What rules do you think are weird in 40k?

It makes no sense how a motorcycle isn't counted as a vehicle... It's just weird.

Also, why is the warbuggy/wartrakk a vehicle when they are basically an Orky attack bike?

Planes are vehicles... But not helicopters (deffkoptas)?

Has anyone got an answer to any of these?

I really don't see why bikes would be counted as vehicles. It would just make them much tougher than they need to be seeing as you can shoot someone riding a bike.

A better question is why can you jump in front of a sniper shot.

Don't question reality in a game of space fungus and giant hydraulic handed super soldiers.

Plus its abstract game mechanics.

I think the rules for saves are a little wonky,they should be put inbetween To hit rolls and To wound rolls.

Currently you get hit,get badly hurt and THEN you get a save like the armor is somewhere inside you,same with cover

I've pointed this out before but.

AM Orders.

Why are they the only ones that can yell at their troops and make them better? You're telling me a Chapter Master can't order his troops as well as Junior Officer Whatshisface?

Also why does yelling at guardsmen give their ammo magical sentience that allows it to go around rocks, walls, etc? (ignore cover) Even if you say "they're choosing their shots better", why can't much more well trained sharpshooters ignore cover then?

pm713 wrote:
I really don't see why bikes would be counted as vehicles. It would just make them much tougher than they need to be seeing as you can shoot someone riding a bike.

A better question is why can you jump in front of a sniper shot.

I know it wouldn't work, but it still doesn't make sense how in 40k, motorcycles are no longer vehicles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another one: why don't Tau drones have FNP? They're robots!

They are vehicles. But give them the rules for vehicles and they get really OP.

SGTPozy wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I really don't see why bikes would be counted as vehicles. It would just make them much tougher than they need to be seeing as you can shoot someone riding a bike.

A better question is why can you jump in front of a sniper shot.

I know it wouldn't work, but it still doesn't make sense how in 40k, motorcycles are no longer vehicles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another one: why don't Tau drones have FNP? They're robots!

'Not feeling pain' means very little when you've been shot to pieces by armour piercing rounds.

Why does anything have FNP then? Drugs help but literally not feeling pain doesn't? Surely FNP should be renamed to Received Medical Attention (RMA) instead then as that would make more sense.

Yeah, going by that logic FNP makes no sense for anything then, because you can still be "shot to pieces" whether or not you can actually feel pain.

I think you're getting far too hung up on the name of an abstract rule. Why aren't Necrons immune to poisoned weapons? Or anything robotic for that matter.

Feel No Pain is just a rule that lets certain units shrug off wounds. It just happens to be named Feel No Pain.

Bikes used to count as vehicles in 2nd edition and each had their own datafax and damage to keep track of. It was just too complicated. Ravenwing armies were ridiculous.

SGTPozy wrote:
Why does anything have FNP then? Drugs help but literally not feeling pain doesn't? Surely FNP should be renamed to Received Medical Attention (RMA) instead then as that would make more sense.

Because they use willpower/faith/desperation/adrenalin-or-other-drug-cocktail to temporarily ignore pain/injury and go above and beyond. Trust me, all those guys making their fnp saves are probably dying right after the battle from their wounds.

Those drones? They don't have advanced self repair protocols or an innate desire to go above and beyond. Essentially, they're nothing special.

Battlesuits that count as monsters rather than vehicles

Armoured monsters that count as vehicles rather than monsters

Poison that can hurt robots and emotions

Large blast type weapons that can miss so badly as to end up behind the shooter

MarsNZ wrote:
Large blast type weapons that can miss so badly as to end up behind the shooter

This.
I've had games when i've shot blast weapons at a target about 7 or so inches away, but after scatter, the blast ends up scrapping the left arm of the shooter

Knowing no Fear is somehow different from being Fearless.

In regards to bikes and being a vehicle: They don't take up enough of the bulk of the model to override that it's just a tool for the rider. It makes him faster and a little tougher, but is effectively more mechanical cavalry than driving a tank around.

A better question is "Why is a Wraithknight a Monstrous Creature when the only slightly taller and built on identical principles Revenant Titan is a super heavy Walker?"

In Chess:

- How can castles move?

- Why are religious leaders so deadly?

- Why can't the infantry turn?

Because it's necessary for the game.

The way that cover works in the game.

I think that its very weird that a small wall, my fellow trooper (regardless of his armor or toughness), and grass all protects against a plasma gun 1/3 of the time.

In addition, I believe the way cover works is actively ruining the game. Armies like Marines don't care too much about cover unless facing an absurd amount of Ap2/3 firepower, in which case they gain the same save as everyone else. Armies like guard and nids however, gain only slightly worse than marine saves while paying dramatically less for it.

Cover should be a BS modifier like in necromunda. It makes the game a lot more tactical, armor still matters (somewhat...we rule that weapons don't reduce armor until Str 5, in 40k it would be fine), and everyone benefits.

Armour saves after wounding :/

+posts above mine. Less rerolls and more modifiers is needed

You may still be "shot to be able to pieces" whether you could sense discomfort.

How come jinking doesn't have more of an impact on the phase other than shooting? I always viewed jinking as going to ground... just for the air. It can be brutal against daemons where they can just jink at will and not worry about it since they have no guns. If you jink you shouldn't be able to move the next turn. I'd argue that it's because they're: tired from juking and jiving in the air, momentarily frazzled from the stress of having to avoid so many shots, need a second to figure out where they are, etc. Right now there's not an equal trade off for granting the bonus cover.

- How do bikes jink without, you know, falling over and killing themselves?

- How does any model jink without actually altering it's position?

- How do fliers jink against non-skyfire weapons? Considering how bad the aim of such weapons is, you'd think they'd just end up jinking into shots that would otherwise have missed.

 Gamerely wrote:
How come jinking doesn't have more of an impact on the phase other than shooting? I always viewed jinking as going to ground... just for the air. It can be brutal against daemons where they can just jink at will and not worry about it since they have no guns. If you jink you shouldn't be able to move the next turn. I'd argue that it's because they're: tired from juking and jiving in the air, momentarily frazzled from the stress of having to avoid so many shots, need a second to figure out where they are, etc. Right now there's not an equal trade off for granting the bonus cover.

It's only a problem because you also need to Snapfire them first. Hitting on sixes then getting ignored because of a free cover save is no fun.

 vipoid wrote:
- How do bikes jink without, you know, falling over and killing themselves?

- How does any model jink without actually altering it's position?

- How do fliers jink against non-skyfire weapons? Considering how bad the aim of such weapons is, you'd think they'd just end up jinking into shots that would otherwise have missed.

When my friend jinks with his bikers I like to imagine they just start doing donuts right in place. But yeah. if you had to declare a jink and move d6 back to your table edge or something like that, that might be a bit better I feel. At least it's something a little more punishing.

I'd prefer if Jink was declared in the owning players movement phase, sort of like evasive maneuvers rather than a reactionary thing.

How exactly does Mark of Nurgle grant you +1T? It makes no sense how rotting can make you tougher.

 Blacksails wrote:
I'd prefer if Jink was declared in the owning players movement phase, sort of like evasive maneuvers rather than a reactionary thing.

Didn't it used to be that way? With units getting Jink saves by moving flat-out?

changemod wrote:

It's only a problem because you also need to Snapfire them first. Hitting on sixes then getting ignored because of a free cover save is no fun.

I think fliers should just get a 'free' jink save (i.e. it doesn't cause them to snapehot). Even a 3+ one would be infinitely better than the 'snapshots only' nonsense we have at the moment.

 vipoid wrote:


Didn't it used to be that way? With units getting Jink saves by moving flat-out?

If I remember 5th correctly, yes. It was basically just a cover save granted by going Ludicrous speed, but it was done in the movement phase and had it own set of drawbacks.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, been a while.

I just think it makes more sense fluff/in-universe wise, at no cost to game flow, while making the game feel more 'tactical' in terms of decision making, while allowing your opponent to make an informed decision on where to apply firepower.

Being able to yell 'Jink!' whenever I declare a shot against a unit doesn't strike me as fun, tactical, logical, or engaging. Its just annoying. Let my opponent decide if they want to start doing donuts in their own movement phase.

Ultimately, it boils down to the scale of the game, the level of abstraction required to represent that scale, and the legacy of being founded on a 20+ year old system that has evolved very little over the years. If you want detailed and sensible rules, you would have to go for a skirmish level game with more modern design.

"Sense" won't come to 40K unless/until they do a complete rewrite of the rules from the ground up.

 Blacksails wrote:

If I remember 5th correctly, yes. It was basically just a cover save granted by going Ludicrous speed, but it was done in the movement phase and had it own set of drawbacks.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, been a while.

I just think it makes more sense fluff/in-universe wise, at no cost to game flow, while making the game feel more 'tactical' in terms of decision making, while allowing your opponent to make an informed decision on where to apply firepower.

Being able to yell 'Jink!' whenever I declare a shot against a unit doesn't strike me as fun, tactical, logical, or engaging. Its just annoying. Let my opponent decide if they want to start doing donuts in their own movement phase.

I completely agree.

Imperial Knights, because they're walkers, still roll for immobilized when going through difficult terrain.

On that note, you'd have to be on drugs of some kind, in order to understand the logic of why some machines are Walkers and others are MCs.

SGTPozy wrote:
How exactly does Mark of Nurgle grant you +1T? It makes no sense how rotting can make you tougher.

Because they're impervious to pain, I guess FnP would be more suitable haha. Just a combination of not feeling pain anymore, being bloated and cushioned, not caring if a hole gets blown in you because it just matches the one you already have with your intestines hanging out of it, and stuff like that I guess?

A rule I always thought made no sense was the one that said if one model in a unit moved at all, the entire nit and every model in it counted as having moved.
It appears I am in the minority on this site in thinking this, but I'm glad they now have it on a model by model basis where only the actual models that moved count as having moved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImAGeek wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:
How exactly does Mark of Nurgle grant you +1T? It makes no sense how rotting can make you tougher.

Because they're impervious to pain, I guess FnP would be more suitable haha. Just a combination of not feeling pain anymore, being bloated and cushioned, not caring if a hole gets blown in you because it just matches the one you already have with your intestines hanging out of it, and stuff like that I guess?

Think of real life examples of someone who might have advanced leposy can have wounds that would cause a "normal person" to be in excruciating pain that would cripple them and not even know they have the wound.

 EVIL INC wrote:
A rule I always thought made no sense was the one that said if one model in a unit moved at all, the entire nit and every model in it counted as having moved.

Yeah, I like that you can rearrange models around your heavy weapons, without them counting as having moved.

 vipoid wrote:
On that note, you'd have to be on drugs of some kind, in order to understand the logic of why some machines are Walkers and others are MCs.

For the most part, it makes sense:


Spyders, Tomb Stalkers, Wraithlords and Wraithknights are monstrous creatures because they're machines made of materials like Necrodermis and Wraithbone that mimic the traits of living beings to an extent. Their limbs are either part of their bodies or like an extension of their bodies.

It falls apart with Dreadknights which couldn't any more blatantly be a walker, and Revenant and Phantom titans, which are just scaled up Wraith units.

.

 vipoid wrote:

changemod wrote:

It's only a problem because you also need to Snapfire them first. Hitting on sixes then getting ignored because of a free cover save is no fun.

I think fliers should just get a 'free' jink save (i.e. it doesn't cause them to snapehot). Even a 3+ one would be infinitely better than the 'snapshots only' nonsense we have at the moment.

Ah, finally someone who agrees with me on that!

Does need one thing tweaked though to make it work fully:

Ignores cover does not work on flyers, FMC's.

Skyfire is just a version of Ignores Cover specifically for ignoring flyer cover saves.

changemod wrote:

Ah, finally someone who agrees with me on that!

Does need one thing tweaked though to make it work fully:

Ignores cover does not work on flyers, FMC's.

I don't see why not, to be honest. Every other unit has to put up with it - why do fliers need to be different?

changemod wrote:

Skyfire is just a version of Ignores Cover specifically for ignoring flyer cover saves.

I admit that's interesting.

 vipoid wrote:
I don't see why not, to be honest. Every other unit has to put up with it - why do fliers need to be different?

Maintains the harder to hit fluff, and gives Skyfire something to do in the absence of the Snapfire thing.

Incidentally, whilst I see little reason blasts shouldn't be able to aim at a flyer, I'd agree on flamethrower templates just not having the appropriate reach.

pm713 wrote:
I really don't see why bikes would be counted as vehicles. It would just make them much tougher than they need to be seeing as you can shoot someone riding a bike.

A better question is why can you jump in front of a sniper shot.

They were vehicles in 2nd Edition, and they were actually easier to kill than now. The difference between a T4 rider and a T5 "bike" is pretty significant.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I really don't see why bikes would be counted as vehicles. It would just make them much tougher than they need to be seeing as you can shoot someone riding a bike.

A better question is why can you jump in front of a sniper shot.

They were vehicles in 2nd Edition, and they were actually easier to kill than now. The difference between a T4 rider and a T5 "bike" is pretty significant.

I find that hard to believe considering if they were vehicles you would need to be at least S4 to hurt them rather than now where any S can hurt them.

 vipoid wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
A rule I always thought made no sense was the one that said if one model in a unit moved at all, the entire nit and every model in it counted as having moved.

Yeah, I like that you can rearrange models around your heavy weapons, without them counting as having moved.

You are not alone evil. That used to drive me insane.

Dude, I can't aim this lascannon, tom moved!
So? You didn't!
Yeah but man...
What were you doing the whole time we were moving?
.....watching tom....

pm713 wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I really don't see why bikes would be counted as vehicles. It would just make them much tougher than they need to be seeing as you can shoot someone riding a bike.

A better question is why can you jump in front of a sniper shot.

They were vehicles in 2nd Edition, and they were actually easier to kill than now. The difference between a T4 rider and a T5 "bike" is pretty significant.

I find that hard to believe considering if they were vehicles you would need to be at least S4 to hurt them rather than now where any S can hurt them.

If I'm reading what he just said correctly, S4 would auto glance and pen on a 2+.

Ouch.

pm713 wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I really don't see why bikes would be counted as vehicles. It would just make them much tougher than they need to be seeing as you can shoot someone riding a bike.

A better question is why can you jump in front of a sniper shot.

They were vehicles in 2nd Edition, and they were actually easier to kill than now. The difference between a T4 rider and a T5 "bike" is pretty significant.

I find that hard to believe considering if they were vehicles you would need to be at least S4 to hurt them rather than now where any S can hurt them.

Right, but the rider was able to be hit by fire too. The bike just made him faster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
A rule I always thought made no sense was the one that said if one model in a unit moved at all, the entire nit and every model in it counted as having moved.

Yeah, I like that you can rearrange models around your heavy weapons, without them counting as having moved.

You are not alone evil. That used to drive me insane.

Dude, I can't aim this lascannon, tom moved!
So? You didn't!
Yeah but man...
What were you doing the whole time we were moving?
.....watching tom....

That part coming back was great. Another facet of 2nd Edition that finally came back.

Challenges. There's cannons roaring, everyone spraying full auto and lobbing grenades around you - and somehow your sergeant can still hear Abaddon challenging him? And you're somehow a coward instead of smart if you don't want to offer up a free kill?

It's just a mechanism for feeding sergeants to enemy melee powerhouses. Or sometimes really screwing over a powerhouse... Like that poor Hive Tyrant in combat with a scout sarge and a Furioso who has to answer the challenge instead of killing the enemy that can actually hurt him.

You can't shoot into CC. Even if the weapon can't hurt your friendlies. (A PGL shooting into a melee with grotesques, for example.) I understand it's for game balance, and this is one of those cases where realism has to go F itself, but it still irks me.

 Jimsolo wrote:
You can't shoot into CC. Even if the weapon can't hurt your friendlies. (A PGL shooting into a melee with grotesques, for example.) I understand it's for game balance, and this is one of those cases where realism has to go F itself, but it still irks me.

Or in the case of Guard, conscript lives are like the lives of chicken. Drop a bomb on them.

all of close combat.

hah just kidding. Feel no pain is kinda weird, and I hate the deffkoptas not being vehicles deal.

Stubborn makes sense, but i still hate it

I hate how AM orders work with Vox Casters. Unless these are cans tied together with string, distance should not matter with radios.

Akiasura wrote:
The way that cover works in the game.

I think that its very weird that a small wall, my fellow trooper (regardless of his armor or toughness), and grass all protects against a plasma gun 1/3 of the time.

In addition, I believe the way cover works is actively ruining the game. Armies like Marines don't care too much about cover unless facing an absurd amount of Ap2/3 firepower, in which case they gain the same save as everyone else. Armies like guard and nids however, gain only slightly worse than marine saves while paying dramatically less for it.

Cover should be a BS modifier like in necromunda. It makes the game a lot more tactical, armor still matters (somewhat...we rule that weapons don't reduce armor until Str 5, in 40k it would be fine), and everyone benefits.

40k used to have BS modifiers. However, they also used to have armor save modifiers and weapons would do multiple wounds as well.

When they decided they wanted Marines to always get that 3+ save, a big driving point of the 3E reboot, they put in the AP system and did away with modifiers by and large. To put BS modifiers back, you'd realistically need to bring back armor save modifiers as well, or else you'd get absolutely absurdly resilient entrenched heavy infantry.

Imagine a tac squad in a ruin, with a -2 BS modifier and no ASM's. Assuming a basic BS of 3, you'd need an average of 54 lasguns or 22 autocannon shots to kill a single Tac marine. Likewise, for big ordnance weapons that roll for scatter instead of directly to hit, they'd actually become hilariously scary. They'd still hit 1/3rd of the time outright, and still often not scatter hugely far away, the BS modifier wouldn't make too much difference to them, but since there would be no cover save, a weapon like a Battlecannon would be extremely powerful. In some ways, that's probably a whole lot more realistic, but such extremes may not necessarily be something many want to deal with, having lots of weapons be largely ineffective and others be auto-win weapons.

 Musashi363 wrote:
I hate how AM orders work with Vox Casters. Unless these are cans tied together with string, distance should not matter with radios.

I originally thought that's what they did. That, if the commander had a vox, and the unit had a vox, he could cast orders regardless of the distance. That would be so awesome.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
The way that cover works in the game.

I think that its very weird that a small wall, my fellow trooper (regardless of his armor or toughness), and grass all protects against a plasma gun 1/3 of the time.

In addition, I believe the way cover works is actively ruining the game. Armies like Marines don't care too much about cover unless facing an absurd amount of Ap2/3 firepower, in which case they gain the same save as everyone else. Armies like guard and nids however, gain only slightly worse than marine saves while paying dramatically less for it.

Cover should be a BS modifier like in necromunda. It makes the game a lot more tactical, armor still matters (somewhat...we rule that weapons don't reduce armor until Str 5, in 40k it would be fine), and everyone benefits.

40k used to have BS modifiers. However, they also used to have armor save modifiers and weapons would do multiple wounds as well.

When they decided they wanted Marines to always get that 3+ save, a big driving point of the 3E reboot, they put in the AP system and did away with modifiers by and large. To put BS modifiers back, you'd realistically need to bring back armor save modifiers as well, or else you'd get absolutely absurdly resilient entrenched heavy infantry.

Imagine a tac squad in a ruin, with a -2 BS modifier and no ASM's. Assuming a basic BS of 3, you'd need an average of 54 lasguns or 22 autocannon shots to kill a single Tac marine. Likewise, for big ordnance weapons that roll for scatter instead of directly to hit, they'd actually become hilariously scary. They'd still hit 1/3rd of the time outright, and still often not scatter hugely far away, the BS modifier wouldn't make too much difference to them, but since there would be no cover save, a weapon like a Battlecannon would be extremely powerful. In some ways, that's probably a whole lot more realistic, but such extremes may not necessarily be something many want to deal with, having lots of weapons be largely ineffective and others be auto-win weapons.

I haven't done any math, but I kinda like the idea of marines and other heavy infantry being nearly immune to small arms fire, especially in heavy cover. Isn't that the point?
Battle cannons should scatter wildly but if they clip you, you die. I think it would improve the game matching the fluff, which I am all for.

If the math shows this is horribly imbalanced then it wouldn't work, but I do love the idea of bs mods compared to the current method

Bikes aren't vehicles because they're far too small for the vehicle rules to work for them.

They'd basically be something silly like AV 7 or 8 with 1 hull point. And they'd be terrible.

The driver is also totally exposed, so it makes more sense for them to be a normal model with toughness and an armor save.

Good one I always thought was that Ork Wartrakks reroll dangerous terrain tests but all the tracked tanks of the Imperium don't.

ryuken87 wrote:
Good one I always thought was that Ork Wartrakks reroll dangerous terrain tests but all the tracked tanks of the Imperium don't.

On that note another weird one came to mind

Chimera can completely ignore water features, treating them as open terrain, but a patch of mud can mean a thrown track.

 TheSilo wrote:
In Chess:

- How can castles move?

- Why are religious leaders so deadly?

- Why can't the infantry turn?

Because it's necessary for the game.

Chess is actually metaphorical for political battles, not martial ones.
Kings are terrible because they have everyone watching their moves. Queens are awesome because of the lack of scrutiny over their political moves, but they are usually caught after an act that removes another piece.
Rooks are straightforward, catching people for treasonous plotting and the like, while bishops move diagonally due to their religious approach, calling out people as heretics.

 Gamerely wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
You can't shoot into CC. Even if the weapon can't hurt your friendlies. (A PGL shooting into a melee with grotesques, for example.) I understand it's for game balance, and this is one of those cases where realism has to go F itself, but it still irks me.

Or in the case of Guard, conscript lives are like the lives of chicken. Drop a bomb on them.

Or the case of Orks, because...well...Orks.

Also, you might find http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/624104.page#7372862
Fun to read.

Akiasura wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
The way that cover works in the game.

I think that its very weird that a small wall, my fellow trooper (regardless of his armor or toughness), and grass all protects against a plasma gun 1/3 of the time.

In addition, I believe the way cover works is actively ruining the game. Armies like Marines don't care too much about cover unless facing an absurd amount of Ap2/3 firepower, in which case they gain the same save as everyone else. Armies like guard and nids however, gain only slightly worse than marine saves while paying dramatically less for it.

Cover should be a BS modifier like in necromunda. It makes the game a lot more tactical, armor still matters (somewhat...we rule that weapons don't reduce armor until Str 5, in 40k it would be fine), and everyone benefits.

40k used to have BS modifiers. However, they also used to have armor save modifiers and weapons would do multiple wounds as well.

When they decided they wanted Marines to always get that 3+ save, a big driving point of the 3E reboot, they put in the AP system and did away with modifiers by and large. To put BS modifiers back, you'd realistically need to bring back armor save modifiers as well, or else you'd get absolutely absurdly resilient entrenched heavy infantry.

Imagine a tac squad in a ruin, with a -2 BS modifier and no ASM's. Assuming a basic BS of 3, you'd need an average of 54 lasguns or 22 autocannon shots to kill a single Tac marine. Likewise, for big ordnance weapons that roll for scatter instead of directly to hit, they'd actually become hilariously scary. They'd still hit 1/3rd of the time outright, and still often not scatter hugely far away, the BS modifier wouldn't make too much difference to them, but since there would be no cover save, a weapon like a Battlecannon would be extremely powerful. In some ways, that's probably a whole lot more realistic, but such extremes may not necessarily be something many want to deal with, having lots of weapons be largely ineffective and others be auto-win weapons.

I haven't done any math, but I kinda like the idea of marines and other heavy infantry being nearly immune to small arms fire, especially in heavy cover. Isn't that the point?
Battle cannons should scatter wildly but if they clip you, you die. I think it would improve the game matching the fluff, which I am all for.

If the math shows this is horribly imbalanced then it wouldn't work, but I do love the idea of bs mods compared to the current method

IThe problem is that you'd just get armies overloading to the max on battlecannons and plasma cannons and the like, because bringing anything less (like scatterlasers or pulse rifles) would be largely completely ineffectual against the most commonly faced armies in the game.

Creed scouting emperor titans (until the new AM dex)

Why is a dreadnought (a walking vehicle with a pilot) considered a vehicle, but a wraithknight (a walking vehicle with a pilot) is a monstrous creature? Oh I know, so they can sell more wraithknights.

 Toofast wrote:
Why is a dreadnought (a walking vehicle with a pilot) considered a vehicle, but a wraithknight (a walking vehicle with a pilot) is a monstrous creature? Oh I know, so they can sell more wraithknights.

Wraithknight is made of a material that has some organic qualities, and is an extension of the pilot's body in that it's piloted by interfacing with his or her twin's soul.

So it's an Evangelion.

A Dreadnought meanwhile is a clunky pile of metal hooked up to a life support machine.

Fliers exploding because theres a squad of men on the ground beneath them, surely you'd just put the infantry or w/e models on the flier base. (which is what we do at my gaming group anyway)
Vehicles not being able to fire overwatch from the defensive storm bolter or whatever on the roof.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
The way that cover works in the game.

I think that its very weird that a small wall, my fellow trooper (regardless of his armor or toughness), and grass all protects against a plasma gun 1/3 of the time.

In addition, I believe the way cover works is actively ruining the game. Armies like Marines don't care too much about cover unless facing an absurd amount of Ap2/3 firepower, in which case they gain the same save as everyone else. Armies like guard and nids however, gain only slightly worse than marine saves while paying dramatically less for it.

Cover should be a BS modifier like in necromunda. It makes the game a lot more tactical, armor still matters (somewhat...we rule that weapons don't reduce armor until Str 5, in 40k it would be fine), and everyone benefits.

40k used to have BS modifiers. However, they also used to have armor save modifiers and weapons would do multiple wounds as well.

When they decided they wanted Marines to always get that 3+ save, a big driving point of the 3E reboot, they put in the AP system and did away with modifiers by and large. To put BS modifiers back, you'd realistically need to bring back armor save modifiers as well, or else you'd get absolutely absurdly resilient entrenched heavy infantry.

Imagine a tac squad in a ruin, with a -2 BS modifier and no ASM's. Assuming a basic BS of 3, you'd need an average of 54 lasguns or 22 autocannon shots to kill a single Tac marine. Likewise, for big ordnance weapons that roll for scatter instead of directly to hit, they'd actually become hilariously scary. They'd still hit 1/3rd of the time outright, and still often not scatter hugely far away, the BS modifier wouldn't make too much difference to them, but since there would be no cover save, a weapon like a Battlecannon would be extremely powerful. In some ways, that's probably a whole lot more realistic, but such extremes may not necessarily be something many want to deal with, having lots of weapons be largely ineffective and others be auto-win weapons.

I haven't done any math, but I kinda like the idea of marines and other heavy infantry being nearly immune to small arms fire, especially in heavy cover. Isn't that the point?
Battle cannons should scatter wildly but if they clip you, you die. I think it would improve the game matching the fluff, which I am all for.

If the math shows this is horribly imbalanced then it wouldn't work, but I do love the idea of bs mods compared to the current method

IThe problem is that you'd just get armies overloading to the max on battlecannons and plasma cannons and the like, because bringing anything less (like scatterlasers or pulse rifles) would be largely completely ineffectual against the most commonly faced armies in the game.

Not to be snarky, but isn't that basically how the game is today?

What doesn't make sense to me is why Heldrakes/Forgefiends/Maulerfiends (Daemonic spirits controlling a mechanical body as easily as if it was there own 'physical' one) are vehicles while Wraithlords/knights (Eldar spirits controlling wraithbone bodies as easily as if it was their own one) are MCs.

And don't give me that 'Dinobots are metal, Wraiths are made of warithbone, that's why' gak when Falcons/Waveserpents/etc. are made of wraithbone and are vehicles

Falcons and Serpents are vehicles that basically use Wraithbone where Imperials would use metal (only much, much more advanced).

Maulerfiends et al are metal-based machines that a demon has possessed. It can exert its will over it, even at times (5+) when the mechanism was destroyed.

Wraithlords are piles of Wraithbone, animated by psyker/soul energy. It has more in common with a greater demon than a walker. It has no internal mechanisms to damage. Not even redundant organs. Until the body is completely deformed, it is still fully functional. You can't break a belt or breach an engine.

But you can blow off a weapon (weapon destroyed), blow off a leg (immobilized), put enough firepower at it to conceivably stun and/or shock the pilot (stun and shock) and you can reasonably one shot it by hitting where the pilot sits (destroyed).

Regardless, the division mechanically between vehicles and MCs is so blurred and makes little sense. Better off with one common mechanic to deal with vehicles and MCs, and then have a special USR for vehicles and one for MCs that dictates immunity to 'X' or susceptibility to 'Y'.

You keep thinking there is a pilot. There really isn't. There is a being. It is the wraithlord.

You could blow off a weapon, but if you blew off a leg, it could crawl. Just like a DP or Nid.

The division is a line in the sand somewhere. Lots has been posted about it in Proposed Rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Nids are less in line with being MCs instead of vehicles than Wraithlords, and they're the poster child of the class! Redundant organs are good, but not having organs is even less mechanical.)

Right, I was thinking of the titans there.

Xeno nonsense confuses me.

Regardless, I think its reasonable that 4/6 damage table results can apply to most MCs, and I don't see a reason why the division exists anymore.

In a thread about not making sense, I think the vehicle/MC division is one of them.

Twin Linked. I do not understand, why if you take a gun, lets say a Heavy Bolter, and you strap another heavy bolter to it, that means that if you miss with one gun, you get to reroll it... why would that be, they are aiming at the same place.

What TL should be is double the shots. If a Heavy Bolter fires 3 shots, then a TL Heavy Bolter should fire 6 shots

A model who spend his entire turn running still won't cover nearly as much distance as a model who stops to fight.

 Brother Sergeant Bob wrote:
What TL should be is double the shots. If a Heavy Bolter fires 3 shots, then a TL Heavy Bolter should fire 6 shots

Or, it fires 3, but each hit results in an extra hit as well.

That a power-klaw is some how more powerful than a kan-klaw. You mean to tell me some ork wearing ramshackle armor with a rusty power-klaw is more powerful than a ramshackle rusty robot with a Grot inside ?

Also that a Mawloc is capable of suffering a deepstriking mishap even against infantry or even some vehicles. Its a tunneling worm, its bigger than most vehicles anyway. And a against a skimmer, it should knock that away automatically given its not even touching the ground.

Stomp Attacks which can be placed within 3 inch of where the last one was. How does this not move the walker or creature if its stomping on things that aren't even in base contact ?

+6 saves. Whats the point in even making it ?

Poision working on MC like the riptide and wraith-knight. (Though I suppose this can be explained, also it makes up for them not being vulnerable to things that a walker would be.)

The Super-Heavy damage table. I doubt if something is hit by a Volcano Cannon Kame-hame-ha, Belly Gun or hit by a melee weapon the size of a mega-chopper or doomfist is going to walk away without loosing a weapon or function or two.

 vipoid wrote:
A model who spend his entire turn running still won't cover nearly as much distance as a model who stops to fight.

 Brother Sergeant Bob wrote:
What TL should be is double the shots. If a Heavy Bolter fires 3 shots, then a TL Heavy Bolter should fire 6 shots

Or, it fires 3, but each hit results in an extra hit as well.

Beat be to it, exactly what I was gunna say

Why no SM Helicopters?

Why do drop pods need to alter their course to prevent them landing on enemy infantry?

Surely any infantry that ended up under them would just be pulverised?

 The Wise Dane wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
The way that cover works in the game.

I think that its very weird that a small wall, my fellow trooper (regardless of his armor or toughness), and grass all protects against a plasma gun 1/3 of the time.

In addition, I believe the way cover works is actively ruining the game. Armies like Marines don't care too much about cover unless facing an absurd amount of Ap2/3 firepower, in which case they gain the same save as everyone else. Armies like guard and nids however, gain only slightly worse than marine saves while paying dramatically less for it.

Cover should be a BS modifier like in necromunda. It makes the game a lot more tactical, armor still matters (somewhat...we rule that weapons don't reduce armor until Str 5, in 40k it would be fine), and everyone benefits.

40k used to have BS modifiers. However, they also used to have armor save modifiers and weapons would do multiple wounds as well.

When they decided they wanted Marines to always get that 3+ save, a big driving point of the 3E reboot, they put in the AP system and did away with modifiers by and large. To put BS modifiers back, you'd realistically need to bring back armor save modifiers as well, or else you'd get absolutely absurdly resilient entrenched heavy infantry.

Imagine a tac squad in a ruin, with a -2 BS modifier and no ASM's. Assuming a basic BS of 3, you'd need an average of 54 lasguns or 22 autocannon shots to kill a single Tac marine. Likewise, for big ordnance weapons that roll for scatter instead of directly to hit, they'd actually become hilariously scary. They'd still hit 1/3rd of the time outright, and still often not scatter hugely far away, the BS modifier wouldn't make too much difference to them, but since there would be no cover save, a weapon like a Battlecannon would be extremely powerful. In some ways, that's probably a whole lot more realistic, but such extremes may not necessarily be something many want to deal with, having lots of weapons be largely ineffective and others be auto-win weapons.

I haven't done any math, but I kinda like the idea of marines and other heavy infantry being nearly immune to small arms fire, especially in heavy cover. Isn't that the point?
Battle cannons should scatter wildly but if they clip you, you die. I think it would improve the game matching the fluff, which I am all for.

If the math shows this is horribly imbalanced then it wouldn't work, but I do love the idea of bs mods compared to the current method

IThe problem is that you'd just get armies overloading to the max on battlecannons and plasma cannons and the like, because bringing anything less (like scatterlasers or pulse rifles) would be largely completely ineffectual against the most commonly faced armies in the game.

Not to be snarky, but isn't that basically how the game is today?

To some degree you'll always get that, however we see tons of weapons like autocannons and scatterlasers and the like on current gaming boards, they're excellent at forcing tons of wounds and at engaging light vehicles.

.

Bharring wrote:
You keep thinking there is a pilot. There really isn't. There is a being. It is the wraithlord.

Same thing with the Dinobots. As Blacksails said, it makes no sense that one is an MC and one is a vehicle 'just coz'.

 vipoid wrote:
A model who spend his entire turn running still won't cover nearly as much distance as a model who stops to fight.

 Brother Sergeant Bob wrote:
What TL should be is double the shots. If a Heavy Bolter fires 3 shots, then a TL Heavy Bolter should fire 6 shots

Or, it fires 3, but each hit results in an extra hit as well.

That's the way it used to be. 1 to-hit roll, 2 hits if you succeeded.

 The Wise Dane wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
The way that cover works in the game.

I think that its very weird that a small wall, my fellow trooper (regardless of his armor or toughness), and grass all protects against a plasma gun 1/3 of the time.

In addition, I believe the way cover works is actively ruining the game. Armies like Marines don't care too much about cover unless facing an absurd amount of Ap2/3 firepower, in which case they gain the same save as everyone else. Armies like guard and nids however, gain only slightly worse than marine saves while paying dramatically less for it.

Cover should be a BS modifier like in necromunda. It makes the game a lot more tactical, armor still matters (somewhat...we rule that weapons don't reduce armor until Str 5, in 40k it would be fine), and everyone benefits.

40k used to have BS modifiers. However, they also used to have armor save modifiers and weapons would do multiple wounds as well.

When they decided they wanted Marines to always get that 3+ save, a big driving point of the 3E reboot, they put in the AP system and did away with modifiers by and large. To put BS modifiers back, you'd realistically need to bring back armor save modifiers as well, or else you'd get absolutely absurdly resilient entrenched heavy infantry.

Imagine a tac squad in a ruin, with a -2 BS modifier and no ASM's. Assuming a basic BS of 3, you'd need an average of 54 lasguns or 22 autocannon shots to kill a single Tac marine. Likewise, for big ordnance weapons that roll for scatter instead of directly to hit, they'd actually become hilariously scary. They'd still hit 1/3rd of the time outright, and still often not scatter hugely far away, the BS modifier wouldn't make too much difference to them, but since there would be no cover save, a weapon like a Battlecannon would be extremely powerful. In some ways, that's probably a whole lot more realistic, but such extremes may not necessarily be something many want to deal with, having lots of weapons be largely ineffective and others be auto-win weapons.

I haven't done any math, but I kinda like the idea of marines and other heavy infantry being nearly immune to small arms fire, especially in heavy cover. Isn't that the point?
Battle cannons should scatter wildly but if they clip you, you die. I think it would improve the game matching the fluff, which I am all for.

If the math shows this is horribly imbalanced then it wouldn't work, but I do love the idea of bs mods compared to the current method

IThe problem is that you'd just get armies overloading to the max on battlecannons and plasma cannons and the like, because bringing anything less (like scatterlasers or pulse rifles) would be largely completely ineffectual against the most commonly faced armies in the game.

Not to be snarky, but isn't that basically how the game is today?

We have had this in every edition so far, people loading up on what is currently the biggest bang for your buck weapons. Youn have it an all of the different varietries of wargames.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 The Wise Dane wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
The way that cover works in the game.

I think that its very weird that a small wall, my fellow trooper (regardless of his armor or toughness), and grass all protects against a plasma gun 1/3 of the time.

In addition, I believe the way cover works is actively ruining the game. Armies like Marines don't care too much about cover unless facing an absurd amount of Ap2/3 firepower, in which case they gain the same save as everyone else. Armies like guard and nids however, gain only slightly worse than marine saves while paying dramatically less for it.

Cover should be a BS modifier like in necromunda. It makes the game a lot more tactical, armor still matters (somewhat...we rule that weapons don't reduce armor until Str 5, in 40k it would be fine), and everyone benefits.

40k used to have BS modifiers. However, they also used to have armor save modifiers and weapons would do multiple wounds as well.

When they decided they wanted Marines to always get that 3+ save, a big driving point of the 3E reboot, they put in the AP system and did away with modifiers by and large. To put BS modifiers back, you'd realistically need to bring back armor save modifiers as well, or else you'd get absolutely absurdly resilient entrenched heavy infantry.

Imagine a tac squad in a ruin, with a -2 BS modifier and no ASM's. Assuming a basic BS of 3, you'd need an average of 54 lasguns or 22 autocannon shots to kill a single Tac marine. Likewise, for big ordnance weapons that roll for scatter instead of directly to hit, they'd actually become hilariously scary. They'd still hit 1/3rd of the time outright, and still often not scatter hugely far away, the BS modifier wouldn't make too much difference to them, but since there would be no cover save, a weapon like a Battlecannon would be extremely powerful. In some ways, that's probably a whole lot more realistic, but such extremes may not necessarily be something many want to deal with, having lots of weapons be largely ineffective and others be auto-win weapons.

I haven't done any math, but I kinda like the idea of marines and other heavy infantry being nearly immune to small arms fire, especially in heavy cover. Isn't that the point?
Battle cannons should scatter wildly but if they clip you, you die. I think it would improve the game matching the fluff, which I am all for.

If the math shows this is horribly imbalanced then it wouldn't work, but I do love the idea of bs mods compared to the current method

IThe problem is that you'd just get armies overloading to the max on battlecannons and plasma cannons and the like, because bringing anything less (like scatterlasers or pulse rifles) would be largely completely ineffectual against the most commonly faced armies in the game.

Not to be snarky, but isn't that basically how the game is today?

We have had this in every edition so far, people loading up on what is currently the biggest bang for your buck weapons. Youn have it an all of the different varietries of wargames.

True, and that will always happen, but people shouldn't be actively punished for taking basic troops. 40k being a huge game with a lot of troops on the table is one of the largest draws

Players are also punished for not taking troops. There have been editions where only troops choices could claim objectives and it was a game of targeting and picking off all the enemies troops choices while keeping one of your own alive to hide on an objective and win by default. The whole playing the objectives thing.
but we arent talking degree, we are talking absolutes. if the tendancy exists, it exists. And it exists in all wargames. Pick up a few real life military wargames manuals and you will see the same thing. Look at the Cold War where the countries ran their coffers dry stocking up on the most effective weapons. Heck, sun Tzu hints at it in The Art of War.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Players are also punished for not taking troops. There have been editions where only troops choices could claim objectives and it was a game of targeting and picking off all the enemies troops choices while keeping one of your own alive to hide on an objective and win by default. The whole playing the objectives thing.
but we arent talking degree, we are talking absolutes. if the tendancy exists, it exists. And it exists in all wargames. Pick up a few real life military wargames manuals and you will see the same thing. Look at the Cold War where the countries ran their coffers dry stocking up on the most effective weapons. Heck, sun Tzu hints at it in The Art of War.

Real life is not a game however, and a game is remarkably easier to balance.

For older editions, yes, troops were required. I thought it was a good idea, though I don't think troops should be that much weaker than other choices. Troops should be a cheaper horde option for codexes, able to pump firepower out at a respectable, but not obscene level, while putting bodies on the field that can achieve something in numbers. Nowadays there aren't a lot of reasons to take them, and people swap them out as fast as they can

I don't like the idea of a troops tax. I don't want units I took the time to convert and paint to be a handicap for me, especially given the expense of the unit.

Which army do you play? Are ALL troop choices for that worthless? I mean no a single unit being worth taking? Are there NO, not even one roles that it would possibly play in a game? ect ect...
And you cannot discount real life examples or examples from other games. if you want a perfectly balanced game where both sides are perfectly equal with all game pieces matching from one side to another, there is always checkers or chess.
There is no perfect game (even checkes or chess. heck even tic tac toe should ALWAYS go to the player who goes first if you sit and mathmatically figure out moves and possible moves and remember all of the possibilities.
The armies are not designed to be the same. Some armies are designed to rely more heavily on non-troop choices than others and the points are intentionally set up to represent this. I would say if you want to field an army of troops, you are being set up with new and tactical/strategic challenges. The question is are you up to that challenge? If not that is perfectly fine and it says nothing about you as a person. There might be a different army that it would be easier with. Just as with real life, so too it is in this game. Different forces have different strengths and weaknesses.

es, I can jump on the "GW is evil" bandwagon, but even I who is likely the president of the "Anti GW Club" is forced to admit that there is no perfect game and that a more skilled or a better mathmaticianhas better chances of winning games. Especially if it is a skilled mathmatician.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Players are also punished for not taking troops.

Not any more.

 EVIL INC wrote:
There have been editions where only troops choices could claim objectives and it was a game of targeting and picking off all the enemies troops choices while keeping one of your own alive to hide on an objective and win by default. The whole playing the objectives thing.

I thought that was a good idea.

It gave you a reason to include troops beyond mere killing power and also gave you a way to stop your opponent holding objectives, without needing to kill his entire army.

 vipoid wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Players are also punished for not taking troops.

Not any more.

 EVIL INC wrote:
There have been editions where only troops choices could claim objectives and it was a game of targeting and picking off all the enemies troops choices while keeping one of your own alive to hide on an objective and win by default. The whole playing the objectives thing.

I thought that was a good idea.

It gave you a reason to include troops beyond mere killing power and also gave you a way to stop your opponent holding objectives, without needing to kill his entire army.

I dont have my rule book on me but isnt there something about "objective secured" or some such?

 EVIL INC wrote:

I dont have my rule book on me but isnt there something about "objective secured" or some such?

There is, but there's also a massive difference between only troops being able to score, and every unit being able to score (but troops are slightly better at it).

So troops ARE better at it than other units then? So yes, that would mean that there IS a penalty for not taking troops.

Regardless believe what you want. I will continue to win games using some of the squishiest "worthless for the poits" troops in the game.

 EVIL INC wrote:
So troops ARE better at it than other units then? So yes, that would mean that there IS a penalty for not taking troops.

They are, but the margin has been vastly reduced.

Whether there is a penalty for not taking troops is debatable, and depends on the troops you have available. If your non-troops are better in other ways - e.g. if they can take more special weapons or are better in combat, then you're punished if you take troops in their place.

The question is whether you're punished more by lacking objective secured or by lacking whatever your non-troops bring.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Regardless believe what you want. I will continue to win games using some of the squishiest "worthless for the poits" troops in the game.

I guess you must also believe that you're proving something. Not sure what, really.

But there IS a margin correct? That means by definition that there IS a penalty. The extent of this penalty varies depending on the army as some armies are designed to 'win' in different ways having different strengths and weaknesses.
The question is not if your being "punished more" by one or another at all. The quesion is rules that dont make sense to "you". Some players want to have their cake and eat it too with no weaknesses in their army. I'm able to understand that my army has strengths and weaknesses that I must play to.
Am I "proving' something by winning games using units that are not designed to be "uber"/, Yes, most definately. The thing is, skill at playing the games tactics and strategy and such play a part in who wins just as the "matrhhammer" can play a part in winning games.

 EVIL INC wrote:
But there IS a margin correct? That means by definition that there IS a penalty.

Indeed, but there's also a penalty for not taking troops - in that you're usually getting less firepower, or suffering some other disadvantage.

 EVIL INC wrote:
The extent of this penalty varies depending on the army as some armies are designed to 'win' in different ways having different strengths and weaknesses.

Indeed.

 EVIL INC wrote:

The question is not if your being "punished more" by one or another at all. The quesion is rules that dont make sense to "you". Some players want to have their cake and eat it too with no weaknesses in their army. I'm able to understand that my army has strengths and weaknesses that I must play to.

That was the original question, but this had already deviated from that.

With regard to all armies having weaknesses, I thought that was what allies were for?

 EVIL INC wrote:
Which army do you play? Are ALL troop choices for that worthless? I mean no a single unit being worth taking? Are there NO, not even one roles that it would possibly play in a game? ect ect...

I play several armies.
Wolves, grey hunters are an amazing choice.
Space marines, I swap out for bikes or take min scouts. Their troops are bad.
Chaos, I swap out for noise marines.
Nids, I take min units. Troops aren't terrible, but not really as great as the rest the codex.
I don't use formations much. They aren't actively banned but most people have been playing since 2nd or 3rd around here, and don't really like formations.

 EVIL INC wrote:

And you cannot discount real life examples or examples from other games. if you want a perfectly balanced game where both sides are perfectly equal with all game pieces matching from one side to another, there is always checkers or chess.
There is no perfect game (even checkes or chess. heck even tic tac toe should ALWAYS go to the player who goes first if you sit and mathmatically figure out moves and possible moves and remember all of the possibilities.

You are strawmanning. I never asked for perfect balance, not even once. Chess isn't even perfectly balanced, white has a distinct advantage. I would like it if troops were a bit better, but I would also like it if more of my codex was viable. I have some lovely converted models that almost never see play.

 EVIL INC wrote:

The armies are not designed to be the same. Some armies are designed to rely more heavily on non-troop choices than others and the points are intentionally set up to represent this. I would say if you want to field an army of troops, you are being set up with new and tactical/strategic challenges. The question is are you up to that challenge? If not that is perfectly fine and it says nothing about you as a person. There might be a different army that it would be easier with. Just as with real life, so too it is in this game. Different forces have different strengths and weaknesses.

I can't think of an army that isn't, from a fluff point of view, designed to not include troops. You can work around it, Eldar especially could do this, but most armies are pictured with lots of their troops in play.
When you say fielding an army of troops presents new tactical challenges, I assume the challenge is hurting your opponent or surviving, since troops tend to be weaker than the other slots in most instances (not always...IG vets are really good for example).

 EVIL INC wrote:

es, I can jump on the "GW is evil" bandwagon, but even I who is likely the president of the "Anti GW Club" is forced to admit that there is no perfect game and that a more skilled or a better mathmaticianhas better chances of winning games. Especially if it is a skilled mathmatician.

I would hardly call you the president of that club, I think Martel would take that from anyone in a heartbeat, but it doesn't take a skilled mathematician to see that a lot of choices in most dexes are weaker. I believe this is the way cover works in the game, since it favors low armor save models more, who are already cheaper, and the way assault works.

thats the point. troops are just that. They are not meant to be super elites or heavies or whatnot. They are troops. gap fillers. The grunts without the specialties. They are not intended to be the ones who do the super killyness. They hunker down or advance and soak up shots.

There is no strawmanning at all. Although I see a few strands of hay sticking out of the cuffs of your sleeves. Thre is no perfect game. Accept that. I am the president of the "anti-GW club" but even I have to admit that there are aspects they get right on rare occasions.

no one is saying that there are units in the dexes that are weaker or stronger than others (that explains the straw I saw coming from your cuffs). Your claiming this as though it is a revelation. If THAT was all your wanted to point out, I coulda done it for you.

 EVIL INC wrote:
thats the point. troops are just that. They are not meant to be super elites or heavies or whatnot. They are troops. gap fillers. The grunts without the specialties. They are not intended to be the ones who do the super killyness. They hunker down or advance and soak up shots.

Right, and if they were costed correctly, you would see them taken. They shouldn't be elite destructive killers of all things, holy or unholy, but it'd be nice if I could put a large amount of troops on the table and not be handicapped. Make them a bit cheaper, up the cost of other things, whatever you wish. My army is alpha legion, and I use the Space Wolves dex because the troops in there are actually good, and I love the scouts being close combat specced. It feels Alpha Legion to me.
But now, for many armies, troops are a penalty.

 EVIL INC wrote:

There is no strawmanning at all. Although I see a few strands of hay sticking out of the cuffs of your sleeves. Thre is no perfect game. Accept that. I am the president of the "anti-GW club" but even I have to admit that there are aspects they get right on rare occasions.

I have highlighted the part where you are strawmanning, since you seem unaware of it yourself. Never have a claimed I wanted a perfectly balanced game, and you are suggesting, or flat out stating I did. Either quote where I suggested such, or admit to strawmanning...or just stop bringing up a perfectly balanced game.
We are not in third grade anymore, where the correct response to someone suggesting you are doing something wrong is "No, you are!".

Also, you can't declare yourself president. If you feel you have to, you probably aren't.

 EVIL INC wrote:

no one is saying that there are units in the dexes that are weaker or stronger than others (that explains the straw I saw coming from your cuffs). Your claiming this as though it is a revelation. If THAT was all your wanted to point out, I coulda done it for you.

I'm going to assume you meant to say "no one isn't saying", because otherwise that is an absurd statement to make in this thread.

I am not suggesting you think that all the units are equivalent in power (please, quote where I did). I am suggesting that you think troops, despite being weaker, can still be taken without penalty (your earlier argument about objective secured being better for troops suggests that).
It is not a matter of weaker or stronger, it is a matter of degree. If something is slightly weaker, fine. You can still take it for reasons (take last editions eldar codex and compare banshees to scorpions, for example) and not suffer greatly.
If something is greatly weaker, then taking it is a penalty in a competitive meta, meaning units get left on the shelf despite being fluffy or good looking models. Warp Talons are a good example.
Since you seem a little lost on my point (or you don't know what strawmanning means at all), my point is this;
In most codexes, troop choices are arguably weaker then most other choices in the codex. This leads to things like Cult troops or Biker armies being taken, which aren't the fluffiest thing in the world, and leave large parts of a collection to gather dust.

But this is wildly off topic. My original suggestion was that cover highly favors certain models over others, causing there to be a greater difference in strength that model entries have a hard time compensating for, since it is a flaw in the core rules (close combat units also have this issue).

"Costed correctly" that is a loaded phrase. if you ask 10 people what something should cost in points, you will get 15 different answers Like you, I want all of mine to be free and have all stats of ten.... nah, i only want them to be fair.

I see you know how to turn letters red. Now if you put that effort towards learning what strawmanning is, you'll be set. here is a link you may find usefull. After reading the definition, you will find that it does not apply to my statement, but it does however apply to the one you made in your last post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I'm glad that you changed your stance and now say "for many armies instead of all. That is good. I would go further and say for many armies taking troops CAN be a penalty if you do not intend to play towards objectives and not taking them (playing an unbound army) can be a penalty if you do.

In terms of other rules that don't make sense:

A Lord Commissar is unable to overrule a Company Commander, because of the chain of command.

Here is a list of other AM units who apparently can overrule a Company Commander:
- A regular Commissar
- A Primaris Psyker
- A Techpriest Engineer
- A Platoon Commander
- A Veteran Sergeant
- A regular Infantry Squad Sergeant
- An Ogryn Bone 'ead

Would anyone like to explain the AM Chain of Command to me?

Anyone?

Step right up...

 vipoid wrote:
In terms of other rules that don't make sense:

A Lord Commissar is unable to overrule a Company Commander, because of the chain of command.

Here is a list of other AM units who apparently can overrule a Company Commander:
- A regular Commissar
- A Primaris Psyker
- A Techpriest Engineer
- A Platoon Commander
- A Veteran Sergeant
- A regular Infantry Squad Sergeant
- An Ogryn Bone 'ead

Would anyone like to explain the AM Chain of Command to me?

Anyone?

Step right up...

LOL, I agree. Sometimes, I think its just the one with the strongest personality.

 EVIL INC wrote:
"Costed correctly" that is a loaded phrase. if you ask 10 people what something should cost in points, you will get 15 different answers Like you, I want all of mine to be free and have all stats of ten .... nah, i only want them to be fair.

I see you know how to turn letters red. Now if you put that effort towards learning what strawmanning is, you'll be set. here is a link you may find usefull. After reading the definition, you will find that it does not apply to my statement, but it does however apply to the one you made in your last post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I'm glad that you changed your stance and now say "for many armies instead of all. That is good. I would go further and say for many armies taking troops CAN be a penalty if you do not intend to play towards objectives and not taking them (playing an unbound army) can be a penalty if you do.

If you think I have never had a debate where I have to call someone out on strawmanning, you have a very naive view of the scientific community. Not to mention the educational one.
I highlighted it again for you, since you still seem a bit lost on what it is and are unaware of when you are doing it. And are doing it more frequently.

For all intents and purposes of the debate, let's pretend unbound doesn't exist. While it is legal, by the rules, I feel it's a fair statement to say that the majority of gamers do not utilize it. On most forums, it is treated as if it is a dirty word, and my own personal gaming store doesn't allow it to be used in pickup games or tournaments. It is my understanding that most, if not all, tournaments discourage its use.

So troops don't have any benefit unless you are playing in a way that nearly nobody does, why shouldn't they be changed? While some people will disagree on points values, playtesters can be used to price everything effectively if they were used. 40k isn't a very complicated game, and anyone with more than 2 years experience can tell that some units are not costed using the same method (compare tacticals to ork boyz, the rip tide upgrade to....anything really, wave serpents to other transports).

Troops in general come out losers, it'd be nice if this wasn't the case. I'd like to run my alpha legion using the chaos dex (I have an amazing converted hydra maulerfiend and heldrake), but I have to run them as noise marines or plague marines. I could take 2 squads of cultists and leave them sitting on the backfield, but cultists for alpha legion are always described more as imperial guard esque, not word bearer raving lunatic.

My personal pet peeve:

Tanking 2+ characters that then Look Out Sir! AP2 shots. These projectiles are traveling at supersonic speeds (Lascannons would be at the speed of light, FWIW), but the grunts in the unit are able to tell which ones are dangerous and just jump in front of those bullets?

 Asmodas wrote:
My personal pet peeve:

Tanking 2+ characters that then Look Out Sir! AP2 shots. These projectiles are traveling at supersonic speeds (Lascannons would be at the speed of light, FWIW), but the grunts in the unit are able to tell which ones are dangerous and just jump in front of those bullets?

Agreed. I think you should have to decide to LoS all wounds or none of them - none of this picking and choosing nonsense.


I also think it's weird that a model who succeeds in LoS (but doesn't die) doesn't actually change position in the squad. I mean, hasn't he just pushed his commander out of the way? So, surely he should be moved in front of the character?

 Tod wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
Large blast type weapons that can miss so badly as to end up behind the shooter

This.
I've had games when i've shot blast weapons at a target about 7 or so inches away, but after scatter, the blast ends up scrapping the left arm of the shooter

Sure there used to be a rule that a shot could never scatter more than half the distance between the shooting model and the aim point, avoided this very problem except at very shot ranges. Of course it tended to mean you did scatter half the distance except at decent ranges as the scatter dice never changed.

 vipoid wrote:

 Asmodas wrote:
My personal pet peeve:

Tanking 2+ characters that then Look Out Sir! AP2 shots. These projectiles are traveling at supersonic speeds (Lascannons would be at the speed of light, FWIW), but the grunts in the unit are able to tell which ones are dangerous and just jump in front of those bullets?

Agreed. I think you should have to decide to LoS all wounds or none of them - none of this picking and choosing nonsense.


I also think it's weird that a model who succeeds in LoS (but doesn't die) doesn't actually change position in the squad. I mean, hasn't he just pushed his commander out of the way? So, surely he should be moved in front of the character?

For a while, that's actually how I thought it worked. Then it was pointed out to me in game that the HQ unit didn't actually switch spots, causing me to have that exact same thought process.

Here's another one:

Tyranids never use ordinary ballistic weapons, radios, etc., but whenever they overrun an Imperial Bastion or Aegis line, the Venomthrope all of a sudden starts manning the heavy bolter and using the Comms Relay to call in... burrowing Rippers and Mawlocs? Does the Hive Mind equip its burrowers with radio earpieces "just in case?"

 Asmodas wrote:

Tyranids never use ordinary ballistic weapons, radios, etc., but whenever they overrun an Imperial Bastion or Aegis line, the Venomthrope all of a sudden starts manning the heavy bolter and using the Comms Relay to call in... burrowing Rippers and Mawlocs? Does the Hive Mind equip its burrowers with radio earpieces "just in case?"

Lol.

I've thought along similar lines in terms of Ammunition Dumps - did the hive mind leave spare Fleshborer beetles lying around? How would they even load them...?

Akiasura wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
"Costed correctly" that is a loaded phrase. if you ask 10 people what something should cost in points, you will get 15 different answers Like you, I want all of mine to be free and have all stats of ten .... nah, i only want them to be fair.

I see you know how to turn letters red. Now if you put that effort towards learning what strawmanning is, you'll be set. here is a link you may find usefull. After reading the definition, you will find that it does not apply to my statement, but it does however apply to the one you made in your last post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I'm glad that you changed your stance and now say "for many armies instead of all. That is good. I would go further and say for many armies taking troops CAN be a penalty if you do not intend to play towards objectives and not taking them (playing an unbound army) can be a penalty if you do.

If you think I have never had a debate where I have to call someone out on strawmanning, you have a very naive view of the scientific community. Not to mention the educational one.
I highlighted it again for you, since you still seem a bit lost on what it is and are unaware of when you are doing it. And are doing it more frequently.

For all intents and purposes of the debate, let's pretend unbound doesn't exist. While it is legal, by the rules, I feel it's a fair statement to say that the majority of gamers do not utilize it. On most forums, it is treated as if it is a dirty word, and my own personal gaming store doesn't allow it to be used in pickup games or tournaments. It is my understanding that most, if not all, tournaments discourage its use.

So troops don't have any benefit unless you are playing in a way that nearly nobody does, why shouldn't they be changed? While some people will disagree on points values, playtesters can be used to price everything effectively if they were used. 40k isn't a very complicated game, and anyone with more than 2 years experience can tell that some units are not costed using the same method (compare tacticals to ork boyz, the rip tide upgrade to....anything really, wave serpents to other transports).

Troops in general come out losers, it'd be nice if this wasn't the case. I'd like to run my alpha legion using the chaos dex (I have an amazing converted hydra maulerfiend and heldrake), but I have to run them as noise marines or plague marines. I could take 2 squads of cultists and leave them sitting on the backfield, but cultists for alpha legion are always described more as imperial guard esque, not word bearer raving lunatic.

Actually, my degree is in education. Secondary Education Social Studies as a matter of fact. So I am not the one who is naeve in this regard.
You have been strawmanning throughout and I did not call you out on it until you accused me of it when I was not.
Troops have multiple benefits.
1. They let you field a legal list unless you are going unbound. I dont have my book in front of me but doesnt unbound have some sort of disadvantage in terms of objectives?
2. Objective secured. They are better at claiming objectives than non-troops.
3. Depending on the army they can give different benefits. For example guard mobs with commissars can be good cheap tarpits. How usefull a squad is depends on your ability to effectively use them.
4. Often times, they can give you a heavy weapon without having to spend points on a whole heavy slot designed for multiples of it thus freeing it up for something more devastating.

If your using your troops as your "main enemy killers", chances are, your using it incorrectly.
The point is, your saying that taking them is a penelty. This statement says that there are no benefits at all.

Now, I say that they CAN be usefull at their current state. Some armies have more usefull troops than others as this is designed, but the troops of ALL armies CAN be usefull if properly played. Of course, there are outside factors that also factor in such as scenerio, opponant's army table set up and so forth.
I am also saying that points values can be altered to make them more usefull.

Personally, I can live with the current army composition charts but I feel that there are things that could make troops more usefull yet. For example, if there were no limitations on numbers of troop units while you only had a total of 4-5 other unit types units allowed (with no more than 3 of any 1. 2 in case of hq). This would stop or limit the heavy/elite/fa spam.

I would say that discussing something you think doesnt make sense would be far more useful than instigating arguments with someone who does not agree with you 100%. If you talk with and discuss in a calm manner, you can share ideas and gain insight. If, I were having trouble getting enough "bang for my buck" with my space wolf long fangs i would ask you how you effectively use them to get tips rather than flame you for saying that you find them usefull.
I'm not saying you would fall into this catagory of course, but just tossing that out there as a general statement for anyone who might find it usefull (myself included).

I can accept the wraithlord as a MC and so a wraithknights .. but a riptide? That is very much a dreadnought equivalent and should have AV.

LoS would be so much better if it was required. Tanking is counter-intuitive from the minute it was written

Waaargh wrote:
I can accept the wraithlord as a MC and so a wraithknights .. but a riptide? That is very much a dreadnought equivalent and should have AV.

LoS would be so much better if it was required. Tanking is counter-intuitive from the minute it was written

They might as well say Gundam on em, because they're pretty much mechs. Wraithguard are the only ones who shouldn't be dreads, because they're closer in size to Tac marines. Wraithlords and Wraithknights should become AV in addition to Riptides. I think that would also help with the Eldar OP

 jreilly89 wrote:

Waaargh wrote:
I can accept the wraithlord as a MC and so a wraithknights .. but a riptide? That is very much a dreadnought equivalent and should have AV.

LoS would be so much better if it was required. Tanking is counter-intuitive from the minute it was written

They might as well say Gundam on em, because they're pretty much mechs. Wraithguard are the only ones who shouldn't be dreads, because they're closer in size to Tac marines. Wraithlords and Wraithknights should become AV in addition to Riptides. I think that would also help with the Eldar OP

You forgot Dreadknights (why does everyone forget them?).
I'd happily take an AV14 13 12 walker with 4HP any day over the current Riptide (that's what the new statline would have to be).

...with 2+ save.

SGTPozy wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Waaargh wrote:
I can accept the wraithlord as a MC and so a wraithknights .. but a riptide? That is very much a dreadnought equivalent and should have AV.

LoS would be so much better if it was required. Tanking is counter-intuitive from the minute it was written

They might as well say Gundam on em, because they're pretty much mechs. Wraithguard are the only ones who shouldn't be dreads, because they're closer in size to Tac marines. Wraithlords and Wraithknights should become AV in addition to Riptides. I think that would also help with the Eldar OP

You forgot Dreadknights (why does everyone forget them?).
I'd happily take an AV14 13 12 walker with 4HP any day over the current Riptide (that's what the new statline would have to be).

Forgot Dreadknights (cuz I don't play em and GK are borefests anyway), but yeah, DK should also be walkers.

Perhaps an even better solution would be to drop AVs altogether and give all vehicles toughness and saves.

You could then add something like 'living' or 'construct' to all units - with the former being susceptible to poison (but immune to Haywire and the like), and the latter being immune to poison (and similar abilities), but vulnerable to melta, haywire etc.

SGTPozy wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Waaargh wrote:
I can accept the wraithlord as a MC and so a wraithknights .. but a riptide? That is very much a dreadnought equivalent and should have AV.

LoS would be so much better if it was required. Tanking is counter-intuitive from the minute it was written

They might as well say Gundam on em, because they're pretty much mechs. Wraithguard are the only ones who shouldn't be dreads, because they're closer in size to Tac marines. Wraithlords and Wraithknights should become AV in addition to Riptides. I think that would also help with the Eldar OP

You forgot Dreadknights (why does everyone forget them?).
I'd happily take an AV14 13 12 walker with 4HP any day over the current Riptide (that's what the new statline would have to be).

T6 is about on part with AV 9, bump it to like 11 because we can't have nice things.

 vipoid wrote:
Perhaps an even better solution would be to drop AVs altogether and give all vehicles toughness and saves.

You could then add something like 'living' or 'construct' to all units - with the former being susceptible to poison (but immune to Haywire and the like), and the latter being immune to poison (and similar abilities), but vulnerable to melta, haywire etc.

I think I broke my mouse-button exalting this.

 EVIL INC wrote:


1. They let you field a legal list unless you are going unbound. I dont have my book in front of me but doesnt unbound have some sort of disadvantage in terms of objectives?

I don't think "necessary to play the game" should be a point in their favor. That's why people call them a burdensome tax.

And yeah, you're strawmanning pretty heavily.

 The Wise Dane wrote:

I think I broke my mouse-button exalting this.

Easy there Hulk.

But yeah, I agree with the vehicle/MC stuff. Would simplify the game, help with balance, and retain most, if not all, of the flavour.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:


1. They let you field a legal list unless you are going unbound. I dont have my book in front of me but doesnt unbound have some sort of disadvantage in terms of objectives?

I don't think "necessary to play the game" should be a point in their favor. That's why people call them a burdensome tax.

And yeah, you're strawmanning pretty heavily.

Also, it's not really a disadvantage if your opponent has troops and you don't if you have the firepower to wipe out their troops with little difficulty.

It would be like Tau vs Necrons where the Tau player brings Railgun Hammerheads and pathfinders and the the Necron player brings lots of Necron Warriors on foot.

The Necron player has more troops so should be able to win on objectives, right? Well, not if his units keep getting deleted by ignores cover S6 AP4 large blasts...

Strawmanning to say that troops could be made "better" by tweaking the points values. Huh, whoda thunk it (actually, you cant just change the definition of a word so you can call people you dont like that name when the actual definition does not apply). ya ever stop to think that I actually think that tweaking the points values and possibly working on them in other ways would make them more effective? I notice you have not made that accusation against anyone else in the thread who has expressed the exact same opinion. Likely because it was no more so for them than it was for me.

Troops should be the backbone of an army. the way the force org chart is set up is a little unrealistic. Elites should be more rare as should the other specialist unit types such as fast attack and heavy. As specialist units they should be fewer in number IMO.
A few ways to alter would be to
-make them 0-2 instead of 0-3
- allow 5 "specialist units in an army with no more than 2 of any one kind
-allow 0-3 in one, 0-2 in a 2nd one and 0-1 in the 3rd
-other possible variations.
(in doing these, allow troops a wider variety of weapon options such as a marine tc squad having the option of switchin a special weapon for a 2nd heavy or the heavy for a 2nd special.)

SGTPozy wrote:
How exactly does Mark of Nurgle grant you +1T? It makes no sense how rotting can make you tougher.

Rotting isn't the mark of Nurgle, it's only a side-effect of it.
Anyway, Chaos!
You're rotting to help foster new life (maggots), but as Nurgle loves all life, you are also protected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gamerely wrote:

 Musashi363 wrote:
I hate how AM orders work with Vox Casters. Unless these are cans tied together with string, distance should not matter with radios.

I originally thought that's what they did. That, if the commander had a vox, and the unit had a vox, he could cast orders regardless of the distance. That would be so awesome.

the Militarum Tempestus codex explains this by saying that beyond that range, the cr**py great the IG gets means that "interference" (ie noise, bolter fire, smoke, ennemy yells, the phases of the moon... - Anything really, even the Creed's cat sneezing back on Terra) messes up your transition, and nothing comes out. This is why they're called "ghost boxes".

The stupid thing id that the MT ones, which are described as soooo much better in fluff, have exactly the same rules xD

 Talon of Anathrax wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gamerely wrote:

 Musashi363 wrote:
I hate how AM orders work with Vox Casters. Unless these are cans tied together with string, distance should not matter with radios.

I originally thought that's what they did. That, if the commander had a vox, and the unit had a vox, he could cast orders regardless of the distance. That would be so awesome.

the Militarum Tempestus codex explains this by saying that beyond that range, the cr**py great the IG gets means that "interference" (ie noise, bolter fire, smoke, ennemy yells, the phases of the moon... - Anything really, even the Creed's cat sneezing back on Terra) messes up your transition, and nothing comes out. This is why they're called "ghost boxes".

The stupid thing id that the MT ones, which are described as soooo much better in fluff, have exactly the same rules xD

Makes you wonder how they are able to pull of an Orbital Bombardment if they can't get walkie talkies to work further than 100 yards.

How about a blood-letters BS. Why does a close combat daemon of khorne have a BS 5 when it will likely see no use outside of maybe the skull-cannon.

For that matter , the ballistic skill of a lot of daemons in the codex that don't have any range weapon at all...

The Imperial Answer wrote:
How about a blood-letters BS. Why does a close combat daemon of khorne have a BS 5 when it will likely see no use outside of maybe the skull-cannon.

For that matter , the ballistic skill of a lot of daemons in the codex that don't have any range weapon at all...

But yet, you pay for the BS in points. Silly isnt it. Course could make them good shots on a quad gun but unless they just killed a unit that was manning it and there are no other enemy units reachable, they shouldnt need to fire it.

The Imperial Answer wrote:
How about a blood-letters BS. Why does a close combat daemon of khorne have a BS 5 when it will likely see no use outside of maybe the skull-cannon.

For that matter , the ballistic skill of a lot of daemons in the codex that don't have any range weapon at all...

Does no one remember the daemon prince and the kai gun?

I remember the daemon prince and the minor psychic powers.

Why does an assaulting unit loose it's assault bonus if it attacks two units of 10, but not when against 1 unit of 30+, even if they could theoretically be just as spread out?

Why does charging through cover without grenades inflict massive penalties to some units, whilst doing nothing whatsoever to others?

Why is it easier for a baledrake to kill 1 marine in a squad of 10 than when he's alone?

Not sure if this one made it but Orks being affected by Fear abilities. In general the use of Leadership for any and all mental strength and will type rolls.

Orks break pretty often in the fluff.

Not that I'm complaining about this one (I like this one in fact) but the grots being able to use the toughness of the artillery. Even when their not standing behind it.

- Necrons are subject to Fear.

- An objective that has been sabotaged can explode multiple times. Also, for some reason, it is still considered an objective - as opposed to a 'trap' or a 'smoking crater'. In fact, there is apparently value to putting men near a device which consistently explodes.

 vipoid wrote:

- An objective that has been sabotaged can explode multiple times. Also, for some reason, it is still considered an objective - as opposed to a 'trap' or a 'smoking crater'. In fact, there is apparently value to putting men near a device which consistently explodes.

TOTALLY agree with this one. My guys always have a shoving match at the end of the game where the runt of the units gets shoved close to it.

Charge range fails - why would a unit consider running at the enemy to get into pointy stick range, get hot at in the process, but stand completely still if they don't think they'll make it running over a certain distance.

If I was going to run for a trench with my gun, I'm not going to stop and stand still because I think ill get tired after running ten feet.

I agree. You should move the distance rolled even if ya dont make it. Of course, then you would have people declaring "assaults" from crazy distances like 36 inches (hey I MIGHT roll a total of 36 on the 2d6 right? right?) just to get the extra 2d6 of movement.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I agree. You should move the distance rolled even if ya dont make it. Of course, then you would have people declaring "assaults" from crazy distances like 36 inches (hey I MIGHT roll a total of 36 on the 2d6 right? right?) just to get the extra 2d6 of movement.

Well, on that front, we have the weird situation whereby a unit that runs can't move nearly as far as a unit that stops to fight.

 vipoid wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
I agree. You should move the distance rolled even if ya dont make it. Of course, then you would have people declaring "assaults" from crazy distances like 36 inches (hey I MIGHT roll a total of 36 on the 2d6 right? right?) just to get the extra 2d6 of movement.

Well, on that front, we have the weird situation whereby a unit that runs can't move nearly as far as a unit that stops to fight.

Might be better to go more Fantasy style where you would move the number of inches equal to the highest die roll. So if you roll a 4 and a 3 you would move 4" forwards.

Hell, just say that you can't charge at all if you are more than 12" away.

Then you can move whatever you rolled even if the charge fails.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Hell, just say that you can't charge at all if you are more than 12" away.

Then you can move whatever you rolled even if the charge fails.

But then again, if you're a tough unit which can survive overwatch (such as Terminators or other 2+ save models) and the unit you're attempting to charge isn't gonna charge you (Fire Warriors or whatever) then there's not really any downside to attempting a charge from 12" away. If you pass then well done, if you fail you've just got anywhere from 2" to 11" of free movement.

It would allow units in an assault transport to reliably move 19" a turn (6" move in vehicle, 6" disembark then 7" charge).

The Imperial Answer wrote:
How about a blood-letters BS. Why does a close combat daemon of khorne have a BS 5 when it will likely see no use outside of maybe the skull-cannon.

For that matter , the ballistic skill of a lot of daemons in the codex that don't have any range weapon at all...

What is a Quad Gun?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Hell, just say that you can't charge at all if you are more than 12" away.

Then you can move whatever you rolled even if the charge fails.

But then again, if you're a tough unit which can survive overwatch (such as Terminators or other 2+ save models) and the unit you're attempting to charge isn't gonna charge you (Fire Warriors or whatever) then there's not really any downside to attempting a charge from 12" away. If you pass then well done, if you fail you've just got anywhere from 2" to 11" of free movement.

It would allow units in an assault transport to reliably move 19" a turn (6" move in vehicle, 6" disembark then 7" charge).

Overwatch. It still hurts.

It's also fluffy.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Hell, just say that you can't charge at all if you are more than 12" away.

Then you can move whatever you rolled even if the charge fails.

But then again, if you're a tough unit which can survive overwatch (such as Terminators or other 2+ save models) and the unit you're attempting to charge isn't gonna charge you (Fire Warriors or whatever) then there's not really any downside to attempting a charge from 12" away. If you pass then well done, if you fail you've just got anywhere from 2" to 11" of free movement.

It would allow units in an assault transport to reliably move 19" a turn (6" move in vehicle, 6" disembark then 7" charge).

Overwatch. It still hurts.

It's also fluffy.

Except for the part where only the most armoured units would be doing it and so gaining way more ground. You wouldn't see Wyches attempting 12" charges for extra movement because they get slaughtered in overwatch, whereas Terminators generally laugh at it due to inaccurate shooting and good armour.

So it would make Terminators faster in game terms than Wyches or other lightly armoured assault units (except Orks who have enough numbers to ignore such casualties).

Wouldnt that make sense and be fluffy? A squad who knows they can wether the fire WOULD continue to march/assault whereas a group of soldiers wearing loincloths and brassiers would tend to be a little more cautious. It would also make taking termies a little more usefull anyways.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Wouldnt that make sense and be fluffy? A squad who knows they can wether the fire WOULD continue to march/assault whereas a group of soldiers wearing loincloths and brassiers would tend to be a little more cautious. It would also make taking termies a little more usefull anyways.

A squad of soldiers hopped up on drugs and who live to fight up close and personal and to feast on their opponents pain would hang around and be cautious? That's like saying that Khorne Berzerkers would stand back and shoot their pistols rather than charge.

hyped up and on drugs does not equal stupid.
Khorne berserkers would blithly continue because to them, Khorne cares not from whence the skulls come so long as they come and are more than willing to have their skulls be the ones to go.
The Dark eldar would be cautious regardless of how hyped up they are because they only want to assault if they are absolutely SURE hey will make it. They have a little more to lose and are less willing to part with what they have to lose.
Its a fluff thing that still makes sense. Different interpretations of the fluff causes different people to see these situations differently.

 CrownAxe wrote:

The Imperial Answer wrote:
How about a blood-letters BS. Why does a close combat daemon of khorne have a BS 5 when it will likely see no use outside of maybe the skull-cannon.

For that matter , the ballistic skill of a lot of daemons in the codex that don't have any range weapon at all...

What is a Quad Gun?

The four barreled AA piece for the aegis defense line. Its for taking out flyers.

Super-Heavy air-craft destruction is another thing that baffles me.

You mean to tell me every time you destroy a Super-Heavy aircraft it blows up and that there is no chance of it crashing and burning on the battlefield ?

The Imperial Answer wrote:
Super-Heavy air-craft destruction is another thing that baffles me.

You mean to tell me every time you destroy a Super-Heavy aircraft it blows up and that there is no chance of it crashing and burning on the battlefield ?

But in both cases a very large AOE scatters from the aircraft. The superheavy one is a lot bigger and nastier too.

Not seeing the problem.

 Grey Templar wrote:

The Imperial Answer wrote:
Super-Heavy air-craft destruction is another thing that baffles me.

You mean to tell me every time you destroy a Super-Heavy aircraft it blows up and that there is no chance of it crashing and burning on the battlefield ?

But in both cases a very large AOE scatters from the aircraft. The superheavy one is a lot bigger and nastier too.

Not seeing the problem.

Does it affect ground units ?

Of course.

Why wouldn't it?

It certainly can't effect flyers.

I'm still wondering what stops the aircraft from just plowing into the ground as a wreck when it looses it's last hull-point ? It seems more likely that most of the time you would are disable its ability to stay airborne instead of blowing it up out-right.

Also since it does blow-up anyway, why doesn't it affect air-units ? They could be close enough to be caught in the blast when the air-craft is destroyed.

As aircraft are traveling at very fast speeds, even if they don't actually explode when they hit the ground, their impact will throw debris in every direction and the craft will shatter. Thus its basically an explosion either way.

As for why the explosion doesn't catch other flyers, aircraft again travel at high rates of speed and will never be very close to each other. Even in the split second time of an explosion, another aircraft will easily clear the blast radius enough not to suffer any major damage.

There could be the off chance the air-craft flies through the explosion though. This can happen. Also the debris could be traveling at a high velocity. There is also the chance it could be a sudden explosion or the pilot of the opposing craft got too close to his target before it exploded.

Yes its possible, but such an event would be incredibly rare. Thus it doesn't need to be represented on the table top.

Just like we don't need mechanics for bolt rounds to ricochet off the armor of a vehicle and embed themselves in the bodies of the nearby infantry.

I don't know it seems like it would be common with orks. Also there is the issue of vector strikes, which would be within melee range of said craft or very close when it explodes

The Imperial Answer wrote:
I don't know it seems like it would be common with orks. Also there is the issue of vector strikes, which would be within melee range of said craft or very close when it explodes

Nope, the creature will rake the target with its claws and then continue flying. It will clear the area long before any explosion happens.

And again, simplification to make the game work and not have to represent a very corner case scenario.

some of the 7th edition changes bother me, like how area terrain is no longer a thing, and how infantry have issue moving through ruins.

The debri thrown up by a crashing plane would be small and insignificant enough to be weaker than a las gun shot even if a piece or two were even lucky enough to touch a passing aircraft. You can always say it scratched their paint but even at the worst, unless they were carrying a nuke and the nuke went off, it would not damage an aircraft flying past.

 EVIL INC wrote:
The debri thrown up by a crashing plane would be small and insignificant enough to be weaker than a las gun shot even if a piece or two were even lucky enough to touch a passing aircraft. You can always say it scratched their paint but even at the worst, unless they were carrying a nuke and the nuke went off, it would not damage an aircraft flying past.

What about something the size of a Manta or an Ork Bommer ?

Same thing. Still only minor debree would fly up high enough to even touch another flyer (minor meaning having the strength of a lasgun or less). Of course, if someone wantd to have them go off like nukes against all of the fluff, 'm sure they could come up with some house rules for their playing groups. If they do, I would suggest that they use the same rule for ALL vehicles and not just flyers as they would explode the same way (excluding super heavies of course).