The stat line and special rules

[Karhedron]

22 hours ago, Dr. Clock said:

It's abundantly clear that alot of those datasheet abilities are templated out though... I would not be averse to formalizing those and turning them into keywords.

 

Agreed, several armies have a Battleline unit with the standard "Objective Secured" ability allowing them to sticky and Objective and then move on.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 4/4/2024 at 4:45 AM, Xenith said:

I'm an adherent that the units combat abilities should largely be represented by the stats. Is it tough? Then high toughness. Is it relatively weak, but regenerates or is very hard to kill? More wounds, You don't need additional rules to represent what you can on the statline. 

 

The invulnerable save is needed in the Yes/No previous version of AP, however in a modfier situation, it can be represented by additional points of save, and you don't need save creep. A terminator with a 2+ save. If you want them to always have at least a 5+ save in general, they will always get that vs ap-3 weapons, so the actual invulnerable is a redundant rule, and dsigners just have to be more disciplined in not handing out stuff with massive ap. Likewise, they then don't need to make special rules to ignore invulnerable saves (railgund, mortal wounds) or more rules that ifnore the ignoring of invulns. 

 

A captain with 2+/4++ in this could simply get a 1+ save, and still be on a 4+ vs an ap-3 lascannon. 

The D6 system GW uses makes it hard to create meaningful differences between units or factions without making one option OP compared to the other.

 

like SoB suffer from the D6 system a lot imho. They get the same Sv as marines and same T and Ld as guard.

 

theyre supposed to be much more elite than guard, I’d say even more elite than Kasrkin/scions as individuals, but they’re just simply not, and without special rules I’m not sure how to fit them between Kasrkin and and marines in terms of eliteness.

 

but I guess it could be argued that is itself a failure of the core rules.

 

then there’s the conundrum of guard battleline units.

Other than weapon loadouts there’s no real difference between the 4 of them without special rules.

[Xenith]

36 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

The D6 system GW uses makes it hard to create meaningful differences between units or factions without making one option OP compared to the other.

 

like SoB suffer from the D6 system a lot imho. They get the same Sv as marines and same T and Ld as guard.

 

So they're somewhere between a guardsman and a marine, in other words a meaningful difference, with neither option being OP as they're balanced by points? 

 

Again, guard core units used to have slightly different profiles, and it would be easy enough to replicate with statline/options alone, and no specal rules:

Catachans - +1S

Krieg - +1T or W

Cadians - 2x special weapons

Mordians - +1Ld

Vostroyans - S4 lasguns

 

In addition to whatever armywide detachment rules they get. 

 

 

Edited April 8 by Xenith

[TheArtilleryman]

@Inquisitor_LensovenSoB should have better leadership but otherwise are fine in terms of their stat line. They are humans after all, just in power armour.

@Xenith

Krieg I would give a 6+++ but not change their stats. +1T is a bit too strong for regular humans IMO.

I wouldn’t give anyone S4 lasguns because that’s basically giving them bolters, and standard bolters suck since 8th because Firstborn nerf.

Cadians having 2 special weapons isn’t that big a deal, especially when others can have this too and standard infantry can have a heavy. Perhaps +1 movement?

 

Your other suggestions I agree with.

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, Xenith said:

 

So they're somewhere between a guardsman and a marine, in other words a meaningful difference, with neither option being OP as they're balanced by points? 

 

Again, guard core units used to have slightly different profiles, and it would be easy enough to replicate with statline/options alone, and no specal rules:

Catachans - +1S

Krieg - +1T or W

Cadians - 2x special weapons

Mordians - +1Ld

Vostroyans - S4 lasguns

 

In addition to whatever armywide detachment rules they get. 

 

 

Personally I don’t think they’re well represented as more elite than guard based on their stats. They’re basically just kasrkin with bolters as it is.

 

youd expect die hard fanatics to have better leadership/morale/whatever than conscripts.

2 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

@Inquisitor_LensovenSoB should have better leadership but otherwise are fine in terms of their stat line. They are humans after all, just in power armour.

@Xenith

Krieg I would give a 6+++ but not change their stats. +1T is a bit too strong for regular humans IMO.

I wouldn’t give anyone S4 lasguns because that’s basically giving them bolters, and standard bolters suck since 8th because Firstborn nerf.

Cadians having 2 special weapons isn’t that big a deal, especially when others can have this too and standard infantry can have a heavy. Perhaps +1 movement?

 

Your other suggestions I agree with.

 

Well one of the benefits of power armor aside from protection is added strength/endurance.

 

as for differentiation between guard battleline units without special rules id something like this

 

CST +1 to M and OC w/ 2 special weapons

Infantry squad 1 special weapon 10 bodies plus HWT’s two wounds

catachan +1S sgt gets a hand flamer option

krieg 20 man blob, 3 special weapons. I see no reason they deserve an FNP more than the others from a lore perspective 

Edited April 8 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[ZeroWolf]

4 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

youd expect die hard fanatics to have better leadership/morale/whatever than conscripts.

Well one of the benefits of power armor aside from protection is added strength/endurance.

Problem with the strength there is once again the D6 system (I completely understand why GW still use it, as the humble D6 is the most recognisable die but doesn't offer much granularity) on a d10 system say, you could put guardsman on 5, SoB on 6 (to reflect power armor) and then SM on 7 (to reflect power armour and the fact they're genetic supermen).

 

Only way you're doing that on a D6 is moving guardsmen down to S2 (grots can get S1) to put SoB on 3 with SM on 4 as per usual...but that's quite inelegant.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

15 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

Problem with the strength there is once again the D6 system (I completely understand why GW still use it, as the humble D6 is the most recognisable die but doesn't offer much granularity) on a d10 system say, you could put guardsman on 5, SoB on 6 (to reflect power armor) and then SM on 7 (to reflect power armour and the fact they're genetic supermen).

 

Only way you're doing that on a D6 is moving guardsmen down to S2 (grots can get S1) to put SoB on 3 with SM on 4 as per usual...but that's quite inelegant.

Again, I agree the D6 system is holding the game back a lot.

 

durability and lethality could be so much more granular.

 

for example I think a taurox should be harder to damage than an armored sentinel, not by much, but noticeably harder to damage.

 

meanwhile there are certain units where it may make sense for them to be relatively easy to cause damage to, but not necessarily to kill them which is where wounds would come into play, i 100% think sister’s fanaticism should be represented in their leadership, as well as a second wound, showing that they’re just too stubborn to let a single bullet or las blast take them out of the fight (assuming it doesn’t ya know hit their head)

 

superheavies don’t need to have 20+ wounds, 10 is fine, just make it so you need very heavy weapons like S12+ to reliably damage them even with rerolls

[Valkyrion]

On 4/8/2024 at 3:23 PM, TheArtilleryman said:

@Xenith

Krieg I would give a 6+++ but not change their stats. +1T is a bit too strong for regular humans IMO.

I wouldn’t give anyone S4 lasguns because that’s basically giving them bolters, and standard bolters suck since 8th because Firstborn nerf.

Cadians having 2 special weapons isn’t that big a deal, especially when others can have this too and standard infantry can have a heavy. Perhaps +1 movement?

 

 

 

I'm quoting this not to have a dig, but because this is where I think the thought process begins to fall down.

Your/our/players minds cannot adequately deal with T4 humans, S5 fleshborers and the like because those are better than average numbers on less than average things.

Humans shouldn't be T4 - why not? Toughness, Wounds and Save are merely indicators of durability, like WS and BS are indicators of accuracy and S, AP and Damage are indicators of power. 

Imperial Guard leaders are nothing more than normal humans, but no one bats an eye at their multiple wounds and better saves because we are conditioned to think that leaders must be better, but a bolter to the face hurts the same no matter the medals on your chest. 

 

You could give Valhallans a 3+ save, not because they are wearing impervious fur coats, but because they don't care they are being shot at - you don't need to justify it that fur cloaks offer the same protection as power armour, it is a representation of the steadfastness, fearlessness, durability, carelessness, rage, discipline or whatever. 

 

So the 6+++ example - this requires a rule, Mortal Wounds, to exist, then another rule to deny that rule. Giving them T4 requires no additional rules, and still reflects their better durability.  

We have WS, BS, S, T, W, Save, Attacks, AP and Damage to represent attack and defence stats, plus M, LD and OC.  That should be enough to work with for all but the most special or specialised units. 

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, Valkyrion said:

You could give Valhallans a 3+ save, not because they are wearing impervious fur coats, but because they don't care they are being shot at - you don't need to justify it that fur cloaks offer the same protection as power armour, it is a representation of the steadfastness, fearlessness, durability, carelessness, rage, discipline or whatever. 

 

So the 6+++ example - this requires a rule, Mortal Wounds, to exist, then another rule to deny that rule. Giving them T4 requires no additional rules, and still reflects their better durability.  

We have WS, BS, S, T, W, Save, Attacks, AP and Damage to represent attack and defence stats, plus M, LD and OC.  That should be enough to work with for all but the most special or specialised units. 

That changes the nature of what Save value represents. Not saying that's a bad thing, just that it's not the way 40k has ever handled it. OPR did something similar when they conflated a lot of stats into the singular Quality stat. Though, considering the description, I think it would be a more interesting application of Leadership. Either by make Leadership work like FnP or model regeneration (so Morale is an additive/positive feature instead of a subtractive/negative one). Sidenote: all of a sudden Leadership debuffs become really valuable. Consider the following:

1. Average Guardsman T3 Sv5+ Ld6+
2. Valhallan/Zealous Guardsman T3 Sv5+ Ld5+
3. Sister of Battle T3 Sv3+ Ld4+
4. Space Marine T4 Sv3+ Ld5+
5. Ork T4 Sv6+ Ld6+ Special Rule: +1 Ld for every 5 models in the unit to a maximum of 4+
6. Eldar T3 Sv4+ Ld6+

 

Regardless of the approach, I guess it all kind of shows the overall point. There's lots of design space once one moves beyond the confines of "how it's always been done."

[Valkyrion]

Yeah, I wasn't so much as meaning Valhallans should get a 3+ save, rather trying poorly to illustrate the point that different capabilities between similar units can be utilised by the unit profiles in place of special rules. 

[Dr. Clock]

On 4/8/2024 at 10:00 AM, Xenith said:

Catachans - +1S

Krieg - +1T or W

Cadians - 2x special weapons

Mordians - +1Ld

Vostroyans - S4 lasguns

Thinking about all the stats as 'equal in weight' is a big danger zone that can very easily lead right back to 'one choice to rule them all'. Specifically right now unless Krieg are 50-100% more points than the others, you're never going to see anything else, and I think we do need to keep all the basic infantry squads available to an army within about 20 points of each other... If you just tell me Krieg is 4+ Sv that might be alright, but then Catachans, Mordians and Cadians all still look weaker...

 

We know that primarily the difference between Regiments is going to be handled at the Detachment level. So right now I'd suggest Born Soldiers is the Cadian rule, and 'Storm troopers' is kinda just the double specials data-slate. It bears their name because it 'has to' be copyrighted, but it's an 'assault squad' for all intents and purposes. Catachans should be 'recon squads', but they need something distinctive as a label on a box, and that label needs to be findable and specific to a data-sheet in an army.

 

Like - where does this 'regiments must be highly divergent' mentality stop? Are we going to demand separate entries for Mordian heavy weapon squads? No - but if they make some cool Ld rules at the detachment level and you just choose those for your Mordians, then the problem (could be?) solved?

 

Surely - most people building an army of Guard are probably going to want something a bit different after 6 squads of the same exact thing. I'm not arguing for 'just make one basic guard unit', but just that we open up a bit, allow ourselves to be creative even though GW is restricted in the amount of direct and named support they give to whatever xyz subfaction. Personally I cap out at painting two of any individual kit, because I like high diversity in models. Yet, I know that high diversity armies are only really feasible in the context of keeping some simple and consistent rules throughout each list.

 

I'd agree that in a world where there were many more battleline options available for Guard, coming up with that many more relevant secondary special rules to distinguish the units would be more trouble than it'd be worth. (I also don't quite understand why Cadians and Infantry Squads have to exist separately right now, but whatever.) I don't think that including all the old classics as 'units in their own right' is a good idea for a Codex that needs to stand on its own and attain at least a modicum of internal balance. 

 

Krieg are an unfortunate example where it's actually the connection to Kill Team models that confuses their identity and adds that final level of crud to the rules. I'd be much more in favor of stripping off all the 'unit wargear' stuff that crops up unevenly throughout the game. Although I kinda like ignoring cover with skitarii and melta mining ppl with kasrkin, I figure those things tend to mean that I can't even remember to use all the rules in most games if I'm trying to run lots of different armies (I pretty strictly change armies between each game).

 

I mean... just look at the platoon command squad: 'Command Structure' ability is kinda pointless, granted, but you don't think that could be a result of it being written after they just slapped 3 excellent buffing abilities on to wargear abilities? IMO you should probably have ONE rule like master vox, medi-pack or regimental standard in a platoon command - not all three by default.

 

So that's to say that I agree the complexity and layering is too high, but in principle the 'datasheet abilities' is a good addition to the basic template of the game rules. If the layers rn are 'unit numerical stats' + 'USRs' + 'unique(ish) datasheet abilities' + 'unique(ish) wargear abilities', I think I'd be okay most with jettisoning the last one.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.