Switch Theme:

Invulnerables should work as a modifier like cover  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




I was really hoping the top BA players had deeper insight, but it's really about jamming opponent into their corner and wrap and trap. I have no idea how they fight Tau once they run out of fire warriors.
   
Made in ca
Revving Ravenwing Biker




Vancouver, BC

Martel732 wrote:
I was really hoping the top BA players had deeper insight, but it's really about jamming opponent into their corner and wrap and trap. I have no idea how they fight Tau once they run out of fire warriors.

They win on points by holding objectives, like most armies do.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/23 18:28:37


 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




That's trivially true and not a useful observation. Dead units hold no objectives, so preventing this is critical.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/23 18:32:07


 
   
Made in ca
Revving Ravenwing Biker




Vancouver, BC

Martel732 wrote:
That's trivially true and not a useful observation.

Your army is 52% win rate, does well at tournaments, has options for diverse list building and here you are whining because you don't want to use the tools your army has. Given that you don't like wrap and trap, don't like how your army plays, and don't want to win based on holding objectives what else did you expect this board to say to you?
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




I didn't say anything about not wanting to hold objectives. I said it was a trivial observation.

The "tools" you refer to are a gimmicky unintended consequence of the movement rules and fall back rules interacting. It's lame and stupid and I hate myself every time I do it in a game. Yet, the other choice is be shot off the table like a chump. Please stick to invulns.

This only came up because I said I plan for everything to have a 5++ or better. I think that's the prudent way to plan.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/03/23 18:48:09


 
   
Made in ca
Revving Ravenwing Biker




Vancouver, BC

Martel732 wrote:
I didn't say anything about not wanting to hold objectives. I said it was a trivial observation.

The "tools" you refer to are a gimmicky unintended consequence of the movement rules and fall back rules interacting. It's lame and stupid and I hate myself every time I do it in a game. Yet, the other choice is be shot off the table like a chump. Please stick to invulns.

Then play a different army or take a break from the fething game. Don't suggest that things which don't require changes be changed wholesale because of your poor play and lack of willingness to use the rules as they exist handicap your lists.

As for the invulns you've yet to make a workable suggestion. On one hand, you claim that it 'doesn't make sense' for some models to shrug off hits even though both rules-wise and narratively invulnerable saves can always be justified. On the other, you claim that you hate GW fluff and that you hate yourself for playing the game and that somehow this, and fething meltas of all things, justify removing invulnerable saves. Then to top it all off, you want bespoke rules for at least 3 types of saves and for every weapon that could possibly interact with them even though, by your own admission, you haven't the faintest clue where to start building said rules so that they actually do what you want them to.

Try posting something that's worth discussion rather than derision and I'll engage with it right now all I see is from you is which makes me

EDIT: Planning for every model to have a 5++ save when, as a point of fact, many common models don't have such a save is poor planning. Not bringing the right tools for the job is likely what's costing you the games you constantly whine about losing.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/03/23 18:54:17


 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Then quit reading my posts. And quit replying to them. I was having a fine conversation with JNA.

" by your own admission, you haven't the faintest clue where to start building said rules so that they actually do what you want them to."

Patently false. I'm just not putting in that kind of effort without getting paid.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/03/23 19:01:22


 
   
Made in ca
Revving Ravenwing Biker




Vancouver, BC

Martel732 wrote:
Then quit reading my posts. And quit replying to them. I was having a fine conversation with JNA.

Who also told you that AP-4 is fine... Also, try responding to the content of my post rather than ignoring what I've said. I'll even give you a numbered list so you can go point-by-point in addressing my questions.

1) Given that a 5++, of any type, working against even the heaviest weapons, can be fluffed as near misses, misfires, the shell not going off, etc. why do you feel that certain types of saves "don't make sense" against certain weapons?

2) Why do you feel like making sweeping changes to the game at a core level makes more sense than buffing AP-4 and better weapons?

3) What is your intention with these changes, more specifically, what are you hoping to buff and what are you looking to nerf? Please include a representative example of which units/models you'd change, and which compensating buffs you intend to give to give to options that aren't currently over performing.

4) Show an example of the rules text you'd like to see included on datasheets using your new save and weapons rules.

5) Address the cases where players who are winning games while bringing AP-4 weapons and explain why they're wrong for doing so when they're winning and you, seemingly, aren't.

EDIT: Given that you apparently want to suggest rules but not actually write rules so we can discuss them, how is one supposed to engage with your arguments? Are we all supposed to pat you on the back for your vague suggestions or are we supposed to take your vague suggestions and turn them into actual rules proposals for you?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/23 19:12:02


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I think that the issue with invulnerable saves is that they are being used as a patch for a system which is not built for such a range of toughness and save.

For example, a terminator has what is known as "Tactical Dreadnaught Armour". It's dreadnaught armour for infantry. and yet, Dreadnaughts have a 3+ save and a terminator has a 2+. despite the fact that the dreadnaughts armour is clearly thicker.

Toughness is a difference, as are wounds, but with only 5 saves to choose from, there aren't enough to reflect the range of armour available. You have to go from a bare-chested ork to an imperial bunker, but the bunker is only 5x harder to get through the armour of than the ork? not really a good scale.

So to reduce the "weakness" of some big things, they added invulns, which were only ever meant for smaller things. and that has spiralled out of control. A knight should never have had an invulnerable save - increased toughness or wounds, perhaps, but not the save.

Orks in 8th, W/D/L
9/0/3 
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle





In My Lab

 some bloke wrote:
I think that the issue with invulnerable saves is that they are being used as a patch for a system which is not built for such a range of toughness and save.

For example, a terminator has what is known as "Tactical Dreadnaught Armour". It's dreadnaught armour for infantry. and yet, Dreadnaughts have a 3+ save and a terminator has a 2+. despite the fact that the dreadnaughts armour is clearly thicker.

Toughness is a difference, as are wounds, but with only 5 saves to choose from, there aren't enough to reflect the range of armour available. You have to go from a bare-chested ork to an imperial bunker, but the bunker is only 5x harder to get through the armour of than the ork? not really a good scale.

So to reduce the "weakness" of some big things, they added invulns, which were only ever meant for smaller things. and that has spiralled out of control. A knight should never have had an invulnerable save - increased toughness or wounds, perhaps, but not the save.
An idea I had for Ion Shields is to make them each a pool of wounds.

So a regular Knight's Ion Shields might have 4 wounds at T7 4+, and they have three of them. Each one comes back on a 5+ at the start of the controlling player's turn, and you have to beat down the shields before you hit the Knight itself.
Armigers could have 2 wound shields at T6 4+.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Ohhh. That's cool.
   
Made in gb
Instigating Incubi




The dark behind the eyes.

 JNAProductions wrote:
 some bloke wrote:
I think that the issue with invulnerable saves is that they are being used as a patch for a system which is not built for such a range of toughness and save.

For example, a terminator has what is known as "Tactical Dreadnaught Armour". It's dreadnaught armour for infantry. and yet, Dreadnaughts have a 3+ save and a terminator has a 2+. despite the fact that the dreadnaughts armour is clearly thicker.

Toughness is a difference, as are wounds, but with only 5 saves to choose from, there aren't enough to reflect the range of armour available. You have to go from a bare-chested ork to an imperial bunker, but the bunker is only 5x harder to get through the armour of than the ork? not really a good scale.

So to reduce the "weakness" of some big things, they added invulns, which were only ever meant for smaller things. and that has spiralled out of control. A knight should never have had an invulnerable save - increased toughness or wounds, perhaps, but not the save.
An idea I had for Ion Shields is to make them each a pool of wounds.

So a regular Knight's Ion Shields might have 4 wounds at T7 4+, and they have three of them. Each one comes back on a 5+ at the start of the controlling player's turn, and you have to beat down the shields before you hit the Knight itself.
Armigers could have 2 wound shields at T6 4+.


That would be vastly better.

Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"



 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in ca
Revving Ravenwing Biker




Vancouver, BC

 some bloke wrote:
I think that the issue with invulnerable saves is that they are being used as a patch for a system which is not built for such a range of toughness and save.

If this is the case, why have invulnerable and ward saves existed from the earliest days of Warhammer and Warhammer 40k?

Toughness is a difference, as are wounds, but with only 5 saves to choose from, there aren't enough to reflect the range of armour available. You have to go from a bare-chested ork to an imperial bunker, but the bunker is only 5x harder to get through the armour of than the ork? not really a good scale.

A range of 6 saves (No save, and 2+ to 6+) and toughness values commonly running from 3 to 8 that already gives us 36 different profiles to represent how hard to kill a model is. With invulnerable saves in the mix (None, 3++ to 6++) that brings the total to 180 profiles. Then add in 5+++ and 6+++ saves and that gives us 540 potential profiles. This is without considering adding additional wounds to a model.

When you consider the game as a series of interlinked systems and understand that both armor and toughness represent how difficult it is to damage a model you find that, even without adding wounds, there is more than a 5x difference between an ork boy and a bunker..

So to reduce the "weakness" of some big things, they added invulns, which were only ever meant for smaller things. and that has spiralled out of control. A knight should never have had an invulnerable save - increased toughness or wounds, perhaps, but not the save.

We could give the vehicles back armor values that make them immune to broad categories of weapons, slap hull points on them, and bring back regenerating void shields for Titans if you would prefer that? This would tend to favor skew lists that bring lots of AV 13 and 14, kill off your anti-tank weapons, and then laugh as you fail to damage them which is why we have the current system.

 JNAProductions wrote:
An idea I had for Ion Shields is to make them each a pool of wounds.

So a regular Knight's Ion Shields might have 4 wounds at T7 4+, and they have three of them. Each one comes back on a 5+ at the start of the controlling player's turn, and you have to beat down the shields before you hit the Knight itself.
Armigers could have 2 wound shields at T6 4+.

So literally void shields from the apocalypse rules of editions past? What does this solve and how do you intend to balance what will be a massive nerf to Knights which are already fairly balanced in the current meta?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/03/23 19:56:33


 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 Canadian 5th wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
That's trivially true and not a useful observation.

Your army is 52% win rate, does well at tournaments, has options for diverse list building and here you are whining because you don't want to use the tools your army has. Given that you don't like wrap and trap, don't like how your army plays, and don't want to win based on holding objectives what else did you expect this board to say to you?


Ehhhh....Blood Angels are pretty weak right now TBH. They're nowhere near as gimped as GSC but as far as space marines armies go, yeah....not amazing. Ironically the main reason for this is a general lack of survivability. They do their best work in Melee yet they have extremely limited options when it comes to mitigating damage.
   
Made in ca
Revving Ravenwing Biker




Vancouver, BC

It seems like a lot of people have ideas to 'fix' invulnerable saves even though none of you have proven why they need fixing. So how about we start there by answering a few key questions.

1) What fundamentally is the issue with invulnerable saves?
1a) Are these issues isolated to a few problem units or are they a systemic flaw?
1b) Are there other rules already in place that mitigate or otherwise deal with these problems?

2) What your suggestion is, how it fixes these flaws, and how you intend to balance the units that were changed to make them viable after these changes?
2a) A list of potential unintended consequences of these changes?

3) What effect these changes will have on game complexity and the pace of play?

4) A summary of why these changes are more effective than making changes within the rules as they currently exist?

5) A picture of a giraffe so this list isn't so serious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Roberts84 wrote:
Ehhhh....Blood Angels are pretty weak right now TBH. They're nowhere near as gimped as GSC but as far as space marines armies go, yeah....not amazing. Ironically the main reason for this is a general lack of survivability. They do their best work in Melee yet they have extremely limited options when it comes to mitigating damage.

So why are they still on top tables at major tournaments?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/23 20:33:36


 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 Canadian 5th wrote:
It seems like a lot of people have ideas to 'fix' invulnerable saves even though none of you have proven why they need fixing. So how about we start there by answering a few key questions.

1) What fundamentally is the issue with invulnerable saves?
1a) Are these issues isolated to a few problem units or are they a systemic flaw?
1b) Are there other rules already in place that mitigate or otherwise deal with these problems?

2) What your suggestion is, how it fixes these flaws, and how you intend to balance the units that were changed to make them viable after these changes?
2a) A list of potential unintended consequences of these changes?

3) What effect these changes will have on game complexity and the pace of play?

4) A summary of why these changes are more effective than making changes within the rules as they currently exist?

5) A picture of a giraffe so this list isn't so serious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Roberts84 wrote:
Ehhhh....Blood Angels are pretty weak right now TBH. They're nowhere near as gimped as GSC but as far as space marines armies go, yeah....not amazing. Ironically the main reason for this is a general lack of survivability. They do their best work in Melee yet they have extremely limited options when it comes to mitigating damage.

So why are they still on top tables at major tournaments?



They are? News to me.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




I don't like them because they don't differentiate different mechanisms sufficiently and invalidate expensive, low ROF, high AP weapons. Assault bolters should not be better vs IK than multimeltas. But they are.

BA have won a couple tournaments. Some argue they are top tier, but even those people admit they are hideously difficult to pilot and rely completely on wrap and trap. I think they are only top tier in an elite castle meta. They are as gakky vs hordes as they have ever been.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/03/23 20:45:56


 
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle





In My Lab

Martel732 wrote:
I don't like them because they don't differentiate different mechanisms sufficiently and invalidate expensive, low ROF, high AP weapons. Assault bolters should not be better vs IK than multimeltas. But they are.

BA have won a couple tournaments. Some argue they are top tier, but even those people admit they are hideously difficult to pilot and rely completely on wrap and trap.
A MultiMelta does close to double the damage of an Assault Bolter if both are at 18" and the Knight has a 4++.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




But the bolter has so many other uses is my point. Also, the assault bolter is losing nothing, While the MM is losing 3 points of AP. It's far better to sandpaper down units like IK than try to force though big shots. So why bring those weapons? Also, for its cost. the MM needs to do a LOT more than double damage vs its intended target.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/03/23 20:56:57


 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




Martel732 wrote:
I don't like them because they don't differentiate different mechanisms sufficiently and invalidate expensive, low ROF, high AP weapons. Assault bolters should not be better vs IK than multimeltas. But they are.

BA have won a couple tournaments. Some argue they are top tier, but even those people admit they are hideously difficult to pilot and rely completely on wrap and trap. I think they are only top tier in an elite castle meta. They are as gakky vs hordes as they have ever been.


Oh--there's no way BA are top tier. Forget about it. RG and IH should romp them 9/10 times, to say nothing of space marines armies.

I'm building mine to be killy but survivable. No Librarian Dread is par of that, it's a trap IMO.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/23 20:53:52


 
   
Made in ca
Revving Ravenwing Biker




Vancouver, BC

Roberts84 wrote:
They are? News to me.

I don't have completely up to date results given that Covid-19 has paused the events we'd normal gather data from but they were top 10 in popularity as recently as the week of Feb 26th:

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/02/40k-top-list-of-the-week-february-19th-the-raven-guard-returns.html

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/03/40k-top-list-of-the-week-march-4th-aeldari-soup.html

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/03/40k-top-list-of-the-week-march-18th-grey-knight-surprise.html

This site only shows the winning list but the fact that they were 8th in popularity before falling off suggests that people see them as tournament viable.

Martel732 wrote:
But the bolter has so many other uses is my point. Also, the assault bolter is losing nothing, While the MM is losing 3 points of AP. It's far better to sandpaper down units like IK than try to force though big shots. So why bring those weapons?

That's by design... One weapon is a specialist anti-tank weapon, the other is a general-purpose weapon.

It's also intentional that weapons which aren't traditionally anti-tank work against armor to prevent something like a Titan or Landraider from being immune to lists once their anti-tank weapons have been removed. Do we want to go back to literally unkillable tank hordes?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/03/23 20:57:13


 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Relevant to this thread: I like 6 bolter inceptors backed up by the FNP banner for this exact reason.
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 Canadian 5th wrote:
Roberts84 wrote:
They are? News to me.

I don't have completely up to date results given that Covid-19 has paused the events we'd normal gather data from but they were top 10 in popularity as recently as the week of Feb 26th:

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/02/40k-top-list-of-the-week-february-19th-the-raven-guard-returns.html

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/03/40k-top-list-of-the-week-march-4th-aeldari-soup.html

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/03/40k-top-list-of-the-week-march-18th-grey-knight-surprise.html

This site only shows the winning list but the fact that they were 8th in popularity before falling off suggests that people see them as tournament viable.

Martel732 wrote:
But the bolter has so many other uses is my point. Also, the assault bolter is losing nothing, While the MM is losing 3 points of AP. It's far better to sandpaper down units like IK than try to force though big shots. So why bring those weapons?

That's by design... One weapon is a specialist anti-tank weapon, the other is a general-purpose weapon.

It's also intentional that weapons which aren't traditionally anti-tank work against armor to prevent something like a Titan or Landraider from being immune to lists once their anti-tank weapons have been removed. Do we want to go back to literally unkillable tank hordes?


Dude according to that Data, BA just squeaked into 10th spot a couple of times in a couple of comps. That's not much more than statistical noise given how strong SM/ Imperium armies are in general and probably just comes down to styles making fights in the particular meta of those comps.

I'm building a BA list right now, and if I wanted to win a lot I wouldn't be. There's far more competitive options but my philosophy is to play what you like. Always has been. That said, I do think people are making the same old mistakes with them, foremostly treating them like a melee Kamikaze force and spending far too many points on DC, HQ for the DC, and burning through CP and psychic to get the Librarian dreadnought into range so it can possibly kill something then get immediately tabled.
   
Made in ca
Revving Ravenwing Biker




Vancouver, BC

Roberts84 wrote:
Dude according to that Data, BA just squeaked into 10th spot a couple of times in a couple of comps. That's not much more than statistical noise given how strong SM/ Imperium armies are in general and probably just comes down to styles making fights in the particular meta of those comps.

I'm building a BA list right now, and if I wanted to win a lot I wouldn't be. There's far more competitive options but my philosophy is to play what you like. Always has been. That said, I do think people are making the same old mistakes with them, foremostly treating them like a melee Kamikaze force and spending far too many points on DC, HQ for the DC, and burning through CP and psychic to get the Librarian dreadnought into range so it can possibly kill something then get immediately tabled.

February 26, 2020 1: Adeptus Astartes = 24 weeks 2: Chaos = 2 weeks 3: T’au Empire =2 weeks 4: Astra Militarum =2 weeks 5: Aeldari +2 6: Imperium +2 7: Grey Knights -2 8: Blood Angels (new) 9: Orks (new) 10: Tyranids (new)

Source: https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/03/40k-top-list-of-the-week-march-4th-aeldari-soup.html

10th place you say...
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




They're taking out the Kamikaze part by tripointing. If they can't do that for some reason, it's back to Kamikaze. Getting close in 8th is basically suicide in 8th without tripionting.

Invulns factor into a few BA woes, primarily in the form of Wulfen, Grotesques, and Bullgryns. These units stop BA assault cold, and BA players basically have no counter except stay away. This isn't the point of my critique about invulns, though.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/23 21:10:28


 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 Canadian 5th wrote:
Roberts84 wrote:
Dude according to that Data, BA just squeaked into 10th spot a couple of times in a couple of comps. That's not much more than statistical noise given how strong SM/ Imperium armies are in general and probably just comes down to styles making fights in the particular meta of those comps.

I'm building a BA list right now, and if I wanted to win a lot I wouldn't be. There's far more competitive options but my philosophy is to play what you like. Always has been. That said, I do think people are making the same old mistakes with them, foremostly treating them like a melee Kamikaze force and spending far too many points on DC, HQ for the DC, and burning through CP and psychic to get the Librarian dreadnought into range so it can possibly kill something then get immediately tabled.

February 26, 2020 1: Adeptus Astartes = 24 weeks 2: Chaos = 2 weeks 3: T’au Empire =2 weeks 4: Astra Militarum =2 weeks 5: Aeldari +2 6: Imperium +2 7: Grey Knights -2 8: Blood Angels (new) 9: Orks (new) 10: Tyranids (new)

Source: https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/03/40k-top-list-of-the-week-march-4th-aeldari-soup.html

10th place you say...



Yes. 10th place. Watch you just linked was most played factions, of which they are the 8th most played. Not a ranked list of comp winners. In that BA came 10th.
   
Made in ca
Revving Ravenwing Biker




Vancouver, BC

Roberts84 wrote:
Yes. 10th place. Watch you just linked was most played factions, of which they are the 8th most played. Not a ranked list of comp winners. In that BA came 10th.

That's a top table result, is it not? Or do you not consider a top-10 list in a large field to be a top result?
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Canadian 5th wrote:
 some bloke wrote:
I think that the issue with invulnerable saves is that they are being used as a patch for a system which is not built for such a range of toughness and save.

If this is the case, why have invulnerable and ward saves existed from the earliest days of Warhammer and Warhammer 40k?


Because it used to be that:
A: if you brought a lasgun to shoot a wraithlord, it didn't work.
B: if you brought a lasgun to shoot a landraider, it didn't work.

Big things were immune to small-arms - they didn't need to have umpteen wounds to chip off, and so didn't need invulnerable saves to make them more resistant to anti-tank weapons.


Toughness is a difference, as are wounds, but with only 5 saves to choose from, there aren't enough to reflect the range of armour available. You have to go from a bare-chested ork to an imperial bunker, but the bunker is only 5x harder to get through the armour of than the ork? not really a good scale.

A range of 6 saves (No save, and 2+ to 6+) and toughness values commonly running from 3 to 8 that already gives us 36 different profiles to represent how hard to kill a model is. With invulnerable saves in the mix (None, 3++ to 6++) that brings the total to 180 profiles. Then add in 5+++ and 6+++ saves and that gives us 540 potential profiles. This is without considering adding additional wounds to a model.

When you consider the game as a series of interlinked systems and understand that both armor and toughness represent how difficult it is to damage a model you find that, even without adding wounds, there is more than a 5x difference between an ork boy and a bunker..


Firstly, nothing has less than a 6+ now (IIRC) so there's really only 5. With a sliding scale created by cover and AP, it is justifiable to have AP8+ or AP-3+ and have it useable.

Yes, there actually is more of a difference between a bunker and a boy, but the armour save scale seems so small, and so clunky. It always used to be that 5+ or worse was useless, and 3+ or better was king. there will always be a poit where the save goes from useful to useless. having only 5 to choose from makes it so, so clunky. They could easily have added things like:
Long range - firing over 1/2 range gives +1 to saves
Point Blank - firing within 6" gives +1 to AP and ignores cover

etcetera. If you have a 1+ or better, you reroll, like the old fantasy Ballistic Skill chart for 7+ to hit. IE if you have a 1+, you reroll rolls of a 1 and on a 6, it passes. 0+ means on a 5 or 6, it passes. and so on. Long range combat gets less killy. Getting close can make lasguns deadly, but makes combat easier. more grit, less "everyone's a winner" It's not a school sports day, it's a war.


So to reduce the "weakness" of some big things, they added invulns, which were only ever meant for smaller things. and that has spiralled out of control. A knight should never have had an invulnerable save - increased toughness or wounds, perhaps, but not the save.

We could give the vehicles back armor values that make them immune to broad categories of weapons, slap hull points on them, and bring back regenerating void shields for Titans if you would prefer that? This would tend to favor skew lists that bring lots of AV 13 and 14, kill off your anti-tank weapons, and then laugh as you fail to damage them which is why we have the current system.


I likes AV and facings. The game had a better feel to it back then. I loved getting the rear shots on vehicles. But I doubt we're going back, as the goal is an easier resolution to the points which made people argue - scatter direction, vehicle facings, line of sight for a specific gun. All gone, and all nonsense. Even the model designers realise it - why else would repulsors have guns on the back?
I would prefer to see a better use of the variable save system than this deluge of exceptions to it. make things invulnerable by making them invulnerable, and give them some downsides for it - like how vehicles could get immobilised, and had firing arcs.

 JNAProductions wrote:
An idea I had for Ion Shields is to make them each a pool of wounds.

So a regular Knight's Ion Shields might have 4 wounds at T7 4+, and they have three of them. Each one comes back on a 5+ at the start of the controlling player's turn, and you have to beat down the shields before you hit the Knight itself.
Armigers could have 2 wound shields at T6 4+.

So literally void shields from the apocalypse rules of editions past? What does this solve and how do you intend to balance what will be a massive nerf to Knights which are already fairly balanced in the current meta?


It's not about nerfing or improving things, per se- it's the fact that a power field o na knight should not behave in the same way as a stormshield on a terminator. You would expect the knights one to be more difficult to get through. Having to get through the fields to hurt the knight would be a much more interesting mechanic than "did a load of damage, but then he saved it with his invuln". "I did a load of damage, took some wounds off him, but then the shields flickered back to life" is a much more dramatic and fun system. Though it would necessitate massed firepower to hurt a knight. They could have a wounds drop to compensate.

Orks in 8th, W/D/L
9/0/3 
   
Made in ca
Revving Ravenwing Biker




Vancouver, BC

Martel732 wrote:
They're taking out the Kamikaze part by tripointing. If they can't do that for some reason, it's back to Kamikaze. Getting close in 8th is basically suicide in 8th without tripionting.

You have to use the rules of the game to win at the game.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 Canadian 5th wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
They're taking out the Kamikaze part by tripointing. If they can't do that for some reason, it's back to Kamikaze. Getting close in 8th is basically suicide in 8th without tripionting.

You have to use the rules of the game to win at the game.


Even a gamey unintended accident? feth that. Sorry, a gamey unintended accident that is the ONLY thing that stops shooting lists from easy tablings? Yeah, feth that. Watch GW get rid of tripointing in 9th but keep fall back.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/03/23 21:19:48


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: