Latest posts for the thread "Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness."

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

It seems to me that when a S10 weapons were to hit a T1 target, the fluff would support the total destruction or extreme unlikelihood of any of the targets surviving. However in the rules, everyone has a one in six chance of survival. So, I propose a quick fix to that, hopefully it is simple. A target unit that suffers a hit from a weapon greater than twice it's toughness (please note, GREATER THAN, so T4 hit by S8 does not apply) but fails to wound, those failed rolls are rolled again (please note that this does not count as a reroll), and on a 4+ the wound is inflicted but does not cause Instant Death as it normally might (please note that this only refers to the weapon being more than twice the target's toughness, not to any special rules or circumstances). Other rules that may still apply, such as Feel No Pain may be applied as well. However if the model has any special rules that might suggest it ignore the wound (for example, rolls to wound of 4+ being ignored), the wound still effects.

Example; a T4 model with W3 is struck by a S9 and a S8 shot. On the roll to wound, the S9 wound rolls a 1 and the S8 rolls a 1. The S8 wound is disregarded, but the S9 will take another roll. The second roll results in a 5, and the model fails any saves it has. The result is the model loses a single wound.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Jackmojo — GMT

I'd prefer just the re-roll to wound, its simpler and less finicky.

Jack

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

I was beginning to wonder if either no-one was looking at new threads anymore, or if I had hit the nail on the head so directly that there was nothing to complain about and thus no comments. That is of course making the assumption that 99.9% of posts made on the internet are complaints.

While I had considered a straight re-roll system, there are a great many of weapons with special rules allowing them to re-roll failed to wound rolls and making it a simple re-roll would be deficient to those weapons, as you can only re-roll once. Not to mention that that sort of system would nigh guarantee all S(2xT)+ weapons to always wound, as it would be a one-in-thirty-six chance of failing to wound, rather than one-in-six and one-in-twelve as per the normal wounding system and my proposed system respectively.

EDIT : General repairs.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

krusty — GMT

it makes sense, but a simple reroll would be much simpler IMO

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Gavin Thorne — GMT

The existing high WS/BS rerolls could be used as a template for this kind of roll. Maybe 1 chance in 6 per point over doubling of T? This way a S9 weapon vs. T4 would wound on a second roll of 6 while S10 would wound on 5-6. Vs. T3, a S9 weapon would wound on a re-roll of 4+ and a S10 on 3+. My eldar would not like those odds I tell you.

I agree that a straight re-roll would be simpler, but also throw out some of that wacky 40k randomness that we all know and love.

Re:Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Quintinus — GMT

As much as it pains me, I have to say that I agree with you and that I actually really like this idea!

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

Am I to assume that everyone is in agreement with this rule? Also, poll added.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Paladin Blake — GMT

I like the idea, but how about this?

If a model is hit by a weapon of more than double its strength, and the roll to wound is a 1, 1 wound is taken anyway, but normal saves apply.

So, for example:

S10 Demolisher cannon hits 5 guardsmen and a Lord Commissar.

The to-wound rolls are 1 (on the Lord Commissar), 1, 2, 4, 4, and 5.

4 guardsmen take wounds and die without saves.

The other guardsman rolls an armor save, gets a 6, and survives.

The Lord Commissar gets to take an armor save, rolls a 3, and takes 1 wound.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

But now they always take a wound. Consider models that do not have an armor save. Even they should get a chance.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Paladin Blake — GMT

Yes, but it's simpler and I think it's far more realistic than a gretchin surviving a battlecannon blast.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

Stranger things have happened, and I don't think it's much more complicated to roll a D6 for 4+. I know more than one WWII vet that had an arty round land an arms reach away and they walked away, but their buddies twenty feet to the other side bought it. It's just not very likely.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Paladin Blake — GMT

Of course, its your rule and it seems fine. In general, I err on the side of simplification, but that's just me. If you prefer your way, definitely go for it. I'll ask my group which interpretation they prefer. I definitely like the idea.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

I appreciate your candor, Mr. Blake, and I agree that simple is typically better, I just don't want to completely remove the possibility for a model to survive, as there are few rules that do so (and those that do I am completely against, such as Wolf's Bane, I believe it is called, of the new Space Wolf codex).

EDIT : Bad grammar.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Ordznik — GMT

I guess I'm the only dissenter-I think you're adding another layer of dice rolling that's not necessary.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

Ordznik wrote:I guess I'm the only dissenter-I think you're adding another layer of dice rolling that's not necessary.

Would you have an alternative suggestion? Or do you feel the current method is satisfactory?

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Illeix — GMT

I believe the current method is alright. I am, however, not going to vote as many ideas here have merit and backed with quite logical reasoning.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

Illeix wrote:I believe the current method is alright. I am, however, not going to vote as many ideas here have merit and backed with quite logical reasoning.

Your comment is appreciated.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Jackmojo — GMT

I gave this some further thought and decided I'd only like a change like this if it helped remove some of the other complexities in the wound system (specifically Instant Death and its ill begotten spawn Eternal Warrior) and came up with the following:

Instead of the wound chart capping at a 2+ to wound being the best option each poin of strength after the first 2+ entry adds an additional die to the 'to wound' roll, which gives high strength weapons a very good chance, but not 100% of killing 1 wound models, and also allows them an opportunity to inflict multiple wounds on multi-wound models.

Example: Krak Missile hits Lysander (or any toughness 4 model), three to wound rolls are made, and then he takes saves as normal.

This would allow the removal of some rather cludgy rules as well as allowing weapons with massive overkill a very high chance (but not a perfect one) to kill mooks. High Strength Artillery becomes very scary as well.

Jack

P.S. And force weapons inflict some arbitrary number of wounds on a successful test, say five or so.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

The Good Green — GMT

I'm liking all the ideas on this thread. It does seem like something that could be tacked onto the instant death rule, changing the name to miraculous survival or something.

I like it, and the extra dice for extra S above 2xT. Has anyone play tested it yet?

Re:Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

TopC — GMT

I think it would cause quite a few long term balancing issues, especially comparing races that have High str low AP blast weapons against races that dont..

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

How many examples of that are there? I'm just curious, I can't think of any....

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Nurglitch — GMT

I think I'd prefer it if S > T+2 automatically wounded the target, like D-classed weapons, and much like how if T > S+2 cannot wound at all.

So S4 vs T1 would automatically wound, S8 vs T3 would automatically wound, and S10 v T7- would automatically wound.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

TopC — GMT

Skinnattittar wrote:How many examples of that are there? I'm just curious, I can't think of any....

just grab your BRB and look in the back, list all the races that dont have str 8+ or higher blast weapons (i would but i dont have mine handy)

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

Nurglitch wrote:I think I'd prefer it if S > T+2 automatically wounded the target, like D-classed weapons, and much like how if T > S+2 cannot wound at all.
So S4 vs T1 would automatically wound, S8 vs T3 would automatically wound, and S10 v T7- would automatically wound.

Well, firstly it is T > (S+3) does not wound, but I think I see what you are saying, and I am not against something similar. Though I think there would always be a chance of not being wounded, say striking a non-vital area like an arm or hand. For the more badass, higher toughness characters, getting an arm or hand blown off is all in a day's work. Even to a lowly grunt, there is a chance they will fight on. I just do not like the idea of automatically wounding a character, chance should always be involved.

TopC wrote:
Skinnattittar wrote:How many examples of that are there? I'm just curious, I can't think of any....
just grab your BRB and look in the back, list all the races that dont have str 8+ or higher blast weapons (i would but i dont have mine handy)

!!!? ?!!!
Do your own homework. I don't know of any weapons as you previously described ([High Strength and low Armor Piercing]). The closest are S6-7 with AP4 (which is a moderate AP) but I think a few S8 with moderate AP. I already did mine.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

TopC — GMT

Skinnattittar wrote:How many examples of that are there? I'm just curious, I can't think of any....Do your own homework. I don't know of any weapons as you previously described ([High Strength and low Armor Piercing]). The closest are S6-7 with AP4 (which is a moderate AP) but I think a few S8 with moderate AP. I already did mine.

Dont be a prick, its technically YOUR homework. It is YOUR idea after all.

here i'll point you in a couple easy directions off the top of my head then since your lazy and tend to get rude rather quickly with no provocation in most the past threads ive gone and read on here.

Guard
Dark Eldar
Eldar
Chaos SM

*edit* just so were clear, till you went became rude, I was actually trying to help and be constructive to your idea.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Nurglitch — GMT

If S > T+3, then damage automatic.
If S = T+3, then 2+
If S = T+2, then 2+
If S = T+1, then 3+
If S = T, then 4+
If S = T-1, then 5+
If S = T-2, then 6+
If S = T-3, then 6+
If S < T-3, then no damage possible.

This has a pleasant symmetry.

Moreover, there are certain weapons that will kill you even if they don't hit anywhere vital thanks to hydrostatic shock and other physiological effects. Some weapons don't even need to hit, they just need to go off in the same general area, and I'm not just talking high explosives - the EMP of stuff like Plasma weapons should be enough to kill unprotected humans with a near miss.

Remember also that weapons in Warhammer 40k don't necessarily kill (except for weapons causing Instant Death), but disable, and dismemberment is certainly disabling. Having your nervous system instantly combust, or your skin burn off, or your armour fused solid by heat, all of these things should count as a Wound in the Warhammer sense of the term.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

Turst humor, my apologies. However you made the accusation, it is your subject to defend. I have my small red Rulebook, which has the same synopsis sections. Guard don't have anything that fits the standards you set out ([high S and low AP]), Dark Eldar might, but they have an ancient codex and I still do not think they do. Eldar might as well, but I still don't think so, and Chaos Space Marines don't as far as my knowledge. So please, enlighten us, for I don't think any races have anything that fills your rather vague criteria. In fact, I will say that there are NO weapons above S7 with AP<1 and make YOU do some homework.

As for my general demeanor, I do not prescribe to the "touchy feelly" mode of conversation where bad statements go without attack. Bad logic is no excuse for poor decisions/ideas. If you feel I am cruel or rude, wait until you get out into the real world where things are unforgiving, wait until you live where the world itself does not readily forgive small lapses and forfeit claiming your life or limb! I do appologise if I tend to offend, it is not my general intention, and when it is, I make that abundantly clear, usually by outright/clearly stating in one form or another "[I mean to offend you]" and I rarely do so!

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

TopC — GMT

Skinnattittar wrote:Turst humor, my apologies. However you made the accusation, it is your subject to defend. I have my small red Rulebook, which has the same synopsis sections. Guard don't have anything that fits the standards you set out ([high S and low AP]), Dark Eldar might, but they have an ancient codex and I still do not think they do. Eldar might as well, but I still don't think so, and Chaos Space Marines don't as far as my knowledge. So please, enlighten us, for I don't think any races have anything that fills your rather vague criteria. In fact, I will say that there are NO weapons above S7 with AP<1 and make YOU do some homework.

As for my general demeanor, I do not prescribe to the "touchy feelly" mode of conversation where bad statements go without attack. Bad logic is no excuse for poor decisions/ideas. If you feel I am cruel or rude, wait until you get out into the real world where things are unforgiving, wait until you live where the world itself does not readily forgive small lapses and forfeit claiming your life or limb! I do appologise if I tend to offend, it is not my general intention, and when it is, I make that abundantly clear, usually by outright/clearly stating in one form or another "[I mean to offend you]" and I rarely do so!

I was deployed to Iraq twice (wounded twice) I have no doubts that the world at large is actually not concerned for anything other than iteself, as such it will chew up and spit out anything that gets in its way. watch your own back. So yes I know, but when someone is trying to help you, you dont attack them thats just bad juju.

Demolisher, large blast
cant htink of the other guard weapon..it fires lots of the small blast templates that are plasma?

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

@ Nurglitch :

I do not disagree with what you are intending (though EMP, unless extraordinarily powerful, has no effect on humans), though there are far many more factors than you are considering. Remember, humans are not the only adversaries. Many are deamonic, or deamonically empowered, others are not even human and their physiology may be differentially resilient, others still are not even organic or mammalian. So comparisons for those reasons become extravagantly complex. But that is not the purpose here.

But no matter, those issues aside, I simply do not think that chance may be removed, as there is always the possibility of survival and continuing the to fight. I think I have mentioned it earlier, that there are many cases of a normally fatal circumstance resulting in only superficial effect. I, for example, have met more than one fellow with a scar on their scalp from where a bullet, somehow, managed to deflect off their skull, zip around under the skin, and exit through the other side of their head. Granted, they all immediately sought medical assistance once they realized their injury (one gentleman, during Vietnam, said he ran around like that for several hours before he found a medic). But 99% of the time, a bullet to the head is deadly. But they survived, if not fought on.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Nurglitch — GMT

Skinnattittar:

Daemons are well-represented by their inherent Invulnerable saves, other stuff by their Toughness or Armour saving throws.

However, while a bullet to the head may not necessarily be fatal (an iron bar through the frontal lobe is not necessarily fatal...), a 120mm high explosive shell always is.

There's plenty in 40k to help characters survive high powered weapons, well beyond the incredible lenience of the To Wound chart, such as the aforementioned Armour, high Toughness, Invulnerable, Feel No Pain, etc. If anything there's too much randomness that doesn't contribute to the game or move it along.

As usual your proposal adds nothing to the game while increasing its complication. Such an increase in complication might be borne if your suggestion contributed anything, but it does not. My counter-proposal, by contrast, simplifies the game, increases the utility of high strength weapons against soft targets, and better defines the payouff tables defining the utility of target selection as a result of that simplification indexed with increased utility.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

Oh my, I apologize TopC. I misinterpreted what you meant earlier by "high S low AP". I thought you meant "low ability to Armor Penetrate." I reverse-interpret "low AP" all the time, and I think a lot other people do as well.

I do agree, though, that it will mean weapons with a High S value and a low AP value will be more valuable, but I think in general they are a little over valued by most players already. Wounding on a 2+ still means that ~17% will always fail to be wounded, even against something S10 upon a T1 model. And lets face it, a T1 model would probably be priced ridiculously low for common application, while S10 weapons would be priced for knocking out T8 units on the same chance to Wound.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

TopC — GMT

Skinnattittar wrote:Oh my, I apologize TopC. I misinterpreted what you meant earlier by "high S low AP". I thought you meant "low ability to Armor Penetrate." I reverse-interpret "low AP" all the time, and I think a lot other people do as well.

I do agree, though, that it will mean weapons with a High S value and a low AP value will be more valuable, but I think in general they are a little over valued by most players already. Wounding on a 2+ still means that ~17% will always fail to be wounded, even against something S10 upon a T1 model. And lets face it, a T1 model would probably be priced ridiculously low for common application, while S10 weapons would be priced for knocking out T8 units on the same chance to Wound.

Ah were good now then i take it? lol

Essentially its making a table for reroll wounds similar to BS skill rerolls.. BS 6 rolls a 1, then rerolls said 1 if it comes up a 6 its a hit. so on and so on..

But if this is the case for wounds on these weapons then it would be reduced from 1/6th not getting wounded....which is especially bad if its AP3/2 weapon

*edit* unless i'm just reading the idea wrong?

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

I thought you meant a weapon such as S10 AP- vs S10 AP1, and there being an issue there. I know of only a few weapons with high-ish Strength and "low" AP such as 6 or -.

My proposal is that weapons 2T < S (so a Strength greater than twice the toughness, ex: S9 and T4 but not S8 and T4) would be rerolled and wound on a 4+ (but would not count as a reroll). But these said "recovered wounds" would not count (now) as being twice the model's Toughness.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

TopC — GMT

Skinnattittar wrote:I thought you meant a weapon such as S10 AP- vs S10 AP1, and there being an issue there. I know of only a few weapons with high-ish Strength and "low" AP such as 6 or -.

My proposal is that weapons 2T < S (so a Strength greater than twice the toughness, ex: S9 and T4 but not S8 and T4) would be rerolled and wound on a 4+ (but would not count as a reroll). But these said "recovered wounds" would not count (now) as being twice the model's Toughness.

I see, at least it rules out instant death the second time around... Although I do think it leaves some races without a blast weapon that falls into this category for balancing issues.. and i play tau so i wouldnt like it unless the submuni was boosted lol str8ap3 would be manageable

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

So are you saying you would be upset with not being able to use this rule? Or can you explain more thoroughly why you think it would be imbalanced?

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

TopC — GMT

Skinnattittar wrote:So are you saying you would be upset with not being able to use this rule? Or can you explain more thoroughly why you think it would be imbalanced?

I'm just saying that the races that already have High str good AP weapons already use them to very good success... this would make them even better, leaving the races without access to said weaponry feeling.... left out?

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

Well, the impact is relatively minimal, with a 50% increase in the wounds (from ~17% to ~8%), but they would not inflict additional damage from being greater than twice their Toughness, so special Characters would be relatively safe if they have Wound left.

As for other races being left out: Too bad. Just in the case of Tau, no-one else gets Markerlights, or something very similar. Many races don't have AV14 vehicles, others don't have any really cheap troops, others still don't have Ordinance weapons. There are a lot of things many other races don't get, they'll just have to deal. Sorry.

Re:Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

TopC — GMT

lol thats not the point.

Point is they are already good, they already get taken with high frequency. What need is there to improve them? If your going to improve something that doesnt need improving because it fits your fluff better, what are you going to give other races to balance this small improvement? that is the intended point im trying to make. This is a game, balance is required for it to be competitive, challenging, fun. Otherwise it just turns into another rock paper scissors game, which lets be frank, there are way to f many of those out there... if it turns into that all it would do is hurt the game.. no i'm not saying 1 change will make that big of a change, but whats to stop another? and another? and another? to where eventually just perpetuates to that stage.. i'd leave, many others would too. That point im making is the maintaining of balance. When balance is driven out of a game it hurts the community.

If you can't at least acknowledge this point as valid, thats fine. I'm just glad your not a game developer.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Tacobake — GMT

I think if you are doing it S9/S10 weapons, especially blast weapons need a points increase. Otherwise it is just another rule.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

@ TopC : I'm just trying to make heads up of what you're saying, so please don't take any of this the wrong way.

Are you saying that because it is slightly better (causing about 8% more wounds) and only applies to specific weapons against specific enemies (yes, only a few S7-S9 weapons for the majority of models with T3-4 respectively) that this will trigger a slippery slope of new rules that would possibly unbalance the game into some sort of "rock-paper-scissors" game? But only if we neglect to give armies that don't have these specific weapons, these specific weapons?

No, I think this is a small change for fluff's sake and fluff's sake only. Yes, certain armies will be left out without the same tactical benefit, but I don't particularly give a flying [bad word]. Guard didn't get assaulty units when they improved assault rules, Guard didn't get cheaper tanks when they nerfed tanks and made them cheaper for everyone else (well, for almost five years at least, until the recent codex). And what happened then? Well, nothing really. Guard remained Guard, even today with their new codex and all these "oh noes, 40k is being ruined" changes that people thought while they were rumors, they have had little effect on the army.

I don't want to rant, so I will keep this short. TopC, if you're afraid that a change like this, admittedly by you small, will overturn the game somehow, then my friend you are not playing the game very well, of you have succumbed to tunnel-vision. This will only change a few weapons against some enemies.

@ Tacobake & TopC : Will there be a points increase? Hopefully, but hopefully not a severe one. Remember, currently S10 weapons have the same effect on T4 models as a S6 weapon. You don't pay the price for a S10 weapon when it will do the job of a S6 weapon; you buy them for their anti AV14 and T8 abilities. So you are already paying an inflated price for the weapons with S7+, because their main role is against higher T and AV which won't be effected by this new rule, as it can't effect T5 and above (because there are not S11+ weapons). And I don't think there should be any weapons that can (except maybe Ordinance.... because I like the idea of a Hive Tyrant taking a Battle Cannon to the chest then blowing out in a rain of messy ichor, goo, and cooked meat for Guardsmen to catch in their helmets and eat. I'm sure they taste much like lobster...) in a regular game.

Re:Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

TopC — GMT

What evs dude, continue being having a biased opinion instead of trying to look at it from a over view (pssst alot of races got the shaft w/ assault buff) i'm done here. just glad its not a rule and most likely never will be since its all just conjecture.

Re:Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

TopC wrote:What evs dude, continue being having a biased opinion instead of trying to look at it from a over view (pssst alot of races got the shaft w/ assault buff) i'm done here. just glad its not a rule and most likely never will be since its all just conjecture.

Well it too bad we couldn't discuss this more, I don't know your point of view (as vague as it is). I personally feel bad that GW doesn't rely more on consumer input, but that's generally in their best interest financially. I hope at least you have taken something away from out attempted discussion.

Re:Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

TopC — GMT

Skinnattittar wrote:
TopC wrote:What evs dude, continue being having a biased opinion instead of trying to look at it from a over view (pssst alot of races got the shaft w/ assault buff) i'm done here. just glad its not a rule and most likely never will be since its all just conjecture.
Well it too bad we couldn't discuss this more, I don't know your point of view (as vague as it is). I personally feel bad that GW doesn't rely more on consumer input, but that's generally in their best interest financially. I hope at least you have taken something away from out attempted discussion.

One and only point.

GAME BALANCE

If you give someone something, you have to make it cost more, or take something away from them for the added benefit.

If you do none of said things, you then have to modify other armies to compensate.

Thats it.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

And I said that the price should increase. I do not believe it should be a dramatic increase, then explained my reasoning. And no, you do not have to "give and take" for balance sake. Universal rules do not make specific exceptions. Granted, certain armies will be effected less, but the only army I can think of being most left out is Tau, and in all honesty, they have so many problems to be solved for their new codex, that this minor change is the least of their worries. Everyone else has enough S7+ weapons and their own coping devises that they're covered fine for the purposes of this proposed rule.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll put some numbers to this.

Say an Autocannon is overall 20pts (including the Guardsmen to man it). It is S7, so the proposed rule only affects T3 units. At S7 it is really a light anti Armor and anti Heavy-Infantry weapon. So now to use this proposed rule we have to have it being used against units it is not really mean to, so not really going to be fired at most of the time (or at least whenever possible). So properly priced, we are already wasting points using it as anti light-infantry. But there is something to be said for multi-purposing.

Okay, so the increase in likelihood is about an 8% difference (5/6=~83% vs 11/12=~92%, subtract the former by the later). So the increase in price should only be, at most, 8% of the weapon's cost. For an Autocannon, well, only one out of the three uses effect, but we'll give the benefit of a doubt and increase the cost the full 8%.

What's the increase in points cost? 1.67pts. Or 2pts over the entire weapons team. Now that's not considering the two Guardsmen and their lasguns, and you're not using the Autocannons for their main intended role (which they are priced for). So the price increase would be even less!

The same problems would be encountered for larger weapons, and the increase would be just as minor. At most, I would say 10pts, but even that's a bit high. 5pts for an Earthshaker Cannon (S9), nothing for a Battlecannon (S8).

Re:Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Kroot Loops — GMT

Hrm, from this and your proposed rapid fire rule change, it's pretty obvious you play guard, and every rule you're proposing is designed to buff IG more than any other army. You want this rule at virtually no cost on the army that has the absolute largest array of high strength blast weapons.

Which is kind of ironic, since IG are pretty much universally regarded as the most solid army to date.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

@ Kroot Loops : The vast majority of my experience with WH40k is with IG, so by nature I will see problems/changes/inspirations in the issues that concern my army the most. However I do not make these suggestions simply to "buff" my army, as you might claim.

I have always felt dis-satisfied with the wounding system, as have a lot of others, in my experience, which is why I have proposed this rule. With regards to Rapid Fire, I starter playing at the end of 2nd Edition and the beginning of 3rd (both versions were being played when I started, and 3rd Edition Rule Book was barely a few months old). I liked how Rapid Fire worked then, as opposed to 4th and the current method. I am not complaining too much about that issue, it works fine generally, but I missed the old ability, which put more differences between different kinds of weapons, as well as the flexibility.

As for "irony," I am going to have to take that word away from you, because that is not what "irony" means, which itself is a bit ironic. Remember that just about everything in the Guards codex is T3, and there are a swathe of weapons S7 and above that get used against them commonly, so my proposed rule would hurt them probably more than it would help them (remembering that there are only three common weapons above S8 in the IG armory, the Demolisher, the Earthshaker, and the Lascannon). Their S8+ weapons are expensive and generally purposed to more specific roles than knocking on Heavy-Infantry, like busting tanks or crushing monster characters.

I will not deny it will be a boost to some weapons, such as the Earthshaker, but that might simply see it being employed more often.

Re:Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Kroot Loops — GMT

I'm not going to turn this into a huge argument because it's simply not worth it.

I don't think any other army can put out nearly the number of high strength shots as IG, especially when it comes to blasts

Very few things in other armies equipped solely with rapid fire weapons would have any desire to assault (Save maybe dark eldar, no idea what they have), because they suck in CC and don't have 50 man blobs or commisars to charge in. Your 12 man fire warrior squad certainly has no desire to charge into cc.

it is then ironic that you are proposing rule changes with the language of helping armies over all, while in reality helping the army you play head and shoulders above any other.

IG are hardly the only T3 army, but they are certainly the most survivable of the lot thanks to being the easiest to fully mechanize or take in huge numbers.

Done, enjoy the rest of the thread.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

Please don't take jabs then run, it's rather unprofessional.

Again, you have misused ironic, I am guessing only to try and jab with a label against an argument. Irony is intending one thing, and having the exact opposite happen (typically by logic and misinterpretation of the situation, than shear chance, I mind you. Having it rain on your wedding day is not ironic).

Both modifying Rapid Fire and this thread's proposed rule change do help all armies. Does it help some more than others? Yes, it does, it is universal. But the change is relatively minor, and how this would effect the points cost of those weapons is not the subject of this thread.

Again, it is at best an ~8% change in inflicted wounds, not completely eliminating the failed wounds. You would then still get your Armor, Cover, and Invulnerable Saves as they apply (so an AP3 Wound because an AP- Wound on the "rebound"). So even if we take that into consideration, we're talking about at minimum an average 50% survival of those wounds. Bringing us down to a ~4% change in inflicted wounds.

Points increases would have to be taken from there, but consideration must be kept as to how the weapon is initially intended to be used. Demolishers and Earthshakers would probably see the majority of that 4-8% weapon price increase full, while Battle Cannons would see less, as they only inflict additional wounds to T3 and below models.

So what are we talking about? 5pts? 10pts maybe? for the more expensive weapons? Mathed out, one or two points maybe for the non-blast weapons? I can see how this would horribly slew the game in favor of the Imperial Guard... That was sarcasm, a relative of irony but not itself ironic, as it is intended.

Re:Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Kroot Loops — GMT

One definition of Irony is also to pretended ignorance in a discussion. Please explain to me the benefits of charging a WS 2 S 3 T 3 A 1 I 2 Ld 7 squad with no power weapons or offensive grenades and a max size of 12 into combat rather than taking two S5 shots?

And while fluff doesn't necessarily belong in the rules section, armies/units that are typically equipped with only rapid fire weapons are those who would not be inclined to normally charge into assaults.

As for High Str blasts, they're already wounding almost everything except the toughest creatures on a 2+ (and still that at Str 10) and risking instant death for many models. a roll of a 1 on the die just means a piece of terrain (or a companion next to you) shielded you, or there was a miraculous avoidance of a wound. There are armies that can drop a staggering number of high strength large blasts on you, and increasing their chance to wound is small only because 84% of the models hit are already wounded. If you hit 8, you cause 6.72 wounds, generally killing 6-7 outright if not in cover, 3-4 if in cover, for one shot, that's pretty good, and it doesn't really need a buff. Especially since it's not something shared by every army.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

Oh, I think it needs a buff, albeit minor. Not only does it make things seem more fair (I'm sorry if you disagree, but where S3 is just as effective against T1 as S10, things are not as they should be) and fluffy. This is an issue I have heard since I started playing, why not solve it with a relatively simple rule?

As for your description of how one in six could survive, I call shenanigans and poor fluff writing. I could say that all Guardsmen should receive a 2+ cover save even in the open because they will flop down and continue to fight, it doesn't mean that it should be correct.

On the subject of irony, is that in the use as a literary device? Or actual usage? I have never heard it used with intended misdirection by the "victim." Or have you used a non-sequitur?

Re:Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Kroot Loops — GMT

Socratic Irony

It's a game, and Like many games, WH uses the premise that a certain result always fails, be it the high number or the low. We see it a lot more being a d6 based game rather than a d20 or d100 (not to mention we tend to make a lot more rolls). I think it works fine the way it does now, and don't see any need to give it a buff.

And while your guardsmen couldn't flop down to claim a 2+ cover save, they could flop down to claim a 6+ cover save. Hrm, look at that, the same odds to save as to not be wounded.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

Ah, "verbal" irony. I consider that "sarcasm." I prescribe to "dramatic" irony.

I think what you're basically trying to say is the d6 systems have limitations? Which I would agree with, but I think this is a pretty simple solution to a limitation. And as you said, it is a game, so we can make up and use whatever rules we want to make things more "realistic." As was my example with Guardsmen dropping to the prone for cover. It is a poor example, I will admit that much, but still has a valid point of interpretation.

Re:Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Kroot Loops — GMT

Except that in a competitive game (and any game with a winner and a loser is competitive on some level) such as this, I would say 'Balance' is a greater concern than 'Realistic'. And lets face it, realism isn't a strength of 40k. I mean come on, it's the 41st millennium and people are fighting with swords and giant metal mittens?

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

Are you saying you can't fight with giant metal mittens?! I have been doing it so wrong for so long....

Are you implying that this will somehow incur some sort of great, horrible imbalance in 40k? Which would thus require that 40k is already in some sort of "balance" already, or was at some time.... because I would have to disagree with that, and just about every player would as well.

As I have said several time already, we're not talking about a 50%, or 30%, or 10%, or even an effective 8% change. We're talking about a 1-8% change under optimal circumstances. If 40k is in such a precarious balance, then why even have a proposed rules section? Or is it so close to toppling over? In that case, there would have to be much bigger swathes for rules modification to fix it than to worry about this.

Re:Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Kroot Loops — GMT

if the change is so small, then why propose it at all?

40k is definitely not a well balanced game, but why add to the imbalance? Lets put it this way. In blast templates alone, some armies could easily lay down 3-7 high strength large blasts in a turn. Conversely, some can lay down zero. Considering that the armies that can lay down those 3-7 templates are already on the 'strong' side of the balance scales, and some of those that can not are already on the 'weak' side of the scale, the proposed rule only increases the imbalance.

Then you have to consider the effects could be greater than the statistics would have you believe, and it could cause some of the armies on the 'strong' side due to assault performance to lose ground.

Simply put, the game being unbalanced is not a good excuse to make it more unbalanced.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Eldar Own — GMT

I think it may be a good change, but just keep it at a re-roll.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Skinnattittar — GMT

Eldar Own wrote:I think it may be a good change, but just keep it at a re-roll.

May I ask why? Do not forget, any weapons or situations that would have given a reroll on wounding can not reroll again, as you can only reroll once. Not only that, but instead of making it a one in twelve chance of survival, you have made it a one in thirty six chance of survival, which is pretty much instant death for everyone who is hit by the weapon, which isn't what I want. I am going to guess you are insinuating that you would just reroll to wound rolls and all normal actions apply (AP, Instant Death, etc...).

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

Tacobake — GMT

I was thinking of Demonolishers. A Demolishers on seven or eight Marines or even Terminators is a big difference 2+ vs 2+ re-roll.

7 * 1/6 == 1 or 2 live.

w/ re-roll everything dies. yikes!

Nothing is certain in the Grim Darkness maybe keep it at a 2+. Of course on the other hand it DID hit them.

Maybe what it could be is a rule for auto-wounding, similar to AP. Heck it would even speed up the game. Maybe put that in with modifiers to-hit.

Roll to Wound 1.5+ : High Power, Low Toughness.

ssREV — GMT

If you want to keep it simple, and still change it, you could try making it a 2+ roll on a d10. No rerolls or complications needed. you just need to find a d10.

Though, I doubt you could convince someone you play against to complicate the game more by changing the rules. Games take long enough as it is with people delaying games for various reasons, and don't need an additional layer of rolling for something that isn't even in need of fixing, compared to clearing up bad rules.