Blast change idea

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

It seems kinda weird that blast only effects large groups of models, but not moderate sizes units or very large single units.

 

so instead of every 5 models how about every 5 wounds in a unit?

 

so it would effectively be the same into 1 wound infantry units, but the blast effect would still effect 3 outriders or a single ATV, or a unit of killa kanz.

 

just seems a motorcycle or 8ish(?) foot tall walker should be catching some extra damage or effect of an explosion on or near it, and basing it on wounds seems like a decent way of doing that, and once a large model is below 5 wounds it can be justified that there’s already so many holes that the shrapnel/fragments or whatever are now completely missing going through all them holes or something.

 

or the effect could just be activate on a unit’s starting wounds regardless of how many it currently has, so an ATV or Kan would always activate the ability 

Edited October 31 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[HeadlessCross]

I'm fine with the current system mostly. Blast markers were fun but ultimately caused arguments and created absolutely bizarre scenarios of what might get hit. 

 

The best way to handle what you're talking about is that each Blast weapon has its own rule for how it scales. 

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

Man I wish we still had templates.

[AutumnEffect]

30 minutes ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

Man I wish we still had templates.

 

Man, I really don't.

I agree with Brother HeadlessCross, it did nothing but slow the game down and cause arguments or bad feelings. "Is the hole fully over?" "Is the template touching?" "It scattered more this way, not that way." "You moved it a bit too far."
Etc, etc, etc. 

 

You can afford that level of granularity in a skirmish level game like Necromunda, but not in 40k where you're moving dozens of models around and trying to do it in a timely fashion. Trying to also worry about spacing them out enough so you aren't nuked by a Demolisher Cannon pie plate is just a headache you don't need when you're also trying to move 90 Ork boys up the table.

I wouldn't mind a change from individual models to wounds like Brother Inquisitor_Lensoven suggested. 

Edited October 31 by AutumnEffect

[Interrogator Stobz]

Blast only hitting one target is the stupidest mechanism in the game... well close, there are others as stupid.

[AutumnEffect]

17 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Blast only hitting one target is the stupidest mechanism in the game... well close, there are others as stupid.

 

What do you mean by only hitting one target?

[apologist]

I very much disliked blast templates for the reasons outlined by @AutumnEffect, so I was very glad to see them go the way of all flesh in 8th(?) edition in favour of quicker, cleaner dice rolls. I was therefore surprised to find that I rather miss them. Playing Adeptus Titanicus, where they're still used, they somehow seem to make the game less 'gamey' and feel more immersive. However, I note that Titanicus is essentially a skirmish game, and fewer, larger bases makes things much easier to work out than the company-level game 40k is.

 

Not really sure what my point is here, beyond that I'd like some mechanic that encourages interaction with the tabletop. 

 

If I were forced to come up with a mechanic, I think I'd make it the inverse of machine-gun style effects, and have a single dice roll causing multiple small amounts of damage. In short, where a heavy bolter has lots of attacks, each of which is resolved separately; a frag missile would have a single attack, which would cause 1 wound to X amount of models, regardless of cover.

[AutumnEffect]

26 minutes ago, apologist said:

If I were forced to come up with a mechanic, I think I'd make it the inverse of machine-gun style effects, and have a single dice roll causing multiple small amounts of damage. In short, where a heavy bolter has lots of attacks, each of which is resolved separately; a frag missile would have a single attack, which would cause 1 wound to X amount of models, regardless of cover.

 

I like this. It could just be covered with a Blast (X) rule ala Sustained Hits 1, etc.

Honestly, I don't like the concept of any random number of attacks. Let a Krak Missile be, for example, Heavy 4.
Did you miss with all four shots? Missile must have went wide.
Hit with all four? Missile hit square on.
Hit with just 2? Clipped a couple of troops.

 

Lets just cut out the Blast and random number of attacks completely. We already have a mechanic to show how many hits a unit takes from an attack.

 

A basilisk is D6+3 attacks. Lets just call it 6 or 7 or 8 if you want to be generous, and you get it at every target, big or small. This adding +number to D6 attacks and then Blast is just a bandaid to the randomness anyway.

Lets just cut it out and have done. Enough half measures.

 

Edited October 31 by AutumnEffect

[Valkyrion]

What about;

 

'When determining the number of shots for a Blast weapon, if the number of shots is higher than the number of models in the target unit, and the Strength of the attack is higher than the Toughness of the target unit, the attack automatically hits.'

 

This makes it so targeting a single model with a high strength blast weapon is almost certain to cause damage. e.g an Earthshaker Cannon causes 4-9 shots hitting on 4's. If you are firing at a Killa Kan as described above, currently you might roll 4 for the number of shots and fail with 2 of those on average, with only one shot going through to cause any damage. Under the new system, you'd automatically hit 4 times. 

My reasoning for the S>T caveat is that auto hitting is a dangerous mechanic that benefits inferior models more than better ones, and you don't want situations where frag missiles are more reliable at taking out Terminators and Carnifexes than they should be.

 

[Evil Eye]

Blast markers weren't the problem. Unpleasant players trying to argue/rules-lawyer their way to victory was the problem. If you're having to cut out a mechanic as simple as "models under a circle are hit" because of munchkins, the problem isn't with the game, it's with the community.

[Karhedron]

7 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Blast markers weren't the problem. Unpleasant players trying to argue/rules-lawyer their way to victory was the problem. If you're having to cut out a mechanic as simple as "models under a circle are hit" because of munchkins, the problem isn't with the game, it's with the community.

 

No, the problem is that it is ambiguous. You roll a scatter dice and then try to line up a tape measure parallel to that but some distance away. It is very hard to do and extremely subjective. It is possible for two different players to look at the same dice, models and templates and legitimately and sincerely come to a different answer as to how many models have been hit.

 

You don't even have to invoke unpleasant players, even friendly players would often disagree. When an opponent and I disagreed, we simply rolled a dice for the disputed model. Now we have a much better solution in that we roll the dice in the first place and avoid the dispute. This is better in two regards as it avoids disagreements and we don't have to micro-manage the movement of our models to minimise template hits. It means less time spent fiddling and more time getting on with the game.

[HeadlessCross]

17 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Blast markers weren't the problem. Unpleasant players trying to argue/rules-lawyer their way to victory was the problem. If you're having to cut out a mechanic as simple as "models under a circle are hit" because of munchkins, the problem isn't with the game, it's with the community.

Love when people chime in to blame the players instead of poor mechanics or rules. 

[Evil Eye]

14 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

No, the problem is that it is ambiguous. You roll a scatter dice and then try to line up a tape measure parallel to that but some distance away. It is very hard to do and extremely subjective. It is possible for two different players to look at the same dice, models and templates and legitimately and sincerely come to a different answer as to how many models have been hit.

 

You don't even have to invoke unpleasant players, even friendly players would often disagree. When an opponent and I disagreed, we simply rolled a dice for the disputed model. Now we have a much better solution in that we roll the dice in the first place and avoid the dispute. This is better in two regards as it avoids disagreements and we don't have to micro-manage the movement of our models to minimise template hits. It means less time spent fiddling and more time getting on with the game.

I take your point, but honestly I don't think it was that ambiguous and there were easy solutions that didn't involve scrapping the entire system. Rolling the dice near to the unit you were targeting in the rough direction of the "shot" was always my solution and I never once had any arguments over blast marker positioning. Mild (but good natured) grumbling over Tyranid Warriors having S6 blast weapons as their main gun, however...

 

8 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Love when people chime in to blame the players instead of poor mechanics or rules. 

Because sometimes the problem isn't the rules, it IS the players. A lot of cool features have been gutted over the years, usually because of high-profile cases of people being pricks with them at tournaments (and worse, outside them). See: 3E Ork Lootas, who USED to be able to use the guns from any other Codex with opponent's permission, which would NEVER fly today as the idea of wargaming being a social contract with standards of decorum and mutual respect seems to have evaporated.

[MARK0SIAN]

8 hours ago, AutumnEffect said:

 

What do you mean by only hitting one target?

Without putting words into his mouth I think he’s referring to the fact that you can drop a sizeable blast somewhere on the battlefield from something like a Titan weapon and it can only hit a single unit. The other unit and the tank that are half an inch away from that unit are miraculously unscathed as they weren’t the target unit. In other words it doesn’t act like a blast weapon would, which is an area effect weapon that would hit everything in range of the explosion. 

Now whether you like the old system of blast markers or not, at least they hit everything in range of the marker like a real explosion would, sometimes three or four units if you were very lucky.

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

24 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

Without putting words into his mouth I think he’s referring to the fact that you can drop a sizeable blast somewhere on the battlefield from something like a Titan weapon and it can only hit a single unit. The other unit and the tank that are half an inch away from that unit are miraculously unscathed as they weren’t the target unit. In other words it doesn’t act like a blast weapon would, which is an area effect weapon that would hit everything in range of the explosion. 

Now whether you like the old system of blast markers or not, at least they hit everything in range of the marker like a real explosion would, sometimes three or four units if you were very lucky.

 

One thing I wouldn’t mind to replicate how actual ‘blast’ weapons work would be to have a primary profile, and a blast profile.

 

as an example

 

earthshaker

100” BS4+ A1 S12 AP-2 D4

blast4” BS4+ Ad3 S4 AP0 D1

 

so you’d roll to hit the main profile. If you hit you roll wound and what not like normal.

then every unit within 4” is then subject to d3 attacks based on the blast profile.

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Evil Eye said:

I take your point, but honestly I don't think it was that ambiguous and there were easy solutions that didn't involve scrapping the entire system. Rolling the dice near to the unit you were targeting in the rough direction of the "shot" was always my solution and I never once had any arguments over blast marker positioning. Mild (but good natured) grumbling over Tyranid Warriors having S6 blast weapons as their main gun, however...

 

Because sometimes the problem isn't the rules, it IS the players. A lot of cool features have been gutted over the years, usually because of high-profile cases of people being pricks with them at tournaments (and worse, outside them). See: 3E Ork Lootas, who USED to be able to use the guns from any other Codex with opponent's permission, which would NEVER fly today as the idea of wargaming being a social contract with standards of decorum and mutual respect seems to have evaporated.

Imagine unironically defending something that can get out of hand like "can use any gun anywhere" but then defending at the same time needing an opponent's permission to even use your own models you made. 

 

Yeah probably a good thing that was gutted. If I need my opponent's permission to use a model, there's an issue with game design. 

[MARK0SIAN]

57 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

One thing I wouldn’t mind to replicate how actual ‘blast’ weapons work would be to have a primary profile, and a blast profile.

 

as an example

 

earthshaker

100” BS4+ A1 S12 AP-2 D4

blast4” BS4+ Ad3 S4 AP0 D1

 

so you’d roll to hit the main profile. If you hit you roll wound and what not like normal.

then every unit within 4” is then subject to d3 attacks based on the blast profile.

I think that would work well but I’d tweak the blast element to roll d3 once and all units in range take that many automatic hits. Would just simplify it and cut out a fair few rolls to hit. 

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, MARK0SIAN said:

I think that would work well but I’d tweak the blast element to roll d3 once and all units in range take that many automatic hits. Would just simplify it and cut out a fair few rolls to hit. 

 

That is pretty much already the rule for Torrent weapons. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

I think that would work well but I’d tweak the blast element to roll d3 once and all units in range take that many automatic hits. Would just simplify it and cut out a fair few rolls to hit. 

Might simplify it, but it’s not remotely how artillery and what not works. A direct hit from an artillery shell or a grenade directly at your feet is going to to hit so much harder than if you’re near the edge of the kill radius.

 

not to mention do we really want artillery using indirect fire and auto hitting? GW literally just nerfed artillery so the best it can do is 50/50.

Edited October 31 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[MARK0SIAN]

14 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Might simplify it, but it’s not remotely how artillery and what not works. A direct hit from an artillery shell or a grenade directly at your feet is going to to hit so much harder than if you’re near the edge of the kill radius.

 

not to mention do we really want artillery using indirect fire and auto hitting? GW literally just nerfed artillery so the best it can do is 50/50.

I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’d still keep the second blast weapon profile with reduced strength from your idea so the units around the target aren’t getting the full force of the blast. However your idea was that you’d roll d3 attacks against each unit around the target unit. If they’re surrounded by, for example, 3 other units then you have to roll d3 X 3 then roll the hits for each unit. In my case I’d simply change that and roll the d3 one time and each unit around them would take that many hits. If you’re not happy with them being auto hits then that’s fine but I don’t think a unit receiving an average of 2 S4 AP0 D1 auto hits is overpowered. 

[Evil Eye]

3 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

magine unironically defending something that can get out of hand like "can use any gun anywhere" but then defending at the same time needing an opponent's permission to even use your own models you made. 

Believe it or not, there was a time when it was expected that you'd be playing with regular friends/a group and thus would be able to talk things out with them and establish what you both enjoyed and didn't enjoy in your games. Remember that concept? Friends, talking about things, actual valuable long-term social relationships? I know it was from the scary "before-time" when Warhammer was a relatively niche hobby and not at the whims of lowest-common-denominator mass-marketability, and thus may be an alien concept to those beholden to the "old bad new good" philosophy, but it's true. I could go on a VERY long rant about how the mainstreaming of 40K was not a good thing, but I'm not going to as aside from anything I'd be here all day.

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Evil Eye said:

Believe it or not, there was a time when it was expected that you'd be playing with regular friends/a group and thus would be able to talk things out with them and establish what you both enjoyed and didn't enjoy in your games. Remember that concept? Friends, talking about things, actual valuable long-term social relationships? I know it was from the scary "before-time" when Warhammer was a relatively niche hobby and not at the whims of lowest-common-denominator mass-marketability, and thus may be an alien concept to those beholden to the "old bad new good" philosophy, but it's true. I could go on a VERY long rant about how the mainstreaming of 40K was not a good thing, but I'm not going to as aside from anything I'd be here all day.

I'm gonna reiterate: If I need my opponent's permission to use a model, there's an issue with game design.

 

Who my opponent is does not matter, whether it's a friend or stranger. 

[Evil Eye]

36 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

I'm gonna reiterate: If I need my opponent's permission to use a model, there's an issue with game design.

 

No, there really isn't. Wargames are social contracts after all, and 40K is (or was) a simulation sandbox for cool sci-fi battles, where there are far more possible scenarios people might want to play than can reasonably be expected to be 100% balanced. And frankly there's plenty of units that should require mutual agreement to field; mega-characters, super-heavies etc. Units that, to be accurately represented on the tabletop, will be considerably more powerful or unbalanced compared to other options and will skew the game if they're a normal, expected part of play. Case in point; if someone wants to field a Baneblade at a sub-Apocalypse game, that could be fun for a special scenario, but both parties should agree to it so it's not a case of someone rocking up to a casual game to stomp people with his super-heavy.

 

In the case of Lootas in 3E they could normally take weapons from the Space Marine or Imperial Guard books, with the caveat that if you both agreed on it you could take other factions' weapons too. The point wasn't to restrict play but to properly enable people to play the weird and wacky conversions they had whilst still keeping some restrictions to avoid complete free-for-alls. See also the Vehicle Design Rules, which were explicitly stated to be intended for fun and NOT razor-balanced by any means, and thus should be fielded with mutual agreement.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’d still keep the second blast weapon profile with reduced strength from your idea so the units around the target aren’t getting the full force of the blast. However your idea was that you’d roll d3 attacks against each unit around the target unit. If they’re surrounded by, for example, 3 other units then you have to roll d3 X 3 then roll the hits for each unit. In my case I’d simply change that and roll the d3 one time and each unit around them would take that many hits. If you’re not happy with them being auto hits then that’s fine but I don’t think a unit receiving an average of 2 S4 AP0 D1 auto hits is overpowered. 

Ok, yeah I misunderstood lol.

 

56 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

I'm gonna reiterate: If I need my opponent's permission to use a model, there's an issue with game design.

 

Who my opponent is does not matter, whether it's a friend or stranger. 

Umm…you used to need opponent’s consent to used name characters…

[HeadlessCross]

5 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Umm…you used to need opponent’s consent to used name characters…

And it was dumb back then too. Imagine thinking 4th Edition Calgar was something you need permission to use! Have you seen those rules?