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.

How would you guys feel about the idea of jink being different from a cover save? meaning they would not be effected by ignores cover rule. But to counter act that, they cant jink out of any blast weapons and must take the armor save instead.


I ask this because every time we play a game at my FLGS every one seems to be in agreement that a jink should not be a cover save but an entirely different type of save.

Well it would be one way to nerf bikes. Things like IA's will absolutely massacre bike squads.

I don't see why a jink save should be anything different then cover.

I like this idea in theory since "cover" represents an obstruction to the firer's view while Jink is literally getting out of the way.
But in practice I think it gives too much of an advantage to certain armies (specifically Eldar) that have a lot of Jinking units.

The best way to balance it would be to make all rules that apply to cover (whether ignoring it or boosting it) would not apply to a Jink save. So now you would still get a 4+ Jink against templates and other ignore-cover weapons, but stealth and shrouded would have no affect either.

Overall, though, it complicates the game by adding one more thing to remember or have to look up, so I'm not in favor of it.

Oh yeah i agree more rules is not fun.

Hell i myself run a RW bike army and abuse the hell outta rerollable jink of 2+ on a command squad.

I don't think Jink saves should allowed to be made vs Overwatch, but aside from that, it seems okay for the most part

If you cant make jink saves against overwatch you completely neuter reavers. A tac squad with just bolters will massacre you on the way in.

lusciifi wrote:
If you cant make jink saves against overwatch you completely neuter reavers. A tac squad with just bolters will massacre you on the way in.

Read that as reserves not reavers. Whats the toughness of reavers?

Fair point on the Reavers: 20 snap-firing bolters kill, on average, 1 Reaver. (Assuming 5+ FNP and that they did not get the +1T combat drug. Against a turn 1/2 charge it's worse, if your Reavers are T5 it's not nearly as bad.) That's a bigger deal than it sounds against a squad that's usually only 3-6 guys.

Reavers could really use a 4+ armor save, but that's a different story.

There is no reason a unit (especially one with Skilled rider) shouldn't be able to Jink while charging. They know they are about to be shot at, so they would inevitably dodge-n-weaver on the way in.
Rulewise, once you decide to overwatch you have chosen the assaulting unit as a target, thus Jink would apply.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

lusciifi wrote:
If you cant make jink saves against overwatch you completely neuter reavers. A tac squad with just bolters will massacre you on the way in.

Read that as reserves not reavers. Whats the toughness of reavers?

T4 base just like all of the eldar bikes. 1 in 6 chance to roll T5 with combat drugs.

Seems like a largely unnecessary thing to do.

I've always felt that cover would work better as a BS modifier than a save, makes a bit more sense and solves this problem straight up.

Only problem there is that a BS modifier would hurt orc shooting a lot more then space marines or eldar.

It would also make barrage stuff ignore cover. I am quite fine with that.

lusciifi wrote:
Only problem there is that a BS modifier would hurt orc shooting a lot more then space marines or eldar.

Actually, if there was a cap on modifiers (like you can always hit on 6) than Ork shooting would take less of a hit that BS3/4 armies, since any more than 1 modifier would make BS3 the same as BS2 and so on.

 Galef wrote:

lusciifi wrote:
Only problem there is that a BS modifier would hurt orc shooting a lot more then space marines or eldar.

Actually, if there was a cap on modifiers (like you can always hit on 6) than Ork shooting would take less of a hit that BS3/4 armies, since any more than 1 modifier would make BS3 the same as BS2 and so on.

While that's true i didn't think anyone was suggesting a -3 penalty to BS.

It might be way out there but what about jink being changed from a save to an effect that requires shooting attacks against the target to re-roll successful hits. Re-roll failed hits such as twin-linked cancel the effect out (roll to hit once as normal).

If that's too much rolling you could always just say fire at half BS rounding up.

BS modifiers don't work with a D6. 2nd ed used them and it was a train wreck.

Martel732 wrote:
BS modifiers don't work with a D6. 2nd ed used them and it was a train wreck.

I haven't play 2nd ed, but 7th & 8th ed Fantasy used BS modifiers and it wasn't that bad.
But I agree that 40k has too many rules that would be affected by doing modifiers. There's regular cover (ruins, intervening models, etc), stealth, shrouded, etc.
And what about Tau? Marker light remove cover or bump BS. If cover became a -BS, one of those Marker light effect becomes redundant.

-

BS modifiers made 8 pt hormagaunts godly. They were metal, and two to a pack, so they were expensive, but godly.