Blast change idea

[Orion]

To be fair, you need your opponent's consent to do anything that involves them.

Warhammer 40k is a game of mutual agreements, and I don't think that's a useless platitude.

[AutumnEffect]

Another thread dragged off topic by discussions about how things used to be.

The consistency is depressing.

 

Maybe we can get back to constructive discussion.

________

 

I like the concept of Brother Valkyrion's idea, though I'm not sure about the execution. I think it would necessitate removing the random attacks though to really get the most out of it.

Edited November 1 by AutumnEffect

[chapter master 454]

Wow...people here getting box cars on them scatter rolls with how they are acting. Tighten up brothers and fire on target, don't want to hit friendlies with those demolisher cannons.

 

So...I both like and dislike the current system. It by all accounts actually represents the old system fairly well without the need for ork players to have ork formations that would put mordian parade marches to shame. The issue I have is that weapons with this mechanic need to be hilariously overtuned to compensate for the fact that when they low-roll against any target it is kind of just sad and this can happen at more points than other weapons. Even Torrent weapons suffer this issue really and it's the "random number of attacks" can always screw you. Some days you are rolling hot 6s across the board and your flamers, neural shredders and what have you are lighting up BBQs like no-ones business but other days you roll them disappointing 1s and even the orks are left asking if maybe you should see the apothcary about your flamer's performance.

 

However...that is supposed to be part of their identity. They are meant to be random. These are weapons whose payload isn't about landing centre mass, more "for whom it may concern", and when it's artillery batteries: "Dear Grid Co-ordinates..."

 

In my opinion, a system similar to Scattershot weapons in Necromunda would be good, and for those that may remember, similar to the Imperial Fist door-breacher round from prior edition I believe.

The weapon would have a number of attack rolls, but these are to see if you land on target or off target. If you land on target, you get D6 hits straight up, roll that many wounds. If off target, you just half the number rolled...and you round down. We can then add the modifier that for each attack, you add a flat number of hits REGARDLESS of hit or miss depending on number of models in the unit. Personally, I would go with a 1-1-2-2 style of extra hits per 5 models in a unit (5 models get +1, 10 get +2, 15 gets +4, 20 gets +6) and...just +2 attack for every 5 models past 20 really...

So that would mean that even if your weapon Flubbed the roll, "missed" and rolled a 1 on number of hits, you still get 6 wounding rolls against the target if it's a big brick of ork boyz. This would give blast their identity of being meant for large groups of enemies and would thus remove the rather comical need for good blast weapons to have +X attacks attached to their D6 to give them a floor that isn't straight up trash.

For weapons with this rule that have multiple attacks, just each one represents a blast effectively. For example, the Plasma Decimator of the Castellan would have 2 attack rolls, and each of those would have the rules applied. You can even have the Blast rule have formating as "Blast (D6)" or "Blast (D3)" which would give us large or small blast weapons again rather than all weapons being large unless they are comically small.

Still a simple system, keeps the spirit of blast and also tunes them to not be complete trash in most armies unless it is just comicaly overtuned.

[jaxom]

Blast (X/Y) - When you target a unit, make a number of attacks equal to the models in the unit, up to a maximum of X. If the unit has less than X models when it is targeted, choose an additional unit within Y inches and to also resolve attacks against. Keep choosing units within Y inches of the original unit until you have X number of attacks to resolve.

[MARK0SIAN]

I wonder if there’s any mileage in separating out the blast weapons into different categories depending on their size. So stuff like grenade blasts work differently to something like an earthshaker shell’s blast. For example a small blast weapon just targets the unit like it does now but something bigger picks a spot on the battlefield and every unit within X inches takes a number of hits. That X number for the distance in inches could scale with the size/power of the weapon being used. 
 

Obviously there’d need to be a rebalancing in terms of points costs for bigger artillery pieces but as a system I think it could work. 

[Focslain]

32 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

I wonder if there’s any mileage in separating out the blast weapons into different categories depending on their size. So stuff like grenade blasts work differently to something like an earthshaker shell’s blast. For example a small blast weapon just targets the unit like it does now but something bigger picks a spot on the battlefield and every unit within X inches takes a number of hits. That X number for the distance in inches could scale with the size/power of the weapon being used. 
 

Obviously there’d need to be a rebalancing in terms of points costs for bigger artillery pieces but as a system I think it could work. 

This is basically a variation on the rules for the blast of the Deathstrike missile. Though you still need to 'hit' with the attacks it generates, but it is a 2+ so near auto-hitting.

[MARK0SIAN]

1 hour ago, Focslain said:

This is basically a variation on the rules for the blast of the Deathstrike missile. Though you still need to 'hit' with the attacks it generates, but it is a 2+ so near auto-hitting.

It’s kind of how the old orbital bombardment stratagem worked too so if the death strike has a similar mechanism it wouldn’t be an unprecedented change by any means. 
 

Does it feel satisfying/immersive on the death strike? 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

8 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

It’s kind of how the old orbital bombardment stratagem worked too so if the death strike has a similar mechanism it wouldn’t be an unprecedented change by any means. 
 

Does it feel satisfying/immersive on the death strike? 

The death strike is weird.

I’ll preface with i haven’t used it, but it seems super weird because you have to designate a target, and then next turn you can move the designator, or shoot, and it’s a single shot.

[DemonGSides]

It's an area denial tool, of which Guard has downright near infinite options, and most of them are better than the Deathstrike.

I'm not sure how to fix it where it is both satisfying to use and also satisfying to play against, as it's entire point is to be absolutely insane destruction, but no one likes just losing things without recourse.

[Gillyfish]

There are a number of good points made in this thread about how blast weapons do (and don't) work and how this might be represented on the tabletop.

 

There are many questions a games designer would be thinking about when considering how to represent such weapons, such as simplicity and scalability. However, tow of the most often cited are simulationist vs abstraction.

 

A simulationist model aims to replicate the real world as far as possible and that is, arguably, where the blast templates came in as they could replicate the blast area and, in theory prevent clumping of units in their presence. Multiple units could then by hit by a weapon like this. BUT it requires lots of exceptional rules about moving the template, how to move the template, how to centre the template and so on.

 

An abstract model is closer to what we have now. It doesn't attempt to simulate relaity but give a flavour. So only one of a closely clumped unit might be affected, but there are fewer fiddly rules (leaving room for more fiddly rules elsewhere you might argue, but that's another story...).

 

Probably the reason we used to have the simulationist model was because 40K used to be a skirmish game. As the number of models grew, particularly in 3rd edition, blast templates still worked, but that's because other rules had been simplified, so the overall ecosystem was still pretty straightforward (close combat weapons, for example, were incredibly from the detail of 2nd through to 3rd). However, given the level of detail that now exists for other weapons and units again it seems like having all those special core rules for one weapon category was probably deemed unnecessary.

 

Is it less satisfying? Probably, but it does play faster.

 

In terms of applying a fix, I think some of the suggestions in the thread are viable. The question about whether other units in the vicinity (perhaps defined as small/medium/large/titanic) might be affected could be considered. You could potentialy say that up-to half the hits rolled are applied to neighbouring units in 'range' of a target model in the target unit. You would then get complaints about two people from the neighbouring squad being taken out when only one was within the blast range, etc., etc.

[Interrogator Stobz]

On 10/31/2024 at 9:39 PM, AutumnEffect said:

 

What do you mean by only hitting one target?

Edit: it's been well answered by others.

Cheers. 

Kill Team deal with blast well, 40k could definitely benefit from something similar which works at the different scale of game.

 

Edited November 2 by Interrogator Stobz
Sorted