to hit the target is not affected by range; two inches away is exactly the same as one millimeter within your maximum range (two millimeters further, and you suddenly can't hit at all). What you're shooting at doesn't affect the roll- grot or Titan, it's the same value. Doesn't matter if the target stayed still or is an aircraft flying at 300mph, at best it might get a permanent -1 to hit Just Because (still independent of actual distance moved), or it might get a special dodge save clunkily reusing the same mechanic used for energy shields. And while your weapon might give you a bonus shot at half range or an accuracy bonus when staying still, a mortar is still just as accurate engaging point targets as a sniper rifle and an anti-tank cannon intended to shoot Titans works just dandy for shooting individual dudes too.

The point is that 40K's problem is absolutely not that its core mechanics so intricately and comprehensively simulate the resolution of combat that it now requires single-digit-percentage shifts to finesse the results into perfection. Wounding on a 6+ on D12 rather than a 4+ on D6 represents a level of detail wholly inconsistent with the massive abstractions used in other mechanics, and is ultimately irrelevant when your damage-dealing capability comes from the Lethal Hits special rule overriding the normal combat resolution process.

This isn't an RPG, it's not even a skirmish wargame anymore, and there are other games at comparable levels of detail that make D6s work just fine- or use atypical dice for better reasons than minor statistical shifts or rolling more to accomplish less. People who feel that more crunchy minutiae = more better should be forced to play Campaign For North Africa.

Wyldhunt wrote:In defense of the d12 thing... The added granularity *would* make it easier to bring back stacking to-hit modifiers. Which in turn could open up space to have things like crossfire mechanics, to-hit modifiers based on distance from the target, etc. Which could be cool. It's not a magic bullet, but it could be cool. Of course, it still runs into all the usual criticisms of the suggestion, and those criticisms probably keep the "let's use d12s" proposal from working in a vacuum.

Kill Team (the older one) has a simple -1 over half range. These things can exist in a D6 system. They can also be modeled in ways other than straight bonuses or penalties to the value you need to roll (see: GSC crossfire mechanic in 9th Ed).

 catbarf wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
while the to-hit system that precedes it is still completely unaffected by how far away you are from the target, how big it is, how fast it's moving, or what weapon you're using.

I think I understand what you are trying to communicate, but this is a hyperbolic statement.

It's not hyperbole, it's just literal. None of those things are represented as part of the to-hit roll, the mechanic that ostensibly models the likelihood of hitting the target.

The value you need to roll to hit the target is not affected by range; two inches away is exactly the same as one millimeter within your maximum range (two millimeters further, and you suddenly can't hit at all). What you're shooting at doesn't affect the roll- grot or Titan, it's the same value. Doesn't matter if the target stayed still or is an aircraft flying at 300mph, at best it might get a permanent -1 to hit Just Because (still independent of actual distance moved), or it might get a special dodge save clunkily reusing the same mechanic used for energy shields. And while your weapon might give you a bonus shot at half range or an accuracy bonus when staying still, a mortar is still just as accurate engaging point targets as a sniper rifle and an anti-tank cannon intended to shoot Titans works just dandy for shooting individual dudes too.

It pains me to do this but Range and the Rapid Fire rules are part of the "to-hit system", and on an abstracted level definitely are intended to model the difficulty of hitting/effecting a target.

I agree with everything else though. It's a bit goofy that there aren't more modifiers for various circumstances. The abstraction works, but it does feel goofy. I think the limitations definitely come from a section of the player base who were extremely put off by cumulative to-hit modifiers making some things (certain Eldar Flyers during 8th ed, iirc) extremely difficult to engage. In theory I prefer the modifiers because it means you can DO more to change the outcome of tactical engagements, but in the extremes it can manifest in ways that many players find frustrating.

That said, modifiers can help alleviate issues too. Eldar Flyer is a cumulative -3 to-hit, defensively. But it's a large target (+1), range is "close" range for given weapon (+1), dropping it back to a -1.

Having played a number of OPR games, I'm still not sure if I like the "6 = automatic success" solution. But it does help armies that start with a worse base to-hit. Related: I enjoy the OPR Missile Launcher "ignoring cover" mechanic (ignore all modifiers?). It something that 40k should adopt to make Missile Launchers more competitive as a choice Imo. Ignore the first modifier or some similar thing.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

ccs wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
To me, I'm less concerned about the thematic accuracy of a blast weapon missing, vs the thematic inaccuracy of an Anti tank cannon shell only killing 1 soldier if it lands inside a squad of models.

Was there ever a time during 40k when squads were treated as a single unit, and not multiple little units? I.E. A single Vanquisher round hits a squad of 20 conscripts. It does 1 wound, for 12 damage, and you now have 8 Conscripts?

Unless you want to talk about how Mortal Wounds get allocated , nope.

But notably, blasts used to use templates that scattered to determine how many hits you got. So a vanquisher could potentially kill a single soldier if the blast scattered in such a way that only a single model was hit. So "inside a squad" is a little nebulous. In 10th, if you roll low on your number of attacks and/or roll badly on your to-hit rolls, that's your equivalent of the template scattering to hit one model.

Vanquishers, whatever the edition, have never caused/used blast, blast markers, nor scatter.

Nor are blasts/templates, though they can cause multiple casualties, what was being asked about.

Rapid Fire is a perfect example of designing for effect. Andy Chambers wanted to avoid modifiers to rolls in 3rd Ed for the sake of cognitive burden, so he made Rapid Fire a game-wide rule to make small arms more effective at short range than long. And it works fine.

But it is not a mechanic that alters your to-hit value. It doesn’t need to be. This is not a physics simulation. Abstraction for playability is a good thing. Design for effect.

Switching to bigger dice to implement fiddly modifiers or make you roll for a one-in-twelve chance of success (to be reduced further by other contingent rolls) is not designing for playability or for effect. It's overly literal simulation and statistical pedantry for a game that doesn't rely too heavily on its core mechanics anyways.

As for modifiers- yeah, having situational positives is how you deal with stackable negatives. Close range, large target, crossfire, lock-on, ideal weapon (eg anti-air gun vs aircraft), sustained fire, and so on and so on. Balance the to-hit system around the use of cover, and then maintaining speed in the open can be an alternative to cover but not something that outright breaks the game.

Or, just, don't implement it as modifiers. The current wounding system swings too easily from 3+ to 5+ for my taste but something like it could get you a more graceful degradation than straight penalties do.

There are many tools in the toolbox before resorting to bigger dice.

But d12s roll so nicely…

d12s are my preferred shape for a d4.

 Dysartes wrote:
d12s are my preferred shape for a d4.

What, you don't like caltrop shaped dice? /s

People are now going to resort to "I don't like the shape of those dice" argument. Often conflated with "You'll damage the models/terrain/board. And again, we do not NEED to roll 300 D12s. The game can be simplified to make a set number of attacks per weapon, or barring that, one roll to determine number of hits, one roll to determine number of wounds.

In regards to the above argument that I am being dismissive of good arguments, please, show me where I dismissed a good argument. I think you "believe" there are good arguments, and I am being dismissive of them, but I don't follow your beliefs. How do we reconcile this impasse? Maybe we fully state our side's arguments, plainly, without emotion?

I believe the game as it stands is being held to an archaic and outmoded form of number generation, the D6 system. It prevents growth, and promotes not only rule bloat, but also heavy unbalance to weaker factions who rely on quantity over quality. I would prefer we move to a higher system, even a D8 or D10. D12 would be my most preferred, but I would welcome any change at this point, to at least try.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
People are now going to resort to "I don't like the shape of those dice" argument. Often conflated with "You'll damage the models/terrain/board. And again, we do not NEED to roll 300 D12s. The game can be simplified to make a set number of attacks per weapon, or barring that, one roll to determine number of hits, one roll to determine number of wounds.

In regards to the above argument that I am being dismissive of good arguments, please, show me where I dismissed a good argument. I think you "believe" there are good arguments, and I am being dismissive of them, but I don't follow your beliefs. How do we reconcile this impasse? Maybe we fully state our side's arguments, plainly, without emotion?

I believe the game as it stands is being held to an archaic and outmoded form of number generation, the D6 system. It prevents growth, and promotes not only rule bloat, but also heavy unbalance to weaker factions who rely on quantity over quality. I would prefer we move to a higher system, even a D8 or D10. D12 would be my most preferred, but I would welcome any change at this point, to at least try.

Guys, help me out. Fez is just trolling now, right?

@Fezzik: I struggle to understand how that works with "one roll for number of hits, one for number of wounds "

Do you mean something like: these 5 dudes roll a d12 for their hits, they rolled a six. Now they roll another d6 and that is their wounds?
Or is the wounding step another d12 and the result is capped to not exceed the number of hits?

How do different Ballistic Skills/Weapon strengths work in this system?