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

[Lord_Starscream]

I have to say, of all the things in 8th that bother me, and less bothers me than 7th, the one thing that grinds me the most is the current to-wound chart. I'm going to lay out a few things here as to why. I wanna see what people think, which is why I'm posting this here.

 

The most immediate thing that strikes me, is that it was much more impactful for heavier anti-infantry weapons. Heavy Bolters could cut into T3 models on a 2+, reflecting that kind of firepower its bringing, instead, now, it's just a bolter, with -1 ap. 

 

Before, it was impossible to harm certain targets, with light weapons fire. A Lasgun should not be able to harm, say, a Land Raider. It's not possible under any reasonable or rational circumstances.

 

The current chart often favours weight of dice over any other factor, certainly, more AP and wounds always help, but if you've got the shots, spamming those shots will increase success, they've gotta fail an armour save sometime.

 

I also like the previous chart because it helped with target priority as a whole, and I think would have benefited from the new split fire rules.

 

But, maybe I'm just cranky and old. 

[MegaVolt87]

I somewhat agree, though the mass shots is probably more to do with crap AT capability in some forces to make them work without creating new viable AT assets for them. Having a USR type rule to ignore -1 and -0 AP shooting and melee would help a lot for things like LR's etc. The whole point of that stuff is to ignore that type of weaponry completely. 

[Lord_Starscream]

I somewhat agree, though the mass shots is probably more to do with crap AT capability in some forces to make them work without creating new viable AT assets for them. Having a USR type rule to ignore -1 and -0 AP shooting and melee would help a lot for things like LR's etc. The whole point of that stuff is to ignore that type of weaponry completely. 

 

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

[Lord_Caerolion]

Most S10+ weapons will probably also have a Damage characteristic to kill the character outright, from memory.

[The Unseen]

Yeah, lasguns can strip a wound off a land raider.

So?

It's pretty damn unlikely, and it has 16 of them.

Like, .0009 wounds caused.

You need a hundred shots to cause a single frikkin wound.

I'd say that's about right on the odds of shooting, idk, an exposed cable or targetting lense and causing minor damage.

 

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.

 

The middling strength of anti infantry weapons has little to do with the new wound chart and more to do with GWs reluctance to actually make use of the expanded range of strength/toughness available.

If guard were T3, Marines T5, APCs 7, tanks 9 or 10, and super heavy stuff 12, or even more spread out, you could see weapons like the heavy bolter at Str 6 or 7, autocannons at 8, and lascannons at 14.

But instead the whole thing is squished between T3 and T8.

 

And I'm so glad that Instant Death is gone.

That 200 pt character that isn't one of like 5 unique guys gets slapped with a power fist? Dead.

Hive Tyrant gets poked in the foot by an Astropaths blind staff flailing? DEAD.

Most weapons that wouldve caused instant death now just do a lot of damage, and suddenly tougher characters can just have more wounds, rather than having to staple on *ignore this rule* and having weird break points by sticking someone on a bike or cavalry model.

[GrinNfool]

 

I somewhat agree, though the mass shots is probably more to do with crap AT capability in some forces to make them work without creating new viable AT assets for them. Having a USR type rule to ignore -1 and -0 AP shooting and melee would help a lot for things like LR's etc. The whole point of that stuff is to ignore that type of weaponry completely. 

 

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

 

Don't miss ID at all... that needed to go, the fact almost every character needed to have eternal warrior or was almost instantly considered bad was a signal it needed to go. 

 

As far as the wound chart, I think something in the middle would be best.  IE, s5 wounds t3 on 2s, but I am still fine with everything being able to wound everything on 6s, just let it hit that quicker.  S3 wounds t5 on 6s as an example instead of 5s at present.  I don't view the anything can wound anything part as problematic.  It takes  34.6 lasguns in rapid fire to AVERAGE 1 wound on a LR, 70 s3 shots roughly, or s4 for that matter.  If you are desperate enough to dump that level of fire power into my tank so be it, I'll take the wound.

[Lord_Caerolion]

As others have said, they should have just taken advantage of the uncapped stats. The issue before wasn't that Strength/Toughness etc stopped at 10, it's that being limited to 10 created weird issues where things got given the same value when they shouldn't be, but because being one higher or lower also didn't fit. Now it's no longer limited, but they've kept everything the same.

[chapter master 454]

Yeah, lasguns can strip a wound off a land raider.

So?

It's pretty damn unlikely, and it has 16 of them.

Like, .0009 wounds caused.

I'd say that's about right on the odds of shooting, idk, an exposed cable or targetting lense and causing minor damage.

 

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.

 

The middling strength of anti infantry weapons has little to do with the new wound chart and more to do with GWs reluctance to actually make use of the expanded range of strength/toughness available.

If guard were T3, Marines T5,

 

I concur.

 

The issue is that GW hasn't really taken the steps to change statlines to fit with 8th edition proper.

 

Apparently with just physical training from being on space Australia you can be just as strong as a marine who has gone through bio-engineered augments, the same training if not worse than space Australia. Oh and let me also remind you that is also including their power armour.

Just throwing that out there.

 

if I were to put a number for Strength and toughness, here is the ball parks

Guardsmen = 3

Ork/Peak Human = 4

Space Marine = 5

Custodes = 6

 

I would also add that armour should augment toughness more, things like Terminators, Aggressors and Centurions should be 6, Custodes in Allarus should be 7.

 

Also, anything super-human (Space Marines, Custodes and the like) should NEVER have less than 1 wound and 1 attack. Never.

[Ishagu]

Neither one is better. The new one is more straightforward.

[Marshal Loss]

I definitely do miss S6/7 weapons wounding T4 on 2's

[Captain_Krash]

8th only changed it to make it more straight forward and easier to use. Game plays faster. I don't like it...like at all. But I can still play Horus Heresy to go back to what I enjoy and have a much more tactical game.

 

Krash

[Lord_Starscream]

I'll be honest.

 

It doesn't really play faster. Most people can't do basic math. I know the old and new wound charts off by heart, it's very easy for both. Neither of these charts are difficult. I've watched as people have struggled over figuring out if their S3 Lasgun hurts a Deathguard on 5 or 6 because they genuinely don't know.

[Captain_Krash]

Oh I completely agree and I miss the complexity of older editions. It just seems easier for a new player to understand immediately (example) "this guardsmen hits on a 4+ and his lasgun wounds that Landraider on a 6+" type of situation.

 

Krash

[chapter master 454]

I'll be honest.

 

It doesn't really play faster. Most people can't do basic math. I know the old and new wound charts off by heart, it's very easy for both. Neither of these charts are difficult. I've watched as people have struggled over figuring out if their S3 Lasgun hurts a Deathguard on 5 or 6 because they genuinely don't know.

 

It hurts because I do see this. I can understand maybe missing some part of your rules when using a new army or something new within your army (had to help a necron player as he was duplicate taking powers for his C'Tans when he couldn't, easy miss when excited to try a new toy!) but come on. Then again I come from things like Yu-Gi-Oh, Magic and Vanguard where throwing numbers around was so common, quick maths was a good thing to have.

 

However I will comment that the new table is technically easier because the difference is so minor really. By all accounts though you can recreate the old table into the new one without issue.

 

Strength greater than Toughess by 2 or more = 2+

Strength greater than Toughess by 1 = 3+

Strength Equal to Toughness = 4+

Strength less than Toughness by 1 = 5+

Strength less than Toughnes by 2 or more = 6+

 

There. Boom done. However I would comment it did rapidly become apparent that toughness as easily overcome (by the same token people say marines getting wounded by assault cannons and autocannons on 2s, it meant autocannons and such also wounded plague marines and the like on 2s as well. Not very tough for tough units).

The new table helps in allowing some scaling in toughness. Granted as stated GW didn't adjust the stats accordingly (things like possibly making bolters Strength 5 could be a legit thing for astartes pattern bolters) but now, marines got a nice boost in being able to tank shots a bit better (an autocannon is basically a tank cannon by all accounts and marines can have a good chance of just taking on the chin, no armour needed).

[Lord_Starscream]

 

I'll be honest.

 

It doesn't really play faster. Most people can't do basic math. I know the old and new wound charts off by heart, it's very easy for both. Neither of these charts are difficult. I've watched as people have struggled over figuring out if their S3 Lasgun hurts a Deathguard on 5 or 6 because they genuinely don't know.

 

It hurts because I do see this. I can understand maybe missing some part of your rules when using a new army or something new within your army (had to help a necron player as he was duplicate taking powers for his C'Tans when he couldn't, easy miss when excited to try a new toy!) but come on. Then again I come from things like Yu-Gi-Oh, Magic and Vanguard where throwing numbers around was so common, quick maths was a good thing to have.

 

However I will comment that the new table is technically easier because the difference is so minor really. By all accounts though you can recreate the old table into the new one without issue.

 

Strength greater than Toughess by 2 or more = 2+

Strength greater than Toughess by 1 = 3+

Strength Equal to Toughness = 4+

Strength less than Toughness by 1 = 5+

Strength less than Toughnes by 2 or more = 6+

 

There. Boom done. However I would comment it did rapidly become apparent that toughness as easily overcome (by the same token people say marines getting wounded by assault cannons and autocannons on 2s, it meant autocannons and such also wounded plague marines and the like on 2s as well. Not very tough for tough units).

The new table helps in allowing some scaling in toughness. Granted as stated GW didn't adjust the stats accordingly (things like possibly making bolters Strength 5 could be a legit thing for astartes pattern bolters) but now, marines got a nice boost in being able to tank shots a bit better (an autocannon is basically a tank cannon by all accounts and marines can have a good chance of just taking on the chin, no armour needed).

 

 

But unlike the old system, there is no cutoff.

 

There is no "hey, you literally can't hurt this". 

 

IRL, an AR-15 firing on a T-90M, is going to have all the impact of a dust mite attacking me. I'm not just arguing the chart is broken because its unnecessary (and I think it is) as I see people fail at it regardless, I'm arguing that any system where anything can hurt anything, that has a massive variance in the units, is ridiculous. It was ridiculous when my Primaris Minotaurs hosed down a Dreadnaught with Bolt Rifle fire. It's just not something that should have been possible.

[toaae]

IRL, an AR-15 firing on a T-90M, is going to have all the impact of a dust mite attacking me. I'm not just arguing the chart is broken because its unnecessary (and I think it is) as I see people fail at it regardless, I'm arguing that any system where anything can hurt anything, that has a massive variance in the units, is ridiculous. It was ridiculous when my Primaris Minotaurs hosed down a Dreadnaught with Bolt Rifle fire. It's just not something that should have been possible.

 

 

This gets points out each time this pointed is made, but in 40k, Bolters and Lasguns are not comparable to AR-15s. The former fires literal rockets and the latter can blow a hole in a concrete wall.

 

Also, it was a conscious decision on the part of the game designers to have everything be capable of wounding everything. It was in the articles published on Warhammer Community prior to the release of the edition. It was a decision made for gamplay purposes, not as some kind of simulation mechanic. When you have no chance for large number of weapons to have an effect, it's not as fun a game.

[Captain_Krash]

 

IRL, an AR-15 firing on a T-90M, is going to have all the impact of a dust mite attacking me. I'm not just arguing the chart is broken because its unnecessary (and I think it is) as I see people fail at it regardless, I'm arguing that any system where anything can hurt anything, that has a massive variance in the units, is ridiculous. It was ridiculous when my Primaris Minotaurs hosed down a Dreadnaught with Bolt Rifle fire. It's just not something that should have been possible.

 

 

This gets points out each time this pointed is made, but in 40k, Bolters and Lasguns are not comparable to AR-15s. The former fires literal rockets and the latter can blow a hole in a concrete wall.

 

Also, it was a conscious decision on the part of the game designers to have everything be capable of wounding everything. It was in the articles published on Warhammer Community prior to the release of the edition. It was a decision made for gamplay purposes, not as some kind of simulation mechanic. When you have no chance for large number of weapons to have an effect, it's not as fun a game.

 

 

It worked fine for 5 editions...lore wise armor is thick...vehicles are huge and small arms fire should not be able to damage them. A Lasgun can damage a Warlord titan...really? This is okay?

 

Krash.

[Lord_Starscream]

 

IRL, an AR-15 firing on a T-90M, is going to have all the impact of a dust mite attacking me. I'm not just arguing the chart is broken because its unnecessary (and I think it is) as I see people fail at it regardless, I'm arguing that any system where anything can hurt anything, that has a massive variance in the units, is ridiculous. It was ridiculous when my Primaris Minotaurs hosed down a Dreadnaught with Bolt Rifle fire. It's just not something that should have been possible.

 

 

This gets points out each time this pointed is made, but in 40k, Bolters and Lasguns are not comparable to AR-15s. The former fires literal rockets and the latter can blow a hole in a concrete wall.

 

Also, it was a conscious decision on the part of the game designers to have everything be capable of wounding everything. It was in the articles published on Warhammer Community prior to the release of the edition. It was a decision made for gamplay purposes, not as some kind of simulation mechanic. When you have no chance for large number of weapons to have an effect, it's not as fun a game.

 

 

Interestingly enough, I personally find it to be the exact opposite. It takes me out of the game immediately. It's not really a good representation of the world (as in, 40k, not our world). It's basically saying:

 

"Well, you brought the wrong units to the field, or you played wrong, Jimmy. But in order for you to feel better about the fact that you messed up, why don't I give you a degraded chance to put that unit down over there? Wouldn't that make ya feel better JImmy? See? Don't feel bad that he's descending on you with that C'tan, your guardsmen, their lasguns can put a few wounds off him."

 

It makes the system silly.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Take a few Wounds off? Sure. Concentrated weight of fire from lasguns should be able to at least damage a few pistons on that Warlord Titan, etc. Much better than "sorry Jimmy, you were expecting a take-all-comers list, but you didn't bring enough dedicated anti-tank for this list, so now that I've destroyed your best units for taking my down, so just sit back and get ready for 5 more turns of no fun for you whatsoever."

[Lord_Starscream]

Take a few Wounds off? Sure. Concentrated weight of fire from lasguns should be able to at least damage a few pistons on that Warlord Titan, etc. Much better than "sorry Jimmy, you were expecting a take-all-comers list, but you didn't bring enough dedicated anti-tank for this list, so now that I've destroyed your best units for taking my down, so just sit back and get ready for 5 more turns of no fun for you whatsoever."

 

Right now, 40k games are being decided in the first half of the game, turn 1, 2, and sometimes 3. These games are decided, whether the wound chart makes any rational sense or not.

 

They aren't going to have 'fun' either way. It's an illusion that breaks immersion at best.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Again, these are guns that can punch holes in concrete at their weakest. I have no issues with concentrated fire from those causing superficial damage to Titans.

[Lord_Starscream]

Again, these are guns that can punch holes in concrete at their weakest. I have no issues with concentrated fire from those causing superficial damage to Titans.

 

A US 50mm Anti-Tank gun can screw up a concrete bunker.

 

And bounce helplessly off the surface of a Tiger-1, Panther, or King Tiger. The Titans themselves are armoured in such an extent, that Lasguns (which I might add, definitely do NOT have the punching power of a 50mm at gun) would be completely impotent. Just adding "weight of fire" is meaningless if the weapon itself just doesn't work for that purpose. 

 

Lasgun versus heavy armour, Knight, or Titan, would be like attacking a tank with a bow and arrow. 

[Exilyth]

Being able to wound anything is modelling the insignificant improbable posibility that the comissar looks out of the tank cupola and prepares to order "drive me closer, I want to hit them with my sword!" just as you fire your gun right through his or her head, making them drop their turned-on power sword which falls right into the drivers secret reserve stash of liqor, covering the inside of the tank in a sticky inflammable liquid and igniting said liquid at the same time, setting off the remaining ammunition and blowing up the tank, setting off a chain reaction that blows up the whole vehicle column all the way back to base, sending a shockwave that makes the commanding officier drop their cigar into their amasec, which is a real shame as it completely ruins their day. Doesn't anyone care about the lives and material lost as the next wave is send in like nothing happened but damn what a waste of a fine amasec. Erm... what where we getting at here?

 

Oh, right, rules.

 

Rules are an abstraction and as such are a compromise between different, often diametrally opposed goals like realism, balance, ease of use, simplicity, tightness, modularity and so on.

 

With 8th edition we've seen a move away from armour towards wound count.

That vehicles only had 1 wound back in the day is something that often gets overlooked.

 

Having barely winnable games is better than having unwinnable games.

Five marines w/bolters vs. a land raider?

Now they've got a chance, back in the day the game was over because there was no use playing on.

 

The game is also less hard & harsh for new players, who often can only field few units without or with the wrong special/heavy weapon options.

Back in the day, they would have lost their one lascannon and melter (ofc, running something silly like one squad with power sword sgt, melter, heavy bolter and one squad with auspex, lascannon and flamer) and would have been forced to concede right then and there, being unable to influence the game (in other words: suffered a crushing defeat).

Now they can play on and still participate, maybe even eeking out that improbable win.

[Lord_Starscream]

Being able to wound anything is modelling the insignificant improbable posibility that the comissar looks out of the tank cupola and prepares to order "drive me closer, I want to hit them with my sword!" just as you fire your gun right through his or her head, making them drop their turned-on power sword which falls right into the drivers secret reserve stash of liqor, covering the inside of the tank in a sticky inflammable liquid and igniting said liquid at the same time, setting off the remaining ammunition and blowing up the tank, setting off a chain reaction that blows up the whole vehicle column all the way back to base, sending a shockwave that makes the commanding officier drop their cigar into their amasec, which is a real shame as it completely ruins their day. Doesn't anyone care about the lives and material lost as the next wave is send in like nothing happened but damn what a waste of a fine amasec. Erm... what where we getting at here?

 

Oh, right, rules.

 

Rules are an abstraction and as such are a compromise between different, often diametrally opposed goals like realism, balance, ease of use, simplicity, tightness, modularity and so on.

 

With 8th edition we've seen a move away from armour towards wound count.

That vehicles only had 1 wound back in the day is something that often gets overlooked.

 

Having barely winnable games is better than having unwinnable games.

Five marines w/bolters vs. a land raider?

Now they've got a chance, back in the day the game was over because there was no use playing on.

 

The game is also less hard & harsh for new players, who often can only field few units without or with the wrong special/heavy weapon options.

Back in the day, they would have lost their one lascannon and melter (ofc, running something silly like one squad with power sword sgt, melter, heavy bolter and one squad with auspex, lascannon and flamer) and would have been forced to concede right then and there, being unable to influence the game (in other words: suffered a crushing defeat).

Now they can play on and still participate, maybe even eeking out that improbable win.

 

I've played for 25 years. I've eeked out tons of improbable wins, they just had things that made more sense. Moving towards ever greater simplicity, gives you something not worth investing in. Already, 40k's strayed so far from a Wargame I'd argue it might have more in common with MTG than other, more traditional tabletop games. A game that tries to be everything to a broader, and broader, and broader scope of people will inevitably fail, ironically. 

 

I would love a game, that even if its not perfect (I don't like true line of sight, myself, I enjoy abstract terrain rules for instance), at least has some degree of authenticity of the combat.

 

Making things continuously 'easier' eventually makes the game, while simultaneously making the game on average decided 2 turns earlier than previous editions, has really soured the game aspect of 40k to me. If I didn't love the lore, I'd probably have left by now.

[chapter master 454]

...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.