Too much 3+ BS?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

BS inflation will make things worse. Dialling back is better. What’s the point in rolling dice if it’s just not that random?

 

Votann should have been 4+ and probably on WS as well - what in their abhuman evolution made them better shots?

evolution doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with it. Just good training and experience.

 

 

Votann should have been 4+ and probably on WS as well - what in their abhuman evolution made them better shots?

In the old fluff, Squats were longer lived than baseline humans. That could translate into more experienced, better trained soldiers.

Good point. But in the Fantasy fluff, dwarves are longer-lived than humans, but still weren’t better shots. So either could be justified, I just have a slight suspicion there is a “we need the new range to sell, we’d better give them a good stat line” going on here - which, if true, is a little patronising to the customers. What do I know, maybe they ran a focus group?

in fantasy they were using smoothbore muzzle loaders that were inherently very inaccurate.

[Closet Skeleton]

There's way too much BS3+, but to hit penalties hurt low shot count BS4+ units a lot.

 

 

 

Tyranids i also agree should've kept to a 4+, because if genestealer cults are a 4+, it feels like they should be as well, just for consistency.

 

 

Little shooty bugs (Gargoyle, Termagant) are still BS 4+ - it's only big bugs (Tyranid Warriors, Ravenors etc) that are T 3+ . And not all of those (the Screamer-Killer is BS 4+ and has no Enhanced Senses upgrade option the way the other Carnifex variants do).

 

Warriors were 3+ with a Prime for a long time. The Big tyranids generally only have one main gun and maybe a backup gun so are close to tanks which keep getting buffed BS in other armies (with even the Ork Gunwagon hitting on 4s with the main gun) in place of shooting twice to get it.

[MegaVolt87]

Its not a BS stat issue, its a re-rolls problem. GW has forgotten its ok for things not to hit+wound at all. Re-rolls also slow down the game so much, a turn can look like a do-over/takesy backsies at this point. 

[Toldavf]

Its not a BS stat issue, its a re-rolls problem. GW has forgotten its ok for things not to hit+wound at all. Re-rolls also slow down the game so much, a turn can look like a do-over/takesy backsies at this point. 

There's something to be said here, back in the day re-rolls where thin on the ground. In allot of cases they where limited to melee units. 

 

The rules aside it does make the more elite armies like marines feel less well elite. Allot of the other armies now have basic troop that are better at shooting than marines. When I started playing marines had the best basic gun, now they are something like 5th or 6th? While yes that doesn't, or at least should have a massive impact on balance on the whole it does highlight how times have changed. 

 

It would serve to help with the game lethality to trim back allot of things in 40k. The question isn't what can be done about game balance, it is instead what will workshop bother to do?

[Closet Skeleton]

The rules aside it does make the more elite armies like marines feel less well elite. Allot of the other armies now have basic troop that are better at shooting than marines. When I started playing marines had the best basic gun, now they are something like 5th or 6th? While yes that doesn't, or at least should have a massive impact on balance on the whole it does highlight how times have changed.

 

 

Marines only had the best basic gun in 2nd edition when Eldar got lasguns. Shuriken Caterpults were better than Bolt Guns until 4th edition buffed rapid fire and by then Fire Warriors and the Gauss rule existed.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Closet Skeleton

[Plasmablasts]

I tend to feel that elite, unmodified humans (Sisters, Scions, Veterans) should be in a tier between standard trained humans (guardsmen) and Transhumans. If 40k used d12s instead of d6s, current BS 4+ would be 7+ and BS 3+ would be 5+, with a 6+ tier for the “elite unmodified”.

 

It won’t happen, as the d6 system seems to be regarded as a cornerstone of 40k’s identity, but that’s how I’d accommodate my head canon.

[Grand_Master_Alpharius]

 

 

 

No reason at all. The lore could easily support it, or support BS4+. GW could make either plausible.

 

All I’m trying to say is there seems a background drift up in stats: marines went to 2 wounds and attacks not long ago, some orks went to T5, now chaos going to 2 wounds and 3 attacks. In aggregate, is it improving the game?

 

This may be a sensible reaction to the trend to play with bigger models on smaller tables: just have smaller armies, then it’s ok then for every model to be a bit tougher, and a bit shootier is ok if everyone’s tougher. It just needs me to change my mindset I guess.

 

They were fairly open at the start of 9th that they wanted to broaden the stats of units and weapons in the game to get a bit more granularity, which makes sense, though i wish they would make better use of higher toughness in line with strength its been quite good at moving nearly all basic troops in the game away from a statline of 3/4 or 1 for all their stats

 

 

Str burst past 10, wounds vary immensely, Ld hits 11. I don't understand why T9 is forbidden

 

In my opinion, the biggest problem isn't BS, it isn't even re-rolls, it's Toughness. Speaking of a proper T9, I don't get why T2 isn't a thing either. if the toughness varied more, there would be no need for so much weapon creep.

 

A cultist/gaurdsman is absolutely appropriate at T2, so is a grot, and even a basically vat grown guant! If GW went down this rout, it would mean that a basic bolter with S4 wounds on a 2 and a lasgun with S3 wounds on a three, which is far more lore friendly than just upping everyone's strength on their weapons. I picked these two because they seem to be the benchmark to which all other weapons are judged. (Probably isn't actually true, but is still a fair comparison.)

 

To break this down further, Custodes are super high end genetically engineered creme of the crop in top of the line power armour, so T5 makes sense. Marines are transhuman super soldiers and in top of the line power armour so T4 makes sense. Sisters are baseline humans in top of the line power armour, (Eldar and Tau are also in good gear but humans are the best gauge here I feel) so T3 makes sense. Why are guardsman T3 and not T2 which would make more sense?They are also baseline, but they have little to no armour by comparison.

 

I get the saves are supposed to reflect how decent the armour is, but they have a perfectly good toughness mechanic, it could be used far better in my opinion. The same could be said for the ballistic and weapon skills and for mostly the same reasons, but GW seems so stuck in their rut of "this is how we have done it historically", that they seem really reluctant to broaden their outlook and make it a better game.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Grand_Master_Alpharius

[9x19 Parabellum]

Toughness can also reflect the psychological resilience of a model.  A Sorortias and an Imperial Guardsmen are essentially, physically, the same "toughness", but you could stat the SoB at T3 and the IG at T2 to reflect the sister's zeal or will to keep fighting despite getting shot. 

[Emperor Ming]

There's defiantly too much BS in this edition  

[Noserenda]

The Problem with dropping the average soldier to T2 is you have no real granularity left for the actually fragile as T1 isnt really practical for anything not actually made out of fine porcelain :D That and suddenly almost nothing is T3 apart from a few elites unless you think Tau and somehow exceptionally robust ;) 

Ideally they would set T5 as the average and boost all the strength values correspondingly so you have that granularity for weaker units but that means an Index edition to roll out evenly, and its certainly not something they are going to do any time soon just for that,  

[MegaVolt87]

The Problem with dropping the average soldier to T2 is you have no real granularity left for the actually fragile as T1 isnt really practical for anything not actually made out of fine porcelain That and suddenly almost nothing is T3 apart from a few elites unless you think Tau and somehow exceptionally robust  

 

Ideally they would set T5 as the average and boost all the strength values correspondingly so you have that granularity for weaker units but that means an Index edition to roll out evenly, and its certainly not something they are going to do any time soon just for that,  

 

I don't know, with the way and stats for a majority of weapons it already looks like the game is set at managing T5. The game would benefit more by balancing around GEQ, not the traditional MEQ. The effect of that would be a nerf on weapon stats and model counts increasing instead of stat bloat increase. 

[Grand_Master_Alpharius]

The Problem with dropping the average soldier to T2 is you have no real granularity left for the actually fragile as T1 isnt really practical for anything not actually made out of fine porcelain That and suddenly almost nothing is T3 apart from a few elites unless you think Tau and somehow exceptionally robust  

 

Ideally they would set T5 as the average and boost all the strength values correspondingly so you have that granularity for weaker units but that means an Index edition to roll out evenly, and its certainly not something they are going to do any time soon just for that,  

How much granularity do you need, do you think? I mean, are there any models with a T2 stat at the moment? To my knowledge the answer to that is no. So really what you're saying is moot. Making T5 the average and adjusting everything accordingly would be disastrous for the game as a whole, I mean everyone is already talking about bloat, that kind of action would force that bloat much higher. As far as I know T3 was always considered the average (the good old human halberdier), but that seems to have pushed out to T4, which is part of the problem. But, that is really only because T3 is as low as you can go right now, which is why I'm suggesting those that are squishy and without decent armour, move to T2.

 

What I am proposing here is a way to better bring the game into balance and in all fairness, not a great deal would change. The Tau are wearing their species equivalent of power armour, just like the eldar, just like the sisters, they all make sense to stay at T3, even scions with their ok armour can stay at T3. I'm talking those without decent armour or a reasonable claim to T3 moving to T2. In the long run it just makes sense and opens the way for GW to use the toughness characistic in a more dynamic way.

[spessmarine]

There are multiple levers to pull for the game of survivability.

Stats, so, toughness and wounds and save(s). Abilities, like FNP, heal, and ignore AP-1.

Sisters can have the same T and W as a Guardsmen, but that significantly better save is there. And special abilities.

 

 

I get the saves are supposed to reflect how decent the armour is, but they have a perfectly good toughness mechanic, it could be used far better in my opinion. The same could be said for the ballistic and weapon skills and for mostly the same reasons, but GW seems so stuck in their rut of "this is how we have done it historically", that they seem really reluctant to broaden their outlook and make it a better game.

 

Definitely some stubbornness at play, wild that SM were single wounded so long. Especially terminators!

Rather than trying to fluff dying to a single failed save against autogun shots. It is better that it is now impossible.

[BrainFireBob]

All depended on where you visualized the abstraction. Lot of these debates come down to that. Toughness can represent accessibility of vulnerable points as easily as straight toughness- or alternately the ability to disregard damage.

[Noserenda]

 

 

 

I don't know, with the way and stats for a majority of weapons it already looks like the game is set at managing T5. The game would benefit more by balancing around GEQ, not the traditional MEQ. The effect of that would be a nerf on weapon stats and model counts increasing instead of stat bloat increase. 

 

It works in much the same way to go down as up, people just hate the numbers getting smaller even when its happening to everyone. Going up gives you more wriggle room though, Warmahordes being a perfect example of both things when they divided all their points by 10, some people HATED it for some reason and they ran into some problems later on distinguishing units at the bottom end of the points scale, anecdotally anyway, i was out of the game at that point but a close friend was a pressganger who liked to vent sometimes :D 

 

 

 

How much granularity do you need, do you think? I mean, are there any models with a T2 stat at the moment? To my knowledge the answer to that is no. So really what you're saying is moot. Making T5 the average and adjusting everything accordingly would be disastrous for the game as a whole, I mean everyone is already talking about bloat, that kind of action would force that bloat much higher. As far as I know T3 was always considered the average (the good old human halberdier), but that seems to have pushed out to T4, which is part of the problem. But, that is really only because T3 is as low as you can go right now, which is why I'm suggesting those that are squishy and without decent armour, move to T2.

  

 

What I am proposing here is a way to better bring the game into balance and in all fairness, not a great deal would change. The Tau are wearing their species equivalent of power armour, just like the eldar, just like the sisters, they all make sense to stay at T3, even scions with their ok armour can stay at T3. I'm talking those without decent armour or a reasonable claim to T3 moving to T2. In the long run it just makes sense and opens the way for GW to use the toughness characistic in a more dynamic way.

 

Toughness 2 units have certainly existed, probably still do, honestly ive not got the time to go read every unit on waha pedia right now :D Your concept that T3 is the weakest possible is obviously flawed which really undermines your argument. Marines are extremely common yes, but overall T3 is still the "regular infantry" stat.

 

I would be interested to see how a universal adjustment could possibly cause bloat? Unlike your adjustment that would be a radical shift in power, anything dropping in toughness would see a significant drop in effectiveness, and a whole bunch of small arms would also be significantly more desirable. 

 

Having better armour gives you a better save, not Toughness, until you hit the "half way to a vehicle" type armours. I thought that was fairly obvious, i mean the clue is in the name ;) 

 

But seriously though, i really want you to explain how the bloat happens when you change everyones toughness at once.

[Lord Marshal]

 

How many shooting units do Khorne Daemons even have? Just the Skull Cannon? I don't have the 8E codex to check, but it sounds odd to even be considering them as an issue given that.

 

I mean that's kind of the point though isn't it?  Why does an army that never trains, practices or actually makes war with guns have BS3+? (regardless of their actual in-game efficacy...)

 

 

Daemons don't have to conform to silly things like reality.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Lord Marshal

[Azekai]

 

 

Toughness 2 units have certainly existed, probably still do, honestly ive not got the time to go read every unit on waha pedia right now Your concept that T3 is the weakest possible is obviously flawed which really undermines your argument. Marines are extremely common yes, but overall T3 is still the "regular infantry" stat.

'I can't be bothered to check but you are probably wrong lol' isn't much of an argument. No unit in 9th is T2, as far as I am aware. Nurglings and Horrors are all T3, even Brimstone Horrors. It seems that functionally T3 is not so much the 'standard' toughness as much as it is the weakest. Which seems about right, given the overall state of inflation in this game. 

 

 

[Closet Skeleton]

 

 

 

Toughness 2 units have certainly existed, probably still do, honestly ive not got the time to go read every unit on waha pedia right now Your concept that T3 is the weakest possible is obviously flawed which really undermines your argument. Marines are extremely common yes, but overall T3 is still the "regular infantry" stat.

'I can't be bothered to check but you are probably wrong lol' isn't much of an argument. No unit in 9th is T2, as far as I am aware. Nurglings and Horrors are all T3, even Brimstone Horrors. It seems that functionally T3 is not so much the 'standard' toughness as much as it is the weakest. Which seems about right, given the overall state of inflation in this game. 

 

 

 

Ratlings are still T2 As are razorwing flocks.

 

A lot of Geller Pox stuff is as well but that doesn't really count.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Closet Skeleton