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.

Akiasura wrote:

 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

IThe problem is that you'd just get armies overloading to the max on battlecannons and plasma cannons and the like, because bringing anything less (like scatterlasers or pulse rifles) would be largely completely ineffectual against the most commonly faced armies in the game.

Creed scouting emperor titans (until the new AM dex)

Why is a dreadnought (a walking vehicle with a pilot) considered a vehicle, but a wraithknight (a walking vehicle with a pilot) is a monstrous creature? Oh I know, so they can sell more wraithknights.

 Toofast wrote:
Why is a dreadnought (a walking vehicle with a pilot) considered a vehicle, but a wraithknight (a walking vehicle with a pilot) is a monstrous creature? Oh I know, so they can sell more wraithknights.

Wraithknight is made of a material that has some organic qualities, and is an extension of the pilot's body in that it's piloted by interfacing with his or her twin's soul.

So it's an Evangelion.

A Dreadnought meanwhile is a clunky pile of metal hooked up to a life support machine.

Fliers exploding because theres a squad of men on the ground beneath them, surely you'd just put the infantry or w/e models on the flier base. (which is what we do at my gaming group anyway)
Vehicles not being able to fire overwatch from the defensive storm bolter or whatever on the roof.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 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

IThe problem is that you'd just get armies overloading to the max on battlecannons and plasma cannons and the like, because bringing anything less (like scatterlasers or pulse rifles) would be largely completely ineffectual against the most commonly faced armies in the game.

Not to be snarky, but isn't that basically how the game is today?

What doesn't make sense to me is why Heldrakes/Forgefiends/Maulerfiends (Daemonic spirits controlling a mechanical body as easily as if it was there own 'physical' one) are vehicles while Wraithlords/knights (Eldar spirits controlling wraithbone bodies as easily as if it was their own one) are MCs.

And don't give me that 'Dinobots are metal, Wraiths are made of warithbone, that's why' gak when Falcons/Waveserpents/etc. are made of wraithbone and are vehicles

Falcons and Serpents are vehicles that basically use Wraithbone where Imperials would use metal (only much, much more advanced).

Maulerfiends et al are metal-based machines that a demon has possessed. It can exert its will over it, even at times (5+) when the mechanism was destroyed.

Wraithlords are piles of Wraithbone, animated by psyker/soul energy. It has more in common with a greater demon than a walker. It has no internal mechanisms to damage. Not even redundant organs. Until the body is completely deformed, it is still fully functional. You can't break a belt or breach an engine.

But you can blow off a weapon (weapon destroyed), blow off a leg (immobilized), put enough firepower at it to conceivably stun and/or shock the pilot (stun and shock) and you can reasonably one shot it by hitting where the pilot sits (destroyed).

Regardless, the division mechanically between vehicles and MCs is so blurred and makes little sense. Better off with one common mechanic to deal with vehicles and MCs, and then have a special USR for vehicles and one for MCs that dictates immunity to 'X' or susceptibility to 'Y'.

You keep thinking there is a pilot. There really isn't. There is a being. It is the wraithlord.

You could blow off a weapon, but if you blew off a leg, it could crawl. Just like a DP or Nid.

The division is a line in the sand somewhere. Lots has been posted about it in Proposed Rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Nids are less in line with being MCs instead of vehicles than Wraithlords, and they're the poster child of the class! Redundant organs are good, but not having organs is even less mechanical.)

Right, I was thinking of the titans there.

Xeno nonsense confuses me.

Regardless, I think its reasonable that 4/6 damage table results can apply to most MCs, and I don't see a reason why the division exists anymore.

In a thread about not making sense, I think the vehicle/MC division is one of them.

Twin Linked. I do not understand, why if you take a gun, lets say a Heavy Bolter, and you strap another heavy bolter to it, that means that if you miss with one gun, you get to reroll it... why would that be, they are aiming at the same place.

What TL should be is double the shots. If a Heavy Bolter fires 3 shots, then a TL Heavy Bolter should fire 6 shots

A model who spend his entire turn running still won't cover nearly as much distance as a model who stops to fight.

 Brother Sergeant Bob wrote:
What TL should be is double the shots. If a Heavy Bolter fires 3 shots, then a TL Heavy Bolter should fire 6 shots

Or, it fires 3, but each hit results in an extra hit as well.

That a power-klaw is some how more powerful than a kan-klaw. You mean to tell me some ork wearing ramshackle armor with a rusty power-klaw is more powerful than a ramshackle rusty robot with a Grot inside ?

Also that a Mawloc is capable of suffering a deepstriking mishap even against infantry or even some vehicles. Its a tunneling worm, its bigger than most vehicles anyway. And a against a skimmer, it should knock that away automatically given its not even touching the ground.

Stomp Attacks which can be placed within 3 inch of where the last one was. How does this not move the walker or creature if its stomping on things that aren't even in base contact ?

+6 saves. Whats the point in even making it ?

Poision working on MC like the riptide and wraith-knight. (Though I suppose this can be explained, also it makes up for them not being vulnerable to things that a walker would be.)

The Super-Heavy damage table. I doubt if something is hit by a Volcano Cannon Kame-hame-ha, Belly Gun or hit by a melee weapon the size of a mega-chopper or doomfist is going to walk away without loosing a weapon or function or two.

 vipoid wrote:
A model who spend his entire turn running still won't cover nearly as much distance as a model who stops to fight.

 Brother Sergeant Bob wrote:
What TL should be is double the shots. If a Heavy Bolter fires 3 shots, then a TL Heavy Bolter should fire 6 shots

Or, it fires 3, but each hit results in an extra hit as well.

Beat be to it, exactly what I was gunna say

Why no SM Helicopters?

Why do drop pods need to alter their course to prevent them landing on enemy infantry?

Surely any infantry that ended up under them would just be pulverised?

 The Wise Dane wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 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

IThe problem is that you'd just get armies overloading to the max on battlecannons and plasma cannons and the like, because bringing anything less (like scatterlasers or pulse rifles) would be largely completely ineffectual against the most commonly faced armies in the game.

Not to be snarky, but isn't that basically how the game is today?

To some degree you'll always get that, however we see tons of weapons like autocannons and scatterlasers and the like on current gaming boards, they're excellent at forcing tons of wounds and at engaging light vehicles.

.

Bharring wrote:
You keep thinking there is a pilot. There really isn't. There is a being. It is the wraithlord.

Same thing with the Dinobots. As Blacksails said, it makes no sense that one is an MC and one is a vehicle 'just coz'.

 vipoid wrote:
A model who spend his entire turn running still won't cover nearly as much distance as a model who stops to fight.

 Brother Sergeant Bob wrote:
What TL should be is double the shots. If a Heavy Bolter fires 3 shots, then a TL Heavy Bolter should fire 6 shots

Or, it fires 3, but each hit results in an extra hit as well.

That's the way it used to be. 1 to-hit roll, 2 hits if you succeeded.

 The Wise Dane wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 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

IThe problem is that you'd just get armies overloading to the max on battlecannons and plasma cannons and the like, because bringing anything less (like scatterlasers or pulse rifles) would be largely completely ineffectual against the most commonly faced armies in the game.

Not to be snarky, but isn't that basically how the game is today?

We have had this in every edition so far, people loading up on what is currently the biggest bang for your buck weapons. Youn have it an all of the different varietries of wargames.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 The Wise Dane wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 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

IThe problem is that you'd just get armies overloading to the max on battlecannons and plasma cannons and the like, because bringing anything less (like scatterlasers or pulse rifles) would be largely completely ineffectual against the most commonly faced armies in the game.

Not to be snarky, but isn't that basically how the game is today?

We have had this in every edition so far, people loading up on what is currently the biggest bang for your buck weapons. Youn have it an all of the different varietries of wargames.

True, and that will always happen, but people shouldn't be actively punished for taking basic troops. 40k being a huge game with a lot of troops on the table is one of the largest draws

Players are also punished for not taking troops. There have been editions where only troops choices could claim objectives and it was a game of targeting and picking off all the enemies troops choices while keeping one of your own alive to hide on an objective and win by default. The whole playing the objectives thing.
but we arent talking degree, we are talking absolutes. if the tendancy exists, it exists. And it exists in all wargames. Pick up a few real life military wargames manuals and you will see the same thing. Look at the Cold War where the countries ran their coffers dry stocking up on the most effective weapons. Heck, sun Tzu hints at it in The Art of War.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Players are also punished for not taking troops. There have been editions where only troops choices could claim objectives and it was a game of targeting and picking off all the enemies troops choices while keeping one of your own alive to hide on an objective and win by default. The whole playing the objectives thing.
but we arent talking degree, we are talking absolutes. if the tendancy exists, it exists. And it exists in all wargames. Pick up a few real life military wargames manuals and you will see the same thing. Look at the Cold War where the countries ran their coffers dry stocking up on the most effective weapons. Heck, sun Tzu hints at it in The Art of War.

Real life is not a game however, and a game is remarkably easier to balance.

For older editions, yes, troops were required. I thought it was a good idea, though I don't think troops should be that much weaker than other choices. Troops should be a cheaper horde option for codexes, able to pump firepower out at a respectable, but not obscene level, while putting bodies on the field that can achieve something in numbers. Nowadays there aren't a lot of reasons to take them, and people swap them out as fast as they can

I don't like the idea of a troops tax. I don't want units I took the time to convert and paint to be a handicap for me, especially given the expense of the unit.

Which army do you play? Are ALL troop choices for that worthless? I mean no a single unit being worth taking? Are there NO, not even one roles that it would possibly play in a game? ect ect...
And you cannot discount real life examples or examples from other games. if you want a perfectly balanced game where both sides are perfectly equal with all game pieces matching from one side to another, there is always checkers or chess.
There is no perfect game (even checkes or chess. heck even tic tac toe should ALWAYS go to the player who goes first if you sit and mathmatically figure out moves and possible moves and remember all of the possibilities.
The armies are not designed to be the same. Some armies are designed to rely more heavily on non-troop choices than others and the points are intentionally set up to represent this. I would say if you want to field an army of troops, you are being set up with new and tactical/strategic challenges. The question is are you up to that challenge? If not that is perfectly fine and it says nothing about you as a person. There might be a different army that it would be easier with. Just as with real life, so too it is in this game. Different forces have different strengths and weaknesses.

es, I can jump on the "GW is evil" bandwagon, but even I who is likely the president of the "Anti GW Club" is forced to admit that there is no perfect game and that a more skilled or a better mathmaticianhas better chances of winning games. Especially if it is a skilled mathmatician.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Players are also punished for not taking troops.

Not any more.

 EVIL INC wrote:
There have been editions where only troops choices could claim objectives and it was a game of targeting and picking off all the enemies troops choices while keeping one of your own alive to hide on an objective and win by default. The whole playing the objectives thing.

I thought that was a good idea.

It gave you a reason to include troops beyond mere killing power and also gave you a way to stop your opponent holding objectives, without needing to kill his entire army.

 vipoid wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Players are also punished for not taking troops.

Not any more.

 EVIL INC wrote:
There have been editions where only troops choices could claim objectives and it was a game of targeting and picking off all the enemies troops choices while keeping one of your own alive to hide on an objective and win by default. The whole playing the objectives thing.

I thought that was a good idea.

It gave you a reason to include troops beyond mere killing power and also gave you a way to stop your opponent holding objectives, without needing to kill his entire army.

I dont have my rule book on me but isnt there something about "objective secured" or some such?

 EVIL INC wrote:

I dont have my rule book on me but isnt there something about "objective secured" or some such?

There is, but there's also a massive difference between only troops being able to score, and every unit being able to score (but troops are slightly better at it).

So troops ARE better at it than other units then? So yes, that would mean that there IS a penalty for not taking troops.

Regardless believe what you want. I will continue to win games using some of the squishiest "worthless for the poits" troops in the game.