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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. I've rarely played on a table where you could hide more than 1 Manticore completely out of LOS from the entire enemy deployment zone, and this includes my games at NOVA.

The problem with Manticores is not them hiding, but stuff trying to hide from them.

I too try to defy enemy MLRS batteries by hiding behind a low hedge.

I too expect my indirect fire to be as accurate as my direct fire.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. I've rarely played on a table where you could hide more than 1 Manticore completely out of LOS from the entire enemy deployment zone, and this includes my games at NOVA.

The problem with Manticores is not them hiding, but stuff trying to hide from them.

I too try to defy enemy MLRS batteries by hiding behind a low hedge.

I too expect my indirect fire to be as accurate as my direct fire.

More accurate actually.

Indirect fire should get +1 to hit.

To be fair, we're talking wide area effect weapons, accuracy shouldnt be super important.

By the same token however, something like a Manticore has no realistic place in an actual 40k table as anything but a mission objective, being used in a tactical role against units in small arms range or even tank gun range is ridiculous for that kind of artillery (the rockets almost certainly wouldnt even be armed at such close ranges, much less be able to be targeted), its the kind of thing that should be portrayed as off-board artillery really.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


More accurate actually.

Indirect fire should get +1 to hit.

Groupings on MBTs is 0.5 meters.

This thing? Not so much.

with a circular error probable (CEP) of around 5 metres (16 ft) to 20 metres (66 ft)

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


More accurate actually.

Indirect fire should get +1 to hit.

Groupings on MBTs is 0.5 meters.

This thing? Not so much.

with a circular error probable (CEP) of around 5 metres (16 ft) to 20 metres (66 ft)

I was having a giggle, mostly. Realistically, I agree with Vakhathi. This sort of thing shouldn't even be on the table at the scales 40k is played at, unless it is a scenario game. But that's a whole different discussion.

 Formosa wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Cultists would need love vis a vis guardsmen.

I think make indirect fire -1 to hit and make all orders on a 4+ and make conscripts not take orders at all might be a thing to try.

I like it - no doubt the IG police will show up soon to dismiss it as a unnecessary nerf because IG are bottom tier

Orders should never have been automatic. Some sort of risk of failure is needed.

Another option could be going back to previous editions, rolling 2D6 and aim for under the units LD for the order to be heard - reroll or maybe +1/+2 for having a vox caster. Double 1's jams the vox and prevents any further orders that turn.

Not a guard player but if you bring that back I want

Deep strike scatter for matched
Rolling for reserves for matched
All auras work on a 2+ and only affect 1 unit for matched

Basically most auto abilities dropped to add a failure chance. Never been a fan of anything happening without a little risk

What next? AoF only happens on a 2+? Imagifer extra AoF only happens on a 4+ too?
Oh wait already the case .

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


More accurate actually.

Indirect fire should get +1 to hit.

Groupings on MBTs is 0.5 meters.

This thing? Not so much.

with a circular error probable (CEP) of around 5 metres (16 ft) to 20 metres (66 ft)

I was having a giggle, mostly. Realistically, I agree with Vakhathi. This sort of thing shouldn't even be on the table at the scales 40k is played at, unless it is a scenario game. But that's a whole different discussion.

While I agree - they make a model for it and it would be unfair to not allow people to use it. We can at least agree on rules that are actually fair. Maybe give it an upgrade ability for indirect fire. +20 points = you gain indirect fire - or something. 160 without indirect and 180 with it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


More accurate actually.

Indirect fire should get +1 to hit.

Groupings on MBTs is 0.5 meters.

This thing? Not so much.

with a circular error probable (CEP) of around 5 metres (16 ft) to 20 metres (66 ft)

I was having a giggle, mostly. Realistically, I agree with Vakhathi. This sort of thing shouldn't even be on the table at the scales 40k is played at, unless it is a scenario game. But that's a whole different discussion.

While I agree - they make a model for it and it would be unfair to not allow people to use it. We can at least agree on rules that are actually fair. Maybe give it an upgrade ability for indirect fire. +20 points = you gain indirect fire - or something. 160 without indirect and 180 with it.

Why in the world would it be more expensive than a Leman Russ if it had no indirect fire option? It's less durable with essentially the same gun.

You guys are bonkers.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. I've rarely played on a table where you could hide more than 1 Manticore completely out of LOS from the entire enemy deployment zone, and this includes my games at NOVA.

The problem with Manticores is not them hiding, but stuff trying to hide from them.

I too try to defy enemy MLRS batteries by hiding behind a low hedge.

I too expect my indirect fire to be as accurate as my direct fire.

i too expect a computer and radar guided system to be less accurate than the old mk.I eyeball...

gendoikari87 wrote:

i too expect a computer and radar guided system to be less accurate than the old mk.I eyeball...

How does one get GPS on a planet they don't own? Is the Basilisk wire or GPS guided? How ridiculous do we want to get about an advantage in a game with no downside?

Guys....let's not balance things, because real life armies have GPS.

The Imperium doesn't have computers anyway. They got the Dune treatment I thought in the fluff.

The Imperium has computers, as does Dune, just not self aware ones for the most part (barring stuff like the Land Raiders machine spirit). Their use is rather haphazard and inconsistent however in both settings

I don't care about the changes as it won't really impact me at all, I just want them to hurry up so I can print my new cheat-sheets and be done for another 6 months.

Martel732 wrote:
The Imperium doesn't have computers anyway. They got the Dune treatment I thought in the fluff.

Computers are fine and used a lot in the Imperium.
What is not allowed is intelligent machines

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, we're talking wide area effect weapons, accuracy shouldnt be super important.

By the same token however, something like a Manticore has no realistic place in an actual 40k table as anything but a mission objective, being used in a tactical role against units in small arms range or even tank gun range is ridiculous for that kind of artillery (the rockets almost certainly wouldnt even be armed at such close ranges, much less be able to be targeted), its the kind of thing that should be portrayed as off-board artillery really.

IRL a 500lb bomb has a kill radius of your standard table top. So yeah...

Indirect fire without LOS should be -1 to hit.

Army wide -1 to hit - as a trait - should also not exist. Raven guard and Alaitoc should be always receiving the benefit of cover, like Jormungandr.

 Marmatag wrote:


Army wide -1 to hit - as a trait - should also not exist. Raven guard and Alaitoc should be always receiving the benefit of cover, like Jormungandr.

I wonder if they might do that...those books were much earlier in the design process and we haven't seen a -1 army wide again have we?

Raven Guard *don't* have an army wide -1 to be hit, though, do they? (cough, vehicles)

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Army wide -1 to hit - as a trait - should also not exist. Raven guard and Alaitoc should be always receiving the benefit of cover, like Jormungandr.

I wonder if they might do that...those books were much earlier in the design process and we haven't seen a -1 army wide again have we?

AdMech has it too as does CSM, but I think that's it.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of ditching it entirely. Only way to counter mass re-rolls.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


More accurate actually.

Indirect fire should get +1 to hit.

Groupings on MBTs is 0.5 meters.

This thing? Not so much.

with a circular error probable (CEP) of around 5 metres (16 ft) to 20 metres (66 ft)

I was having a giggle, mostly. Realistically, I agree with Vakhathi. This sort of thing shouldn't even be on the table at the scales 40k is played at, unless it is a scenario game. But that's a whole different discussion.

While I agree - they make a model for it and it would be unfair to not allow people to use it. We can at least agree on rules that are actually fair. Maybe give it an upgrade ability for indirect fire. +20 points = you gain indirect fire - or something. 160 without indirect and 180 with it.

Why in the world would it be more expensive than a Leman Russ if it had no indirect fire option? It's less durable with essentially the same gun.

You guys are bonkers.

its not the same gun. What does a LR cost anyways? I figured at least 180. It's better than my 180 point pred.

How about only allowing indirect fire (and I'm talking all units, not just Manticores) if there's at least something in the army that can see the target?

To put it in this thread's terms: the current situation is "I too randomly shoot off MLRS ordnance at random and hope my enemy is there."

-1 to hit was a response to the advantage of ranged Shooty armies. I feel that it was a good idea, implemented poorly.

I dont wish for it to be changed per se, but if it HAD to go, perhaps making it outside 18 inches instead of 12 would stop the whining.

The problem of the -1 to hit is that it makes all the other sub-faction traits irrelevant.

Not really the problem is they tended to pair it with other powerful stratagems and warlord traits etc.

Look at space marines Ravenguard see a lot of play, but ultra marines see as much of more because of Rowboat. If they did not also get the infiltrate strat, and instead that went to say white scars then they would see less. Same with alpha legion. For example if nightlords got infiltrate alpha legion would see less play.

Tyran wrote:
The problem of the -1 to hit is that it makes all the other sub-faction traits irrelevant.

I mean, part of the problem also is that the other sub-faction traits are often irrelevant to start with.

There's been a very strange reverse power creep with a lot of the traits. Very recently, Tau got half of the Salamanders' trait and it actually looks okay next to all their other ones. Eldar obviously all play Alatoic now, but just look at the other traits. Ulthwe is easily the best of the lot, and it's still a somewhat-nerfed version of the Iron Hands' trait (which was already not very well-received as an SM trait) that synergizes particularly poorly with their psychic powers and wargear. Biel-Tan re-rolls 1s to hit... with one specific kind of weapon; there are very few units that would not get much, much more out of the Salamanders' trait, and of course this does nothing when next to an Autarch. Saim-Hann re-rolls charges in an army with very few CC units such that a couple of CP re-rolls can often be used to achieve basically the same effect, and then it lets two bad units that no one takes move and fire heavy weapons. Iyanden sounds impressive -- and it'd be great for something like Guard infantry -- but it turns out to be one of the worst traits GW has yet published for the army that has access to it and will actually do literally nothing for you in many games.

The Hemlock Wraithfighter provides a good example of the problem here. It has no shuriken weapons, so it gets nothing from Biel-Tan. It has auto-hitting weapons and can advance 40" so gets basically nothing from Iyanden (and damage table resistance is not very valuable even for regular vehicles). It can't charge things and isn't a biker so gets nothing from Saim-Hann. It would benefit from another 6+ FNP but since it already has one the Ulthwe trait specifically excludes it. So when deciding what Craftworld to make your Eldar Air Wing, you can see how you have a very, very tough choice to make. There's basically no amount of nerfing you could do to Alatoic that would make it not the best choice for some units, though eventually Ulthwe would be the clear winner for most.

Apparently there was a Facebook post on the Warhammer Community page confirming that the FAQ will be released after Adepticon (apparently they want to use the seminar events to collect questions to possibly add into the FAQ)

As a Black Templar player I couldn’t give a damn if GW chooses to give Chapter Tactics to Marine Vehicles.

If they did, though, they just might make all Word Bearers players cry.

Haha, rub salt AND lemon juice in that wound. Poor Word Bearers.

I would not be angered if they gave Word Bearers another addition to that trait.

 Ordana wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The Imperium doesn't have computers anyway. They got the Dune treatment I thought in the fluff.

Computers are fine and used a lot in the Imperium.
What is not allowed is intelligent machines

this but when they need intelligent machines.... that’s what servitude’s and cogitators are for. Human brains in a jar pick up any slack


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

i too expect a computer and radar guided system to be less accurate than the old mk.I eyeball...

How does one get GPS on a planet they don't own? Is the Basilisk wire or GPS guided? How ridiculous do we want to get about an advantage in a game with no downside?

Guys....let's not balance things, because real life armies have GPS.

to get real for a moment the British army would red mist whole marine chapters. The us army would probably laugh the ultrasmurfs to death