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.

 Galef wrote:
Thematically, I'm digging the terrain rules. They are basically saying that Marine armour is tougher than cement walls, so those walls shouldn't improve the Marines armour.
It also reduces the scenarios in which Marines huddle in cover, which is a very un-Marine thing to do.

-

Could also be that due to the bulk of that power armour they'd struggle to hug cover as well as someone in carapace or lower could. Like a human could lie flat and be well protected by a waist high wall. The marine would still be head and shoulders above it, looking like a dog trying to hide behind curtains or something. If they could even get up after going prone.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
But should the fence do nothing?

If it means MEQ and non-MEQ units derive comparable benefits from cover, then no, it shouldn't do anything.

I'd appreciate you reading the whole post, not clipping parts of it to ignore.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Spoiler:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Thematically, I'm digging the terrain rules. They are basically saying that Marine armour is tougher than cement walls, so those walls shouldn't improve the Marines armour.

-

Soooooo it does nothing to stop bullets normally but suddenly boosts Carapace armor to the same level?

Just because you're a normally clean person, it doesn't mean you don't wash your hands after using the restroom.

A Marine behind a fence shouldn't double their durability against Bolters.

But should the fence do nothing?

For a Marine? Yeah. It shouldn't make them any more durable.
For a Cultist, wearing scraps of leather and a stiff t-shirt? It should.

The 3rd-7th system might feel less intuitive, but its RESULTS were better. Marines ignored cover when faced with Lasguns, Bolters, Multilasers... But were forced to hunker down or face death in the face of Battle Cannons, Plasma, Melta. Guardsmen, Orks, Cultists, and other lightly armored models needed cover to get a save against even some small arms fire, though obviously Orks could tank it better than Guard if caught exposed.

You're not explaining why it should, only you don't want the specific benefits.

If the fence won't help a Marine, it won't help a Cultist. Or does a bullet know it needs try harder against any 3+?

A Marine is so well-armored that the meager increase of a fence isn't going to affect the odds of saving.
In a more granular game, I could see a Marine going from saving on a 34+ on d100 to 33+ or 32+, but in a d6 system? Not nearly enough of a boost to matter.

Whereas a Cultist has much worse armor-a bullet that shoots directly through the fence might make the difference between a grazing wound and a lost arm.

Look, either a giant concrete barrier helps or it doesn't. You can't just say "only when I feel like it should because D6".

Any problem with Marines benefitting from cover could've been rectified with more options of weapons that ignore cover, or properly boosting melee options for that army. Instead, we get this and dudes higher up gaining deadlier weapons rather than weapons that ignore cover or hit more often.

I'd appreciate you reading the whole post, not clipping parts of it to ignore.

The rest of the post was "but D6", which I already listed there and was therefore irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
But should the fence do nothing?

If it means MEQ and non-MEQ units derive comparable benefits from cover, then no, it shouldn't do anything.

At least we have one honest person here.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Spoiler:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Thematically, I'm digging the terrain rules. They are basically saying that Marine armour is tougher than cement walls, so those walls shouldn't improve the Marines armour.

-

Soooooo it does nothing to stop bullets normally but suddenly boosts Carapace armor to the same level?

Just because you're a normally clean person, it doesn't mean you don't wash your hands after using the restroom.

A Marine behind a fence shouldn't double their durability against Bolters.

But should the fence do nothing?

For a Marine? Yeah. It shouldn't make them any more durable.
For a Cultist, wearing scraps of leather and a stiff t-shirt? It should.

The 3rd-7th system might feel less intuitive, but its RESULTS were better. Marines ignored cover when faced with Lasguns, Bolters, Multilasers... But were forced to hunker down or face death in the face of Battle Cannons, Plasma, Melta. Guardsmen, Orks, Cultists, and other lightly armored models needed cover to get a save against even some small arms fire, though obviously Orks could tank it better than Guard if caught exposed.

You're not explaining why it should, only you don't want the specific benefits.

If the fence won't help a Marine, it won't help a Cultist. Or does a bullet know it needs try harder against any 3+?

A Marine is so well-armored that the meager increase of a fence isn't going to affect the odds of saving.
In a more granular game, I could see a Marine going from saving on a 34+ on d100 to 33+ or 32+, but in a d6 system? Not nearly enough of a boost to matter.

Whereas a Cultist has much worse armor-a bullet that shoots directly through the fence might make the difference between a grazing wound and a lost arm.

Look, either a giant concrete barrier helps or it doesn't. You can't just say "only when I feel like it should because D6".

Any problem with Marines benefitting from cover could've been rectified with more options of weapons that ignore cover, or properly boosting melee options for that army. Instead, we get this and dudes higher up gaining deadlier weapons rather than weapons that ignore cover or hit more often.

I'd appreciate you reading the whole post, not clipping parts of it to ignore.

The rest of the post was "but D6", which I already listed there and was therefore irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
But should the fence do nothing?

If it means MEQ and non-MEQ units derive comparable benefits from cover, then no, it shouldn't do anything.

At least we have one honest person here.

Is S8 twice as strong as S4?

And yes, I am concerned with gameplay. That's kinda the point of the game, you know?

 bullyboy wrote:
Sorry to go back to the transport article amidst all this terrain talk, but I thought it was hilarious that they gave the taurox Rapid Deployment. Who the heck looks at that model and thinks “I bet it’s fast”. 😂😂

I can buy it moving quickly, but I can't really buy it as a vehicle 10 men can deploy from quickly, especially if it is trying to provide supporting fire - the two side guns would kill anyone trying to get out of the side doors, which just leaves the rear hatch. If the autocannon are in a turret mount, it's slightly more reasonable, but not by much.

Bullet loses say 10% of its force going through fence, then hits space marine and loses 90% of its force anyway. It isn't materially making the space marine more durable, the difference in velocity is negligible when their armour is so tough, so increasing their save isn't necessary.
Against a more lightly armoured target, the bullet loses 10% of its velocity going through the fence and say 20% hitting their flak armour, the difference is much bigger proportionally so for gameplay purposes increasing their save makes sense.


It's more thematic, more fun, more interesting AND it's logical, I don't really see what the problem is.

 Dysartes wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Sorry to go back to the transport article amidst all this terrain talk, but I thought it was hilarious that they gave the taurox Rapid Deployment. Who the heck looks at that model and thinks “I bet it’s fast”. 😂😂

I can buy it moving quickly, but I can't really buy it as a vehicle 10 men can deploy from quickly, especially if it is trying to provide supporting fire - the two side guns would kill anyone trying to get out of the side doors, which just leaves the rear hatch. If the autocannon are in a turret mount, it's slightly more reasonable, but not by much.

Nah nah it's like those doohickeys they use on propeller planes so the machine fun doesn't fire through the blades.

Oh who am I kidding the Imperium doesn't care about it's people that much. A commissar probably tells the troops to run through the fire of the volley gun as they disembark.

I feel like some individuals are looking past the numbers involved here...

6+ save = 12 rolls to fail 10 saves
5+ = 15 rolls to fail 10 saves
4+ = 20 rolls to fail 10 saves
3+ = 30 rolls to fail 10 saves
2+ = 60(!) rolls to fail 10 saves

Going 3+ to 2+ is an equivalent durability increase (100%) to going from 5+ to 3+.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Look, either a giant concrete barrier helps or it doesn't. You can't just say "only when I feel like it should because D6".

Any problem with Marines benefitting from cover could've been rectified with more options of weapons that ignore cover, or properly boosting melee options for that army. Instead, we get this and dudes higher up gaining deadlier weapons rather than weapons that ignore cover or hit more often.

Why should Marines get far more benefit from cover than everyone else, exactly? A Guardsman in cover becomes 33% more durable. A Marine becomes 100% more durable, ie twice as hard to kill.

The unequal benefits of cover are the product of a D6 system rather than any in-universe or gameplay-based choice, so yeah, maybe that concrete barrier should only work sometimes as a workaround for the limitations of the D6 system.

I wouldn't have complained at all if they changed cover to just a flat FNP-esque save that benefits everyone equally, but if they're going to stick with it as a save modifier, they needed to address the unintended consequences at the extreme ends of the scale. It might not be intuitive, but the mechanical repercussions of the system aren't intuitive to begin with, either.

Flat out cover saves (e.g. 5+) worked better anyway. It was one or the other, no modifier.

Not sure why they can't just go back to that, but whatever.

 TedNugent wrote:
Flat out cover saves (e.g. 5+) worked better anyway. It was one or the other, no modifier.

Not sure why they can't just go back to that, but whatever.

Because it was a very bad solution that removed the concept of cover from whole factions since they had better base saves.

It also didn't take in account which weapon was the victim defending against. A wall would protect you in the same way against a bullet and against a volcano cannon.

A good cover system should take into the account the weapon being used, and the natural defenses on the target. This system does that. Does it do it in the best way? Probably no, but at least it ticks the fundamentals. The other system didn't.

The benefit of cover rule isn’t meant to be realistic. I believe it’s meant to do the following:

Give lightly armoured infantry some benefit from being in cover.

Give heavy infantry some benefit against armour piercing weapons while in cover.

Prevent heavy infantry in cover from being a chore to deal with by AP0 weapons.

The latter may not be realistic but as someone who had to try dealing with canny marines in cover back in the Age of Contempt, I think that would be very frustrating.

Saying armies should be given assault units forgets that some armies or players want to play shooty. And that Marine players would promptly turn around and complain that they were being out assaulted by e.g. Tau.

 Dysartes wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Sorry to go back to the transport article amidst all this terrain talk, but I thought it was hilarious that they gave the taurox Rapid Deployment. Who the heck looks at that model and thinks “I bet it’s fast”. 😂😂

I can buy it moving quickly, but I can't really buy it as a vehicle 10 men can deploy from quickly, especially if it is trying to provide supporting fire - the two side guns would kill anyone trying to get out of the side doors, which just leaves the rear hatch. If the autocannon are in a turret mount, it's slightly more reasonable, but not by much.

Seeing you can get out into rear of enemy surroundlng transport it's clear transports work via short range teleporters doors just decoration.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 TedNugent wrote:
Flat out cover saves (e.g. 5+) worked better anyway. It was one or the other, no modifier.

Not sure why they can't just go back to that, but whatever.

Because it was a very bad solution that removed the concept of cover from whole factions since they had better base saves.

It also didn't take in account which weapon was the victim defending against. A wall would protect you in the same way against a bullet and against a volcano cannon.

A good cover system should take into the account the weapon being used, and the natural defenses on the target. This system does that. Does it do it in the best way? Probably no, but at least it ticks the fundamentals. The other system didn't.

Only in abstract game that doesn't concern with trying to make game make sense on how things really work.

Spoletta wrote:

 TedNugent wrote:
Flat out cover saves (e.g. 5+) worked better anyway. It was one or the other, no modifier.

Not sure why they can't just go back to that, but whatever.

Because it was a very bad solution that removed the concept of cover from whole factions since they had better base saves.

And the obvious solution that would actually solve things and make cover equal for everybody would be to make cover saves in addition to armour saves. Has worked fine in MESBG for 20+ years.

Sure, but the supposed goal of 10th is "less dice rolling".

It's not that there aren't better, more accurate systems of simulating the effects of cover out there, it's that they may not be suitable for a game with hundreds of individual models on the board.

Dice rolling doesnt have to be slower than modifiers. Less math and most likely only a few dice to be rolled.

You could even do it like mesbg and have it be done before wounding or even hitting if you want to. Then you cut out maybe a third to half the rolls early on before you start adding rerolls and extra modifiers where the players need to do math.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Spoiler:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Thematically, I'm digging the terrain rules. They are basically saying that Marine armour is tougher than cement walls, so those walls shouldn't improve the Marines armour.

-

Soooooo it does nothing to stop bullets normally but suddenly boosts Carapace armor to the same level?

Just because you're a normally clean person, it doesn't mean you don't wash your hands after using the restroom.

A Marine behind a fence shouldn't double their durability against Bolters.

But should the fence do nothing?

For a Marine? Yeah. It shouldn't make them any more durable.
For a Cultist, wearing scraps of leather and a stiff t-shirt? It should.

The 3rd-7th system might feel less intuitive, but its RESULTS were better. Marines ignored cover when faced with Lasguns, Bolters, Multilasers... But were forced to hunker down or face death in the face of Battle Cannons, Plasma, Melta. Guardsmen, Orks, Cultists, and other lightly armored models needed cover to get a save against even some small arms fire, though obviously Orks could tank it better than Guard if caught exposed.

You're not explaining why it should, only you don't want the specific benefits.

If the fence won't help a Marine, it won't help a Cultist. Or does a bullet know it needs try harder against any 3+?

A Marine is so well-armored that the meager increase of a fence isn't going to affect the odds of saving.
In a more granular game, I could see a Marine going from saving on a 34+ on d100 to 33+ or 32+, but in a d6 system? Not nearly enough of a boost to matter.

Whereas a Cultist has much worse armor-a bullet that shoots directly through the fence might make the difference between a grazing wound and a lost arm.

Look, either a giant concrete barrier helps or it doesn't. You can't just say "only when I feel like it should because D6".

Any problem with Marines benefitting from cover could've been rectified with more options of weapons that ignore cover, or properly boosting melee options for that army. Instead, we get this and dudes higher up gaining deadlier weapons rather than weapons that ignore cover or hit more often.

The saves don't just represent physical density of armor, though. They represent a model's ability to stop damage. That could be a forcefield, armor density, being supernaturally fast enough to dodge, or any number of things.

So the new rules - accurately - illustrates the behavior of a heavily armored assault unit not bothering with the flimsy additional benefit of a crater when the incoming fire is from small arms and their own armor is more than sufficient. It also illustrates the same models diving for cover when faced with heavier weapons. From a lore/in-game perspective it's meant to capture the heroic nature of the combatants and feel thematic. From a metagame perspective, it balances out heavier armor while still providing some benefit when faced with weapons meant for MEQs.

I suspect the designers were worried more about the lore side of it, but I appreciate that metagaming impact will need to be reflected in things like points costs.

 Scottywan82 wrote:
I suspect the designers were worried more about the lore side of it, but I appreciate that metagaming impact will need to be reflected in things like points costs.

I suspect the designers just pin a bunch of random mechanic ideas on a wall and throw darts at it

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Scottywan82 wrote:
I suspect the designers were worried more about the lore side of it, but I appreciate that metagaming impact will need to be reflected in things like points costs.

I suspect the designers just pin a bunch of random mechanic ideas on a wall and throw darts at it

It definitely feels that way sometimes, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt at the beginning of a new edition. By the end? Yeah, it's throwing gak at the wall and seeing what sticks, for sure.

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Scottywan82 wrote:
I suspect the designers were worried more about the lore side of it, but I appreciate that metagaming impact will need to be reflected in things like points costs.

I suspect the designers just pin a bunch of random mechanic ideas on a wall and throw darts at it

It definitely feels that way sometimes, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt at the beginning of a new edition. By the end? Yeah, it's throwing gak at the wall and seeing what sticks, for sure.

Which is ironic because at a high level 9th is looking very well balanced at this point, at least superficially, which they rarely accomplish.

Klickor wrote:
Dice rolling doesnt have to be slower than modifiers. Less math and most likely only a few dice to be rolled.

It's all the dice rolling GW has added that made 9e slower than 8e which was slower than 7e that was slower all the way.

Thanks to all the dice rolling even 2nd ed was faster than 8-9e were.

I think cover being a 5++ in the old days made more sense when a lot of basic guns (i.e. bolters) were not giving your 6+ and 5+ save guys a save.

In a world where GW is reducing AP (allegedly, we wait and see etc) its unclear how often it would come up. A Marine not getting any benefit from hiding behind a fence when faced with a boltgun seems more reasonable to me than say a Guardsman not getting any benefit.

Tend to agree that cover probably should give -1 to hit and the game then be balanced around that. After all - I've already "hit you", so clearly I got through the fence, concrete barrier, whatever. But widespread -1 to hit is crippling for BS5+, and not exactly great for BS4+. Creating a rule that you then need to create lots of work-arounds so the game works doesn't really make much sense.

Funny we talked about Drop pods and one day later we got a nice picture with them... How many Primaris can fit a drop pod?

tneva82 wrote:

Klickor wrote:
Dice rolling doesnt have to be slower than modifiers. Less math and most likely only a few dice to be rolled.

It's all the dice rolling GW has added that made 9e slower than 8e which was slower than 7e that was slower all the way.

Thanks to all the dice rolling even 2nd ed was faster than 8-9e were.

I challenge this assertion, in my opinion it's not so much the number of rolls you make per action (tho re-rolling 1s on every roll ever sure helps...) but the number of actions, in the last 10 years or so we've seen a massive proliferation of different weapon profiles per unit, for a MBT you used to roll a turret and 2-3 identical defensive weapons, now you regularly get 5-6 different weapon systems on one model in cluding completely dumb gak like single stubbers that aren't even worth rolling for, but of course you don't want to give up that 3% chance of causing a wound.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Klickor wrote:
Dice rolling doesnt have to be slower than modifiers. Less math and most likely only a few dice to be rolled.

It's all the dice rolling GW has added that made 9e slower than 8e which was slower than 7e that was slower all the way.

Thanks to all the dice rolling even 2nd ed was faster than 8-9e were.

I challenge this assertion, in my opinion it's not so much the number of rolls you make per action (tho re-rolling 1s on every roll ever sure helps...) but the number of actions, in the last 10 years or so we've seen a massive proliferation of different weapon profiles per unit, for a MBT you used to roll a turret and 2-3 identical defensive weapons, now you regularly get 5-6 different weapon systems on one model in cluding completely dumb gak like stubbers that aren't even worth rolling for, but of course you don't want to give up that 3% chance of causing a wound.

Still, anybody saying that 2nd was in any way fast has a serious case of rose-tinted glasses going on. 2nd might have been faster on average due to the low number of models usually involved, but 2nd edition extreme cases were extremely bad - scatter on jump-pack units, heaps of grenade effects that stayed in game and did random-table things, including random scatter, out-of-control vehicles, random stuff due to e.g. hallucinogenic grenades, burning models randomly walking around and so on and so on. It's not really fast when 3 turn zip by just to get terminally bogged down in a cascade of randomness on the 4th.

As far as the cover thing goes, try this. Put on a Cosplay Space Marine outfit and low crawl through a crater. Let us know how it goes.

It would have been interesting to see the Plunging Fire rule follow something a tad more complex, such as a 1:2 rule. So 6 inches high gives better shots against targets up to 12 inches away or something. Not too difficult to use on the fly and makes a little more sense than saying you have advantage against a target 23 inches away behind a barricade.

Cover saves are always tricky in such an abstract system, where certain systems reward/punish so unevenly. But then the last era I played seriously was 5th where cover saves were a special sort of invuln save and even a white picket fence would give SM Captains a 1/6 chance to miss a guardsman conscript 5'' away.

6" for plunging fire makes sense, since old GW terrain was ~3" per floor, and new GW sector terrain is 5" per floor, so either one will generally need to be 2 levels up before it triggers.

The plunging fire effect is nice, finally a reward for being on high ground.

From a hit or miss perspective this is the first miss for me on the 10th previews. Not sure how I feel about mixed armor saves. Also it looks like -1 to hit from certain terrain types is gone? I don't mind personally but I'd like to confirm if I missed it.