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.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
But that would add wayyy too many dice IMO. If you do negatives to hit that just simplifies things. You could even bring back old battlefield conditions with ease. Fighting on a swamp world, -1 to hit over 15" because of mist. Doing negatives to hit then doesn't cause annoying scenarios such as scouts getting 3/2+ saves and being nigh invincible in a terrain piece.

Yeah it may be harder to hit them, but when you do hit them that doesn;t change the fact they don't wear much armour.

Negatives to hit are an inherently flawed mechanic, all the -1 to hit army traits have proven that. 1000 points of ork shooting loses 500 points of worth from -1 to hit. 1000 points of space marine or eldar shooting lose just 250 points worth of shooting.

Cover as a game-wide mechanic must either reduces everyone's shooting equally or it has to affect armies with higher BS more than those with lower. Otherwise you just make armies with great shooting even more powerful, the very opposite of what cover is trying to archive.

specially in a setting where shoting is more powerful, then melee. -1 to hit for an army with full re-rolls hiting on +3 isn't as detrimental as to a +4 or +5 hiting one without them.

It would force armies like orcs in to a melee game play, and the orc players in to praying for a really good melee build.

Karol wrote:
Only this greatly buffs armies that can stack those mods, which is mostly eldar. If rangers could get -1 for mist, -1 for being in terrain, -1 for being alaitoc and anothe -1 for being rangers or from stratagems, then we are looking at models that sometimes are being hit on a +6 by space marines, and other armies can't hit them with shoting at all.

And saying just use melee units, won't work, when all other armies beat melee armies easily. It would just be creating a situaiton that favours one specific eldar build again. We already had that in 8th.

So set it so it can only be done to a maximum of 6+.

But to be fair Eldar suck at armour saves and their range isn;t fantastic apart from the odd gun or tank. Or quite simply a FAQ that stops so many of the same effects taking stance (like they already have done with certian similar aura's or datahseets from different codices being counted as the same).

Not saying it's flawless, but it;s much better to reduce the hit than it is to increase the save.

A 6+ IS forceing them into a melee game. A 1 in 6 chance to hit is overwatch. When is the last time you saw overwatch do anything meaningful?

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
Not saying it's flawless, but it;s much better to reduce the hit than it is to increase the save.

Actually, I'd rather have useless terrain rules than ones that improve shooting even more.

-1 to hit is a terrible mechanic to put on more than a few select units, that's why I suggested the extra roll for cover - everyone loses the same amount of shooting.

Then as rules adapt bring out balance items. So if your basic guard is shooting a super stealthy elite hidey hole eldar sat in a terrain piece. Yes quite rightly they should be a 6+ to hit.

But Guard also have the volume over units.

Also as the game adapts you just simply have special units for specific jobs. Balance your army. This unit has the ability to equip visors that ignore benefits of cover. Or "emergency drop" 2CP the unit request an airdrop of special reflex scopes that ignore the benefits of cover until the end of the phase.

The game is now a living game, it is no longer 8th ed thats it. 9th ed thats it so on so forth.

The live environment means rules adapt. Whichever way it's spread negative to hits is much more manageable and fairer to a majority of armies that increases the armour is.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
So set it so it can only be done to a maximum of 6+.

Might as well change terrain rules so units in cover can only be hit on 6+, that would be just as fair to marines and eldar as the -1 to hit is to other armies.

 Jidmah wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
So set it so it can only be done to a maximum of 6+.

Might as well change terrain rules so units in cover can only be hit on 6+, that would be just as fair to marines and eldar as the -1 to hit is to other armies.

The game isn't fair though. Meta's change, balances move. There is literally no reason why a rule effects one army in the same manner it effects another. Adapt your lists, write balance lists. You want a fair game go play chess.

But adding dice rolls will put more people off. The amount of dice rolls is already annoying people as it is. Especially with the amount of units that can throw out 50+ shots as per normal.

Could you imagine adding a whole additional round of rolling if you shot with a unit of 6 aggressors? That's roughly 100+ dice with average rolling that your adding a whole new rolling phase to.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
Then as rules adapt bring out balance items. So if your basic guard is shooting a super stealthy elite hidey hole eldar sat in a terrain piece. Yes quite rightly they should be a 6+ to hit.

But Guard also have the volume over units.

Also as the game adapts you just simply have special units for specific jobs. Balance your army. This unit has the ability to equip visors that ignore benefits of cover. Or "emergency drop" 2CP the unit request an airdrop of special reflex scopes that ignore the benefits of cover until the end of the phase.

The game is now a living game, it is no longer 8th ed thats it. 9th ed thats it so on so forth.

The live environment means rules adapt. Whichever way it's spread negative to hits is much more manageable and fairer to a majority of armies that increases the armour is.

okey, but no one is going to use new balanced relics or rules, if the old ones are powerful. GK just got new warlord traits, GK are still going to use the re-roll charge one most of the time. And if the reverse happens and you get balanced relics in the initial batch of rules, then people are just not going to use them, as it won't be worth to pay a CP to get a halabard or armour or a bit better stormbolter on an HQ.

Karol wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
Then as rules adapt bring out balance items. So if your basic guard is shooting a super stealthy elite hidey hole eldar sat in a terrain piece. Yes quite rightly they should be a 6+ to hit.

But Guard also have the volume over units.

Also as the game adapts you just simply have special units for specific jobs. Balance your army. This unit has the ability to equip visors that ignore benefits of cover. Or "emergency drop" 2CP the unit request an airdrop of special reflex scopes that ignore the benefits of cover until the end of the phase.

The game is now a living game, it is no longer 8th ed thats it. 9th ed thats it so on so forth.

The live environment means rules adapt. Whichever way it's spread negative to hits is much more manageable and fairer to a majority of armies that increases the armour is.

okey, but no one is going to use new balanced relics or rules, if the old ones are powerful. GK just got new warlord traits, GK are still going to use the re-roll charge one most of the time. And if the reverse happens and you get balanced relics in the initial batch of rules, then people are just not going to use them, as it won't be worth to pay a CP to get a halabard or armour or a bit better stormbolter on an HQ.

Forgive me if i'm wrong but isn;t that the design of a business? To encourage people to use the new stuff not the old?

The point of this thread however is desire of better terrain rules. If you want to debate live environments I am more than happy to discuss as I do this it's a point worth talking about. So PM me or raise a thread and I'll comment.

But for better terrain rules, you cannot just add extra rolls. That will annoy people, especially those with excessive rolls.

You either need to change the way the modifer works. (i'm on board the changing the hit side rather than save side)
Or you change the terrain rule itself, whether that be true LoS or different terrain does different things, or even ground floor magic bubbles.
Or you refresh the whole shooting mechanic.

In my experience the simplest solution is often the best. And the simplest solution is to change it from +1 save to -1 hit.

So, to sum up your arguments, you are saying that terrain rules should be unbalanced to sell more models?

Sorry, but the only reason to change terrain is to create a more fair game. Otherwise I stand with my suggestion that any terrain should reduce BS to 6+, for all armies. Let those shooting armies adapt to the game for once.

 Jidmah wrote:
So, to sum up your arguments, you are saying that terrain rules should be unbalanced to sell more models?

If that's how you want to interpret it then sure.

But I've stated my case.

No, you really haven't.
Negative hit modifiers are a mechanic that is proven to work terribly - which goes against the very idea of "better terrain rules".

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
In my experience the simplest solution is often the best. And the simplest solution is to change it from +1 save to -1 hit.

Just to suggest an alternative -- how about cover grants a modest FNP type save? There'd be a question around whether it ought to stack with existing FNP saves, but I imagine it'd make cover saves more impactful than the current +1 to armour.

The main thing I'd like to see an improvement around is how terrain impacts LoS. Perhaps something along the lines of "units can see into but not through" the footprint of ruins, etc., but in a way that doesn't allow superheavies and whatnot to hide behind a tiny pile of rubble.

Cover allowing stuff to survive mind-bullets isn't ideal. FNP is more of something about the target being able to ignore debilitating wounds.

Likewise, the problem with -1 to hit is that suddenly all those plasma weapons blow up more when the target is behind cover. That's weird too.

 nurgle5 wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
In my experience the simplest solution is often the best. And the simplest solution is to change it from +1 save to -1 hit.

Just to suggest an alternative -- how about cover grants a modest FNP type save? There'd be a question around whether it ought to stack with existing FNP saves, but I imagine it'd make cover saves more impactful than the current +1 to armour.

The main thing I'd like to see an improvement around is how terrain impacts LoS. Perhaps something along the lines of "units can see into but not through" the footprint of ruins, etc., but in a way that doesn't allow superheavies and whatnot to hide behind a tiny pile of rubble.

uuuuuuuuuuuuugh. I would really really super rather not have to make yet another roll to do anything in this game. Objectively yes, this would be the most balanced way to add exactly 1/6 survivability to models in cover, in practice I hate it so much. hit roll wound roll save roll cover roll fnp roll: Please no.

Nurglitch wrote:
Cover allowing stuff to survive mind-bullets isn't ideal. FNP is more of something about the target being able to ignore debilitating wounds.

Likewise, the problem with -1 to hit is that suddenly all those plasma weapons blow up more when the target is behind cover. That's weird too.

I i know not ideal but the whole plasma -1 hit blow up thing as a DA player. I had to make my peace with that ages ago. My head cannon is because it's harder to hit and they have to aim longer that means they're overcharging longer, which means more opportunity for the plasma core to go boom. Like cooking a grenade too long trying to figure out where to throw it.

Nurglitch wrote:
Cover allowing stuff to survive mind-bullets isn't ideal. FNP is more of something about the target being able to ignore debilitating wounds.

Likewise, the problem with -1 to hit is that suddenly all those plasma weapons blow up more when the target is behind cover. That's weird too.

cranky voice

Back in my day psychic powers were allowed to represent more than just armor-penetrating super automatic wounds! We had lightning powers and explosion powers and fire powers that worked just like regular shooting attacks but you shot them from your brain! And we liked it! Uphill both ways!

Really? I thought everyone hates those 'regular shooting attacks but with all the risks of psychic powers' things. Novas were cool though.

Nurglitch wrote:
Likewise, the problem with -1 to hit is that suddenly all those plasma weapons blow up more when the target is behind cover. That's weird too.

IMO that's not an issue with -1 to hit mechanics, that's an issue with plasma rules. A lot of abilities triggering on 1s or 6s rather than unmodified 1s or 6s causes a lot of odd or unintended interactions.

Maybe +1 Toughness could work? People use heavier weapons against squishy targets behind cover in warfare all the time. Weak things are more likely to slam into cover and stop while heavier weaponry simply powers through the cover.

 DominayTrix wrote:
Maybe +1 Toughness could work? People use heavier weapons against squishy targets behind cover in warfare all the time. Weak things are more likely to slam into cover and stop while heavier weaponry simply powers through the cover.

Not bad TBF. The type of cover depends on the toughness bonus. The save and hits stay the same cos thats skill and armour. When it hits it's still your armour. The extra toughness just comes from the extra terrain feature.

I'd give that a whirl. Craters give +1 toughness if you "hit the deck" or something.

Ruins and tree's give +1 normal.

Fortified buildings that aren't quite models with a datasheet maybe get +2?

Simple, effective, I LIKE IT!

The negs to hit design space is such a mess that adding more interactions to that broken rule set isn't a step towards making better terrain rules.

Stop infantry from moving through ruins (need more doors and actual ruined buildings). Makes battlefields more dynamic. The less straight line movement the better.

Require LOS to be drawn to the "body" of the model (no weapons, flags, wings, hands, tentacles, wheels, whatever). Would require some guidelines for what the body of a model was (plane wings? backpacks? legs?) but should be fairly easy to legislate.

cannot shoot through more than 1 piece of terrain regardless of classification. Shoot through one window, sure, two of them...no. 2 walls of one ruin would count as 2 pieces.

no shooting though woods. Into and out of, not through. If you wanted to get more detailed have a w/in 4" of intervening edge but no through but yes out/in would be plenty.

penalties for moving up hill/vertical and bonus for moving down hill/down. Limit it to charges if you want but the more you have to think about where to move and positions having impact on the battlefield the better (IMHO).

No advancing over/through intervening terrain. Give units "agile" to allow them to ignore this.

General strat. 1 CP any infantry unit wholly within a terrain feature can give up it's movement that turn to increase it's save bonus from cover.

Get rid of the ignore cover rules handed out like candy. Already have enough trouble making terrain count, stop shooting yourselves in the foot GW.

I'd like more rules like, give up movement and get a +1 to overwatch (better if units that moved couldn't fire overwatch to begin with but whatever) and give up shooting to roll 2d6 and pick highest for advance or 3d6 pick highest two for charges.

Anything to make the terrain on the battle field matter more. Too many straight line charges/movements not enough flanking and tactical movements because terrain just doesn't matter to most armies.

Don't get me started on plasma and it blowing up 45ish point plasma interceptors with 3 wounds the same way it blows up 8 point scions. 1 MW on a natural 1 and move on.

edit: the +1 toughness idea is really good too.

How I'd probably have done it.

Shooting at a unit in cover +1 to their save, same as now. Additionally:
Shooting at a unit through intervening cover, and 12"+ away: -1 to hit, this modifier is not cumulative with any other negative to hit modifiers.

Hard to hit units are still hard to hit, but not harder, normal units get a benefit for being behind terrain and/or obscured, but only if farther away than 12". Allows you to move up behind cover without being completely out of LOS and still gain some benefit, until you're right up close.

You could do a mix of things, depending on terrain. It’d be complicated, but would make the type of terrain matter.

 Crimson wrote:
Three pointing always seemed to me like a gamey exploit. It shouldn't exist and the normal rules for fleeing from combat should be more restrictive instead.

Yeah its an exploit, in the same way putting a unit of snipers high on a building is an exploit.

I feel like at this point this thread belongs in proposed rules.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

okey, but no one is going to use new balanced relics or rules, if the old ones are powerful. GK just got new warlord traits, GK are still going to use the re-roll charge one most of the time. And if the reverse happens and you get balanced relics in the initial batch of rules, then people are just not going to use them, as it won't be worth to pay a CP to get a halabard or armour or a bit better stormbolter on an HQ.

Forgive me if i'm wrong but isn;t that the design of a business? To encourage people to use the new stuff not the old?

The point of this thread however is desire of better terrain rules. If you want to debate live environments I am more than happy to discuss as I do this it's a point worth talking about. So PM me or raise a thread and I'll comment.

But for better terrain rules, you cannot just add extra rolls. That will annoy people, especially those with excessive rolls.

You either need to change the way the modifer works. (i'm on board the changing the hit side rather than save side)
Or you change the terrain rule itself, whether that be true LoS or different terrain does different things, or even ground floor magic bubbles.
Or you refresh the whole shooting mechanic.

In my experience the simplest solution is often the best. And the simplest solution is to change it from +1 save to -1 hit.

Nurglitch wrote:
Really? I thought everyone hates those 'regular shooting attacks but with all the risks of psychic powers' things. Novas were cool though.

I mean, I didn't. Just increase the relative power for the points in exchange for the risk, or replace the to-hit roll with the psychic test or something. I dunno. I'm really bored of mortal wound powers personally, they basically all have to be the same.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Three pointing always seemed to me like a gamey exploit. It shouldn't exist and the normal rules for fleeing from combat should be more restrictive instead.

Yeah its an exploit, in the same way putting a unit of snipers high on a building is an exploit.

I can think of what putting snipers on a tall building is supposed to represent in real-world equivalence.

I can't think of what putting exactly three guys around an enemy combatant and then deliberately not killing him so that his compatriots can't fall back is supposed to represent.

That's why it's 'gamey' and feels like an exploit- it's a strategy that arises purely from the rules, not from logical real-world tactics.