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.

So, unverified rumors are floating around about armies with blanket -1 to be hit changing to always count as being in cover. Apparently Reece misspoke in a way that alluded to this as well in some video or podcast, but I have not seen that part myself.

Anyway, my question is... if this is true, what (sizable?) impact does this have on the meta? Of course points and other things will change at the same time, but if we assume the majority of stuff stays relatively the same, what armies suddenly become trash or amazing?

It would make Iron Warriors more popular for sure.

It depends on if it will just count those units:
A) as being in cover even if not
B) getting an additional +1 for being in cover (so +2) or
C) both A and B

If only A, then current traits that provide this will slowly drop off the competitive meta, especially since many of them continue to receive other nerfs to their Reserve shenanigans and the fact that Player B gets a strat for this in the first turn already.

If only B, they still might make a showing, but you'll see a shift in the types of units taken, more towards cover-hugging Troops and backfield units. It would also make the Prepared Positions strat even better

If C, than we'll still see Alaitoc, AL and RG in competitively lists.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It would make Iron Warriors more popular for sure.

Indeed, IW and Imperial Fists would make more of a showing due to their traits ignoring Cover bonuses.

-

Imperial Fists will suffer from being Loyalist Scum though. Surprisingly I feel CSM has better shooting options in the long run.

Galef I believe the implication was your option A only, always in cover, no double-cover.

Honestly, if the trait were changed to 'being in cover' I think the only implication would be that Alaitoc would go away. RG and AL have good enough baseline armor saves that the cover would still be fairly useful, and they have other advantages too.
People only take Alaitoc because of the -1 to hit, extra cover does nearly nothing for common choices like Rangers because their survivability relies exclusively on being difficult to hit. I don't think there would be any less Eldar, but most of the Alaitoc would become Ulthwe. If Alaitoc, RG, and AL get less common, then IF and IW don't really have much more of a bonus than they do right now. I can't see much of an overall meta change though.

Now if strats and individual unit traits that currently cause -1 to hit were changed to 'grants cover', that would be a different story. Harlequins would cease to exist (cover doesn't help Harlequins at all), Craftworlds and Drukhari get shifted slightly further toward 'fringe army' status, etc. Other shifts would happen too.

So as things are currently rumored, things might change a little bit. If the changes are more extensive then would be a major shift.

 ph34r wrote:
Apparently Reece misspoke in a way that alluded to this as well in some video or podcast, but I have not seen that part myself.

I bet he can barely contain himself, getting the only thing standing in the way of IG dominance removed...



If this change is true its obviously being aimed at Alaitoc, but boy AL and RG players will be pissed, getting smacked with that after the big faq nerf to their strats.

It really is only Guard players complaining about it.

If true:
"lmao just buy more guards you nerds"
Games Workshop - 2018

 Creeping Dementia wrote:

Now if strats and individual unit traits that currently cause -1 to hit were changed to 'grants cover', that would be a different story. Harlequins would cease to exist (cover doesn't help Harlequins at all), Craftworlds and Drukhari get shifted slightly further toward 'fringe army' status, etc. Other shifts would happen too. .

This would have zero effect on Harlequins. Their minus to hit comes from Mirage launchers on their vehicles, it's not an army wide rule for them and the infantry do not have that benefit (need strategems or psychic powers to work for the infantry). There is no way they would remove the Mirage launcher rule for the vehicles, but I could see the removal of Lightning Reactions on something with a -1. It would still work on their infantry though.

To be all honest. In fluffy sense, cover save should be functioned like a penalty of to hit rolls. Now it is like they were doing this the other way around.

 Creeping Dementia wrote:
Honestly, if the trait were changed to 'being in cover' I think the only implication would be that Alaitoc would go away. RG and AL have good enough baseline armor saves that the cover would still be fairly useful, and they have other advantages too.

Well, keep in mind that CWE trait affect their vehicles too, which almost all have 3+ armour. And Shining Spears would basically be flying Terminators. And the Psychic power "Protect" give +1 to saving throws.
So I don't think Alaitoc would "go away" but you would certainly see the lists shift a bit more towards heavier armoured units.

But I really hope there is some advantage to actually being in cover, otherwise it takes that movement "skill" completely out of the picture. Most of the CWE movement pahse is positioning to get cover while also retaining LoS to our target. If you always have cover, you basically just set the movement phase to "easy mode'

By making the traits option B in my above post (+2 for being in cover) it puts tactical choice back into the game.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Creeping Dementia wrote:
Honestly, if the trait were changed to 'being in cover' I think the only implication would be that Alaitoc would go away. RG and AL have good enough baseline armor saves that the cover would still be fairly useful, and they have other advantages too.

Well, keep in mind that CWE trait affect their vehicles too, which almost all have 3+ armour. And Shining Spears would basically be flying Terminators. And the Psychic power "Protect" give +1 to saving throws.
So I don't think Alaitoc would "go away" but you would certainly see the lists shift a bit more towards heavier armoured units.

But I really hope there is some advantage to actually being in cover, otherwise it takes that movement "skill" completely out of the picture. Most of the CWE movement pahse is positioning to get cover while also retaining LoS to our target. If you always have cover, you basically just set the movement phase to "easy mode'

By making the traits option B in my above post (+2 for being in cover) it puts tactical choice back into the game.

-

With respect to Alaitoc, I think you'd see a resurgence of Shadow Specters with an always in cover bonus. The innate -1 to hit with a 2+ save and the ability to get back to -2 or -3 (conceal or Lightning fast reactions) to hit is going to be pretty good. My only gripe with this change would be in relation to the new stratagem providing cover to the 2nd player. That would become effectively useless for 3 additional armies (it's already practically useless for Harlequins as it is). Perhaps a decreased penalty range would be a better start (i.e. unit's outside 15" or 18" suffer the penalty to hit). Regardless of how it pans out, Aeldari players will adapt and overcome.

Yeah, I think expanding the traits to be ignored within 18" is a better alternative than just being cover.
That extra 6" makes a big difference. that's what she said.

Orks also getting "always hit on 6" also fixes one of the bigger issues with -1 to-hit traits

I would rather see just a blanket cap on modifiers, maybe -2, or e even just -1. As mentioned previously this affects armies differently, but it seems a bit of a cheap fix. GW already used this fix on the whole "disadvantage by going second", this will make that Strategem obsolete for a lot of armies, and just generally seems like a quick fix that will probably cause further problems down the line.

Oh the other hand, Lias Issodon will be very happy as he'll always be rocking a 0+ save.

What's your source? Where are these rumors from? Literally a single even semi-credible source? Like,even the words of an anonymous source that we can look over ourselves to judge for integrity? Or are we just doing BoLS advertising for them now?

 SHUPPET wrote:
What's your source? Where are these rumors from? Literally a single even semi-credible source? Like,even the words of an anonymous source that we can look over ourselves to judge for integrity? Or are we just doing BoLS advertising for them now?

The source, as mentioned in the OP, is a known GW playtester miss speaking when answering a question.
Its entirely possible it was a genuine mistake and this rumor is false.
Its also entirely possible that he did speak out of turn and the rumor is true.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/4530/741040.page#10172557
Here is where its first mentioned I think. I cba to search through FLG's vods to get the actual soundbite for you.

 Ordana wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
What's your source? Where are these rumors from? Literally a single even semi-credible source? Like,even the words of an anonymous source that we can look over ourselves to judge for integrity? Or are we just doing BoLS advertising for them now?

The source, as mentioned in the OP, is a known GW playtester miss speaking when answering a question.
Its entirely possible it was a genuine mistake and this rumor is false.
Its also entirely possible that he did speak out of turn and the rumor is true.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/4530/741040.page#10172557
Here is where its first mentioned I think. I cba to search through FLG's vods to get the actual soundbite for you.

THATS the source? I don't recall hearing that at any stage and I listen to them all. The poster in question is a notorious troll in the 40k community who is, even right now, causing massive arguments in this week's FLG comment section, justifying why he was banned from Discord, why everyone on dakka is terrible and he quit that too, etc etc, and that's pretty consistent for him in the comments

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2018/10/16/chapter-tactics-84-8th-edition-101-unraveling-the-psychic-phase/#comments

He's known for reading way too far into everything and went on rants for weeks on end because Geoff referred to Custodes + Culexus as "mono faction". This reads like literally the exact same thing, Reecius makes rules feth ups all the time it gets referenced every second week by the other casters, hell he made them on the one episode of Chapter Tactics he appeared on and you can see them in the comments. And that's even if he did say this one at all.

I'm glad this isn't just BOLS garbage at least, but honestly I would not worry about it.

 Valkyrie wrote:
I would rather see just a blanket cap on modifiers, maybe -2, or e even just -1. As mentioned previously this affects armies differently, but it seems a bit of a cheap fix. GW already used this fix on the whole "disadvantage by going second", this will make that Strategem obsolete for a lot of armies, and just generally seems like a quick fix that will probably cause further problems down the line.

Oh the other hand, Lias Issodon will be very happy as he'll always be rocking a 0+ save.

A blanket cap doesn't make sense in an environment where you use D6s. If there was a cap of -1 there would never be any penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons.

Also, you did the thing I hate the most. Lias Issodon doesn't have a 0+ save, he has a 2+ save on a D6+2

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
What's your source? Where are these rumors from? Literally a single even semi-credible source? Like,even the words of an anonymous source that we can look over ourselves to judge for integrity? Or are we just doing BoLS advertising for them now?

The source, as mentioned in the OP, is a known GW playtester miss speaking when answering a question.
Its entirely possible it was a genuine mistake and this rumor is false.
Its also entirely possible that he did speak out of turn and the rumor is true.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/4530/741040.page#10172557
Here is where its first mentioned I think. I cba to search through FLG's vods to get the actual soundbite for you.

THATS the source? I don't recall hearing that at any stage and I listen to them all. The poster in question is a notorious troll in the 40k community who is, even right now, causing massive arguments in this week's FLG comment section, justifying why he was banned from Discord, why everyone on dakka is terrible and he quit that too, etc etc, and that's pretty consistent for him in the comments

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2018/10/16/chapter-tactics-84-8th-edition-101-unraveling-the-psychic-phase/#comments

He's known for reading way too far into everything and went on rants for weeks on end because Geoff referred to Custodes + Culexus as "mono faction". This reads like literally the exact same thing, Reecius makes rules feth ups all the time it gets referenced every second week by the other casters, hell he made them on the one episode of Chapter Tactics he appeared on and you can see them in the comments. And that's even if he did say this one at all.

I'm glad this isn't just BOLS garbage at least, but honestly I would not worry about it.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/315870254?t=19m8s timestamp is a bit earlier for context. Actual qoute is some 30 seconds later.
There you go. "counting as in cover does nothing when your Raven Guard or Alpha Legion".
If you believe it or not is up to you, but there is the origin of it.

I think Reece slipped up on the rules as he is known for doing, and RVD read way too far into nothing as he is known for doing, and here we are now. But thanks for providing the source.

 SHUPPET wrote:
What's your source? Where are these rumors from? Literally a single even semi-credible source? Like,even the words of an anonymous source that we can look over ourselves to judge for integrity? Or are we just doing BoLS advertising for them now?

I suggested this when the Eldar codex dropped and it caught on. The power of suggestion! Remove the doom that is blanket -1 to hit for your whole army! WOOT.

Just put the traits to 18" and say that lighning fast reflexes maximum penalty is -1.Done.

Spoletta wrote:
Just put the traits to 18" and say that lighning fast reflexes maximum penalty is -1.Done.

I don't think a double whammy is necessary. Also, as pointed out above by BCB, this would effectively invalidate Lightning Fast Reactions by making it useless against heavy weapon units that moved and for an entire <Craftworld> selection. Are there even any examples from the SM, Guard, or Chaos codices where a stratagem is restricted from (not to) a single Chapter? If they bump the range to 15 or 18 inches, that should be more than sufficient.

People also seem to not realize that stacking -1 to Hit is the most effective counter to re-rolls. You are indirectly buffing all sources of re-rolls by removing -1 to Hit (and people ALREADY complain about the number of re-rolls).

Another reason not to cap the -ve modifiers is that it basically removes the effect of the Chapter Tactic for units that have them already built in.

Take Alaitoc Rangers for example. Capping -ve modifiers at -1 would essentially mean that Rangers, Alaitocs flagship/famous-for unit, gain zero benefit from even being ALAITOC.

Spartacus wrote:
Another reason not to cap the -ve modifiers is that it basically removes the effect of the Chapter Tactic for units that have them already built in.

Take Alaitoc Rangers for example. Capping -ve modifiers at -1 would essentially mean that Rangers, Alaitocs flagship/famous-for unit, gain zero benefit from even being ALAITOC.

Which is why you shouldn't cap at -1 only, but capping at -2 still allows for 2 different things to interact, such as the army trait, unit ability and shooting unit using Heavy weapons.
And that's really all that is needed: A cap that still allows at least 2 abilities to interact.

-

 Galef wrote:

Spartacus wrote:
Another reason not to cap the -ve modifiers is that it basically removes the effect of the Chapter Tactic for units that have them already built in.

Take Alaitoc Rangers for example. Capping -ve modifiers at -1 would essentially mean that Rangers, Alaitocs flagship/famous-for unit, gain zero benefit from even being ALAITOC.

Which is why you shouldn't cap at -1 only, but capping at -2 still allows for 2 different things to interact, such as the army trait, unit ability and shooting unit using Heavy weapons.
And that's really all that is needed: A cap that still allows at least 2 abilities to interact.

-

-2 is already enough to cripple any army other then Custodes (since they are the only ones with army wide 2+)

"-2 is already enough to cripple any army other then Custodes (since they are the only ones with army wide 2+)"

But capping at -1 makes the traits pretty irrelevant in many cases, including giving Heavy weapons the bonus of "ignoring" movement.
You have to balance both sides. So either make -1 to hit traits be cover, or extend their "ignore" range to 18", or cap to-hit mods to -2.
But under NO circumstances should there be a blanket -1 cap on modifiers.

-

 Ordana wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Spartacus wrote:
Another reason not to cap the -ve modifiers is that it basically removes the effect of the Chapter Tactic for units that have them already built in.

Take Alaitoc Rangers for example. Capping -ve modifiers at -1 would essentially mean that Rangers, Alaitocs flagship/famous-for unit, gain zero benefit from even being ALAITOC.

Which is why you shouldn't cap at -1 only, but capping at -2 still allows for 2 different things to interact, such as the army trait, unit ability and shooting unit using Heavy weapons.
And that's really all that is needed: A cap that still allows at least 2 abilities to interact.

-

-2 is already enough to cripple any army other then Custodes (since they are the only ones with army wide 2+)

And that's a problem why? If you want to counter such potential measures, start bringing in stuff to shoot close or melee stuff.

I agree it should be a max of -2, but it's a healthy trait for the game that's really only complained about by gunline people.