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.

Because you already have to roll to hit the unit. So any attempt to make it harder to hit should manipulate the chance of hitting. It shouldn't be an arbitrary additional save on top of your roll to hit. The roll to hit is an abstraction that accounts for it already.

Theres also a lot of units that don't get jink saves even though they're lore wise probably faster. Best case would be dark elder. The reason theres such an extreme disparity between DE in the lore and tabletop is because whilst they are that squishy and don't wear much armour they are supposed to be hyper fast, dodge bullets and you simply can't hit them. But the mechanics of 40k mean that you're as likely to hit a Warlord Titan as a Dark Eldar Wych. This is much faster than a biker can swerve a bike out of the way. So what is the justification for bikes getting an additional save? Assault marines are fast but don't; the list is exhaustive.

The same goes with planes. I already can only hit the plane on a 6. Surely that has already accounted for all the aerial maneuvers which that aircraft could make. Why should the plane get an additional save on top of its existing protection?

So I think they should change how BS works so that instead of something like a jink save some units modify the hit chance. So a plane means you have minus 2 BS when you shoot at it for example. They should also apply this with more forethought. A Dark Eldar bike or raider needs an extra layer of protection. Eldar, Tau and Space Marines do not so they should have lower modifiers or even none at all.

Blame Tau markerlight shenanigans for the proliferation of Jink. It's become as bad as giving every unit Feel No Pain for ...reasons.

I do wish the game used modifiers to BS instead of cover saves.

I really don't. But that's entirely for selfish reasons. I'd just go back to 6th edition Jink.

As for the hitting a flying aircraft at extreme altitudes (which is what Zooming is supposed to represent), can you imagine trying to hit a plane travelling at Mach 1 with a rifle or machinegun? THAT'S why you need a 6 to hit.

The Jink save in that instance is the pilot actively trying to avoid incoming fire, which naturally makes it even more difficult.

Bikes are similar, though easier to hit due to slower speed. The Jink represents the biker actively trying to avoid getting shot, as opposed to the To Hit roll representing the shooter pulling off a shot.

I mean I think when one rule has such a powerful impact on the game and entire armies are built around the use of that rule you've got a major problem.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
As for the hitting a flying aircraft at extreme altitudes (which is what Zooming is supposed to represent), can you imagine trying to hit a plane travelling at Mach 1 with a rifle or machinegun? THAT'S why you need a 6 to hit.

The Jink save in that instance is the pilot actively trying to avoid incoming fire, which naturally makes it even more difficult.

Bikes are similar, though easier to hit due to slower speed. The Jink represents the biker actively trying to avoid getting shot, as opposed to the To Hit roll representing the shooter pulling off a shot.

Yes, but if I am a Space Marine I am more likely to hit said aircraft. So my BS should be taken into account and it being an aircraft should be a modifier to my BS.

Then why don't other fast things like assault marines, crisis suits or dark elder get similar saves to represent them evading targets? Shouldn't every unit in the game be trying to avoid targets by this logic? Doesn't it make a lot more sense to simply use modifiers or a table for hitting opponents like with weapon skill instead of having two separate roles? If rolling to hit, as you say, only considers the aimers accuracy, then what, those Wyches are just standing stock still and making no effort to dodge?

You can't argue that its okay to use a set BS for hitting some units and then that a handful are so fast they get an additional save.

I am pretty sure the pilot will always be doing his very best to avoid being shot. This implies the marine biker wasn't doing anything to avoid being hit beforehand.


But even then, the rule has been heavily abused and has not resulted in a positive change.

I'd much prefer a ballistic skill modifier mechanic across the game which would replace all of the daft cover save rules.

7th ed jink is fine.

I oppose BS modifiers in a D6 system. It penalizes low model count elite armies far too much.

Martel732 wrote:
7th ed jink is fine.

I oppose BS modifiers in a D6 system. It penalizes low model count elite armies far too much.

After attempting to hack together a 40k-Mordheim conversion using BS modifiers I've decided to oppose BS modifiers in the larger game because they'd make everything take quite a lot longer. They may make difficult-but-not-impossible shots a thing and make cover less pointless for good Arm/Invul models, but they also require an extra mental checklist/table lookup and more on-the-fly math that sort of works when you're running ten models but would be awful if you were running sixty. (WHFB and Mordehim got away with it because their shooting is more secondary, and gun-less models aren't a waste of time and space there.)

(For the record they don't really penalize low-model-count armies if they're equally applied, given that a BS4 model with a -1 to-hit mod is just as much of an improvement over a BS3 model with a -1 to-hit mod as if neither one had the penalty. It does penalize dedicated-shooting armies simply because enemies tend to get closer before you can kill them, but that's not necessarily a bad thing (I think we can all agree that dying in your deployment zone with no chance to do anything because the other guy brought a lot more guns than you did is frustrating and unfun).)

The problem with Jink is how easily it stacks and improves, without significant penalties to most enemies. Nurgle DPs get 2+ cover at all times, effectively for free. 3+ cover is also ultra reliable.
If Jink was just a 5+ base again, it'd be fine. Or don't let it stack with anything except explicitly jink-related buffs.

Martel732 wrote:
7th ed jink is fine.

I oppose BS modifiers in a D6 system. It penalizes low model count elite armies far too much.

How?

If you are an elite army you will have higher ballistic skill? So you're more likely to hit than Bob Guardsman who will have the same negative modifier for hitting something. Instead of saying you need 6 to hit this or this unit has an extra saving throw you could account for stuff like being a better shot instead of ignoring it or being inconsistent like the current system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
7th ed jink is fine.

I oppose BS modifiers in a D6 system. It penalizes low model count elite armies far too much.

After attempting to hack together a 40k-Mordheim conversion using BS modifiers I've decided to oppose BS modifiers in the larger game because they'd make everything take quite a lot longer. They may make difficult-but-not-impossible shots a thing and make cover less pointless for good Arm/Invul models, but they also require an extra mental checklist/table lookup and more on-the-fly math that sort of works when you're running ten models but would be awful if you were running sixty. (WHFB and Mordehim got away with it because their shooting is more secondary, and gun-less models aren't a waste of time and space there.)

(For the record they don't really penalize low-model-count armies if they're equally applied, given that a BS4 model with a -1 to-hit mod is just as much of an improvement over a BS3 model with a -1 to-hit mod as if neither one had the penalty. It does penalize dedicated-shooting armies simply because enemies tend to get closer before you can kill them, but that's not necessarily a bad thing (I think we can all agree that dying in your deployment zone with no chance to do anything because the other guy brought a lot more guns than you did is frustrating and unfun).)

Surely it wouldn't be that complicated?

I mean they use them in AoS which is a really barebones system and it works fine enough as it is. Unlike the WS chart you only have one set statistic in BS to modify. That way you have a single dice roll for hitting the target instead of two like we have now with multiple modifiers being applied.

 Stormonu wrote:
Blame Tau markerlight shenanigans for the proliferation of Jink. It's become as bad as giving every unit Feel No Pain for ...reasons.

The reason for both is that GW has simultaneously ramped up firepower and made cover near meaningless, hence the need for more passive defenses. Bikes used to be 36 pts without Jink and they were fine for the cost at the time because they could avoid most of the enemy army through mobility and good use of terrain. Now positioning is meaningless, everyone can shoot anything all the time and so models need more saves.

Waaaghpower wrote:
The problem with Jink is how easily it stacks and improves, without significant penalties to most enemies. Nurgle DPs get 2+ cover at all times, effectively for free. 3+ cover is also ultra reliable.
If Jink was just a 5+ base again, it'd be fine. Or don't let it stack with anything except explicitly jink-related buffs.

The problem with cutting it is that unless you're a Daemon Prince it's pretty crucial to your survival. Deleting or trimming it may nerf Daemon Princes but it'll make Dark Eldar even more unplayable, drop Dark Angels' only competitive advantage over the other Marine books, make vehicle Flyers even more skew ('do you have the right tool for dealing with this? If yes, this is tissue paper not worth a fraction of its points. If no, this is god-tier OP and makes Wraithknights look sensible.' [/hyperbole]), and drop most skimmers from middling-to-good straight down into an overpriced mess.

(A Wave Serpent is in no way worth 2x a Chimera without Jink.)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
7th ed jink is fine.

I oppose BS modifiers in a D6 system. It penalizes low model count elite armies far too much.

After attempting to hack together a 40k-Mordheim conversion using BS modifiers I've decided to oppose BS modifiers in the larger game because they'd make everything take quite a lot longer. They may make difficult-but-not-impossible shots a thing and make cover less pointless for good Arm/Invul models, but they also require an extra mental checklist/table lookup and more on-the-fly math that sort of works when you're running ten models but would be awful if you were running sixty. (WHFB and Mordehim got away with it because their shooting is more secondary, and gun-less models aren't a waste of time and space there.)

(For the record they don't really penalize low-model-count armies if they're equally applied, given that a BS4 model with a -1 to-hit mod is just as much of an improvement over a BS3 model with a -1 to-hit mod as if neither one had the penalty. It does penalize dedicated-shooting armies simply because enemies tend to get closer before you can kill them, but that's not necessarily a bad thing (I think we can all agree that dying in your deployment zone with no chance to do anything because the other guy brought a lot more guns than you did is frustrating and unfun).)

Until the mods become -2 or -3 and then it swings back to the high model count armies. That's what happened in 2nd ed. Hormagaunts could give a -2 to hit at will, which was OP for the cost of the model.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
7th ed jink is fine.

I oppose BS modifiers in a D6 system. It penalizes low model count elite armies far too much.

After attempting to hack together a 40k-Mordheim conversion using BS modifiers I've decided to oppose BS modifiers in the larger game because they'd make everything take quite a lot longer. They may make difficult-but-not-impossible shots a thing and make cover less pointless for good Arm/Invul models, but they also require an extra mental checklist/table lookup and more on-the-fly math that sort of works when you're running ten models but would be awful if you were running sixty. (WHFB and Mordehim got away with it because their shooting is more secondary, and gun-less models aren't a waste of time and space there.)

(For the record they don't really penalize low-model-count armies if they're equally applied, given that a BS4 model with a -1 to-hit mod is just as much of an improvement over a BS3 model with a -1 to-hit mod as if neither one had the penalty. It does penalize dedicated-shooting armies simply because enemies tend to get closer before you can kill them, but that's not necessarily a bad thing (I think we can all agree that dying in your deployment zone with no chance to do anything because the other guy brought a lot more guns than you did is frustrating and unfun).)

Surely it wouldn't be that complicated?

I mean they use them in AoS which is a really barebones system and it works fine enough as it is. Unlike the WS chart you only have one set statistic in BS to modify. That way you have a single dice roll for hitting the target instead of two like we have now with multiple modifiers being applied.

AoS is a similarly melee-focused system and it's got one to-hit modifier (cover), plus however many more are buried across the whole mess of warscrolls that I don't have the patience to go find. 40k has to replicate several tiers of cover at the very least; I will grant that my Mordheim system's modifiers won't carry over entirely (cover, range, multiple-shots, moving and shooting...), but if you want to take Jink, snapshots, and cover and stick them into a modifier system you're going to have a lot more modifiers than AoS has to deal with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
7th ed jink is fine.

I oppose BS modifiers in a D6 system. It penalizes low model count elite armies far too much.

After attempting to hack together a 40k-Mordheim conversion using BS modifiers I've decided to oppose BS modifiers in the larger game because they'd make everything take quite a lot longer. They may make difficult-but-not-impossible shots a thing and make cover less pointless for good Arm/Invul models, but they also require an extra mental checklist/table lookup and more on-the-fly math that sort of works when you're running ten models but would be awful if you were running sixty. (WHFB and Mordehim got away with it because their shooting is more secondary, and gun-less models aren't a waste of time and space there.)

(For the record they don't really penalize low-model-count armies if they're equally applied, given that a BS4 model with a -1 to-hit mod is just as much of an improvement over a BS3 model with a -1 to-hit mod as if neither one had the penalty. It does penalize dedicated-shooting armies simply because enemies tend to get closer before you can kill them, but that's not necessarily a bad thing (I think we can all agree that dying in your deployment zone with no chance to do anything because the other guy brought a lot more guns than you did is frustrating and unfun).)

Until the mods become -2 or -3 and then it swings back to the high model count armies.

Depends on whether worse than a 6 to hit is 6-and-4+/etc or just 'impossible'. (I do know part of the reason it works in Mordheim/my Mordheim conversion is that BS stats aren't stuck in the 2-4 range except for very special circumstances, a modifier system would have to rethink how BS stats are distributed pretty fundamentally.)

Jink is fine, what needs to happen is it needs a seperation from a cover save.

Imo I think jink rule should only benefit from stealth, shrouded, and invisibility.

BUT, a jink save can not be taken against the following weapon types

Torrent, blast, template, barrage, and a model with precision shot.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever ever that a bike or anything can some how dodge and explosion. Really if anything needs a template of some sort it should not be dodgeable this is coming from someone who runs a ravenwing Death Star.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
The same goes with planes. I already can only hit the plane on a 6. Surely that has already accounted for all the aerial maneuvers which that aircraft could make. Why should the plane get an additional save on top of its existing protection?

Because the 6 to hit (which should be a 7 to hit, re-rolling all successes, if we want to be realistic) is representing the near-impossibility of hitting aircraft, even aircraft that aren't trying to evade, with anything but a specialized anti-aircraft weapon. The jink save represents the pilot breaking off their attack (thus firing only snap shots, and usually leaving the battlefield) to actually try to evade incoming fire.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Jink is fine, what needs to happen is it needs a seperation from a cover save.

Imo I think jink rule should only benefit from stealth, shrouded, and invisibility.

BUT, a jink save can not be taken against the following weapon types

Torrent, blast, template, barrage, and a model with precision shot.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever ever that a bike or anything can some how dodge and explosion. Really if anything needs a template of some sort it should not be dodgeable this is coming from someone who runs a ravenwing Death Star.

Templates and torrent already ignore cover, so jinking doesn't help there. Many blast weapons and Barrage weapons also ignore cover (like Wyverns), so again jinking is no help. I've had my Ravenwing Command Squad get erased by a squad of Wraithguard joined by an Archon with Webway Portal. Nothing at all they could do about it, they just died.

I'm also pretty sure Jink doesn't stack with any other cover saves besides Stealth and Shrouded. Jink provides a cover save of its own, and Stealth/Shrouded provide a modifier to that cover save. Some people complain about Ravenwing because of their ability to reroll that save, but there are ways to get around it. Plus, jinking comes with a penalty (snap shots the following turn) so it's not like it's free, unlike things like FnP on many units, or Necron Reanimation Protocols, which have little to no downside.

In short, I don't think Jinking is a problem, at least not compared to other things in the game. It might need to go on a long list of rules that need some tweaks, but overall it's fine. Who knows how it will work in 8th edition.

With all the ignores cover out there, jink is almost useless anyway.

Jink should be enhanced, not reduced. It should be a completely different kind of save, which will prevent it from stacking with cover, which is just plain stupid. If you're bouncing around in cover instead of keeping your head down, your save would be worse, not better.

So jink should give a flat 5++ and not be stackable with any other buffs, except by dark eldar who could have various means to get it to 3++. EZPZ fix.

 JimOnMars wrote:
With all the ignores cover out there, jink is almost useless anyway.

Jink should be enhanced, not reduced. It should be a completely different kind of save, which will prevent it from stacking with cover, which is just plain stupid. If you're bouncing around in cover instead of keeping your head down, your save would be worse, not better.

So jink should give a flat 5++ and not be stackable with any other buffs, except by dark eldar who could have various means to get it to 3++. EZPZ fix.

Yeah the stacking is horrible.

Outside of Tau not every army has access to ignore cover. This creates a divide between the have and have not armies.

It should be an alternate save though. Not an additional saving throw like feel no pain on top of your armor.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
The same goes with planes. I already can only hit the plane on a 6. Surely that has already accounted for all the aerial maneuvers which that aircraft could make. Why should the plane get an additional save on top of its existing protection?

Because the 6 to hit (which should be a 7 to hit, re-rolling all successes, if we want to be realistic) is representing the near-impossibility of hitting aircraft, even aircraft that aren't trying to evade, with anything but a specialized anti-aircraft weapon. The jink save represents the pilot breaking off their attack (thus firing only snap shots, and usually leaving the battlefield) to actually try to evade incoming fire.

Because dedicated AA platforms are extremely expensive point sinks and with jink its still very difficult to take down aircraft. Plus not every army has easy access to such weapons and other planes are too unreliable for this purpose.

I play quite a bit of Heresy and the aircraft mechanics really screw up list construction. If I don't spend my precious heavy support slot on that Deredeo or flakk missiles I am going get wrecked. This assumes he just brings one plane. Not 3 or 4. I mean I tried running an infantry based close combat Emperors Children army and I just got mulched by the planes. I kept having to find ways of ramming things into my army to counter them that don't derail my armies theme.

Plus, your opponent isn't an idiot, hes going to try to knock out your Deredeo first turn and then give his planes free reign over the battlefield.

I find it very difficult, even at the standard 3-4k we role with to physically have enough AT and AA without diluting my armies intended theme.


Bit of math

Deredeo 4 BS5 TL Str8 cannons with armourbane

Hits 3.888888889 Hull Point 3.348765432 Failed Jink Saves 1.674382716

Meaning it needs three turns to put down a Storm Eagle. This assumes it gets three turns to shoot a storm eagle. In that same time theres a lot of things that can easily kill a Deredeo.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Jink is fine, what needs to happen is it needs a seperation from a cover save.

Imo I think jink rule should only benefit from stealth, shrouded, and invisibility.

BUT, a jink save can not be taken against the following weapon types

Torrent, blast, template, barrage, and a model with precision shot.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever ever that a bike or anything can some how dodge and explosion. Really if anything needs a template of some sort it should not be dodgeable this is coming from someone who runs a ravenwing Death Star.

Templates and torrent already ignore cover, so jinking doesn't help there. Many blast weapons and Barrage weapons also ignore cover (like Wyverns), so again jinking is no help. I've had my Ravenwing Command Squad get erased by a squad of Wraithguard joined by an Archon with Webway Portal. Nothing at all they could do about it, they just died.

I'm also pretty sure Jink doesn't stack with any other cover saves besides Stealth and Shrouded. Jink provides a cover save of its own, and Stealth/Shrouded provide a modifier to that cover save. Some people complain about Ravenwing because of their ability to reroll that save, but there are ways to get around it. Plus, jinking comes with a penalty (snap shots the following turn) so it's not like it's free, unlike things like FnP on many units, or Necron Reanimation Protocols, which have little to no downside.

In short, I don't think Jinking is a problem, at least not compared to other things in the game. It might need to go on a long list of rules that need some tweaks, but overall it's fine. Who knows how it will work in 8th edition.

Yes but most flamer type weapons are useless because that marine biker has the toughness and armour to tank it. The issue is that it renders the high str low ap weapons meant to kill these elite units useless.

This is why i said they should not be able to jink out of an explosion, most, hell ALL armies have access to some explosions.

The stacking is fine, they just need to change so all blasts cant be jinked.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
This is why i said they should not be able to jink out of an explosion, most, hell ALL armies have access to some explosions.

The stacking is fine, they just need to change so all blasts cant be jinked.

Yeah but when you can stack it to a 2 plus re-rollable save something has went very wrong.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
This is why i said they should not be able to jink out of an explosion, most, hell ALL armies have access to some explosions.

The stacking is fine, they just need to change so all blasts cant be jinked.

Yeah but when you can stack it to a 2 plus re-rollable save something has went very wrong.

Same can be said for armour and invuln saves as well.

I agree that Jink should work differently, not done away with completely, but the same can be said of the whole cover system.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
This is why i said they should not be able to jink out of an explosion, most, hell ALL armies have access to some explosions.

The stacking is fine, they just need to change so all blasts cant be jinked.

Yeah but when you can stack it to a 2 plus re-rollable save something has went very wrong.

To be fair, the issue is that you can declare Jink if you're going to be touched by the template at all.

If Blast weapons could start targeting points on the board instead of units, it would go a long way towards mitigating the issue of the 2+ rerollable against Blasts. You can't Jink if something scatters onto you.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
This is why i said they should not be able to jink out of an explosion, most, hell ALL armies have access to some explosions.

The stacking is fine, they just need to change so all blasts cant be jinked.

Yeah but when you can stack it to a 2 plus re-rollable save something has went very wrong.

But also you need to understand that 2+ rerollable comes at a really high cost to field and make useful.

You wanna know how to quickly make a bike army and or ravenwing army weep? If you are MEQ, 3 vindicators, or run the sternguard formation with the special issue bolters that ignore cover, and then rip.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
This is why i said they should not be able to jink out of an explosion, most, hell ALL armies have access to some explosions.

The stacking is fine, they just need to change so all blasts cant be jinked.

Yeah but when you can stack it to a 2 plus re-rollable save something has went very wrong.

But also you need to understand that 2+ rerollable comes at a really high cost to field and make useful.

You wanna know how to quickly make a bike army and or ravenwing army weep? If you are MEQ, 3 vindicators, or run the sternguard formation with the special issue bolters that ignore cover, and then rip.

I run Tyranids and Dark Eldar...

TBH my main experience of jink relates to masses of skimmer tanks and fliers. Nobody at my local club has an all bike army especially since they mostly play Heresy and Jetbikes are crazy expensive.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
This is why i said they should not be able to jink out of an explosion, most, hell ALL armies have access to some explosions.

The stacking is fine, they just need to change so all blasts cant be jinked.

Yeah but when you can stack it to a 2 plus re-rollable save something has went very wrong.

But also you need to understand that 2+ rerollable comes at a really high cost to field and make useful.

You wanna know how to quickly make a bike army and or ravenwing army weep? If you are MEQ, 3 vindicators, or run the sternguard formation with the special issue bolters that ignore cover, and then rip.

I run Tyranids and Dark Eldar...

TBH my main experience of jink relates to masses of skimmer tanks and fliers. Nobody at my local club has an all bike army especially since they mostly play Heresy and Jetbikes are crazy expensive.

Well, if thats the case Flayers already have a swath of issues so, its not really apt to compare jink of a flyer vs a unit on the ground. But also, you are playing two very week armies at the moment with the only viable way to run nids competitively is the flying circus. Same with dark eldar who have a crap ton of jink as well. Again, any ignores cover and you are screwed.

I think 7 th ed jink is fine. Rules that encourage decisions are good.

Martel732 wrote:
I think 7 th ed jink is fine. Rules that encourage decisions are good.

Exalted for truth. 6th-ed Jink was a serious problem because it handed bikes and skimmers a consequence-free 4+/3+ cover save, 7th-ed snapfire-after-jinking fixed the problem quite neatly.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
This is why i said they should not be able to jink out of an explosion, most, hell ALL armies have access to some explosions.

The stacking is fine, they just need to change so all blasts cant be jinked.

Yeah but when you can stack it to a 2 plus re-rollable save something has went very wrong.

But also you need to understand that 2+ rerollable comes at a really high cost to field and make useful.

You wanna know how to quickly make a bike army and or ravenwing army weep? If you are MEQ, 3 vindicators, or run the sternguard formation with the special issue bolters that ignore cover, and then rip.

I run Tyranids and Dark Eldar...

TBH my main experience of jink relates to masses of skimmer tanks and fliers. Nobody at my local club has an all bike army especially since they mostly play Heresy and Jetbikes are crazy expensive.

Well, if thats the case Flayers already have a swath of issues so, its not really apt to compare jink of a flyer vs a unit on the ground. But also, you are playing two very week armies at the moment with the only viable way to run nids competitively is the flying circus. Same with dark eldar who have a crap ton of jink as well. Again, any ignores cover and you are screwed.

Because if Dark Eldar didn't have jink then you could quite easily destroy the entire army in one turn, even in a casual game. Basically the army suffers because the mechanics of 40k don't accommodate for "these guys are so sneaky and fast you can't hit them" so its as easy to hit a Wych as it is a Warlord Titan.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
This is why i said they should not be able to jink out of an explosion, most, hell ALL armies have access to some explosions.

The stacking is fine, they just need to change so all blasts cant be jinked.

Yeah but when you can stack it to a 2 plus re-rollable save something has went very wrong.

But also you need to understand that 2+ rerollable comes at a really high cost to field and make useful.

You wanna know how to quickly make a bike army and or ravenwing army weep? If you are MEQ, 3 vindicators, or run the sternguard formation with the special issue bolters that ignore cover, and then rip.

I run Tyranids and Dark Eldar...

TBH my main experience of jink relates to masses of skimmer tanks and fliers. Nobody at my local club has an all bike army especially since they mostly play Heresy and Jetbikes are crazy expensive.

Well, if thats the case Flayers already have a swath of issues so, its not really apt to compare jink of a flyer vs a unit on the ground. But also, you are playing two very week armies at the moment with the only viable way to run nids competitively is the flying circus. Same with dark eldar who have a crap ton of jink as well. Again, any ignores cover and you are screwed.

Because if Dark Eldar didn't have jink then you could quite easily destroy the entire army in one turn, even in a casual game. Basically the army suffers because the mechanics of 40k don't accommodate for "these guys are so sneaky and fast you can't hit them" so its as easy to hit a Wych as it is a Warlord Titan.

Exactly which is why we need the jink rule...wait im confused are you arguing for or agianst jink as is?