Does AP need changing in 10th

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, Djangomatic82 said:

Maybe approaching this from a different angle would be beneficial.

Let's take an example of a unit with the worse Sv. In the game and see what tier of weapon people think should strip said model of its armour save, barring an invuln, etc...

 

Let's start with a basic Orc Boy, ignore the T5, focus on the Sv.6+.

What existing weapons should ( not currently do or do not) strip a basic Boy of that 6+ Sv?

Lasguns? Boltguns? Shurriken or Gausse?

I like this. Hmm, definitely bolter and gauss. Maybe shuriken, but then again shuriken usually comes with the precision aiming-style increase of AP on a 6 so that might cover it.

[Focslain]

1 hour ago, Djangomatic82 said:

Maybe approaching this from a different angle would be beneficial.

Let's take an example of a unit with the worse Sv. In the game and see what tier of weapon people think should strip said model of its armour save, barring an invuln, etc...

 

Let's start with a basic Orc Boy, ignore the T5, focus on the Sv.6+.

What existing weapons should ( not currently do or do not) strip a basic Boy of that 6+ Sv?

Lasguns? Boltguns? Shurriken or Gausse?

This is the old or in recent case the HH version of AP. Where if it was equal to or better then the models save then the model didn't get a save. AP - would mean everything got a save against is (ie lasguns)

[MoshJason]

On 1/19/2023 at 7:26 AM, jaxom said:

^

One of the issues that the designers said they wanted to tackle was pick up games. The idea was any army, of any composition, should have a way to interact with the other person’s army, without having to tailor a list.

 

In 7th edition, I was just starting to play.

I had a collection that included A Grey Knights Grandmaster, a few paladins and just enough Strike Squads to make a legal detachment, and a Canoness and a squad of sisters for an allied detachment. Grey Knights had no real anti-tank guns (no plasma, meltas, etc), and my sisters models only had bolters.

 

My brother had a bunch of imperial guardsmen, with only a few special weapons thrown in.

 

A guy we played with used to bring 3x Flyrants and a Barbed Hierodule to every game. Trying to interact with that was miserable - if we managed to roll a specific psychic power, and managed to cast it that round on our target, our weapons could hurt the Barbed Hierodule, but otherwise, we had nothing that could harm it.

 

As for the Flyers - at the time, we needed sixes to hit - so my super duper elite units were hitting much much less than the guardsmen. And they needed sixes to wound as well, with their lasguns, and the Flyrant could just Jink to prevent the AP from the antitank guns, so we'd fire an entire army's worth of people at these guys, and they would maybe take 1-2 wounds. They flyrants would kill our anti tank, and then we'd be unable to hurt the Hierodule, and would just watch as it demolished our army.

 

I don't want to go back to the "if your only anti-tank dies, forfeit" that 7th was, especially since that really screws over new players who may not have the same collection, or may not be able to add/grow their collection as quick.

Edited January 20, 2023 by MoshJason

[jaxom]

That anecdote, @MoshJason, summarized the issue perfectly. 

 

I am wondering, though, if the move we've seen towards free or cheap weapon upgrades may be a way to further ameloriate that. An army is likely to inlcude a lot more anti-tank if one either doesn't have to pay 3x as much for it compared to other upgrades, or it's a free upgrade.

[Djangomatic82]

Please don't take my preceding thought experiment to mean that I am asking what weapons and onlythose weapons should remove the Orc Boyz 6+ Sv.

I was still working under the assumption that the modifiers to AP that are present now would still be so in my scenario.

I was simply asking people to look at the weapon profiles in a vacuum to serve as a baseline of what people think is appropriate to remove a 6+Sv. Should that be something like a Lasgun, that lore-wise, is the most ubiquitous weapon in the galaxy? or something with a little more oomph.

[MARK0SIAN]

35 minutes ago, Djangomatic82 said:

Please don't take my preceding thought experiment to mean that I am asking what weapons and onlythose weapons should remove the Orc Boyz 6+ Sv.

I was still working under the assumption that the modifiers to AP that are present now would still be so in my scenario.

I was simply asking people to look at the weapon profiles in a vacuum to serve as a baseline of what people think is appropriate to remove a 6+Sv. Should that be something like a Lasgun, that lore-wise, is the most ubiquitous weapon in the galaxy? or something with a little more oomph.

The problem with this is that it runs into the issue with the current system in that it treats all armour the same. 
 

It might be ok to say a weapon should remove an Orks save (basically -1AP), but does that mean the same weapon should have a 50/50 chance of getting through a marine’s armour? Because that’s what -1AP equates to. Or you could even take it further and say does that mean the same weapon should have a 50/50 chance (assuming a 3+ save) of getting through a vehicle’s armour?

 

Under the current system you can’t make a weapon good against one type of target (in terms of AP) without simultaneously giving it a boost against all targets which is, at least for me, a major issue with the current system. 

[Djangomatic82]

1 hour ago, MARK0SIAN said:

The problem with this is that it runs into the issue with the current system in that it treats all armour the same. 
 

It might be ok to say a weapon should remove an Orks save (basically -1AP), but does that mean the same weapon should have a 50/50 chance of getting through a marine’s armour? Because that’s what -1AP equates to. Or you could even take it further and say does that mean the same weapon should have a 50/50 chance (assuming a 3+ save) of getting through a vehicle’s armour?

 

Under the current system you can’t make a weapon good against one type of target (in terms of AP) without simultaneously giving it a boost against all targets which is, at least for me, a major issue with the current system. 

I agree with you. I lay out my thoughts on a return to a non degrading AP system in an earlier comment in this thread.

But for the sake of actually getting peoples views on what should and shouldn't be able to remove a 6+ armour saves, before any modifier (if there should be any is a different question), I think it is best to put that whole discussion aside first, as the answer to this one would carry over to it, where as the answer to that does not necessarily carry over to this.

[jaxom]

2 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

Or you could even take it further and say does that mean the same weapon should have a 50/50 chance (assuming a 3+ save) of getting through a vehicle’s armour?

That was a problem with how the design team approached translating vehicle stats. If all light tanks (T7), tanks (T8), and heavy tanks (T9) were 2+ saves (and heavy bolters AP-1) then I think it would have worked out fine. Autocannons would medium tanks on a 4+ and the save is 4+. Meltaguns wound medium tanks on a 3+ and the save is 6+. Lascannons wound medium tanks on a 3+ and the save is 5+. The things like up-armored vehicles (speeders, tauroxes, etc) would have lower Toughnesses but similar saves, and assuming the wound system remained the same, I'd up lascannons and things like them to Str12 so they could be wounding T6 vehicles on a 2+.

[Toldavf]

The crux here i suppose is ap's interaction with power armour and its equivalent.  Marines pay allot to be resilient against weapons that are specialised to kill them and if suddenly small arms fire cuts through their save like butter well then you end up with a faction that is very hard to balance. 

A good start for 10th would be to slash small arms AP. 

 

[Djangomatic82]

Maybe I'll start off my question, at least to give something to consider.

 

What should remove an armour save?

SV 6+:  Lasgun, Shoota, Rad Carbine,  Assault Cannon

SV 5+:  Boltgun, Shurikan Catapult, Big Shoota, Galvanic Rifle, Tesla Carbine, Heavy Flamer, Burst Cannon, Pulse Blaster,

SV 4+:  Heavy Bolter, Shurikan Canon, Pulse Rifle, Rokkits, Plasma Gun ( not Overloaded), Gauss Flayer, Guardian Spear, Missile Launcher (Krak), Snazzgun

Sv 3+:  Melta-Gun, Multi-Melta, Plasma Cannon (not Overloaded), Plasma Gun (Overloaded), Gauss Blaster, Gauss Reaper, Pulse Blaster (Close Range), Fusion Blaster, Plasma Rifle (Tau), Rail Rifle, Dragon Fusion Gun, Fusion Pistol, Kustom Mega-Blasta

Sv 2+:  Lascannon, Plasma Cannon (Overloaded), Grav-Gun, Railgun, Heavy Rail Rifle, Firepike, D-Cannon, Bright Lance, Gauss Cannon, Doomsday Cannon, Doomsday Blaster, Death Ray

Edited January 21, 2023 by Djangomatic82

[Reskin]

6 hours ago, Djangomatic82 said:

Maybe I'll start off my question, at least to give something to consider.

 

What should remove an armour save?

SV 6+:  Lasgun, Shoota, Rad Carbine,  Assault Cannon

SV 5+:  Boltgun, Shurikan Catapult, Big Shoota, Galvanic Rifle, Tesla Carbine, Heavy Flamer, Burst Cannon, Pulse Blaster,

SV 4+:  Heavy Bolter, Shurikan Canon, Pulse Rifle, Rokkits, Plasma Gun ( not Overloaded), Gauss Flayer, Guardian Spear, Missile Launcher (Krak), Snazzgun

Sv 3+:  Melta-Gun, Multi-Melta, Plasma Cannon (not Overloaded), Plasma Gun (Overloaded), Gauss Blaster, Gauss Reaper, Pulse Blaster (Close Range), Fusion Blaster, Plasma Rifle (Tau), Rail Rifle, Dragon Fusion Gun, Fusion Pistol, Kustom Mega-Blasta

Sv 2+:  Lascannon, Plasma Cannon (Overloaded), Grav-Gun, Railgun, Heavy Rail Rifle, Firepike, D-Cannon, Bright Lance, Gauss Cannon, Doomsday Cannon, Doomsday Blaster, Death Ray

Thats absolutely terrible... every common gun right now when whole squads can take... you want to it to go through terminator armour? no thanks.

[MARK0SIAN]

7 hours ago, jaxom said:

That was a problem with how the design team approached translating vehicle stats. If all light tanks (T7), tanks (T8), and heavy tanks (T9) were 2+ saves (and heavy bolters AP-1) then I think it would have worked out fine. Autocannons would medium tanks on a 4+ and the save is 4+. Meltaguns wound medium tanks on a 3+ and the save is 6+. Lascannons wound medium tanks on a 3+ and the save is 5+. The things like up-armored vehicles (speeders, tauroxes, etc) would have lower Toughnesses but similar saves, and assuming the wound system remained the same, I'd up lascannons and things like them to Str12 so they could be wounding T6 vehicles on a 2+.

I still think that’s overly generous in terms of AP. For example a heavy bolter shouldn’t have a 33% chance of going through a baneblade’s armour (which would presumably be a heavy tank).

 

I agree the stats for vehicles were badly implemented though. That AP would be slightly more tolerable if the heavy bolter was only wounding the tank on a 6 but for some reason they capped vehicle toughness at 8 with a few rare exceptions. Light tanks should be T8, medium T10 and heavy tanks T12 to double out the strength of a lot of weapons. 
 

The other thing that feeds into it is the damage of the weapons. D2 on a heavy bolter means only a couple of shots have to get through and you’ve knocked 1/4 or even 1/3 of the wounds of most tanks. I think if you’re going to give weapons that kind of damage then you need to lower the chance of them getting through vehicle armour.

[Reskin]

2 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

I still think that’s overly generous in terms of AP. For example a heavy bolter shouldn’t have a 33% chance of going through a baneblade’s armour (which would presumably be a heavy tank).

 

I agree the stats for vehicles were badly implemented though. That AP would be slightly more tolerable if the heavy bolter was only wounding the tank on a 6 but for some reason they capped vehicle toughness at 8 with a few rare exceptions. Light tanks should be T8, medium T10 and heavy tanks T12 to double out the strength of a lot of weapons. 
 

The other thing that feeds into it is the damage of the weapons. D2 on a heavy bolter means only a couple of shots have to get through and you’ve knocked 1/4 or even 1/3 of the wounds of most tanks. I think if you’re going to give weapons that kind of damage then you need to lower the chance of them getting through vehicle armour.

:cuss: do we do with thunder hammers then?

[MARK0SIAN]

1 hour ago, Reskin said:

do we do with thunder hammers then?

 Still hit and wound and damage stuff? 
 

But this is more my overall point. I don’t think you can use the current system to accurately represent such a wide range of targets. You’ve effectively got the numbers 2-6 to represent everything from a grot to a warlord Titan. As I said in earlier posts, the current system is too much of a blunt tool. You can’t make weapons good against a particular type of target without increasing their effectiveness against all targets and (as your point about thunder hammers alludes to) you can’t make stuff resistant to weapons that shouldn’t really hurt it without also affecting the weapons that should be good against it. 
 

I genuinely think that when they attempted to simplify the rules in 8th edition the designers backed themselves into a corner. They realised, too late, that the system they had created did not give them the tools or the depth they needed to differentiate the various units and weapons in the game. Ever since we’ve seen them trying to bolt on fixes and patches to make up for this like damage reduction abilities, feel no pains, AP reduction abilities and even straight up damage caps per phase, all to try and give them the levers and abilities that the base system lacks.

[jaxom]

3 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

I still think that’s overly generous in terms of AP. For example a heavy bolter shouldn’t have a 33% chance of going through a baneblade’s armour (which would presumably be a heavy tank).

 

I understand the sentiment, agree with it to a degree, but think the entire wounding process needs to be taken into account. Considering the Toughness changes recommended (T12 for a super-heavy, I think of the Dorn or the Land Raider as a heavy tank), I ran the numbers for a few possibilities. Note: I used the old stats as a baseline, because I think it gives a better view into why the 8th edition launched the way it did.

 

Heavy bolter (older stats statistically requires 78 hits for 26 damage), 

1. Heavy bolter wounds on 6 because of S-T interaction, and the Baneblade still has a 2+ save which becomes 3+. Ignoring the hit roll, 5.56% chance to statistically generate damage. Statistically requires 234 hits for 26 damage.
2. Heavy bolter wounds on 6 because of S-T interaction, and the Baneblade has a 1+ save which becomes 2+. Ignoring the hit roll, 2.78% chance to statistically generate damage. Statistically requires 468 hits for 26 damage.

A Str9 AP-3 lascannon (older stats statistically requires 13.4 hits for 26 damage):

1. Lascannon wounds on 5+ because of S-T interaction, and the Baneblade still has a 2+ save which becomes 5+. Ignoring the hit roll, 22.2% chance to statistically generate damage. Statistically requires 33.4 hits for 26 damage.
2. Lascannon wounds on 5+ because of S-T interaction, and the Baneblade has a 1+ save which becomes 4+. Ignoring the hit roll, 16.7% chance to statistically generate damage. Statistically requires 44.6 hits for 26 damage.

A Str8 AP-4 melta weapon in half range (1 shot, again using 8th ed), with the same T12 change (older stats statistically requires 9.45 hits for 26 damage):

1. Melta wounds on 5+ because of S-T interaction, and the Baneblade still has a 2+ save which becomes 6+. Ignoring the hit roll, 27.8% chance to statistically generate damage. Statistically requires 17.0 hits for 26 damage.
2. Melta wounds on 5+ because of S-T interaction, and the Baneblade has a 1+ save which becomes 5+. Ignoring the hit roll, 22.2% chance to statistically generate damage. Statistically requires 21.3 hits for 26 damage.

If we then break it down to hits per round over a five round game, we can get an idea of how many weapons are needed in each scenario.

 

Heavy bolter

1. vs T8 3+: 5 heavy bolters, always hitting --> take 10 in an army and the baneblade dies in 2.5 turns, assuming always hitting
2. vs T12 2+: 15.6 heavy bolters, always hitting
3. vs T12 1+: 31.2 heavy bolters, always hitting

Lascannon

1. vs T8 3+:  2.68 lascannons, always hitting --> take 6 in an army and the baneblade dies in 2.5 turns, assuming always hitting
2. vs T12 2+: 6.67 lascannons, always hitting
3. vs T12 1+: 13.7 lascannons, always hitting

Melta

1. vs T8 3+:  1.89 meltas, always hitting --> take 4 in an army and the baneblade dies in 2.5 turns, assuming always hitting
2. vs T12 2+: 3.40 meltas, always hitting
3. vs T12 1+: 4.26 meltas, always hitting

And that's assuming the weapons always hit and there are no other targets. Those numbers make sense to me in the context pre-8th edition armies and the goal of 8th. The Baneblade would degrade over the 5 turns, but it's player would get to use it for a good chunk of the game. Of course, the idea didn't survive tournament mentality. Why keep to the old paradigm where more than 5 hardcore anti-tank weapons would be a points-sink that could quickly decline rate of return? To say nothing of Strategem interactions with things like the original Imperial Fist devastator doctrine rule.

 

1 hour ago, Reskin said:

do we do with thunder hammers then?

 

Assuming Str4 wielder, against a T12 2+ Baneblade, requires 26 hits to kill it, 39 if the Baneblade has a 1+ save. Doable in one charge for a blob of terminators, but a lone character won't be solo-ing it.

 

6 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

 Still hit and wound and damage stuff? 
 

But this is more my overall point. I don’t think you can use the current system to accurately represent such a wide range of targets. You’ve effectively got the numbers 2-6 to represent everything from a grot to a warlord Titan. As I said in earlier posts, the current system is too much of a blunt tool. You can’t make weapons good against a particular type of target without increasing their effectiveness against all targets and (as your point about thunder hammers alludes to) you can’t make stuff resistant to weapons that shouldn’t really hurt it without also affecting the weapons that should be good against it. 
 

I genuinely think that when they attempted to simplify the rules in 8th edition the designers backed themselves into a corner. They realised, too late, that the system they had created did not give them the tools or the depth they needed to differentiate the various units and weapons in the game. Ever since we’ve seen them trying to bolt on fixes and patches to make up for this like damage reduction abilities, feel no pains, AP reduction abilities and even straight up damage caps per phase, all to try and give them the levers and abilities that the base system lacks.

Maybe. AoS is a system that works while still being relatively simplistic. I think a number of the problems regarding weapons being good outside of their wheelhouse was more an issue of special rules from factions and the sheer quantity of special and heavy weapons we see in modern lists. Three Devastator Squads with Heavy Bolters and three Gladiator Reapers is now 795 points. Throw in three Redemptor Dreadnoughts with heavy and normal onslaught gatling cannons and its 1350 points. That's enough firepower to wipe out around 50 infantry per turn, plus can take out an 8th edition Baneblade.

 

This also doesn't go into the 2000 point problem. Larger games allow for deadlier first turns, more redundancy among big weapons, etc. It's harder to have the sort of ridiculousness of 30 Sanguinary Guard, 3x6 Warriors, or 3 Redemptors and 3 Reapers at 1000-1500 points.

 

 

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

On 1/20/2023 at 4:29 AM, Captain Idaho said:

 

Thing is, no one is beating Knights lists with S4. The problem still exists only now lighter vehicles can be damaged by anti-infantry weapons whereas before (7th edition and before) they couldn't.

 

So a solution GW proposed to a problem they created (i.e. allowing/promoting Knights into the game) doesn't fix the problem, creating another problem.

 

Lighter vehicles have been able to be damaged by infantry weapons for the entire time I've played. A bolter could glance a predator or vindicator if they fired at them in the rear arc with the old av system. In sixth & seventh when vehicles had hull points, I did some work with bolters (granted some of it was that you couldn't split fire). 3rd-5th you could only glance with base bolters but some of the stuff that we consider anti-infantry could penetrate and roll on the scary table depending on facing.

 

I think vehicle toughness is probably pretty comparable to fixing tactical marines as far the most common topic I've seen over the 20 plus years that I've played 40k. The only possible topic that I think would be more popular would be how broken Eldar are lol. 

 

That said I do think it's fair to say that knights made it worse. 

 

On 1/20/2023 at 10:38 AM, Djangomatic82 said:

Maybe approaching this from a different angle would be beneficial.

Let's take an example of a unit with the worse Sv. In the game and see what tier of weapon people think should strip said model of its armour save, barring an invuln, etc...

 

Let's start with a basic Orc Boy, ignore the T5, focus on the Sv.6+.

What existing weapons should ( not currently do or do not) strip a basic Boy of that 6+ Sv?

Lasguns? Boltguns? Shurriken or Gausse?

 

Edit: Please do not think that i am suggesting that the weapon profile is the only thing that should come into play when determining what removes the Orc Boyz Sv. I am assuming that all of the army abilities, strats and what not still exist in the scenario, I am just asking that you set those aside in this consideration, to determine what should be the minimum required to remove that 6+Sv.  A Lasgun? Bolter? Gausse? Heavy Bolter? etc.....

 

I don't think a model with a 6+ save should get it against very much.

 

I know that you said to ignore the toughness of orks, but I think it's important to point out that Ork boyz are pretty durable. I've been playing against them since 3rd and boyz are probably the most annoying they've ever been. Which is pretty crazy when you factor in how fast that save disappears, it does feel like GW shouldn't be trying to keep using legacy toughness and have a wider range of base toughness than just 3 & 4. 

[Reskin]

7 hours ago, jaxom said:

 

I understand the sentiment, agree with it to a degree, but think the entire wounding process needs to be taken into account. Considering the Toughness changes recommended (T12 for a super-heavy, I think of the Dorn or the Land Raider as a heavy tank), I ran the numbers for a few possibilities. Note: I used the old stats as a baseline, because I think it gives a better view into why the 8th edition launched the way it did.

 

Heavy bolter (older stats statistically requires 78 hits for 26 damage), 

1. Heavy bolter wounds on 6 because of S-T interaction, and the Baneblade still has a 2+ save which becomes 3+. Ignoring the hit roll, 5.56% chance to statistically generate damage. Statistically requires 234 hits for 26 damage.
2. Heavy bolter wounds on 6 because of S-T interaction, and the Baneblade has a 1+ save which becomes 2+. Ignoring the hit roll, 2.78% chance to statistically generate damage. Statistically requires 468 hits for 26 damage.

A Str9 AP-3 lascannon (older stats statistically requires 13.4 hits for 26 damage):

1. Lascannon wounds on 5+ because of S-T interaction, and the Baneblade still has a 2+ save which becomes 5+. Ignoring the hit roll, 22.2% chance to statistically generate damage. Statistically requires 33.4 hits for 26 damage.
2. Lascannon wounds on 5+ because of S-T interaction, and the Baneblade has a 1+ save which becomes 4+. Ignoring the hit roll, 16.7% chance to statistically generate damage. Statistically requires 44.6 hits for 26 damage.

A Str8 AP-4 melta weapon in half range (1 shot, again using 8th ed), with the same T12 change (older stats statistically requires 9.45 hits for 26 damage):

1. Melta wounds on 5+ because of S-T interaction, and the Baneblade still has a 2+ save which becomes 6+. Ignoring the hit roll, 27.8% chance to statistically generate damage. Statistically requires 17.0 hits for 26 damage.
2. Melta wounds on 5+ because of S-T interaction, and the Baneblade has a 1+ save which becomes 5+. Ignoring the hit roll, 22.2% chance to statistically generate damage. Statistically requires 21.3 hits for 26 damage.

If we then break it down to hits per round over a five round game, we can get an idea of how many weapons are needed in each scenario.

 

Heavy bolter

1. vs T8 3+: 5 heavy bolters, always hitting --> take 10 in an army and the baneblade dies in 2.5 turns, assuming always hitting
2. vs T12 2+: 15.6 heavy bolters, always hitting
3. vs T12 1+: 31.2 heavy bolters, always hitting

Lascannon

1. vs T8 3+:  2.68 lascannons, always hitting --> take 6 in an army and the baneblade dies in 2.5 turns, assuming always hitting
2. vs T12 2+: 6.67 lascannons, always hitting
3. vs T12 1+: 13.7 lascannons, always hitting

Melta

1. vs T8 3+:  1.89 meltas, always hitting --> take 4 in an army and the baneblade dies in 2.5 turns, assuming always hitting
2. vs T12 2+: 3.40 meltas, always hitting
3. vs T12 1+: 4.26 meltas, always hitting

And that's assuming the weapons always hit and there are no other targets. Those numbers make sense to me in the context pre-8th edition armies and the goal of 8th. The Baneblade would degrade over the 5 turns, but it's player would get to use it for a good chunk of the game. Of course, the idea didn't survive tournament mentality. Why keep to the old paradigm where more than 5 hardcore anti-tank weapons would be a points-sink that could quickly decline rate of return? To say nothing of Strategem interactions with things like the original Imperial Fist devastator doctrine rule.

 

 

Assuming Str4 wielder, against a T12 2+ Baneblade, requires 26 hits to kill it, 39 if the Baneblade has a 1+ save…..

dude I love your math hammer, maybe I’m stupid but I don’t know what side you were advocating for.

 

some armies can’t carry that much lascannon or melta. And it’s ridiculous to even think that could be a viable option.

 

things need to die. That’s why GW made the wound table like it is. I think in a 2000 pt list not many people take a baneblade 100% of the time,

 

some armies and weapons need to be stripped Down a bit. And if you are worried about a baneblade dying to bolters, then simply give it a special rule like duty eternal/or armour of contempt.

 

I think the the tables are fine, and the d6 is never going to change. It makes it widely inaccessible to new customers. 
they just need to release patches likes a video game where numbers go up/down in increments of 1 until the weapons perform better on avg.

[Evil Eye]

On 1/20/2023 at 7:15 PM, MoshJason said:

 

In 7th edition, I was just starting to play.

I had a collection that included A Grey Knights Grandmaster, a few paladins and just enough Strike Squads to make a legal detachment, and a Canoness and a squad of sisters for an allied detachment. Grey Knights had no real anti-tank guns (no plasma, meltas, etc), and my sisters models only had bolters.

 

My brother had a bunch of imperial guardsmen, with only a few special weapons thrown in.

 

A guy we played with used to bring 3x Flyrants and a Barbed Hierodule to every game. Trying to interact with that was miserable - if we managed to roll a specific psychic power, and managed to cast it that round on our target, our weapons could hurt the Barbed Hierodule, but otherwise, we had nothing that could harm it.

 

As for the Flyers - at the time, we needed sixes to hit - so my super duper elite units were hitting much much less than the guardsmen. And they needed sixes to wound as well, with their lasguns, and the Flyrant could just Jink to prevent the AP from the antitank guns, so we'd fire an entire army's worth of people at these guys, and they would maybe take 1-2 wounds. They flyrants would kill our anti tank, and then we'd be unable to hurt the Hierodule, and would just watch as it demolished our army.

 

I don't want to go back to the "if your only anti-tank dies, forfeit" that 7th was, especially since that really screws over new players who may not have the same collection, or may not be able to add/grow their collection as quick.

That sounds less like a problem to solve by changing the wound system and more like a problem to solve by limiting access to super-heavies and other "deathstars" (and the sheer power of those units to begin with). 3 Flyrants and a Hierodule sounds like some godawful WAAC list that has no business being used outside of tournaments, and using that same list every single game is not a good look. As I've always maintained, this game would be a lot healthier if people just learned not to list-build like complete tools.

 

That aside, my sincerest condolences for being introduced to the game in 7th. That was a dark time.

 

18 minutes ago, Reskin said:

they just need to release patches likes a video game where numbers go up/down in increments of 1 until the weapons perform better on avg.

I'd really rather they didn't. This isn't a videogame. This is a tabletop game, played with physical models using dice and rules stored in books. The constant replacement/invalidation of book content is bad enough as is, and the idea of not just points being perpetually in flux, but actual stats too? Yikes.

[Reskin]

3 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

That sounds less like a problem to solve by changing the wound system and more like a problem to solve by limiting access to super-heavies and other "deathstars" (and the sheer power of those units to begin with). 3 Flyrants and a Hierodule sounds like some godawful WAAC list that has no business being used outside of tournaments, and using that same list every single game is not a good look. As I've always maintained, this game would be a lot healthier if people just learned not to list-build like complete tools.

 

That aside, my sincerest condolences for being introduced to the game in 7th. That was a dark time.

 

I'd really rather they didn't. This isn't a videogame. This is a tabletop game, played with physical models using dice and rules stored in books. The constant replacement/invalidation of book content is bad enough as is, and the idea of not just points being perpetually in flux, but actual stats too? Yikes.

its 10 pages at the back of 80-page book, all you need to do it print out the 1 page dedicated your army from the munitorum field manual and paper clip it to the back page.

 

I'd rather that than for 3 straight years with a broken codex and not being able to play a game.

It's not that hard, seems like that type of lazy attitude holds back progress.

[Evil Eye]

Or, you know, they could get it right in the first place and not keep futzing with the rules/points/stats etc every few months?

 

Patch mentality is honestly a blight on games (tabletop AND computer) and has been used as a way to normalize selling unfinished sub-par products. If you need to keep printing, or in some cases BUYING, patches to actually play a tabletop wargame then the game is not worth playing.

[phandaal]

7 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

As I've always maintained, this game would be a lot healthier if people just learned not to list-build like complete tools.

 

People do learn eventually, if you stop playing with them. And if they do not - well you already stopped playing with them.

[Reskin]

i mean at this point, the mark on models is huge, would free updated codexs do it for you, and you bring your old one in, that way they know you've paid for atleast the 1st edition of it???

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

8 hours ago, Reskin said:

dude I love your math hammer, maybe I’m stupid but I don’t know what side you were advocating for.

 

some armies can’t carry that much lascannon or melta. And it’s ridiculous to even think that could be a viable option.

 

things need to die. That’s why GW made the wound table like it is. I think in a 2000 pt list not many people take a baneblade 100% of the time,

 

some armies and weapons need to be stripped Down a bit. And if you are worried about a baneblade dying to bolters, then simply give it a special rule like duty eternal/or armour of contempt.

 

I think the the tables are fine, and the d6 is never going to change. It makes it widely inaccessible to new customers. 
they just need to release patches likes a video game where numbers go up/down in increments of 1 until the weapons perform better on avg.

How exactly does moving away from a D6 system suddenly make the game inaccessible to new customers?

[Orange Knight]

I don't personally feel that we need to move away from a D6 system. I enjoy rolling the traditional dice and don't particularly want to introduce other variants that we need to switch between.

 

But many changes can be made to the existing game and systems to improve them. We need to change unit toughness values, modify the wound chart, re-work the ap systems and values of weapons, etc etc.

Why aren't Grots toughness 2 and why isn't the Knight Castellan toughness 10? Hopefully the next edition will address things.

 

11 hours ago, Reskin said:

they just need to release patches likes a video game where numbers go up/down in increments of 1 until the weapons perform better on avg.

 

Please no. The constant updates and changes to the game are starting to drive people away from playing it. In an online video game things are updated automatically, and apply to everyone all at once. This is an analogue tabletop game. GW needs to focus on releasing well written codex books that don't require sweeping changes before they are even released.

 

What happened to Votann should never happen again - a codex Errata was dropped before the book had even come out. The way AdMech were changed after their release erased any excitement I had for the army I had just completed, and I didn't use the faction for over a year. And now, Astartes are using power levels instead of points for the unit composition. All of these changes are admissions of failure in the codex balance process, and some of these books have been "patched" dozens of times over the last 2 years.

[Reskin]

25 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

I don't personally feel that we need to move away from a D6 system. I enjoy rolling the traditional dice and don't particularly want to introduce other variants that we need to switch between.

 

But many changes can be made to the existing game and systems to improve them. We need to change unit toughness values, modify the wound chart, re-work the ap systems and values of weapons, etc etc.

Why aren't Grots toughness 2 and why isn't the Knight Castellan toughness 10? Hopefully the next edition will address things.

 

 

Please no. The constant updates and changes to the game are starting to drive people away from playing it. In an online video game things are updated automatically, and apply to everyone all at once. This is an analogue tabletop game. GW needs to focus on releasing well written codex books that don't require sweeping changes before they are even released.

 

What happened to Votann should never happen again - a codex Errata was dropped before the book had even come out. The way AdMech were changed after their release erased any excitement I had for the army I had just completed, and I didn't use the faction for over a year. And now, Astartes are using power levels instead of points for the unit composition. All of these changes are admissions of failure in the codex balance process, and some of these books have been "patched" dozens of times over the last 2 years.

I agree with you, but unless GW fires the rules department and hires some people with common sense who actually play the game. I’d prefer they “patch things” I for one don’t want to play against OP crap. I’ve been doing it since 6th edition.

 

but here’s where I disagree, I for one, am Glad admech got violated, since their inception they’ve been overturned as heck seeing as my old arch rival used them As his main army. I’ve been too many times of the receiving end of a “pull your pants down and bend over”

 

fricken two units is all they ever needed until now. Kataphrons as their troops and the bots with characters behind them. Rerolls, double tapping exploding 6s and mortal wounds.. I say :cuss:.