Excess damage spillover

[Sleboda]

8 hours ago, AGPO said:

No matter how hard my terminator captain punches an Eldar guardian in the face with a power fist, it's not going to kill the other Eldar stood three metres away.  No spillover makes sense to me, especially with shooting attacks from lascannons and such.

I'f that's how you visualize it,  sure.  But what about seeing it as him grabbing a guy with one hand,  rearing back to smash him,  and then,  as the space elf's buddies leap in to save their worthless space elf friend, the captain swings wide and takes them all out?

Fluff justifies any rule. 

I prefer rules that encourage more cinematic interpretations.

[BunkhouseBuster]

In 40K, there is an instance of Spillover damage.  Deathwing Knights Knight Master, Flail of the Unforgiven.  Does 2 Damage on hits, and has a paragraph of text explaining how it works.

Just having that small paragraph of a rule in the Core Rules that gets carried around would work fine.  Spillover Damage is an easy enough mechanic that it would be okay in the Core Rules of any game.  It could even have a parenthetical statement to have up to so much damage Spillover for some weapons that could pierce through several enemies.  For example, a Lascannon could have Spillover (3) to represent a single shot burning through multiple models.  It wouldn't affect big vehicles and monsters too much, since they either have the wounds to survive multiple hits or are not in units.

Personally, I think it would be really cool if handled well, but I am happy with Age of Sigmar as it is, and I still haven't had a chance to play 40K yet and don't know how the game really plays now.

[Captain Marius]

I find the damage cap in 40k to work fine but be a bit clunky. Its just annoying when your meltagun does 6 wounds to that wraithguard squad and the one bloke with a single wound remaining absorbs the lot.

In AoS if I line up some nasty gun and the damage score is a 6, two 3 wound skullreapers or brutes are gonna bite it! If the damage roll is less, that adequately represents the target's mate being out of reach.

I enjoy damage spilling thru units in melee too, allowing dudes with big axes or swords to cleave through hordes of infantry or carve chunks out of monsters without needing to resort to having alternative attack profiles to do so (eg titanic feet).

[Chris Tomlin]

Fun topic!

This week's episode of The Black Sun discusses this and other 40K rules that could or couldn't work in AoS. Just a bit of fun of course, but you can hear what me and @Andy Talbot had to say on the subject here;

In general though, I think it's fair to say I agree with @Sleboda's posts within this thread.

On ‎03‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 0:33 AM, klunc said:

I like the cinematic aspect of a big monster going into a unit of infantry and just backhanding several away at a time, kind of like Sauron at the start of the Fellowship of the Ring

Ha! I used this exact example in the podcast!

On ‎03‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 9:56 AM, Caffran101 said:

Fairly sure that wounds in combat do spill over. So you can keep your cinematic thoughts flowing.

Unfortunately (or not, depending on your point of view!) this is not correct.

 

[Squirrelmaster]

I'd be happy if those big, sweeping, cinematic blows that cut down half a dozen men in one swing were just represented on the table by giving the model more attacks. For me, there's not much cinematic difference between 1 attack that does 6 damage and 6 attacks that do 1 damage each. I don't think there's much difference game-wise either (I know the maths makes them a bit different, but I really do find that these things tend to average out even over the course of a single game).

Another option for this kind of "cinematic" experience would be to have a model generate additional attacks for each model slain - similar to how bolt throwers used to penetrate ranks in WHFB. Making that a distinct mechanic from damage would only enhance the game in my view.

[someone2040]

It's an interesting topic for sure.

On one hand, you have Age of Sigmar, where there's not really such a thing as a 'specialty' unit unless it's an ability on a warscroll (e.g Questing Knights deal double damage to MONSTERS). Largely because all damage carries over, so it doesn't matter as much whether you have fewer attacks that hit big, or more attacks that hit small.

While on the 40k side, you have to tactically think about how you want to use your weaponry. Small arms will take out things piece meal, but some units can take out others a lot easier due to the extra damage on their weapons. But you also get into the odd situations with wound allocation.

 

I think personally I prefer Age of Sigmars version, as has been mentioned, cinematic wise it can make sense. Especially in Fantasy where generally the 'bigger' the weapon, the more damage it does, so those sweeping blow smacking into multiple guys at once makes sense.

I think it'd actually be better if we had more unit types in Age of Sigmar. So far we really only have weapons that help against HERO, MONSTER, DAEMON or can Fly for the most part. I mean, the obvious one that comes to mind is a CAVALRY keyword.

But perhaps, that's a bit old fashioned thinking. In a world with Demigryphs, Gryph-Chargers, Juggernaughts, Mournfang, Gore-Gruntas, etc running around, a guy wielding an extra long stick with a point on the end might (pike) not really get much of an advantage compared to fighting guys on Horses or Wolves.

 

So overall... pretty happy with how Age of Sigmar handles it damage spill over. It's simple and flows fast, and still makes sense.

[RuneBrush]

Agree with many of the points on here so far.  AoS seems to work pretty well, but I think that's because most of our ranged weapons are either single damage (bows etc) or have a high damage for a thematic reason (skull cannon skull smashing into a unit).  Melee weapons are the same - a bloodthirster is literally going to cleave thorough units.  Although it would be ace to have some weapons without damage rollover, I don't think this is possible without changing the damage pool mechanic.

In 40k, they wanted to bring in rules that got people thinking about bringing the best weapons for the job, so a meltagun is a single shot - it should nuke a single model but not be that devastating towards a unit of imperial guard.  But in doing so, they also introduced some odd-balls that don't "feel" right because we're used to AoS and old 40k - what used to be blast weapons are a good example of this and I do think a Splash rule would be very cool - however it feels like the start of a slippery slope on adding universal special rules all over the shop.

[Captain Marius]

13 hours ago, Squirrelmaster said:

I'd be happy if those big, sweeping, cinematic blows that cut down half a dozen men in one swing were just represented on the table by giving the model more attacks. For me, there's not much cinematic difference between 1 attack that does 6 damage and 6 attacks that do 1 damage each. I don't think there's much difference game-wise either (I know the maths makes them a bit different, but I really do find that these things tend to average out even over the course of a single game).

I think the difference here is massive! I see one damage 6 attack as a mighty blow sweeping through multiple opponents or hacking a chunk from a monster. 6 damage 1 attacks would be multiple strikes cutting down foes left and right, or poking holes in a monster to try and bleed it out. I feel the spillover rules capture both these visualisations perfectly!

[EMMachine]

I like the way AoS does it, even it has some explanation flaws.

The rule simply shows that one attack could kill multiple models. An interesting case are catapults (Grot Scraplauncher). It has one shot but makes D3 damage normaly, D6 if the target has 10 or more models or 2D6 for 20 or more models (Thats one point where it lacks with template weapons in 40k or some anti Tank weapons which make the same damage against everything). The game has keywords now, why aren't they used that way.

The flaw in explanation is in most cases, why an attack with W6 damage would block the entine damage with one save or everything goes through, but even that could be explaned that the units makes the save in AoS not the model and a saved would tolds us that the models that would have been killed blocked, parried or dodged the attack, while in the other case some of them don't (it lacks a little in the part if models would make 3 Damge each time)

Now the point why I don't like the way 40k does it. In one point it maked the game much slower, after they kept the old allocation process:

1. Make Hit-Rolls
2. Make Wound-Rolls
3. Allocate wound to Model
4. Make save roll
5. Make Damage Roll
6. reduce models health
7. go back to point 3 until all models are dead or woundpool is empty

In AoS you you won't have to roll that much single dice (without having rolles ignoring wounds and mortal wounds) after it is straight away that:

1. Make Hit-Rolls
2. Make Wound-Rolls
3. Make save roll
4. Make Damage Roll
5. allocate wounds to models until all models are dead or the damagepool is empty.

Its much quicker because part 1-4 are on unitlayer so can be thrown at the same time and allocating inflicted wounds is quick to make while in 40k only part 1-2 are on unitlayer and points 3-6 on modellayer with the repeater point 7.

The secound point is, if you have weapons with D6 damage in 40k its much more luckbased. For example your target unit has 3 Wounds and you have 3 unsaved wounds. The first one rolled 1 one, the second one rolled a 1 and the third one rolled a 6, so all three shots would kill exact one Modell because of bad luck while the same roll would kill 2 models and damage 1 model twice in AoS.

But I could see the problem, too that 40k has much more ranged weapons with multiple damage.

Edit:

The funny part with the melter is, if some of you know the Space Marine PC game, in that game you could kill multiple marines in one shot, if all were in the blast.

[someone2040]

I actually think both games could deal with a bit of influence from each other in how they deal with 'template' weapons (And by template, I mean flame and blast templates).

The main difference I see, is that in 40k, they illustrate the 'template' type weapons by giving them more attacks for less damage. While in Fantasy, the template weapons generally have fewer attacks but more damage. 

That being said, I actually prefer 40k's way of doing things for templates. BUT, it could be better if it took a page from Age of Sigmar. A flamer for example, instead of having this profile:

Flamer - Range 8", Type Assault D6, S 4, AP 0, D 1, Abilities: This weapon automatically hits the target.

Could instead read

Flamer - Range 8", Type Assault D3, S 4, Ap 0, D1, Abilities: This weapon automatically hits the target. Against units that have more than 5 models, change the type to Assault D6.

So it effects small units or single models less so, but larger units get hit more by the weapon. You could even make it start at 1 hit if you really wanted, but D3 I think is fine.

 

On the other hand though, many of Age of Sigmars templates seem to be single one shot wonders that explode if they get through the armour. This doesn't really make a great deal of narrative sense on a lot of these weapons, as there's literally multiple models being effected by the attack. 

So I would propose the following. What if the Grot Scraplauncher had instead of this profile:

Attacks 1, To hit 3+, To-wound 4+, Rend -, Damage D3.  If the Scraplauncher hits a unit that has 10 or more models, increase its Damage to D6. If it hits a unit that has 20 or more models, increase its Damage to 2D6 instead.

Had this attack profile instead:

Attacks 1, To hit 3+, To-wound 4+, Rend -, Damage 1. If the Scraplauncher hits a unit that has 10 or more models, make D6 wound rolls instead of 1. If it hits a unit that has 20 or more models, make 2d6 wound rolls instead of 1.

This better represents the scrap landing over multiple enemies, going everywhere. But you still need to be accurate enough with your 'volley' to hit the unit. I think this style of 'exploding' attacks makes most sense for 'catapult' type artillery where the masonry explodes when it hits the ground.

Cannon type artillery I think is currently fine. It's one cannon shot to manages to skewer multiple enemies in one shot.

Flamer type artillery seems to largely have been changed into mortal wound generators. There are a few instances that come to mind like the Salamander and I think the Rat Ogor flamers that have the exploding damage. They could instead of hitting, automatically deal a random number of hits like Flamers from 40k but do 1 damage each.

So a Salamanders attack profile could instead read:

Stream of Fire: Attacks: D3 To Hit : *, To-Wound 3+, Rend -2, Damage 1. A Salamanders attacks with the Stream of Fire automatically hit. In addition, if targeting a unit with more than 5 models it's attacks are D6 instead of D3.

 

So yeah, I think there is room for both systems to borrow from each other in this case

[EMMachine]

4 hours ago, someone2040 said:

Attacks 1, To hit 3+, To-wound 4+, Rend -, Damage D3.  If the Scraplauncher hits a unit that has 10 or more models, increase its Damage to D6. If it hits a unit that has 20 or more models, increase its Damage to 2D6 instead.

Had this attack profile instead:

Attacks 1, To hit 3+, To-wound 4+, Rend -, Damage 1. If the Scraplauncher hits a unit that has 10 or more models, make D6 wound rolls instead of 1. If it hits a unit that has 20 or more models, make 2d6 wound rolls instead of 1.

This better represents the scrap landing over multiple enemies, going everywhere. But you still need to be accurate enough with your 'volley' to hit the unit. I think this style of 'exploding' attacks makes most sense for 'catapult' type artillery where the masonry explodes when it hits the ground.

I think, in both systems the Chained Lighting Ability from the Judicators could have worked too.

Quote

If a Judicator attacking with a Shockbolt Bow scores a hit then the bolt explodes into a storm of lighting. Instead of making a single wound roll, roll a dice and make a number of wound rolls equal to the number scored

This combined with the rule of the catapult what sort of dice you have to throw.

4 hours ago, someone2040 said:

That being said, I actually prefer 40k's way of doing things for templates. BUT, it could be better if it took a page from Age of Sigmar. A flamer for example, instead of having this profile:

Flamer - Range 8", Type Assault D6, S 4, AP 0, D 1, Abilities: This weapon automatically hits the target.

Could instead read

Flamer - Range 8", Type Assault D3, S 4, Ap 0, D1, Abilities: This weapon automatically hits the target. Against units that have more than 5 models, change the type to Assault D6.

So it effects small units or single models less so, but larger units get hit more by the weapon. You could even make it start at 1 hit if you really wanted, but D3 I think is fine.

Yeah, Flamers are a little strange in 40k, that they are more effective against heros and monstern then in the old editions. In AoS they are often mortal wounds but that fits them there as well, because the old armour is not effective against flames, where Armour in 40k could protect the Bearer.

[TerrorPenguin]

I prefer 40k's way of doing it. It means that you need to bring a balanced list to deal with the threats you might find. You need something that can deal with tanks, something that can deal with infantry etc. It prevents the 40K equivalent of spamming skyfires, which would just be equipping everything with lascannons and taking out d6 infantry per turn. 

I do agree that it makes the game slower, and probably a little more complex,  but currently* it works well to stop what was a problem in 7th Ed 40K and what is becoming an issue in AOS, which is minimum battleline, max out the most efficient units.

*I'm sure that an upcoming codex will begin the power creep. 

I'm also a fan of the sniping characters rule, as frankly a horde of 40 arrer boys releasing 560 (or whatever the rukk can do) arrows with exact precision into a vampire at the back of the board is a bit much. But maybe that's an exceptional case and the rule shouldn't be judged off those.

[Trout]

 

On 7/4/2017 at 8:29 AM, AGPO said:

No matter how hard my terminator captain punches an Eldar guardian in the face with a power fist, it's not going to kill the other Eldar stood three metres away.  No spillover makes sense to me, especially with shooting attacks from lascannons and such.

I've always thought that the models do not represent a single person, but a number of people. If this weren't the case then even the mightiest battle in AOS is merely a tiny skirmish compared to the real battles of history. Battles throughout history have regularly involved tens of thousands of soldiers on each side. A single Roman legion was about 5,000 men. Aos games involve less than a tenth of the numbers that real battles did.

 

The same goes for a round. A round is not supposed to represent a single swing of the sword. If it did, with games often lasting 10 rounds or less, that would mean an age of sigmar battle is decided in 5-10 swings of a sword.

 

I think the idea is that each model represents a number of people and each round represents a significant span of time during which your unit performed its actions. So, damage spillover does not mean your captain Killed two eldar standing three meters apart with a single punch. It means that your captain and his entourage engaged a group of eldar and pummeled several of them to death.

[Carnelian]

I think I prefer to imagine a single powerfist attack being so powerful that it kills everyone within 3 metres just from shock waves!

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, Trout said:

 

I've always thought that the models do not represent a single person, but a number of people. If this weren't the case then even the mightiest battle in AOS is merely a tiny skirmish compared to the real battles of history. Battles throughout history have regularly involved tens of thousands of soldiers on each side. A single Roman legion was about 5,000 men. Aos games involve less than a tenth of the numbers that real battles did.

I take it you are a historical gamer?  

AoS is not "real" battled and there is no scale beyond 1:1 stated or implied.  All the novels, sidebars, and other stories describe what you might think of as smaller battles. AoS simply is not a mass battle game. 

Even Warhammer wasn't really.  After about 3rd ed it went to 1:1 as the designers left behind historical notions.

You are free to imagine differently, of course, but that doesn't change the scale of the game. 

If it helps,  imagine that an AoS battle represents a small section of a much larger battle raging all around it.  The scale remains 1:1, but your tabletop is focused on the key/most exciting part of the whole fight.

[Trout]

6 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I take it you are a historical gamer?  

AoS is not "real" battled and there is no scale beyond 1:1 stated or implied.  All the novels, sidebars, and other stories describe what you might think of as smaller battles. AoS simply is not a mass battle game. 

Even Warhammer wasn't really.  After about 3rd ed it went to 1:1 as the designers left behind historical notions.

You are free to imagine differently, of course, but that doesn't change the scale of the game. 

If it helps,  imagine that an AoS battle represents a small section of a much larger battle raging all around it.  The scale remains 1:1, but your tabletop is focused on the key/most exciting part of the whole fight.

I think I like that way of looking at it; the most critical part of a larger battle.

 

But it doesn't solve the problem of rounds. If we pretend that a round doesn't represent more than the exact number of attacks it says on the warscroll, then that means that these battles are resolved with a dozen or less swings of a sword. More oddly than that is the fact that if 1 attack truly represents a single attack then an Ale Guzzler Gargant must look like a giant cartoonish blur on the battlefield since it can swing its club up to 18 times (3d6) in the span of time it takes a free guild guard to swing its sword just once.

 

I don't believe we should begin to envision giants as whirling dervishes, 18 times faster than a man. Nor is there reason to imagine that it was just one punch from your captain that killed two eldar.

[DynamicCalories]

People get to some strange places by trying to 1:1 the rules to the abstraction of what might. My advice is: take it for what it is. A dumb game where you roll dice to aid telling a story. Trying to make direct correlations leads to the above oddness.

As for spillover, to introduce it would probably need a big re-working. As has been said, the points are based to reflect it.