The Old Wound Chart is Superior to what we have now:

[Lord_Starscream]

...guys...ahem...we are playing a game with Space Elves, Space Dwarves, Space Orks, an alternate dimension made of emotion that houses gods born of...-gets comically small glasses for his power armour gauntlet- rage and anger, stagnation and rot, plans and plans within plans and then we finally also have a god made from -censored- from the space elves -redacted HEAVILY- while they were at the top who let me just remind you all, just quick fyi, use literal ninja guns (they fire shurikens) made of some magic space bone that reacts to someone doing their best green ranger dragonzord summoning impression while there is a ridley scot rip-off race running around with monsters who also pierce tanks with claws made from bone (and nothing else).

 

Cap that with Nuns with guns, the Orks weeb it up with the power of belief and finally, may I also just cherry this with the fact that the chaos faction has literal Bass Cannons.

 

Seriously folks.

 

The thing we are discussing is the idea of the wound chart and how it may or may not have issues inherit within the design of it which I will caveat with that all designs have some flaws no matter what you do and the only sure-fire knowledge is that not everyone will be happy.

 

Is the current system good? Yes. Why? Quick and easy to learn with simple metrics that make sense at the scale 40k is played (an abstraction that works for the scale of game). Would the system be improved OR hindered by adding another layer to the system that enables automatic failure and success? Some again would agree that it is good and some would disagree and say it is just annoying. Personally, what metric can we use that is simple?

I once proposed the idea of adding a stage both at the top and bottom relating to "triple" factor being the trigger for failure/success being automatic. If GW did take advantage of the unlocked stat blocks (no longer 10 being the limit) then it could add to the game however as it stands, it wouldn't add much to the game and thus is not in the game. Yes, a guardsman can fire his lasgun at a land raider and cause a wound. Oh my emperor...help us that one guardsman got a wound on the land raider...Vacuums are great for theory but are terrible scarecrows despite being made of STRAW!

 

Both systems have issues. The current one works best for being friendly to newcomers and still retains the spirit and even nearly identical function to the old way of doing things. Yes I know you are sad panda about you heavy bolters but stop moping around about that and look at all the other toys we have for such jobs such as these new and improved assault cannons (lets be frank, they got a BEAST of a deal going to 6 shots a go).

 

If you prefer older editions that is fine, those systems had their advantages and benefits. 4th edition still gets me to bust out the rose tinted glasses of yesteryears when I first proper started and my sentences used curse words like punctuation because eldar are dirty cheating elves. The size system, templates scattering without nary a care in the world going this way and that way, no reduction from BS and leadership checks made you move the unit back towards your own table edge and combat was so broken good shooting was barely functional. Oh and charging was just set 6" range.

But the size system was borked, melee armies were so spreadsheet with movement it was a joke, templates were garbo because they ether high rolled or low rolled and low was more likely (unless the model was big) and OH BOY did we ever enjoy difficult terrain rules? Hey, anyone remember penetration charts? Remember when one lascannon equalled a whole land raider? I SURE DO!

 

I have seen the game through many editions, certainly I may not be as grizzled or hard worn as some of you 1st company vets but I do like to retrospect things. In my view: 40k has improved leaps and bounds and 8th edition is the best edition we have ever had, especially after 7th being a re-hash of 6th in the laziest way possible with formation being the only cool thing about it but was sunk by urine levels of quality testing of rules.

 

Ahem...sorry...rant over and if this gets a Crozius to the dome for me, fair play.

 

 

I will say that a lot of what you are writing is presumptive. Because I'm going to reveal something to you which may in fact, shock you.

 

I play Bad Moonz. I play Bad Moonz with a very heavy bent towards just regular old Shooters, and Big Shootas. I, have personally, shot tanks, monsters, and other things off the table in a remarkably short period of time, with these very simple weapons. I shelved my Bad Moonz because I thought it was utterly ridiculous. I didn't enjoy playing that. I've not really touched 8th much since. 

 

Killing 3 Sonic Dreads in 2 turns, though funny the first time, ceases being funny. People are acting like basic weapons can't harm these things. As if its the single guardsmen or whatever. I played with a tide of firepower, because traditionally, in prior editions, I ran cheap, replaceable, "Good enough" units large formations to win a lot of battles. I had some specialists of course for dealing with big threats, but the job is always to clear the field. I stopped playing in tournaments years ago, I didn't like the atmosphere.

 

Funnily enough, I would argue the new Primaris models, outside of their own spamming of simple weapons depending on the list, finally killed a lot of these armies by virtue of being able to out range them, and thus, tactically defeat them.

 

Stop acting like it's rare, or weird. 

 

The current wounding system is no more simple than the last. Again, people struggle doing basic math regardless. Before, it was only "oh, is it a difference of x3 from my current strength?" and figuring it out from there, it took a split second. Now its "Is it double my strength, or less?" It's simple. It's very easy. Neither of these are any more difficult than one another. It is not ease of use. That is an excuse.

[Excessus]

I get the feel that this topic is less about the actual wound chart and more about the Armour Value turning into toughness.

 

 

My gripe is that they made the vehicles T7 base when they should have been at least T8 as a base. Land raiders at T9 or even T10 would have been better than the current system. The lascannon shouldn't wound on 3+ against a Land Raider, where it previously wounded on 5+...

[Sloeberjong]

Yeah, the wound chart isn't bad. The lack of spread of S and T is a bigger issue. Maybe small arms shouldn't harm tanks, but on the other hand, there are lots of real world instances where tanks were damaged by small arms. There's ports and looking points with glass stuff, aiming materials and stuff. At least during WW2 those things got damaged by small arms occasionally and tanks had to go back for repairs or slow down. Lasguns wounding big vehicles isn't really that far off, especially since you need a lot of shots just to cause 1 wound. Tanks really aren't totally impervious to small arms, there's lots of moving parts and sometimes something gets exposed.

 

Like said before, a bigger spread of strength and toughness should go a long way.

[Halandaar]

Instant death was great as well. There is no reason, even most characters, should survive a S10+ hit.

 

Except loads of characters had Eternal Warrior which made Instant Death completely irrelevant, and basically determined which characters were and weren't viable. Better off gone.

[Marshal Rohr]

And it's a definite improvement over what used to happen when an opponent brought a spoiler list of all armor and you basically didn't even shoot with 80%+ of your armies guns because they couldn't hurt AV13.

This isn’t a bad thing. The point of tanks was to be impervious to small arms fire. If a company of infantry is hard pressed to defeat a platoon of armor that is how the world works. There are literally hundreds of books written by some of the greatest military minds to ever live describing how to use infantry to neutralize the strength of armored vehicles by getting in close, using anti-tank weaponry, explosives, ambushes, etc. It’s a war game. Asymmetric match ups between infantry and armor are integral to that.

[Dragonlover]

Also, to everyone going 'well the old chart was just as easy to remember!' I call nonsense. I played weekly games of 7th while it was out as well as teaching the game and I could never remember the damn thing. In 8th on the other hand, despite having played three games since April, I can recite it no problem.

 

Also to the subtle undercurrent of the thought process going on in this thread that 'complicated is better', you're just flat wrong. A complicated game is not automatically a deep one, and accessibility to the game is incredibly important, both in terms of getting in newer younger players, but also for folks with mental issues/disabilities.

 

Dragonlover

[Marshal Rohr]

Also, to everyone going 'well the old chart was just as easy to remember!' I call nonsense. I played weekly games of 7th while it was out as well as teaching the game and I could never remember the damn thing. In 8th on the other hand, despite having played three games since April, I can recite it no problem.

 

Also to the subtle undercurrent of the thought process going on in this thread that 'complicated is better', you're just flat wrong. A complicated game is not automatically a deep one, and accessibility to the game is incredibly important, both in terms of getting in newer younger players, but also for folks with mental issues/disabilities.

 

Dragonlover

 

There is nothing wrong with the new chart. The issue is the 'anything can hurt anything with enough dice'. That being said, I'm convinced playing normal sized 40k Games with the Apocalypse rules is the best way to play the game currently. All of the 'faster and more streamlined' crowd should definitely acknowledge how fast and streamlined a normal sized game of 40k is with Apoc rules. 

Edited November 14, 2019 by Marshal Rohr

[Berzul]

 

 

Also, to everyone going 'well the old chart was just as easy to remember!' I call nonsense. I played weekly games of 7th while it was out as well as teaching the game and I could never remember the damn thing. In 8th on the other hand, despite having played three games since April, I can recite it no problem.

 

Also to the subtle undercurrent of the thought process going on in this thread that 'complicated is better', you're just flat wrong. A complicated game is not automatically a deep one, and accessibility to the game is incredibly important, both in terms of getting in newer younger players, but also for folks with mental issues/disabilities.

 

Dragonlover

There is nothing wrong with the new chart. The issue is the 'anything can hurt anything with enough dice'. That being said, I'm convinced playing normal sized 40k Games with the Apocalypse rules is the best way to play the game currently. All of the 'faster and more streamlined' crowd should definitely acknowledge how fast and streamlined a normal sized game of 40k is with Apoc rules.

Have you tried playing small games (under 1300 pts) with Kill Team rules?

 

Also works to a really fun game.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

Also, to everyone going 'well the old chart was just as easy to remember!' I call nonsense. I played weekly games of 7th while it was out as well as teaching the game and I could never remember the damn thing. In 8th on the other hand, despite having played three games since April, I can recite it no problem.

 

Also to the subtle undercurrent of the thought process going on in this thread that 'complicated is better', you're just flat wrong. A complicated game is not automatically a deep one, and accessibility to the game is incredibly important, both in terms of getting in newer younger players, but also for folks with mental issues/disabilities.

 

Dragonlover

There is nothing wrong with the new chart. The issue is the 'anything can hurt anything with enough dice'. That being said, I'm convinced playing normal sized 40k Games with the Apocalypse rules is the best way to play the game currently. All of the 'faster and more streamlined' crowd should definitely acknowledge how fast and streamlined a normal sized game of 40k is with Apoc rules.

Have you tried playing small games (under 1300 pts) with Kill Team rules?

 

Also works to a really fun game.

 

 

I havent actually committed to a kill team yet. I keep buying models and then converting them for the Heresy/Great Crusade era. 

[Berzul]

I just mean part of the rule set.

 

Cover applies a -1 to be hit instead of a +1 to a save

True line of sight for cover.

Movement is done player to player, then combat is done unit to unit, alternatively.

Ready units act first, then not ready ones.

 

It makes things quite interesting.

[Ishagu]

I actually like the "anything can hurt anything" chart, and it can be quite thematic.

 

Of course a bunch of lasguns aren't going to destroy a landraider, but what about one that has been reduced to it's last wound? Wouldn't a heavily crippled vehicle have gaping holes in the armour plates? Those lasguns in sufficient volumes might be able to hit an exposed, critical system and finally destroy the tank.

 

Also, keep in mind that enough shots can ultimately deal some damage. Heck, even rain will eventually erode away solid rock.

Edited November 14, 2019 by Ishagu

[dice4thedicegod]

I only know rogue trader and 8th Ed rules... but 8th is far superior as a pick up game.

 

If you want a military simulation or a very balanced game, you should honestly look elsewhere than 40k. Complaining about small arms hurting tanks but not about explosions or flame weapons not ignoring storm shields? Or how small arms fire is ineffective beyond 50m (assuming 1” is roughly 2m). Or how swords are a thing?

[m0nolith]

...guys...ahem...we are playing a game with Space Elves, Space Dwarves, Space Orks,

The Necromunda Squat character I just bought disagrees with that line over “space dwarves”

They’re still around...kinda ;)

[TorvaldTheMild]

Yeah I prefer the old system.  But we ain't gonna get it back as GW no longer care in the slightest about realism or complexity.

Edited November 14, 2019 by TorvaldTheMild

[Marshal Rohr]

I only know rogue trader and 8th Ed rules... but 8th is far superior as a pick up game.

 

If you want a military simulation or a very balanced game, you should honestly look elsewhere than 40k. Complaining about small arms hurting tanks but not about explosions or flame weapons not ignoring storm shields? Or how small arms fire is ineffective beyond 50m (assuming 1” is roughly 2m). Or how swords are a thing?

 

Good point, explosions and flame weapons should have some type of in game mechanism to negate certain types of defense and protections for units. If only such a mechanism existed.  

[Ishagu]

Yeah I prefer the old system. But we ain't gonna get it back as GW no longer care in the slightest about realism or complexity.

GW never cared about realism lol

 

You want something from this hobby which it's never been about.

Edited November 14, 2019 by Ishagu

[Berzul]

Well, complexity for its own sake is not really an automatically better way of doing things.

I think we might be confusing simplicity, with dumbed down.

 

A system can be one thing, without being the other.

[Marshal Rohr]

They talk about that in one of the Necromunda streams. Necromunda is built on 8th Edition, but its very intentionally a deeper ruleset. Andy outright stated this. 

[Ishagu]

Yeah skirmish style games can have more rule complexity because of the low model count.

[TorvaldTheMild]

 

Yeah I prefer the old system. But we ain't gonna get it back as GW no longer care in the slightest about realism or complexity.

GW never cared about realism lol

 

You want something from this hobby which it's never been about.

 

That isn't true in the slightest.  The rules were far more realistic in editions past.  Wound and Toughness, morale, instant death, vehicle damage (even though this editions vehicles are better, but the previous editions it was more realistic) firing arcs, challenges, armour facings, blast and flame templates and all the special rules we had.  I'm not saying which is better or worse bat in previous editions there has been tonnes of realism.  Now its just a game like any other. 

Edited November 14, 2019 by TorvaldTheMild

[TrawlingCleaner]

 

 

Yeah I prefer the old system. But we ain't gonna get it back as GW no longer care in the slightest about realism or complexity.

GW never cared about realism lol

 

You want something from this hobby which it's never been about.

 

That isn't true in the slightest.  The rules were far more realistic in editions past.  Wound and Toughness, morale, instant death, vehicle damage (even though this editions vehicles are better, but the previous editions it was more realistic) firing arcs, challenges, armour facings, blast and flame templates and all the special rules we had.  I'm not saying which is better or worse bat in previous editions there has been tonnes of realism.  Now its just a game like any other. 

 

 

I can kinda see where you're coming from but I really don't agree. Sure stuff had firing arcs, armour facings etc but to suggest that the game has been "realistic" in the past is really pushing it. You have to suspend disbelief to even look at any of the races/weapons/armour/any aspect of the setting, why bother bringing realism into it? I agree with Ishagu, this game has never been about realism and hopefully never will be.

[TorvaldTheMild]

 

 

 

Yeah I prefer the old system. But we ain't gonna get it back as GW no longer care in the slightest about realism or complexity.

GW never cared about realism lol

 

You want something from this hobby which it's never been about.

 

That isn't true in the slightest.  The rules were far more realistic in editions past.  Wound and Toughness, morale, instant death, vehicle damage (even though this editions vehicles are better, but the previous editions it was more realistic) firing arcs, challenges, armour facings, blast and flame templates and all the special rules we had.  I'm not saying which is better or worse bat in previous editions there has been tonnes of realism.  Now its just a game like any other. 

 

 

I can kinda see where you're coming from but I really don't agree. Sure stuff had firing arcs, armour facings etc but to suggest that the game has been "realistic" in the past is really pushing it. You have to suspend disbelief to even look at any of the races/weapons/armour/any aspect of the setting, why bother bringing realism into it? I agree with Ishagu, this game has never been about realism and hopefully never will be.

 

Yeah its based in a non-realistic setting, but you can still make it realistic within that setting.  Just because its in the 41st millennium and has races of aliens doesn't mean that that and realism are mutually exclusive.  Saying the game now is more realistic than the past or that the past didn't devote a lot of time in making realistic rules, especially compared to now is stretching it.

Edited November 14, 2019 by TorvaldTheMild

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

 

 

Yeah I prefer the old system. But we ain't gonna get it back as GW no longer care in the slightest about realism or complexity.

GW never cared about realism lol

 

You want something from this hobby which it's never been about.

 

That isn't true in the slightest.  The rules were far more realistic in editions past.  Wound and Toughness, morale, instant death, vehicle damage (even though this editions vehicles are better, but the previous editions it was more realistic) firing arcs, challenges, armour facings, blast and flame templates and all the special rules we had.  I'm not saying which is better or worse bat in previous editions there has been tonnes of realism.  Now its just a game like any other. 

 

 

I can kinda see where you're coming from but I really don't agree. Sure stuff had firing arcs, armour facings etc but to suggest that the game has been "realistic" in the past is really pushing it. You have to suspend disbelief to even look at any of the races/weapons/armour/any aspect of the setting, why bother bringing realism into it? I agree with Ishagu, this game has never been about realism and hopefully never will be.

 

Yeah its based in a non-realistic setting, but you can still make it realistic within that setting.  Just because its in the 41st millennium and has races of aliens doesn't mean that that and realism are mutually exclusive.  Saying the game now is more realistic than the past or that the past didn't devote a lot of time in making realistic rules, especially compared to now is stretching it.

 

 

They know what you are talking about, they are just misconstruing your point so they can seem insightful and intelligent. 

[Brother Casman]

Do we really need to have a rehash of the whole "I think X old mechanic is better than Y new mechanic" argument again? GW has said time and again, in various media, that the rules-as-written are just a foundation/framework for the game. If you like how things worked before, why not bring in the old mechanic into the new game? Talk with your gaming group and give the whole thing a tweak or two. Arguments on an internet forum with international reach aren't going to change anything about the game, but chats with your friends and favourite enemies can.

 

I personally still use older line of sight rules and pseudo-facings in my games.

[Marshal Rohr]

Do we really need to have a rehash of the whole "I think X old mechanic is better than Y new mechanic" argument again? GW has said time and again, in various media, that the rules-as-written are just a foundation/framework for the game. If you like how things worked before, why not bring in the old mechanic into the new game? Talk with your gaming group and give the whole thing a tweak or two. Arguments on an internet forum with international reach aren't going to change anything about the game, but chats with your friends and favourite enemies can.

 

I personally still use older line of sight rules and pseudo-facings in my games.

 

As long as the 'you're stupid if you don't like AbStRaCtIoN' crowd rolls into every single thread when someone asks a question, the merry go round will spin. This is like the 4th Thread in a row where someone has talked about over-streamlining removing something, and get badgered with 'everything is fine, shut up'. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current system, and there is nothing wrong with wanting it to be deeper.

Edited November 14, 2019 by Marshal Rohr