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.

While everyone is whining about T'au -- it looks like extra mods can matter, but only when they're counteracting each other.

I guess no reason to play quins unless their rules amendment is heavily changed to help them survive. It was already hard to play them as is. I'mm just play Coven DE for now lol.

I wonder what they'll do with Lightning Fast Reacions.

Interesting that this is specifically for hit rolls rather than all modifiers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Interesting that this is specifically for hit rolls rather than all modifiers.

They were the most common issue for it, not fun to not be able to hit a target at all. Similar to why most rules that reduce attacks do so to minimum of 1.

It sounds like this applies to melee, as well as shooting, which will be a nerf for units that can stack +1s to hit from various sources (eg Carnifexes).

Note that this doesn't make multiple stacking hits/minuses useless.

If you have a +2 to hit, for example, and your enemy has a -1 to hit, you're still getting that +1 to hit.

Interesting to see this, and how it interacts with the cover rules we've seen. Some units that have -1 to hit, gain less benefit from some of those cover types that add an additional -1 to hit then. May also render some psychic powers less effective overall.

And isn't '6's always hit' an Ork thing? Do they get a different rule now I wonder.

Also 'an unmodified 6 always hits' how does that interact with rules that proc off 6's to hit. I assume that it still hits, but doesn't 'count as a 6' for the purposes of the extra whatever (if a modifier would make it not a 6).

Applying a Maximum of +1/-1 to rules other than To-Hit would break the game. Just AP alone is based on the fact that you can have more than a -1 to Saves.

I won't be surprised if the Fail on Unmodified 1 and Succeed on Unmodified 6 stays for most rolls (Saves excluded on the Succeed on 6 side).

 Kcalehc wrote:

Also 'an unmodified 6 always hits' how does that interact with rules that proc off 6's to hit. I assume that it still hits, but doesn't 'count as a 6' for the purposes of the extra whatever (if a modifier would make it not a 6).

That's really easy: If the proc needs an unmodified roll of 6, it will proc when you roll an unmodified 6 regardless of any modifiers. If it needs a roll of 6+ (and your modified result is a 5), you still hit but you don't proc.

 Kcalehc wrote:
Interesting to see this, and how it interacts with the cover rules we've seen. Some units that have -1 to hit, gain less benefit from some of those cover types that add an additional -1 to hit then. May also render some psychic powers less effective overall.

And isn't '6's always hit' an Ork thing? Do they get a different rule now I wonder.

Also 'an unmodified 6 always hits' how does that interact with rules that proc off 6's to hit. I assume that it still hits, but doesn't 'count as a 6' for the purposes of the extra whatever (if a modifier would make it not a 6).

With modifiers capped at -1, 'Always hits on 6s' will literally only ever be relevant to something that only hit on 6s to start with.

 catbarf wrote:

 Kcalehc wrote:
Interesting to see this, and how it interacts with the cover rules we've seen. Some units that have -1 to hit, gain less benefit from some of those cover types that add an additional -1 to hit then. May also render some psychic powers less effective overall.

And isn't '6's always hit' an Ork thing? Do they get a different rule now I wonder.

Also 'an unmodified 6 always hits' how does that interact with rules that proc off 6's to hit. I assume that it still hits, but doesn't 'count as a 6' for the purposes of the extra whatever (if a modifier would make it not a 6).

With modifiers capped at -1, 'Always hits on 6s' will literally only ever be relevant to something that only hit on 6s to start with.

It's probably a catch all. I reckon we'll eventually see something that breaks this rule, and we'll have something that can lower modifiers to -2, or something.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
While everyone is whining about T'au -- it looks like extra mods can matter, but only when they're counteracting each other.

Stu said this basically on day one.

There's a difference in said and RAW

It's a crap implementation. You have no reason not to move and shoot at a hard to hit target. No sense of scaling whatsoever. Good job GW

Makes for quite a buff to assault weapons.

If you intend to attack a target with a -1, you may as well advance.

Spoletta wrote:
Makes for quite a buff to assault weapons.

If you intend to attack a target with a -1, you may as well advance.

Think that's intentional.

Very pro this. Yes it will change the meta, yes the points of various things will have to change - and yes, from the perspective of "everything dies too fast" - this seems tailored to *throw everything into the middle of the board and watch it die".

But stacked negatives to hit were crap gameplay.

I am very curious if certain stratagems and abilities won't give negatives to WS or BS instead as a work around to this.

The difference between +1 BS and +1 to hit is massive now, as it adjusts the range you can hit in.

I´m overall in favor of preventing ridiculous -x to hit modifiers, but this is a lazy fix. As said why not advance my assault weapons now or move my heavy weapon infantry squad if the target has -1 to hit anyway.

I think it would have been better to cap penalties from the target to -1. That way Advance and Heavy would still have relevant disadvantages, without allowing the constant -2 or worse stacking that neuters BS4+ armies. I'm also not clear on the necessity of capping bonuses; are there any really exploitative builds that rely on a +2 or better?

 catbarf wrote:
are there any really exploitative builds that rely on a +2 or better?

Not really. Could just be future proofing though. Tzaangor bows used to catch a lot of mods to get their auto-wounds, but that's about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Castozor wrote:
I´m overall in favor of preventing ridiculous -x to hit modifiers, but this is a lazy fix. As said why not advance my assault weapons now or move my heavy weapon infantry squad if the target has -1 to hit anyway.

I understand this complaint, but if I view the rule from the lens of T'au or other mid to low BS units then it is probably more fair to cap at -1 instead of -2.

And honestly - how many scenarios were you shooting something and got upset, because running your assault weapons would put you at -2? Did those devastators shooting the aircraft actually have to move?

Checking if I understand correctly.

If a Harlequin unit has a -1 to hit and a unit shooting at it with a +1 to hit, the two offset. But, one can then add Lightning Fast Reaction stratagem to the Harlequins and it becomes a -1 to hit.

 catbarf wrote:

 Kcalehc wrote:
Interesting to see this, and how it interacts with the cover rules we've seen. Some units that have -1 to hit, gain less benefit from some of those cover types that add an additional -1 to hit then. May also render some psychic powers less effective overall.

And isn't '6's always hit' an Ork thing? Do they get a different rule now I wonder.

Also 'an unmodified 6 always hits' how does that interact with rules that proc off 6's to hit. I assume that it still hits, but doesn't 'count as a 6' for the purposes of the extra whatever (if a modifier would make it not a 6).

With modifiers capped at -1, 'Always hits on 6s' will literally only ever be relevant to something that only hit on 6s to start with.

Well lucky then that there's plenty of units that can end up with that? Leman russ etc for example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarigar wrote:
Checking if I understand correctly.

If a Harlequin unit has a -1 to hit and a unit shooting at it with a +1 to hit, the two offset. But, one can then add Lightning Fast Reaction stratagem to the Harlequins and it becomes a -1 to hit.

Correct.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
I´m overall in favor of preventing ridiculous -x to hit modifiers, but this is a lazy fix. As said why not advance my assault weapons now or move my heavy weapon infantry squad if the target has -1 to hit anyway.

I understand this complaint, but if I view the rule from the lens of T'au or other mid to low BS units then it is probably more fair to cap at -1 instead of -2.

And honestly - how many scenarios were you shooting something and got upset, because running your assault weapons would put you at -2? Did those devastators shooting the aircraft actually have to move?

At least before it was an actual penalty, now there is no reason not to do it and that just feels wrong. If the enemy or me is fielding plague bearers there is no reason not to move unless you fear a charge now, not to mention the new obscure terrain does absolutely nothing for them. This is bad design in my mind, terrain should be useful for them as well, there is now 0 reason not to just park them into the open unless yu can avoid LOS otherwise and good luck with that on a 30 man squad. It's the same reason I have always hated that my friends IW ignored cover, so what reason exactly is there for me to move tactically then? Since there is 0 reason to do that as he ignores the rules anyway and now units with a -1 to hit when moving also can ignore that when the target has a modifier already.

Alpha Legion Sorcerers dedicated to Nurgle have to find something else to do it seems.

I just really want them to change the "rerolls before modifiers" rule back to how it was. I find it unintuitive, and much preferred the old system. I understand why it was changed, to make rerolls less OP when combined with modifiers. I'm hoping that the limiting of modifiers will make rerolls easier to balance and they will revert back to the old way.

 Trickstick wrote:
I just really want them to change the "rerolls before modifiers" rule back to how it was. I find it unintuitive, and much preferred the old system. I understand why it was changed, to make rerolls less OP when combined with modifiers. I'm hoping that the limiting of modifiers will make rerolls easier to balance and they will revert back to the old way.

Not only that but space marines received a new better version for rerolls (Unless you are ba, DA or SW because feth those in particular) that makes that "nerf" to rerolls useless.

 Galas wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
I just really want them to change the "rerolls before modifiers" rule back to how it was. I find it unintuitive, and much preferred the old system. I understand why it was changed, to make rerolls less OP when combined with modifiers. I'm hoping that the limiting of modifiers will make rerolls easier to balance and they will revert back to the old way.

Not only that but space marines received a new better version for rerolls (Unless you are ba, DA or SW because feth those in particular) that makes that "nerf" to rerolls useless.

The RAI on that will likely catchup in 9th.

This is a step in the right direction in theory, but worse than useless without nerfing rerolls too. All this does is make rerolls even more powerful, and I don't think there's a single person in the entire game who thought rerolls were underpowered in 8th.

 Galas wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
I just really want them to change the "rerolls before modifiers" rule back to how it was. I find it unintuitive, and much preferred the old system. I understand why it was changed, to make rerolls less OP when combined with modifiers. I'm hoping that the limiting of modifiers will make rerolls easier to balance and they will revert back to the old way.

Not only that but space marines received a new better version for rerolls (Unless you are ba, DA or SW because feth those in particular) that makes that "nerf" to rerolls useless.

The RAI on that will likely catchup in 9th.