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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But what if you're in CC with Terminators, who have giant power fists ready to tear you to shreds?

Because terminators are still small and squishy compared to a tank, and not suicidal enough to use those power fists by making one swipe as they are crushed to death under the tank's tracks.

Their armor gives them a 4+ against being stepped on by an Imperial Knight. They can take a tank.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
What I'd really like to see is people stop suggesting alternating activations or a move to d10s/d12s as a blanket magic-bullet solution to all possible problems.

Literally all possible problems? No. But those two changes sure would fix the majority of them.

Not by default
Just adding those to the core rules and keeping everything else the same won't solve anything

Going that way, it would be easier to just take core rules that are already using it and write 40k army lists instead if trying to change the core rules again and again while the army lists stay more or less the same every time.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Their armor gives them a 4+ against being stepped on by an Imperial Knight. They can take a tank.

IK should ignore saves as well. If a knight (or any large vehicle) steps on you/drives over you/etc you are dead, period.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Their armor gives them a 4+ against being stepped on by an Imperial Knight. They can take a tank.

IK should ignore saves as well. If a knight (or any large vehicle) steps on you/drives over you/etc you are dead, period.

Like Stomps, from 7th edition?

Weren't those fun? /s

 kodos wrote:
Just adding those to the core rules and keeping everything else the same won't solve anything.

Well yes, we're assuming that GW changes the rules to be in line with alternating activation and a D10/D12 system. Obviously GW is not just going to replace every instance of "D6" with "D10" and call it good, literally having BS 3+ space marines keeping the same stat line and hitting on a 3+ on a D10. Units will be re-balanced and get new stat lines, core rules will change to make sense in the new game, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
IK should ignore saves as well. If a knight (or any large vehicle) steps on you/drives over you/etc you are dead, period.

Like Stomps, from 7th edition?

Weren't those fun? /s

The Reaper Chainsword is AP-3.
The Gauntlet is AP-4.

 JNAProductions wrote:
The Reaper Chainsword is AP-3.
The Gauntlet is AP-4.

I'm failing to seen an immense difference between having a 6+ armor save and having no armor save at all. If the game would be ruined and no longer fun with no armor save at all then how exactly is a 6+ save changing that in any meaningful way?

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The Reaper Chainsword is AP-3.
The Gauntlet is AP-4.

I'm failing to seen an immense difference between having a 6+ armor save and having no armor save at all. If the game would be ruined and no longer fun with no armor save at all then how exactly is a 6+ save changing that in any meaningful way?

You fail to see the difference between a 5+ and nothing?

Or a 4+ and nothing, which is what stomps currently give against 2+ armor?

 JNAProductions wrote:
You fail to see the difference between a 5+ and nothing?

Or a 4+ and nothing, which is what stomps currently give against 2+ armor?

Please don't move the goalposts. The existing AP -4 weapon gives terminators a 6+ armor save, ignoring armor entirely gives no save. This is a difference if you really care about math optimization, but I fail to see how not getting your 6+ armor save is something that you care that strongly about.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You fail to see the difference between a 5+ and nothing?

Or a 4+ and nothing, which is what stomps currently give against 2+ armor?

Please don't move the goalposts. The existing AP -4 weapon gives terminators a 6+ armor save, ignoring armor entirely gives no save. This is a difference if you really care about math optimization, but I fail to see how not getting your 6+ armor save is something that you care that strongly about.

The existing weapon that is most commonly used gives a 4+.
The next- most-used against Terminators gives a 5+, since it's the Chainsword which inflicts no hit penalty.
The LEAST USED gives a 6+.

Edit: Not to mention, you don't want saves against Stomps. Which, again, are only AP-2.

 JNAProductions wrote:
The existing weapon that is most commonly used gives a 4+.
The next- most-used against Terminators gives a 5+, since it's the Chainsword which inflicts no hit penalty.
The LEAST USED gives a 6+.

Whether or not it is the most commonly used is irrelevant. You are claiming that ignoring armor saves would ruin the game for you and be a terrible idea, and yet you are fine with an existing weapon that effectively ignores armor saves. This emphasis on what is most commonly used rather strongly suggests to me that your concern is not that having no save is not fun, it's that you don't like that the math optimization might not favor your pet unit.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The existing weapon that is most commonly used gives a 4+.
The next- most-used against Terminators gives a 5+, since it's the Chainsword which inflicts no hit penalty.
The LEAST USED gives a 6+.

Whether or not it is the most commonly used is irrelevant. You are claiming that ignoring armor saves would ruin the game for you and be a terrible idea, and yet you are fine with an existing weapon that effectively ignores armor saves. This emphasis on what is most commonly used rather strongly suggests to me that your concern is not that having no save is not fun, it's that you don't like that the math optimization might not favor your pet unit.

When did I say nothing should ignore armor saves ever? I'm pointing out that Knights, as it currently stands, give a 4+ save with Stomps against a 2+ armor model.

You want to make them significantly more powerful, by making their Stomps completely ignore armor.

The Culexus? I'm fine with. He ignores armor.
Railguns? Yeah, that's fine. They ignore armor, with their AP-5.
Volcano Cannons? Those are AP-5 too, I don't mind.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You want to make them significantly more powerful, by making their Stomps completely ignore armor.

I see, so you're just assuming for no apparent reason that "getting run over/stepped on/etc by a tank gives you no save" means that every current unit will retain its exact stat line instead of considering the obvious alternative that all of these units would see an appropriate adjustment to their number of attacks.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You want to make them significantly more powerful, by making their Stomps completely ignore armor.

I see, so you're just assuming for no apparent reason that "getting run over/stepped on/etc by a tank gives you no save" means that every current unit will retain its exact stat line instead of considering the obvious alternative that all of these units would see an appropriate adjustment to their number of attacks.

Just like you assume that I like Terminators or hate all armor-ignoring things.

So what SHOULD give armor saves, then? Should a missile exploding in your face?

And how do we draw the line on what gets Stomped without a save? Sure, Guardsmen, yes. Marines, okay. Terminators, maybe. Rhinos? Leman Russes? Land Raiders?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So what SHOULD give armor saves, then? Should a missile exploding in your face?

Yes, because that missile is less powerful than a many-ton vehicle crushing you with its full weight. They probably should, however, have AP -3 like lascannons.

And how do we draw the line on what gets Stomped without a save? Sure, Guardsmen, yes. Marines, okay. Terminators, maybe. Rhinos? Leman Russes? Land Raiders?

Infantry models only. You know, the models that can actually be stepped on/run over/etc. Vehicles or any other models that are too large to be squished can't be attacked this way and you'd have to roll normal melee attacks.

 Peregrine wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Just adding those to the core rules and keeping everything else the same won't solve anything.

Well yes, we're assuming that GW changes the rules to be in line with alternating activation and a D10/D12 system. Obviously GW is not just going to replace every instance of "D6" with "D10" and call it good, literally having BS 3+ space marines keeping the same stat line and hitting on a 3+ on a D10. Units will be re-balanced and get new stat lines, core rules will change to make sense in the new game, etc.

You assume a lot while GW has changed the core rules several times now and keeping the rest
So yes, if people alskGW for using D10 instead of D6, this is exactly what will happen and nothing more

Otherwise 8th would be a lot better than it is now as units should have been re-balanced and get new stat lines and core rule changes to make sense in the new system
Worked out well

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Pointed Stick wrote:
Can you explain this Chapter house thing and how it led to "no model, no rules"?

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/ChapterHouse_Studios#Lawsuit_from_Games_Workshop

Tl;dr Chapter House were making models for units GW had no models for, but also making 3rd party bits and using GW trademarks in the names. GW got pissy and sued them. Court ruled that unless GW makes models for the units they have rules for they can't stop people making models using the GW names and IP for them, but GW can stop third parties from using their Trademarks to describe their third party bitz.

e.g. You can make "Mongolian heads, compatible with most 28mm brands", not "White Scar Adeptus Astartes Space Marine heads". You can make Mycetic Spores because GW don't make models called that, but you can't make Female "Farseers" because GW make Farseer models.

It comes back to trademark law. You can claim a name is a trademark (ie Ultramarine, Farseer, Rhino APC) as long as it is not generic (can't trademark 'Manticore" for a toy manticore, can trademark Manticore Missile Launcher). BUT you have to make a product. GW does not make a product called a Cargo 8, even though GW books describe them as Imperial Guard trucks. So if someone makes a grimdark truck and calls it a Cargo 8, not only can they do it, but in doing so they can claim the name and GW would have call their trucks something else.

So now GW will not include anything a codex until there is a model ready to go, lest someone else make the model first.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So what SHOULD give armor saves, then? Should a missile exploding in your face?

Yes, because that missile is less powerful than a many-ton vehicle crushing you with its full weight. They probably should, however, have AP -3 like lascannons.

And how do we draw the line on what gets Stomped without a save? Sure, Guardsmen, yes. Marines, okay. Terminators, maybe. Rhinos? Leman Russes? Land Raiders?

Infantry models only. You know, the models that can actually be stepped on/run over/etc. Vehicles or any other models that are too large to be squished can't be attacked this way and you'd have to roll normal melee attacks.

Got it. A Scout Sentinel, a flimsy walker with an open cockpit, can take Stomp from an Imperial Knight.

But an Allarus Custodian, armored in the finest and most well-protected armor in the entire imperium, stronger in physical frame than even an Astartes, literally as strong and as tough as the Scout Sentinel (only better armored) gets squished immediately.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Got it. A Scout Sentinel, a flimsy walker with an open cockpit, can take Stomp from an Imperial Knight.

But an Allarus Custodian, armored in the finest and most well-protected armor in the entire imperium, stronger in physical frame than even an Astartes, literally as strong and as tough as the Scout Sentinel (only better armored) gets squished immediately.

The infantry model is small enough to fit under the knight's foot. The sentinel is too tall to fit under a knight's foot and can't be crushed. The sentinel can, however, be annihilated by the knight's sword.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Got it. A Scout Sentinel, a flimsy walker with an open cockpit, can take Stomp from an Imperial Knight.

But an Allarus Custodian, armored in the finest and most well-protected armor in the entire imperium, stronger in physical frame than even an Astartes, literally as strong and as tough as the Scout Sentinel (only better armored) gets squished immediately.

The infantry model is small enough to fit under the knight's foot. The sentinel is too tall to fit under a knight's foot and can't be crushed. The sentinel can, however, be annihilated by the knight's sword.

Really? Your explanation is that "The Sentinel is too tall"? Because an Allarus Custodian is pretty close to as tall, has the same strength, same toughness, better armor...

What stops the Knight from just kicking forward? And how would you model stomps against VEHICLES, MONSTERS, and BIKES? Because not all Knights have other melee weapons.

 Peregrine wrote:
Because terminators are still small and squishy compared to a tank, and not suicidal enough to use those power fists by making one swipe as they are crushed to death under the tank's tracks.

Not suicidal enough to take a swing at a vehicle that might not even be able to move faster than said terminators can walk, but apparently suicidal enough to stand in the open and let said tank (and it's allies) shoot them in the face at point blank range?

Also why is that same logic not applied to some putz with a meltagun being allowed to make a snap shot at the giant, walking death blender about to crash in them?

Also, Stomp being BS was not because of the random chart, but because it was a out of sequence attack with blast plates in a situation where the other player is forced to move as close together as their models allow, and could potentially hit units outside of the unit they were in assault with. The random chart was just the gak cherry on the gak sundae.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Really? Your explanation is that "The Sentinel is too tall"? Because an Allarus Custodian is pretty close to as tall, has the same strength, same toughness, better armor...

And is also physically small enough to fit under the knight's foot (and under the tracks of a tank, etc). A sentinel is not and must be attacked by other means. This is like asking why the gold space marine can't use his melee weapon to slaughter a guardsman standing on top of a ruin. Yes, the gold space marine has better strength and armor and weapons, but none of that changes the fact that the guardsman is standing on an elevated platform and is too far away to reach with a melee weapon.

What stops the Knight from just kicking forward?

Nothing. A kick, however, is less powerful than crushing something under its feet with its entire many-ton weight and so that attack would be resolved with a weaker profile.

(Or with a proper melee weapon, since there's no reason to kick the sentinel when you have a giant chainsaw sword that is perfect for destroying vehicles.)

And how would you model stomps against VEHICLES, MONSTERS, and BIKES?

Bikes are just infantry and get squished. Vehicles and monsters are too big to squish and get kicked with a weaker profile or attacked with one of the model's other weapons.

Because not all Knights have other melee weapons.

And, shockingly, those knights will not be as effective in melee. Why do you consider this to be a problem?

So, just to be clear, this is your proposal:

"Stomps that hit an INFANTRY or BIKER model automatically slay the model. Against other types of models, use [some profile TBD]."

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Not suicidal enough to take a swing at a vehicle that might not even be able to move faster than said terminators can walk, but apparently suicidal enough to stand in the open and let said tank (and it's allies) shoot them in the face at point blank range?

Good question. Why aren't you putting your models in cover or behind LOS blocking terrain? But if you feel like melee attacks against tanks aren't suicidally dangerous feel free to go try to hit a moving tank with a melee weapon. If you are fortunate enough to survive maybe I'll consider your opinion.

Also why is that same logic not applied to some putz with a meltagun being allowed to make a snap shot at the giant, walking death blender about to crash in them?

Because a melta gun, while a short-ranged attack, is not a melee attack and can be delivered from a safer distance.

Also, Stomp being BS was not because of the random chart, but because it was a out of sequence attack with blast plates in a situation where the other player is forced to move as close together as their models allow, and could potentially hit units outside of the unit they were in assault with. The random chart was just the gak cherry on the gak sundae.

Sure. I will agree that the rule was flawed in multiple ways. Fortunately that is not the rule anyone is proposing here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, just to be clear, this is your proposal:

"Stomps that hit an INFANTRY or BIKER model automatically slay the model. Against other types of models, use [some profile TBD]."

Correct, with an appropriate adjustment to the number of attacks made. For example, a vehicle moving across an infantry unit might only kill D3 models instead of rolling normal attacks.

(Ideally the unit would, as in previous editions, have the option to fall back instead. But apparently GW has decided that morale is no longer relevant and you're either fighting at full effectiveness or dead.)

 Peregrine wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
-

Good question. Why aren't you putting your models in cover or behind LOS blocking terrain? But if you feel like melee attacks against tanks aren't suicidally dangerous feel free to go try to hit a moving tank with a melee weapon. If you are fortunate enough to survive maybe I'll consider your opinion.

Because at least since fifth, the game did not (and arguable never has) been given the kind of nuance or mechanics where having an assault equipped unit sitting in cover was anything but a colossal waste of time and points. There is none of the dread that an urban or other close quarters should provide in game as it does in real life (there's a reason armored lances require infantry support), and since objective are generally army neutral there's rarely a situation where an army with gun vehicles needs to move them out of their deployment zone. This is worse in 8th edition, where they've made LOS/Cover so simplistic as to make it almost pointless for some armies. If you can see any part of the unit? You can shoot at it and damage all the models in it. You only get cover if your whole unit is touching the cover, meaning if you can't move your entire unit into another piece of terrain then you're effectively standing out in the open regardless if that's actually the case. And even if it is, it's a +1 to your armor save roll. Which is also effected by AP weapons. And as you've been pushing, there's no differences between a 6+ save and no save.

If the game had a proper stealth/fog of war system to allow units that need to move closer to actually do so, if armies like guard and tau had to be pushed forward from the first turn rather than just at the end of the game to grab objectives, and/or if assault armies had the tools to be able to shut down shooting rather than the only viable tactic being "Get stuck in as fast as humanily possible and hope you kill it", then I'd be fine with that. But because it's not, abstraction is necessary to make assault feel as GW wants it to.

Also, I'm a poor specimen to use as an example, since I'm flabby, out of shape, and generally abhor violence. That said, would you consider a Molotov cocktail a "melee weapon"?

Because a melta gun, while a short-ranged attack, is not a melee attack and can be delivered from a safer distance.

You were presenting it as a point of nerve, not range. A terminator seems more able to rationally think how to handle a situation where a vehicle is trying to flatten him and be able to attack back with his power fist than a random guardsman. Which is kind of the point: People want to be able to smartly use assault units, and that's not allowed if some units get "get out of trouble free" cards.

I'd like to see a bespoke rule for some vehicles in 9th Ed. where they are 2+ WS on the turn they charge, and then the following turns back to the usual 6+.

I'd like to see actual vehicle rules. This keyword thing is only useful if there's a lot of things that use it. There's hardly anything that uses the vehicle keyword.

In keeping with the OP’s post.

8th Edition clearly failed - let’s pick an edition somewhere between 3rd and 7th (I prefer either of those 2) and revert back to those rules - just advance the lore. 8th is essentially a rehash of 2nd and 3rd was a complete overhaul of the 2nd edition.

So if:
8E = 2E v1.1
7E = 3E-6E enhanced and revised v1.1
3E > 2E (was developed to replace it)
Therefore
7E > 8E

Why would you go back to a previously flawed concept which was completely invalidated upon the introduction of 3E?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I'd like to see actual vehicle rules. This keyword thing is only useful if there's a lot of things that use it. There's hardly anything that uses the vehicle keyword.

By returning to 3E-7E, measures could be put in place for an expanded chart. For instance: Battlesuit damage table, Monstrous Creature damage table - losing an arm or weapon is still possible. Take a look at how the Grey Knights broke Angron’s Black Sword on Armageddon, and had an easier time afterwards.

Why would you go back to a previously flawed concept which was completely invalidated upon the introduction of 3E?

To make money? For example in my country it is the norm that big pharma makes the state buy their medicin at high price, specially for stuff like cancer or specific hard to treat illnesses. When the patent for those ends, and people could now be getting their medicin cheaper, they do everything to make the old medicin seem bad, and the new high price one much better. By reseting and nerfing some of the rules, preferably for the armies that are bought the most, GW would asure that their sells would be going up, as people would be constantly trying to update their armies, while never really getting something they would be happy with. Bit like mobile games, where to keep up with the meta you have to drop 400$ per month or more.

7E was convoluted crap though. The reason why 8E is so minimal was to get rid of the rules bloat.
I'd rather it go back to a system that's more like refined version of 4E.