70 replies to this topic

[Panzer]

 

I don't understand the need for a combined roll.  The save roll isn't complicated or taxing, it adds an element of agency for the other player and it adds a dynamic of the armour itself, which is extremely important in 40k, with everything between terminators and t-shirt saves.  I can't see why anyone would want to combine the roll and get rid of armour saves.  Also in a D6 game its impossible to express the type of armour in the game with a D6.

It's not hard at all actually, you just need to play with statistics. The first and foremost largest problem 40k faces currently is dice roll bloat; the game has too many god damn dice for too many weapons. Ideally, both for our sanity and shortening game time from the insane bloat, one model should only ever get one roll, and possibly that should be reduced as well to something more akin to apocalypse (or lion rampant) - a unit has a degrading profile based on the losses it sustains. One thing I would absolutely scrap as completely nonsensical is weapon differentiation. There is no point in classifying missile launchers, lascannons, multi meltas, fusion guns, etc as different weapons.

 

All we need is three classifications of weapon type - light, medium, and heavy. Tactically and strategically, a lascannon or meltagun do not differ enough to justify different statlines compared to how they would perform in combat. Same goes with melee weapons. We don't need thunder hammers, power fists, scythes, swords, chainswords, etc. We just need light, medium, and heavy melee weapons. How you model your units really shouldn't matter as what does matter is how the weapon is used by a squad, and not so much how that weapon works. It'd be like having different rules for different small arms in historical wargames - the stopping power of an MP44 vs an M1 Garand don't matter on the scale we're trying to represent. What matters is if the squad is suppressed, taking casualties, or if what's being fired at them can even hurt them.

 

 

I wouldn't mind fewer rolls if it also means dice with more sides. Like a d12 or such. If we stick with d6 I really don't want things to be more swingy.

[Jukkiz]

When guardsmen can wound warlord with certain roll of D6 you know game is somewhere wrong

[Panzer]

That argument never worked for me. Yes a Guardsman can wound a Warlord on a 6, however you need a TON of Guardsmen for it to actually matter and it's not like a Warlord is 100% invincible either. It too has exposed vulnerable bits a lucky shot can hit every once in a blue moon. If you seriously think you can use Guardsmen to kill a Warlord in actual games you are in for a rough time.

[TorvaldTheMild]

 

I don't understand the need for a combined roll.  The save roll isn't complicated or taxing, it adds an element of agency for the other player and it adds a dynamic of the armour itself, which is extremely important in 40k, with everything between terminators and t-shirt saves.  I can't see why anyone would want to combine the roll and get rid of armour saves.  Also in a D6 game its impossible to express the type of armour in the game with a D6.

It's not hard at all actually, you just need to play with statistics. The first and foremost largest problem 40k faces currently is dice roll bloat; the game has too many god damn dice for too many weapons. Ideally, both for our sanity and shortening game time from the insane bloat, one model should only ever get one roll, and possibly that should be reduced as well to something more akin to apocalypse (or lion rampant) - a unit has a degrading profile based on the losses it sustains. One thing I would absolutely scrap as completely nonsensical is weapon differentiation. There is no point in classifying missile launchers, lascannons, multi meltas, fusion guns, etc as different weapons.

 

All we need is three classifications of weapon type - light, medium, and heavy. Tactically and strategically, a lascannon or meltagun do not differ enough to justify different statlines compared to how they would perform in combat. Same goes with melee weapons. We don't need thunder hammers, power fists, scythes, swords, chainswords, etc. We just need light, medium, and heavy melee weapons. How you model your units really shouldn't matter as what does matter is how the weapon is used by a squad, and not so much how that weapon works. It'd be like having different rules for different small arms in historical wargames - the stopping power of an MP44 vs an M1 Garand don't matter on the scale we're trying to represent. What matters is if the squad is suppressed, taking casualties, or if what's being fired at them can even hurt them.

 

No it is hard, you can't express the spectrum of both toughness and armour saves and ++ on a D6, statistics have nothing to do with it.  GW are dead set on the D6 system.

Edited by TorvaldTheMild, 28 November 2019 - 02:49 PM.

[Volt]

 

 

I don't understand the need for a combined roll.  The save roll isn't complicated or taxing, it adds an element of agency for the other player and it adds a dynamic of the armour itself, which is extremely important in 40k, with everything between terminators and t-shirt saves.  I can't see why anyone would want to combine the roll and get rid of armour saves.  Also in a D6 game its impossible to express the type of armour in the game with a D6.

It's not hard at all actually, you just need to play with statistics. The first and foremost largest problem 40k faces currently is dice roll bloat; the game has too many god damn dice for too many weapons. Ideally, both for our sanity and shortening game time from the insane bloat, one model should only ever get one roll, and possibly that should be reduced as well to something more akin to apocalypse (or lion rampant) - a unit has a degrading profile based on the losses it sustains. One thing I would absolutely scrap as completely nonsensical is weapon differentiation. There is no point in classifying missile launchers, lascannons, multi meltas, fusion guns, etc as different weapons.

 

All we need is three classifications of weapon type - light, medium, and heavy. Tactically and strategically, a lascannon or meltagun do not differ enough to justify different statlines compared to how they would perform in combat. Same goes with melee weapons. We don't need thunder hammers, power fists, scythes, swords, chainswords, etc. We just need light, medium, and heavy melee weapons. How you model your units really shouldn't matter as what does matter is how the weapon is used by a squad, and not so much how that weapon works. It'd be like having different rules for different small arms in historical wargames - the stopping power of an MP44 vs an M1 Garand don't matter on the scale we're trying to represent. What matters is if the squad is suppressed, taking casualties, or if what's being fired at them can even hurt them.

 

No it is hard, you can't express the spectrum of both toughness and armour saves in on D6, statistics have nothing to do with it.

 

The answer is to simply not allow certain weapons to harm some units.

[Arkaniss]

Aside from many of the other points: it adds inclusion for the other player in your turn. Having to sit and watch whilst your minis are decimated (I’m only going by my own gaming record here against WarriorFish XD ) and having zero involvement would be hugely deflating.

BCC

This is it. It's something I feel very strongly about - player agency and involvement. Having your armour save reduced to a 6+ might be frustrating but you still have a chance for example. Having something to do during your opponents turn and perhaps more importantly having some decision (even if it is random dice rolling) over the result is vitally important to an enjoyable game whether you won or lost.

 

It's why I'm not a fan of Mortal Wounds. They can be dished out with no defence and removing the opposing players agency is bad for the game. No one likes sitting there watching your opponent rolling loads of dice and just taking your models off the board. The more involved a player is in a turn the more fun they will have

[Jukkiz]

That argument never worked for me. Yes a Guardsman can wound a Warlord on a 6, however you need a TON of Guardsmen for it to actually matter and it's not like a Warlord is 100% invincible either. It too has exposed vulnerable bits a lucky shot can hit every once in a blue moon. If you seriously think you can use Guardsmen to kill a Warlord in actual games you are in for a rough time.

I don´t mean it bad way, it just seems weird. Though this edition is all about one thing adn spam shooting to negate every saving throw while everything sits in bubble.

Maybe we need more mortar types to just nuke those bubbles.

Though apocalypse (new one) showed some ideas about new dice mechanic too

Edited by Jukkiz, 28 November 2019 - 02:53 PM.

[TorvaldTheMild]

 

 

 

I don't understand the need for a combined roll.  The save roll isn't complicated or taxing, it adds an element of agency for the other player and it adds a dynamic of the armour itself, which is extremely important in 40k, with everything between terminators and t-shirt saves.  I can't see why anyone would want to combine the roll and get rid of armour saves.  Also in a D6 game its impossible to express the type of armour in the game with a D6.

It's not hard at all actually, you just need to play with statistics. The first and foremost largest problem 40k faces currently is dice roll bloat; the game has too many god damn dice for too many weapons. Ideally, both for our sanity and shortening game time from the insane bloat, one model should only ever get one roll, and possibly that should be reduced as well to something more akin to apocalypse (or lion rampant) - a unit has a degrading profile based on the losses it sustains. One thing I would absolutely scrap as completely nonsensical is weapon differentiation. There is no point in classifying missile launchers, lascannons, multi meltas, fusion guns, etc as different weapons.

 

All we need is three classifications of weapon type - light, medium, and heavy. Tactically and strategically, a lascannon or meltagun do not differ enough to justify different statlines compared to how they would perform in combat. Same goes with melee weapons. We don't need thunder hammers, power fists, scythes, swords, chainswords, etc. We just need light, medium, and heavy melee weapons. How you model your units really shouldn't matter as what does matter is how the weapon is used by a squad, and not so much how that weapon works. It'd be like having different rules for different small arms in historical wargames - the stopping power of an MP44 vs an M1 Garand don't matter on the scale we're trying to represent. What matters is if the squad is suppressed, taking casualties, or if what's being fired at them can even hurt them.

 

No it is hard, you can't express the spectrum of both toughness and armour saves in on D6, statistics have nothing to do with it.

 

The answer is to simply not allow certain weapons to harm some units.

 

You still need a system to roll for and that wouldn't work, say you do it on AP, there are weapons that are really strong like autocannons etc. with low AP or scatter lasers etc. for them to be lumped into the same category as lasguns would be silly.  Same with toughness, there are some weapons that are low in strength but high in AP and damage.  You'd have to change the whole game to incorporate this idea.

[Plasmablasts]

I wouldn’t want to lose the differentiation of weapons in 40k and replacement with very generic categories: not because it’s a bad idea - I can see it working very well in other war games - but because I think it would lose one of things which makes 40k 40k. The distinct tabletop existence of meltaguns, plasma guns, power fists, thunder hammers et al are as much part of the DNA of 40k as Marines, Chaos and skulls on everything.

[Volt]

 

 

 

 

I don't understand the need for a combined roll.  The save roll isn't complicated or taxing, it adds an element of agency for the other player and it adds a dynamic of the armour itself, which is extremely important in 40k, with everything between terminators and t-shirt saves.  I can't see why anyone would want to combine the roll and get rid of armour saves.  Also in a D6 game its impossible to express the type of armour in the game with a D6.

It's not hard at all actually, you just need to play with statistics. The first and foremost largest problem 40k faces currently is dice roll bloat; the game has too many god damn dice for too many weapons. Ideally, both for our sanity and shortening game time from the insane bloat, one model should only ever get one roll, and possibly that should be reduced as well to something more akin to apocalypse (or lion rampant) - a unit has a degrading profile based on the losses it sustains. One thing I would absolutely scrap as completely nonsensical is weapon differentiation. There is no point in classifying missile launchers, lascannons, multi meltas, fusion guns, etc as different weapons.

 

All we need is three classifications of weapon type - light, medium, and heavy. Tactically and strategically, a lascannon or meltagun do not differ enough to justify different statlines compared to how they would perform in combat. Same goes with melee weapons. We don't need thunder hammers, power fists, scythes, swords, chainswords, etc. We just need light, medium, and heavy melee weapons. How you model your units really shouldn't matter as what does matter is how the weapon is used by a squad, and not so much how that weapon works. It'd be like having different rules for different small arms in historical wargames - the stopping power of an MP44 vs an M1 Garand don't matter on the scale we're trying to represent. What matters is if the squad is suppressed, taking casualties, or if what's being fired at them can even hurt them.

 

No it is hard, you can't express the spectrum of both toughness and armour saves in on D6, statistics have nothing to do with it.

 

The answer is to simply not allow certain weapons to harm some units.

 

You still need a system to roll for and that wouldn't work, say you do it on AP, there are weapons that are really strong like autocannons etc. with low AP or scatter lasers etc. for them to be lumped into the same category as lasguns would be silly.  Same with toughness, there are some weapons that are low in strength but high in AP and damage.  You'd have to change the whole game to incorporate this idea.

 

It'd be based on strength, not AP. Autocannons should be a medium weapon due to being an intermediate between a large small arms caliber and full cannon such as is mounted on the Russ.

 

I wouldn’t want to lose the differentiation of weapons in 40k and replacement with very generic categories: not because it’s a bad idea - I can see it working very well in other war games - but because I think it would lose one of things which makes 40k 40k. The distinct tabletop existence of meltaguns, plasma guns, power fists, thunder hammers et al are as much part of the DNA of 40k as Marines, Chaos and skulls on everything.

None of these are actually important in rules and can still be modeled. But there is no point in actually bothering to separate weapon types so distinctly in a manner that doesn't even make sense. It just wastes time and bloats the rules up. We don't need to know the minutia of difference between a power fist and a thunderhammer when both weapons do more or less the exact same thing in the exact same manner.

[TorvaldTheMild]

Well what about weapons like Kraken bolts etc.  You'd end up having to make it as strong as a heavy bolter to express its armour piercing properties, same with power weapons, there'd be no way of doing that with just strength, there would have to be no difference between most of them like powerswords/axes/mauls.  Again why would you want to do away with armour saves.  I don't get the reason for it.

[Wulf Vengis]

The point of my list train of thought was that combining armor save and toughness into one stat up to 12 our higher would reduce some of the complication and allow for AP, armor save, weapon strength, and toughness to be a more robust and unique line with a more balanced interactivity.

[TorvaldTheMild]

Fair enough, though do really think the game is over-complicated?  Its as simple as its ever been.

Edited by TorvaldTheMild, 29 November 2019 - 01:32 AM.

[mughi3]

Fair enough, though do really think the game is over-complicated?  Its as simple as its ever been.

Yes gameplay is super simple now, to the point I can use base 8th edition rules to play epic scale battles in a reasonable amount of time. what is complicated is all the stratagem bloat/command point spam combo list building.

every edition has additions and changes that are good but overall for "on the table" strategic gameplay 5th edition is still my favorite(I don't count anything before 3rd since that was a different skirmish style game VS the army style play afterward).

Edited by mughi3, 29 November 2019 - 01:41 AM.

[TorvaldTheMild]

Whats so complicated about strats?  Its as complicated as psychic powers.

[Panzer]

 

I wouldn’t want to lose the differentiation of weapons in 40k and replacement with very generic categories: not because it’s a bad idea - I can see it working very well in other war games - but because I think it would lose one of things which makes 40k 40k. The distinct tabletop existence of meltaguns, plasma guns, power fists, thunder hammers et al are as much part of the DNA of 40k as Marines, Chaos and skulls on everything.

None of these are actually important in rules and can still be modeled. But there is no point in actually bothering to separate weapon types so distinctly in a manner that doesn't even make sense. It just wastes time and bloats the rules up. We don't need to know the minutia of difference between a power fist and a thunderhammer when both weapons do more or less the exact same thing in the exact same manner.

 

Maybe you don't need to know the difference, but many of us WANT to. That's his point.

[Plasmablasts]

Exactly: when I first got into 40k, in 3rd edition, there were just “power weapons”, which ignored armour saves, and it felt bland. When at last (in 5th edition?), differentiation between axes, swords, etc, was introduced into the rules, it felt, to me, as though flavour had been added that had been missing before.

[MARK0SIAN]

I definitely love having to make the choice between taking an axe or a sword etc. Having the different weapons clearly differentiated in terms of their stats is a big part of 40k for me. I’d hate to see everything reduced to generic weapon types. You’d lose a lot of flavour that way.

[cretacianborn]

I have always wondered why the system isn't roll to hit, then roll armour saves, then roll wounds. That to me would represent the logical trajectory of a bolt or projectile. Does it hit, does it penetrate any armour, does it then wound. I'm sure there must be some game system or reason why, just a little niggle I've always had with it.

 

Just my two cents. Then again I haven't played tabletop since about 2001, I'm just here for the lore and hobby now!

[Berzul]

I have always wondered why the system isn't roll to hit, then roll armour saves, then roll wounds. That to me would represent the logical trajectory of a bolt or projectile. Does it hit, does it penetrate any armour, does it then wound. I'm sure there must be some game system or reason why, just a little niggle I've always had with it.

Just my two cents. Then again I haven't played tabletop since about 2001, I'm just here for the lore and hobby now!

As it was mentioned, its about agency.

Feels better for a player to "save" his guys right at the last moment, than to just watch how they get wounded off of the board.

May seem unrealistic, but makes for a much more satisfying experience, for YOU to habe the LAST ROLL that SAVES those who are YOUR guys.

As for the weapon standarization thing, I do feel like weapon profiles contribute. A weapon has more than strength or ap; it has mobility, rate of fire, and range.

Two S8 weapons might have many diferent uses. It all adds to the richness of the game.

[Wulf Vengis]

It's not necessarily that 8th is too complicated more along the lines of trying to do too much with a single d6. There's such a world of individualized weaponry in 40k that a 2d6 armor save system would allow that uniqueness to shine thorough. Furthermore that same 2d6 armor save being tied to the models Toughness would likewise simplify the weapon strength vs toughness and ap vs save interactions.

Example: a space marines 3+ would translate to a 9+ save (before AP adjustments).

Edited by Wulf Vengis, 29 November 2019 - 05:26 PM.

[Berzul]

Multi dice for armor would actually slow the game down A LOT.

 

If the goal is simplification and expediency, then that would not work well, I think.

[Wulf Vengis]

You may be right on that multi dice saves increasing time factor. I have to admit it's not the prefect system and i wish i could remember the actual workout my brain did the other night to put this together. I swear for the briefest of moments i had it figured out in my head and it worked.

Off topic: CHEAP I've got a pair of young, healthy runts here, CHEAP one male one, female, five years and 4 years respectively. WILL ACCEPT BITZ

Note: Sarcasm

[Panzer]

Yeah no, screw 2d6 armour saves on the regular 40k scale. You'd have to roll every single armour save for the dozens of wounds a unit might get individually (unless you have tons of differently coloured dice so you can roll easily distinguishable pairs together).

[Plasmablasts]

D12s might work (with new Apocalypse as the precedent).