Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'd wager that the vast majority of armies out there would happily trade in their armies flavour rule for ATSKNF. It really is that damn good.

 Madcat87 wrote:
I'd wager that the vast majority of armies out there would happily trade in their armies flavour rule for ATSKNF. It really is that damn good.

Would easily trade in Champions of Chaos. 10/10 would trade again.

Idle Hands wrote:
I don't like that cover gives inv saves. Melta and Plasma guns go straight through Terminator armor and Tank plating, but when I lay low behind some ruins or even a hedge I get better protection than almost all rare power fields provide? I wish we could get back BS modifiers.

The book even tells you that they are moving around in those ruins/behind that hedge. When you can't see the enemy, you are shooting wild. And when you shoot wild, you are going to miss some shots, even vs something as huge as a terminator.

 Ailaros wrote:
As for ATSKNF, I still don't get it. It's an army trait, no different than orks with waaaugh, or DE being able to see in the dark. It's not a broken rule because everybody doesn't have access to it.

People won't complain so much about it if it was only one army. Almost half the armies are space marine flavored, and they all have the rule. I also view it as a strictly better fearless (the only time you get knocked off the board is if you lost combat near your board edge). Then again, if marines didn't have it, they would lose really easily, as unit sizes are so much smaller than for other armies, and points costs are higher per model to pay for the save. The day they cost less than 13 points is the day they better lose ATSKNF.

 Ailaros wrote:
I actually had ATSKNF used appropriately against me in my last game. I shot at some interceptors with bolt pistols and killed a few, preparing to charge them from inches away.

Then, rather than letting themselves get charged by Huron and a bunch of MoK marines, they strategically withdrew out of my charge range, leaving me flat-footed. Then they jumped back forward and hit me with a heavy incinerator.

That's exactly what ATSKNF is supposed to be about. It's about marines being smart and making a strategic withdraw from fights they know they can't win, and then regrouping and fighting on their terms. It's a neat rule, I think.

This ^.

Space marnes are supposed to be so much better than the chaff of other races/factions that it makes everyone else look completely inept by comparison. Quite frankly, they should be even better... but there is only so much you can do and still maintain game balance.
In a 2k game you may only have 30-40 infantry on the board, and if 25% or 50% of them just decided to route, get run down and "disperse" because they were demoralized or afraid... it would just be stupid. This does make sense for basically every other non-fearless trooper in the game though. I think ATSKNF is done just right.
Failing a SM LD check is not them fleeing from the enemy; it is tactically deciding to withdraw and adopt a better position. This is as opposed to 'Fearless', who are portrayed as simply being too berzerk or stupid to realize they should run away.

There are some great points made in this thread, and was an enjoyable read. As one commenter put it, if I were to multi-quote posts that I agreed with or thought has some validity, I would be quoting most of the thread. I personally would love and probably will play test many of the suggestions given.

My contrabution to the discussion:
UGOIGO: I know this is not a rule, but it is something that I have had a problem with for sometime with 40k. My displeasure with it has grown more as I've begun to play other games. Most new games (Infinity and Bolt Action are two I'm familiar with) have a turn system that keeps both players involved and allows for players to react and make changes when his oppoient does something. As I said, this system has always galled me, and it sometimes removes me from the game. It's not my turn so I just have to sit here and take what ever my oppoient dishes out.

Fliers: While I'm happy 40k is trying to introduce something new, I agree that it could be done better. "Balancing" and improving the fliers can be handled by providing more AA options, providing rules that would improve chances of hitting a flier, and re-working the fliers themselves.

ATSKNF: I don't understand the problem with this rule. I personally think it's one of the more boring army wide special rules. Space Marines stay in close combat most of the time which devolves most assaults into tar pits or slugging matches. Space Marines automatically re-group even if they didn't, their high leadership would make it almost automatic.

Challenges: I think this is a nice fluffy addition to the rules, and does actually add a very small bit of tactical thinking. However, I agree that it should not be a forced mechanic.

First Blood: I completely agree with everyone's statement. This is something that should be done away with.

Single Saving Throw: I agree that the saving system could be tweaked. WHFB allows for multiple saves; why doesn't 40k? There are simple ways to achieve this even in a d6 system. The modifier is the easiest and most generic way to do it. A unit is a -1 BS for shooting at something in "soft cover" and a -2 BS for shooting something in "hard cover" and so on. Then the shooting attack can be resolved as normal with a roll to wound and a roll to save. The BS modifier would reduce the number of hits a unit would be taking, and the roll to wound would further reduce the number to a number that would be a bit more easy to swallow.

Overall, there's little I can complain about except the actual turn mechanics of the game. Most of things I think are being brought up can be easily fixed with a quick home brew rulebook that is created, put out, and accepted by the community. It would be the "accepted by the community" that would kill any chance of trying to make a constructive change to the game.

 Ailaros wrote:

CalgarsPimpHan wrote: it must be making some really crazy and erratic maneuvers that on average put it 0.1" away from where it started but at the extremes take it far enough away that you actually have a chance of missing it.

And yet, despite doing barrel rolls in place, the vehicle can still fire at full BS. At least with fliers, if the pilot engages in evasive maneuvers he also doesn't get to shoot very well.

It really doesn't need to be such a dramatic move to make you miss. Your guy lines up his shot (to-hit) on a vital spot (penetrates) then right as he fires the skimmer drops 4 feet and 2 feet to the left and your shot misses or chips the paint (jink)

The reason a plane can't do that is because it's impossible to perform that degree of change when you have 800kph of forward momentum.

 Ailaros wrote:


As for ATSKNF, I still don't get it. It's an army trait, no different than orks with waaaugh, or DE being able to see in the dark. It's not a broken rule because everybody doesn't have access to it.

The problem with ATSKNF is that it allows half the armies in the game to ignore huge sections of the rules. Fear, morale checks are largely irrelevant unless your back is to the board edge, sweeping advances, regrouping rules don't apply. Whole sections of the rulebook simply do not apply to them.

Marines small size is not a defence as so many armies have similarly high cost units but do not have marines immunity to morale. Look at CSM for the most glaring example. 1pt cheaper than a tac marine and yet vulnerable to all the things the marines ignore.

Leadership and morale is a huge part of the game, unless you're a marine in which case you don't even need to read those sections.

As an aside, I love challenges. Melee could do with a small buff but frankly if you let marines get swept like everyone else in the game it'd cover most of the discrepancy. Maybe add some way for Storm Guardians and Banshees to actually get to combat, but that's a codex issue not a rules one.

Is there anybody left who is afraid to play against SM? They are mediocre on the table top at best... You all pretend that ATSKNF would create broken matches... When was the last time any of you did sweep advance anything anyway?

tommse wrote:
Is there anybody left who is afraid to play against SM? They are mediocre on the table top at best... You all pretend that ATSKNF would create broken matches... When was the last time any of you did sweep advance anything anyway?

2nd to last game with my csm, my last csm troops got swept as they lost the aspiring champion in a challenge and failed the break test. I had a full squad of 10 csm vs a sergeant and about 3 basic tactical marines. Turned a win into a draw. Given the difference in points cost for marines vs csm...

If it was possible to do it the other way round, I wouldn't mind.

tommse wrote:
Is there anybody left who is afraid to play against SM? They are mediocre on the table top at best...

Maybe that will change tomorrow?

Given that what was brought up was Combat Tactics, not specifically ATSKNF, the debate really will become moot at midnight GMT when the new SM codex hit the shelves and Combat Tactics vanishes into 40k's ancestral memory along with Sustained Fire Dice, Minor Psychic Powers, and not being able to fire through more than 2" of woods.

My pet peeve bad mechanic is the restriction on assaulting from Reserves. GW seems totally enamored with the idea that no one can ever launch an assault without eating a full round of fire and then a round of Overwatch. Then they get to roll for their charge distance, might fail their charge, and if they fail to sweep their opponent, will just get shot up a whole bunch more when the escapees rally.

DaddyWarcrimes wrote:
Given that what was brought up was Combat Tactics, not specifically ATSKNF, the debate really will become moot at midnight GMT when the new SM codex hit the shelves and Combat Tactics vanishes into 40k's ancestral memory along with Sustained Fire Dice, Minor Psychic Powers, and not being able to fire through more than 2" of woods.

My pet peeve bad mechanic is the restriction on assaulting from Reserves. GW seems totally enamored with the idea that no one can ever launch an assault without eating a full round of fire and then a round of Overwatch. Then they get to roll for their charge distance, might fail their charge, and if they fail to sweep their opponent, will just get shot up a whole bunch more when the escapees rally.

Did I miss info on Combat Tactics? I was under the impression that they were not going away......

EDIT: Hmm, I swear I saw something that retained this ability but only if you took something specific.....can't find it now.

EDIT: Found it. Sounds like taking Calgar grants this ability as well as letting you select a single doctrine that you can use twice.

I hate how you have to roll for warlord traits:

Firewarriors: Commander! What are you good at?

Fireblade: Let me have a think...

[though it nice that SCs get pre-chosen traits]

 bkiker wrote:
Single Saving Throw: I agree that the saving system could be tweaked. WHFB allows for multiple saves; why doesn't 40k? There are simple ways to achieve this even in a d6 system. The modifier is the easiest and most generic way to do it. A unit is a -1 BS for shooting at something in "soft cover" and a -2 BS for shooting something in "hard cover" and so on. Then the shooting attack can be resolved as normal with a roll to wound and a roll to save. The BS modifier would reduce the number of hits a unit would be taking, and the roll to wound would further reduce the number to a number that would be a bit more easy to swallow.

While I was initially opposed to this system in 40K, thinking further on it makes me realize that it would make shooting significantly less powerful, which would help balance out alpha strikes and keep the game more interesting for the player going second. You could even go further and add in Fantasy's other modifiers (if we are ripping off their cover rules as well), and grant a -1 to hit for firing over half range. Too many modifiers (such as multiple shots and moving) would probably be a bad idea in 40K though, as it would really take the teeth out of Rapid Firing weapons. Obviously the next Tau codex would just remove all the negative modifiers for their units anyway, because thats just what they do, but still!

I do NOT think under any circumstances that Invulnerable saves should be treated like Ward Saves however. The fact of the matter is that in Fantasy Ward Saves are typically worse (a 4++ is rediculously good), and Armour Saves are weaker (since high strength negates armour saves). Applying this in 40K where Invulnerable Saves these days are typically 3++, and Armour is modified only by AP values... not a good idea for my sanity. Besides, there is already FnP for double layered saves.

EDIT:

I also think that the Flyer assualt rules are really lame. I personally think that Jetbikes, Jump Pack Units, and Flying Monsters should be allowed to assault fliers. For the Narrative. Maybe make them take a dangerous terrain test to do it or something.

The worst rule change has to be what the 6th editio have done with fleet. It used to make Eldar brilliant.

Leadership. Leadership has too much based on it, and makes no sense.

Why are psychic tests based on Leadership? If that's the case, why aren't deny the witch rolls based on leadership? Why does Leadership not determine warp charges?

Why is a Warlock, a member of the most psychic race in the galaxy, a master of psychic assault, leadership 8?

Also, why is a Space Marine, something that's pretty much spent it's life living within the context of scenarios laid out in a book verbatim (Yes, not everyone follows codex, but for simplicity) leadership 8, but then has ATSKNF to compensate and allow them to pretty much ignore all aspects of the negatives leadership 8 implies?

WHY ARE NECRONS LEADERSHIP 10!?! It essentially allows them to completely ignore anything having to do with leadership.

Tyranids I'm ok with pretty much ignoring everything having to do with moral. Makes sense, gives them synapse creatures which fit them and work well imo.

Leadership is clunky. It's a dump stat where tests that don't fit other stats are thrown into. I think it needs a reworking.

If it affects psychic ability, base it on psychic powers.

If it affects battlefield moral, base it around that.

The two serve very different purposes.

agent1320 wrote:
The worst rule change has to be what the 6th editio have done with fleet. It used to make Eldar brilliant.

Their new Battle Focus rule more than makes up for any utility lost from the changes to Fleet for the army as a whole and the majority of units.

deathmagiks wrote:
Leadership. Leadership has too much based on it, and makes no sense.

Why are psychic tests based on Leadership? If that's the case, why aren't deny the witch rolls based on leadership? Why does Leadership not determine warp charges?

Why is a Warlock, a member of the most psychic race in the galaxy, a master of psychic assault, leadership 8?

Also, why is a Space Marine, something that's pretty much spent it's life living within the context of scenarios laid out in a book verbatim (Yes, not everyone follows codex, but for simplicity) leadership 8, but then has ATSKNF to compensate and allow them to pretty much ignore all aspects of the negatives leadership 8 implies?

WHY ARE NECRONS LEADERSHIP 10!?! It essentially allows them to completely ignore anything having to do with leadership.

Tyranids I'm ok with pretty much ignoring everything having to do with moral. Makes sense, gives them synapse creatures which fit them and work well imo.

Leadership is clunky. It's a dump stat where tests that don't fit other stats are thrown into. I think it needs a reworking.

Ld is a consolidation of what once was 3 stats, Leadership (command ability), Intelligence (how smart and clever a unit was), and Cool (how calm troops were under fire). That's three stats that all too often were basically about the same and all represented mental fortitude of some kind, so were collapsed into just Ld. Ld works in most cases. Some things are a bit awkward, but it works mostly. Warlocks being Ld8 shouldn't be that big of an issue, yes they're psychic warriors, no, they're not the Masters that Farseers are, hence the lower Ld. Nobody else has an equivalent Psyker unit, it's unique to Eldar that they have such ubiquitous psykers, and not every psychic test needs to be the practical auto-assured Ld10. Necrons are Ld10 because for the most part they're mindless automatons that are controlled by an incredibly powerful external force of will, but not Fearless because they do have automated programming that can deduce odds and will attempt to withdraw if it believes it to be prudent. ATSKNF is a much complained about bugbear, but if SM's didn't have it, they'd just be given Fearless and make Ld largely pointless anyway because nobody wants genetically engineered super soldiers that run away.

That said, Ld8 being "bad" is a symptom of current 40k. In Fantasy, Ld7 in standard, Ld8 is above average, Ld9 very rare and Ld10 limited to expensive characters or attained through special rules. Ld7 represents things like a trained, professional soldier or an aggressive Ork. The problem is that in 40k, the baseline trooper is not a basic human soldier, but rather a genetically engineered, psycho-indoctrinated fearless super soldier in power armor wielding a rocket firing submachinegun often described accomplished ludicrous feats of arms. As a result, things tend to get...inflated.

double post

 akaean wrote:

 bkiker wrote:
Single Saving Throw: I agree that the saving system could be tweaked. WHFB allows for multiple saves; why doesn't 40k? There are simple ways to achieve this even in a d6 system. The modifier is the easiest and most generic way to do it. A unit is a -1 BS for shooting at something in "soft cover" and a -2 BS for shooting something in "hard cover" and so on. Then the shooting attack can be resolved as normal with a roll to wound and a roll to save. The BS modifier would reduce the number of hits a unit would be taking, and the roll to wound would further reduce the number to a number that would be a bit more easy to swallow.

While I was initially opposed to this system in 40K, thinking further on it makes me realize that it would make shooting significantly less powerful, which would help balance out alpha strikes and keep the game more interesting for the player going second. You could even go further and add in Fantasy's other modifiers (if we are ripping off their cover rules as well), and grant a -1 to hit for firing over half range. Too many modifiers (such as multiple shots and moving) would probably be a bad idea in 40K though, as it would really take the teeth out of Rapid Firing weapons. Obviously the next Tau codex would just remove all the negative modifiers for their units anyway, because thats just what they do, but still!

I do NOT think under any circumstances that Invulnerable saves should be treated like Ward Saves however. The fact of the matter is that in Fantasy Ward Saves are typically worse (a 4++ is rediculously good), and Armour Saves are weaker (since high strength negates armour saves). Applying this in 40K where Invulnerable Saves these days are typically 3++, and Armour is modified only by AP values... not a good idea for my sanity. Besides, there is already FnP for double layered saves.

EDIT:

I also think that the Flyer assualt rules are really lame. I personally think that Jetbikes, Jump Pack Units, and Flying Monsters should be allowed to assault fliers. For the Narrative. Maybe make them take a dangerous terrain test to do it or something.

Adding the invul save was a last second change of my mind, so I agree with you that modifying to hit rolls would work better than adding layers of saving throws. I think that as long as the modifiers where generic enough you could add quite a few. I turn to Bolt Action as an example. A unit suffers a -1 penalty to hit if they move and shoot, shooting something in cover, shooting long distance, if the target unit is "down", if the shooting unit is inexperience, if the unit has a pin maker.

The fliers in 40k are an odd duck. In some cases, they are treated and act like standard modern day fixed wing aircraft: an FA-18 or A-10. However, in other cases, they are treated and act like modern attack and transport helicopters. Clarifying the roles and how the fliers act would give a better picture on how the rules should work when interacting with them. I understand having a hard time shooting a flier and not being able to assault it if it is meant to act and actually does behave like an F-18. However, if fliers are supposed to act and fill the role of attack/transport helicopters, then the rules should it make it easier to shoot at them and assault them. I agree that "air" capable units such as flying monsterous creatures and skimmers should be able to engage a flier. I have a problem with jump pack and jetbikes engaging a flier as these units I feel have "limited" air capablity. Again, deciding what units can and cannot engage a flier would be better determined when a clear understanding of what role 40k fliers fill is presented.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ld is a consolidation of what once was 3 stats, Leadership (command ability), Intelligence (how smart and clever a unit was), and Cool (how calm troops were under fire). That's three stats that all too often were basically about the same and all represented mental fortitude of some kind, so were collapsed into just Ld. Ld works in most cases. Some things are a bit awkward, but it works mostly. Warlocks being Ld8 shouldn't be that big of an issue, yes they're psychic warriors, no, they're not the Masters that Farseers are, hence the lower Ld. Nobody else has an equivalent Psyker unit, it's unique to Eldar that they have such ubiquitous psykers, and not every psychic test needs to be the practical auto-assured Ld10. Necrons are Ld10 because for the most part they're mindless automatons that are controlled by an incredibly powerful external force of will, but not Fearless because they do have automated programming that can deduce odds and will attempt to withdraw if it believes it to be prudent. ATSKNF is a much complained about bugbear, but if SM's didn't have it, they'd just be given Fearless and make Ld largely pointless anyway because nobody wants genetically engineered super soldiers that run away.

That said, Ld8 being "bad" is a symptom of current 40k. In Fantasy, Ld7 in standard, Ld8 is above average, Ld9 very rare and Ld10 limited to expensive characters or attained through special rules. Ld7 represents things like a trained, professional soldier or an aggressive Ork. The problem is that in 40k, the baseline trooper is not a basic human soldier, but rather a genetically engineered, psycho-indoctrinated fearless super soldier in power armor wielding a rocket firing submachinegun often described accomplished ludicrous feats of arms. As a result, things tend to get...inflated.

I'm ok with what it has become in regards to how it sits right now. not ecstatic, but ok. That said, I believe it needs to be consistent. Right now I feel like leadership values either negatively affect psykers more than they help them (with both chances to fail and chances to wound yourself spectacularly whilst doing so) and, for the purposes of being used in game as a significant factor, are too minuscule. I feel like units breaking and running, or otherwise taking negative effects from losing leadership checks, is either an utterly game changing event, or is relegated to a position of relative uselessness. Whilst playing Necrons, for example, unless you're stacking Horrify, Terrify, and other things in a list specifically designed to mess with leadership values, it's essentially assumed leadership will not play a significant, or even noticeable, factor in how you play them.

Current worst rule IMO: MC getting cover from being in it, rather than obscured.

My biggest gripe with ATSKNF is that CSM do not have a comparable ability. Sure, they're 1 pt less, but I would gladly pay 1 pt for that ability.
Many baseline CSM are 10,000 year old veterans who have lived in hell for thousands of years. Why are they worse in every way than 50 year old newcomers?

 bkiker wrote:

Single Saving Throw: I agree that the saving system could be tweaked. WHFB allows for multiple saves; why doesn't 40k? There are simple ways to achieve this even in a d6 system. The modifier is the easiest and most generic way to do it. A unit is a -1 BS for shooting at something in "soft cover" and a -2 BS for shooting something in "hard cover" and so on. Then the shooting attack can be resolved as normal with a roll to wound and a roll to save. The BS modifier would reduce the number of hits a unit would be taking, and the roll to wound would further reduce the number to a number that would be a bit more easy to swallow.

As I think I mentioned before... it just wouldn't work that easily with the current single D6 system. For example it'd either completely invalidate shooting with Orks since they only have BS2. Even if it can be only lowered to BS1, it'd still be weird - suddenly BS3 models shooting against hard cover is equal to BS2 doing the same, which in turn would unfair towards the BS3 models. Etc.

herpguy wrote:
My biggest gripe with ATSKNF is that CSM do not have a comparable ability. Sure, they're 1 pt less, but I would gladly pay 1 pt for that ability.
Many baseline CSM are 10,000 year old veterans who have lived in hell for thousands of years. Why are they worse in every way than 50 year old newcomers?

Chaos Space Marines know that if they die their souls are due for a horrific fate. Ergo they absolutely do not want to die and thus fear crept it's way back into their minds.

 Kain wrote:

herpguy wrote:
My biggest gripe with ATSKNF is that CSM do not have a comparable ability. Sure, they're 1 pt less, but I would gladly pay 1 pt for that ability.
Many baseline CSM are 10,000 year old veterans who have lived in hell for thousands of years. Why are they worse in every way than 50 year old newcomers?

Chaos Space Marines know that if they die their souls are due for a horrific fate. Ergo they absolutely do not want to die and thus fear crept it's way back into their minds.

Except...many would welcome that?


"I can feel the Warp overtaking me...it is a good pain..."

WHY ARE NECRONS LEADERSHIP 10!?! It essentially allows them to completely ignore anything having to do with leadership

Because the majority of them are mindless robots.

 Vaktathi wrote:

because nobody wants genetically engineered super soldiers that run away.

Except for people who play Chaos Space Marines apparently. Our genetically engineered super soldiers run away all the time.

Sometimes it is pretty smart to run away, and it has nothing to do with fear. . .

Except when you lose one of your guys, lose the combat by 1 and roll a double 6.

Then get swept.

Then you feel the pain.

Worst rules?
Assault. You want an assault unit to be OK, but not brilliant. It needs to be able to hack an enemy unit to pieces in 2 turns, rather than one. Why? Because you want to win and sweep the enemy in THEIR turn, not yours. If you roll brilliantly in assault and decimate the enemy, then you're left in the open with nothing to help you.
The corollary is that if you are assaulted, you want to lose quickly and decisively, rather than giving your opponent cover from your shooting in the next turn.
Another corollary is that sometimes a shooty unit's best way of staying safe from harm is to assault another unit. That's something I do regularly with eg Crisis Suits, which are decent enough in combat that they can kill something like guardsmen but not so good that they'll win decisively in a single turn.


Other silly rules:
Leadership in general: so many units are fearless, effectively fearless, leadership 10, ATSKNF or otherwise gets around the general leadership rules, it really reduces the impact that Leadership rules have on the game.

Various 'this unit is fast' rules. There are so many fast movement rules between all units, because every fast unit seems to be fast in a different way than another unit is fast.

Secondary objectives: First blood is pretty much automatically for the person who goes first - especially with how weak most vehicles are when they haven't had an opportunity to move or pop smoke. Linebreaker is often a point for whoever goes second.

Primary objectives: I've gotten involved in WMH lately, and I love the way that objectives are scored during the game. Holding an objective for 4 turns is actually worth something - rather than in 40k, where you can hold an objective for 6.5 turns and lose it to a single turbo-boosting jetbike in the bottom of turn 7.

Trasvi wrote:
Other silly rules:
Leadership in general: so many units are fearless, effectively fearless, leadership 10, ATSKNF or otherwise gets around the general leadership rules, it really reduces the impact that Leadership rules have on the game.

I so agree! LD is so dumb in 40K its about who has the best H2H or the most ridiculous super warrior. I like the special rules that allow real leadership effects on your army like rearranging an opponents deployment or stealing initiative.

- J