alextroy wrote: But still, the rule is about finding a compromise between an easy cover system (+1 Armor Save) and not making the best defended units too immune to fire via that rule. Moving a 3+ Save to an effective 2+ Save is something they didn't want to do, so they simply ruled it out by exception. It is not elegant, but it is simple.
Wait, isn't their new motto "Simplified but not simple"?
The whole set of terrain rules are absolutely simplified from the keyword salad and then the cover bonus isn't simple, because you have to contextualize it. Simplified, not simple.
alextroy wrote: You are free to rage against the rules if you like, but the mental gymnastics aren't even that hard.
Most armor on most models is simply not that resistant to AP0 attacks anywhere. Enough solid hits to the torso will punch through them.
2+ and 3+ armor is only vulnerable at the weak points like the head and joints. Guess what is available to be hit when you are looking and firing from a cover position? The head, neck, arms, and shoulders. Sometimes the foot and legs. Lots of joints showing with the heavily armored torso hidden.
But still, the rule is about finding a compromise between an easy cover system (+1 Armor Save) and not making the best defended units too immune to fire via that rule. Moving a 3+ Save to an effective 2+ Save is something they didn't want to do, so they simply ruled it out by exception. It is not elegant, but it is simple.
You're right, the head of Infantry has to be stopped by a fence first vs the Marine where it magically swerves out of the way of the fence.
Don't forget the discrepancy of Ogryn vs Bullgryn getting benefits! Only an Ogryn's legs can ever get benefit, because a bullet knows it needs to try harder against a Bullgryn!
alextroy wrote: But still, the rule is about finding a compromise between an easy cover system (+1 Armor Save) and not making the best defended units too immune to fire via that rule. Moving a 3+ Save to an effective 2+ Save is something they didn't want to do, so they simply ruled it out by exception. It is not elegant, but it is simple.
Wait, isn't their new motto "Simplified but not simple"?
The whole set of terrain rules are absolutely simplified from the keyword salad and then the cover bonus isn't simple, because you have to contextualize it. Simplified, not simple.
Ah, my mistake, I thought by "not simple" they meant "has depth" and not "it can get confusing" .
You're right, the head of Infantry has to be stopped by a fence first vs the Marine where it magically swerves out of the way of the fence.
Don't forget the discrepancy of Ogryn vs Bullgryn getting benefits! Only an Ogryn's legs can ever get benefit, because a bullet knows it needs to try harder against a Bullgryn!
I mean, we can discuss how "unrealistic" it is until the space-cows come home. Its a game, not a simulation, and the reasons why they did this are purely mechanically driven, not lore driven, so no amount of talk of realism, verisimilitude, or whatever, is going to change the fact the designers think 3+ armoured units in cover getting a 2+ is a Bad Thing, so they added a rule to prevent it.
Thats it. Is it "unrealistic" within the confines of the settings lore? yes. Doesnt matter, its not meant to be "realistic", just to stop a interaction that most players agree has a disproportional effect on game balance and boosts MEQ factions heavily. Given the stated and so far apparent reduction in lethality, its clear they think this additional boost will be overpowered and oppressive, or promote gameplay they feel is "unfun", so they removed it.
im reminded of all the discussion at the start of 9th about the introduction of CORE, and how "unrealistic" (or not) that was, and how it was silly that X marine unit was core, but Y unit was not. because like with CORE, the reasons for this are game balence driven, not lore driven.
It would be easy enough to assign different forms of cover different cover save values. These could easily range from 3+ down to 6+ with obscuring cover also giving a -1 to hit penalty. That's realistic and easy enough to adjudicate with tournaments easily able to pin cover values to bits of terrain or publish terrain maps giving cover values for ease of use.
Garage and PUGs would need some agreement but no more than other editions.
The Lion, Son of the Forest, features quite a lot of Chaos Beastmen. It doesn’t strike me as just the author liking Beasties. So perhaps Chaos will be getting Beastmen in the relatively near future?
The Lion, Son of the Forest, features quite a lot of Chaos Beastmen. It doesn’t strike me as just the author liking Beasties. So perhaps Chaos will be getting Beastmen in the relatively near future?
Valrak already said as much, according to him the Killteam that was recently previewed is only the beginning and they're getting, quote 'Lots of love'.
vipoid wrote: Do you think it would make more sense if cover just didn't provide a benefit against AP0 weapons, regardless of a model's armour save?
Honestly cover should probably provide more protection against low AP weapons. A tree is a real barrier to a 5.56 round, but probably helps f*** all against a depleted uranium rod traveling at mach 4.
vipoid wrote: Do you think it would make more sense if cover just didn't provide a benefit against AP0 weapons, regardless of a model's armour save?
Honestly cover should probably provide more protection against low AP weapons. A tree is a real barrier to a 5.56 round, but probably helps f*** all against a depleted uranium rod traveling at mach 4.
From a realism standpoint, I fully agree.
From a gameplay perspective, it seems 99% of AP0 weapons are already garbage-tier, so this might at least make them slightly more appealing.
It doesn't help models with an inv save though, especialy if the cost is actualy build in to the model and not handed out for free.
Its more or less how old editions did cover - you can take an armor OR cover save if you are in cover. Cover saves were generally worse than armor saves, but didn't care about the AP of the gun, so Guardsmen or Orks for example benefited from cover by actually getting a save, while marines only worried about it when the big guns came out. And the advantage for the model with the invuln save was that well, they got that save anywhere no matter what.
Mind you GW has been throwing stuff out that ignores invuln saves, and then other rules that ignore rules that ignore invuln saves, so who knows. If the scaled back lethality is true then that would be something I'd imagine would be also scaled back.
Maybe this isn't the best place to post our cover rules, but what the heck.
We still use area terrain & cover saves similar to the 3rd-7th edition paradigm, as well as the previous weapon AP system so keep that in mind.
Models only get one save type: cover, armor or invulnerable. Sound familiar? Granting each save type is the most fair but it we decided it slows down the game too much. Area terrain can be shot into and through up to & including a second area terrain but not past that (exceptions for sniper rifles & railguns). Models receiving cover from area terrain (but not just a barricade, for example) are at a -1 to get hit. This benefits all units taking cover.
Different terrain types provide better cover: ruins & rocks 4+, forest 5+, light fences & bushes 6+, etc. If the AP of a weapon is a higher number than the save provided by the area terrain, shots may go into that area but not past it.
So a bolter that is AP 5 won't pass through a 4+ cover save ruin, for example.
Is this a perfect system? Of course not, because such a thing doesn't exist for all examples. We have found it to be the most equitable in the greatest number of cases, however. Your mileage may vary.
vipoid wrote: Do you think it would make more sense if cover just didn't provide a benefit against AP0 weapons, regardless of a model's armour save?
Honestly cover should probably provide more protection against low AP weapons. A tree is a real barrier to a 5.56 round, but probably helps f*** all against a depleted uranium rod traveling at mach 4.
There are two things going on.
One is that 'cover' in 40K also includes concealment. That tank gun might put a fist-sized hole through whatever it hits, but if you can't actually see the guys hiding behind the sandbags, your effectiveness is still reduced.
And the other is that while it's logical for the protection offered by hard cover to be mitigated by sufficient AP, it isn't particularly logical for cover to disproportionately benefit more-armored units over less-armored ones, to the point where if your armor is an impenetrable aegis of bulletproof protection you hide whenever you can while if your only protection is a t-shirt you don't bother hiding from fire.
Basically, they wrote themselves into a corner with using save modification as the mechanic. And now they're trying to write themselves into a better gameplay outcome, logic be damned.
Frankly, it's a good example of why designing for effect often beats designing for simulation. I was never a fan of the all-or-nothing AP system but the pick-your-best-save approach to armor/invulns/cover produced thematically appropriate results on the tabletop.
amanita wrote: Is this a perfect system? Of course not, because such a thing doesn't exist for all examples. We have found it to be the most equitable in the greatest number of cases, however. Your mileage may vary.
The point I think most people miss ( not you, specifically ) is that the 'perfect' system will only become more and more complex. If we want to have a game that is quick to resolve and systems that don't create pockets of imbalance then simpler is better.
amanita wrote: Is this a perfect system? Of course not, because such a thing doesn't exist for all examples. We have found it to be the most equitable in the greatest number of cases, however. Your mileage may vary.
The point I think most people miss ( not you, specifically ) is that the 'perfect' system will only become more and more complex. If we want to have a game that is quick to resolve and systems that don't create pockets of imbalance then simpler is better.
If its more and more complex, its almost definitionally not perfect. So, I'm honestly not sure where you're going with that.
Similarly, quick and simple isn't necessarily a blueprint for avoiding pockets of imbalance. I'm not sure that's even likely, as it pretty much falls under the 'cheap, fast or good, pick 2' maxim.
I am just looking forward to trying out the system. Don't really care for the "what's real"/"My Marines got 38 rules last year and only 37 now" discussion. For me I need to experience the terrain rules on the table and then make judgment.
Although I would love an indepth look in future White Dwarf magazines what the thinking was behind this.
amanita wrote: Is this a perfect system? Of course not, because such a thing doesn't exist for all examples. We have found it to be the most equitable in the greatest number of cases, however. Your mileage may vary.
The point I think most people miss ( not you, specifically ) is that the 'perfect' system will only become more and more complex. If we want to have a game that is quick to resolve and systems that don't create pockets of imbalance then simpler is better.
That's the entire point: simplifying the system to make it intuitive and easy to understand, but then also making it complex (and not simple) to improve player interactions and add depth. You can make an insanely detailed and complex system and it will still run lightning-fast if you put enough grease between the gears, so to speak. The flip side is that designing such a system takes a lot more than throwing around ideas while sipping coffee.
Voss 809431 11522830 wrote:
If its more and more complex, its almost definitionally not perfect. So, I'm honestly not sure where you're going with that.
Similarly, quick and simple isn't necessarily a blueprint for avoiding pockets of imbalance. I'm not sure that's even likely, as it pretty much for under the 'cheap, fast or good, pick 2' maxim.
With the expeption of Ad Mecha, all top w40k armies in 9th ed were easy to understand how they work, and most were also fast to play. Sometimes in case of stuff like pre nerf Eldar, D Eldar and Vottan the armies could have 45min 2k point games.
I'd be happy to just shave an hour or so from my games. They always take a really long time due to looking up rules and stats, and because my group hasn't played that many times, really. So much reading getting in the way! 10th will hopefully be a lot quicker.
amanita wrote: Is this a perfect system? Of course not, because such a thing doesn't exist for all examples. We have found it to be the most equitable in the greatest number of cases, however. Your mileage may vary.
The point I think most people miss ( not you, specifically ) is that the 'perfect' system will only become more and more complex. If we want to have a game that is quick to resolve and systems that don't create pockets of imbalance then simpler is better.
If its more and more complex, its almost definitionally not perfect. So, I'm honestly not sure where you're going with that.
Similarly, quick and simple isn't necessarily a blueprint for avoiding pockets of imbalance. I'm not sure that's even likely, as it pretty much for under the 'cheap, fast or good, pick 2' maxim.
Perfect as in satisfying all these conditions people want, which in the end makes terrain it's own game if you go far enough.
Said another way - a game where terrain is the star ( e.g. Necromunda ). But terrain in those games in very technical. A lot of 40K players want terrain that is very diverse and for a game that takes a lot of time investing more rules into it will only slow it down.
You got that one right. In 8th, everyone screamed for better terrain rules. 9th rolled in with a ton of Terrain Traits and everyone said that is not what they meant. Now 10th is distilling down the 9th rules into a smaller range of options, while remaining more complex than 8th. Looks good so far, but there are obviously details to be added.
alextroy wrote: You got that one right. In 8th, everyone screamed for better terrain rules. 9th rolled in with a ton of Terrain Traits and everyone said that is not what they meant. Now 10th is distilling down the 9th rules into a smaller range of options, while remaining more complex than 8th. Looks good so far, but there are obviously details to be added.
Out of curiosity, what were the perceived problems with 9th edition's terrain rules? A lot of them went unused, but I rather liked them on the whole. If I had any gripes, the main one was probably just that the lack of stacking to-hit mods made dense terrain a bit wonky, but I kind of liked being able to apply relevant tags to terrain.
EDIT: Passing thought: I wonder if a more intuitive approach to the cover changes could have been to let marines benefit from cover against small arms, but only at a distance. So if you're willing to get danger close to the marines, you can "find better angles" or whatever. So instead of the 10th edition rule of not being able to get a 2+ save, maybe you instead only get the benefits of cover against attacks from more than X" away. So you end up with counterplay to avoid having to chew through 2+ saves all game, and marines still have a reason to take cover.
Wyldhunt wrote: Out of curiosity, what were the perceived problems with 9th edition's terrain rules?
Can't speak for anyone else, but for me personally I find the keyword system to be implemented in an annoyingly convoluted way. The fact that it's written in lawyer-speak (so dense that even the writers can't really parse it- see Heavy Cover, where the full rules and the bullet point summary contradict each other about who gets the benefit) only makes it worse.
I'm much happier with a few types of codified cover and before the game saying 'these are ruins, these are craters' rather than having to run through the keywords assigned to each piece of terrain, remember what those do, and then remember which terrain has which keywords.
Wyldhunt wrote: EDIT: Passing thought: I wonder if a more intuitive approach to the cover changes could have been to let marines benefit from cover against small arms, but only at a distance. So if you're willing to get danger close to the marines, you can "find better angles" or whatever. So instead of the 10th edition rule of not being able to get a 2+ save, maybe you instead only get the benefits of cover against attacks from more than X" away. So you end up with counterplay to avoid having to chew through 2+ saves all game, and marines still have a reason to take cover.
People thinking this means that Marines won't ever take cover are being silly. If you leave your Marines out in the open because it doesn't make any difference against lasguns, you're still going to get mulched by plasma guns.
It just means that firing lasguns won't involve an average of 120 dice rolled for every Marine taken off the board, which is flying rodent gak insane.
The problem with the 9th Edition Traits is that there are just too many and they are not intuitively applied. Add that some were just plan useless (I'm talking about you, scatter terrain) and you ended up with more rules than you need.
It didn't help that they wrote Heavy Cover so badly it got the wrong result, either. They had rewrite the last half of the sentence in the FAQ to make it work correctly.
My main gripes with 9th edition terrain are
a) a good terrain setup is absolutely mandatory to have a good game, and there is not much grey area - it terrain is either well placed or it isn't and ruins the game.
b) The terrain by itself can invalidate units or even entire armies, while not impacting the other army in any meaningful way (dense, breachable, unstable ground)
c) Great looking tables can be functionally identical to having no terrain
d) Setting up terrain in a good way is difficult and can in general only be done by experienced players.
As far as I can tell, 10th affects these four issues as follows:
a) Same as before, but maybe less binary. Even if they cut the ap and damage of every weapon in the game, and no matter how easy it is to obtain "benefits of cover", no valuable unit will survive T1 if they are visible to the enemy army. Placing sufficient amounts of obscuring terrain ruins in the right places will still make or break games.
b) Dense is gone, the jury is still out on breachable and unstable ground.
c) This got slightly toned down, as almost all terrain now hands out benefits of cover if they are in the way. So this got quite a bit better, but a table without ruins in the center will still be shooting gallery, even if less stuff dies.
d) Once again, since ruins didn't change functionally, it's still necessary to know how to use them. Depending on how terrain blocks movement, this might or might not have improved.
So my current opinion is that they took 9th edition's rules and just cut everything that wasn't used and fixed the biggest problems of the things that were used. For most games, they should almost play identical.
Instead of relying on obscuring to continue to save the day, I wished they should have been more drastic changes, like we see in boarding action.
Jidmah wrote: My main gripes with 9th edition terrain are
a) a good terrain setup is absolutely mandatory to have a good game, and there is not much grey area - it terrain is either well placed or it isn't and ruins the game.
b) The terrain by itself can invalidate units or even entire armies, while not impacting the other army in any meaningful way (dense, breachable, unstable ground)
c) Great looking tables can be functionally identical to having no terrain
d) Setting up terrain in a good way is difficult and can in general only be done by experienced players.
As far as I can tell, 10th affects these four issues as follows:
a) Same as before, but maybe less binary. Even if they cut the ap and damage of every weapon in the game, and no matter how easy it is to obtain "benefits of cover", no valuable unit will survive T1 if they are visible to the enemy army. Placing sufficient amounts of obscuring terrain ruins in the right places will still make or break games.
b) Dense is gone, the jury is still out on breachable and unstable ground.
c) This got slightly toned down, as almost all terrain now hands out benefits of cover if they are in the way. So this got quite a bit better, but a table without ruins in the center will still be shooting gallery, even if less stuff dies.
d) Once again, since ruins didn't change functionally, it's still necessary to know how to use them. Depending on how terrain blocks movement, this might or might not have improved.
So my current opinion is that they took 9th edition's rules and just cut everything that wasn't used and fixed the biggest problems of the things that were used. For most games, they should almost play identical.
Instead of relying on obscuring to continue to save the day, I wished they should have been more drastic changes, like we see in boarding action.
So the previewed rules get a solid "meh" from me.
A lot will depend on the definition of "Partially visible" and "Fully visible". If it is defined with true LoS then yes, we don't get too far from 9th edition issues, but if they instead trace from base to base then it would be a lot cleaner.
Lower AP and easier to claim cover can fix the shooting gallery issue for many factions, but there are some like Aeldari which won't really get saved by that, and will still require to break LoS regularly.
It would be easier to fix them with bespoke rules ("Lighting fast reflexes: Can't be selected as a target of ranged weapons if the attacker is further than 18" and all the models of this unit have the benefit of cover"), than trying to fix them changing the general terrain rules.
amanita wrote: Is this a perfect system? Of course not, because such a thing doesn't exist for all examples. We have found it to be the most equitable in the greatest number of cases, however. Your mileage may vary.
The point I think most people miss ( not you, specifically ) is that the 'perfect' system will only become more and more complex. If we want to have a game that is quick to resolve and systems that don't create pockets of imbalance then simpler is better.
If its more and more complex, its almost definitionally not perfect. So, I'm honestly not sure where you're going with that.
Similarly, quick and simple isn't necessarily a blueprint for avoiding pockets of imbalance. I'm not sure that's even likely, as it pretty much for under the 'cheap, fast or good, pick 2' maxim.
Perfect as in satisfying all these conditions people want, which in the end makes terrain it's own game if you go far enough.
Said another way - a game where terrain is the star ( e.g. Necromunda ). But terrain in those games in very technical. A lot of 40K players want terrain that is very diverse and for a game that takes a lot of time investing more rules into it will only slow it down.
It wont happen because too many people want mutually exclusive things - and way too many categorize the things they don't like for armies they don't play as "bloat".
Spoletta wrote: A lot will depend on the definition of "Partially visible" and "Fully visible". If it is defined with true LoS then yes, we don't get too far from 9th edition issues, but if they instead trace from base to base then it would be a lot cleaner.
Lower AP and easier to claim cover can fix the shooting gallery issue for many factions
Both good points, and honestly I'm hoping for a base-to-base line of sight solution with some sort of band-aid for models like the defiler. I'd rather have a good solution for 95% of the models and a dumb one for the few edge cases than something that is fiddly for everything but covers all the edge cases.
Afrodactyl wrote: I like the new cover system, including units with a 3+ or better not benefitting from 0AP weapons.
From a gameplay perspective it means that MEQ/TEQ don't become this unmovable brick once in cover. It means that your small arms can actually contribute in even a vaguely meaningful way.
From a fluff perspective, why is a Terminator or Marine going to care about Guardsmen plinking lasguns at him? Yes, they're going to hug cover when the melta guns and plasma guns come out but until then the overwhelming majority of small arms fire is inconsequential to them.
Wrong. It doesn´t matter if a guardsman or marine stand behind a tree. In both cases the bullet has to penetrate the tree first. So both models will benefit from it. The mental gymnastics of some people...
It's not really mental gymnastics when you consider that Marines are effectively walking tanks compared to your average Guardsman in the fluff. Why is he so scared of lasguns that he's cowering behind trees for protection? He isn't, because his armour is protecting him from basically all of the lasfire, ergo he's effectively getting no benefit from the cover against lasfire.
Cover is also about the shooter losing their shot, as the target is presumed to be moving and not static.
But this will also encourage different playstyle, and maybe even different objective placement. If my dudes aren’t going to gain much from cover, there’s some logic to “I’ll place my objectives more in the open”, in the hope you’ll either steer clear, or be easier for me to force off said objectives.
And remember, it’s not never Benefit from Cover. 3+ and better saves still get the benefit against anything AP -1 or stronger.
Of course, we’ll need to see more weapon stats to truly put that into the most accurate context.
Afrodactyl wrote: Marines are effectively walking tanks compared to your average Guardsman in the fluff.
Unless the main protag is a Guardsman in which case Marines get noscoped constantly. So the Marines take cover because they don't know who the main protag is. Simple as. (/s)
In pretty much every bolter porn novel I have read, when marines come under fire by regular troops, they "break into a running pace" and then start hack and slashing away at their opponents with their while also shooting them in the face or chest at point blank range.
In don't remember ever having read about a terminator taking cover. Either they walk into gunfire while shooting at the source of it, or they hide out of sight until ordnance or flanking troops take out whatever was preventing them from walking into gunfire.
But do the Marines on the table know they are in a bolter porn fic? What if they are in a Gaunt novel? Even Dreadnoughts wisely take cover when they find themselves in a Gaunt novel.
AtoMaki wrote: But do the Marines on the table know they are in a bolter porn fic? What if they are in a Gaunt novel? Even Dreadnoughts wisely take cover when they find themselves in a Gaunt novel.
Looking at Gaunt's rules, I'm fairly sure none of the games are in a Gaunt novel.
AtoMaki wrote: But do the Marines on the table know they are in a bolter porn fic? What if they are in a Gaunt novel? Even Dreadnoughts wisely take cover when they find themselves in a Gaunt novel.
Looking at Gaunt's rules, I'm fairly sure none of the games are in a Gaunt novel.
Looking at the Marines' rules, I'm fairly sure none of the games are in a bolter porn either.
Your point being? Gaunt's Ghosts is like 16 novels or something, marine novels are probably in the hundreds by now.
Marines surely expect their army to work how it is described in their novels, not how it is described in a series which kind of has to make sure that a small group of regular soldiers is relevant, despite super-humans existing which are literally better at everything they do.
And I frankly don't believe that there are marines, terminators or even dreads taking cover from las, autoguns or shootas unless someone provides a quote from one of the books of exactly that happening.
Marines surely expect their army to work how it is described in their novels
That would require a complete rework of the entire Marine range. Starting with how easily they die to lasguns and other small arms (at least compared to the novel descriptions). And many other things too. There is a post about this idea a few pages back.
Jidmah wrote: And I frankly don't believe that there are marines, terminators or even dreads taking cover from las, autoguns or shootas unless someone provides a quote from one of the books of exactly that happening.
Hey, they still do in the game if the las/autogun/shoota is slightly above them. I guess the High Ground memes are too much even for the Marines and they must take cover against them or something. And that's funny because Plunging Fire is supposed to represent a denial of cover, but against Marines it provides the benefit of cover. How ironic .
I don't really remember any aspect warrior taking cover - either it's surgical strikes which allow no return fire or they dodge around like mad using acrobatics, jump generators or their wings. 40k really is lacking a dodge mechanic for these kind of units.
To fair, I haven't read that many novels with proper eldar battles in them (5-6 max), and in many they suffered from the NPC xenos faction syndrome.
Ironically, a faction that is constantly portrayed as cowardly hiding in terrain and giving the protagonists trouble is orks, despite them not really benefitting from cover a whole lot on the tabletop. Maybe an army-wide 5+ armor save changes that.
Marines surely expect their army to work how it is described in their novels
That would require a complete rework of the entire Marine range. Starting with how easily they die to lasguns and other small arms (at least compared to the novel descriptions). And many other things too. There is a post about this idea a few pages back.
True, but to me it felt like marines with armor of contempt came really close to how marines are portrayed in most novels. With AoC essentially being applied to every weapon in the game now, it's close enough. Having a marine die from an autopistol when you shoot him 18 times at point blank range without any chance to miss might be easy from a game perspective, but from a lore perspective it's not. In comparison, it takes 3 shots to kill a guardsman with an autopistol.
Jidmah wrote: Hey, they still do in the game if the las/autogun/shoota is slightly above them. I guess the High Ground memes are too much even for the Marines and they must take cover against them or something. And that's funny because Plunging Fire is supposed to represent a denial of cover, but against Marines it provides the benefit of cover. How ironic .
Taking abstract rules too literally will always lead to funny interaction, cue calculating a genestealers speed based on eldar planes being "supersonic". I don't remember the details, but essentially every genestealer would cause a sonic boom when advancing and then catch fire from the friction of the atmosphere moving past it that fast.
6" also isn't "slightly above them", in almost all cases this will be a model shooting from the second floor (counting European style) to the ground floor. Just walk outside and see how far up that is.
Lastly, I feel like this rule is completely unnecessary (too granular for the scale 40k is now at), but they most likely wanted to reward units for being high up in a ruin - currently, for most units it never makes sense to climb ruins anymore, because it takes too long to get up and/or down.
In the game Marines are presumably going to still get into cover because hosing them down with Plasma/Melta (and equivalents) is still going to be the main way their units actually die in the shooting phase.
Not because you've somehow targeted them 180 BS4+ lasgun shots.
Assuming that there is a floor at exactly 6", which is not that common. 3" floors make it difficult to place models in ruins, so even most scratch built terrain has more.
Otherwise it sounds about right, as Gothic architecture in general tends to have extra high ceilings, google says 3-4.5m is the average so 9 - 15m from ground floor to second floor.
I don't really remember any aspect warrior taking cover - either it's surgical strikes which allow no return fire or they dodge around like mad using acrobatics, jump generators or their wings.
40k really is lacking a dodge mechanic for these kind of units.
.
I recall one where Stirking Scorpions (IIRC) were in cover behind a wall then an Immolator rolled up and incinerated them
Having a marine die from an autopistol when you shoot him 18 times at point blank range without any chance to miss might be easy from a game perspective, but from a lore perspective it's not.
I mean, that's the whole point. If the perspectives are so misaligned anyway, then why bother? Marines will still hug cover (just not against lasguns) and lasguns will still fare poorly against them so what this rule actually does is to make lasguns a little better versus MEQ because they essentially get -1 AP if the Marine is in cover. If this is bolter porn then it must be BDSM.
6" also isn't "slightly above them", in almost all cases this will be a model shooting from the second floor (counting European style) to the ground floor. Just walk outside and see how far up that is.
I know, that's why I'm wondering why it improves the Marines' cover effectiveness. On its own, the rule would be fine, but with the "no 2+ cover vs AP0" rule it means that firing at Marines in cover with lasguns is less effective from an elevated position than from the ground floor. It just feels extremely counter-productive. So what if Marines get a 2+ cover against my mighty lasguns? Will it trigger an IRL nuclear war from the angry AM players working at NORAD? Or what?
AtoMaki wrote: lasguns will still fare poorly against them so what this rule actually does is to make lasguns a little better versus MEQ because they essentially get -1 AP if the Marine is in cover.
So what if Marines get a 2+ cover against my mighty lasguns? Will it trigger an IRL nuclear war from the angry AM players working at NORAD? Or what?
Here's storm bolters vs marines not in cover - this comes to about 20 points in damage done ( current points ) :
And this is the same with marines getting a cover bonus - predictably half the damage so 10 points worth:
And here's SB vs guard in cover - this comes to 29 points of damage:
So what you're effectively saying is that it's OK for marines to take 1/3 the damage of guard as long as it doesn't hurt anyone's sensibilities? Maybe we should just increase the AP on guns to make it fair. Wait...
So what you're effectively saying is that it's OK for marines to take 1/3 the damage of guard as long as it doesn't hurt anyone's sensibilities?
Yes? They are supposed to be really friggin' tough, very much unlike GEQ, so, like, who cares? Or to better say, who would expect anything different and why? Am I supposed to believe that there are people who try to weed Marines out of cover with peashooters and think it should work? And GW made a separate rule to make these people feel less dumb?
Having a marine die from an autopistol when you shoot him 18 times at point blank range without any chance to miss might be easy from a game perspective, but from a lore perspective it's not.
I mean, that's the whole point. If the perspectives are so misaligned anyway, then why bother?
Why bother? From a lore perspective, there is no reason. From a gaming perspective, +1 to armor saves is not a linear increase in survivability, and that causes problems:
Marine cover takes one wound from those 18 shots, a 50% reduction in damage. Meanwhile an ork takes 5 damage instead of 6, a reduction of 16.66%. It's pretty much the reverse of the dense cover situation, where dense cover would provide a 50% reduction of damage from ork shooting, while it only provided a 25% reduction from marine shooting. Multiply those effects and a tactical marine with dense and light cover takes only take a fourth of the damage from ork shootas, while the orks (with 6+ armor) still take more than half from bolters.
Bringing the minimum effect and the maximum effect of cover closer to each other makes it more fair and more balanceable for both sides.
Marines will still hug cover (just not against lasguns) and lasguns will still fare poorly against them so what this rule actually does is to make lasguns a little better versus MEQ because they essentially get -1 AP if the Marine is in cover.
Correct.
On its own, the rule would be fine, but with the "no 2+ cover vs AP0" rule it means that firing at Marines in cover with lasguns is less effective from an elevated position than from the ground floor. It just feels extremely counter-productive. So what if Marines get a 2+ cover against my mighty lasguns? Will it trigger an IRL nuclear war from the angry AM players working at NORAD? Or what?
See above for the math reason. There are quite a few weapons with AP0 which aren't lasguns and I suspect the numbers will be massively increased with AP going down across the board and doctrines disappearing. I expect most anti-infantry weaponry to drop to AP0 like we have seen with the assault cannon, and 2+ armor in cover would just make those completely worthless to fire at marines.
In the end, the rule does nothing but cap armor at 3+. The "vs AP0" is just a weird way to word that, but it gets the job done and leaves no room for edge cases or rules lawering. Everything else you read into it is just in your head.
So what you're effectively saying is that it's OK for marines to take 1/3 the damage of guard as long as it doesn't hurt anyone's sensibilities?
Yes? They are supposed to be really friggin' tough, very much unlike GEQ, so, like, who cares? Or to better say, who would expect anything different and why? Am I supposed to believe that there are people who try to weed Marines out of cover with peashooters and think it should work? And GW made a separate rule to make these people feel less dumb?
You do realize that marines STILL take less damage under either condition, right?
So what you're effectively saying is that it's OK for marines to take 1/3 the damage of guard as long as it doesn't hurt anyone's sensibilities?
Yes? They are supposed to be really friggin' tough, very much unlike GEQ, so, like, who cares? Or to better say, who would expect anything different and why? Am I supposed to believe that there are people who try to weed Marines out of cover with peashooters and think it should work? And GW made a separate rule to make these people feel less dumb?
GW clearly disagrees with you. And I wouldn't exactly call "heavy, large-calibre machine gun" (codex description of a big shoota) a "peashooter".
Jidmah wrote: Marines surely expect their army to work how it is described in their novels, not how it is described in a series which kind of has to make sure that a small group of regular soldiers is relevant, despite super-humans existing which are literally better at everything they do.
Once upon a time there was a list called Movie Marines that did exactly that. Your entire army was 5-10 models, the entries were movie archetypes like 'the sarge' and 'the dude', you could buy stunt doubles to take damage for you, it supercharged all your weapons so basic bolters could blow open tanks, and even had a note saying that if your opponent's fielding the same guns they still use the normal stats, because you're the protagonist and they're not. Somewhere along the line the playerbase forgot that this was a tongue-in-cheek satire, and more than once I've seen Marine fans wistfully pine for 'lore-accurate' rules like Movie Marines.
It always strikes me as odd when people suggest that Guard-centric novels are full of protagonist bias and shouldn't be taken as lore-accurate, but [insert bolter porn novel here] is Real Lore™ and if Marines on the tabletop don't feel like the Marines in Marine-centric fiction, it's bad. There's always going to be a disconnect between action shlock power fantasy and a competitive game where both players have a comparable shot at winning and both players expect to be treated as equals, rather than protagonists vs NPCs.
So tl;dr why are we talking about what anyone does in the novels? The tabletop came first and should be a fun and fair experience in its own right, regardless of what the writers do with it after the fact.
alextroy wrote: The Bolt Rifle has always been AP -1. That's been its biggest selling point.
Wellwellwell, I might be up to a rough surprise here... I actually can't tell apart the Primaris stuff very well, but the local Primaris player is using AP 0 Bolt Rifles. They are, like, 500%-sure AP 0, I have seen the entry of the weapon with my own eyes. Please don't tell me that he has been using the wrong gun all along...
alextroy wrote: The Bolt Rifle has always been AP -1. That's been its biggest selling point.
Wellwellwell, I might be up to a rough surprise here... I actually can't tell apart the Primaris stuff very well, but the local Primaris player is using AP 0 Bolt Rifles. They are, like, 500%-sure AP 0, I have seen the entry of the weapon with my own eyes. Please don't tell me that he has been using the wrong gun all along...
I'm pretty sure the auto bolt rifle is AP0. I wanna say it's the one with the drum mag if that helps.
alextroy wrote: The Bolt Rifle has always been AP -1. That's been its biggest selling point.
Wellwellwell, I might be up to a rough surprise here... I actually can't tell apart the Primaris stuff very well, but the local Primaris player is using AP 0 Bolt Rifles. They are, like, 500%-sure AP 0, I have seen the entry of the weapon with my own eyes. Please don't tell me that he has been using the wrong gun all along...
So here we see why people have been clamoring for bolter consolidation for a while now lol
AtoMaki wrote: lasguns will still fare poorly against them so what this rule actually does is to make lasguns a little better versus MEQ because they essentially get -1 AP if the Marine is in cover.
So what if Marines get a 2+ cover against my mighty lasguns? Will it trigger an IRL nuclear war from the angry AM players working at NORAD? Or what?
Here's storm bolters vs marines not in cover - this comes to about 20 points in damage done ( current points ) :
And this is the same with marines getting a cover bonus - predictably half the damage so 10 points worth:
And here's SB vs guard in cover - this comes to 29 points of damage:
So what you're effectively saying is that it's OK for marines to take 1/3 the damage of guard as long as it doesn't hurt anyone's sensibilities? Maybe we should just increase the AP on guns to make it fair. Wait...
Sounds like a job for weapons that Ignore Cover or using melee units that Guard have.
No, because needing to roll 120 dice on average to remove a single basic trooper of the most common faction in the game is stupid and should actually be addressed at the source.
Alternate solution to the MEQ in cover thing?
Drop Marines back to 1W and allow them to get the cover bonus.
The 3+ cover thing also isn't just about Marines, it effects everyone with a 3+, so Sisters, a bunch of Necrons, Crisis Suits, etc. It's more of a "Get out and move your dudes!" mechanic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: No, because needing to roll 120 dice on average to remove a single basic trooper of the most common faction in the game is stupid and should actually be addressed at the source.
Insectum7 wrote: Alternate solution to the MEQ in cover thing?
Drop Marines back to 1W and allow them to get the cover bonus.
Ehh. That's probably an even bigger swing in balance without making marines super cheap in points thereby making them more damaging when they're packing bigger guns.
Insectum7 wrote: Alternate solution to the MEQ in cover thing?
Drop Marines back to 1W and allow them to get the cover bonus.
.
This becomes a gigantic hit in efficiency to any elite marine unit. being 30-40pts with one wound and +3sv is very bad. Especialy when other factions gets tanks for 2-3 marines like that. Makes taking something else then a basic marine something a marine player should not be doing, and when that happens we are back to 2x5 minimal troops and either spaming units that somehow go around the +3sv/1W downgrade, or spaming tanks. And if neither thing can be done, then marines become a very bad army. Like post 8th ed Gulliman gunline marines nerf bad.
Insectum7 wrote: Alternate solution to the MEQ in cover thing?
Drop Marines back to 1W and allow them to get the cover bonus.
Ehh. That's probably an even bigger swing in balance without making marines super cheap in points thereby making them more damaging when they're packing bigger guns.
Then rebalance.
It sucks for other armies when their small arms are so ineffective against Marines.
Insectum7 wrote: Alternate solution to the MEQ in cover thing?
Drop Marines back to 1W and allow them to get the cover bonus.
Ehh. That's probably an even bigger swing in balance without making marines super cheap in points thereby making them more damaging when they're packing bigger guns.
Then rebalance.
It sucks for other armies when their small arms are so ineffective against Marines.
Then access to more weapons that Ignore Cover or rules that grant ignoring cover should be a thing.
Y'all really make this rocket science as if it were a problem for 9th overall.
Insectum7 wrote: Alternate solution to the MEQ in cover thing?
Drop Marines back to 1W and allow them to get the cover bonus.
Ehh. That's probably an even bigger swing in balance without making marines super cheap in points thereby making them more damaging when they're packing bigger guns.
Then rebalance.
It sucks for other armies when their small arms are so ineffective against Marines.
Then access to more weapons that Ignore Cover or rules that grant ignoring cover should be a thing.
Y'all really make this rocket science as if it were a problem for 9th overall.
Fully agree. Make Flamers Great Again!
Also agree that balancing for 40k is not rocket science
Insectum7 wrote: Alternate solution to the MEQ in cover thing?
Drop Marines back to 1W and allow them to get the cover bonus.
Ehh. That's probably an even bigger swing in balance without making marines super cheap in points thereby making them more damaging when they're packing bigger guns.
Then rebalance.
It sucks for other armies when their small arms are so ineffective against Marines.
Then access to more weapons that Ignore Cover or rules that grant ignoring cover should be a thing.
Y'all really make this rocket science as if it were a problem for 9th overall.
Fully agree. Make Flamers Great Again!
It's like we get these complaints about Marines in cover when the answer is part of the core rules missing things like more ignoring cover weapons, or making melee units more enticing. No I don't care how much someone detests a melee unit and only wants to range attack. This is 40k, maybe you should've brought a TAC list.
Well, part of the definition on TAC is that it has an answer to anything, and CC would be part of the toolkit anyways.
But also, to the 2W vs. 1W Marine thing. . . For funsies, instead of asking about Lasguns (the typical mathhammer example), ask instead how many Marines should it take to kill a Marine?
With an AP 0 Bolter, it takes 9 Rapid Firing Marines, to down a Marine.
(18×.666×.5×.333)=1.99 wounds.
Bolt Rifle with its AP -1 takes 6.
You could shrug off the AP0 and say Bolt Rifles are the go-to (although 6 is still pretty bad), but the AP0 translates to Marines in CC too. So without charging bonus it takes 9 Marines to take down a single Marine in a round of combat, which feels comically inept.
Edit: New Marine CC weapon profile is 3 A, so 6 instead of 9. Still pretty bad though!
alextroy wrote: The Bolt Rifle has always been AP -1. That's been its biggest selling point.
Wellwellwell, I might be up to a rough surprise here... I actually can't tell apart the Primaris stuff very well, but the local Primaris player is using AP 0 Bolt Rifles. They are, like, 500%-sure AP 0, I have seen the entry of the weapon with my own eyes. Please don't tell me that he has been using the wrong gun all along...
I'm pretty sure the auto bolt rifle is AP0. I wanna say it's the one with the drum mag if that helps.
The Autobolt rifle is/was AP0 - it was the one that was Assault 3 that SHOULD have had the drum mags (assuming the builder knew it mattered and which was which - documentation on that wasn't that strong in the original releases).
You both can just say you didn't math it out and don't bother to.
Thanks for showing your working in support of your argument also.
I don't need to math it out, there's maths above showing the difference between guardsmen and marines benefitting from cover, where you'll note the guardsmen lose value 3x as fast if cover applies to marines. Those same marines who carry better guns etc.
Likewise if you're suggesting that ignoring cover doesn't also reduce the survivability of guardsmen, then you're off your rocker.
The differential in value lost between 2+ and a 4+ rather than a 3+ and 5+ will be a greater difference
To continue storm bolter maths, as above
2+ = 10 points of marines, 4+ = 29 points of guard
3+ = 20 points of marines, 5+ = 38 points of guard
So yes the gap is closer, but to get to that point you require multiple this to happen first:
- The marines are unfairly resilient in cover against none ignores cover weapons
- The marines get to benefit from cover with their generally superior small arms for longer
- To resolve this you need a large selection of ignores cover
- Providing these are only short range/melee you force players to stack jump units and flamer equivalents on fast platforms
- Assuming they don't own such units, they simply can't compete
The next logical step is a proliferation of "ignores cover" weapons with range, rendering the entire cover system pointless.
You both can just say you didn't math it out and don't bother to.
Thanks for showing your working in support of your argument also.
I don't need to math it out, there's maths above showing the difference between guardsmen and marines benefitting from cover, where you'll note the guardsmen lose value 3x as fast if cover applies to marines. Those same marines who carry better guns etc.
Likewise if you're suggesting that ignoring cover doesn't also reduce the survivability of guardsmen, then you're off your rocker.
The differential in value lost between 2+ and a 4+ rather than a 3+ and 5+ will be a greater difference
To continue storm bolter maths, as above
2+ = 10 points of marines, 4+ = 29 points of guard
3+ = 20 points of marines, 5+ = 38 points of guard
So yes the gap is closer, but to get to that point you require multiple this to happen first:
- The marines are unfairly resilient in cover against none ignores cover weapons
- The marines get to benefit from cover with their generally superior small arms for longer
- To resolve this you need a large selection of ignores cover
- Providing these are only short range/melee you force players to stack jump units and flamer equivalents on fast platforms
- Assuming they don't own such units, they simply can't compete
The next logical step is a proliferation of "ignores cover" weapons with range, rendering the entire cover system pointless.
But also, to the 2W vs. 1W Marine thing. . . For funsies, instead of asking about Lasguns (the typical mathhammer example), ask instead how many Marines should it take to kill a Marine?
I don't particularly care about mirror matches so it doesn't really matter.
You both can just say you didn't math it out and don't bother to.
Thanks for showing your working in support of your argument also.
I don't need to math it out, there's maths above showing the difference between guardsmen and marines benefitting from cover, where you'll note the guardsmen lose value 3x as fast if cover applies to marines. Those same marines who carry better guns etc.
Likewise if you're suggesting that ignoring cover doesn't also reduce the survivability of guardsmen, then you're off your rocker.
The differential in value lost between 2+ and a 4+ rather than a 3+ and 5+ will be a greater difference
To continue storm bolter maths, as above
2+ = 10 points of marines, 4+ = 29 points of guard
3+ = 20 points of marines, 5+ = 38 points of guard
So yes the gap is closer, but to get to that point you require multiple this to happen first:
- The marines are unfairly resilient in cover against none ignores cover weapons
- The marines get to benefit from cover with their generally superior small arms for longer
- To resolve this you need a large selection of ignores cover
- Providing these are only short range/melee you force players to stack jump units and flamer equivalents on fast platforms
- Assuming they don't own such units, they simply can't compete
The next logical step is a proliferation of "ignores cover" weapons with range, rendering the entire cover system pointless.
Great summary
Except it isn't.
1. What's "unfairly resilient"? Vehicles are unfairly resilient against small arms and Flamers but maybe you should build a list to potentially fight vehicles.
2. Marines aren't the only units with a 3+, as you forget about Sisters, whom should also benefit. Y'all forget about them in the argument, and don't think of the scaling when I bring up Bullgryns vs Ogryns. Doesn't matter though since it doesn't fit your narrative.
3. And there's nothing wrong with a larger selection of Ignores Cover weapons, or even weapons that ignore LoS. It's a way to boost various weapons and give them potential niches that might not be filled by other small arms or special weapons.
4. No gak Flamers are more effective on faster platforms. Melta is more effective on faster platforms. Short range weapons are more effective on fast platforms. The earth is round.
5. That's the fault of transport rules. When I brought up melee units as a counter, someone whined their Gryns aren't fast enough in Chimeras, as though there might not be a problem with Guard transports to begin with. Once again, that doesn't fit your narrative.
A greater selection of Ignores Cover weapons doesn't stop the effectiveness of cover to begin with, but I guess with your kind you're probably just doing the GW method of throwing darts at a board to choose them. No wonder you think it's so hard to get rules right.
- The marines are unfairly resilient in cover against none ignores cover weapons
This is only true against AP0 weapons. Against anything AP -1 and better, Marines do get the 2+ effective cover that gets reduced back by the AP but they still shave off 1 point of AP. This has a few strange situations like AP0 weapons not benefitting from 1 point of AP increase when they fire at Marines in cover, or AP -1 weapons being exactly as effective vs Marines in cover as AP0 weapons. And if the enemy has little to no AP0 weaponry then the whole exception is completely pointless and Marines go back to hugging cover.
Reading some of this argument also gives me the idea that the real reason this rule exists is the design team not wanting to upset things too much, because while it could be done much better it would also take a lot more work, not to mention the domino effect.
Insectum7 wrote: Alternate solution to the MEQ in cover thing?
Drop Marines back to 1W and allow them to get the cover bonus.
.
This becomes a gigantic hit in efficiency to any elite marine unit. being 30-40pts with one wound and +3sv is very bad. Especialy when other factions gets tanks for 2-3 marines like that. Makes taking something else then a basic marine something a marine player should not be doing, and when that happens we are back to 2x5 minimal troops and either spaming units that somehow go around the +3sv/1W downgrade, or spaming tanks. And if neither thing can be done, then marines become a very bad army. Like post 8th ed Gulliman gunline marines nerf bad.
I mean, the simplest solutions is to make more elite marines 2w and grunt marines 1w. Intercessors, Tacs, Assault marines, etc. are all 1, while Command Squad marines, vets of all sorts, etc. are all 2 wound. Make termies and Gravis 3 wounds and call it a day.
Insectum7 wrote: Alternate solution to the MEQ in cover thing?
Drop Marines back to 1W and allow them to get the cover bonus.
Ehh. That's probably an even bigger swing in balance without making marines super cheap in points thereby making them more damaging when they're packing bigger guns.
Then rebalance.
It sucks for other armies when their small arms are so ineffective against Marines.
Then access to more weapons that Ignore Cover or rules that grant ignoring cover should be a thing.
Y'all really make this rocket science as if it were a problem for 9th overall.
Fully agree. Make Flamers Great Again!
Also agree that balancing for 40k is not rocket science
You guys are making it out to be simple, when it isn't and then talk about adding more ignores cover which, as noted earlier, affects all units equally.
Except it isn't.
1. What's "unfairly resilient"? Vehicles are unfairly resilient against small arms and Flamers but maybe you should build a list to potentially fight vehicles.
Vehicles are resilient as part of the base profile, 3+ save units gaining a 100% increase in durability due to cover is an unfair benefit against small arms. You have no argument or point here.
2. Marines aren't the only units with a 3+, as you forget about Sisters, whom should also benefit. Y'all forget about them in the argument, and don't think of the scaling when I bring up Bullgryns vs Ogryns. Doesn't matter though since it doesn't fit your narrative.
Marines and guardsmen were used as examples, frankly nobody cares enough to work out the differences for every profile in existence. It's unfairly benefits 3+ saves of which Marines are the standard example. You have no point here either.
3. And there's nothing wrong with a larger selection of Ignores Cover weapons, or even weapons that ignore LoS. It's a way to boost various weapons and give them potential niches that might not be filled by other small arms or special weapons.
See previous post, give out too many and it either renders the cover system pointless. Make 3+ save units almost immune to common weapons in cover, you make it a mandatory trait for a weapon. You have a slight point as it's a way to selectively add value, you're flat wrong ignoring the risk of over proliferation though.
4. No gak Flamers are more effective on faster platforms. Melta is more effective on faster platforms. Short range weapons are more effective on fast platforms. The earth is round.
Congratulations on letting the point sail past you at mach 10. If you have slow moving infantry with weapons you just made essential, they now need to slog up the board as they get pelted by fire in return. You're forcing the advantage to armies with fast flamer/melee delivery.
5. That's the fault of transport rules. When I brought up melee units as a counter, someone whined their Gryns aren't fast enough in Chimeras, as though there might not be a problem with Guard transports to begin with. Once again, that doesn't fit your narrative.
OK, so now we need to let everyone assault out of transports that have moved just to counter 3+ saves in cover, right? What is your point here? You're just reiterating you have to shoehorn melee options in mandatorily.
A greater selection of Ignores Cover weapons doesn't stop the effectiveness of cover to begin with, but I guess with your kind you're probably just doing the GW method of throwing darts at a board to choose them. No wonder you think it's so hard to get rules right.
You're claiming it doesn't fit with my narrative. You are the one spit balling sweeping rules changes, this is your narrative, people are simply showing you it doesn't work. You've provided no metrics, maths, evidence (despite calling out others for not doing so), to back your narrative up. You try the little needling comments such as "your kind" as if I represent a group, you insult my ability to apply critical thinking to rules writing when you make unsubstantiated claims.
Of course you resort to insults, as you can't actually answer the points, just stop being a prick.
Insectum7 wrote: Alternate solution to the MEQ in cover thing?
Drop Marines back to 1W and allow them to get the cover bonus.
.
This becomes a gigantic hit in efficiency to any elite marine unit. being 30-40pts with one wound and +3sv is very bad. Especialy when other factions gets tanks for 2-3 marines like that. Makes taking something else then a basic marine something a marine player should not be doing, and when that happens we are back to 2x5 minimal troops and either spaming units that somehow go around the +3sv/1W downgrade, or spaming tanks. And if neither thing can be done, then marines become a very bad army. Like post 8th ed Gulliman gunline marines nerf bad.
I mean, the simplest solutions is to make more elite marines 2w and grunt marines 1w. Intercessors, Tacs, Assault marines, etc. are all 1, while Command Squad marines, vets of all sorts, etc. are all 2 wound. Make termies and Gravis 3 wounds and call it a day.
You can't fix the cover rules by breaking the rest of the game
Now GW could have chosen a different route for Cover entirely, but any cover rule will have knock-on effects for the rest of the game. The designers decided the best option was to keep this relatively simple cover rule of +1 Armor Save with a rider to prevent 3+ Saves from improving to a 2+ Save. It may relate to Space Marines in particular, who along with their Chaos brethren are a large part of game. It may also just have to do with 3+ Saves in totality. There are many non-Astartes units in the game, including a vast majority of the vehicles, with 3+ Saves. This rule impacts them as well.
EviscerationPlague's suggestion is akin to saying the best way to fix Eldar stacking negative penalties to hit would have been to make missile launchers get +1 to hit.
It wouldn't really fix the armies that are the worst offenders, it wouldn't fix the problem of most of your weapons being ineffective, and it would make everyone more vulnerable, not just the armies that are actually causing the problem.
The 'no better than 3+' rule is a clunky solution, just as a hard cap on negative modifiers was, but it directly targets the actual problem (cover doubling durability / multiple stacked negative modifiers) rather than trying to nudge it with borderline irrelevant changes.
I'd also like to see more Ignores Cover, just not as a purported solution for lasguns needing 120 dice rolls on average to remove a single model from the board.
And I mean, if your alternative suggestion involves 'Guard just need to get up the board and get into melee', it's probably time to stop.
alextroy wrote: The designers decided the best option was to keep this relatively simple cover rule of +1 Armor Save with a rider to prevent 3+ Saves from improving to a 2+ Save.
I will laugh if they add a special ability that improves the Benefit of Cover bonus to +2.
I'm sort of lost on what the argument is here.
"Its not fair you only need 36 BS4+ lasgun shots or 18 BS3+ bolter shots to kill a Marine in cover. Clearly 72/36 respectively is much more reasonable?"
Should Sisters get a 2+ save in cover? No, I don't think so. Especially when they are reducing AP from the game.
alextroy wrote: The designers decided the best option was to keep this relatively simple cover rule of +1 Armor Save with a rider to prevent 3+ Saves from improving to a 2+ Save.
I will laugh if they add a special ability that improves the Benefit of Cover bonus to +2.
You do understand the difference between pathfinders or eliminators having a 2+ save in cover and the same thing being true for over 50% of all models played across the globe, irrespective of what other rules they have?
alextroy wrote: The designers decided the best option was to keep this relatively simple cover rule of +1 Armor Save with a rider to prevent 3+ Saves from improving to a 2+ Save.
I will laugh if they add a special ability that improves the Benefit of Cover bonus to +2.
You do understand the difference between pathfinders or eliminators having a 2+ save in cover
I don't care about the difference. But (say) Eliminators getting a 2+ save ONLY if they are fired at by an AP -1 weapon is really friggin funny. How does that even work? Why would that be even a thing? So many questions...
alextroy wrote: The designers decided the best option was to keep this relatively simple cover rule of +1 Armor Save with a rider to prevent 3+ Saves from improving to a 2+ Save.
I will laugh if they add a special ability that improves the Benefit of Cover bonus to +2.
You do understand the difference between pathfinders or eliminators having a 2+ save in cover
I don't care about the difference. But (say) Eliminators getting a 2+ save ONLY if they are fired at by an AP -1 weapon is really friggin funny. How does that even work? Why would that be even a thing? So many questions...
Given nobody knows that is a thing, so we have to assume it isn't until it is.
alextroy wrote: The designers decided the best option was to keep this relatively simple cover rule of +1 Armor Save with a rider to prevent 3+ Saves from improving to a 2+ Save.
I will laugh if they add a special ability that improves the Benefit of Cover bonus to +2.
"Oh man, if theres a unit that has a rule that lets them shoot into other games i will laugh so hard"
Wait until we get the full rules, no point in theorizing about that kind of stuff
alextroy wrote: The designers decided the best option was to keep this relatively simple cover rule of +1 Armor Save with a rider to prevent 3+ Saves from improving to a 2+ Save.
I will laugh if they add a special ability that improves the Benefit of Cover bonus to +2.
You do understand the difference between pathfinders or eliminators having a 2+ save in cover
I don't care about the difference. But (say) Eliminators getting a 2+ save ONLY if they are fired at by an AP -1 weapon is really friggin funny. How does that even work? Why would that be even a thing? So many questions...
Given nobody knows that is a thing, so we have to assume it isn't until it is.
I would like to take the option where it isn't even a possibility.
"Oh man, if theres a unit that has a rule that lets them shoot into other games i will laugh so hard"
Cover saves going up by 1 is a fairly well-known existing ability in the game. Unlike, y'know, shooting into other games.
I know, but we don't know if these cover buffing rules will also have the same rider, or if they will still exist at all, just like we don't know if GW is gonna add a rule that lets you shoot into other games.
Just like we don't even know if bonuses/maluses will stack or not, for all we know, AP/Saves might also get modifiers cap like AoS does for example. There is litterally no point in trying to guess these rules until we've had more than a droplet of rules revealed so far. People getting pissed at these reveals beacuse it *might* break somewhere is ridiculous and tiring
"Oh man, if theres a unit that has a rule that lets them shoot into other games i will laugh so hard"
Cover saves going up by 1 is a fairly well-known existing ability in the game. Unlike, y'know, shooting into other games.
I know, but we don't know if these cover buffing rules will also have the same rider, or if they will still exist at all
To be honest, GW adding a long-ass special snowflake ability (as it has to relate to each cover type if it doesn't relate to the universal Benefit of Cover and add its own specific clauses to avoid a 2+ save) in the "simplified not simple" edition or straight-out cutting the rule and go "no sneaky 4 u" would be even funnier. I can't even think of any other alternatives like different bonuses (Benefit of Cover in the open? That sounds counter-productive. +1 Toughness while Benefitting of Cover? So they are magically weaker against Ap0?) so we shall see...
catbarf wrote: EviscerationPlague's suggestion is akin to saying the best way to fix Eldar stacking negative penalties to hit would have been to make missile launchers get +1 to hit.
It wouldn't really fix the armies that are the worst offenders, it wouldn't fix the problem of most of your weapons being ineffective, and it would make everyone more vulnerable, not just the armies that are actually causing the problem.
The 'no better than 3+' rule is a clunky solution, just as a hard cap on negative modifiers was, but it directly targets the actual problem (cover doubling durability / multiple stacked negative modifiers) rather than trying to nudge it with borderline irrelevant changes.
I'd also like to see more Ignores Cover, just not as a purported solution for lasguns needing 120 dice rolls on average to remove a single model from the board.
And I mean, if your alternative suggestion involves 'Guard just need to get up the board and get into melee', it's probably time to stop.
It's about fulfilling niches. MLs suck as is. A +1 to hit creates a niche as a heavy weapon that suffers less against hit modifiers. I'm 90% sure I've suggested that before as well.
Also the problem with Eldar stacking hit modifiers was the fact that there wasn't natural ways to stack positive ways to hit, and that GW was stuck with legacy stats. Why can't Chaos Chosen have a WS/BS2+ after all? If units are high up on ruins, shouldn't they get a bonus to hit? Wasn't the Genestealer Cult's Crossfire rules something that should've been core to begin with to strengthen positioning during the game?
The options were there, many of which have been suggested by people in this forum.
Also do Guard not have melee units? What are Rough Riders and Ogryn variants for? It's definitely not special weapon spam.
Except it isn't.
1. What's "unfairly resilient"? Vehicles are unfairly resilient against small arms and Flamers but maybe you should build a list to potentially fight vehicles.
Vehicles are resilient as part of the base profile, 3+ save units gaining a 100% increase in durability due to cover is an unfair benefit against small arms. You have no argument or point here.
2. Marines aren't the only units with a 3+, as you forget about Sisters, whom should also benefit. Y'all forget about them in the argument, and don't think of the scaling when I bring up Bullgryns vs Ogryns. Doesn't matter though since it doesn't fit your narrative.
Marines and guardsmen were used as examples, frankly nobody cares enough to work out the differences for every profile in existence. It's unfairly benefits 3+ saves of which Marines are the standard example. You have no point here either.
3. And there's nothing wrong with a larger selection of Ignores Cover weapons, or even weapons that ignore LoS. It's a way to boost various weapons and give them potential niches that might not be filled by other small arms or special weapons.
See previous post, give out too many and it either renders the cover system pointless. Make 3+ save units almost immune to common weapons in cover, you make it a mandatory trait for a weapon. You have a slight point as it's a way to selectively add value, you're flat wrong ignoring the risk of over proliferation though.
4. No gak Flamers are more effective on faster platforms. Melta is more effective on faster platforms. Short range weapons are more effective on fast platforms. The earth is round.
Congratulations on letting the point sail past you at mach 10. If you have slow moving infantry with weapons you just made essential, they now need to slog up the board as they get pelted by fire in return. You're forcing the advantage to armies with fast flamer/melee delivery.
5. That's the fault of transport rules. When I brought up melee units as a counter, someone whined their Gryns aren't fast enough in Chimeras, as though there might not be a problem with Guard transports to begin with. Once again, that doesn't fit your narrative.
OK, so now we need to let everyone assault out of transports that have moved just to counter 3+ saves in cover, right? What is your point here? You're just reiterating you have to shoehorn melee options in mandatorily.
A greater selection of Ignores Cover weapons doesn't stop the effectiveness of cover to begin with, but I guess with your kind you're probably just doing the GW method of throwing darts at a board to choose them. No wonder you think it's so hard to get rules right.
You're claiming it doesn't fit with my narrative. You are the one spit balling sweeping rules changes, this is your narrative, people are simply showing you it doesn't work. You've provided no metrics, maths, evidence (despite calling out others for not doing so), to back your narrative up. You try the little needling comments such as "your kind" as if I represent a group, you insult my ability to apply critical thinking to rules writing when you make unsubstantiated claims.
Of course you resort to insults, as you can't actually answer the points, just stop being a prick.
1. And a 3+ save is part of the profile for a highly pointed model. So yeah, Vehicles only being wounded on a 6+ against small arms is unfair, so unfair :(
2. And it doesn't unfairly hurt Sisters of Battle? Your sole focus is Marines for whatever reason, and not thinking about the rest of the game. No shock you're unable to grasp why a 2+/3+ getting cover isn't necessarily bad, but consistency is hard I guess.
3. You never define "handed out too much" but I'm not shocked you haven't.
4. You know that most armies have transports right? What are you doing, taking Melta weapons without a transport or Deep Strike? No wonder you can't get anything into position.
5. Ah so now I found it, you don't want to do a TAC list, you just want to sit and never move around potentially short range weapons, pewpew, and win. No wonder you struggled with Sisters and Marines in cover.
Also melee should serve as a counter to units hugging cover in general, not just 3+, but once again you're not thinking about the whole game.
6. I did provide math a couple times, such as Flamers vs Plasma at a Marine in cover. Your math meanwhile proved my point that a 3+ in cover was never broken and maybe you should learn to adjust your list instead of complaining that your Lasguns you never want to move aren't doing anything.
It's not insults, you're just not thinking about the whole game as if it were hard to do so.
catbarf wrote: EviscerationPlague's suggestion is akin to saying the best way to fix Eldar stacking negative penalties to hit would have been to make missile launchers get +1 to hit.
It wouldn't really fix the armies that are the worst offenders, it wouldn't fix the problem of most of your weapons being ineffective, and it would make everyone more vulnerable, not just the armies that are actually causing the problem.
The 'no better than 3+' rule is a clunky solution, just as a hard cap on negative modifiers was, but it directly targets the actual problem (cover doubling durability / multiple stacked negative modifiers) rather than trying to nudge it with borderline irrelevant changes.
I'd also like to see more Ignores Cover, just not as a purported solution for lasguns needing 120 dice rolls on average to remove a single model from the board.
And I mean, if your alternative suggestion involves 'Guard just need to get up the board and get into melee', it's probably time to stop.
It's about fulfilling niches. MLs suck as is. A +1 to hit creates a niche as a heavy weapon that suffers less against hit modifiers. I'm 90% sure I've suggested that before as well.
Also the problem with Eldar stacking hit modifiers was the fact that there wasn't natural ways to stack positive ways to hit, and that GW was stuck with legacy stats. Why can't Chaos Chosen have a WS/BS2+ after all? If units are high up on ruins, shouldn't they get a bonus to hit? Wasn't the Genestealer Cult's Crossfire rules something that should've been core to begin with to strengthen positioning during the game?
The options were there, many of which have been suggested by people in this forum.
Also do Guard not have melee units? What are Rough Riders and Ogryn variants for? It's definitely not special weapon spam.
Except it isn't.
1. What's "unfairly resilient"? Vehicles are unfairly resilient against small arms and Flamers but maybe you should build a list to potentially fight vehicles.
Vehicles are resilient as part of the base profile, 3+ save units gaining a 100% increase in durability due to cover is an unfair benefit against small arms. You have no argument or point here.
2. Marines aren't the only units with a 3+, as you forget about Sisters, whom should also benefit. Y'all forget about them in the argument, and don't think of the scaling when I bring up Bullgryns vs Ogryns. Doesn't matter though since it doesn't fit your narrative.
Marines and guardsmen were used as examples, frankly nobody cares enough to work out the differences for every profile in existence. It's unfairly benefits 3+ saves of which Marines are the standard example. You have no point here either.
3. And there's nothing wrong with a larger selection of Ignores Cover weapons, or even weapons that ignore LoS. It's a way to boost various weapons and give them potential niches that might not be filled by other small arms or special weapons.
See previous post, give out too many and it either renders the cover system pointless. Make 3+ save units almost immune to common weapons in cover, you make it a mandatory trait for a weapon. You have a slight point as it's a way to selectively add value, you're flat wrong ignoring the risk of over proliferation though.
4. No gak Flamers are more effective on faster platforms. Melta is more effective on faster platforms. Short range weapons are more effective on fast platforms. The earth is round.
Congratulations on letting the point sail past you at mach 10. If you have slow moving infantry with weapons you just made essential, they now need to slog up the board as they get pelted by fire in return. You're forcing the advantage to armies with fast flamer/melee delivery.
5. That's the fault of transport rules. When I brought up melee units as a counter, someone whined their Gryns aren't fast enough in Chimeras, as though there might not be a problem with Guard transports to begin with. Once again, that doesn't fit your narrative.
OK, so now we need to let everyone assault out of transports that have moved just to counter 3+ saves in cover, right? What is your point here? You're just reiterating you have to shoehorn melee options in mandatorily.
A greater selection of Ignores Cover weapons doesn't stop the effectiveness of cover to begin with, but I guess with your kind you're probably just doing the GW method of throwing darts at a board to choose them. No wonder you think it's so hard to get rules right.
You're claiming it doesn't fit with my narrative. You are the one spit balling sweeping rules changes, this is your narrative, people are simply showing you it doesn't work. You've provided no metrics, maths, evidence (despite calling out others for not doing so), to back your narrative up. You try the little needling comments such as "your kind" as if I represent a group, you insult my ability to apply critical thinking to rules writing when you make unsubstantiated claims.
Of course you resort to insults, as you can't actually answer the points, just stop being a prick.
1. And a 3+ save is part of the profile for a highly pointed model. So yeah, Vehicles only being wounded on a 6+ against small arms is unfair, so unfair :(
2. And it doesn't unfairly hurt Sisters of Battle? Your sole focus is Marines for whatever reason, and not thinking about the rest of the game. No shock you're unable to grasp why a 2+/3+ getting cover isn't necessarily bad, but consistency is hard I guess.
3. You never define "handed out too much" but I'm not shocked you haven't.
4. You know that most armies have transports right? What are you doing, taking Melta weapons without a transport or Deep Strike? No wonder you can't get anything into position.
5. Ah so now I found it, you don't want to do a TAC list, you just want to sit and never move around potentially short range weapons, pewpew, and win. No wonder you struggled with Sisters and Marines in cover.
Also melee should serve as a counter to units hugging cover in general, not just 3+, but once again you're not thinking about the whole game.
6. I did provide math a couple times, such as Flamers vs Plasma at a Marine in cover. Your math meanwhile proved my point that a 3+ in cover was never broken and maybe you should learn to adjust your list instead of complaining that your Lasguns you never want to move aren't doing anything.
It's not insults, you're just not thinking about the whole game as if it were hard to do so.
Thank you for the lovely oxymoron there. And to that end on 2nd thoughts, an ironically hypocritical statement.
Tyel wrote: I'm sort of lost on what the argument is here.
"Its not fair you only need 36 BS4+ lasgun shots or 18 BS3+ bolter shots to kill a Marine in cover. Clearly 72/36 respectively is much more reasonable?"
Should Sisters get a 2+ save in cover? No, I don't think so. Especially when they are reducing AP from the game.
For me, it's basically a game balance vs immersion thing.
Not letting marines get a 2+ save for standing in cover is definitely better for the game. It just also feels weird because intuitively a marine (or sister or striking scorpion) hugging cover should be harder to kill than a marine standing out in the open.
It also reminds me of ye olden days where marines could spend most of the game not worrying about utilizing cover at all (if their opponent didn't have much AP3). There was a feeling that the game was less tactically interesting when playing with/against Sv3+ armies because their lack of interest in cover meant that they didn't have to make interesting decisions about whether or not to try and post up in some ruins, etc. I don't think we're in that position given that the previewed rules only create this scenario against AP0 weapons, but it is a half-step in that direction.
There is definitely an argument that Marines being 3+ save as standard is harmful to the game and all different iterations of cover and AP systems have just been different ways to try mitigate that design mistake, with different degrees of success.
Insectum7 wrote: Alternate solution to the MEQ in cover thing?
Drop Marines back to 1W and allow them to get the cover bonus.
Ehh. That's probably an even bigger swing in balance without making marines super cheap in points thereby making them more damaging when they're packing bigger guns.
Then rebalance.
It sucks for other armies when their small arms are so ineffective against Marines.
Then access to more weapons that Ignore Cover or rules that grant ignoring cover should be a thing.
Y'all really make this rocket science as if it were a problem for 9th overall.
Fully agree. Make Flamers Great Again!
Also agree that balancing for 40k is not rocket science
You guys are making it out to be simple, when it isn't and then talk about adding more ignores cover which, as noted earlier, affects all units equally.
Would adjustments have to be made? Yes. Would compromises need to be struck? Yes. Would people still complain? Of course. But would it really be hard?
Resoundingly "No". Ignores Cover is not inherently some game breaking ability. As always, the balance lies in how much you give it out and to whom. The traditional move is to give it to Flamers, which generally constitute an opportunity cost, plus a disadvantage in the fact that they're short ranged. This is a naturally limiting arrangement. Beyond flame weapons you look for opportunities that arise from specialized equipment or rarer units, and balance those within army context. Eldar Missile Launchers with Plasma Missiles could be a good example of another piece of equipment with opportunity cost. Provide the Ignores Cover ability on platforms where, if spammed, create a drop off in efficiency or more gaps in offensive capability against other targets. Build out a balance where some armies are good at it at long range, some short, some hardly at all, with an eye towards the army's other expected capabilities. It takes attentive work, yes. But it's not hard.
Wyldhunt wrote: It just also feels weird because intuitively a marine (or sister or striking scorpion) hugging cover should be harder to kill than a marine standing out in the open.
I think if players can handle the fact that adding an energy shield (5+ invuln) to your flak vest (5+) doesn't actually protect any better against small arms than just the flak vest on its own, they'll resolve the dissonance with the new cover system after some hands-on time.
Tyran wrote: There is definitely an argument that Marines being 3+ save as standard is harmful to the game and all different iterations of cover and AP systems have just been different ways to try mitigate that design mistake, with different degrees of success.
Nailed it.
I'd go a step further and say that when you have a D6-based system and the baseline is not a 4+ to succeed on most checks, you're bound to run into problems when modifiers are brought into the mix. Having the basic statline of the most common army archetype be 'above-average' causes some statistical anomalies and makes it harder to balance.
I think the AP modifier system is a better way to handle it than the hard 'AP3 or bust' breakpoint of the old system, but there are still edge cases that need to be addressed.
Insectum7 wrote: Would adjustments have to be made? Yes. Would compromises need to be struck? Yes. Would people still complain? Of course. But would it really be hard?
Resoundingly "No". Ignores Cover is not inherently some game breaking ability. As always, the balance lies in how much you give it out and to whom. The traditional move is to give it to Flamers, which generally constitute an opportunity cost, plus a disadvantage in the fact that they're short ranged. This is a naturally limiting arrangement. Beyond flame weapons you look for opportunities that arise from specialized equipment or rarer units, and balance those within army context. Eldar Missile Launchers with Plasma Missiles could be a good example of another piece of equipment with opportunity cost. Provide the Ignores Cover ability on platforms where, if spammed, create a drop off in efficiency or more gaps in offensive capability against other targets. Build out a balance where some armies are good at it at long range, some short, some hardly at all, with an eye towards the army's other expected capabilities. It takes attentive work, yes. But it's not hard.
Again - easy to say. Not easy to do. You've created a scenario here than has tendrils beyond what has been outlined and you benefit from this obfuscation, because no one has the time to go through this theoretical proposal that has no actual concrete changes.
And all that work -- just to circumvent marines not getting a +1 against AP0. I mean...seriously...
Insectum7 wrote: Would adjustments have to be made? Yes. Would compromises need to be struck? Yes. Would people still complain? Of course. But would it really be hard?
Resoundingly "No". Ignores Cover is not inherently some game breaking ability. As always, the balance lies in how much you give it out and to whom. The traditional move is to give it to Flamers, which generally constitute an opportunity cost, plus a disadvantage in the fact that they're short ranged. This is a naturally limiting arrangement. Beyond flame weapons you look for opportunities that arise from specialized equipment or rarer units, and balance those within army context. Eldar Missile Launchers with Plasma Missiles could be a good example of another piece of equipment with opportunity cost. Provide the Ignores Cover ability on platforms where, if spammed, create a drop off in efficiency or more gaps in offensive capability against other targets. Build out a balance where some armies are good at it at long range, some short, some hardly at all, with an eye towards the army's other expected capabilities. It takes attentive work, yes. But it's not hard.
Again - easy to say. Not easy to do. You've created a scenario here than has tendrils beyond what has been outlined and you benefit from this obfuscation, because no one has the time to go through this theoretical proposal that has no actual concrete changes.
And all that work -- just to circumvent marines not getting a +1 against AP0. I mean...seriously...
"But it's not hard to get the rules right LOL you just need to think of the whole game at once instead of being a GW simp" - or something like that.
Honestly not worth further debate of the topic imo.
The thing is there are perfect counters. Its called spamming S5 Ap-3 2 damage weapons (or better) as seen this edition. Its pretty clear however GW wants to change that. But they then have to in turn stop the 3+->2+ rules which provoked "give everything a point of AP" in the first place.
Its certainly not giving a conventional D6 hits S4 AP- flamer "ignores cover". If you can somehow bring 4 of them into range, you'd expect to kill a Marine. Not exactly impressive.
Tyran wrote: There is definitely an argument that Marines being 3+ save as standard is harmful to the game and all different iterations of cover and AP systems have just been different ways to try mitigate that design mistake, with different degrees of success.
Tyran wrote: There is definitely an argument that Marines being 3+ save as standard is harmful to the game and all different iterations of cover and AP systems have just been different ways to try mitigate that design mistake, with different degrees of success.
Not a good one.
The problem is not that Marines have a 3+ save, the problem is that the game is slaved to D6 as a resolution mechanism for basically everything, but attempts to represent things from Gretchins up to Imperial Knights in this simplistic scale. As a result of this, even a +1/-1 modifier represents huge shifts in probabilty, stuff frays at the not-that-far-out edges of 6s always succeding and 1s always failing, which in practice means that your D6 range shrinks to 4 practically usable values, and further problems that derive from this fundamental issue.
Insectum7 wrote: Would adjustments have to be made? Yes. Would compromises need to be struck? Yes. Would people still complain? Of course. But would it really be hard?
Resoundingly "No". Ignores Cover is not inherently some game breaking ability. As always, the balance lies in how much you give it out and to whom. The traditional move is to give it to Flamers, which generally constitute an opportunity cost, plus a disadvantage in the fact that they're short ranged. This is a naturally limiting arrangement. Beyond flame weapons you look for opportunities that arise from specialized equipment or rarer units, and balance those within army context. Eldar Missile Launchers with Plasma Missiles could be a good example of another piece of equipment with opportunity cost. Provide the Ignores Cover ability on platforms where, if spammed, create a drop off in efficiency or more gaps in offensive capability against other targets. Build out a balance where some armies are good at it at long range, some short, some hardly at all, with an eye towards the army's other expected capabilities. It takes attentive work, yes. But it's not hard.
Again - easy to say. Not easy to do. You've created a scenario here than has tendrils beyond what has been outlined and you benefit from this obfuscation, because no one has the time to go through this theoretical proposal that has no actual concrete changes.
And all that work -- just to circumvent marines not getting a +1 against AP0. I mean...seriously...
It just seems like a looooot of work with not a lot of payoff and way more potential for things to go wrong. On top of that it still doesn't deal with other non-3+ armies suffering more, because everyone is ignoring their cover to deal with 3+ armies.
Insectum7 wrote: Would adjustments have to be made? Yes. Would compromises need to be struck? Yes. Would people still complain? Of course. But would it really be hard?
Resoundingly "No". Ignores Cover is not inherently some game breaking ability. As always, the balance lies in how much you give it out and to whom. The traditional move is to give it to Flamers, which generally constitute an opportunity cost, plus a disadvantage in the fact that they're short ranged. This is a naturally limiting arrangement. Beyond flame weapons you look for opportunities that arise from specialized equipment or rarer units, and balance those within army context. Eldar Missile Launchers with Plasma Missiles could be a good example of another piece of equipment with opportunity cost. Provide the Ignores Cover ability on platforms where, if spammed, create a drop off in efficiency or more gaps in offensive capability against other targets. Build out a balance where some armies are good at it at long range, some short, some hardly at all, with an eye towards the army's other expected capabilities. It takes attentive work, yes. But it's not hard.
Again - easy to say. Not easy to do. You've created a scenario here than has tendrils beyond what has been outlined and you benefit from this obfuscation, because no one has the time to go through this theoretical proposal that has no actual concrete changes.
And all that work -- just to circumvent marines not getting a +1 against AP0. I mean...seriously...
"But it's not hard to get the rules right LOL you just need to think of the whole game at once instead of being a GW simp" - or something like that.
It really isn't. GW makes it appear harder than it is, simple as that, and you buy into it.
Insectum7 wrote: Would adjustments have to be made? Yes. Would compromises need to be struck? Yes. Would people still complain? Of course. But would it really be hard?
Resoundingly "No". Ignores Cover is not inherently some game breaking ability. As always, the balance lies in how much you give it out and to whom. The traditional move is to give it to Flamers, which generally constitute an opportunity cost, plus a disadvantage in the fact that they're short ranged. This is a naturally limiting arrangement. Beyond flame weapons you look for opportunities that arise from specialized equipment or rarer units, and balance those within army context. Eldar Missile Launchers with Plasma Missiles could be a good example of another piece of equipment with opportunity cost. Provide the Ignores Cover ability on platforms where, if spammed, create a drop off in efficiency or more gaps in offensive capability against other targets. Build out a balance where some armies are good at it at long range, some short, some hardly at all, with an eye towards the army's other expected capabilities. It takes attentive work, yes. But it's not hard.
Again - easy to say. Not easy to do. You've created a scenario here than has tendrils beyond what has been outlined and you benefit from this obfuscation, because no one has the time to go through this theoretical proposal that has no actual concrete changes.
And all that work -- just to circumvent marines not getting a +1 against AP0. I mean...seriously...
"But it's not hard to get the rules right LOL you just need to think of the whole game at once instead of being a GW simp" - or something like that.
It really isn't. GW makes it appear harder than it is, simple as that, and you buy into it.
Excellent I look forwards to reading your own rules system in that case.
Insectum7 wrote: Alternate solution to the MEQ in cover thing?
Drop Marines back to 1W and allow them to get the cover bonus.
.
This becomes a gigantic hit in efficiency to any elite marine unit. being 30-40pts with one wound and +3sv is very bad. Especialy when other factions gets tanks for 2-3 marines like that. Makes taking something else then a basic marine something a marine player should not be doing, and when that happens we are back to 2x5 minimal troops and either spaming units that somehow go around the +3sv/1W downgrade, or spaming tanks. And if neither thing can be done, then marines become a very bad army. Like post 8th ed Gulliman gunline marines nerf bad.
I mean, the simplest solutions is to make more elite marines 2w and grunt marines 1w. Intercessors, Tacs, Assault marines, etc. are all 1, while Command Squad marines, vets of all sorts, etc. are all 2 wound. Make termies and Gravis 3 wounds and call it a day.
You can't fix the cover rules by breaking the rest of the game
Now GW could have chosen a different route for Cover entirely, but any cover rule will have knock-on effects for the rest of the game. The designers decided the best option was to keep this relatively simple cover rule of +1 Armor Save with a rider to prevent 3+ Saves from improving to a 2+ Save. It may relate to Space Marines in particular, who along with their Chaos brethren are a large part of game. It may also just have to do with 3+ Saves in totality. There are many non-Astartes units in the game, including a vast majority of the vehicles, with 3+ Saves. This rule impacts them as well.
Sorry, If I wasn't clear, i was talking more about the issue of reverting marines to 1 wound making the elites options fall apart. As for the cover system I've not got much of a clue, it's a bit beyond me honestly.
Tyran wrote: There is definitely an argument that Marines being 3+ save as standard is harmful to the game and all different iterations of cover and AP systems have just been different ways to try mitigate that design mistake, with different degrees of success.
Honestly, I think Insectum7 is right - the real issue is Marines doubling in wounds. That's what makes them ridiculously survivable against basic weapons.
Tyran wrote: There is definitely an argument that Marines being 3+ save as standard is harmful to the game and all different iterations of cover and AP systems have just been different ways to try mitigate that design mistake, with different degrees of success.
Honestly, I think Insectum7 is right - the real issue is Marines doubling in wounds. That's what makes them ridiculously survivable against basic weapons.
It really isn't because Sisters and various Aspect Warriors don't benefit from cover either.
Tyran wrote: There is definitely an argument that Marines being 3+ save as standard is harmful to the game and all different iterations of cover and AP systems have just been different ways to try mitigate that design mistake, with different degrees of success.
Honestly, I think Insectum7 is right - the real issue is Marines doubling in wounds. That's what makes them ridiculously survivable against basic weapons.
My argument has little to do with durability itself and more with how it interacts with modifiers. If Marines got their durability from their Toughness stat instead of their Save, it would make things less vulnerable to edge cases.
E.g T6 Sv4+ would be equivalent or even harder to wound by bolters and lasguns, and with far less potential for edge cases braking things.
And it doesn't need to be T6, another option could be reducing the strength of most small arms to get the same math.
Tyran wrote: There is definitely an argument that Marines being 3+ save as standard is harmful to the game and all different iterations of cover and AP systems have just been different ways to try mitigate that design mistake, with different degrees of success.
Honestly, I think Insectum7 is right - the real issue is Marines doubling in wounds. That's what makes them ridiculously survivable against basic weapons.
Am I missing something, or are you describing the model as 'broken' because a S6 weapon with Rending gets better returns against Marines than against Guardsmen in cover, like it did from 2nd-7th?
catbarf wrote: Am I missing something, or are you describing the model as 'broken' because a S6 weapon with Rending gets better returns against Marines than against Guardsmen in cover, like it did from 2nd-7th?
They go from 66% to 153% between those two weapons.
Now consider a heavy bolter would then be even better ( comparatively ) against marines.
Basically everything does well against marines and less so vs guard.
Well, yeah, the weapon that's two bolters strapped together is the better anti-GEQ weapon and the weapon that's a fusillade of historically anti-MEQ death is the better anti-MEQ weapon.
Framing it as 66% to 153% is a bit misleading, I think. Flip it to start with the Guard as the baseline and it's 150% to 65%. Hey, that's pretty much the same- the assault cannon is better against marines by the same margin that the storm bolter is better against Guard.
Not sure why you feel the heavy bolter would be better, considering as a D2 weapon its performance would be unaffected by W1 vs W2, and with AP-1 it isn't affected by this cover limitation either.
At 0.44 wounds vs Marines on average or 0.88 wounds vs Guardsmen on average. So, with 18pt Marines and 6.5pt Guardsmen, about 38% more efficient against Marines. Again, exactly as it currently is.
Tyran wrote: There is definitely an argument that Marines being 3+ save as standard is harmful to the game and all different iterations of cover and AP systems have just been different ways to try mitigate that design mistake, with different degrees of success.
Honestly, I think Insectum7 is right - the real issue is Marines doubling in wounds. That's what makes them ridiculously survivable against basic weapons.
And now an Assault Cannon with Devastating Wounds --
vs Marines in cover
vs Guard in cover
Marines lose 20 points and Guard lose 13.
Whoops - broke it.
Broken because . . . . ? A weapon has a better points return when shooting Marines than shooting GEQ? Like a Plasma gun? Like nearly any big gun? That seems fine to me. Not only fine, but it makes perfect f***ing sense.
Daedalus81 wrote: This was a theoretical on marines on w1 - sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.
A 1w marine wouldn't be 18pts, you're looking more likely at 10? So the storm bolter goes back to 11-15 depending on point cost against the 30 of the guard. The ass cannon goes to being equal between the two.
The people saying "but the ass cannon should kill marines easier" yes, that's true, but the problem is your basic guys aren't lugging assault cannons round, most of the game is however carriying a storm bolter profile to some degree.
I am confused how we can predict points returns of weapons against units that we have no points values for neither on the offensive nor defensive end of the equation
alextroy wrote: I am confused how we can predict points returns of weapons against units that we have no points values for neither on the offensive nor defensive end of the equation
The people saying "but the ass cannon should kill marines easier" yes, that's true, but the problem is your basic guys aren't lugging assault cannons round, most of the game is however carriying a storm bolter profile to some degree.
I confess I don't understand the problem you're trying to get at.
alextroy wrote: I am confused how we can predict points returns of weapons against units that we have no points values for neither on the offensive nor defensive end of the equation
The people saying "but the ass cannon should kill marines easier" yes, that's true, but the problem is your basic guys aren't lugging assault cannons round, most of the game is however carriying a storm bolter profile to some degree.
I confess I don't understand the problem you're trying to get at.
That the most common infantry ranged weapon in the game is gathering a 3x higher return against baseline humans compared to a 3+ model.
Capping cover effects to max of 3+ turns that into a 2x return, which still isn't great but is more manageable. Not sure why this is such a hard concept tbh.
Daedalus81 wrote: This was a theoretical on marines on w1 - sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.
A 1w marine wouldn't be 18pts, you're looking more likely at 10? So the storm bolter goes back to 11-15 depending on point cost against the 30 of the guard. The ass cannon goes to being equal between the two.
The people saying "but the ass cannon should kill marines easier" yes, that's true, but the problem is your basic guys aren't lugging assault cannons round, most of the game is however carriying a storm bolter profile to some degree.
Which immediately shows that it would be a worse system.
We all HATED horde marines. The current marines lists which deploy around 40-50 models feel "right" on the table. This is one of the biggest successes of the last editions, making marines field marine like lists instead of gimmick or hordes.
Any system which doesn't put the value of the basic marine around 20 points has already failed in my opinion.
Now, can a marine be worth 20 points without 2 wounds? Discuss.
Spoletta wrote: Now, can a marine be worth 20 points without 2 wounds? Discuss.
I guess this provokes "we are talking about tacticals" - but given how we've gone through:
"Intercessors are not great on release and get worse over time despite points cuts, generally avoid" (2017 to 2019)
"Intercessors are amongst the most broken things in the game, take 30-40 and feel fine" (mid 2019-2020)
"Marines are bad" (later 2021-22)
To now: "Intercessors are pointless because for 10 points more you get Infiltrators with the Helix Gauntlet, no reinforcements in 12" and infiltrate"
I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with 2 wound marines for about 20 points. They just need to be worth that relatively to everything else in 40k.
CSM had 1 wound Marines in a world where they could get 2+ cover saves. They weren't exactly popular. Things may admittedly be different in an environment of lower AP weapons - but we'll have to see how that breaks down in practice.
Instead of marines being 3+ save and 2w, i think 2+ save and 1 wound would be a more elegant design. Similar stats in many ways. But less tedious with small arms and wound tracking
Daedalus81 wrote: This was a theoretical on marines on w1 - sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.
A 1w marine wouldn't be 18pts, you're looking more likely at 10? So the storm bolter goes back to 11-15 depending on point cost against the 30 of the guard. The ass cannon goes to being equal between the two.
Yes - thank you.
alextroy wrote: I am confused how we can predict points returns of weapons against units that we have no points values for neither on the offensive nor defensive end of the equation
Precisely. Now we've opened a can of worms again, right? We have to make marines cheap again -- then you have to contend with the problems that creates.
The concept of 'just change this "simple" thing' and there are no consequences is folly. "But I played in that system and it worked great!" Nostalgia is a fickle beast. ( not quoting anyone in particular here )
Gitdakka wrote: Instead of marines being 3+ save and 2w, i think 2+ save and 1 wound would be a more elegant design. Similar stats in many ways. But less tedious with small arms and wound tracking
That could easily smother terminators - especially depending on how terrain gets handled.
Daedalus81 wrote: This was a theoretical on marines on w1 - sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.
I get that, I'm just confused as to why you're saying it matters for heavy bolters, especially since- although not explicitly stated- you appear to be using ~18pts/Marine in your example. You could put that W1 Marine at 13pts and the heavy bolter would then be just as efficient against it as it is against Guardsmen. That's a lot of leeway.
Gitdakka wrote: Instead of marines being 3+ save and 2w, i think 2+ save and 1 wound would be a more elegant design. Similar stats in many ways. But less tedious with small arms and wound tracking
Same averages, but much greater variance. That can lead to feels-bad moments when a squad passes all its saves or loses half its number from an inconsequential bit of shooting.
It's also, tying back to what Tyran said, more vulnerable to significant swings with modifiers. A simple AP-1 outright doubles effectiveness.
catbarf wrote: I get that, I'm just confused as to why you're saying it matters for heavy bolters, especially since- although not explicitly stated- you appear to be using ~18pts/Marine in your example. You could put that W1 Marine at 13pts and the heavy bolter would then be just as efficient against it as it is against Guardsmen. That's a lot of leeway.
Absolutely - the goal was to highlight that these sorts of changes touch a lot of things and once you start messing around there's a lot you have to consider.
catbarf wrote: I get that, I'm just confused as to why you're saying it matters for heavy bolters, especially since- although not explicitly stated- you appear to be using ~18pts/Marine in your example. You could put that W1 Marine at 13pts and the heavy bolter would then be just as efficient against it as it is against Guardsmen. That's a lot of leeway.
Absolutely - the goal was to highlight that these sorts of changes touch a lot of things and once you start messing around there's a lot you have to consider.
...and this is why we can't have good things. Sure it can be done better, but it takes a crapton of honest effort and you have to be borderline crazy to jump into that kind of an endeavor.
Same averages, but much greater variance. That can lead to feels-bad moments when a squad passes all its saves or loses half its number from an inconsequential bit of shooting.
Clearly if a squad just lost 1/2 its #s that was NOT an inconsequential bit of shooting.....
catbarf wrote: I get that, I'm just confused as to why you're saying it matters for heavy bolters, especially since- although not explicitly stated- you appear to be using ~18pts/Marine in your example. You could put that W1 Marine at 13pts and the heavy bolter would then be just as efficient against it as it is against Guardsmen. That's a lot of leeway.
Absolutely - the goal was to highlight that these sorts of changes touch a lot of things and once you start messing around there's a lot you have to consider.
...and this is why we can't have good things. Sure it can be done better, but it takes a crapton of honest effort and you have to be borderline crazy to jump into that kind of an endeavor.
Yet we have people in this thread telling us we're narrow minded idiots for thinking this, because "making good rules isn't hard".
Same averages, but much greater variance. That can lead to feels-bad moments when a squad passes all its saves or loses half its number from an inconsequential bit of shooting.
Clearly if a squad just lost 1/2 its #s that was NOT an inconsequential bit of shooting.....
The way I'm reading it is one of those "ill just fire these 10 lasguns/autoguns/shootas into them because I have nothing better to shoot them at" scenarios rather than "I'm committing a decent amount of firepower because I really need them to die".
Same averages, but much greater variance. That can lead to feels-bad moments when a squad passes all its saves or loses half its number from an inconsequential bit of shooting.
Clearly if a squad just lost 1/2 its #s that was NOT an inconsequential bit of shooting.....
i shoot 5 skitarii vanguards at these theoretical marines
15 shots
7 hits
3 wounds
Marine player is unlucky and rolls 3 1's, loses 3 marines....
now don't tell me that 5 unbuffed vanguards have impactful shooting usually
catbarf wrote: I get that, I'm just confused as to why you're saying it matters for heavy bolters, especially since- although not explicitly stated- you appear to be using ~18pts/Marine in your example. You could put that W1 Marine at 13pts and the heavy bolter would then be just as efficient against it as it is against Guardsmen. That's a lot of leeway.
Absolutely - the goal was to highlight that these sorts of changes touch a lot of things and once you start messing around there's a lot you have to consider.
...and this is why we can't have good things. Sure it can be done better, but it takes a crapton of honest effort and you have to be borderline crazy to jump into that kind of an endeavor.
Yet we have people in this thread telling us we're narrow minded idiots for thinking this, because "making good rules isn't hard".
It isn't, especially when they're supposed to get paid to do it, and y'all are still ignoring the point regarding Sisters and various Aspect Warriors.
catbarf wrote: I get that, I'm just confused as to why you're saying it matters for heavy bolters, especially since- although not explicitly stated- you appear to be using ~18pts/Marine in your example. You could put that W1 Marine at 13pts and the heavy bolter would then be just as efficient against it as it is against Guardsmen. That's a lot of leeway.
Absolutely - the goal was to highlight that these sorts of changes touch a lot of things and once you start messing around there's a lot you have to consider.
...and this is why we can't have good things. Sure it can be done better, but it takes a crapton of honest effort and you have to be borderline crazy to jump into that kind of an endeavor.
Yet we have people in this thread telling us we're narrow minded idiots for thinking this, because "making good rules isn't hard".
It isn't, especially when they're supposed to get paid to do it, and y'all are still ignoring the point regarding Sisters and various Aspect Warriors.
You can pay me to make a plane, I still would never get on it though. What is your point about sisters/aspect warriors exactly? We're all largely talking in the context of bolters and 3+ saves, which ticks off sisters as a minimum, it also isn't universal to all aspects to have a 3+.
catbarf wrote: I get that, I'm just confused as to why you're saying it matters for heavy bolters, especially since- although not explicitly stated- you appear to be using ~18pts/Marine in your example. You could put that W1 Marine at 13pts and the heavy bolter would then be just as efficient against it as it is against Guardsmen. That's a lot of leeway.
Absolutely - the goal was to highlight that these sorts of changes touch a lot of things and once you start messing around there's a lot you have to consider.
...and this is why we can't have good things. Sure it can be done better, but it takes a crapton of honest effort and you have to be borderline crazy to jump into that kind of an endeavor.
Yet we have people in this thread telling us we're narrow minded idiots for thinking this, because "making good rules isn't hard".
It isn't, especially when they're supposed to get paid to do it, and y'all are still ignoring the point regarding Sisters and various Aspect Warriors.
LOL- Today's Warcom New 40k article is about how much Ultramarines hate Tyranids.
Funny, because based on what we've been told, on the table it isn't going to matter whether you're Ultramrines or Salamanders.
The only thing that's going to matter on the table is whether whichever chapter you're playing as sends a Gladius or some other detachment.
So does a Gladius hate Tyranids more than a Spearhead or a Vanguard?
(Note: As hypothesized elsewhere, Marines might get exceptions to the "no rules from subfaction" - but I suspect even if this is the case, only SOME chapters will get these rules)
PenitentJake wrote: LOL- Today's Warcom New 40k article is about how much Ultramarines hate Tyranids.
Funny, because based on what we've been told, on the table it isn't going to matter whether you're Ultramrines or Salamanders.
The only thing that's going to matter on the table is whether whichever chapter you're playing as sends a Gladius or some other detachment.
So does a Gladius hate Tyranids more than a Spearhead or a Vanguard?
(Note: As hypothesized elsewhere, Marines might get exceptions to the "no rules from subfaction" - but I suspect even if this is the case, only SOME chapters will get these rules)
Absolutely neither, the mental state and shared history of the forces you're depicting isn't related to their rules and never should be. Long may preferred enemy and similar rules remain dead. Also, your force, your narrative etc.
EviscerationPlague wrote: It isn't, especially when they're supposed to get paid to do it, and y'all are still ignoring the point regarding Sisters and various Aspect Warriors.
The mathematical outcomes for their units will really depend on what considerations they make for them in their points and datasheets. We're all working with pretty limited data still, but Eldar would certainly suffer with their glass cannon style aspects ( all elites or fast for the 3+ ).
If Aspects are W1 and a 3+ with no other mitigating circumstances then the whole picture changes. If instead Eldar Battle Focus allows a unit to move before being shot at then it's a whole different thing again.
A Sister is 11 points and would take 3 wounds ( from SB ) for 33 points of damage. Guard take 4.4 for ~29 total. That's pretty damned even ( if points stay in that ballpark ). Marines take only ~20, but then are susceptible to D2+.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: Absolutely neither, the mental state and shared history of the forces you're depicting isn't related to their rules and never should be. Long may preferred enemy and similar rules remain dead. Also, your force, your narrative etc.
Yea the article is just a fluff piece with no connection to in-game rules.
alextroy wrote: I am confused how we can predict points returns of weapons against units that we have no points values for neither on the offensive nor defensive end of the equation
The people saying "but the ass cannon should kill marines easier" yes, that's true, but the problem is your basic guys aren't lugging assault cannons round, most of the game is however carriying a storm bolter profile to some degree.
I confess I don't understand the problem you're trying to get at.
That the most common infantry ranged weapon in the game is gathering a 3x higher return against baseline humans compared to a 3+ model.
Capping cover effects to max of 3+ turns that into a 2x return, which still isn't great but is more manageable. Not sure why this is such a hard concept tbh.
Uhhhh. . . why is any of this a problem? You write as though this is some self-evidently appalling situation, but I guess I just don't. The "hard concept" is that baseline anti-Infantry weapons are effective against baseline infantry?
Daedalus81 wrote: This was a theoretical on marines on w1 - sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.
A 1w marine wouldn't be 18pts, you're looking more likely at 10? So the storm bolter goes back to 11-15 depending on point cost against the 30 of the guard. The ass cannon goes to being equal between the two.
The people saying "but the ass cannon should kill marines easier" yes, that's true, but the problem is your basic guys aren't lugging assault cannons round, most of the game is however carriying a storm bolter profile to some degree.
Which immediately shows that it would be a worse system.
We all HATED horde marines. The current marines lists which deploy around 40-50 models feel "right" on the table. This is one of the biggest successes of the last editions, making marines field marine like lists instead of gimmick or hordes.
Any system which doesn't put the value of the basic marine around 20 points has already failed in my opinion.
Now, can a marine be worth 20 points without 2 wounds? Discuss.
1: Honestly, since I'm not paying for Wargear on my models anymore I'm probably still looking at lists with 70+ Marines. And personally I just like the way the army looks.
2: Here's an alternative solution: Make Land Raiders (and other Marine vehicles) great again. You'll get less Marines on the table if there are other competitive options. For a long time the reason I personally fielded so many Marines is just because that was the solution, competitively.
3: Can Marines be worth it at 20 points without 2 wounds? Sure! There are two ways that come to mind immediately.
---3a: You can simply rebalance the entire game around them at that price point, by re-pricing everything else.
---3b: You can grow their capabilities in other directions, such as offensive capability, improved morale within a different Morale framework throughout the game, or revised game mechanics. In 2nd edition, Marines cost 30 points per model. But they were the only faction capable of Rapid Firing. They could see through Smoke. They were protected against Gas and Virus attacks. They had much better Morale mechanics than other armies. They could each use a Krak Grenade in CC against a vehicle. They could each throw a Grenade, resulting in amazing anti-horde ability by virtue of lobbing up to 10 4" diameter blast markers (effective, although painfully time consuming). In short, they had a lot of other bonuses other than "bullet sponge".
The concept of 'just change this "simple" thing' and there are no consequences is folly. "But I played in that system and it worked great!" Nostalgia is a fickle beast. ( not quoting anyone in particular here )
Never once have I claimed that this change be made in isolation. And painting evidence of 1w Marines functioning in prior systems as purely nostalgic is pretty low.
Question to all: How many Marines, Rapid Firing, should it take to kill a Marine? Basic Bolters here. Same thing with CC. How many Marines should it take to kill a Marine in CC?
Why ask this? Because S4 AP-0 is a pretty common offensive profile for infantry, or if not common, a reasonable middle ground. The related consideration being "How gakky do you want other Infantry to feel against Marines?". 2W Marines themselves have a high possibility of making other infantry feel useless..
. . . of course, GWs gone and corrected for that by further inflating other characteristics or adding newer special rules. Guardsmen dealing Mortal Wounds via Lasfire. Dire Avengers carrying Shuriken Catapults with 3 attacks at S 4 AP -2 . . . and the inflation leads to other funny stuff. . .
Right, but that's sort of the point. Making one change requires changing a lot of things. It's the sort of thing best left to the past where those other changes exist, at least in part.
. . . of course, GWs gone and corrected for that by further inflating other characteristics or adding newer special rules. Guardsmen dealing Mortal Wounds via Lasfire. Dire Avengers carrying Shuriken Catapults with 3 attacks at S 4 AP -2 . . . and the inflation leads to other funny stuff. . .
Which is basically getting un-wound. Much of that extra stuff is going away.
Daedalus81 wrote: Right, but that's sort of the point. Making one change requires changing a lot of things. It's the sort of thing best left to the past where those other changes exist, at least in part.
"We can't advocate for changing anything because it would take effort." What a weak-a** cop out.
. . . of course, GWs gone and corrected for that by further inflating other characteristics or adding newer special rules. Guardsmen dealing Mortal Wounds via Lasfire. Dire Avengers carrying Shuriken Catapults with 3 attacks at S 4 AP -2 . . . and the inflation leads to other funny stuff. . .
Which is basically getting un-wound. Much of that extra stuff is going away.
We'll see where it ends up in a couple months I suppose. But I bet that even if they got balance somewhere reasonable they'll just change it a again.
Why is it a cop-out? You're asking to change something that has consequences. I'm saying it appears to be equitable ( so far ) and changing it just makes it so they have to toss out a ton of work. That doesn't seem like a reasonable approach. It feels more like 'change for the sake of nostalgia or preference' than 'change for the sake of balance'.
Daedalus81 wrote: Right, but that's sort of the point. Making one change requires changing a lot of things. It's the sort of thing best left to the past where those other changes exist, at least in part.
Funny how this was not considered an issue when it came to giving Marines that extra wound.
And yes, it's actually for balance. Just a different balance than what we have. A world where Infantry don't feel so unrewarding when facing Marines, but where Marines still feel elite because they bring other strong characteristics to bear. But also a world where Marines benefit from cover against small arms, because it's an intuitive interaction.
And "preference" is quite a different thing than "nostalgia".
Daedalus81 wrote: Right, but that's sort of the point. Making one change requires changing a lot of things. It's the sort of thing best left to the past where those other changes exist, at least in part.
Funny how this was not considered an issue when it came to giving Marines that extra wound.
Bang on. Or cynically, maybe it was, and it's just a reason to drive churn.
They did consider it at least partially -- the roll-out was the problem. If you took 8th indexes, stripped strats and traits, and played as if it were 9th it'd probably be decent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: A world where Infantry don't feel so unrewarding when facing Marines, but where Marines still feel elite because they bring other strong characteristics to bear. But also a world where Marines benefit from cover against small arms, because it's an intuitive interaction.
How do you define rewarding? What should a squad of IS do to marines? What should a squad of marines do to IS?
catbarf wrote: I get that, I'm just confused as to why you're saying it matters for heavy bolters, especially since- although not explicitly stated- you appear to be using ~18pts/Marine in your example. You could put that W1 Marine at 13pts and the heavy bolter would then be just as efficient against it as it is against Guardsmen. That's a lot of leeway.
Absolutely - the goal was to highlight that these sorts of changes touch a lot of things and once you start messing around there's a lot you have to consider.
...and this is why we can't have good things. Sure it can be done better, but it takes a crapton of honest effort and you have to be borderline crazy to jump into that kind of an endeavor.
Yet we have people in this thread telling us we're narrow minded idiots for thinking this, because "making good rules isn't hard".
It isn't, especially when they're supposed to get paid to do it, and y'all are still ignoring the point regarding Sisters and various Aspect Warriors.
You can pay me to make a plane, I still would never get on it though. What is your point about sisters/aspect warriors exactly? We're all largely talking in the context of bolters and 3+ saves, which ticks off sisters as a minimum, it also isn't universal to all aspects to have a 3+.
But there's Aspects that DO have then, in fact five of them: Dark Reapers, Fire Dragons, Warp Spiders, Striking Scorpions, and Shadow Spectres, all of which would love to use cover in some manner (Fire Dragons less so, but still entirely would).
In fact, isn't that a majority of the Aspect Warriors, so those with a 4+ would actually be an exception, not the rule?
And striking scorpions are supposed to be all about sneaking around through cover, so extra relevance there.
But yeah, the point about sisters and aspect warriors is that regardless of how you feel about marines, there are non-marine units with 3+ saves who also won't be benefitting from cover against lasguns. And while that may still be for the best (vs having 2+ saves all over the place), it still feels weird that sisters and scorpions don't have an incentive to take cover against lasguns.
Maybe marines striding out in the open as humanoid tanks is fluffy and proper, but sisters and eldar are generally portrayed as being a lot less hardy.
But there's Aspects that DO have then, in fact five of them: Dark Reapers, Fire Dragons, Warp Spiders, Striking Scorpions, and Shadow Spectres, all of which would love to use cover in some manner (Fire Dragons less so, but still entirely would).
In fact, isn't that a majority of the Aspect Warriors, so those with a 4+ would actually be an exception, not the rule?
Ok, so now tell me how the previous 2 pages of discussion about the fact a 3+ in cover gets a 100% increase in survivability against ap- has anything to do with the name or race of the model receiving the 3+. As a hint to your expansive super brain which can encompass the entire game with every thought and suggestion whilst rewriting rules with ease, it doesn't. A 3+ is a 3+ save irrespective of model and going to a 2+ is a 100% increase of saves against ap-, no gaks given if you're a sister, dark reaper, marine, possessed, stealth suit or whatever.
Insectum7 wrote: But also a world where Marines benefit from cover against small arms, because it's an intuitive interaction.
Disregarding whatever else has been said in the context of this argument, this is the bit that strikes me as most perplexing. All the mechanics that feed into and from this are mapped out to produce a result. Hit roll, wound roll, armour save, damage – all these serve a single purpose: they tell us what happens when one model fires a weapon at another model. All we're really interested in once we're actually at the table is the outcome. While I understand that the hit roll and the armour save can be considered an intuitive interaction – after all, it's not difficult to imagine from those single rolls a precise image of what is happening in that instant – the disconnect that people are getting here from how cover does/does not interact with a flying bullet is nowhere near as great as the disconnect I get from the fact that the wound roll happens before the armour save. Which we've all been living with ever since we started playing 40k irrespective of what edition that might have been in.
I get that this whole benefit of cover thing is being discussed in light of how it affects game balance, and I'm not versed enough in investigating the details concerning the math to tell how much flipping the wound roll/armour save sequence would affect balance, but I'm just a little baffled by how one detail in outcome modelling is nailed to a cross while another is passed by without a second glance.
Same averages, but much greater variance. That can lead to feels-bad moments when a squad passes all its saves or loses half its number from an inconsequential bit of shooting.
Clearly if a squad just lost 1/2 its #s that was NOT an inconsequential bit of shooting.....
i shoot 5 skitarii vanguards at these theoretical marines
15 shots
7 hits
3 wounds
Marine player is unlucky and rolls 3 1's, loses 3 marines....
now don't tell me that 5 unbuffed vanguards have impactful shooting usually
Ok, now calculate me the odds of a joke sailing over your head.
But there's Aspects that DO have then, in fact five of them: Dark Reapers, Fire Dragons, Warp Spiders, Striking Scorpions, and Shadow Spectres, all of which would love to use cover in some manner (Fire Dragons less so, but still entirely would).
In fact, isn't that a majority of the Aspect Warriors, so those with a 4+ would actually be an exception, not the rule?
Ok, so now tell me how the previous 2 pages of discussion about the fact a 3+ in cover gets a 100% increase in survivability against ap- has anything to do with the name or race of the model receiving the 3+. As a hint to your expansive super brain which can encompass the entire game with every thought and suggestion whilst rewriting rules with ease, it doesn't. A 3+ is a 3+ save irrespective of model and going to a 2+ is a 100% increase of saves against ap-, no gaks given if you're a sister, dark reaper, marine, possessed, stealth suit or whatever.
Because your sole focus has been on Marines and is clouding your judgment so much that now you think Sisters and Aspect Warriors hugging cover is broken because you don't want to theoretically adjust with using other weapons.
Because your sole focus has been on Marines and is clouding your judgment so much that now you think Sisters and Aspect Warriors hugging cover is broken because you don't want to theoretically adjust with using other weapons.
Marines are more common on the tabletop than these other ones.
Oh and its also faster to just say "Marines" rather than "Marines, Sisters, Dark reapers, warp spiders,etc...."
Wyldhunt wrote: And striking scorpions are supposed to be all about sneaking around through cover, so extra relevance there.
But yeah, the point about sisters and aspect warriors is that regardless of how you feel about marines, there are non-marine units with 3+ saves who also won't be benefitting from cover against lasguns. And while that may still be for the best (vs having 2+ saves all over the place), it still feels weird that sisters and scorpions don't have an incentive to take cover against lasguns.
Maybe marines striding out in the open as humanoid tanks is fluffy and proper, but sisters and eldar are generally portrayed as being a lot less hardy.
Obviously it's because Sisters and Aspect Warriors gain nothing with a fence and it represents a lucky Lasgun hit going through their helmet eye lens, ya know because all these units have helmets all the time.
Insectum7 wrote: A world where Infantry don't feel so unrewarding when facing Marines, but where Marines still feel elite because they bring other strong characteristics to bear. But also a world where Marines benefit from cover against small arms, because it's an intuitive interaction.
How do you define rewarding? What should a squad of IS do to marines? What should a squad of marines do to IS?
I define rewarding as the player controlling them having at least some return on having maneuvered their unit into an advantageous position, and opens fire on Marines out of cover. At the moment, a full GEQ* unit manages only a single wound with pure Lasfire against Marines in the open. Not even a kill. It'd be nice to push that up to a kill. Then, if armed appropriately, killed a second with their special. If three GEQ squads, even armed with poor weapons, found themselves in a position to attack Marines out of cover, I think it's reasonable that those Marines pay for it. I also think it's reasonable that those Marines could seek cover to mitigate the attack and try to defend themselves.
*GEQ - Why GEQ? Because other units exist other than Guardsmen, such as Cultists (Chaos or Genestealer). IS are propped up by their Mortal Wound thing, and I think that's a rule that should go.
But before we lose focus by ratholing on GEQ, I have Termagants and Eldar Guardians in my collections too. Rolling buckets of dice and seeing next to nothing happen sucks.
On the flip side, a squad of 5 Marines should be a serious threat to a full IS squad. I would expect 5 Marines to be able to win an encounter handily should they get the drop on the opposition. For a truly devastating attack though I would leverage CC and morale.
But you still haven't answered my question. How Many Marines should it take to kill a Marine?
Insectum7 wrote: But also a world where Marines benefit from cover against small arms, because it's an intuitive interaction.
Disregarding whatever else has been said in the context of this argument, this is the bit that strikes me as most perplexing. All the mechanics that feed into and from this are mapped out to produce a result. Hit roll, wound roll, armour save, damage – all these serve a single purpose: they tell us what happens when one model fires a weapon at another model. All we're really interested in once we're actually at the table is the outcome. While I understand that the hit roll and the armour save can be considered an intuitive interaction – after all, it's not difficult to imagine from those single rolls a precise image of what is happening in that instant – the disconnect that people are getting here from how cover does/does not interact with a flying bullet is nowhere near as great as the disconnect I get from the fact that the wound roll happens before the armour save. Which we've all been living with ever since we started playing 40k irrespective of what edition that might have been in.
I get that this whole benefit of cover thing is being discussed in light of how it affects game balance, and I'm not versed enough in investigating the details concerning the math to tell how much flipping the wound roll/armour save sequence would affect balance, but I'm just a little baffled by how one detail in outcome modelling is nailed to a cross while another is passed by without a second glance.
[/rambling digression]
Haha, interesting question.
Mathematically the order of Wound vs. Save actually makes no difference as they're both a multiplication. I think one benefit of the order as designed is one of dice ergonomics. The player who rolls to hit then picks up all their positive-to-hit dice, and then rolls to wound. Rolling the other way, saves first, means players switch back and forth more, which might feel more awkward. The other benefit is that the player whose models are getting killed gets the last say, which feels better somehow.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyldhunt wrote: And striking scorpions are supposed to be all about sneaking around through cover, so extra relevance there.
But yeah, the point about sisters and aspect warriors is that regardless of how you feel about marines, there are non-marine units with 3+ saves who also won't be benefitting from cover against lasguns. And while that may still be for the best (vs having 2+ saves all over the place), it still feels weird that sisters and scorpions don't have an incentive to take cover against lasguns.
Maybe marines striding out in the open as humanoid tanks is fluffy and proper, but sisters and eldar are generally portrayed as being a lot less hardy.
But there's Aspects that DO have then, in fact five of them: Dark Reapers, Fire Dragons, Warp Spiders, Striking Scorpions, and Shadow Spectres, all of which would love to use cover in some manner (Fire Dragons less so, but still entirely would).
In fact, isn't that a majority of the Aspect Warriors, so those with a 4+ would actually be an exception, not the rule?
Ok, so now tell me how the previous 2 pages of discussion about the fact a 3+ in cover gets a 100% increase in survivability against ap- has anything to do with the name or race of the model receiving the 3+. As a hint to your expansive super brain which can encompass the entire game with every thought and suggestion whilst rewriting rules with ease, it doesn't. A 3+ is a 3+ save irrespective of model and going to a 2+ is a 100% increase of saves against ap-, no gaks given if you're a sister, dark reaper, marine, possessed, stealth suit or whatever.
Because your sole focus has been on Marines and is clouding your judgment so much that now you think Sisters and Aspect Warriors hugging cover is broken because you don't want to theoretically adjust with using other weapons.
Are you just being intentionally obtuse here? You do realise the ap- weapon you use is largely irrelevant? It could be a heavy assault rapidfire 5000000 S87 AP- D500000000 weapon firing at a marine, sister, fire dragon, rhino, immortal. They all get a 100% increase in durability.
You do understand the maths make all of your points irrelevant here? If by other weapons you mean stuff with ap-1 or greater, hence negating the effect of cover in the first place, those are irrelevant as the effect is equal to all.
Wyldhunt wrote:And striking scorpions are supposed to be all about sneaking around through cover, so extra relevance there.
But yeah, the point about sisters and aspect warriors is that regardless of how you feel about marines, there are non-marine units with 3+ saves who also won't be benefitting from cover against lasguns. And while that may still be for the best (vs having 2+ saves all over the place), it still feels weird that sisters and scorpions don't have an incentive to take cover against lasguns.
Maybe marines striding out in the open as humanoid tanks is fluffy and proper, but sisters and eldar are generally portrayed as being a lot less hardy.
Not any different from how it was prior to 8th, though. You still took cover to avoid heavy weapons, and T3/3+ still takes an average of 12 lasgun shots to eliminate a single model, which isn't nothing.
I wouldn't mind certain units still getting a cover benefit against AP0 as a special ability. Just not entire armies.
Snugiraffe wrote:
Insectum7 wrote: But also a world where Marines benefit from cover against small arms, because it's an intuitive interaction.
Disregarding whatever else has been said in the context of this argument, this is the bit that strikes me as most perplexing. All the mechanics that feed into and from this are mapped out to produce a result. Hit roll, wound roll, armour save, damage – all these serve a single purpose: they tell us what happens when one model fires a weapon at another model. All we're really interested in once we're actually at the table is the outcome. While I understand that the hit roll and the armour save can be considered an intuitive interaction – after all, it's not difficult to imagine from those single rolls a precise image of what is happening in that instant – the disconnect that people are getting here from how cover does/does not interact with a flying bullet is nowhere near as great as the disconnect I get from the fact that the wound roll happens before the armour save. Which we've all been living with ever since we started playing 40k irrespective of what edition that might have been in.
I get that this whole benefit of cover thing is being discussed in light of how it affects game balance, and I'm not versed enough in investigating the details concerning the math to tell how much flipping the wound roll/armour save sequence would affect balance, but I'm just a little baffled by how one detail in outcome modelling is nailed to a cross while another is passed by without a second glance.
[/rambling digression]
Other unintuitive/unrealistic gameplay elements that 40K players don't question:
-Hitting a Titan is just as easy as hitting a Grot.
-Hitting a target 2" away is just as hard as hitting a target 20" away.
-Hitting a jetbike flying at 200mph is no harder than hitting a stationary tank.
-Whether or not you can shoot the jet with your flamethrower depends entirely on where the arbitrary timescale causes it to stop. Also, you can shoot a jet with a flamethrower.
-If the Sergeant with the fancy sword is the only guy you can see, you still kill the entire rest of the squad first before he gets hurt.
-Bringing a bullet-absorbing energy field doesn't protect your character at all unless the bullets are powerful enough to pierce his normal armor.
-You can freely shoot another unit 2" away, but the dude in the back of your unit can't shoot the dudes in the back of the enemy unit 6" away if someone else in the unit is engaged in melee.
-You can walk up to the enemy and shoot them in the face and they can't do anything about it, but step the extra inch to get into melee and suddenly they have the opportunity to shoot you with all guns.
-Charging into melee is faster than just running, but if the enemy is far enough away then your charge fails and you don't move at all.
-Your army has perfect coordination and nobody ever misunderstands an order or has incomplete information.
There are a whole heaping ton of gameplay abstractions that don't make strictly logical sense if you put them under a microscope. Like you said, what we care about is the outcome and that the gameplay effects are ideal. So yeah, I find it hard to get worked up about whether it's intuitive that some models won't benefit from cover against certain weapons.
catbarf wrote: So yeah, I find it hard to get worked up about whether it's intuitive that some models won't benefit from cover against certain weapons.
As someone who is a staunch defender of the 3-7 paradigm I totally get this.
But, as someone who taught 3-7 I repeadedly observed it being a sticking point for new players. "Going in to cover doesn't help?"
Wyldhunt wrote:And striking scorpions are supposed to be all about sneaking around through cover, so extra relevance there.
But yeah, the point about sisters and aspect warriors is that regardless of how you feel about marines, there are non-marine units with 3+ saves who also won't be benefitting from cover against lasguns. And while that may still be for the best (vs having 2+ saves all over the place), it still feels weird that sisters and scorpions don't have an incentive to take cover against lasguns.
Maybe marines striding out in the open as humanoid tanks is fluffy and proper, but sisters and eldar are generally portrayed as being a lot less hardy.
Not any different from how it was prior to 8th, though. You still took cover to avoid heavy weapons, and T3/3+ still takes an average of 12 lasgun shots to eliminate a single model, which isn't nothing.
True, and to be clear I'm not losing any sleep over the topic. It's just that on some level I want to be incentivized to utilize cover. It lets me pretend that I'm making interesting choices by weighing the pros and cons of staying inside terrain. Plus for fluff reasons, I want to feel like my sneaky scorpions are actively utilizing cover as close the gap with their targets. With the rules as previewed, howling banshees (Sv 4+) who are known for rushing forward while literally screaming are rewarded for sticking to cover moreso than striking scorpions who are supposed to be huge on sneaking around through cover.
Ultimately, this will probably just become one of those quirky little abstractions that feels a bit off.
catbarf wrote: So yeah, I find it hard to get worked up about whether it's intuitive that some models won't benefit from cover against certain weapons.
As someone who is a staunch defender of the 3-7 paradigm I totally get this.
But, as someone who taught 3-7 I repeadedly observed it being a sticking point for new players. "Going in to cover doesn't help?"
I see both sides of this.
Yeah. I distinctly remember a friend being frustrated that taking the time to stick a marine in cover didn't help said marine at all against my frag missile back in 5th.
Insectum7 wrote: I define rewarding as the player controlling them having at least some return on having maneuvered their unit into an advantageous position, and opens fire on Marines out of cover. At the moment, a full GEQ* unit manages only a single wound with pure Lasfire against Marines in the open. Not even a kill. It'd be nice to push that up to a kill. Then, if armed appropriately, killed a second with their special. If three GEQ squads, even armed with poor weapons, found themselves in a position to attack Marines out of cover, I think it's reasonable that those Marines pay for it. I also think it's reasonable that those Marines could seek cover to mitigate the attack and try to defend themselves.
*GEQ - Why GEQ? Because other units exist other than Guardsmen, such as Cultists (Chaos or Genestealer). IS are propped up by their Mortal Wound thing, and I think that's a rule that should go.
But before we lose focus by ratholing on GEQ, I have Termagants and Eldar Guardians in my collections too. Rolling buckets of dice and seeing next to nothing happen sucks.
On the flip side, a squad of 5 Marines should be a serious threat to a full IS squad. I would expect 5 Marines to be able to win an encounter handily should they get the drop on the opposition. For a truly devastating attack though I would leverage CC and morale.
But you still haven't answered my question. How Many Marines should it take to kill a Marine?
I appreciate the explanation.
So out of cover, IS kills a marine and marines perhaps kill 2 IS from shooting and follow up in CC - does that sound about ballpark-ish with your thoughts?
I have to do some chores and such so I'll expand my thoughts on that and marine on marine then.
Other unintuitive/unrealistic gameplay elements that 40K players don't question:
-Hitting a Titan is just as easy as hitting a Grot.
-Hitting a target 2" away is just as hard as hitting a target 20" away.
-Hitting a jetbike flying at 200mph is no harder than hitting a stationary tank.
-Whether or not you can shoot the jet with your flamethrower depends entirely on where the arbitrary timescale causes it to stop. Also, you can shoot a jet with a flamethrower.
-If the Sergeant with the fancy sword is the only guy you can see, you still kill the entire rest of the squad first before he gets hurt.
-Bringing a bullet-absorbing energy field doesn't protect your character at all unless the bullets are powerful enough to pierce his normal armor.
-You can freely shoot another unit 2" away, but the dude in the back of your unit can't shoot the dudes in the back of the enemy unit 6" away if someone else in the unit is engaged in melee.
-You can walk up to the enemy and shoot them in the face and they can't do anything about it, but step the extra inch to get into melee and suddenly they have the opportunity to shoot you with all guns.
-Charging into melee is faster than just running, but if the enemy is far enough away then your charge fails and you don't move at all.
-Your army has perfect coordination and nobody ever misunderstands an order or has incomplete information.
There are a whole heaping ton of gameplay abstractions that don't make strictly logical sense if you put them under a microscope. Like you said, what we care about is the outcome and that the gameplay effects are ideal. So yeah, I find it hard to get worked up about whether it's intuitive that some models won't benefit from cover against certain weapons.
I will say that most of these crept in over time as editions continued to iterate, and that I've seen a lot of them cause head-scratching without the wound/save sequence ever coming up, but I'll take Insectum7's explanation about giving the player whose models are dying the last hand (because yeah, I feel that) and then let it rest.
The fact about not switching dice rolling side is probably the most important.
Apocalypse managed to be a much faster game, and a lot of it depended on the fact that one player rolled all his dices for all his units, and then the opponent rolled all the saves for all the units.
A.Lot.Faster.
Insectum7 wrote: I define rewarding as the player controlling them having at least some return on having maneuvered their unit into an advantageous position, and opens fire on Marines out of cover. At the moment, a full GEQ* unit manages only a single wound with pure Lasfire against Marines in the open. Not even a kill. It'd be nice to push that up to a kill. Then, if armed appropriately, killed a second with their special. If three GEQ squads, even armed with poor weapons, found themselves in a position to attack Marines out of cover, I think it's reasonable that those Marines pay for it. I also think it's reasonable that those Marines could seek cover to mitigate the attack and try to defend themselves.
*GEQ - Why GEQ? Because other units exist other than Guardsmen, such as Cultists (Chaos or Genestealer). IS are propped up by their Mortal Wound thing, and I think that's a rule that should go.
But before we lose focus by ratholing on GEQ, I have Termagants and Eldar Guardians in my collections too. Rolling buckets of dice and seeing next to nothing happen sucks.
On the flip side, a squad of 5 Marines should be a serious threat to a full IS squad. I would expect 5 Marines to be able to win an encounter handily should they get the drop on the opposition. For a truly devastating attack though I would leverage CC and morale.
But you still haven't answered my question. How Many Marines should it take to kill a Marine?
I appreciate the explanation.
So out of cover, IS kills a marine and marines perhaps kill 2 IS from shooting and follow up in CC - does that sound about ballpark-ish with your thoughts?
I have to do some chores and such so I'll expand my thoughts on that and marine on marine then.
I would say a 5 man Marine squad should kill more than 2 GEQs in return, Rapid Firing. 4-5 ish maybe. In open terrain that ought to go south for the IS pretty quickly. Shooting plus charge should wipe out the unit, imo.
The intent is that the MEQ shock troops should be able to go through GEQs very fast on the attack. But some sort of counterplay needs to be possible or else the GEQ player is just wasting their time. The scenario where a few squads of guardsmen surround those 5 CSM and gun them down needs to be a thing.
catbarf wrote: So yeah, I find it hard to get worked up about whether it's intuitive that some models won't benefit from cover against certain weapons.
As someone who is a staunch defender of the 3-7 paradigm I totally get this.
But, as someone who taught 3-7 I repeadedly observed it being a sticking point for new players. "Going in to cover doesn't help?"
I see both sides of this.
I don't disagree. It's not particularly intuitive and as I've said before I would prefer cover just be a straight FNP-esque save that you can take in addition to armor. But if we want to take on all the ways that 40K is unintuitive, well, that's a long list. I have also taught new players and had them question some of the things I mentioned- but we don't question them because they're the status quo.
Also it's a sidenote, but I've never felt the explanation of having the defender roll saves so they 'get the last say' to be particularly compelling. I played Tyranids and Guard primarily in 3rd-5th, so I rarely got a save to begin with. You could easily swap it around and have the attacker roll to hit and roll to penetrate armor, then the defender gets a 'toughness save', and that'd always give you at least some chance to survive.
Wyldhunt wrote:And striking scorpions are supposed to be all about sneaking around through cover, so extra relevance there.
But yeah, the point about sisters and aspect warriors is that regardless of how you feel about marines, there are non-marine units with 3+ saves who also won't be benefitting from cover against lasguns. And while that may still be for the best (vs having 2+ saves all over the place), it still feels weird that sisters and scorpions don't have an incentive to take cover against lasguns.
Maybe marines striding out in the open as humanoid tanks is fluffy and proper, but sisters and eldar are generally portrayed as being a lot less hardy.
Not any different from how it was prior to 8th, though. You still took cover to avoid heavy weapons, and T3/3+ still takes an average of 12 lasgun shots to eliminate a single model, which isn't nothing.
True, and to be clear I'm not losing any sleep over the topic. It's just that on some level I want to be incentivized to utilize cover. It lets me pretend that I'm making interesting choices by weighing the pros and cons of staying inside terrain. Plus for fluff reasons, I want to feel like my sneaky scorpions are actively utilizing cover as close the gap with their targets. With the rules as previewed, howling banshees (Sv 4+) who are known for rushing forward while literally screaming are rewarded for sticking to cover moreso than striking scorpions who are supposed to be huge on sneaking around through cover.
Preserving your Armor Save against all the non-AP0 weapons flying around the battlefield is not a reason to incentivize using cover?
As to the much asked question of how many attacks should be needed to kill a Space Marine, it makes me recall the Space Marine slap fights of 5 3rd/3.5 edition. One S4 AP - attacks per Marine meant it took 9 Marines to kill one (same result for bolters over 12"). I guess that is why Power Weapons and Power Fist were so popular back then. A Powersword Veteran Sergeant was more dangerous than the other 4 members of a Combat Squad combined. From what we know of 10th, we have Intercessors making 3 attacks each, so 6 Intercessors kill 1 Intercessors with their Close Combat Weapon (same number for their Bolt Rifles if they aren't stationary).
catbarf wrote: So yeah, I find it hard to get worked up about whether it's intuitive that some models won't benefit from cover against certain weapons.
As someone who is a staunch defender of the 3-7 paradigm I totally get this.
But, as someone who taught 3-7 I repeadedly observed it being a sticking point for new players. "Going in to cover doesn't help?"
I see both sides of this.
I don't disagree. It's not particularly intuitive and as I've said before I would prefer cover just be a straight FNP-esque save that you can take in addition to armor. But if we want to take on all the ways that 40K is unintuitive, well, that's a long list. I have also taught new players and had them question some of the things I mentioned- but we don't question them because they're the status quo.
I think the cover-increases-save is not great. The only issue I have with FNP is the extra roll. Although personally I tend to swing back to the 2nd ed subtraction To Hit roll, which has the extra bonus of removing dice from the roll process earlier. The problem is it starts to suck for low BS models, although for 40k I think a "6s always hit" works well as a solution.
Also it's a sidenote, but I've never felt the explanation of having the defender roll saves so they 'get the last say' to be particularly compelling. I played Tyranids and Guard primarily in 3rd-5th, so I rarely got a save to begin with. You could easily swap it around and have the attacker roll to hit and roll to penetrate armor, then the defender gets a 'toughness save', and that'd always give you at least some chance to survive.
alextroy wrote: Preserving your Armor Save against all the non-AP0 weapons flying around the battlefield is not a reason to incentivize using cover?
It's an incentive to use cover if I think some good AP weapons are going to be pointed my way. My point is just that it's weird that they don't benefit from cover when they're going after a bunch of cultists with autoguns or whatever. I get that realistically there will usually be some AP floating around that will make me want to take cover. But in a vacuum, the guys-known-for-using-cover don't have a reason to use cover when up against AP0 enemies, and the squad-known-for-screaming-and-charging-in-stark-contrast-to-the-cover-using-guys will always have a reason to get into cover if they can.
As to the much asked question of how many attacks should be needed to kill a Space Marine, it makes me recall the Space Marine slap fights of 5 3rd/3.5 edition. One S4 AP - attacks per Marine meant it took 9 Marines to kill one (same result for bolters over 12"). I guess that is why Power Weapons and Power Fist were so popular back then. A Powersword Veteran Sergeant was more dangerous than the other 4 members of a Combat Squad combined. From what we know of 10th, we have Intercessors making 3 attacks each, so 6 Intercessors kill 1 Intercessors with their Close Combat Weapon (same number for their Bolt Rifles if they aren't stationary).
Still, at 6, it makes me think of the sound of two dumpsters continuously banging together.
I think the cover-increases-save is not great. The only issue I have with FNP is the extra roll. Although personally I tend to swing back to the 2nd ed subtraction To Hit roll, which has the extra bonus of removing dice from the roll process earlier. The problem is it starts to suck for low BS models, although for 40k I think a "6s always hit" works well as a solution.
Yeah. Feels like something like this might work better. Maybe only have the to-hit modifier kick in outside of X" or something (sort of like the ravenguard/alaitoc faction abilities) so that all armies have some counterplay to offset the to-hit penalty. A crossfire mechanic would work well here too.
I think the cover-increases-save is not great. The only issue I have with FNP is the extra roll. Although personally I tend to swing back to the 2nd ed subtraction To Hit roll, which has the extra bonus of removing dice from the roll process earlier. The problem is it starts to suck for low BS models, although for 40k I think a "6s always hit" works well as a solution.
Yeah. Feels like something like this might work better. Maybe only have the to-hit modifier kick in outside of X" or something (sort of like the ravenguard/alaitoc faction abilities) so that all armies have some counterplay to offset the to-hit penalty. A crossfire mechanic would work well here too.
"A crossfire mechanic would work well here too." <<==== Nice!
Also it's a sidenote, but I've never felt the explanation of having the defender roll saves so they 'get the last say' to be particularly compelling. I played Tyranids and Guard primarily in 3rd-5th, so I rarely got a save to begin with. You could easily swap it around and have the attacker roll to hit and roll to penetrate armor, then the defender gets a 'toughness save', and that'd always give you at least some chance to survive.
You might even combine the hit roll (=weapon accuracy) with the penetration roll (=weapon, uh, penetration) to have only a single roll. You could list it with the weapon instead of giving the firer a distinct ballistic skill...
Also, crossfire! I'd love that. A reason to attempt real manoeuvring. Of course, none of this has any bearing on what 10th will be bringing to the table.
Also it's a sidenote, but I've never felt the explanation of having the defender roll saves so they 'get the last say' to be particularly compelling. I played Tyranids and Guard primarily in 3rd-5th, so I rarely got a save to begin with. You could easily swap it around and have the attacker roll to hit and roll to penetrate armor, then the defender gets a 'toughness save', and that'd always give you at least some chance to survive.
You might even combine the hit roll (=weapon accuracy) with the penetration roll (=weapon, uh, penetration) to have only a single roll. You could list it with the weapon instead of giving the firer a distinct ballistic skill...
Also, crossfire! I'd love that. A reason to attempt real manoeuvring. Of course, none of this has any bearing on what 10th will be bringing to the table.
I always felt Dream Pod 9's Silhouette system was a fairly elegant approach to consolidating rolls like that. Roll to hit, target rolls to dodge, if the attacker rolls higher you multiply the difference by the weapon's damage multiplier. Compare to the target's armor, and for each multiple of their armor the intensity of damage increases. Eg you fire a gun with +2 to hit and x8 damage against a target with armor 12. You roll a 3 and add your +2 to get 5, they roll a 1. The difference is 4, so multiplied by x8 you get 32, and since that's over double the target's armor but not quite triple, you inflict Heavy Damage. Obviously opposed rolls don't scale well to a mass-battle game, but it did create a system where you could resolve an entire attack with one roll while still having interesting damage effects and multiple levers with which to differentiate weapons.
Meanwhile in Dust Warfare the number of dice a weapon rolls depends on the target type, so viability against different target types was baked into the weapons. Successes are always 5+, sustained fire lets you re-roll, cover mitigates the first hit (or two hits for heavy cover IIRC), and then the target rolls armor saves to mitigate further damage. Simple, fast.
Starship Troopers represented weapons as dice (with modifiers) and gave units Hit, Save, and Kill values. To shoot you just roll the dice; if you score the Hit value they get to roll a save, and if you score the Kill value they get no save. Basic infantry weapons were almost always D6 based so you didn't need a clutch of weird dice. Combat usually came down to rolling a bunch of D6s plus a couple of more exotic dice, then the target rolled some saves, and that's it.
Or OnePageRules does 40K-lite by consolidating to-hit and to-wound into a single roll. A lasgun hits on 5+, then you get your save. Attacker rolls once, defender rolls once, done.
All just examples of different ways to do it. Rolling at least three times (and possibly a lot more, with re-rolls, variable shots, variable damage, FNPs, etc) for separate, unrelated trials- where how well you hit has no bearing on how likely you are to inflict damage- is the old-school approach.
Afrodactyl wrote:The Plunging Fire rule is at least a step towards positioning and maneuvering making an impact on gameplay.
It's not the most elegant way of doing it, but it's something at least.
While I'm not holding my breath, it is possible that crossfire or something like it might be a game-wide rule. Plunging Fire is a good sign that they want positioning to matter.
Tyran wrote: Apocalypse probably was the closest 40k ever got to a system appropriate for its scale.
Sad it never got a lot of attention.
Preach! One of my main wishes for 10th was damage at the end of the turn.
Personally (and I'm probably in the minority here) but I would have loved to have seen "cover" as a separate invulnerable-type save mechanic. I.E. the fence your Guardsman is hiding behind provides a 6++, if that is failed then the 5+ flak armor would be up to bat; the model always gets the cover save (except against cover-ignoring weapons) and then it's armor save. I feel that would be a little more realistic then systems implemented in previous editions; even though it would add another die roll.
My preferred order of operations example: enemy rolls to hit -> you roll cover saves (if necessary) -> you roll armor saves (if necessary) -> enemy rolls to wound -> place tokens representing wounds received or models destroyed -> proceed with your turn -> remove models at the end of the Battle Round
there is a mechanic I like for armour/cover in a roleplay game, the mechanic is good but would struggle in a d6 system
basically "you have been hit!", ok you now have a chance to outright avoid the damage, this is a mixture of several passive effects, e.g. chance of armour deflecting the hit, being behind a wall, it being foggy and whatever, these are added - you can then optionally add an active effect - parry, dodge, block mostly (obviously for ranged weapons its dodge) - this costs you your own action though but is good.
so maybe starts as a 7++, maybe cover takes it to a 6++ (this is above the effect on the to hit roll), maybe you can go to 5++ with some armour etc, you get the idea.
this is the chance of the hit simply not effecting you
if that fails it does hit you, your armour now reduces the damage taken (this obviously implies a multi wound system - but could work at a squad level)
and also, yes the Apoc system they did of minor and major hits was nice, you know a squad is taking a lot of fire but not the effect of that at until the end of the turn, do they try something heroic? do they try to mitigate it? does the enemy aim for overkill? I really liked that system and it felt a lot better for the scale of games 40k is generally trying to be to have squads act as a single "thing"
Tyran wrote: Apocalypse probably was the closest 40k ever got to a system appropriate for its scale.
Sad it never got a lot of attention.
Preach! One of my main wishes for 10th was damage at the end of the turn.
Personally (and I'm probably in the minority here) but I would have loved to have seen "cover" as a separate invulnerable-type save mechanic. I.E. the fence your Guardsman is hiding behind provides a 6++, if that is failed then the 5+ flak armor would be up to bat; the model always gets the cover save (except against cover-ignoring weapons) and then it's armor save. I feel that would be a little more realistic then systems implemented in previous editions; even though it would add another die roll.
My preferred order of operations example: enemy rolls to hit -> you roll cover saves (if necessary) -> you roll armor saves (if necessary) -> enemy rolls to wound -> place tokens representing wounds received or models destroyed -> proceed with your turn -> remove models at the end of the Battle Round
Yep, I'd play that. Reminds me of the [sad old git mode]good old days of 2nd ed when you got your force field saves and then your armour saves afterwards[/sad old git mode].
Tyran wrote: Apocalypse probably was the closest 40k ever got to a system appropriate for its scale.
Sad it never got a lot of attention.
Preach! One of my main wishes for 10th was damage at the end of the turn.
Personally (and I'm probably in the minority here) but I would have loved to have seen "cover" as a separate invulnerable-type save mechanic. I.E. the fence your Guardsman is hiding behind provides a 6++, if that is failed then the 5+ flak armor would be up to bat; the model always gets the cover save (except against cover-ignoring weapons) and then it's armor save. I feel that would be a little more realistic then systems implemented in previous editions; even though it would add another die roll.
My preferred order of operations example: enemy rolls to hit -> you roll cover saves (if necessary) -> you roll armor saves (if necessary) -> enemy rolls to wound -> place tokens representing wounds received or models destroyed -> proceed with your turn -> remove models at the end of the Battle Round
Otherwise fine idea but for sake of practicality hit, wound, saves. Switching rollers slows game down needlessly.
I was kinda hoping they'd go back to the 6x4 board size (I know it's technically just a minimum), but I'll gladly take short edge deployment zones as a consolation. New mission system looks interesting.
DeadliestIdiot wrote: I was kinda hoping they'd go back to the 6x4 board size (I know it's technically just a minimum), but I'll gladly take short edge deployment zones as a consolation. New mission system looks interesting.
Short edges is for Only War - there's deployment cards for the Chapter Approved missions, which will probably have a variety of layouts.
I absolutely LOVE that. It reminds me somewhat of 2nd edition mission cards, but modernized. I already loved Tempest of War. if it can be flexible enough I think it will be great, to use as-is for pickup games/game night, or even hand-pick a series of themed missions for a tournament, so you have a tournament but with a slight theme (gasp, a narrative!) behind the choices.
I do wish 6x4 was the standard again, but it's one of those things where I 100% blame ITC/FLG for the new style dominating, as they A) Immediately said all ITC sanctioned events would be using the minimum only, and B) Conveniently FLG immediately began selling mats in the new size.
Short edges is for Only War - there's deployment cards for the Chapter Approved missions, which will probably have a variety of layouts.
I'm still sticking with 6x4 regardless.
Good catch! Hopefully short edges shows up in CA missions (although I'm pretty sure I've yet to draw the short edge deployment in a tempest game hahaha)
So in order to play you will need to have your codex and a deck of cards, which looks as if it is going to be updated with every IA.
I also wonder what is going to stop people from changing to gambit at turn 3, if they max out the original primary. The victory points don't get reset, so armies that can do gambits easier would get ta huge bust comparing to others.
Non world wide thing releated, at my store all the tables have on of their short age touching a well. I wonder how we are going to go around the problems of one person having to run around the table, bumping in to other people. Especialy as more then half of the players at our store are 30+, and not exactly the size of a 13 year old.
Karol wrote: So in order to play you will need to have your codex and a deck of cards, which looks as if it is going to be updated with every IA.
I also wonder what is going to stop people from changing to gambit at turn 3, if they max out the original primary. The victory points don't get reset, so armies that can do gambits easier would get ta huge bust comparing to others.
Non world wide thing releated, at my store all the tables have on of their short age touching a well. I wonder how we are going to go around the problems of one person having to run around the table, bumping in to other people. Especialy as more then half of the players at our store are 30+, and not exactly the size of a 13 year old.
this edition has already informed us we'll need more gaming aids since the very beginning (two page for your rules + datasheet).
Karol wrote: So in order to play you will need to have your codex and a deck of cards, which looks as if it is going to be updated with every IA.
I also wonder what is going to stop people from changing to gambit at turn 3, if they max out the original primary. The victory points don't get reset, so armies that can do gambits easier would get ta huge bust comparing to others.
Non world wide thing releated, at my store all the tables have on of their short age touching a well. I wonder how we are going to go around the problems of one person having to run around the table, bumping in to other people. Especialy as more then half of the players at our store are 30+, and not exactly the size of a 13 year old.
I didn't see anything stating that primaries "max out". So you're giving up 30 points potentially from primaries for 30 points potentially from gambit.
this edition has already informed us we'll need more gaming aids since the very beginning (two page for your rules + datasheet).
Well as long as it is not going to be, we will send 6 decks to every non GW store and everyone else can buy our new Warhammer+++ 30$ subscription I will be okey with it. I am not against the idea of cards, being use and haven't played the new system, can't properly judge the new scoring mechanics. I do not like how hard it is to get rules from GW in the last 12 months or so. One of the main reasons I play more AoS right now, is because I couldn't get my hands on AoO or boarding rules sets.
I didn't see anything stating that primaries "max out". So you're giving up 30 points potentially from primaries for 30 points potentially from gambit.
Well max out in the game play sense. When you know there is no way in the next 2 turns you will get 30VP from primary, and if your opponent is ahead, then trying a gambit can make sense. If GW designes some armies in a way where they can do it. We don't know how other gambits look like and how faction rules will look like. IMO it will still be a fringe case to actualy try them, unless GW drops the ball on some army, that can just easily do it.
Karol wrote: So in order to play you will need to have your codex and a deck of cards, which looks as if it is going to be updated with every IA.
I also wonder what is going to stop people from changing to gambit at turn 3, if they max out the original primary. The victory points don't get reset, so armies that can do gambits easier would get ta huge bust comparing to others.
Non world wide thing releated, at my store all the tables have on of their short age touching a well. I wonder how we are going to go around the problems of one person having to run around the table, bumping in to other people. Especialy as more then half of the players at our store are 30+, and not exactly the size of a 13 year old.
I didn't see anything stating that primaries "max out". So you're giving up 30 points potentially from primaries for 30 points potentially from gambit.
I think it will probably 10 painting, 30 secondary, and 60 primary. So IF you have done well enough to score MAX primary turns 2 and 3 then this would fill the remaining primary.
I wonder where the tradeoff point is between taking the gambit and sticking with primary. It'll probably depend on which two gambits you have available to select from. If they're all worth 30 VP, that'd make the decision easier. Then you'd have to take into account your ability to accomplish the gambit, your ability to score your secondaries, and your ability to prevent your opponent from scoring enough primary and secondaries win anyway. As someone who preferred tempest largely because it let me avoid making decisions on which secondaries to make, I'm dreading having to make this decision haha. Still, I like the mechanic and I hope the tradeoff point is something that comes up enough to be relevant.
Wayniac wrote: I do wish 6x4 was the standard again, but it's one of those things where I 100% blame ITC/FLG for the new style dominating, as they A) Immediately said all ITC sanctioned events would be using the minimum only, and B) Conveniently FLG immediately began selling mats in the new size.
They're businessmen first, gamers second. It probably wasn't always this way, but the moment they started a business, they had to be businessmen first. So, I guarantee they saw an opportunity and capitalized on it. They were able to sell new mats to everyone who already purchased one -AND- fit more players into their events which equals more ticket sales.
I also stuck with 6'x4' and have no plans to change.
What is probably the most tragic thing about the move to the smaller play area is the loss of the Realm of Battle Gameboards and Sector Imperialis Gameboards. These were truly two of the best products GW ever released.
Wayniac wrote: I do wish 6x4 was the standard again, but it's one of those things where I 100% blame ITC/FLG for the new style dominating, as they A) Immediately said all ITC sanctioned events would be using the minimum only, and B) Conveniently FLG immediately began selling mats in the new size.
They're businessmen first, gamers second. It probably wasn't always this way, but the moment they started a business, they had to be businessmen first. So, I guarantee they saw an opportunity and capitalized on it. They were able to sell new mats to everyone who already purchased one -AND- fit more players into their events which equals more ticket sales.
I also stuck with 6'x4' and have no plans to change.
What is probably the most tragic thing about the move to the smaller play area is the loss of the Realm of Battle Gameboards and Sector Imperialis Gameboards. These were truly two of the best products GW ever released.
I can't say I agree on that last part given that they were $300 for really large hunks of plastic. Especially since they got rid of an actual useful gaming cloth which they had before that. Before the realm of battle board they had an actual green cloth mat that you could throw over stuff that would have actually been useful for plenty of things had they still sold it
I just really didn't like that itc immediately said this minimum is going to be the only thing by making it tournament standard knowing full well what that would have done. They could have left it up to individual TO's but instead they made it so that every game I've ever seen since 9th Edition has been on the minimum and asking to use a normal size table gets you looked at the same as saying let's not use points
I'm a terrain junkie, so $300.00 and worth every penny IMO. I have one of each and love them.
I even have GW original 3'x3' vacuum formed table top. It was issued to a few stores back in the early 2000's (4th edition) to run demo games. It wouldn't surprise me if I have the last one in existence.
Wayniac wrote: I just really didn't like that itc immediately said this minimum is going to be the only thing by making it tournament standard knowing full well what that would have done. They could have left it up to individual TO's but instead they made it so that every game I've ever seen since 9th Edition has been on the minimum and asking to use a normal size table gets you looked at the same as saying let's not use points
FLG and their ilk are gakky market actors, news at 11.
I hope the deployment cards measure all relevant distances from the board edges rather than the center line. This makes it easier to use whatever board size you want.
I also find it weird that none of the example cards or card types seem to have or support rules for where to play objectives... So perhaps objective placement rules are core?
That would be a consistent game factor despite so much else being randomized. It will be interesting to see if consistent objective placement rules still leave missions feeling samey even with a random deck.
I think it's cooler than what we have now... But I'm a poor judge because Crusade doesn't award VPs for Secondaries and I can't judge the game by standards that matter to me until I find out what the 10th ed equivalent of Crusade is and whether or not Agendas continue to exist.
Wayniac wrote: I do wish 6x4 was the standard again, but it's one of those things where I 100% blame ITC/FLG for the new style dominating, as they A) Immediately said all ITC sanctioned events would be using the minimum only, and B) Conveniently FLG immediately began selling mats in the new size.
They're businessmen first, gamers second. It probably wasn't always this way, but the moment they started a business, they had to be businessmen first. So, I guarantee they saw an opportunity and capitalized on it. They were able to sell new mats to everyone who already purchased one -AND- fit more players into their events which equals more ticket sales.
I also stuck with 6'x4' and have no plans to change.
What is probably the most tragic thing about the move to the smaller play area is the loss of the Realm of Battle Gameboards and Sector Imperialis Gameboards. These were truly two of the best products GW ever released.
I can't say I agree on that last part given that they were $300 for really large hunks of plastic. Especially since they got rid of an actual useful gaming cloth which they had before that. Before the realm of battle board they had an actual green cloth mat that you could throw over stuff that would have actually been useful for plenty of things had they still sold it
I just really didn't like that itc immediately said this minimum is going to be the only thing by making it tournament standard knowing full well what that would have done. They could have left it up to individual TO's but instead they made it so that every game I've ever seen since 9th Edition has been on the minimum and asking to use a normal size table gets you looked at the same as saying let's not use points
Well one of the things that makes it look bad is the fact that you're lying.
Not all ITC sanctioned events had to be the new size. All FLG RUN events are the new size and were since launch. I've been to several ITC approved events that use 6x4 and one that used BOTH sizes because who cares at a locals?
Did they have a material interest in selling people new mats at the new size? Yes. But let's characterize what happened at least a little bit accurately.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: I hope the deployment cards measure all relevant distances from the board edges rather than the center line. This makes it easier to use whatever board size you want.
I also find it weird that none of the example cards or card types seem to have or support rules for where to play objectives... So perhaps objective placement rules are core?
That would be a consistent game factor despite so much else being randomized. It will be interesting to see if consistent objective placement rules still leave missions feeling samey even with a random deck.
I think it's cooler than what we have now... But I'm a poor judge because Crusade doesn't award VPs for Secondaries and I can't judge the game by standards that matter to me until I find out what the 10th ed equivalent of Crusade is and whether or not Agendas continue to exist.
But it doesn't give the parameters of how many are placed and where. I imagine it's one in each deployment zone and two in no-man's land with a minimum distance from either DZ.
And more importantly, since that doesn't come from the cards, it's likely a consistent rule.
I think it's cooler than what we have now... But I'm a poor judge because Crusade doesn't award VPs for Secondaries and I can't judge the game by standards that matter to me until I find out what the 10th ed equivalent of Crusade is and whether or not Agendas continue to exist.
I'm very interested to see what the crusade rules are since they said it would be a completely separate game mode (which I suppose could mean a lot of different things).
I gathered some information from r/WarhammerCompetitive about the demo games at warhammer fest. Not much, but anyways:
u/stabbysab wrote:Overwatch is now at the end of movement or start or end of charge phase. Still 6s to hit.
Is overwatch still a strat?
- We did not use strats or anything else. We were told after we moved that the marines could Overwatch us with a single unit. Then clarified that Overwatch happens after movement or before or after charges
You can only consolidate if it would take you into engagement range of a model or onto an objective. If neither happens you don't move.
I should probably say that consolidate only happened after a unit was wiped out. Like it used to be. It never came up but I don't think you can consolidate in an ongoing fight.
You cannot move onto that center marker for the objective. That must remain clear and you control only into the 3" aura based on objective control.
"To wound" table remained the same?
- Yes. Same table
What was the base size of the screamer killer?
- Looked like 100mm same as a wardogs.
I love the new marine heroes and special characters Not feeling the five man squad in robes. I know it's a DA thing but man that would be in tatters in a day on the battlefield.
My question -- I wonder if these will be for a very specific sub faction, or later be general marines. I'd like to use some in Space Wolves.
PenitentJake wrote: I hope the deployment cards measure all relevant distances from the board edges rather than the center line. This makes it easier to use whatever board size you want.
.
Jidmah wrote: I gathered some information from r/WarhammerCompetitive about the demo games at warhammer fest. Not much, but anyways:
u/stabbysab wrote:Overwatch is now at the end of movement or start or end of charge phase. Still 6s to hit.
Is overwatch still a strat?
- We did not use strats or anything else. We were told after we moved that the marines could Overwatch us with a single unit. Then clarified that Overwatch happens after movement or before or after charges
You can only consolidate if it would take you into engagement range of a model or onto an objective. If neither happens you don't move.
I should probably say that consolidate only happened after a unit was wiped out. Like it used to be. It never came up but I don't think you can consolidate in an ongoing fight.
You cannot move onto that center marker for the objective. That must remain clear and you control only into the 3" aura based on objective control.
"To wound" table remained the same?
- Yes. Same table
What was the base size of the screamer killer?
- Looked like 100mm same as a wardogs.
Sounds like everyone gets one free Overwatch basically. I'd rather it had reverted back to the old version from 7th-8th, but this variation is MUCH better than 9th's.
Mixed but mostly positive feelings on the new mission rules.
One of my biggest issues with 9th right now is that you functionally have like 7 objectives to keep track of at a time (1 primary, 3 of your secondaries, 3 of your opponent's secondaries.) It looks like this cuts it down to 5 (with the possibility of swapping out 2 of those with gambits), so that seems better but still a bit more complicated than I personally was hoping for. (Although potentially having tactical objectives changin gout every turn definitely makes it worse.)
Gambits are interesting, but I'm not sure how they avoid becoming a win more mechanic. If player A is curb-stomping player B and has way more of his army left, then surely player A will have an easier time meeting the Gambit objectives than player B. But in theory, I like hte idea of a mechanic to facilitate a come-from-behind victory by pulling off a difficult objective.
The vaguely Only War-ish shape of the missions seems promising, but I get the feeling we'll be seeing some sort of massive overhaul to the system a year after release.
Overall, seems like an improvement. I wonder if I'll still be able to use my 8th edition Only War deck without too much confusion.
Wyldhunt wrote: Mixed but mostly positive feelings on the new mission rules.
One of my biggest issues with 9th right now is that you functionally have like 7 objectives to keep track of at a time (1 primary, 3 of your secondaries, 3 of your opponent's secondaries.) It looks like this cuts it down to 5 (with the possibility of swapping out 2 of those with gambits), so that seems better but still a bit more complicated than I personally was hoping for. (Although potentially having tactical objectives changin gout every turn definitely makes it worse.)
Gambits are interesting, but I'm not sure how they avoid becoming a win more mechanic. If player A is curb-stomping player B and has way more of his army left, then surely player A will have an easier time meeting the Gambit objectives than player B. But in theory, I like hte idea of a mechanic to facilitate a come-from-behind victory by pulling off a difficult objective.
The vaguely Only War-ish shape of the missions seems promising, but I get the feeling we'll be seeing some sort of massive overhaul to the system a year after release.
Overall, seems like an improvement. I wonder if I'll still be able to use my 8th edition Only War deck without too much confusion.
The gambits seems a total none issue imo. You need to be winning the game by either a handsome enough margin turn 3 that the gambit isn't going to swing it, or that you control the game completely to prevent odds of it happening. Alternatively you need to flirt with your lead up to turn 3 as to not tempt your opponent into triggering the gambit. There's tactical nuance to controlling the game.
As a "win more" I'm not sure it is. 30pts for 2 turns is basically opting to try harder to max primary scores. I'd you were positioned to complete a gambit with ease then the 30 points you're gambling were likely accomplished anyway.
Some details on the mission deck from an article today:
There are 66 cards in the deck, breaking down as follows: five Deployment cards, nine Primary Mission cards, 12 Mission Rules cards, 16 Attacker Secondary Mission cards, 16 Defender Secondary Mission cards, four Attacker Gambit cards, and four Defender Gambit cards.
There are currently 11 generic secondary missions.
Shrapnelsmile wrote: I love the new marine heroes and special characters Not feeling the five man squad in robes. I know it's a DA thing but man that would be in tatters in a day on the battlefield.
My question -- I wonder if these will be for a very specific sub faction, or later be general marines. I'd like to use some in Space Wolves.
Tabards have been a staple of Sternguard for a while now. My UM veterans and Characters all have them.
Shrapnelsmile wrote: I love the new marine heroes and special characters Not feeling the five man squad in robes. I know it's a DA thing but man that would be in tatters in a day on the battlefield.
My question -- I wonder if these will be for a very specific sub faction, or later be general marines. I'd like to use some in Space Wolves.
Tabards have been a staple of Sternguard for a while now. My UM veterans and Characters all have them.
Yeah. The metal sternguard had tabards. Its been quite a long while.
I'm not actually sure 'sternguard' as unit ever had models without them after that name was adopted for Veterans. The over/under tabards have always been a bit weird, but...
from what i've read the demo games were highlight games for new units, and not demonstrations of 10th ed rules, and that made today super disappointing.
Shrapnelsmile wrote: I love the new marine heroes and special characters Not feeling the five man squad in robes. I know it's a DA thing but man that would be in tatters in a day on the battlefield.
My question -- I wonder if these will be for a very specific sub faction, or later be general marines. I'd like to use some in Space Wolves.
I would assume the cloaks are made of y40K Kevlar type stuff.
I've seen some people talking about pre-game CP no longer being a thing, e.g. you get one free enhancement in list building so don't need CP for more, therefore have 0 CP to start the game but get 1 CP per turn as we do currently.
But I've not seen this in an article?
For the new Redemptor, the data sheet shown yesterday doesn't have the Duty Eternal special rule that gave-1 damage.
alextroy wrote: The Redemptor is T10, Sv 2+, with 12 Wounds. Duty Eternal would be insane on top of that.
Yea a lot of those mechanics were put in to slow down the lethality curve, but they won't be as necessary on vehicles. I do wonder if TS or DG will keep their infantry ones or get something else. Even All is Dust could go away ( as it is now ).
I assume durability factions will still have special durability rules. Maybe it won't work exactly the way it does now but Rubrics and Plague Marines will still be harder to kill than a normal marine.
Dudeface wrote: Where I'm going with this is I understand what you're saying but if you consider dynamic movement of the unit, being 6" tall is not the same as firing from a platform 6" up, so I wouldn't expect the same to apply and if it did, just bake it into the profiles.
But the type of terrain you're on matters more than the height. I could be on a 10" hill and I get no plunging fire, but the 6" ruin does. That doesn't make any sense. What makes less sense is that my plunging fire goes away as soon as my target steps on a box and isn't on ground level.
I also have major problems with infinitely high forests, and with "the tip of my claw is in cover from the perspective of one model in your squad, therefore I get cover from everyone in the squad".
These are badly designed rules that look like the result of a team seeing how convoluted the 9th terrain rules were and rather than fixing them they just threw them away and made something overly simplistic (and counter-intuitive) without any real thought or testing.
I wonder if flyers will get some sort of additional AP to their weapons to represent their height when attacking. Seems counter-intuitive that being in a ruin and shooting at a ground-level target would give plunging fire, but an aircraft wouldn't get a similar benefit when attacking from above.
Aash wrote: I wonder if flyers will get some sort of additional AP to their weapons to represent their height when attacking. Seems counter-intuitive that being in a ruin and shooting at a ground-level target would give plunging fire, but an aircraft wouldn't get a similar benefit when attacking from above.
I wonder if flyers will be allowed to see over infinitely high forests!
Arachnofiend wrote: I assume durability factions will still have special durability rules. Maybe it won't work exactly the way it does now but Rubrics and Plague Marines will still be harder to kill than a normal marine.
Why is that? I'm assuming they'll go away the same as DA plasma, Imperial Fist bolters, and so on. The factions that had their durability built into their stat profile i.e Harli invuln saves probably stick around as may bespoke rules on specific units, but faction wide rules are not showing up anywhere yet.
Arachnofiend wrote: I assume durability factions will still have special durability rules. Maybe it won't work exactly the way it does now but Rubrics and Plague Marines will still be harder to kill than a normal marine.
Why is that? I'm assuming they'll go away the same as DA plasma, Imperial Fist bolters, and so on. The factions that had their durability built into their stat profile i.e Harli invuln saves probably stick around as may bespoke rules on specific units, but faction wide rules are not showing up anywhere yet.
Those... aren't faction wide rules? All Is Dust is a rule specific to Rubric Marines and Scarab Occult Terminators, the army wide durability for Thousand Sons was a 5++ on everything.
Tyel wrote: Have to admit when I got down to Guilliman's profile I couldn't remember the difference between Devastating Wounds and Lethal Hits.
It took me a moment, too, but we haven't been playing since we learned about them.
Devastating wounds is; 6s to wound turn your damage into mortal wounds.
Lethal Hits is; 6s to hit auto-wound.
Sustained hits is; Exploding 6s to hit. (extra hit)
At least from what's previewed, there aren't that many to remember:
Universal Special Rules
Aircraft – Just a keyword?
Benefit of Cover – Add 1 to saving throws vs. attack. Models with a Save characteristic of 3+ or better cannot have Benefit of Cover against attacks with AP 0.
Deadly Demise X – Roll a die when model dies, on a 6, do X mortal wounds to “nearby” units.
Deep Strike – Enter battlefield from reserves?
Feel No Pain X+ – Ignore wound on die roll of X+.
Firing Deck X – X embarked models can fire while embarked.
Leader – Can join specified squads.
Lone Operative – Cannot be targeted by enemies more than 12” away (may be limited to when nearby specified units or unit types).
Towering – Doesn’t benefit from LoS blocking from ruins and woods?
Weapon Rules
Anti-[KW] X+ - Automatically does Critical Wound to [Key Word] on Wound roll of X+.
Assault – Unit can fire Assault weapons after advancing.
Blast – +1 Attack for every 5 models in target unit.
Devastating Wounds – Deal Mortal Wounds instead on Critical Wounds.
Hazardous – Kills/inflicts mortal wounds on shooter on roll of 1.
Heavy - +1 to hit if Remained Stationary this turn.
Ignores Cover – ignores [the benefits of] cover?
Lethal Hits – Critical Hits automatically wound.
Melta X – Increase damage by X when within ½ range.
One Shot – Bearer can only shoot this weapon once per battle.
Pistol – Can fire in while in engagement range of enemy unit?
Precision – Sniper on characters or individual models in unit???
Psychic – Just keyword?
Rapid Fire X - When targeting unit within ½ range, increase attack characteristic by X.
Sustained Hits X – Critical Hits generate X additional hits.
Torrent – Attacks automatically hit target.
Twin-Linked – Reroll wound rolls.
Most will probably be second nature after a few games.
Not a fan of GW keeping the silly number of attacks on big models. 21 attacks for a single model just feels unnecessary.
There's definitely still a learning curve when it comes to the USRs, but I don't think it'll take long to get used to them. It looks like there'll be a fairly small set of ones that are very common.
The Detachment rule for the Gladius Task Force is Combat Doctrines, which gives players the choice of three powerful disciplines to focus on at the start of their Command phase. These can really turn the tide at a critical moment.
and while re-rolls to hit and wound are much rarer now, Space Marines have more access to reflect their elite status – chiefly through the Oath of Moment faction ability.
So the Space Wolf Rut, the Blood Angel Bloodletting and Dark Angel Secrets detachments (real names pending) will all have Oath of Moment but not Doctrines.
Slipspace wrote: Not a fan of GW keeping the silly number of attacks on big models. 21 attacks for a single model just feels unnecessary.
There's definitely still a learning curve when it comes to the USRs, but I don't think it'll take long to get used to them. It looks like there'll be a fairly small set of ones that are very common.
I very much doubt he'll be swinging both of those.
Slipspace wrote: Not a fan of GW keeping the silly number of attacks on big models. 21 attacks for a single model just feels unnecessary.
There's definitely still a learning curve when it comes to the USRs, but I don't think it'll take long to get used to them. It looks like there'll be a fairly small set of ones that are very common.
I very much doubt he'll be swinging both of those.
I'm not so sure. We've seen other weapons with the "each time you attack choose one" text and this doesn't have it. There may be a general rule to prevent use of more than 1 CC weapon, I suppose. In that case 14 attacks is still too many for my liking, but that ship has clearly sailed.
Slipspace wrote: Not a fan of GW keeping the silly number of attacks on big models. 21 attacks for a single model just feels unnecessary.
There's definitely still a learning curve when it comes to the USRs, but I don't think it'll take long to get used to them. It looks like there'll be a fairly small set of ones that are very common.
I very much doubt he'll be swinging both of those.
I'm not so sure. We've seen other weapons with the "each time you attack choose one" text and this doesn't have it. There may be a general rule to prevent use of more than 1 CC weapon, I suppose. In that case 14 attacks is still too many for my liking, but that ship has clearly sailed.
That's for ranged weapons. The rules will say 'choose one weapon' to fight in melee. The reason it's different is because a model can shoot many ranged weapons whereas melee can officially be just one.
Slipspace wrote: Not a fan of GW keeping the silly number of attacks on big models. 21 attacks for a single model just feels unnecessary.
There's definitely still a learning curve when it comes to the USRs, but I don't think it'll take long to get used to them. It looks like there'll be a fairly small set of ones that are very common.
I very much doubt he'll be swinging both of those.
I'm not so sure. We've seen other weapons with the "each time you attack choose one" text and this doesn't have it. There may be a general rule to prevent use of more than 1 CC weapon, I suppose. In that case 14 attacks is still too many for my liking, but that ship has clearly sailed.
Conversely it sort of felt like Gman wasn't really up to much by the end of the edition though, if they put their metaphorical best foot forwards and decide day 1 that Primarchs are to be fighters to be afraid of, with a price tag to boot, I'm ok with that. It's something I want to see all the factions get a little of in honesty, why shouldn't the Avatar of Kahine be a 500pt monstrosity who shurgs off fire and eats marines for breakfast even in a realm of reduced lethality?
That's for ranged weapons. The rules will say 'choose one weapon' to fight in melee. The reason it's different is because a model can shoot many ranged weapons whereas melee can officially be just one.
That doesn't seem quite right, there are plenty of melee weapons in 9th that provided additional attacks.
That's for ranged weapons. The rules will say 'choose one weapon' to fight in melee. The reason it's different is because a model can shoot many ranged weapons whereas melee can officially be just one.
That doesn't seem quite right, there are plenty of melee weapons in 9th that provided additional attacks.
Unless we get an USR for additional attacks.
There were, his weapons aren't shown to be either of those. The extra attacks in 9th are from the model carrying them and granted outside of normal allowances, via an additional rule on the gear. Currently no reason to assume he gets to use both as you can't technically use more than 1 now.
That's for ranged weapons. The rules will say 'choose one weapon' to fight in melee. The reason it's different is because a model can shoot many ranged weapons whereas melee can officially be just one.
That doesn't seem quite right, there are plenty of melee weapons in 9th that provided additional attacks.
Unless we get an USR for additional attacks.
We don't need either, anymore. The weapon profile can just be set to however many attacks they want it to be.
We don't need either, anymore. The weapon profile can just be set to however many attacks they want it to be.
Let me make use an example: A Carnifex with scything talons, crushing claws and bone mace. Currently that means 5 crushing claws attacks, +2 scything talons attacks and +1 (and only one) bone mace attack.
If it can only use one weapon, the whole thing falls apart. So it either needs to be able to use multiple weapons or an "additional attacks" USR (specially for the bone mace that was never meant to be a primary melee weapon).
We don't need either, anymore. The weapon profile can just be set to however many attacks they want it to be.
Let me make use an example: A Carnifex with scything talons, crushing claws and bone mace.
Currently that means 5 crushing claws attacks, +2 scything talons attacks and +1 (and only one) bone mace attack.
If it can only use one weapon, the whole thing falls apart. So it either needs to be able to use multiple weapons or an "additional attacks" USR (specially for the bone mace that was never meant to be a primary melee weapon).
That whole dynamic can go away. Bone mace could just grant you access to a profile with X number of attacks and if you need to hit something it's not suited for then then you use talons with Y number of attacks.
Midly concerned at the potential lethality shown in these Gladius Task Force rules, obviously still early days in drawing a full picture, but:
Bobby G
3 x Land Raider
3 x 5 Terminator + 1 Character Terminator
Deploy on the line (and I really really hope Gladius Task Force does not have acces to any sort of redeploy 3 units ability).
Win the roll off.
Choose Waaagh Doctrine.
Move Land Raiders 10".
Disembark 3" (check if this exists still or if you just get your normal move out of the Land Raider).
Move 5".
Advance d6".
Charge 2d6".
Average threat range 28.5". (Hope they got rid of any +s to move, advance or charge.)
Opponent either loses turn one if they lose the roll or has to deploy extra deep in their deployment zone. Remember some of the deployment zones have less than 24" between them currently. Another option is a layer of chaff around your valuable units.
If your opponent does let you get three charges off then activate your first terminator unit into you oath of moment target and as we've only seen the Libby Terminator let's assume he is the one attached:
15 Power Fists hitting on 2s re-rolling everything 6s to hit generate 1 extra hit = 17.5 hits.
17.5 hits wounding with S8 with re-rolls to wound AP2 D2.
Libby also contributes 3.56~4.44 S6 AP1 D3.
Kill your target and Oaths applies to the second unit's target and off you go again with the same lethality.
Alternatively put two units into the primary Oath target and one into the secondary Oath target.
Maybe use fight on death (assuming you have the CP) on the third Terminator unit.
It feels like if you are facing a 10th ed Gladius Task Force you will want to hide your entire army in deployment to avoid being shot turn one and then also deploy a bit or a lot back to avoid the turn one charge. That feels exactly like the kind of lethality we currently have where you need blanket obscuring terrain and some sort of turn one charge denial plan to ensure you are still playing when it gets to your first turn. As a result in 9th I often deploy my army without looking at what the other player is doing as 75% of what I'm putting down is going down in the only places they can go if they want to survive.
I also hate that Gladius will have a similar threat range turn 2/3/4 if they don't use the doctrine turn 1, with a lot of the current 9th armies that threaten this, they often drop in threat after the first turn (Blood Angels, World Eaters) as a part of their movement threat is a pre-game move.
"access to rerolls has been made sparse, except for Marines".
"let's hear "Robin" about it."
"Marines are all about annihilating a particular key unit of the opponent army, so that the fight is decided turn 1"
I don’t think they’ve said that units can move after disembarking from a vehicle. I would expect that if the vehicle moved then the disembarking unit will count as having moved once it disembarks.
EightFoldPath wrote: Midly concerned at the potential lethality shown in these Gladius Task Force rules, obviously still early days in drawing a full picture, but:
Bobby G
3 x Land Raider
3 x 5 Terminator + 1 Character Terminator
Deploy on the line (and I really really hope Gladius Task Force does not have acces to any sort of redeploy 3 units ability).
Win the roll off.
Choose Waaagh Doctrine.
Move Land Raiders 10".
Disembark 3" (check if this exists still or if you just get your normal move out of the Land Raider).
Move 5".
Advance d6".
Charge 2d6".
Average threat range 28.5". (Hope they got rid of any +s to move, advance or charge.)
Had the exact same thought as you, I like Assault ramps but as I got through the doctrines part I was very surprised. That's a whole lot of threat range turn 1 and I have always found Turn 1 charges to be generally unfun. I have two armies that can pull that off but it never feels satisfying to either player in my opinion.
Aash wrote: I don’t think they’ve said that units can move after disembarking from a vehicle. I would expect that if the vehicle moved then the disembarking unit will count as having moved once it disembarks.
Assault ramp says you can make a normal move after disembarking and then you can charge.
Aash wrote: I don’t think they’ve said that units can move after disembarking from a vehicle. I would expect that if the vehicle moved then the disembarking unit will count as having moved once it disembarks.
Yeah. At least as far as I can see you'll get the 10" move from the Land Raider, disembark then a 2D6 charge. That's a bit fast, but not guaranteed first turn charge unless you let them.
EightFoldPath wrote: Bobby G
3 x Land Raider
3 x 5 Terminator + 1 Character Terminator
This is about 1800 points at present if you mean to have a leader in each termie unit. Could easily become 2K. This leaves Bobby completely exposed as he is only covered by INFANTRY.
I'll echo the reading that the Land Raider can make a Normal Move and the disembarking unit can still charge, but the unit that disembarked cannot (as far as we know for now) then make a move of their own besides charging.
Aash wrote: I don’t think they’ve said that units can move after disembarking from a vehicle. I would expect that if the vehicle moved then the disembarking unit will count as having moved once it disembarks.
Assault ramp says you can make a normal move after disembarking and then you can charge.
The rule is in the Land Raider’s data sheet so when it says “after it has made a normal move” it is referring to the land raider having made a normal move, not the disembarking unit.
Assault Ramp: Each time a unit disembarks from this model after it has made a Normal move, that unit is still eligible to declare a charge this turn.
3 Land Raiders is obviously the lazy first concept of an army. Like we saw with the recent Dark Angels Terminators and all chapters Desolators dominance, sure you could take 30, but the top players were taking 10~15 and occasionally 20 to leave room for other things.
Like I said, we'll have to see if there is a penny drop moment later where you find out a common 9th rule has evaporated.
I'm trying to remember for 9th's release. Did they tease rule after rule which looked bad for melee armies and then at the last minute revealed overwatch no longer being for every unit?
Although, for anyone who thinks that the early anti melee internet takes were wrong, the base rules in 9th were quite pro shooting which is why they've nerfed shooting armies/rules so often. Flyers were a shooting problem. Ignore line of sight was a shooting problem. AdMech when they first released were a shooting problem. Ork Freebooterz a shooting problem. Votann a shooting problem. Tyranid Macleptors sort of a shooting problem. Craftworld Hail of Doom a shooting problem. Harlequin Voidweavers a shooting problem. Tzeentch Flamers a shooting problem. Kasrkin a shooting problem.
And later 9th edition codexes are like, 5 attacks per melee model and 9" base move, sounds totally reasonable! 28 points Possessed, yep even at that price it turns out they might actually be overpointed!
The reason 9th edition terrain recommendations are "ok, block out the entire board with obscuring ruins" isn't because the base melee rules are too strong.
That whole dynamic can go away. Bone mace could just grant you access to a profile with X number of attacks and if you need to hit something it's not suited for then then you use talons with Y number of attacks.
Tell me you know nothing about Tyranids without telling me you know nothing about Tyranids.
Bone mace is tail weapon, it is only meant to give 1 attack, it has always only given one attack. It is mean to be a secondary melee weapon, not a primary weapon.
But anyway, I guess the whole thing can be solved by the Carnifex's and similar Tyranid's profiles having bestoke rules for extra melee weapons, although probably not the most elegant solution.
We don't need either, anymore. The weapon profile can just be set to however many attacks they want it to be.
Let me make use an example: A Carnifex with scything talons, crushing claws and bone mace.
Currently that means 5 crushing claws attacks, +2 scything talons attacks and +1 (and only one) bone mace attack.
If it can only use one weapon, the whole thing falls apart. So it either needs to be able to use multiple weapons or an "additional attacks" USR (specially for the bone mace that was never meant to be a primary melee weapon).
Yes, that's the current way things are done. Its not the way things MUST be done.
An alternate method: If you put Crushing Claws on a carnifex, you obviously value the high strength attacks, rather than more attacks with double scythe (which we can see on the Screamer-Killer). So you subsume (and abstract) the other stuff into more attacks with the claws. So give it 6 or 7 crushing claw attacks instead of 5 and nothing else. [Adjust those numbers for whatever a reasonable amount of attacks is in 10th, though # of attacks is looking like its going to be high still)
Yes, that's the current way things are done. Its not the way things MUST be done.
An alternate method: If you put Crushing Claws on a carnifex, you obviously value the high strength attacks, rather than more attacks with double scythe (which we can see on the Screamer-Killer). So you subsume (and abstract) the other stuff into more attacks with the claws. So give it 6 or 7 crushing claw attacks instead of 5 and nothing else. [Adjust those numbers for whatever a reasonable amount of attacks is in 10th, though # of attacks is looking like its going to be high still)
So which would be the difference bewteen a Carnifex with only crushing claws, a Carnifex with crushing claws and scything talons and a Carnifex with crushing claws, scything talons and bone mace or thresher scythe?
Do we have a specific profile for each case? bespoken rules? core or USR rules?
Yes, that's the current way things are done. Its not the way things MUST be done.
An alternate method: If you put Crushing Claws on a carnifex, you obviously value the high strength attacks, rather than more attacks with double scythe (which we can see on the Screamer-Killer). So you subsume (and abstract) the other stuff into more attacks with the claws. So give it 6 or 7 crushing claw attacks instead of 5 and nothing else. [Adjust those numbers for whatever a reasonable amount of attacks is in 10th, though # of attacks is looking like its going to be high still)
So which would be the difference bewteen a Carnifex with only crushing claws, a Carnifex with crushing claws and scything talons and a Carnifex with crushing claws, scything talons and bone mace or thresher scythe?
Do we have a specific profile for each case? bespoken rules? core or USR rules?
You have:
Crushing claws
Scything talons
Tail weapon - grants one additional attack to a melee weapon
You can attack with all the melee weapons you are armed with
You can attack with only one melee weapon you are armed with
Either way, it is easy to include a bullet note much like that on the Cyclone Missile Launcher that limits or adds to your fighting ability over multiple weapons.
I can certainly see the standard being fight with 1 melee weapon with the extra weapons having a symbol that means “this model may fight with this weapon in addition to the other weapons it is armed with”.
You can attack with all the melee weapons you are armed with
You can attack with only one melee weapon you are armed with
Either way, it is easy to include a bullet note much like that on the Cyclone Missile Launcher that limits or adds to your fighting ability over multiple weapons.
I can certainly see the standard being fight with 1 melee weapon with the extra weapons having a symbol that means “this model may fight with this weapon in addition to the other weapons it is armed with”.
It may be as simple as keywording just that as [Auxiliary] or whatever and pin it on appropriate weapons like e.g. lashwhips or tail weapons.
Yes, that's the current way things are done. Its not the way things MUST be done.
An alternate method: If you put Crushing Claws on a carnifex, you obviously value the high strength attacks, rather than more attacks with double scythe (which we can see on the Screamer-Killer). So you subsume (and abstract) the other stuff into more attacks with the claws. So give it 6 or 7 crushing claw attacks instead of 5 and nothing else. [Adjust those numbers for whatever a reasonable amount of attacks is in 10th, though # of attacks is looking like its going to be high still)
So which would be the difference bewteen a Carnifex with only crushing claws, a Carnifex with crushing claws and scything talons and a Carnifex with crushing claws, scything talons and bone mace or thresher scythe?
Do we have a specific profile for each case? bespoken rules? core or USR rules?
Yep, I can clearly answer on a case by case basis, when there are multiple ways they could handle it (another alternate is you can fight with X or Y, same as some of the shooting profiles we've seen) and we don't know.
If it were me, I'd make those three the same and just focus on 'its a crushing claws carnifex.' Tracking every little spike and tail adornment is pointless gak, same as tracking whether a power weapon is a sword, mace or axe. And given how dramatically tyranid weapons have shifted from edition to edition, I'd rather they just settle on something simple and sane.
We'll see how GW handles it, no need to overreact to 'it can be handled several different ways'
Kill your target and Oaths applies to the second unit's target and off you go again with the same lethality.
Alternatively put two units into the primary Oath target and one into the secondary Oath target.
Not how Oath of Moment works.
In your command phase you choose ONE (and only one) target for the Oath. Every unit in your army gets rerolls against that one target.
If you wipe it out? No more Oath of Moment bonus until your next command phase, when you again choose ONE (and only) target, against which every unit in your army will get rerolls.
If your opponent does let you get three charges off then activate your first terminator unit into you oath of moment target and as we've only seen the Libby Terminator let's assume he is the one attached:
.
Guess 40k players need to learn trick aos players have had to learn long time ago and screen units you don't want be charged
Worry when those termies fly.
We are used to stuff that can do t1 charge high speed and usually can kill what it targets. Mawkrusha usually kills what it wants and can cover 36" before charge. You learn to screen when that comes around
Kill your target and Oaths applies to the second unit's target and off you go again with the same lethality.
Alternatively put two units into the primary Oath target and one into the secondary Oath target.
Not how Oath of Moment works.
In your command phase you choose ONE (and only one) target for the Oath. Every unit in your army gets rerolls against that one target.
If you wipe it out? No more Oath of Moment bonus until your next command phase, when you again choose ONE (and only) target, against which every unit in your army will get rerolls.
Notice how he had guillimann? Now check guilliman datasheet revealed today. You'll see something related to oath.
Kill your target and Oaths applies to the second unit's target and off you go again with the same lethality.
Alternatively put two units into the primary Oath target and one into the secondary Oath target.
Not how Oath of Moment works.
In your command phase you choose ONE (and only one) target for the Oath. Every unit in your army gets rerolls against that one target.
If you wipe it out? No more Oath of Moment bonus until your next command phase, when you again choose ONE (and only) target, against which every unit in your army will get rerolls.
Today’s article revealed Guilliman’s datasheet with this special rule:
Master of Battle: After you have selected an enemy unit using the Oath of Moment ability, select a second enemy unit. Until the start of your next Command phase, if the first unit selected has been destroyed, each time a friendly ADEPTUS ASTARTES model makes an attack that targets that second enemy unit, you can re-roll the Hit roll and you can re-roll the Wound roll.
If your opponent does let you get three charges off then activate your first terminator unit into you oath of moment target and as we've only seen the Libby Terminator let's assume he is the one attached:
.
Guess 40k players need to learn trick aos players have had to learn long time ago and screen units you don't want be charged
Worry when those termies fly.
We are used to stuff that can do t1 charge high speed and usually can kill what it targets. Mawkrusha usually kills what it wants and can cover 36" before charge. You learn to screen when that comes around
Kill your target and Oaths applies to the second unit's target and off you go again with the same lethality.
Alternatively put two units into the primary Oath target and one into the secondary Oath target.
Not how Oath of Moment works.
In your command phase you choose ONE (and only one) target for the Oath. Every unit in your army gets rerolls against that one target.
If you wipe it out? No more Oath of Moment bonus until your next command phase, when you again choose ONE (and only) target, against which every unit in your army will get rerolls.
Notice how he had guillimann? Now check guilliman datasheet revealed today. You'll see something related to oath.
Wringing your hands about an ability stapled on to Guillamen that's MASSIVELY weaker than his current auras is even dumber than just not reading Oath of Moment correctly, tbh.
You can attack with all the melee weapons you are armed with
You can attack with only one melee weapon you are armed with
Either way, it is easy to include a bullet note much like that on the Cyclone Missile Launcher that limits or adds to your fighting ability over multiple weapons.
I can certainly see the standard being fight with 1 melee weapon with the extra weapons having a symbol that means “this model may fight with this weapon in addition to the other weapons it is armed with”.
Certainly hope you have to choose one weapon, guilliman can output 49 damage in one round if not ..
Even if it's true, he's choosing between 28 and 21 damage a turn which seems a bit beyond the 'lower lethality' they've been touting....
I don't really care if they make day one Space Marines instagib everything they see, the people who should care are the Space Marine players because if they are too good GW will have to do a Votann on them and just smash their rules into smithereens in the first balance dataslate or hit the +20% points panic button. A hyper lethal army that can focus down one or two key units per turn while themselves being reasonably resilient sounds like a balancing nightmare that gets solved by them being a bit too expensive to ruin everyone else's day.
tneva82 wrote: Guess 40k players need to learn trick aos players have had to learn long time ago and screen units you don't want be charged
Worry when those termies fly.
We are used to stuff that can do t1 charge high speed and usually can kill what it targets. Mawkrusha usually kills what it wants and can cover 36" before charge. You learn to screen when that comes around
But like I said it is just a sign of the lethality of 9th when you are bubble wrapping for example 10 CSM, DG or TS terminators with cultists/rubrics/tzaangors/poxwalkers during deployment while standing the entire formation behind a massive opaque wall.
The more lethal the first army released is, the sooner the lethality arms race begins again. If devastating turn one shooting phases or combat phases are a tactical possibility, you ignore all the too big to hide units in your codex or too fragile to survive behind a wall units and instead focus on the usual suspects that can "hide" and then get off their own devastating turn one/two shooting/combat phases (pre game move, drop pod, deep strike, teleport, death star, perma wrap, etc).
Kill your target and Oaths applies to the second unit's target and off you go again with the same lethality.
Alternatively put two units into the primary Oath target and one into the secondary Oath target.
Not how Oath of Moment works.
In your command phase you choose ONE (and only one) target for the Oath. Every unit in your army gets rerolls against that one target.
If you wipe it out? No more Oath of Moment bonus until your next command phase, when you again choose ONE (and only) target, against which every unit in your army will get rerolls.
Today’s article revealed Guilliman’s datasheet with this special rule:
Master of Battle: After you have selected an enemy unit using the Oath of Moment ability, select a second enemy unit. Until the start of your next Command phase, if the first unit selected has been destroyed, each time a friendly ADEPTUS ASTARTES model makes an attack that targets that second enemy unit, you can re-roll the Hit roll and you can re-roll the Wound roll.
Ahhh. Sorry didn't read the Guilliman entry. Sorry to prematurely correct someone... With this interaction, it does certainly function as described- my bad.
You can attack with all the melee weapons you are armed with
You can attack with only one melee weapon you are armed with
Either way, it is easy to include a bullet note much like that on the Cyclone Missile Launcher that limits or adds to your fighting ability over multiple weapons.
I can certainly see the standard being fight with 1 melee weapon with the extra weapons having a symbol that means “this model may fight with this weapon in addition to the other weapons it is armed with”.
Certainly hope you have to choose one weapon, guilliman can output 49 damage in one round if not ..
Even if it's true, he's choosing between 28 and 21 damage a turn which seems a bit beyond the 'lower lethality' they've been touting....
The potential damage is not that big a deal (assuming one weapon rather than both). It's much more important to look at the average results. Against a Space Marine (T4, Sv 3+, W 2), Guilliman kills 8 models on average with the Emperor's Sword and 5 Models with the Hand of Dominion. Not too crazy if he has to choose between the two weapons. Put him into a Rhino and it drops to 7 (ES) and 17 (HoD).
17 Wounds with the Hand of Dominion for targets T8-13 with Sv 3+? Keep your tanks and monsters away from Roboute!
I would like to know, if they are separating out the marine chapters again, whether the harlequins and ynnari will get their own books?
It would be a bitter pill but in keeping with GW's treatment of non marines that the expansion of factions only affected marines (armies of 1000 troops each...) and not anyone else (there are more harlequins and ynnari than all non codex marine chapters combined....).
Hellebore wrote: Certainly hope you have to choose one weapon, guilliman can output 49 damage in one round if not ..
Even if it's true, he's choosing between 28 and 21 damage a turn which seems a bit beyond the 'lower lethality' they've been touting....
At present Bobby has 7 S12 AP3 D4 attacks. He would have had access to doctrine AP increases and gives himself rerolls to hit as well as +1Adv/Charge. Compare to 7 S14 A4 D4 with Lethal Hits. Lethal Hits is useful against big targets, but not really much on smaller models.
His other weapon is current 7 S8 AP4 D3 with 6s to wound doing D3 MWin addition to other damage. This is him against terminators :
So the 14 attacks LOOKS scary, but it's not really much different than before and is *strictly worse* when the target isn't packing an invulnerable save.
Also, his invuln dropped to a 4+, but his rez went flat 6. He's a sidegrade, but just more interesting than he used to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hellebore wrote: I would like to know, if they are separating out the marine chapters again, whether the harlequins and ynnari will get their own books?
It would be a bitter pill but in keeping with GW's treatment of non marines that the expansion of factions only affected marines (armies of 1000 troops each...) and not anyone else (there are more harlequins and ynnari than all non codex marine chapters combined....).
There's a picture from GW floating around that has images for all the factions getting their own datacard packs. I think it was from the stream, but can't find it atm. I don't recall if they were split there or not.
Cautiously optimistic about how the Gladius taskforce stuff seems to work. It looks like you get a special ability (the doctrines) based on the detachment you take plus at least one stratagem seems to be based on your detachment.
It sounds like that could be really close to the "army themes" thing I've been on about for a while. A small number of easy-to-manage rules to make your army play differently from another army using the same codex.
The weapons still feel a bit weird to me, but we'll see how they look once we have more context.
Roboute gaining Lone Operative while near other units is an interesting way to give him character protection without sticking him into a squad. Could be easy enough to do something similar with the court of the archon models.
I feel like Roboute's melee weapons must surely be an either/or option. If he's swinging all those attacks in the same phase in an edition that's striving to be less lethal, what must his pricetag look like?
Wyldhunt wrote: Cautiously optimistic about how the Gladius taskforce stuff seems to work. It looks like you get a special ability (the doctrines) based on the detachment you take plus at least one stratagem seems to be based on your detachment.
My question is: So other SM formations don't use Doctrines?
Wyldhunt wrote: Cautiously optimistic about how the Gladius taskforce stuff seems to work. It looks like you get a special ability (the doctrines) based on the detachment you take plus at least one stratagem seems to be based on your detachment.
My question is: So other SM formations don't use Doctrines?
Probably not. A Decent of Angels detachment that concentrates on Jump Troops and Drop Pods would operate very differently than a Gladius Strikeforce.
Doctrines seem... well... intrinsic to Marines. They're doctrines.
Oaths of Moment seem more like something that wouldn't be present all the time.
Doctrines could be superseded by more pertinent tactics for certain deployments. This could represent that they don't carry specific gear on certain missions or drill a different set of training patterns before a drop that overwrites old reflexive actions with new ones.
.
.
