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.

 niv-mizzet wrote:

-no 2+ Save outside of normal armor should exist.

I agree with everything else you said, but can you elaborate on this? I'm a little confused as to what you mean.

I think he means 2+ cover saves, or invulnerable saves (both of which are possible)

 War Kitten wrote:
I think he means 2+ cover saves, or invulnerable saves (both of which are possible)

2+ cover is okay for weak models like rangers or scouts. It's not okay for black knights.

On the point of cover saves... in WHF, cover gave a penalty to a units shooting correct? Rather then a save modifier?

I think this approach could be interesting. Essentially units that gain "ignore cover" bonuses would be negating penalties first before gaining any buffs to their firing (if they would get any in this system)

To do this though, Jink saves would need to become their own thing, and many units I would then assume would become more like dark reapers (ignore jink) or gain some bonus to hit jinking models.

Rules that require me to turn to page 40 then to page 74 then to page 6 of a different book then to a dataslate and the finally to an faq before I have the complete rule.


No assault on th first player turn or out of reserve etc. If there's no assault on the first player turn why is there an assault on the second? That makes no sense. Either allow both or say no assault in the first game turn. It makes no sense that a fast shooty army can alpha strike me and blow me off the table turn 1 but my assault army has to run right up to them .... And stare menacingly for a turn before swinging the chain axe. The blood god is not known for his patience....

The fact tha you can't shoot into cc. Certain armies should be able to imo. Certainly someone like Tau would never do it, but can you imagine orks even hesitating to charge grots into an enemy unit and then opening fire while the unit was dealing with the grot assault? Heck, orks would probably even find it funny! Can't imagine abbadon not shooting into a melee involving cultists either.

Tycho wrote:
Rules that require me to turn to page 40 then to page 74 then to page 6 of a different book then to a dataslate and the finally to an faq before I have the complete rule.


No assault on th first player turn or out of reserve etc. If there's no assault on the first player turn why is there an assault on the second? That makes no sense. Either allow both or say no assault in the first game turn. It makes no sense that a fast shooty army can alpha strike me and blow me off the table turn 1 but my assault army has to run right up to them .... And stare menacingly for a turn before swinging the chain axe. The blood god is not known for his patience....

The fact tha you can't shoot into cc. Certain armies should be able to imo. Certainly someone like Tau would never do it, but can you imagine orks even hesitating to charge grots into an enemy unit and then opening fire while the unit was dealing with the grot assault? Heck, orks would probably even find it funny! Can't imagine abbadon not shooting into a melee involving cultists either.

I have thought about that possibility, the best solution that comes to mind in the current system is that you "snap fire" at units in CC, because you are afraid to hit your own men.. or are taking extra aim to not do so.

Don't some chaos forgeworld army have a vehicle that can fire into cc ?

you can also hope to scatter blasts into cc units currently. And Mawlocs can also eat units in cc (I sacrifice gaunts for this all the time!)

 War Kitten wrote:
I think he means 2+ cover saves, or invulnerable saves (both of which are possible)

Ah, I see. I don't mind Shadowfield being 2++ - since it's expensive, only available on fragile models and stops working the first time it's failed.

But them, it should be impossible to have any rerollable invulnerable or cover save - 2++ or otherwise.

I also think there are too many 2+ armour saves. Or, more accurately, too many 2+ saves that require no trade-off. e.g. Artificer armour seems like a horrible idea because it renders Terminator armour obsolete. Characters should have to choose between mobility (bike, jump pack etc.) or a 2+ save - not just pick both.

The crunch on terminators has always been bad, except 2nd ed chaos.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
True, but previously "Ignores Cover" was much more rare. It's become far more common with the prevalence of "Jink" saves.

True. There's also a lot more stacking cover saves these days (so that many units can easily get 2+ or 3+ cover even in the open).

It makes the game far too all-or-nothing for my tastes - with many units flipping between an amazing (possibly even rerollable) cover save, and no cover save at all.

Issue is that the only way I know of to get a rerollable Cover save(Precognition in Divination) also applies to Invulnerable saves and armor saves as well.

I'd like to see fewer stacking cover saves, and also have Ignores Cover impose a penalty to cover saves - rather than just ignoring them outright.

Stacking cover saves is, IMO, fine. Ignores Cover should be removed from weapons intended to be used as AA, instead gaining the "Target Lock" rule preventing units they have fired upon from gaining a Jink save.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Issue is that the only way I know of to get a rerollable Cover save(Precognition in Divination) also applies to Invulnerable saves and armor saves as well.

All the more reason to remove it, frankly. Also, there are other ways - I believe Fortune works on cover saves, and there's also stuff like the DA detachment that grants rerollable Jink saves.

Martel732 wrote:

 nullBolt wrote:
Mass mechanisation is probably the cause of 90% of 40k's problems.

Nope.

Yep.

 nullBolt wrote:

1. 28mm scale does not suit mass mechanisation.
2. In 99% of the fluff, mass mechanisation is not a thing especially amongst Space Marines.
3. Mass mechanisation wasn't a thing until a few editions in, so the ruleset is obviously not designed for it.
4. It really takes away from bad arse dudes doing bad arse things.
5. It's the slippery slope to giant mechasuits fighting each other on a 28mm play area.

Go read through 2nd Edition which, according to a great deal of people, was one of the better editions. Or, go look at almost any 28mm scale game and see if you can find mass mechanisation of infantry.

There's a reason 28mm is used for skirmish games and it's because it really does not suit larger scales. Either you have a huge play board or you just have kill tunnels which your dudes walk down (drive down in 40k). It also makes literally no sense. It's like an FPS where I can't flank the enemy because I can't go into that area just because I can't go in that area.

Mechanised military operates on a much larger scale.

The godlike powers of mcs are far more of a problem than some easily removed vehicles. Vehicles in general are garbage in 7th.

2nd ed was trash, certainly not one of the better editions.

Martel732 wrote:
The godlike powers of mcs are far more of a problem than some easily removed vehicles. Vehicles in general are garbage in 7th.

2nd ed was trash, certainly not one of the better editions.

Vehicles are the root cause of the problem. You can accept or deny it as you wish, but it's the case. They're shoe horned which gives an excuse to shoe horn bigger gak.

Your argument for this is extremely unconvincing. 3rd 4th and 5th had many vehicles and far fewer shenanigans than 6/7th.

Also which of the top 2 armies uses mass vehicles? not eldar, not necron.

I'm not saying that Warhammer Fantasy Battle was ever a fantastic system, but no matter how you roll that particular tortilla, it has the restraint that 40k has lost a few editions ago that would help it immensely now.

I generally believe that the strengths of a given thing comes from the limitations imposed upon it. 40K completely threw that out of the house, and went with the rule of cool, which, while sustainable for a little while, wears off. However, if you have a set of limitations that you have to work with, the fun lies in trying to make the best list with the options you have and to try and use new stuff to improve upon old lists.

The 40k way of adding a new model or unit is to give it rules that are better than what a similar unit already had, while trying to keep the weaknesses that unit had covered better. To compete with this new thing, however, other new units have to be able to deal with that thing better than the previous one, while again being better at covering itself from what would be able to deal with it, and so on and so on.

On the other hand, almost no Fantasy Monster would ever have a save over 4+, because the toughness and amount of wounds the things have are plenty in and off itself. Dedicated anti-monster models can still deal with it pretty easy, though a squad of archers can't. Is that better? I don't know. I do know that they would never give a Monster several ways of protecting itself against the very thing that could concievably defend itself against like 40k does to things like the Riptide.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Issue is that the only way I know of to get a rerollable Cover save(Precognition in Divination) also applies to Invulnerable saves and armor saves as well.

All the more reason to remove it, frankly. Also, there are other ways - I believe Fortune works on cover saves, and there's also stuff like the DA detachment that grants rerollable Jink saves.

But again that's ignoring the issue here, Jink being a Cover save/stacking with Cover save modifying abilities like Shrouded or Stealth. Notice that the DA detachment grants rerollable Jink saves, not rerollable Cover saves. And Precognition applies to ALL saves, and I'm assuming Fortune is similarly worded(I've not read the new book in depth, just a few glances here and there).

If you make Jink its own thing? That is no longer really an issue with the Cover stacking.

Ah, I see what you mean.

But, even so, I don't think Cover saves (let alone invulnerable saves) need to be rerollable.

Martel732 wrote:
Your argument for this is extremely unconvincing. 3rd 4th and 5th had many vehicles and far fewer shenanigans than 6/7th.

Not as many vehicles as 7th does.

Makumba wrote:
Also which of the top 2 armies uses mass vehicles? not eldar, not necron.

Every other army needs to use vehicles to survive at all. Which is probably the point.

 nullBolt wrote:
Or, go look at almost any 28mm scale game and see if you can find mass mechanisation of infantry.
.

Bolt Action works quite well with mechanised Infantry.
Vehicles are not the problem or which problem is solved if vehicles are reduced or removed?

The Rules don't get more streamlined, Special Rules are not reduced, randomness is not effected at all.
Movement is still pointless because it makes no difference if you attack from the front or rare.

Give me a specific problem that is solved with less transports on the table.
(of course Sisters would suck even more while Eldar, Marines or Tau are not effected at all)

 nullBolt wrote:

Not as many vehicles as 7th does.

I see less vehicles on the table.
7th is not a vehicle edition, there are only a few lists that really spam them.

PS:
We tried to solve most of the problems mentioned here with our own version of the rules

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mBXYftgKUUcN6Rleij3cZnoufY1c_xA9nlrJlI0jh7U/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ij2JJZMDzbo_Jwm70_NRyxvPA91388hiyAnCluDDlUw/edit?usp=sharing

Tau don't use them either.

And claiming that anyone uses vehicles to "survive" is a pretty big joke. Marines are point for point far more resilient than their own Rhinos. They are just are slow without them.

I was using more vehicles in 3rd than I am now in 7th. And don't get me started about BA vehicles in 5th. I am using Rhinos as moving terrain. That's it. That's their function. They fail at everything else. The only good thing is that most people don't bother trying to explode the Rhinos, so I get to keep a small wall.

 vipoid wrote:
Ah, I see what you mean.

But, even so, I don't think Cover saves (let alone invulnerable saves) need to be rerollable.

I agree that there should be some kind of system in place to prevent it from being "2+/2+", like BS where a BS6 model is hitting on 2s with rerolls of 6s...but I'm not necessarily opposed to rerolls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nullBolt wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Your argument for this is extremely unconvincing. 3rd 4th and 5th had many vehicles and far fewer shenanigans than 6/7th.

Not as many vehicles as 7th does.

And how often do those vehicles survive or really contribute to anything beyond soaking up Haywire/D weapons?

Makumba wrote:
Also which of the top 2 armies uses mass vehicles? not eldar, not necron.

Every other army needs to use vehicles to survive at all. Which is probably the point.

Which armies "need to use vehicles to survive at all"? To put it bluntly, Guard using vehicles is just because Guard players aren't really expecting to stomp around on other players. If you're gonna lose, you might as well have fun in the process!

My complaint is how quickly 6th turned into 7th edition and the rapid turn-over with books

Other companies seem able to produce a rulebook and stick with it - maybe including an expansion or two that enhance the original game.

GW releases a whole new ruleset by shuffling points around - they seem to deliberately unbalance stuff to a) sell more models that are the new 'hotness' because suddenly they're good b) sell more books because now everyone is out of date c) Allows them to spend another year or two messing around to see what sells before the next release makes them mediocre / average compared to their next release. d) Everything keeps escalating, involving bigger, more expensive models in a plastic arms race to sell even more.

So in short, my gripe is with the whole rulebook being deliberately unbalanced. Sure if they made it balanced in the first place they would sell less - but they would have more loyal customers who would keep buying and playing.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Which armies "need to use vehicles to survive at all"?

I can think of a few honestly..
- DE need their transports to get around, and add some significant gun boat shenanigans with jinking (not effecting troops inside)
- Harliquins are in the same boat, they are extremely vulnerable, and while their transports aren't much more so, being able to move half way across the board before they die, is helpful.
- I realize many players don't use them.. but Tau devilfish are really good for only 80 points.. Plus any mobile tau force is probably going to use them
- How does Eldar not use vehicles? I realize serpent spam is kinda of out right now, but wave serpents are still good... and they made falcons viable again with their deepstrike bonuses. Fire prisms.. also pretty awesome (and look cool )

Separate note: Marines I would argue are not more survivable then their transports.. they just take a different type of unit to handle them. Any AT weapon can take out a rhino.. but a rhino protects marines from AI weapons

The fact that dedicated transports count as the unit type its for. This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for drop-pods, which have objective secure if they are carrying a tactical squad. This means a space marines player can just drop them on objectives and keep them, unless I decide to kill the drop-pod, which I don't want to do as it's not really a threat, wasting good fire-power/charges

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Which armies "need to use vehicles to survive at all"?

I can think of a few honestly..
- DE need their transports to get around, and add some significant gun boat shenanigans with jinking (not effecting troops inside)
- Harliquins are in the same boat, they are extremely vulnerable, and while their transports aren't much more so, being able to move half way across the board before they die, is helpful.
- I realize many players don't use them.. but Tau devilfish are really good for only 80 points.. Plus any mobile tau force is probably going to use them
- How does Eldar not use vehicles? I realize serpent spam is kinda of out right now, but wave serpents are still good... and they made falcons viable again with their deepstrike bonuses. Fire prisms.. also pretty awesome (and look cool )

Separate note: Marines I would argue are not more survivable then their transports.. they just take a different type of unit to handle them. Any AT weapon can take out a rhino.. but a rhino protects marines from AI weapons

Which is why you blow up the rhino first, get the destroyed transport damage, and then shoot the marines with anti-infantry weapons.
Did I mention that I think vehicles are too fragile, especially compared to MCs? There should really be a saving throw for vehicle armor, that's not depend on terrain / smoke / whatever.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Which armies "need to use vehicles to survive at all"?

I can think of a few honestly..
- DE need their transports to get around, and add some significant gun boat shenanigans with jinking (not effecting troops inside)
- Harliquins are in the same boat, they are extremely vulnerable, and while their transports aren't much more so, being able to move half way across the board before they die, is helpful.
- I realize many players don't use them.. but Tau devilfish are really good for only 80 points.. Plus any mobile tau force is probably going to use them
- How does Eldar not use vehicles? I realize serpent spam is kinda of out right now, but wave serpents are still good... and they made falcons viable again with their deepstrike bonuses. Fire prisms.. also pretty awesome (and look cool )

Separate note: Marines I would argue are not more survivable then their transports.. they just take a different type of unit to handle them. Any AT weapon can take out a rhino.. but a rhino protects marines from AI weapons

Anti-infantry weapons are now S6. That kills all the Rhinos. Yesterday.

Martel732 wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Which armies "need to use vehicles to survive at all"?

I can think of a few honestly..
- DE need their transports to get around, and add some significant gun boat shenanigans with jinking (not effecting troops inside)
- Harliquins are in the same boat, they are extremely vulnerable, and while their transports aren't much more so, being able to move half way across the board before they die, is helpful.
- I realize many players don't use them.. but Tau devilfish are really good for only 80 points.. Plus any mobile tau force is probably going to use them
- How does Eldar not use vehicles? I realize serpent spam is kinda of out right now, but wave serpents are still good... and they made falcons viable again with their deepstrike bonuses. Fire prisms.. also pretty awesome (and look cool )

Separate note: Marines I would argue are not more survivable then their transports.. they just take a different type of unit to handle them. Any AT weapon can take out a rhino.. but a rhino protects marines from AI weapons

Anti-infantry weapons are now S6. That kills all the Rhinos. Yesterday.

Technically its light AT, which can also be great anti-infantry.
Kind of like how a .50 can shred people and unarmored / lightly armored vehicles.
Except rhinos are supposed to be tanks, so...oops?

Martel732 wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Which armies "need to use vehicles to survive at all"?

I can think of a few honestly..
- DE need their transports to get around, and add some significant gun boat shenanigans with jinking (not effecting troops inside)
- Harliquins are in the same boat, they are extremely vulnerable, and while their transports aren't much more so, being able to move half way across the board before they die, is helpful.
- I realize many players don't use them.. but Tau devilfish are really good for only 80 points.. Plus any mobile tau force is probably going to use them
- How does Eldar not use vehicles? I realize serpent spam is kinda of out right now, but wave serpents are still good... and they made falcons viable again with their deepstrike bonuses. Fire prisms.. also pretty awesome (and look cool )

Separate note: Marines I would argue are not more survivable then their transports.. they just take a different type of unit to handle them. Any AT weapon can take out a rhino.. but a rhino protects marines from AI weapons

Anti-infantry weapons are now S6. That kills all the Rhinos. Yesterday.

You can't use scatbikes as your basis for argument. MOST armies troops are using <=s4 weapons. Which rhinos are immune too. I suppose I was mistaken in that I should have said Rhinos are immune to small arms fire.

But that is what multiple threats are for. And why drop pods are so awesome. Drop some marines in their face meanwhile your cruising across the board.>

 Grizzyzz wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Which armies "need to use vehicles to survive at all"?

I can think of a few honestly..
- DE need their transports to get around, and add some significant gun boat shenanigans with jinking (not effecting troops inside)
- Harliquins are in the same boat, they are extremely vulnerable, and while their transports aren't much more so, being able to move half way across the board before they die, is helpful.
- I realize many players don't use them.. but Tau devilfish are really good for only 80 points.. Plus any mobile tau force is probably going to use them
- How does Eldar not use vehicles? I realize serpent spam is kinda of out right now, but wave serpents are still good... and they made falcons viable again with their deepstrike bonuses. Fire prisms.. also pretty awesome (and look cool )

Separate note: Marines I would argue are not more survivable then their transports.. they just take a different type of unit to handle them. Any AT weapon can take out a rhino.. but a rhino protects marines from AI weapons

Anti-infantry weapons are now S6. That kills all the Rhinos. Yesterday.

You can't use scatbikes as your basis for argument. MOST armies troops are using <=s4 weapons. Which rhinos are immune too. I suppose I was mistaken in that I should have said Rhinos are immune to small arms fire.

But that is what multiple threats are for. And why drop pods are so awesome. Drop some marines in their face meanwhile your cruising across the board.>

Why not? I've lost more infantry to scatterbikes than anything else. Hands down, bar none. Sure seem like anti-infantry to me. No one wastes their time with S4 is they can help it. I wouldn't have any S4 weapons if I could avoid it.

Eldar have enough guns to kill my drop pod marines and my vehicles, stranding those marines on foot. You really can't drop effectively on Eldar without Skyhammer because of the WK counter assaults.