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.

 Blacksails wrote:

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

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

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

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

I completely agree.

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImAGeek wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the most part, it makes sense:


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

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

.

 vipoid wrote:

changemod wrote:

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

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

Ah, finally someone who agrees with me on that!

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

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

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

changemod wrote:

Ah, finally someone who agrees with me on that!

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

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

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

changemod wrote:

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

I admit that's interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

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

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

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

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

 vipoid wrote:

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

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

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

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

pm713 wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Ouch.

pm713 wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

all of close combat.

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

Stubborn makes sense, but i still hate it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On that note another weird one came to mind

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

 TheSilo wrote:
In Chess:

- How can castles move?

- Why are religious leaders so deadly?

- Why can't the infantry turn?

Because it's necessary for the game.

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

 Gamerely wrote:

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

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

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

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