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.

Joey wrote:
Feel No Pain explicitly states that it cannot be taken against "any other wound against which no armour saves can be taken". If you don't get an armour save, you don't get a FNP.
But why bother reading the rulebook before you start slagging it off as being badly written

Wrong.
If the shot is Str4 AP3 and you have T4 Sv4+ you roll FNP.
And that's not really what he was saying anyway. He was saying that FNP causes issues when there are effects that happen on an unsaved wound - like Pinning (to use one from the BRB). If you make FNP do you still test for pinning?

Joey wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I guess I worded my point badly; what I meant was that simplicity isn't something to strive for above all else. If you simply ignore everything else and change rules around to make stuff simpler, chances are you're going to lose what made the rules work in the first place. Besides, the FNP and unsaved wound issue could simply be resolved by making FNP a save or clarifying that any wounds still count as unsaved. That's not a problem with overcomplication, that's a problem with GW doing a shoddy job in the first place.

Feel No Pain explicitly states that it cannot be taken against "any other wound against which no armour saves can be taken". If you don't get an armour save, you don't get a FNP.
But why bother reading the rulebook before you start slagging it off as being badly written

...I didn't start slagging it off as being badly written?

@Joey.
How can you objectivley asses a rule book if you only compare it to itself, or previous edition of itself?

Those games I listed contained the work of Jervis Johinson, Andy Chambers, Alessio Cavatore, and other equaly well known game developers.(Developed with their player base , fans and developers working together!)

But comparing the works of these developers free from GW coprerate influence, to 40k .To get a more objective assesment of the 5th ed rule book.
Is some how 'invalidated' because you never personaly played any of these or other games?

I am sorry you have such a narrow and ill- informed view of the table top minature game hobby...

Ill let you carry on with the circular subjective and pointless discussion of the 5th ed rule book now.

Lanrak wrote:@Joey.
How can you objectivley asses a rule book if you only compare it to itself, or previous edition of itself?

Those games I listed contained the work of Jervis Johinson, Andy Chambers, Alessio Cavatore, and other equaly well known game developers.(Developed with their player base , fans and developers working together!)

The same guys that are hated and reviled for the current CSM and DA Codices IIRC?

Codex creep and very staggered releases really ruin the game for me. I doubt 6th ed will do anything to fix this. The core ruleset isn't that bad, to be honest.

rigeld2 wrote:

Joey wrote:
Feel No Pain explicitly states that it cannot be taken against "any other wound against which no armour saves can be taken". If you don't get an armour save, you don't get a FNP.
But why bother reading the rulebook before you start slagging it off as being badly written

Wrong.
If the shot is Str4 AP3 and you have T4 Sv4+ you roll FNP.
And that's not really what he was saying anyway. He was saying that FNP causes issues when there are effects that happen on an unsaved wound - like Pinning (to use one from the BRB). If you make FNP do you still test for pinning?

And as a DE player I am extremely grateful that this is the case. I'm a bit worried that changes in the FNP rules will destroy DE just to nerf Paladins and other very powerful FNP units.

My blood angels decent of angels army also worries about the nerf of feel no pain because it would make my men just to easy to kill with small arms fire.

commisar rhodes wrote:My blood angels decent of angels army also worries about the nerf of feel no pain because it would make my men just to easy to kill with small arms fire.

Not sure if serious...?
So I guess if they remove FNP completely you will be on par with SM, GK, DA, BT, SW, CSM's (bar Plagues) troops and harder than IG, Orks, E, DE, SoB, Tyranids and Tau troops. If they nerf it to 5+ BA will still be more resilient troops then all of those. Oh no! Being the most durable = too easy to kill!

Raumkampfer wrote:Codex creep and very staggered releases really ruin the game for me. I doubt 6th ed will do anything to fix this. The core ruleset isn't that bad, to be honest.

This bears repeating. A lot of the issues with the game in general aren't necessarily issues with the core rulebook, but rather codex books being written in the manner of giggly fanboys. Nobody complained about the vehicle damage table until highly capable min/maxable troops units became very widespread and lots of silly rules (e.g. ignoring shaken/stunned results 11/12 times for 5pts) started coming about.

A lot of these issues are likely to continue because the design studio has decided to make them defining features of armies, those will require core rulebook changes. Others however really just require the studio to do a modicum of playtesting and have even just a small handful of outside people look at a book before release, as the players seem to be capable of breaking them inside and out within a couple of days of getting them and often issues are usually identified the second someone starts flipping through.

commisar rhodes wrote:My blood angels decent of angels army also worries about the nerf of feel no pain because it would make my men just to easy to kill with small arms fire.

It would make them still harder than other marines to kill? If you'd be having a hard time with a DoA army because FNP got nerfed to a 5+, there's probably something else going on. Marines as is are not easy to kill with small arms fire. Marines with an additional backup save are never going to be "too easy" to kill with small arms fire.

Vaktathi wrote:

Raumkampfer wrote:Codex creep and very staggered releases really ruin the game for me. I doubt 6th ed will do anything to fix this. The core ruleset isn't that bad, to be honest.

This bears repeating. A lot of the issues with the game in general aren't necessarily issues with the core rulebook, but rather codex books being written in the manner of giggly fanboys. Nobody complained about the vehicle damage table until highly capable min/maxable troops units became very widespread and lots of silly rules (e.g. ignoring shaken/stunned results 11/12 times for 5pts) started coming about.

+1
One can find numerous vehicles that are useful while not being stupidly cheap spammable or incredibly powerful. Increase the cost of like 10-20% worst ones and suddenly everything is A-OK. Even easier with FNP.
Hard boning vehicles in general rules will bring top togs to medium level but push back much larger group into oblivion.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Lanrak wrote:@Joey.
How can you objectivley asses a rule book if you only compare it to itself, or previous edition of itself?

Those games I listed contained the work of Jervis Johinson, Andy Chambers, Alessio Cavatore, and other equaly well known game developers.(Developed with their player base , fans and developers working together!)

The same guys that are hated and reviled for the current CSM and DA Codices IIRC?

Ugh, you also forgot codex Chaos Daemons.

I'm gona say the easiest way to tone down FNP would be to reduce it to 5+ and COMPLETELY remove the bubble effect. For units that have the bubble allow them to choose a unit within 6" to have it or something similar to this.

Vehicles are fine, the problem is the mech spam. Limit the number of transports an army can take, make troops inside them suffer damage from hits or increase their points cost to stop the spam.

Wound allocation can be solved by nearest to furthest model and then set an order in which weapon types wound (e.g. Assault, Heavy, Pistol, Rapid fire) or something similar.

Make the rules written more CLEARLY. Such as FNP is taken after wounds are suffered therefore pinning still applies etc. etc. for all the not so clear rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also don't let Matt Ward design Special Characters. or any space marine relatated codices.