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.

 Peregrine wrote:


Yes, obviously you can negate some of those saves, but the point is that it's still extremely frustrating and it makes certain units way too durable. Stacking saves makes all of your bolters/lasguns/etc useless and reduces your army to the few models with heavy weapons. And that isn't fun.

This already exists, it's called Codex: Imperial Knights.

While it is true that the existence of a problem does not justify adding to it, it's not like there isn't precedent (And C:IK should arguably be fixed as well.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add, I have used the system with cover modifying BS earlier in the thread a few times, and it has worked great.

It actually makes 'Ard Boyz matter (!)

AP should have remained a modifier, now it's just an RPS thing. Plasma beats marine, marine beats ork, ork beats plasma. Inv beats everything except D which also beats everything except flying. Heh.

@Rautakanki.
I agree rather than just use modifier, they now use lots of special rules (roll a dice instead of modifiers , ) and STILL use modifiers as well.

Considering how much the game has changed since 2nd ed.

It may be more beneficial to go for a total re-write than continue to patch the patches that originally patched the game.

I like your AP rules, would make the armor save tax that Space Marines and Terminators have to pay a little bit more bearable.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
I like your AP rules, would make the armor save tax that Space Marines and Terminators have to pay a little bit more bearable.

Yeah, this.

Can imagine it would make IG players unhappy (Would reduce the lolrape of their S8+ AP3- Large Blasts with 72"+ range) but it's fair considering the price of MEQ and TEQ.

What do you guys think about those rules and standard shooting, low AP weapons?

Honestly I think low AP blasts and templates are the stupidest thing in the game, including allies. And this rule change would seriously bring them in line. But the single shot ones might be a bit overpenalized

Then again, maybe plasma guns *shouldn't* decimate terminators that cost a multiple of the plasma gunners price?

Yeah, considering Terminator armour was also first designed for safely working inside a plasma reactor...

 Dakkamite wrote:
Honestly I think low AP blasts and templates are the stupidest thing in the game,?

Out of all the things messed up in 40k, stuff that explodes with enough force to blow up buildings being able to kill infantry in heavy armor rubs you the wrong way the most?

Yes. I'll take game balance over accurate physics every time.

You act is if demolisher cannons, plasma cannons, orbital strikes, and battle cannons haven't been a thing forever.

There are more of these templates now (suncannon, ion accelerator), that's true. But modifying a core rule to fix 2-3 cases of weapon proliferation is not the way to go.

 greyknight12 wrote:
You act is if demolisher cannons, plasma cannons, orbital strikes, and battle cannons haven't been a thing forever.

There are more of these templates now (suncannon, ion accelerator), that's true. But modifying a core rule to fix 2-3 cases of weapon proliferation is not the way to go.

Logical fallacy.

That it has 'always' been one way =/= that this way is anything good.

Dakkamite's suggestion is sound and I will propose it to my local meta.

I think that people are overlooking why things are as they are compared to how they would directly function in the game.

We need to remember that this game, as much as I and many others loath to say it, is a game that relies heavily on children. I (personally) think that the main reason that they removed the rules regarding lowering ballistic skill is due to that a) it would overcomplicate the game for them and b) would lead to them fighting over whether or not something is getting this bonus or not, ect.

There I seen a few fights in my time between kids arguing if their guardsmen are getting a 3+ or 5+ cover save and all that crap and it ends up pissing them off and driving them away from the game, which may be viewed as good from the eyes of anyone 16+ but not good from a marketing perspective.

I personally don't think that altering the current system too much is a good idea either, not because the current system is necessarily perfect, but I just don't really want to take the risk of getting a new rule book and having it everyone deeply divided over it and everyone splitting off to make their own rules.

I think that the current rules find a decent middle ground and I still have fun playing the game which is why I buy the stuff, so why fix what still works?

 thetallestgiraffe wrote:
I think that people are overlooking why things are as they are compared to how they would directly function in the game.

We need to remember that this game, as much as I and many others loath to say it, is a game that relies heavily on children. I (personally) think that the main reason that they removed the rules regarding lowering ballistic skill is due to that a) it would overcomplicate the game for them and b) would lead to them fighting over whether or not something is getting this bonus or not, ect.

There I seen a few fights in my time between kids arguing if their guardsmen are getting a 3+ or 5+ cover save and all that crap and it ends up pissing them off and driving them away from the game, which may be viewed as good from the eyes of anyone 16+ but not good from a marketing perspective.

I personally don't think that altering the current system too much is a good idea either, not because the current system is necessarily perfect, but I just don't really want to take the risk of getting a new rule book and having it everyone deeply divided over it and everyone splitting off to make their own rules.

I think that the current rules find a decent middle ground and I still have fun playing the game which is why I buy the stuff, so why fix what still works?

Because it's what the proposed rules forum is for.

And I don't intend to cater to kids who can't grasp the change when designing it. :\ It's one thing if it really is overcomplicated, but if it only is a problem for children (Who there isn't really any of in my local meta...)

 Ashiraya wrote:


Because it's what the proposed rules forum is for.

And I don't intend to cater to kids who can't grasp the change when designing it. :\ It's one thing if it really is overcomplicated, but if it only is a problem for children (Who there isn't really any of in my local meta...)

Ok, a poor choice of words on the final paragraph for this forum section , and I understand the you don't want to play a game made catering to children as I wouldn't either.

I just see there being too much division on people's opinions on how this would work and would cause some breakdown people playing together due to disagreements on what's fair play. I myself am not opposed to anything like this, as I have found myself being more interested in trying to find fluffy armies that complement each other to make more diverse games, and changes to details that make the game run more smoothly like this would probably only help enhance the world of whimsy and delusion I enter when envisioning my games. To digress a tad, I think someone said before how they dislike the allies matrix; I disagree totally, I love it for the cool armies it allows you to make.

Basically to summarise my fears are that these changes would piss too many people off.

Our changes would probably never make it into the rulebook anyway. We are discussing changes that may make it into our local metas. Which they occasionally do, like the cover changes I mentioned earlier.

A consensus on the forum is not necessary.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Yes. I'll take game balance over accurate physics every time.

They're not unbalanced

 Bobthehero wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
Yes. I'll take game balance over accurate physics every time.

They're not unbalanced

Making SM cost 1 pt each with all tens in stats would be balanced

See, I can make random statements without backing them up with something too.

I usually kill about 2-3 marines a turn for every Earthshaker I have in my list, just scatter your marines around and use area terrain.

I've had someone infiltrate or outflank 16 Black Templars near my cannons, was only able to kil 12 of them, then he pick my gun line appart after that.

Nerf outflank (or is it infiltrate!)

No really, large blast low ap stuff is scary on paper, but if you spread around you'll be fine, not mention how bad is it agaisn't MC or that it can't do squat diddedly to FMCs or flyers.