Killshot: Evolution and other Wave 1 preview questions

[cordas]

Galatea, you can effectively blame the playtest group for that.

We can blame them, but we can also blame everyone else involved for not taking the GW baseball bat knocking some bleedin sense into their thick skulls.

Hits / Wounds / jellybeans or whatever you want to call them make fundemental sense and are easy to to deal with, this messing around giving so many failed armour saves is just calling a spade by a different far more complicated name that only makes sense in the most obtuse way, and hence causes much confusion like this is post is now causing for me! So I will stop rambling whilst I still have some sense of reality and dig out the baseball bat I use to threaten people who quote 40K rules at me.

 

[Hiromoon]

*hefts a mace* You really wanna try that, Cordas? I assure you it won't be painless if you try.

Origionally the damn thing was auto kill, like the tanks from BF:Ev. Your 250 pt tanker suddenly croaking because some doorknob LAMI hitting it with a Holepunch missile... The playtest team had to push Matt to get even this far.

 

[Galatea]

What was a really good thing, as a 250p model going down from one hit would have been real crap.

But still, hits would have been better, even for those models having just two hits and thus getting killed by a kill result instantly.
This hasn't to do anything with instant-kill, just with the ways anyone is used to handle this.

I an RPG everyone will call the things characters have learned 'skills'.
Why do you find 'skills' in almost EVERY RPG?
Simple answer: because it is a good common concept and people are used to it.
So are hits. There is no reason to resolve models that can survive multiple weapon impacts in another way than everyone is used to.

Just imagine an RPG that sais "you can fail 20 defense checks. A Swords counts as 2 failed defense checks, an axe as 4."
It wouldn't make any sense.
Also would you say if you got hit?
Ouch, my charakter has already failed 16 defense checks, so he has only what left? 4 defense checks?
I have to go to a healer to heal what? Defense checks?

You can't even describe that in your own speech - it just sounds strange.
It isn't a good concept if you can't even express it, without saying really weird things.

 

[Hiromoon]

Don't think we didn't try, Galatea... but playtesters can only advise....


BTW, they technically are hits.... The tanker can only take 6 hits in total, and they stack...

 

[Mage]

Well, as is with the shattering rules debate, you can play whatever way you want at home with your friends. If you want to call them hits, do. Besides, if it causes major problems, they will either be rectified in the rule book or changed in an errata. Plain and simple.
I for one will not make up my mind about the game until it is officially launched. I'm not having a jab at anyone else, but it will work out at some point. It could be worse, Mongoose could not listen to their staff or fans, and pull a GW and release prodeucts without playtesting at all like a few years back.
In the meantime, while waiting for SST evolution, I will try and paint up my skinnie army and play a few 'first edition games' till then. Now, I am off to order some classic models on discount.

 

[joewolz]

The tanker can only take 6 hits in total, and they stack...

Why isn't that mentioned on the card? You could make the line read "The Tanker will ignore the first five armour rolls it makes during the game."

That would make this make a whole lot more sense.

 

[Hiromoon]

Doesn't it? *checks his copy...*

Tough: The tanker bug will ignore the first five failed Armour rolls. An attack that rolls its Kill score will not automatically destroy it – instead, it will count as two failed Armour rolls.

Hmm.....

 

[cordas]

*hefts a mace* You really wanna try that, Cordas? I assure you it won't be painless if you try.

Larping mace or real? I have both

P.S. My larping mace is called Nadsmasher for a reason.....

 

[Hiromoon]

Real.

SCA for the win!

Concerning the Pee-Wee:

Pee-Wee Atomic Munition: Optional upgrade. The Longbow has the option of firing a Pee-Wee. A Pee-Wee will roll its Damage Dice against every model within the Fire Zone - these models need not be in Line of Sight. This weapon ignores all Armour rolls. It can affect models in the unit that created its Fire Zone, if they are close enough.

The phrase "A Pee-Wee will roll its Damage Dice against every model within the Fire Zone. " leads me to believe horribe, nasty thoughts...

 

[Xorrandor]

If a Pee Wee is unable to instantly kill a Feris or Tanker (easily) then it should NOT be costing considerable more than either.... Its not an issue of how powerfull it is in killing terms, its an issue of whether its worth the points you pay for it.

Well, I can accept that Pee Wee's might just not be designed for killing big things (counter-intuitive as that is). Or they're designed for hurting big things while destroying their screening elements. But we're talking a large reduction in damage, though, and for not much reduction in points (LAMI now pay 10 pts for Atomic Protocols, where before it was 80-100 pts).

On another topic: while I don't have a problem with using "Hits" terminology at home or at the local store, it makes new rules much harder to write and understand too. Try writing up "Multihit" in the new format, and see if it is half as easy to follow as the old version. For that matter, they can't even reference a single key word, e.g. Armoured, if they want to change the number of hits done per damage die.

 

[Soulmage]

Doesn't it? *checks his copy...*

Tough: The tanker bug will ignore the first five failed Armour rolls. An attack that rolls its Kill score will not automatically destroy it – instead, it will count as two failed Armour rolls.

Hmm.....

Here is a simple solution that will provide clarity as well as solve the nuke resistant bug issue (if it is meant to be solved). Simply change the text on the big bug cards to read:

Tough: The tanker bug will automatically pass the first five armour rolls. An attack that rolls its Kill score will not automatically destroy it – instead, it will count as two Armour rolls. Weapons that ignore armor rolls altogether, will affect the tanker bug normally.

 

[Makaiju]

It may just be me but I'm really not undestanding some of the confusion here. Then again I rarely care about why things change, I just like to know what the changes are so that I can follow the new rules.

You can, in all honesty, treat a tanker like it has 6 hit points or you can treat it like it has 1 hit point and the special rule that ignores the first 5 points of unsaved damage. Either way works exactly that same.

EVO rules that are posted on line say "if you score equal to or greater then a targets kill number, take the model out of play without even taking an armor save."

However the tanker rule specificly says "The tanker bug will ignore the first five failed Armour rolls. An attack roll that rolls its Kill score will not automatically destroy it - instead, it will count as two failed Armour rolls"

So 3 Kill hits wipe out a tanker bug. A nuke can do that. Will a nuke always do that? Of course not and that's the point that I see being thought about in an odd way. We are debating why the fluff sounds wrong and not the rules.

To start tanker rules really don't seem any different to me then in the past, so why complain about tankers? Now if some weapons don't have the same damage dice in the new game, then debating if the number changes break game balance is what makes most sense to me.

Does the 250 model that can be wiped out, but not automaticly by a 250 point one shot weapon (I forget what the real cost of a nuke is) balance in game play? Does it balance with a Pee Wee knowing that while a pee wee nuke is a one shoot, there will probably still be an "ammo dump" asset that will let you fire more then one pee wee even though you only paid for one?

It's all about fair play and balanced game mechanics. Which is also silly because until we see the full SST:EVO advanced rule book, we don't know what the real rules will look like.

Anything else is fair game to talk about but you will never find a "right and wrong" answer. So a nuke doesn't auto kill a tanker. Real nukes don't auto kill cockroaches. Does that mean there should be 'nuke proof' rule in the arachnid army?

 

[Xorrandor]

Here is a simple solution that will provide clarity as well as solve the nuke resistant bug issue (if it is meant to be solved). Simply change the text on the big bug cards to read:

Tough: The tanker bug will automatically pass the first five armour rolls. An attack that rolls its Kill score will not automatically destroy it – instead, it will count as two Armour rolls. Weapons that ignore armor rolls altogether, will affect the tanker bug normally.

Two problems:
1) (Minor) Affect the tanker bug normally can be argued as allowing armor saves, despite that being exactly the opposite of the wording on the weapon. It might make sense as far as rules go, in that you trade automatically missing one armor roll for dying unless you make an armor roll, but it is immensely counterintuitive to read and implement.
2) (Major) Affect the tanker bug "normally" means that if you hit the 7+ target value, the tanker makes an armor save or dies. Since we also say the weapon ignores armor rolls altogether, that means a 7+ damage die that ignores armor saves will make the Tanker die. That swings a little too far in the other direction.

As for why I'm harping on Tankers, they are one of the two >2 hit models we have stats for. I figure extrapolating to unreleased stats would just weaken the case, when the Wave 1 preview shows things nicely. And real nukes do auto-kill cockroaches within a given radius, just for the record .

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

it'd be a simple edit to give nukes a semblance of multihit and/or killshot back - just edit the line about ignoring failed armour saves to say "each hit scored causes a kill effect" and/or "each hit counts as 2 failed armour saves, and each kill counts as 4 failed armour saves against Tough targets"

 

[Galatea]

Does it balance with a Pee Wee knowing that while a pee wee nuke is a one shoot, there will probably still be an "ammo dump" asset that will let you fire more then one pee wee even though you only paid for one?

You can't replenish atomics at an ammo dump (see ammo dump rules).

 

[Xorrandor]

it'd be a simple edit to give nukes a semblance of multihit and/or killshot back - just edit the line about ignoring failed armour saves to say "each hit scored causes a kill effect" and/or "each hit counts as 2 failed armour saves, and each kill counts as 4 failed armour saves against Tough targets"

Agreed. I would consider just adding the language from the Eapt Blaster Cannon, myself, which is why I included that option in my odds calculations above. It basically duplicates the old Killshot (without Multihit), which gives survival rates that are better than the old rules, but not ludicrously high either.

 

[Makaiju]

2) (Major) Affect the tanker bug "normally" means that if you hit the 7+ target value, the tanker makes an armor save or dies. Since we also say the weapon ignores armor rolls altogether, that means a 7+ damage die that ignores armor saves will make the Tanker die. That swings a little too far in the other direction.

This is a very legit question that tends to be played off as rules lawyering. More accuratly it's the kind of legit question that used to make GW complain that all of the American gamers were unable to read. (that comment always annoyed me.)

Having had these issues spelled out by Matt in the past, I will bet you any sum of money that Mongoose feels the rule reads very naturally and that clearly implies "if a Kill Shoot only acts like 2 unsaved hits, then a Ignore Save weapon just creates on unsaved hit."

As far as a real legal disclaimer, that would lose in a court of law and you can win your law suite because the rule is not stated clearly enough.

However I do agree with the idea that not removing the model is the right thing to do. It's just automaticly counted as an unsaved hit.

 

[Xorrandor]

This is a very legit question that tends to be played off as rules lawyering. More accuratly it's the kind of legit question that used to make GW complain that all of the American gamers were unable to read. (that comment always annoyed me.)

Having had these issues spelled out by Matt in the past, I will bet you any sum of money that Mongoose feels the rule reads very naturally and that clearly implies "if a Kill Shoot only acts like 2 unsaved hits, then a Ignore Save weapon just creates on unsaved hit."

As far as a real legal disclaimer, that would lose in a court of law and you can win your law suite because the rule is not stated clearly enough.

However I do agree with the idea that not removing the model is the right thing to do. It's just automaticly counted as an unsaved hit.

Oh, I think the rules as written are perfectly clear. I think they make nukes pretty wimpy, but they are clear enough. I was just objecting to using the word "normally" (or "normal") in card text. That leaves you open to legitimate questions about how many special rules are "reset": all of them? Just the ones dealing with target damage dice? Just the ones dealing with kill damage dice? The really wacky possibility: all of the above, plus the "ignores armour saves" on the attacking weapon?

And yeah, I'm not a tenth as bad when playing a game as I am here (I hope...). I prefer my rules lawyering be done away from the gaming table, so I don't have to deal with it during my relaxation time.

 

[Makaiju]

This is a very legit question that tends to be played off as rules lawyering. More accuratly it's the kind of legit question that used to make GW complain that all of the American gamers were unable to read. (that comment always annoyed me.)

Having had these issues spelled out by Matt in the past, I will bet you any sum of money that Mongoose feels the rule reads very naturally and that clearly implies "if a Kill Shoot only acts like 2 unsaved hits, then a Ignore Save weapon just creates on unsaved hit."

As far as a real legal disclaimer, that would lose in a court of law and you can win your law suite because the rule is not stated clearly enough.

However I do agree with the idea that not removing the model is the right thing to do. It's just automaticly counted as an unsaved hit.

Oh, I think the rules as written are perfectly clear. I think they make nukes pretty wimpy, but they are clear enough. I was just objecting to using the word "normally" (or "normal") in card text. That leaves you open to legitimate questions about how many special rules are "reset": all of them? Just the ones dealing with target damage dice? Just the ones dealing with kill damage dice? The really wacky possibility: all of the above, plus the "ignores armour saves" on the attacking weapon?

And yeah, I'm not a tenth as bad when playing a game as I am here (I hope...). I prefer my rules lawyering be done away from the gaming table, so I don't have to deal with it during my relaxation time.

yeah that that kind of wording is exactly what drove many of my local players away. A single 'expetion rule' was a single sentance listed 2 chapters after the main rule. Easy to over look and very important to how they were playing.

And the 'normally' is just a giant flag that means the same thing is happening and needs to have an index somewhere. Something like "This rule is always in efect unless another rule 'specificly' states to do something different." At least that would get ride of the 'what if...' issues because the response is "if you don't see a rule that specificly states otherwise, no."

As far the other real point, are nukes too whimpy now? maybe. I don't think so but that's mainly because SST nukes have never been described as a real nukes. Treating any of the weapons like real life future weapons just breaks how the action has been described in the books and even the movies/CGI stuff. So it really doesn't bother me that they don't auto kill a tanker but I do see why so many people think they should.

My personal suggestion is for Mongoose to change the word nuke to read 'giant bugger bomb'. Then the bug players can complain that they are being hurt, and sometimes killed, by a giant bugger being dropped on them.

 

[Xorrandor]

As far the other real point, are nukes too whimpy now? maybe. I don't think so but that's mainly because SST nukes have never been described as a real nukes. Treating any of the weapons like real life future weapons just breaks how the action has been described in the books and even the movies/CGI stuff. So it really doesn't bother me that they don't auto kill a tanker but I do see why so many people think they should.

Well, they use real nukes in the book, so I've been treating them as real nukes. Since Pee-Wee's are man-portable, they are obviously not 10kT yield or anything, but that doesn't preclude them being nukes. (It actually requires higher tech to make a 1 kT nuke than a 10 kT one, if memory serves.)

I was thinking they would have trouble justifying the 300 points spent, regardless of what you call the thing. Are tables really so crowded that you can reliably target 300 points of the enemy with a 6" blast? It seems like cheap swarms wouldn't be worth the price (how many Bugs can actually squeeze in that area?), and expensive models aren't killed outright. That just leaves intermediate-strength models: a valid design target, but hard to plan for that effectively.

On third viewing, though, the answer is obvious: more rules lawyering. You see, the Pee-Wee Atomic Munition rules never explicitly state that the munition is used up when fired... :twisted: (Trying this particular rules tweak may get you soundly thrashed in many jurisdictions. Use with caution.)