But yeah, I get what you mean. I was (am) rather sad that the CSM-Dex killed the option to mix marks in a unit. It seems a petty restriction that does nothing to people who wouldn’t want to do it anyway, and only hurts those that like to do it.

It removed an option I happened to like.

https://pinsofwar.com/mixing-your-marks-or-how-chaos-space-marines-forgot-about-jervis-johnson/

But I guess that is a more common trait now with 6th Edition Books (or at least with Phil Kelly books). They simply like to rail-road the player a bit and don’t give you the kind of sand-box freedom you had, say, in the Grey Knights’ Henchmen entry.

What’s important about wargear/rules of this nature is that the player is able to pick whether or not you want to utilize extreme successes/failures or not.

Example:
Plasma pistol on a space marine sergeant. 1 shot, /maybe/ 2 during the game. Chance to insta-gib an enemy, or potentially even gib himself. Player choice.

This situation represents a conscious choice on part of the player. Some armies include it, some do not. Both schools of thought are supported.

My primary problem with the Warp Storm is that I don’t have the choice to ignore it, avoid it, or really in any way manage it (musicians don’t count).

The caveat to “it slows the pace of the game” – to me – seems that results with more “extreme” results would be far more worthwhile rolling (as more often unusual things happen) than the “non-extreme” rolls.

10 Tac Marines rapid-firing on Terminators has so many dice, creating, as you said, rare outcomes so rarely, that it likely wouldn’t change the game much to just do away with these rolls and remove the statistical average of Terminators.

Those with “extreme” results, IMO, are those where actually rolling the dice makes more of a difference, making it less of an “unnecessary” slow-down, and more a less predictable element worth consulting the dice for in the first place.

No?

You tried to explain how the chance of the chart works, and you’re right that this game is based around chance. We roll dice to hit, to wound, for armour and a myriad of other reasons. However, what we do to normally combat chance is roll more dice.

How do I mean? Expecting to kill a Terminator with 1 bolter is ludicrous. Expecting to kill a terminator with a squad of marines rapid firing, however, is much more palatable. We roll more dice to create better averages. The rare situations where 1 bolter does kill a terminator or a squad fails any kills stand out because they are extreme.

What’s been happening recently, however, is the addition of “extreme success” and “extreme failure” results on dice. When rolling to shoot with bolters, it doesn’t matter whether you get a 3, 4, 5, or 6 all have the same result: “a hit.” When shooting with tesla, however, a 3, 4 and a 5 are all the same, but the 6 is different. It is an extreme success. If you fired three bolters and rolled three 6′s, you wouldn’t bat an eye, but with tesla, that’s such a better result than the other dice faces that it immediately becomes a point of frustration of cheer depending on which side of the table you’re on.

It’s been in the game for a long time with failures as well: A Guardsman firing a plasmagun treats 2s and 3s the same, but the unfortunate 1 potentially is his death.

The Warpstorm table creates yet another opportunity for extreme success or extreme failure, something that goes beyond “chance” that can be countered with additional models, choice or tactics and can only be countered with additional games.

So, while you can argue that it is balanced because the negatives parallel the positives, the fact is that the negatives will always have targets and the positives may not (your opponent doesn’t have a psyker, you don’t have extra models, etc).

I see these problems with it:
1) It slows the pace of the game
2) It’s results all typically involve additional (and lengthy) dice rolling.
3) It can have a very dramatic impact on the game without any kind of player involvement or manipulation beyond “picking daemons.”