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.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
This is why I have more or less given up on posting a lot here. Lots of opinions from a lot of non-attendees who argue as if it's an academic exercise.

Seriously Casey, look at just how different this Dakka poll is from the ITC one and you'll see how out of touch this forum is with the actual tournament scene. Arguing on the net is fine, especially when it lacks real world teeth.

I'm starting to believe this is the case.

While I'm sad for my piranhas, I'm happy the Ghostkeel got its snowflake.

 mortetvie wrote:
Overall, I am pretty happy with the results.


Hurts my Wraithknight a bit but most quality events have sufficient LOS blocking terrain.

This actually bring up a point which I think wasn't addressed (or maybe I skimmed over it)

If a GMC is obscured by terrain, I'd give it a cover save. I'd probably treat it as the 25% rule for vehicle. So, if you're playing on a field with lots of LOS blocking terrain, you still may get coversaves.

Does that ITC poll mean "no cover saves ever for GMCs"? because that seems unduly harsh to me. Because if a Wk is hiding on the other side of a gigantic building, and you can only see it through windows, a cover save seems fair.

But having, say, a foot 25% (or less) obscured granting 4+ cover save is absolutely ridiculous, and I'm happy they're addressing that. Hell, I'd prefer it applied to MCs as well.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
But having, say, a foot 25% (or less) obscured granting 4+ cover save is absolutely ridiculous, and I'm happy they're addressing that. Hell, I'd prefer it applied to MCs as well.

Seriously guys, this "apply to MCs as well" thing has not been thought out. My bugs get absolutely roasted without cover!

I could see the argument for getting rid of "area terrain" entirely, but if you're giving it to Terminators and Raveners and what-have-you, then Carnifexes need it too!

This is the snowball effect of making changes - if you're not careful you end up having unintended consequences. As pointed out earlier, this GMC nerf is mostly aimed at the Wraightknight, and it makes sense in some ways... but to continue the trend would really, really hurt a lot of fluffy armies if applied to MCs.

I would honestly feel less strongly about it if vehicles and MCs were treated equivalently in the cover save department (and pretty much all other departments, to boot).

I mean, do you really, truly, and honestly feel as if it's fair to claim a 4+ cover save (or 2+ if combined with a venomthrope) on, say, a mawloc if the tippy tip of it's tail is partially inside a ruin?

As it stands at the minute MC > Vehices by a considerable margin.

While it may hurt if it comes to be that MC's can't get the toe in cover save, remember that Vehicles are already having to find 25% and furthermore, don't have an armour save equivalent for their Hull Points.

Yeaaahhhh, so there's that. This is exactly why I was against this change to begin with.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I would honestly feel less strongly about it if vehicles and MCs were treated equivalently in the cover save department (and pretty much all other departments, to boot).

I mean, do you really, truly, and honestly feel as if it's fair to claim a 4+ cover save (or 2+ if combined with a venomthrope) on, say, a mawloc if the tippy tip of it's tail is partially inside a ruin?

I just view it as a game mechanic - why would it be any different for a Ravener to get this benefit but not a slightly bigger bug?

 Frozocrone wrote:
As it stands at the minute MC > Vehices by a considerable margin.

While it may hurt if it comes to be that MC's can't get the toe in cover save, remember that Vehicles are already having to find 25% and furthermore, don't have an armour save equivalent for their Hull Points.

Many vehicles are also considerably cheaper than my MCs... you can afford to have a rhino blown apart (and it can pop smoke).

I also run a Dreadnought army, and I'd love them to be more survivable... but just because they're having a hard time competing doesn't mean it makes sense to make it even Harder for an army like nids to compete!

Let's be honest, lots of things are counting as MCs that should be considered vehicles. I think that's the real problem, rather than MCs getting toe-in-cover, which they have for a really long time without breaking the game...

 gigasnail wrote:
Yeaaahhhh, so there's that. This is exactly why I was against this change to begin with.

Did somebody say, Slippery Slope?

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 gigasnail wrote:
Yeaaahhhh, so there's that. This is exactly why I was against this change to begin with.

Did somebody say, Slippery Slope?

It's not a fallacy when, you know. They immediately start in with it. Results were posted yesterday lol.

Self Edit: came off as condescending, apologies, so much intention is lost over the internet.

GMC still get a cover saves as if they were a vehicle obscured, so X percentage merits a cover save based off whats giving the save. 4+ for ruins, 5+ other models/area.
Stacks with stealth and shrouded as normal.

Yeah, the vote was for being in cover/terrain, not for completely removing their ability to get a cover save.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I would honestly feel less strongly about it if vehicles and MCs were treated equivalently in the cover save department (and pretty much all other departments, to boot).

I mean, do you really, truly, and honestly feel as if it's fair to claim a 4+ cover save (or 2+ if combined with a venomthrope) on, say, a mawloc if the tippy tip of it's tail is partially inside a ruin?

Yes? this may be hard to realise, but you need to use this thing called... your imagination.
I cant believe people elite so hard that they forget its a goddamn tabletop GAME. its not the olympics

Purestrain wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I would honestly feel less strongly about it if vehicles and MCs were treated equivalently in the cover save department (and pretty much all other departments, to boot).

I mean, do you really, truly, and honestly feel as if it's fair to claim a 4+ cover save (or 2+ if combined with a venomthrope) on, say, a mawloc if the tippy tip of it's tail is partially inside a ruin?

Yes? this may be hard to realise, but you need to use this thing called... your imagination.
I cant believe people elite so hard that they forget its a goddamn tabletop GAME. its not the olympics

Having watched plenty of Godzilla movies ad a kid. No one ever had issues targeting him as he stepped over the buildings. He took each and every missile to the face like a champ!!!
Now mothra that boy could jink like no other!!!

I really don't understand the Firesteam nerf. What else does else is at full strength supposed to mean?

Now that GMC's don't get 'toe in cover' I wonder if people would be willing to vote for FMC's in swooping mode don't get it either. They already have the rule change saying they can't be hit by blasts/templates (not what the RAW is), and they have Jink for a 4+ cover if they want it, but I always manage to see swooping FMC's with 2+ cover w/o jinking. The fast movement should have a downside, and right now it doesn't.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 gigasnail wrote:
Yeaaahhhh, so there's that. This is exactly why I was against this change to begin with.

Did somebody say, Slippery Slope?

Yes it is a slippery slope except the slope has daggers in it! When you give the people the power to change rules when they are not rules designers ITC happens!

Its okay because the people over ITC are just as good if not smarter than game designers who have been doing this since the origins of warhammer which I believe is in the 1980s.

 Mulletdude wrote:
Now that GMC's don't get 'toe in cover' I wonder if people would be willing to vote for FMC's in swooping mode don't get it either. They already have the rule change saying they can't be hit by blasts/templates (not what the RAW is), and they have Jink for a 4+ cover if they want it, but I always manage to see swooping FMC's with 2+ cover w/o jinking. The fast movement should have a downside, and right now it doesn't.

Jink doesn't stack with ruins cover. If you're talking about the Tyranid Malanthrope/venomthrope combined with ruins cover, however....well Tyranids need at least one nice thing

Let's avoid speculating on the intelligence of the ITC folks, please - and the people behind warhammer certainly aren't the same ones from the 80s (Alas!)

 luke1705 wrote:
If you're talking about the Tyranid Malanthrope/venomthrope combined with ruins cover, however....well Tyranids need at least one nice thing

Thank you . Armies are supposed to function differently and have different strengths, after all!

 luke1705 wrote:

 Mulletdude wrote:
Now that GMC's don't get 'toe in cover' I wonder if people would be willing to vote for FMC's in swooping mode don't get it either. They already have the rule change saying they can't be hit by blasts/templates (not what the RAW is), and they have Jink for a 4+ cover if they want it, but I always manage to see swooping FMC's with 2+ cover w/o jinking. The fast movement should have a downside, and right now it doesn't.

Jink doesn't stack with ruins cover. If you're talking about the Tyranid Malanthrope/venomthrope combined with ruins cover, however....well Tyranids need at least one nice thing

I don't mind that shrouded works with ruins cover. I mind that FMC's that are swooping in ruins with a source of shrouded get a 2+ w/o having to jink, despite being hard to hit and requiring 6's. Same thing with nurgle princes. Swooping, in ruins, 2+ cover w/o needing to jink.

 CKO wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 gigasnail wrote:
Yeaaahhhh, so there's that. This is exactly why I was against this change to begin with.

Did somebody say, Slippery Slope?

Yes it is a slippery slope except the slope has daggers in it! When you give the people the power to change rules when they are not rules designers this happens!

Its okay because the people over ITC are just as good if not smarter than game designers who have been doing this since the origins of warhammer which I believe is in the 1980s.

That argument MIGHT make sense if GW showed any competency or consistency in writing balanced rules. The mere existence of the Wraithknight, invisibility, or rerollable 2++'s shows that GW hasn't used their time writing rules to gain any particular experience or skill in that job.

 Mulletdude wrote:
Now that GMC's don't get 'toe in cover' I wonder if people would be willing to vote for FMC's in swooping mode don't get it either. They already have the rule change saying they can't be hit by blasts/templates (not what the RAW is), and they have Jink for a 4+ cover if they want it, but I always manage to see swooping FMC's with 2+ cover w/o jinking. The fast movement should have a downside, and right now it doesn't.

I would agree this makes sense. I play a Tyranids list with a lot of flyers and can't understand why I get cover for toe in when flying around hehe. But.....my bugs need all the help they can get hehe. If bugs were an unbeatable list I could understand the angst so let's please be careful with some of these discussions before another of my lists becomes invalidated hehe. My coven list still cries dust hehe

yeah, i don't even have a response beyond facepalming at this point.

 Fishboy wrote:

 Mulletdude wrote:
Now that GMC's don't get 'toe in cover' I wonder if people would be willing to vote for FMC's in swooping mode don't get it either. They already have the rule change saying they can't be hit by blasts/templates (not what the RAW is), and they have Jink for a 4+ cover if they want it, but I always manage to see swooping FMC's with 2+ cover w/o jinking. The fast movement should have a downside, and right now it doesn't.

I would agree this makes sense. I play a Tyranids list with a lot of flyers and can't understand why I get cover for toe in when flying around hehe. But.....my bugs need all the help they can get hehe. If bugs were an unbeatable list I could understand the angst so let's please be careful with some of these discussions before another of my lists becomes invalidated hehe. My coven list still cries dust hehe

I find it funny that you can come out and say hey dont nerf my army but when I fight for an army that I do not play my reputation is dragged through the mud, you have to love the INTERNET!

Trasvi wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 gigasnail wrote:
Yeaaahhhh, so there's that. This is exactly why I was against this change to begin with.

Did somebody say, Slippery Slope?

Yes it is a slippery slope except the slope has daggers in it! When you give the people the power to change rules when they are not rules designers this happens!

Its okay because the people over ITC are just as good if not smarter than game designers who have been doing this since the origins of warhammer which I believe is in the 1980s.

That argument MIGHT make sense if GW showed any competency or consistency in writing balanced rules. The mere existence of the Wraithknight, invisibility, or rerollable 2++'s shows that GW hasn't used their time writing rules to gain any particular experience or skill in that job.

I think the dumbest example of GW rules writing is the 1+ fnp rule.
GW deliberately says fnp is not a save and then makes a rule that saves can never be improved beyond 2+ but fail to make that same clarification about fnp. Allowing for unkillable characters minus remove from game effects. Nearly every tournament even those who do RAW clarify you can't improve fnp saves beyond 2+... Just because GW is so bad at rules writing.

 Mulletdude wrote:

 luke1705 wrote:

 Mulletdude wrote:
Now that GMC's don't get 'toe in cover' I wonder if people would be willing to vote for FMC's in swooping mode don't get it either. They already have the rule change saying they can't be hit by blasts/templates (not what the RAW is), and they have Jink for a 4+ cover if they want it, but I always manage to see swooping FMC's with 2+ cover w/o jinking. The fast movement should have a downside, and right now it doesn't.

Jink doesn't stack with ruins cover. If you're talking about the Tyranid Malanthrope/venomthrope combined with ruins cover, however....well Tyranids need at least one nice thing

I don't mind that shrouded works with ruins cover. I mind that FMC's that are swooping in ruins with a source of shrouded get a 2+ w/o having to jink, despite being hard to hit and requiring 6's. Same thing with nurgle princes. Swooping, in ruins, 2+ cover w/o needing to jink.

The model still exists on the field, regardless of the rules specified for it otherwise. Unless they say that FMC arent actually on the field, then good luck targeting them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

 CKO wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 gigasnail wrote:
Yeaaahhhh, so there's that. This is exactly why I was against this change to begin with.

Did somebody say, Slippery Slope?

Yes it is a slippery slope except the slope has daggers in it! When you give the people the power to change rules when they are not rules designers this happens!

Its okay because the people over ITC are just as good if not smarter than game designers who have been doing this since the origins of warhammer which I believe is in the 1980s.

That argument MIGHT make sense if GW showed any competency or consistency in writing balanced rules. The mere existence of the Wraithknight, invisibility, or rerollable 2++'s shows that GW hasn't used their time writing rules to gain any particular experience or skill in that job.

I think the dumbest example of GW rules writing is the 1+ fnp rule.
GW deliberately says fnp is not a save and then makes a rule that saves can never be improved beyond 2+ but fail to make that same clarification about fnp. Allowing for unkillable characters minus remove from game effects. Nearly every tournament even those who do RAW clarify you can't improve fnp saves beyond 2+... Just because GW is so bad at rules writing.

Or you can remember that a one is always a fail, unless specifically stated to be otherwise.

People are just looking for trouble on this forum

Purestrain wrote:

Or you can remember that a one is always a fail, unless specifically stated to be otherwise.

People are just looking for trouble on this forum

Except that isn't in the rules. A roll of 1 is a fail on saves... and FNP is explicitly not a save.

Trasvi wrote:

Purestrain wrote:

Or you can remember that a one is always a fail, unless specifically stated to be otherwise.

People are just looking for trouble on this forum

Except that isn't in the rules. A roll of 1 is a fail on saves... and FNP is explicitly not a save.

"FNP saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks...."

They call it one, and the rule for saves says any save you take is a fail on a one.

Purestrain wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

Purestrain wrote:

Or you can remember that a one is always a fail, unless specifically stated to be otherwise.

People are just looking for trouble on this forum

Except that isn't in the rules. A roll of 1 is a fail on saves... and FNP is explicitly not a save.

"FNP saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks...."

They call it one, and the rule for saves says any save you take is a fail on a one.

Seriously GW directly states it's not an armour save. And the only rule preventing 1+ save in the brb is for armour saves only pg3. This is why every tourney organizer has this rule changed so you can't exploit it.

In case you missed it here is the crappy GW rules writing.
"“A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+. ”

gungo wrote:

Purestrain wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

Purestrain wrote:

Or you can remember that a one is always a fail, unless specifically stated to be otherwise.

People are just looking for trouble on this forum

Except that isn't in the rules. A roll of 1 is a fail on saves... and FNP is explicitly not a save.

"FNP saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks...."

They call it one, and the rule for saves says any save you take is a fail on a one.

Seriously GW directly states it's not an armour save. And the only rule preventing 1+ save in the brb is for armour saves only pg3. This is why every tourney organizer has this rule changed so you can't exploit it.

In case you missed it here is the crappy GW rules writing.
"“A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+. ”

There is also a rule that saves in general always fail on a 1 (you know because cover and invul saves are a thing too)

 CrownAxe wrote:

gungo wrote:

Purestrain wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

Purestrain wrote:

Or you can remember that a one is always a fail, unless specifically stated to be otherwise.

People are just looking for trouble on this forum

Except that isn't in the rules. A roll of 1 is a fail on saves... and FNP is explicitly not a save.

"FNP saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks...."

They call it one, and the rule for saves says any save you take is a fail on a one.

Seriously GW directly states it's not an armour save. And the only rule preventing 1+ save in the brb is for armour saves only pg3. This is why every tourney organizer has this rule changed so you can't exploit it.

In case you missed it here is the crappy GW rules writing.
"“A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+. ”

There is also a rule that saves in general always fail on a 1 (you know because cover and invul saves are a thing too)

No that rule is called maximum save and it specifically calls out armour invul and cover.
“However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. ”

Just to be clear because I don't want to keep going in circles. Fnp specifically calls out it is not a saving throw in its usr.

“When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw and so can ​
be used against attacks that state that ‘no saves of any kind are allowed”

You ca t have it both ways..... This is why every tournament every single one of them literally changes the rules to fix GW horrid rules writing.