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.

But it hasn't. The wound has gone through. He now has 1 fewer wound than he did before from that LC shot.

 KharnsRightHand wrote:
But it hasn't. The wound has gone through. He now has 1 fewer wound than he did before from that LC shot.

Which could be categorized as anything, not just a literal wound taken. Try to be more abstract

"You know who benefits from that? Tau/Eldar.

"Oh I guess all heavy weapons do d3 wounds now instead of ID... Good thing I can spam them." "

It would be done on a weapon by weapon basis. Not a blanket rule.

If I had my way, scatterlasers would be unable to affect vehicles in order to balance them out and would cause .5 wounds to MCs. They're just there to mow down infantry. They don't get to be one-stop shopping.

As I said, ID is stupid (Esp the jump from T4 to T5) and we need to go back to weapons causing different amounts of wounds and having more varied wound profiles.

While I agree Ignores Cover is one of the most potent special rules in the game, I think as a rule itself, it's okay. What I don't like is how some armies have none, and some armies bathe in it. I also don't like how some armies don't benefit from cover often, and some armies need it to live. Then, add on the fact that Tyranids pay a pretty penny for Venomthropes, and the rest of their stuff is bad and/or expensive. Also, Orks aren't that good in general.

So, numerous factors to take into account here.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 KharnsRightHand wrote:
But it hasn't. The wound has gone through. He now has 1 fewer wound than he did before from that LC shot.

Which could be categorized as anything, not just a literal wound taken. Try to be more abstract

In that case, Synapse granting a pseudo-EW could be categorized as anything as well. Whether it be pure psychic will from the Hive Mind keeping it going, spotters from other creatures in synapse seeing the big shot coming and psychically communicating the threat so it dodges, or even the Hive Mind using a broken body as a puppet because the link is still there even if the thing is dead.

The disparity of how cover works for a 6+ armor list like Orks vs a 3+ power armor list is also very stupid. Where I play, players with a lot of 2+ and 3+ armor are always pushing for less cover, less terrain. The argument being that cover is giving horde lists free saves that they don't pay for.

Martel732 wrote:

If I had my way, scatterlasers would be unable to affect vehicles in order to balance them out and would cause .5 wounds to MCs. They're just there to mow down infantry. They don't get to be one-stop shopping.

As I said, ID is stupid (Esp the jump from T4 to T5) and we need to go back to weapons causing different amounts of wounds and having more varied wound profiles.

How about this for scatter lasers: 36" S3 AP- Heavy 4, Shred

Get enough of them and they mess things up, but they're wounding Guardsmen on 4s (allowing saves), T7 is flat-out immune, AV10 is flat-out immune.

Though maybe that's too weak - needs 5 shots to match a shuriken cannon against a Guardsman, 6 against a Space Marine and 8 against a Carnifex. (Assuming no cover. Cover takes a bigger bite out of the shuricannon's effectiveness)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
The disparity of how cover works for a 6+ armor list like Orks vs a 3+ power armor list is also very stupid. Where I play, players with a lot of 2+ and 3+ armor are always pushing for less cover, less terrain. The argument being that cover is giving horde lists free saves that they don't pay for.

Also, yes, this is definitely a thing. Those Orks are going to get absolutely mulched by bolters, spinefists, splinter rifles, you name it, if they don't have cover. Those Space Marines in the open have a better chance of bouncing an autocannon round than the Nobz in the ruin, though.

There should be some fixes to both cover and overkill mechanics. The first thought is stacking saves, though when you consider how hard folks with good saves and FNP, or Necrons with RP, are to put down for good, this could get terrifying real quick, and still favors the heavily-armored force.

jade_angel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

If I had my way, scatterlasers would be unable to affect vehicles in order to balance them out and would cause .5 wounds to MCs. They're just there to mow down infantry. They don't get to be one-stop shopping.

As I said, ID is stupid (Esp the jump from T4 to T5) and we need to go back to weapons causing different amounts of wounds and having more varied wound profiles.

How about this for scatter lasers: 36" S3 AP- Heavy 4, Shred

Get enough of them and they mess things up, but they're wounding Guardsmen on 4s (allowing saves), T7 is flat-out immune, AV10 is flat-out immune.

Though maybe that's too weak - needs 5 shots to match a shuriken cannon against a Guardsman, 6 against a Space Marine and 8 against a Carnifex. (Assuming no cover. Cover takes a bigger bite out of the shuricannon's effectiveness)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
The disparity of how cover works for a 6+ armor list like Orks vs a 3+ power armor list is also very stupid. Where I play, players with a lot of 2+ and 3+ armor are always pushing for less cover, less terrain. The argument being that cover is giving horde lists free saves that they don't pay for.

Also, yes, this is definitely a thing. Those Orks are going to get absolutely mulched by bolters, spinefists, splinter rifles, you name it, if they don't have cover. Those Space Marines in the open have a better chance of bouncing an autocannon round than the Nobz in the ruin, though.

There should be some fixes to both cover and overkill mechanics. The first thought is stacking saves, though when you consider how hard folks with good saves and FNP, or Necrons with RP, are to put down for good, this could get terrifying real quick, and still favors the heavily-armored force.

Guys, Scatterlasers aren't the problem. The fact they are spammable is a problem.

jade_angel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

If I had my way, scatterlasers would be unable to affect vehicles in order to balance them out and would cause .5 wounds to MCs. They're just there to mow down infantry. They don't get to be one-stop shopping.

As I said, ID is stupid (Esp the jump from T4 to T5) and we need to go back to weapons causing different amounts of wounds and having more varied wound profiles.

How about this for scatter lasers: 36" S3 AP- Heavy 4, Shred

Get enough of them and they mess things up, but they're wounding Guardsmen on 5s (allowing saves), T7 is flat-out immune, AV10 is flat-out immune.

Though maybe that's too weak - needs 5 shots to match a shuriken cannon against a Guardsman, 6 against a Space Marine and 8 against a Carnifex. (Assuming no cover. Cover takes a bigger bite out of the shuricannon's effectiveness)

S6 ROF 4 AP 6, vehicles immune, MCs take .5 wounds seems more like a niche to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

jade_angel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

If I had my way, scatterlasers would be unable to affect vehicles in order to balance them out and would cause .5 wounds to MCs. They're just there to mow down infantry. They don't get to be one-stop shopping.

As I said, ID is stupid (Esp the jump from T4 to T5) and we need to go back to weapons causing different amounts of wounds and having more varied wound profiles.

How about this for scatter lasers: 36" S3 AP- Heavy 4, Shred

Get enough of them and they mess things up, but they're wounding Guardsmen on 4s (allowing saves), T7 is flat-out immune, AV10 is flat-out immune.

Though maybe that's too weak - needs 5 shots to match a shuriken cannon against a Guardsman, 6 against a Space Marine and 8 against a Carnifex. (Assuming no cover. Cover takes a bigger bite out of the shuricannon's effectiveness)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
The disparity of how cover works for a 6+ armor list like Orks vs a 3+ power armor list is also very stupid. Where I play, players with a lot of 2+ and 3+ armor are always pushing for less cover, less terrain. The argument being that cover is giving horde lists free saves that they don't pay for.

Also, yes, this is definitely a thing. Those Orks are going to get absolutely mulched by bolters, spinefists, splinter rifles, you name it, if they don't have cover. Those Space Marines in the open have a better chance of bouncing an autocannon round than the Nobz in the ruin, though.

There should be some fixes to both cover and overkill mechanics. The first thought is stacking saves, though when you consider how hard folks with good saves and FNP, or Necrons with RP, are to put down for good, this could get terrifying real quick, and still favors the heavily-armored force.

Guys, Scatterlasers aren't the problem. The fact they are spammable is a problem.

They are still way too good for their cost. They're a problem in general, but a super problem because of spam.

As for the Orks, the argument goes that they are priced to die.

Where's the option for "It's fine, suck it up."?

 raverrn wrote:
Where's the option for "It's fine, suck it up."?

See, that's the problem...

It's actually not fine. Ignores Cover used to be exceedingly rare or difficult to obtain. Now, some armies are able to basically negate armies built around Cover saves or modifying Cover saves.

Raven Guard? There's no point in playing them as anything but Deep Strike/Drop Pod.

Scatterlasers aren't the real problem, it's the fact they can be spammed on a highly survivable and mobile troops choice. War Walkers aren't OP, are they?

Also congratulations on derailing a bad thread with more Eldar discussion.

Perhaps "for each markerlight expended, the closest model still in cover is treated as not being in cover"

Things I don't like are bad. ITC nerf please.

 Lukash_ wrote:
Scatterlasers aren't the real problem, it's the fact they can be spammed on a highly survivable and mobile troops choice. War Walkers aren't OP, are they?

Also congratulations on derailing a bad thread with more Eldar discussion.

Doesn't seem derailed to me.

jade_angel wrote:
How about this for scatter lasers: 36" S3 AP- Heavy 4, Shred

And how about this for Scatter Lasers: 36" S(D) AP1 Heavy 6.

Seems fair to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 raverrn wrote:
Where's the option for "It's fine, suck it up."?

I think that's the "ban Tau" option.

I guess you don't agree that scatterlasers are stupid?

Martel732 wrote:

jade_angel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

If I had my way, scatterlasers would be unable to affect vehicles in order to balance them out and would cause .5 wounds to MCs. They're just there to mow down infantry. They don't get to be one-stop shopping.

As I said, ID is stupid (Esp the jump from T4 to T5) and we need to go back to weapons causing different amounts of wounds and having more varied wound profiles.

How about this for scatter lasers: 36" S3 AP- Heavy 4, Shred

Get enough of them and they mess things up, but they're wounding Guardsmen on 5s (allowing saves), T7 is flat-out immune, AV10 is flat-out immune.

Though maybe that's too weak - needs 5 shots to match a shuriken cannon against a Guardsman, 6 against a Space Marine and 8 against a Carnifex. (Assuming no cover. Cover takes a bigger bite out of the shuricannon's effectiveness)

S6 ROF 4 AP 6, vehicles immune, MCs take .5 wounds seems more like a niche to me.

AP6 just seems like a big middle finger to Orks and Nids. Like, c'mon, why not AP-?

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

jade_angel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

If I had my way, scatterlasers would be unable to affect vehicles in order to balance them out and would cause .5 wounds to MCs. They're just there to mow down infantry. They don't get to be one-stop shopping.

As I said, ID is stupid (Esp the jump from T4 to T5) and we need to go back to weapons causing different amounts of wounds and having more varied wound profiles.

How about this for scatter lasers: 36" S3 AP- Heavy 4, Shred

Get enough of them and they mess things up, but they're wounding Guardsmen on 5s (allowing saves), T7 is flat-out immune, AV10 is flat-out immune.

Though maybe that's too weak - needs 5 shots to match a shuriken cannon against a Guardsman, 6 against a Space Marine and 8 against a Carnifex. (Assuming no cover. Cover takes a bigger bite out of the shuricannon's effectiveness)

S6 ROF 4 AP 6, vehicles immune, MCs take .5 wounds seems more like a niche to me.

AP6 just seems like a big middle finger to Orks and Nids. Like, c'mon, why not AP-?

Because we are getting rid of the ability to have an army wide Ignores cover. Were you paying attention at all?

Your title es no bueno.

As an ork player... thats a crazy idea.

I think if I did the poll I'd say that anything that ignores cover says they get 6+ cover instead. Armies like Marines and such with good saves will still get their good armour saves against most things, but armies that have their armour negated by almost everything at least get some kind of t-shirt save always.

In fact, that was the idea I'd go with for Markerlights if I ever wrote my Tau fandex, that two Markerlights just give things a 6+ cover save instead of ignoring it.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

jade_angel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

If I had my way, scatterlasers would be unable to affect vehicles in order to balance them out and would cause .5 wounds to MCs. They're just there to mow down infantry. They don't get to be one-stop shopping.

As I said, ID is stupid (Esp the jump from T4 to T5) and we need to go back to weapons causing different amounts of wounds and having more varied wound profiles.

How about this for scatter lasers: 36" S3 AP- Heavy 4, Shred

Get enough of them and they mess things up, but they're wounding Guardsmen on 5s (allowing saves), T7 is flat-out immune, AV10 is flat-out immune.

Though maybe that's too weak - needs 5 shots to match a shuriken cannon against a Guardsman, 6 against a Space Marine and 8 against a Carnifex. (Assuming no cover. Cover takes a bigger bite out of the shuricannon's effectiveness)

S6 ROF 4 AP 6, vehicles immune, MCs take .5 wounds seems more like a niche to me.

AP6 just seems like a big middle finger to Orks and Nids. Like, c'mon, why not AP-?

Because we are getting rid of the ability to have an army wide Ignores cover. Were you paying attention at all?

Ok...so? For Orks especially, I doubt you're sitting your boyz in cover for an entire game, whether an entire army has ignores cover or not. AP6 in general just seems like a, "and feth you in particular."

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

jade_angel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

If I had my way, scatterlasers would be unable to affect vehicles in order to balance them out and would cause .5 wounds to MCs. They're just there to mow down infantry. They don't get to be one-stop shopping.

As I said, ID is stupid (Esp the jump from T4 to T5) and we need to go back to weapons causing different amounts of wounds and having more varied wound profiles.

How about this for scatter lasers: 36" S3 AP- Heavy 4, Shred

Get enough of them and they mess things up, but they're wounding Guardsmen on 5s (allowing saves), T7 is flat-out immune, AV10 is flat-out immune.

Though maybe that's too weak - needs 5 shots to match a shuriken cannon against a Guardsman, 6 against a Space Marine and 8 against a Carnifex. (Assuming no cover. Cover takes a bigger bite out of the shuricannon's effectiveness)

S6 ROF 4 AP 6, vehicles immune, MCs take .5 wounds seems more like a niche to me.

AP6 just seems like a big middle finger to Orks and Nids. Like, c'mon, why not AP-?

Because we are getting rid of the ability to have an army wide Ignores cover. Were you paying attention at all?

Ok...so? For Orks especially, I doubt you're sitting your boyz in cover for an entire game, whether an entire army has ignores cover or not. AP6 in general just seems like a, "and feth you in particular."

So we should just get rid of Ap 5/6 because your dudes have bad armour?

Dman137 wrote:
Ignores cover is fine as is. Orks and nids have so many models that it almost doesn't matter. And some army's need the ignores cover to deal with such army's.

AoE and high RoF says hi.

They don't have more models than the enemy has shots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I guess you don't agree that scatterlasers are stupid?

Scatter lasers are fine. Its when they are spammed that it becomes stupid. They are only S6AP6 Heavy 4 36", right?
Imagine Space Marine bikes all having assault cannons.

Then damaging vehicles is more of a problem of vehicles being too fragile, imo. Its been 7 editions and they still haven't given vehicles a type of armor save.

Anyway, my 2c.
Ignore Cover should remain, as there should be weapons that can naturally ignore cover.
Flamers come to mind.

What should change is how ridiculously common that rule is. It should be a rare rule that applies to only a few weapons.
It should not be an army wide buff, nor should it be on long range weapons, unless said weapon is few in number and expensive.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

What should change is how ridiculously common that rule is. It should be a rare rule that applies to only a few weapons.
It should not be an army wide buff, nor should it be on long range weapons, unless said weapon is few in number and expensive.

The explosion of readily available Ignores Cover is necessary because of the tremendous amount of units that can get access to 2+ cover or rerollable cover saves. If there weren't so many ways to buff cover saves into the stratosphere then it wouldn't be necessary to deny it. Changing Ignores Cover to a modifer would just screw armies that don't have access to that, while only inconveniencing things like bike armies that are cruising around with 2+ jink.

The problem isn't Ignores Cover, the problem is a metagame with a preponderance of 2+ jink saves. If, for instance, bikes and skimmers weren't so tremendously popular in competitive play (in part because of their cover saves), then the metagame would evolve away from taking so much Ignores Cover because people aren't going to spend the points to cram it into their list just to punish some orks hiding in a ruin.

Ignore Cover should remain, as there should be weapons that can naturally ignore cover.
Flamers come to mind.

What should change is how ridiculously common that rule is. It should be a rare rule that applies to only a few weapons.
It should not be an army wide buff, nor should it be on long range weapons, unless said weapon is few in number and expensive.

This here.

And scatter lasers are a problem. They are practically assault cannons on bikes. No the lasers don't have rending and are ap6, but they have 12" better range and are a lot cheaper of an upgrade on, usually, what is cheaper (and just plain better) versions of similar or comparable models of other codices. This might not be a problem if scatter lasers weren't so freaking easy to spam. If there were a limit to the number of them in a unit like is done for special and heavy weapons ect in the SM dex for most every unit it might not be a problem.

As to the marker light issue, I would say let them reduce cover saves by 1 or 2 points at most so they are advantageous but not game breakingly so. Tau are good enough even without ignores cover.

The +12" range is what really makes them an unfair weapon to the extreme, imo. You can't get away from them.

So S6 Ap6 Heavy 3 or 4 Range 24?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
So S6 Ap6 Heavy 3 or 4 Range 24?

Both improvements. I believe the one is identical to the multilaser, however. Increasing the cost is also an idea.

Martel732 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
So S6 Ap6 Heavy 3 or 4 Range 24?

Both improvements. I believe the one is identical to the multilaser, however. Increasing the cost is also an idea.

I would honestly leave it as a multilaser, but make it a "1 in every 3 dudes can take it" weapon