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.

Deadshot wrote:Just change it so that any shot that ignores the model in question's armour ignores FNP.

Congratulations, you single-handedly killed Dark Eldar! Have a cookie!

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Deadshot wrote:Just change it so that any shot that ignores the model in question's armour ignores FNP.

Congratulations, you single-handedly killed Dark Eldar! Have a cookie!

He also just killed Nurgle within Chaos Daemons.

Uh, they have Invulns so nothing ignores their armour, . yeah, lets go with that explanation.

Vaktathi wrote:the bigger issue is that you can throw scatterlasers, heavy bolters, splinter cannons, etc at them all day long and kill very little because of the 4+ FNP on top of the 3+ armor.

Well, take a deep breath here and do the math. A model with a 3+ save and a 4+ FNP is exactly as easy to kill as a model with a 2+. FNP is exactly the same as artificer armor.

Or, it just turns power armored guys into terminators, except they don't get a storm bolter, or power fist, and have no options to take lightning claws or thunderhammers, and cant' take homing beacons, or deepstrike.

It's WAY easy to see FNP as more than it actually is, especially when you consider that the exactly one thing FNP does can be countered by a lot of weapons out there.

Deadshot wrote:Uh, they have Invulns so nothing ignores their armour, . yeah, lets go with that explanation.

Surprisingly it doesn't hold up within the current context between armor and invulnerable save used within the book, meaning everything ignores it's "Armor" but not its invulnerable save. Kinda why one makes more specific thoughts on the matter when it comes to USR

You've still hurt Dark Eldar pretty badly though.

Ailaros wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:the bigger issue is that you can throw scatterlasers, heavy bolters, splinter cannons, etc at them all day long and kill very little because of the 4+ FNP on top of the 3+ armor.

Well, take a deep breath here and do the math. A model with a 3+ save and a 4+ FNP is exactly as easy to kill as a model with a 2+. FNP is exactly the same as artificer armor.

Or, it just turns power armored guys into terminators, except they don't get a storm bolter, or power fist, and have no options to take lightning claws or thunderhammers, and cant' take homing beacons, or deepstrike.

The difference is that instead of being 40pts each they often end up being functionally 20-23pts each, and in far larger numbers. Yeah, a terminator would be a lot less scary with just a CCW instead of a powerfist. When you have twice as many and they can move 12" a turn and can still DS, or ride in a transport instead, and take all sorts of special weapons (e.g. BA Assault Marines with a Priest), and still have enough of those special CC weapons in the unit (through sergeant/characters/etc) to matter, it becomes an entirely different issue.

The numbers alone can make all the difference. Take a Leman Russ, remove all it's guns and leave it with a bolter. Make it 15pts and available in units of 1-10. A more exaggerated example, but same principle, you can have too much defensive capability on too many models and even lacking the offensive abilities of units more typical of that toughness they can still be overdone.

FNP went from something that only a couple units and characters have to being available in most codex's and in a whole more units and in some cases entire armies.

It's WAY easy to see FNP as more than it actually is, especially when you consider that the exactly one thing FNP does can be countered by a lot of weapons out there.

Yes, an reinforces that those weapons need to be taken above what should be the more common and utilitarian non AP2 weapons.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Deadshot wrote:Uh, they have Invulns so nothing ignores their armour, . yeah, lets go with that explanation.

Surprisingly it doesn't hold up within the current context between armor and invulnerable save used within the book, meaning everything ignores it's "Armor" but not its invulnerable save. Kinda why one makes more specific thoughts on the matter when it comes to USR

You've still hurt Dark Eldar pretty badly though.

Well, if I recal correctly, Daemons in the Daemon book have a special rule called Daemonic or something, which in turn leads to fearless and Daemon Assault and EW. However, they also have something that says "The save listed on its profile is Invulnerable" This would mean nothing ignores its armour as its armour (the profile) is actually invulnerable. Meaning Plaguebearers till get their FNP and unfortunatley so do GUOs.

As for DE, so? They rarely run infantry in a competitve list. Venomspam is al the rage now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And it seems the trend in newer dexes to be betteer than anything before. The Vanilla dex has 3 units with FNP. Command Squads, Cassius, and any character attached to a Command Squad, and ONLY if the Apothecary is alive GK have the same lack of FNP but teirs goes on 2 wound Termies, so the penalty is migitated. A 10 man Tac squad rapid firing at Paladins with Apothecary. let's say 2 pallies (Including Apoth)with all swords and no upgrades except the Apothecary and one Master Crafted sword. Both costs the same.

All marines in 12" let's say.

20 shots
13.33333 hits
6.6666 wounds
1.1111 wounds after armour.
0.5 wounds after FNP.

Vaktathi wrote:The difference is that instead of being 40pts each they often end up being functionally 20-23pts each, and in far larger numbers.

If you could give regular marines artificer armor, this points cost is in line with what they'd cost. Plus, artificer armor is a model upgrade, and isn't depending on an IC staying alive in close combat to keep the upgrade.

Vaktathi wrote:Yes, an reinforces that those weapons need to be taken above what should be the more common and utilitarian non AP2 weapons.

This doesn't make any sense. It would be like saying that the existence of AV14 means that you need to take weapons to handle anti-tank over its more common and utilitarian non-S9 or non-melta weapons. If all you ever wanted to take is scatter lasers and heavy bolters, then there are things you should be angrier about than FNP.

You take the weapons you need to handle different target types. There's nothing special about FNP units here.

As for DE, so? They rarely run infantry in a competitive list. Venomspam is al the rage now.

So..To fix something that's a problem in one codex you'd rather ruin several other competitive type lists for another codex (Coven, Web Portal Foot lists, wych lists), well done.

This would mean nothing ignores its armour as its armour (the profile) is actually invulnerable. Meaning Plaguebearers till get their FNP and unfortunately so do GUOs.

The ability is listed as "If this model has a save characteristic, it is counted as it's Invulnerable Save, some will also have an armor save but will be noted separately in their entry"

And it'd be jumped on by WAAC players immediately, as they aren't listed with an armor save, ergo, no more plaguebearer FNP.

Ailaros wrote:
If you could give regular marines artificer armor, this points cost is in line with what they'd cost.

*IF* you could. You can't. There are some things that just don't balance correctly with points alone, and thus aren't implemented.

and isn't depending on an IC staying alive in close combat to keep the upgrade.

Not all that difficult really in a lot of situations, and against shooting it's rather easy to keep that IC alive.

This doesn't make any sense. It would be like saying that the existence of AV14 means that you need to take weapons to handle anti-tank over its more common and utilitarian non-S9 or non-melta weapons.

Um, not really. AV14 tends to be very limited in numbers and availability. Primarily they are Imperial and Ork HS units. Most are just as vulnerable to CC as a Rhino aside from the Land Raider.

If suddenly AV14 vehicles could be taken for relatively cheap by most armies in a bunch of slots, then yeah, it'd mean that you would need to take significantly more S9+/melta weaponry. The simple existence of AV14 does not. Increased availability would.

If FNP were still only on a handful of units, it'd be one thing. When it's possible for entire armies to sport it, that's another.

If all you ever wanted to take is scatter lasers and heavy bolters, then there are things you should be angrier about than FNP.

Not my point either, nobody is saying that that's all you should take. It's that units sporting FNP typically require what amounts to anti-tank weaponry or ordnance weaponry to deal with. It makes those weapons that you'd normally use for such units unable to deal with them when FNP is that widely available. Hence why it reinforces the need to spam AP2 weapons instead of trying to take more generalized weaponry.

You take the weapons you need to handle different target types.

Right, and I'm saying the problem is that FNP is reinforcing taking more and more AP2 than one should really otherwise need to take and making weapons you'd normally take to handle such targets ineffective.

There's nothing special about FNP units here.

Some yes, but when you see it on everything in an army or mostly so, then that's a different issue, because suddenly the weapons you suddenly brought to engage infantry are not doing the job and you don't have enough AP2 weapons to supplement that, while the number of infantry you still have to engage really isn't any different than if they weren't sporting FNP.

Some yes, but when you see it on everything in an army or mostly so,

There's only four potential armies that can take it on everything or mostly

Blood Angels: Sanguinary Priest

Chaos: Plague marines (Because it's one of the only still decent units in the codex)

Dark Eldar: Who's saves and toughness suck and require pain tokens

Chaos Daemons: If Nurgle lost this here they'd have no reason to be in this codex.

I'd still say have it that AP3 also penetrates FNP.

Why?

Yeah, FNP isn't everywhere and endemic. FNP is usually relegated to a single or a couple of overcosted places in armies that can take it at all (painboyz, guardsmen with medikits, apothecaries, etc.) Really it's just blood angels that can usefully spam the hell out of it. If you don't like this, then don't like blood angels, FNP itself is fine.

Plus, I don't get what the moral argument here is for how much FNP there "should" be in the game or how many plasma guns and power fists you "should" have to take to be able to counter them. Sv3+ FNP is a type of unit that is best handled with a few certain classes of weapons. All target types have a class of weapons that are optimal against them. FNP is no different from anything else in this regard.

I mean, if FNP was like the old monolith where it was AV14 that was basically immune to chainfists, meltaguns and ordnance so that you HAD to take S9 and S10 weapons to stand any chance of hurting it, that would be one thing, but FNP is something much different. Anything that is nothing more survivable than artificer armor (which is still able to be killed by small arms fire, etc.) is hardly game breaking.

What if, now, now just work with me here.

what if we take all these wound allocations and problems from the 5th editions


and put them over in the 6th edition.

Backspacehacker wrote:What if, now, now just work with me here.

what if we take all these wound allocations and problems from the 5th editions


and put them over in the 6th edition.

I intrigued, but explain further please.

This is a prime example of overcomplication.

Roll a models armour save to prevent it taking damage/wounds.

Exception,1/If the weapons AP is lower than the models save it can not take a saving throw.

Exception 2/if the model has a cover/invunerable save this may be taken instead of its armour save.(And is not affected by AP.)

Exceptoin3/If the model has FNP it gets ANOTHER save , it can use after prevouis saves....

Exception 4/if the model is a Vehicle it uses a completly different sytem entirley!

How is this simple compard to ONE system that covers ALL weapons and units , NO exceptions?

Like I said the game play is fine.
The game mechanic chioce and multiple resolution methods are less than desirable, for elegant intuitive instructions to play the game.

Vaktathi wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Why is FNP an issue? I never understood that.

Two reasons, first as already noted, interactions with other abilities. Second, it's far too widespread, reinforcing the need for heavy weapons spam and AP2. When you can get entire armies of jump packed equipped Space Marines deepstriking with almost no scatter and sporting enough damage reduction to laugh at multiple squads dumping full rapid fire loads into them, something is wrong. FNP was one thing when it was confined to a couple of characters and one or two units, but it has become far too widely available and is simply far too reliable.

That's a problem with BA, who didn't even need a codex and could have fitted into vanilla marines fine (specal charector, can take assault marines as troops, vehicles +20 points and fast).

Zyllos wrote:Why not just make the squad inside the Transport become affected by the Damage Result of the transport?

Right now, if you get Stunned or Shakened, the unit inside can just ignore it by getting out. This should be changed to being affected if they even get out.

So a transport that is Shakened means the exiting Squad can only move or charge once getting out. A Stunned transport is basically just stuck there, but the squad should be able to exit the transport, just can not move after exiting.

So, don't take transports in other words. Anything that glances one of my chimeras, and the squad inside is useless for a turn? No thanks.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Some yes, but when you see it on everything in an army or mostly so,

There's only four potential armies that can take it on everything or mostly

Blood Angels: Sanguinary Priest

Chaos: Plague marines (Because it's one of the only still decent units in the codex)

Dark Eldar: Who's saves and toughness suck and require pain tokens

Chaos Daemons: If Nurgle lost this here they'd have no reason to be in this codex.

I'd still say have it that AP3 also penetrates FNP.

So, basically the only army which really has "too much" FNP are blood angels, due to their bubble effect.
The only logic consequence would be changing sanguine priests, not FNP. No need to burn dark eldar, tyranids (yes, they depend on FNP, too), and all that nurgle-spawn, to fix one model in one army. All those apothecaries, doks and medics across other codices are hardly the problem.

Everything I see about transports in this thread seems to be:

"Transports are OP, nerf them"
"Yeah, I agree"
*nerfs transports even the slightest bit*
"OMG who would ever take transports!!! FAIL!!"

nothing wrong with FNP, fix wound alo and KP first, then move onto the less broken stuff.

However if FNP does need a nerf, just make it a 5+, units are still tough, just not as tough as they were

Lanrak wrote:This is a prime example of overcomplication.

Roll a models armour save to prevent it taking damage/wounds.

Exception,1/If the weapons AP is lower than the models save it can not take a saving throw.

Exception 2/if the model has a cover/invunerable save this may be taken instead of its armour save.(And is not affected by AP.)

Exceptoin3/If the model has FNP it gets ANOTHER save , it can use after prevouis saves....

Exception 4/if the model is a Vehicle it uses a completly different sytem entirley!

How is this simple compard to ONE system that covers ALL weapons and units , NO exceptions?

Like I said the game play is fine.
The game mechanic chioce and multiple resolution methods are less than desirable, for elegant intuitive instructions to play the game.

Wait, how is that "overly complicated"? It takes literally 2 minutes to grasp. It'd be one thing if the save rules created long delays in game, but it doesn't! Furthermore, vehicles don't use a completely different system. Simplicity for the sake of simplicity is not something to strive for.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Everything I see about transports in this thread seems to be:

"Transports are OP, nerf them"
"Yeah, I agree"
*nerfs transports even the slightest bit*
"OMG who would ever take transports!!! FAIL!!"

It's generally not the same people, or the people wanting to balance it hard in one painful direction. (MEQ smashing because they hate space marines, or GEQ smashing because they don't play them)

Unit1126PLL wrote:Everything I see about transports in this thread seems to be:

"Transports are OP, nerf them"
"Yeah, I agree"
*nerfs transports even the slightest bit*
"OMG who would ever take transports!!! FAIL!!"

Almost as if making a rules set for a game like 40k is a hugely complicated and costly affair and the only people who insist it's "easy" are teenagers who've never worked on a large project, of any kind, before.
Still, I'm sure a company that's dedicated to providing returns for its shareholders and spends hundreds of thousands of pounds on games development couldn't possibly compete with 3 minutes of an adolsensent's time.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Everything I see about transports in this thread seems to be:

"Transports are OP, nerf them"
"Yeah, I agree"
*nerfs transports even the slightest bit*
"OMG who would ever take transports!!! FAIL!!"

To be fair, most of the suggestions center around either making transports as easy to kill/neutralize as they were back in 4E (when such vehicles were used primarily for mobile terrain that frequently died to mid-strength anti-infantry weapons and tracked armies that tried to mech up were de-mech'd turn 1 quite often), do something to vehicles as a whole which also effects gun tanks negatively that really aren't an issue, or have a disproportionate effect on non-MEQ armies.

As someone who fielded an army that used lots of transports in 4E simply for theme, I remember how awful they were, and a lot of the suggestions center around returning them to that by people who don't seem to remember 4E

I agree to Vaktahi. Durability of transports are just right, a decent heavy weapon (heavy as as in "makes big holes", not "can't move and shoot") will blow almost all of them away, strong anti-infantry weapons also destroy them just fine.

Units simply get too many benefits from being inside a transport, with almost no drawback for a lot of them.

Other than being inside an exploding transport should be more deadly, the transport rules are fine by me. The cheap cost of transports, especially for Marines is the bigger issue. Make the cost more in line with the advantage they bring.

Vehicle rules are quite good IMHO. Pricing is another thing.

And I kinda agree with Ailaros on FNP thing. It isn't bad in itself, but the abundance of it in one codex makes it stupid. Remove Sang priests and the problem is close to gone. It's not BRB's fault, it's BA's.

Macok wrote:Vehicle rules are quite good IMHO. Pricing is another thing.

And I kinda agree with Ailaros on FNP thing. It isn't bad in itself, but the abundance of it in one codex makes it stupid. Remove Sang priests and the problem is close to gone. It's not BRB's fault, it's BA's.

Agree with everything. It's not the vehicle rules, it's that they're cheap as chips. Try playing razorspam with Black Templars, on the other hand, and transports suddenly aren't that OP anymore.

@ Almighty Walrus.
SImplicity to improve the game play, faster resolution that is more intuitive, IS a valid chioce.(Well for game developers not influenced by GW plc corperate managment anyway.)

Way more so than complicating things for the sake of it.

And vehicles have a saving throw that affected by AP of the attacking weapon ?
And they have invunerable saves and FNP too do they?
Are we loking at a diffrent game ?

An objective assesment of the 5th ed 40k rules book.Comparing it to other rules sets avalable .
Shows it is poolry defined, over complicated and counter intuitive.

Am not talking about the game play of 40k which I think is fine as is.

But the instructions to play the game are an overcomplicated , counter intuitive holistic mess.

Some people like this so they can spend time arguing about them rather than playing the game.
But most gamers prefer playing the game over , arguing over RAW RAI...

Some vehicles have invulnerable saves and AP1 has a better chance of dealing lasting damage. The save system doesn't slow down gameplay, you learn it by heart after five or so games. It's not even complicated and there's no rules interpretation gaps in the armour save rules whatsoever. I don't see the problem. I personally think it makes way more sense to have a separate part for vehicles, as they're generally way tougher than some poor sod on the ground, even if said sod has Terminator Armour.