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.

I think the scatter thing is a combination of a few issues.

Regardless of if it was really a big problem in most groups it was:
1. Objectively less precise than most other weapons
2. Required the confirmation and agreement of the other player
3. Could slow down games

I think that there are good reasons to see those as problems and do something to fix it.

The second issue is the solution they actually went with.

Flamers being 1d6 hits is a nerf in most situations, and makes for weird situations when you fire them all at one model like fliers and vehicles. They just aren't good at what they are supposed to be good at. Blast weapons are in a similar situation.

To me the solution was poor, but the problem was still legitimate, so I don't think if want them to go back to templates as much as just add some rules to make flamers etc better at what they are supposed to do.

I don't miss vehicle facing much. I don't think it was bad, I just think it came at the cost of normalizing all unit statlines, which did seem to be an improvement. I also haven't looked back in any games and thought "that would have been so much more fun with vehicle facings."

It's certainly weird that the units with the worst armour saves are the ones that gain the least benefit from being in cover, when one would think the opposite would be true. I mean, if you're already wearing half a tank, there's only so much a brick wall is going to do. But if all you've got is some cardboard with 'Armor' written on it, then that brick wall is going to be a significant improvement.

Totally agree. I also don't think it made said half tank units the more silly or point and click: it granted you the possibilty to wander out of cover to advance or take better LOS, while staying in cover would help you resist low Ap weapons at the expense of some of your mobility. It still implied choices and is an advantage for highly costy units: a guard, if it wants to survive anything, will not be as mobile as a space marine. Nothing wrong as far as I'm concerned.

For 8th, cover saves could grant an invulnerable save as long as you are covered by a terrain element, that you may use instead of your regular save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcd386 wrote:
I think the scatter thing is a combination of a few issues.

Regardless of if it was really a big problem in most groups it was:
1. Objectively less precise than most other weapons
2. Required the confirmation and agreement of the other player
3. Could slow down games

I think that there are good reasons to see those as problems and do something to fix it.

The second issue is the solution they actually went with.

Flamers being 1d6 hits is a nerf in most situations, and makes for weird situations when you fire them all at one model like fliers and vehicles. They just aren't good at what they are supposed to be good at. Blast weapons are in a similar situation.

To me the solution was poor, but the problem was still legitimate, so I don't think if want them to go back to templates as much as just add some rules to make flamers etc better at what they are supposed to do.

I don't miss vehicle facing much. I don't think it was bad, I just think it came at the cost of normalizing all unit statlines, which did seem to be an improvement. I also haven't looked back in any games and thought "that would have been so much more fun with vehicle facings."

Of what scale are you thinking? What games?

If 40k were a larger scaled game, I would agree but it functions prety much lie a skirmish one, in which case I personally affirm it brings something.

I miss the old Deep Strike rules from 3rd, where you would place a large blast maker, then scatter it, then place the unit under the marker. Felt thematic. I still like the 8e version of the Deep Strike mechanic more, because scatter makes no sense after watching Star Trek since the 60’s.

That’s an example of the low-grade complaining most people in the 40k hobby will encounter/participate in. The internet is not most people.

I personally think 6e was the last good edition, with the 7e a huge dumpster fire and 8e not much better, and face ridicule from dozens of posters over dozens of pages in multiple threads because I posted my opinion.

That’s an example of the low-grade complaining most posters on 40k forums encounter/participate in. Again, the internet is not most people.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I miss the old Deep Strike rules from 3rd, where you would place a large blast maker, then scatter it, then place the unit under the marker. Felt thematic. I still like the 8e version of the Deep Strike mechanic more, because scatter makes no sense after watching Star Trek since the 60’s.

That’s an example of the low-grade complaining most people in the 40k hobby will encounter/participate in. The internet is not most people.

I personally think 6e was the last good edition, with the 7e a huge dumpster fire and 8e not much better, and face ridicule from dozens of posters over dozens of pages in multiple threads because I posted my opinion.

That’s an example of the low-grade complaining most posters on 40k forums encounter/participate in. Again, the internet is not most people.

SJ

Could you reformulate I feel confused. What do you mean?

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I miss the old Deep Strike rules from 3rd, where you would place a large blast maker, then scatter it, then place the unit under the marker. Felt thematic. I still like the 8e version of the Deep Strike mechanic more, because scatter makes no sense after watching Star Trek since the 60’s.

That’s an example of the low-grade complaining most people in the 40k hobby will encounter/participate in. The internet is not most people.

I personally think 6e was the last good edition, with the 7e a huge dumpster fire and 8e not much better, and face ridicule from dozens of posters over dozens of pages in multiple threads because I posted my opinion.

That’s an example of the low-grade complaining most posters on 40k forums encounter/participate in. Again, the internet is not most people.

SJ

Could you reformulate I feel confused. What do you mean?

People on the internet complain more than in real life, and the internet does not represent most people.

SJ

cover change is one of the few things about 8th I don't like. I actually think it worked good before. Do not like this new one as much

 vipoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
I believe you can try to create no go zones against deep strike for any edition, just deny the interesting positions.

Randomness in deep strikes was IMO good thing as defender could choose to have 100% coverage, or risk it and deploy army more efficiently but potentially leave room for dangerous (but risky) deep strike.
That said, I think deep strike was bit too random and dangerous in old editions which often made it tactically useless unless you had Drop pods or some no-scatter rule.

I wonder how it'd had been with a 1d6 scatter. Mybe to powerful this time, but also more reliable. We'll never know.

I didn't like when they added no-scatter to some units in 7th edition (for example Belial), they made Deep Strikes too point & click. IMO the problem was Mishap table which was just too ruthless, particularly in 5th edition where there was 1/3 chance to lose the unit right away.
Ask any Chaos Daemon player how they felt about it. Here comes my Bloodthirster!!...and lands into sharp rock head-first. Oh ffffu...

Very few units had that ability, and to actually complain about Belial is literally the silliest thing I've seen since I've been on this forum.

No-scatter deep-strike might have been rare, but you also had stuff like Drop Pods - which corrected any scatter that would result in a mishap (save for going off the table IIRC).

With none of the Marine units seemingly being an issue with that, and all those problems caused by allies. Which eventually got rectified.

So I don't see the problem here.

In 7th, Warp Spider spam was infamously powerful both for combat and scenarios since Eldar nullified the three main disadvantages of Deep Strike:
-They could arrive on 2+ due to an Autarch.
-They could use Battle Focus to correct DS scatter.
--They could subsequently use Jetpack movemnt to reposition after shooting.

Combine with Flickerjump and Hit and Run and there was a reason they were known for the "Strength 6 Intensifies" meme. Other armies that could do reliable nullhammer (5th ed Stormtroopers, Skyhammer Grav, 6th ed Cronssants, even Flyrants&Mawlocs) showed just what sort of power a "null strike" has in an IGOUG9 system.

And GW "addressed this" in the most slapdash of manners. Only half my "units" in reserve? Gee thanks.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
In 7th, Warp Spider spam was infamously powerful both for combat and scenarios since Eldar nullified the three main disadvantages of Deep Strike:
-They could arrive on 2+ due to an Autarch.
-They could use Battle Focus to correct DS scatter.
--They could subsequently use Jetpack movemnt to reposition after shooting.

Combine with Flickerjump and Hit and Run and there was a reason they were known for the "Strength 6 Intensifies" meme. Other armies that could do reliable nullhammer (5th ed Stormtroopers, Skyhammer Grav, 6th ed Cronssants, even Flyrants&Mawlocs) showed just what sort of power a "null strike" has in an IGOUG9 system.

And GW "addressed this" in the most slapdash of manners. Only half my "units" in reserve? Gee thanks.

Eldar doing everything better is nothing new.

They don’t do everything better it’s silly to say so.

Considering that MJ is talking about 7th, they did do everything better then.

Turn sequence still blows 40k into a pit of boredom for me

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

I didn't like when they added no-scatter to some units in 7th edition (for example Belial), they made Deep Strikes too point & click. IMO the problem was Mishap table which was just too ruthless, particularly in 5th edition where there was 1/3 chance to lose the unit right away...

Very few units had that ability, and to actually complain about Belial is literally the silliest thing I've seen since I've been on this forum.

Very few, and the number should have been zero.
Belial wasn't overpowered as an unit (I'm Deathwing player btw), but no-scatter was just a boring ability.

Dark eldar is way stronger now than eldar which is totally fitting. Take your Yannari sammich home.

 Primark G wrote:
They don’t do everything better it’s silly to say so.

Sorry mr cheap clothing store, but Eldar are notorious for being perceived as doing everything better than every other faction in every single edition of this game. Whether this is true or not is not the point, perception is reality.

Flame type weapons could do with a way of working, ditto blasts etc, whereby the number of attacks is higher, like 2d6 for a flamer as an example - but with a note that the number of hits cannot exceed the number of models in the target unit.

combine with a "splash" effect whereby any "lost" hits from the above carry over to other units within 3" (split evenly) with the same rule.

so you get say 2d6 against a unit of five models, but a maximum of five hits, the balance carry over to nearby units.

Could even be a USR type rule "Area Effect"

Eldar own melee phase amirite they always did.

Backfire wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

I didn't like when they added no-scatter to some units in 7th edition (for example Belial), they made Deep Strikes too point & click. IMO the problem was Mishap table which was just too ruthless, particularly in 5th edition where there was 1/3 chance to lose the unit right away...

Very few units had that ability, and to actually complain about Belial is literally the silliest thing I've seen since I've been on this forum.

Very few, and the number should have been zero.
Belial wasn't overpowered as an unit (I'm Deathwing player btw), but no-scatter was just a boring ability.

Good old bob was great when he was 130pts, then they jumped his points to 195 for... reasons, nothing he had warranted that point cost, even the no scatter ability.

It’s a shame in 20 years of playing Deathwing in one form or another they have never actually been that good

Backfire wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

I didn't like when they added no-scatter to some units in 7th edition (for example Belial), they made Deep Strikes too point & click. IMO the problem was Mishap table which was just too ruthless, particularly in 5th edition where there was 1/3 chance to lose the unit right away...

Very few units had that ability, and to actually complain about Belial is literally the silliest thing I've seen since I've been on this forum.

Very few, and the number should have been zero.
Belial wasn't overpowered as an unit (I'm Deathwing player btw), but no-scatter was just a boring ability.

As opposed to the other rules he had that didn't make him worth his point cost?

It was a fitting ability, and only appears "boring" because Deathwing are in the first place.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

I didn't like when they added no-scatter to some units in 7th edition (for example Belial), they made Deep Strikes too point & click. IMO the problem was Mishap table which was just too ruthless, particularly in 5th edition where there was 1/3 chance to lose the unit right away...

Very few units had that ability, and to actually complain about Belial is literally the silliest thing I've seen since I've been on this forum.

Very few, and the number should have been zero.
Belial wasn't overpowered as an unit (I'm Deathwing player btw), but no-scatter was just a boring ability.

As opposed to the other rules he had that didn't make him worth his point cost?

It was a fitting ability, and only appears "boring" because Deathwing are in the first place.

Boring... nah, worth the 65pt price hike he got, nope, not even slightly, even with a full 10 man squad the damage they could do was laughable for the cost, nothing Bob got was worth that 65pt hike.

And Deathwing are not boring, they are the awsomes army ! I love playing uphill battles and really hard video games, Deathwing scratch that itch for me in 40k.... would I like them to be a bit better, yep, not gonna happen though.

 SHUPPET wrote:
cover change is one of the few things about 8th I don't like. I actually think it worked good before. Do not like this new one as much

This.
The reworked AP mechanic didn't need to rework the cover system like they did in 8th...just apply the same old 4+/5+ Cover same to the game per MODEL basis (and not the entire unit gak thing)
With the prevalence of AP even Marines would benefit from that old system

 Formosa wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

I didn't like when they added no-scatter to some units in 7th edition (for example Belial), they made Deep Strikes too point & click. IMO the problem was Mishap table which was just too ruthless, particularly in 5th edition where there was 1/3 chance to lose the unit right away...

Very few units had that ability, and to actually complain about Belial is literally the silliest thing I've seen since I've been on this forum.

Very few, and the number should have been zero.
Belial wasn't overpowered as an unit (I'm Deathwing player btw), but no-scatter was just a boring ability.

As opposed to the other rules he had that didn't make him worth his point cost?

It was a fitting ability, and only appears "boring" because Deathwing are in the first place.

Boring... nah, worth the 65pt price hike he got, nope, not even slightly, even with a full 10 man squad the damage they could do was laughable for the cost, nothing Bob got was worth that 65pt hike.

And Deathwing are not boring, they are the awsomes army ! I love playing uphill battles and really hard video games, Deathwing scratch that itch for me in 40k.... would I like them to be a bit better, yep, not gonna happen though.

Terminators were so bad I would call them boring. With that said, it would've been worth the price hike if Terminators and Deathwing weren't so God awful. Only GW could think that Fearless was worth 5 points to create a 40 point model where the squad has LD9 and ATSKNF. And no, custom loadouts aren't worth it either. That's partly why Sternguard are costed as they are compared to Command Squads, and look how well that works out (HINT: it doesn't).

leopard wrote:
Flame type weapons could do with a way of working, ditto blasts etc, whereby the number of attacks is higher, like 2d6 for a flamer as an example - but with a note that the number of hits cannot exceed the number of models in the target unit.

combine with a "splash" effect whereby any "lost" hits from the above carry over to other units within 3" (split evenly) with the same rule.

so you get say 2d6 against a unit of five models, but a maximum of five hits, the balance carry over to nearby units.

Could even be a USR type rule "Area Effect"

That's not dumb.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
cover change is one of the few things about 8th I don't like. I actually think it worked good before. Do not like this new one as much

This.
The reworked AP mechanic didn't need to rework the cover system like they did in 8th...just apply the same old 4+/5+ Cover same to the game per MODEL basis (and not the entire unit gak thing)
With the prevalence of AP even Marines would benefit from that old system

Could of even had an "cover save or +1 to armor, which ever is greater" mechanic so high armor models benefited from cover against small arms while also letting cover benefit models with T shirt / Standard issue cardboard armor. Anything to slow down the pace of casualties from shooting seems like a good thing and would encourage melee combat without needing to make it so you need a bucket of melee attack dice to compete with raw dakka (and make ignore cover actually quite useful). Could also make a caviot with cover so that in order to take a cover save the closest model to the shooter needs to be in cover. Make it a bit of a trade off (take cover at the cost of not getting to pick and choose casualties seems fair).

 Vankraken wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
cover change is one of the few things about 8th I don't like. I actually think it worked good before. Do not like this new one as much

This.
The reworked AP mechanic didn't need to rework the cover system like they did in 8th...just apply the same old 4+/5+ Cover same to the game per MODEL basis (and not the entire unit gak thing)
With the prevalence of AP even Marines would benefit from that old system

Could of even had an "cover save or +1 to armor, which ever is greater" mechanic so high armor models benefited from cover against small arms while also letting cover benefit models with T shirt / Standard issue cardboard armor. Anything to slow down the pace of casualties from shooting seems like a good thing and would encourage melee combat without needing to make it so you need a bucket of melee attack dice to compete with raw dakka (and make ignore cover actually quite useful). Could also make a caviot with cover so that in order to take a cover save the closest model to the shooter needs to be in cover. Make it a bit of a trade off (take cover at the cost of not getting to pick and choose casualties seems fair).

This is good too (I'd say even better since every type of model benefits from it)

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
cover change is one of the few things about 8th I don't like. I actually think it worked good before. Do not like this new one as much

This.
The reworked AP mechanic didn't need to rework the cover system like they did in 8th...just apply the same old 4+/5+ Cover same to the game per MODEL basis (and not the entire unit gak thing)
With the prevalence of AP even Marines would benefit from that old system

Ew, no, please.

The old system meant that Stormshield Terminators literally did not need cover. Ever. Not a single reason to be tactical with them (which you could argue is fluffy, but come on. They literally gained nothing from standing behind a ruin wall).

Then you had things that ignored cover outright. Not just a penalty to the save or what have you, outright ignoring it. Combine that with AP5 weapons and armies that rely on cover otherwise they crumble, and things got stupid.

8th edition did cover how I wanted them to do cover. Even my Immortals with their 3+ save fighting against bolters or what-have-you still need to be in cover, and I think different because I want my stuff in cover. In 7th it was 'Do you have plasma?" If yes, I hide in ruin. If no, I walk forward with no tactical thinking whatsoever.

 krodarklorr wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
cover change is one of the few things about 8th I don't like. I actually think it worked good before. Do not like this new one as much

This.
The reworked AP mechanic didn't need to rework the cover system like they did in 8th...just apply the same old 4+/5+ Cover same to the game per MODEL basis (and not the entire unit gak thing)
With the prevalence of AP even Marines would benefit from that old system

Ew, no, please.

The old system meant that Stormshield Terminators literally did not need cover. Ever. Not a single reason to be tactical with them (which you could argue is fluffy, but come on. They literally gained nothing from standing behind a ruin wall).

Then you had things that ignored cover outright. Not just a penalty to the save or what have you, outright ignoring it. Combine that with AP5 weapons and armies that rely on cover otherwise they crumble, and things got stupid.

8th edition did cover how I wanted them to do cover. Even my Immortals with their 3+ save fighting against bolters or what-have-you still need to be in cover, and I think different because I want my stuff in cover. In 7th it was 'Do you have plasma?" If yes, I hide in ruin. If no, I walk forward with no tactical thinking whatsoever.

My few casual games with necrons actually demanded cover, because ap 4 and 3 is very common, so tbh I only saw a difference with my wraiths and my lychguards but to my mind one of the prevailing reasons to put those is that the 3++ made them nigh impossible to kill rapidly and allowed them to move whereever they I felt like. Although my spearhead warriors were often in a gosht ark which was harder to put in cover.

Maybe just because I'm a huge casual noob?

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
cover change is one of the few things about 8th I don't like. I actually think it worked good before. Do not like this new one as much

This.
The reworked AP mechanic didn't need to rework the cover system like they did in 8th...just apply the same old 4+/5+ Cover same to the game per MODEL basis (and not the entire unit gak thing)
With the prevalence of AP even Marines would benefit from that old system

Ew, no, please.

The old system meant that Stormshield Terminators literally did not need cover. Ever. Not a single reason to be tactical with them (which you could argue is fluffy, but come on. They literally gained nothing from standing behind a ruin wall).

Then you had things that ignored cover outright. Not just a penalty to the save or what have you, outright ignoring it. Combine that with AP5 weapons and armies that rely on cover otherwise they crumble, and things got stupid.

8th edition did cover how I wanted them to do cover. Even my Immortals with their 3+ save fighting against bolters or what-have-you still need to be in cover, and I think different because I want my stuff in cover. In 7th it was 'Do you have plasma?" If yes, I hide in ruin. If no, I walk forward with no tactical thinking whatsoever.

My few casual games with necrons actually demanded cover, because ap 4 and 3 is very common, so tbh I only saw a difference with my wraiths and my lychguards but to my mind one of the prevailing reasons to put those is that the 3++ made them nigh impossible to kill rapidly and allowed them to move whereever they I felt like. Although my spearhead warriors were often in a gosht ark which was harder to put in cover.

Maybe just because I'm a huge casual noob?

Well I'm strictly casual. People who find enjoyment out of the tournament scene which is filled with "spam x unit" lists just baffle me. The only tournaments I'm interested in are with rulesets that are a bit more tightly packed, such as X-wing.

In my meta, I typically play against T'au and IG, but the IG player is super casual as well. Typically I see AP-1 or AP-5, rarely in between. so yes, cover is extremely good to have.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
cover change is one of the few things about 8th I don't like. I actually think it worked good before. Do not like this new one as much

This.
The reworked AP mechanic didn't need to rework the cover system like they did in 8th...just apply the same old 4+/5+ Cover same to the game per MODEL basis (and not the entire unit gak thing)
With the prevalence of AP even Marines would benefit from that old system

Ew, no, please.

The old system meant that Stormshield Terminators literally did not need cover. Ever. Not a single reason to be tactical with them (which you could argue is fluffy, but come on. They literally gained nothing from standing behind a ruin wall).

Then you had things that ignored cover outright. Not just a penalty to the save or what have you, outright ignoring it. Combine that with AP5 weapons and armies that rely on cover otherwise they crumble, and things got stupid.

8th edition did cover how I wanted them to do cover. Even my Immortals with their 3+ save fighting against bolters or what-have-you still need to be in cover, and I think different because I want my stuff in cover. In 7th it was 'Do you have plasma?" If yes, I hide in ruin. If no, I walk forward with no tactical thinking whatsoever.

My few casual games with necrons actually demanded cover, because ap 4 and 3 is very common, so tbh I only saw a difference with my wraiths and my lychguards but to my mind one of the prevailing reasons to put those is that the 3++ made them nigh impossible to kill rapidly and allowed them to move whereever they I felt like. Although my spearhead warriors were often in a gosht ark which was harder to put in cover.

Maybe just because I'm a huge casual noob?

Well I'm strictly casual. People who find enjoyment out of the tournament scene which is filled with "spam x unit" lists just baffle me. The only tournaments I'm interested in are with rulesets that are a bit more tightly packed, such as X-wing.

In my meta, I typically play against T'au and IG, but the IG player is super casual as well. Typically I see AP-1 or AP-5, rarely in between. so yes, cover is extremely good to have.

We're on the same waveslength in my group I play vs space marines, CSM, orks or nids. The SM pack a hell of a punch in terms of ap, but I have yet to pit my cronz against the tyranids.

Anyway my point stands that I didn't feel like covers were particulary useless. Again I personally liked the system, in fact I wonder whether that system that is maybe inherited from WHB is not that suited to the kind of weaponry that rules the ables with that game. Mst units still get little to no save anyway and the heavily armoured ones look cardboard built. I believe the binary system was better, although it could validly be argued that low ap weapon were too widespread.

I much prefer the granular system, fwiw. The big sticking point seems to be that it feels like it was designed with players having cover almost all the time, but a lack of terrain guidelines makes it hard to tell if that's really the case.