Jump to content



Photo

Genestealers OP?


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#41 computertrucker

computertrucker

    Member

  • Members
  • 59 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 09:25 AM

Not true.. Take stealth vs perception as an example, or interrogation vs willpower.

The fact is the skill of the attacker should play just as an important roll as the skill of the defender. Combat is fluid. It's not I look at your bullet flying at me and jump out of the way. It's I see you pointing your gun and attempt to move. A trained attacker will take that into account or attempt to when making the shot and adjust.
  • Kshatriya likes this

#42 ak-73

ak-73

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 10:24 AM

I haven't read every response but will go back and finish reading them in a bit. But I offer a suggestion, and my reasoning for it. The problem that I see isn't the stats of the genestealer it's the core rule design for dodging that makes it a flat roll, when it should be treated as an opposed skill test like every other opposed. skill test in the game. To me this seems to be a huge over site on game design. And is a house rule I use. Skill matters both in the attack and dodge. A highly accurate and skilled attacker should be able to take into account someone is going to dodge or parry.

 

That is not really the problem as most ranged attacks on genestealers will come in the form of automatic fire, leading to an opposed test of sorts. The problem is that Hard Target skews that in the favour. Heavily while running.

 

But it's doable. Genestealers are only OP because less experienced players don't see the proper counter-strategy (shooting full-auto and meatshields fighting defensively) at first glance.

 

Alex


My 40K Blog (essentially a Best Of FFG Forums):

http://www.40kroleplay.weebly.com

House Rules, Rule Clarifications, Game Aids, New Creatures, consolidated official Deathwatch Squad Mode rules, 40K Tabletop to 40K Roleplay comversions, etc.


#43 Kshatriya

Kshatriya

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 10:35 AM

Opposed attack/defend tests are a bad idea as offense in this game is much easier to pump than defense. It creates an imbalance where the PCs take more hits. This is a problem when NPC damage stats are designed to bring PCs down in 304 hits on average, or fewer when special rules (Unnatural attributes, Tearing, Razor Sharp) come into play. 



#44 computertrucker

computertrucker

    Member

  • Members
  • 59 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 04:26 PM

Actually it balances out well due to the fact the bad guys actually have to work a little harder to survive.

Also burst fire and full auto are easy to figure in.

Example
Heavy bolter marine opens up on genestealer.
He needs a 87 to hit rolls a 32 giving 5 success levels

Genestealer dodges needing an 80 rolls a 46 giving him 3 successes
Difference of 2.. 2 rounds hit.

#45 computertrucker

computertrucker

    Member

  • Members
  • 59 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 04:28 PM

It makes since the marine would adjust his fire on his target. Unless he is a lump on a log that moves like a slug.

#46 ak-73

ak-73

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 12 March 2014 - 12:21 PM

if the fire rate is high enough, you'll find it hard to adjust fire on target before the burst is over, I guess.

Apart from that, it's really bad to make adversaries easier to kill in DW. In all missions I have GM'd, I had to work hard to challenge my players in combat. They have it easy enough already.

 

Alex


  • Kshatriya likes this

My 40K Blog (essentially a Best Of FFG Forums):

http://www.40kroleplay.weebly.com

House Rules, Rule Clarifications, Game Aids, New Creatures, consolidated official Deathwatch Squad Mode rules, 40K Tabletop to 40K Roleplay comversions, etc.


#47 musungu

musungu

    Member

  • Members
  • 118 posts

Posted 13 March 2014 - 07:15 AM

if the fire rate is high enough, you'll find it hard to adjust fire on target before the burst is over, I guess.

Apart from that, it's really bad to make adversaries easier to kill in DW. In all missions I have GM'd, I had to work hard to challenge my players in combat. They have it easy enough already.

 

Alex

 

I wholeheartedly second that. I wrote this up in some thread earlier, but I guess it's worth repeating: my players felt Parry and Dodge should be an Opposed test to have the crunch do justice to a perfect attack with multiple DoS, so I decided to indulge them and play-test it; as luck had it, against Genestealers. The combat took forever, as Genestealers are awfully hard to beat in WS and Ag, especially by Level 1 marines. To make work Dodge or Parry as opposed tests, you probably have to port some other 40K game system over, because this modification in itself is not working well in DW crunch, at least according to my experiences.

 

The fact is the skill of the attacker should play just as an important roll as the skill of the defender. Combat is fluid. It's not I look at your bullet flying at me and jump out of the way. It's I see you pointing your gun and attempt to move. A trained attacker will take that into account or attempt to when making the shot and adjust.

 

While that is true, I feel the experience of the attacker is better represented by choosing the appropriate combat action and gear (and having the skills and talents), and not, somehow, intrinsically "knowing" how the enemy will move or react. That is why we have actions such as Aim and Feint, and a kilometre-long list of specialist gear.


Edited by musungu, 13 March 2014 - 07:17 AM.

  • Kshatriya and Avdnm like this

#48 Visitor Q

Visitor Q

    Member

  • Members
  • 389 posts

Posted 17 March 2014 - 07:13 AM

I think the combat process has to be taken as a whole rather than looking at each segment.  Taken as an aggregate of all abilities talents etc including dodge and parry the better swordsman will generally win against the weaker one.

 

@musungu:  I think you've found the problem with making Dodge and Parry an opposed check which arguably it should be, and that's playability.

 

If you were going to introduce opposed checks to combat you would probably want to rework the entire system.  About 10 years ago I did a fair amount of sabre fighting.  I was never amazingly good at it but I was in a class that had some excellent tutors (one was an Olympic Coach and another that worked on the Zorro movies amongst others as a fight choreograher)  

 

They were, from my point of view, insanely good at sword fighting.  I literally saw the Olympic Coach parry four blades one after each other in a second and then return four seperate blows to the assailants. 

 

Now admittedly he was fencing 12-14 year olds and it was a bit of fun after the training session but the point is that with sword fighting, at least, it is rarely the case that 'I have a chance to hit, you have a chance to hit' 

 

The process has a lot more to do with, for want of a better word, advantage.  Do you have combat advantage, initative etc.  If you do then you press the attack and if the skill level between the two combatants is high enough then it is likely one side simply won't get a look in at all. 

 

In a system like this you would probably have an opposed WS check at the begining of each round and the winner makes a hit per degree of success.  Problem is that a real fight isn't a formalised duel, you have to take into account what happens if your opponent kicks dirt in your face, annoys you through taunting, doesn't care that he is going to get hit etc.

 

Sorry this is all a bit rambley I guess my point is that the WH40K RPG combat system is just a playable approximation rather than a step by step process of what is actually happen.  The parry and dodge rolls as it says in the book don't represent individual parry's pitting one persons skill agains the other but rather last ditch attempts by the party getting hit to avoid damage.  Does this explanation hold up to closer scruitiney?  Maybe not.  But it still works reasonably well and I think it would be a mistake to change that part of the rules without changing other aspects of hand to hand. 

 

For the record and on a tangent I think dodging bullits without unnatural agility is a bit daft and makes PCs way too lazair fare about seeking cover in gunfights.  Or to put it another way if PCs can dodge bullits then I think the game should allow more shots to be fired per round.



#49 musungu

musungu

    Member

  • Members
  • 118 posts

Posted 17 March 2014 - 08:43 AM

 

...Problem is that a real fight isn't a formalised duel, you have to take into account what happens if your opponent kicks dirt in your face, annoys you through taunting, doesn't care that he is going to get hit etc...

 

Sorry this is all a bit rambley I guess my point is that the WH40K RPG combat system is just a playable approximation rather than a step by step process of what is actually happen.  The parry and dodge rolls as it says in the book don't represent individual parry's pitting one persons skill agains the other but rather last ditch attempts by the party getting hit to avoid damage.  Does this explanation hold up to closer scruitiney?  Maybe not.  But it still works reasonably well and I think it would be a mistake to change that part of the rules without changing other aspects of hand to hand. 

 

For the record and on a tangent I think dodging bullits without unnatural agility is a bit daft and makes PCs way too lazair fare about seeking cover in gunfights.  Or to put it another way if PCs can dodge bullits then I think the game should allow more shots to be fired per round.

 

It is actually a fair approximation. You know, I did a few years of fencing myself in grade school - that is how I was able to explain to the players how it works. I had beautifully executed attacks parried by the opponent if I was a bit too slow or too predictable, and the other didn't even had to be a better fencer than me. It's not a counterattack, it's just somehow ruining your opponent's plans. It's always easier to destroy than to plan and build. Not to mention that it's friggin' rare to block an attack with your own sword outside movies - even fencers rather just step aside, and if you have a shield - well, that's the whole point of shields. Or pauldrons, come to think of it. I wouldn't block a sharp thing with my own sharp thing, or it quickly stops being sharp.

Dodging bullets is a bit more complicated, and I think here the GM too has to get a bit more creative with the NPCs. If someone stands out in the open and starts blasting away at you, you probably have some small chance to jump aside, but shooters should do their thing smartly - try to get the characters caught in crossfire, or just shoot and move away when sniping.

 

I guess my point is that superior fighters show their superiority by choosing time, terrain, circumstances, weapons or (in our case) combat action better. A dice roll is the ultimate oversimplification, and I prefer pitting two combat actions against each other to pitting two dice rolls against each other.

 

Hey, look how filthy Genestealers provoke almost philosophical musings. Nice.


  • Visitor Q and ak-73 like this

#50 Visitor Q

Visitor Q

    Member

  • Members
  • 389 posts

Posted 17 March 2014 - 10:41 AM

 


Dodging bullets is a bit more complicated, and I think here the GM too has to get a bit more creative with the NPCs. If someone stands out in the open and starts blasting away at you, you probably have some small chance to jump aside, but shooters should do their thing smartly - try to get the characters caught in crossfire, or just shoot and move away when sniping.

 

 

Yep.  So far my PCs have basically just had to face nasty Zerg rushing Tyranids or insane but brutal orks.  Can't wait till they start facing organised rebels!






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS