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.
2023/04/25 14:00:30
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
I'm sort of lost on what the argument is here.
"Its not fair you only need 36 BS4+ lasgun shots or 18 BS3+ bolter shots to kill a Marine in cover. Clearly 72/36 respectively is much more reasonable?"
Should Sisters get a 2+ save in cover? No, I don't think so. Especially when they are reducing AP from the game.
2023/04/25 14:15:21
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
alextroy wrote: The designers decided the best option was to keep this relatively simple cover rule of +1 Armor Save with a rider to prevent 3+ Saves from improving to a 2+ Save.
I will laugh if they add a special ability that improves the Benefit of Cover bonus to +2.
You do understand the difference between pathfinders or eliminators having a 2+ save in cover and the same thing being true for over 50% of all models played across the globe, irrespective of what other rules they have?
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
2023/04/25 14:56:16
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
alextroy wrote: The designers decided the best option was to keep this relatively simple cover rule of +1 Armor Save with a rider to prevent 3+ Saves from improving to a 2+ Save.
I will laugh if they add a special ability that improves the Benefit of Cover bonus to +2.
You do understand the difference between pathfinders or eliminators having a 2+ save in cover
I don't care about the difference. But (say) Eliminators getting a 2+ save ONLY if they are fired at by an AP -1 weapon is really friggin funny. How does that even work? Why would that be even a thing? So many questions...
My armies:
14000 points
2023/04/25 14:58:43
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
alextroy wrote: The designers decided the best option was to keep this relatively simple cover rule of +1 Armor Save with a rider to prevent 3+ Saves from improving to a 2+ Save.
I will laugh if they add a special ability that improves the Benefit of Cover bonus to +2.
You do understand the difference between pathfinders or eliminators having a 2+ save in cover
I don't care about the difference. But (say) Eliminators getting a 2+ save ONLY if they are fired at by an AP -1 weapon is really friggin funny. How does that even work? Why would that be even a thing? So many questions...
Given nobody knows that is a thing, so we have to assume it isn't until it is.
2023/04/25 15:12:45
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
alextroy wrote: The designers decided the best option was to keep this relatively simple cover rule of +1 Armor Save with a rider to prevent 3+ Saves from improving to a 2+ Save.
I will laugh if they add a special ability that improves the Benefit of Cover bonus to +2.
"Oh man, if theres a unit that has a rule that lets them shoot into other games i will laugh so hard"
Wait until we get the full rules, no point in theorizing about that kind of stuff
2023/04/25 15:31:31
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
alextroy wrote: The designers decided the best option was to keep this relatively simple cover rule of +1 Armor Save with a rider to prevent 3+ Saves from improving to a 2+ Save.
I will laugh if they add a special ability that improves the Benefit of Cover bonus to +2.
You do understand the difference between pathfinders or eliminators having a 2+ save in cover
I don't care about the difference. But (say) Eliminators getting a 2+ save ONLY if they are fired at by an AP -1 weapon is really friggin funny. How does that even work? Why would that be even a thing? So many questions...
Given nobody knows that is a thing, so we have to assume it isn't until it is.
I would like to take the option where it isn't even a possibility.
"Oh man, if theres a unit that has a rule that lets them shoot into other games i will laugh so hard"
Cover saves going up by 1 is a fairly well-known existing ability in the game. Unlike, y'know, shooting into other games.
I know, but we don't know if these cover buffing rules will also have the same rider, or if they will still exist at all, just like we don't know if GW is gonna add a rule that lets you shoot into other games.
Just like we don't even know if bonuses/maluses will stack or not, for all we know, AP/Saves might also get modifiers cap like AoS does for example. There is litterally no point in trying to guess these rules until we've had more than a droplet of rules revealed so far. People getting pissed at these reveals beacuse it *might* break somewhere is ridiculous and tiring
2023/04/25 16:06:00
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
"Oh man, if theres a unit that has a rule that lets them shoot into other games i will laugh so hard"
Cover saves going up by 1 is a fairly well-known existing ability in the game. Unlike, y'know, shooting into other games.
I know, but we don't know if these cover buffing rules will also have the same rider, or if they will still exist at all
To be honest, GW adding a long-ass special snowflake ability (as it has to relate to each cover type if it doesn't relate to the universal Benefit of Cover and add its own specific clauses to avoid a 2+ save) in the "simplified not simple" edition or straight-out cutting the rule and go "no sneaky 4 u" would be even funnier. I can't even think of any other alternatives like different bonuses (Benefit of Cover in the open? That sounds counter-productive. +1 Toughness while Benefitting of Cover? So they are magically weaker against Ap0?) so we shall see...
My armies:
14000 points
2023/04/25 16:12:50
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
catbarf wrote: EviscerationPlague's suggestion is akin to saying the best way to fix Eldar stacking negative penalties to hit would have been to make missile launchers get +1 to hit.
It wouldn't really fix the armies that are the worst offenders, it wouldn't fix the problem of most of your weapons being ineffective, and it would make everyone more vulnerable, not just the armies that are actually causing the problem.
The 'no better than 3+' rule is a clunky solution, just as a hard cap on negative modifiers was, but it directly targets the actual problem (cover doubling durability / multiple stacked negative modifiers) rather than trying to nudge it with borderline irrelevant changes.
I'd also like to see more Ignores Cover, just not as a purported solution for lasguns needing 120 dice rolls on average to remove a single model from the board.
And I mean, if your alternative suggestion involves 'Guard just need to get up the board and get into melee', it's probably time to stop.
It's about fulfilling niches. MLs suck as is. A +1 to hit creates a niche as a heavy weapon that suffers less against hit modifiers. I'm 90% sure I've suggested that before as well.
Also the problem with Eldar stacking hit modifiers was the fact that there wasn't natural ways to stack positive ways to hit, and that GW was stuck with legacy stats. Why can't Chaos Chosen have a WS/BS2+ after all? If units are high up on ruins, shouldn't they get a bonus to hit? Wasn't the Genestealer Cult's Crossfire rules something that should've been core to begin with to strengthen positioning during the game?
The options were there, many of which have been suggested by people in this forum.
Also do Guard not have melee units? What are Rough Riders and Ogryn variants for? It's definitely not special weapon spam.
Except it isn't.
1. What's "unfairly resilient"? Vehicles are unfairly resilient against small arms and Flamers but maybe you should build a list to potentially fight vehicles.
Vehicles are resilient as part of the base profile, 3+ save units gaining a 100% increase in durability due to cover is an unfair benefit against small arms. You have no argument or point here.
2. Marines aren't the only units with a 3+, as you forget about Sisters, whom should also benefit. Y'all forget about them in the argument, and don't think of the scaling when I bring up Bullgryns vs Ogryns. Doesn't matter though since it doesn't fit your narrative.
Marines and guardsmen were used as examples, frankly nobody cares enough to work out the differences for every profile in existence. It's unfairly benefits 3+ saves of which Marines are the standard example. You have no point here either.
3. And there's nothing wrong with a larger selection of Ignores Cover weapons, or even weapons that ignore LoS. It's a way to boost various weapons and give them potential niches that might not be filled by other small arms or special weapons.
See previous post, give out too many and it either renders the cover system pointless. Make 3+ save units almost immune to common weapons in cover, you make it a mandatory trait for a weapon. You have a slight point as it's a way to selectively add value, you're flat wrong ignoring the risk of over proliferation though.
4. No gak Flamers are more effective on faster platforms. Melta is more effective on faster platforms. Short range weapons are more effective on fast platforms. The earth is round.
Congratulations on letting the point sail past you at mach 10. If you have slow moving infantry with weapons you just made essential, they now need to slog up the board as they get pelted by fire in return. You're forcing the advantage to armies with fast flamer/melee delivery.
5. That's the fault of transport rules. When I brought up melee units as a counter, someone whined their Gryns aren't fast enough in Chimeras, as though there might not be a problem with Guard transports to begin with. Once again, that doesn't fit your narrative.
OK, so now we need to let everyone assault out of transports that have moved just to counter 3+ saves in cover, right? What is your point here? You're just reiterating you have to shoehorn melee options in mandatorily.
A greater selection of Ignores Cover weapons doesn't stop the effectiveness of cover to begin with, but I guess with your kind you're probably just doing the GW method of throwing darts at a board to choose them. No wonder you think it's so hard to get rules right.
You're claiming it doesn't fit with my narrative. You are the one spit balling sweeping rules changes, this is your narrative, people are simply showing you it doesn't work. You've provided no metrics, maths, evidence (despite calling out others for not doing so), to back your narrative up. You try the little needling comments such as "your kind" as if I represent a group, you insult my ability to apply critical thinking to rules writing when you make unsubstantiated claims.
Of course you resort to insults, as you can't actually answer the points, just stop being a prick.
1. And a 3+ save is part of the profile for a highly pointed model. So yeah, Vehicles only being wounded on a 6+ against small arms is unfair, so unfair :(
2. And it doesn't unfairly hurt Sisters of Battle? Your sole focus is Marines for whatever reason, and not thinking about the rest of the game. No shock you're unable to grasp why a 2+/3+ getting cover isn't necessarily bad, but consistency is hard I guess.
3. You never define "handed out too much" but I'm not shocked you haven't.
4. You know that most armies have transports right? What are you doing, taking Melta weapons without a transport or Deep Strike? No wonder you can't get anything into position.
5. Ah so now I found it, you don't want to do a TAC list, you just want to sit and never move around potentially short range weapons, pewpew, and win. No wonder you struggled with Sisters and Marines in cover.
Also melee should serve as a counter to units hugging cover in general, not just 3+, but once again you're not thinking about the whole game.
6. I did provide math a couple times, such as Flamers vs Plasma at a Marine in cover. Your math meanwhile proved my point that a 3+ in cover was never broken and maybe you should learn to adjust your list instead of complaining that your Lasguns you never want to move aren't doing anything.
It's not insults, you're just not thinking about the whole game as if it were hard to do so.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/25 16:36:33
2023/04/25 16:43:56
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
catbarf wrote: EviscerationPlague's suggestion is akin to saying the best way to fix Eldar stacking negative penalties to hit would have been to make missile launchers get +1 to hit.
It wouldn't really fix the armies that are the worst offenders, it wouldn't fix the problem of most of your weapons being ineffective, and it would make everyone more vulnerable, not just the armies that are actually causing the problem.
The 'no better than 3+' rule is a clunky solution, just as a hard cap on negative modifiers was, but it directly targets the actual problem (cover doubling durability / multiple stacked negative modifiers) rather than trying to nudge it with borderline irrelevant changes.
I'd also like to see more Ignores Cover, just not as a purported solution for lasguns needing 120 dice rolls on average to remove a single model from the board.
And I mean, if your alternative suggestion involves 'Guard just need to get up the board and get into melee', it's probably time to stop.
It's about fulfilling niches. MLs suck as is. A +1 to hit creates a niche as a heavy weapon that suffers less against hit modifiers. I'm 90% sure I've suggested that before as well.
Also the problem with Eldar stacking hit modifiers was the fact that there wasn't natural ways to stack positive ways to hit, and that GW was stuck with legacy stats. Why can't Chaos Chosen have a WS/BS2+ after all? If units are high up on ruins, shouldn't they get a bonus to hit? Wasn't the Genestealer Cult's Crossfire rules something that should've been core to begin with to strengthen positioning during the game?
The options were there, many of which have been suggested by people in this forum.
Also do Guard not have melee units? What are Rough Riders and Ogryn variants for? It's definitely not special weapon spam.
Except it isn't.
1. What's "unfairly resilient"? Vehicles are unfairly resilient against small arms and Flamers but maybe you should build a list to potentially fight vehicles.
Vehicles are resilient as part of the base profile, 3+ save units gaining a 100% increase in durability due to cover is an unfair benefit against small arms. You have no argument or point here.
2. Marines aren't the only units with a 3+, as you forget about Sisters, whom should also benefit. Y'all forget about them in the argument, and don't think of the scaling when I bring up Bullgryns vs Ogryns. Doesn't matter though since it doesn't fit your narrative.
Marines and guardsmen were used as examples, frankly nobody cares enough to work out the differences for every profile in existence. It's unfairly benefits 3+ saves of which Marines are the standard example. You have no point here either.
3. And there's nothing wrong with a larger selection of Ignores Cover weapons, or even weapons that ignore LoS. It's a way to boost various weapons and give them potential niches that might not be filled by other small arms or special weapons.
See previous post, give out too many and it either renders the cover system pointless. Make 3+ save units almost immune to common weapons in cover, you make it a mandatory trait for a weapon. You have a slight point as it's a way to selectively add value, you're flat wrong ignoring the risk of over proliferation though.
4. No gak Flamers are more effective on faster platforms. Melta is more effective on faster platforms. Short range weapons are more effective on fast platforms. The earth is round.
Congratulations on letting the point sail past you at mach 10. If you have slow moving infantry with weapons you just made essential, they now need to slog up the board as they get pelted by fire in return. You're forcing the advantage to armies with fast flamer/melee delivery.
5. That's the fault of transport rules. When I brought up melee units as a counter, someone whined their Gryns aren't fast enough in Chimeras, as though there might not be a problem with Guard transports to begin with. Once again, that doesn't fit your narrative.
OK, so now we need to let everyone assault out of transports that have moved just to counter 3+ saves in cover, right? What is your point here? You're just reiterating you have to shoehorn melee options in mandatorily.
A greater selection of Ignores Cover weapons doesn't stop the effectiveness of cover to begin with, but I guess with your kind you're probably just doing the GW method of throwing darts at a board to choose them. No wonder you think it's so hard to get rules right.
You're claiming it doesn't fit with my narrative. You are the one spit balling sweeping rules changes, this is your narrative, people are simply showing you it doesn't work. You've provided no metrics, maths, evidence (despite calling out others for not doing so), to back your narrative up. You try the little needling comments such as "your kind" as if I represent a group, you insult my ability to apply critical thinking to rules writing when you make unsubstantiated claims.
Of course you resort to insults, as you can't actually answer the points, just stop being a prick.
1. And a 3+ save is part of the profile for a highly pointed model. So yeah, Vehicles only being wounded on a 6+ against small arms is unfair, so unfair :(
2. And it doesn't unfairly hurt Sisters of Battle? Your sole focus is Marines for whatever reason, and not thinking about the rest of the game. No shock you're unable to grasp why a 2+/3+ getting cover isn't necessarily bad, but consistency is hard I guess.
3. You never define "handed out too much" but I'm not shocked you haven't.
4. You know that most armies have transports right? What are you doing, taking Melta weapons without a transport or Deep Strike? No wonder you can't get anything into position.
5. Ah so now I found it, you don't want to do a TAC list, you just want to sit and never move around potentially short range weapons, pewpew, and win. No wonder you struggled with Sisters and Marines in cover.
Also melee should serve as a counter to units hugging cover in general, not just 3+, but once again you're not thinking about the whole game.
6. I did provide math a couple times, such as Flamers vs Plasma at a Marine in cover. Your math meanwhile proved my point that a 3+ in cover was never broken and maybe you should learn to adjust your list instead of complaining that your Lasguns you never want to move aren't doing anything.
It's not insults, you're just not thinking about the whole game as if it were hard to do so.
Thank you for the lovely oxymoron there. And to that end on 2nd thoughts, an ironically hypocritical statement.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/25 16:44:51
2023/04/25 17:06:49
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
Tyel wrote: I'm sort of lost on what the argument is here.
"Its not fair you only need 36 BS4+ lasgun shots or 18 BS3+ bolter shots to kill a Marine in cover. Clearly 72/36 respectively is much more reasonable?"
Should Sisters get a 2+ save in cover? No, I don't think so. Especially when they are reducing AP from the game.
For me, it's basically a game balance vs immersion thing.
Not letting marines get a 2+ save for standing in cover is definitely better for the game. It just also feels weird because intuitively a marine (or sister or striking scorpion) hugging cover should be harder to kill than a marine standing out in the open.
It also reminds me of ye olden days where marines could spend most of the game not worrying about utilizing cover at all (if their opponent didn't have much AP3). There was a feeling that the game was less tactically interesting when playing with/against Sv3+ armies because their lack of interest in cover meant that they didn't have to make interesting decisions about whether or not to try and post up in some ruins, etc. I don't think we're in that position given that the previewed rules only create this scenario against AP0 weapons, but it is a half-step in that direction.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
2023/04/25 17:12:12
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
There is definitely an argument that Marines being 3+ save as standard is harmful to the game and all different iterations of cover and AP systems have just been different ways to try mitigate that design mistake, with different degrees of success.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/25 17:12:33
2023/04/25 17:26:43
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
Insectum7 wrote: Alternate solution to the MEQ in cover thing?
Drop Marines back to 1W and allow them to get the cover bonus.
Ehh. That's probably an even bigger swing in balance without making marines super cheap in points thereby making them more damaging when they're packing bigger guns.
Then rebalance.
It sucks for other armies when their small arms are so ineffective against Marines.
Then access to more weapons that Ignore Cover or rules that grant ignoring cover should be a thing.
Y'all really make this rocket science as if it were a problem for 9th overall.
Fully agree. Make Flamers Great Again!
Also agree that balancing for 40k is not rocket science
You guys are making it out to be simple, when it isn't and then talk about adding more ignores cover which, as noted earlier, affects all units equally.
Would adjustments have to be made? Yes. Would compromises need to be struck? Yes. Would people still complain? Of course. But would it really be hard?
Resoundingly "No". Ignores Cover is not inherently some game breaking ability. As always, the balance lies in how much you give it out and to whom. The traditional move is to give it to Flamers, which generally constitute an opportunity cost, plus a disadvantage in the fact that they're short ranged. This is a naturally limiting arrangement. Beyond flame weapons you look for opportunities that arise from specialized equipment or rarer units, and balance those within army context. Eldar Missile Launchers with Plasma Missiles could be a good example of another piece of equipment with opportunity cost. Provide the Ignores Cover ability on platforms where, if spammed, create a drop off in efficiency or more gaps in offensive capability against other targets. Build out a balance where some armies are good at it at long range, some short, some hardly at all, with an eye towards the army's other expected capabilities. It takes attentive work, yes. But it's not hard.
Wyldhunt wrote: It just also feels weird because intuitively a marine (or sister or striking scorpion) hugging cover should be harder to kill than a marine standing out in the open.
I think if players can handle the fact that adding an energy shield (5+ invuln) to your flak vest (5+) doesn't actually protect any better against small arms than just the flak vest on its own, they'll resolve the dissonance with the new cover system after some hands-on time.
Tyran wrote: There is definitely an argument that Marines being 3+ save as standard is harmful to the game and all different iterations of cover and AP systems have just been different ways to try mitigate that design mistake, with different degrees of success.
Nailed it.
I'd go a step further and say that when you have a D6-based system and the baseline is not a 4+ to succeed on most checks, you're bound to run into problems when modifiers are brought into the mix. Having the basic statline of the most common army archetype be 'above-average' causes some statistical anomalies and makes it harder to balance.
I think the AP modifier system is a better way to handle it than the hard 'AP3 or bust' breakpoint of the old system, but there are still edge cases that need to be addressed.
Insectum7 wrote: Would adjustments have to be made? Yes. Would compromises need to be struck? Yes. Would people still complain? Of course. But would it really be hard?
Resoundingly "No". Ignores Cover is not inherently some game breaking ability. As always, the balance lies in how much you give it out and to whom. The traditional move is to give it to Flamers, which generally constitute an opportunity cost, plus a disadvantage in the fact that they're short ranged. This is a naturally limiting arrangement. Beyond flame weapons you look for opportunities that arise from specialized equipment or rarer units, and balance those within army context. Eldar Missile Launchers with Plasma Missiles could be a good example of another piece of equipment with opportunity cost. Provide the Ignores Cover ability on platforms where, if spammed, create a drop off in efficiency or more gaps in offensive capability against other targets. Build out a balance where some armies are good at it at long range, some short, some hardly at all, with an eye towards the army's other expected capabilities. It takes attentive work, yes. But it's not hard.
Again - easy to say. Not easy to do. You've created a scenario here than has tendrils beyond what has been outlined and you benefit from this obfuscation, because no one has the time to go through this theoretical proposal that has no actual concrete changes.
And all that work -- just to circumvent marines not getting a +1 against AP0. I mean...seriously...
2023/04/25 18:06:17
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
Insectum7 wrote: Would adjustments have to be made? Yes. Would compromises need to be struck? Yes. Would people still complain? Of course. But would it really be hard?
Resoundingly "No". Ignores Cover is not inherently some game breaking ability. As always, the balance lies in how much you give it out and to whom. The traditional move is to give it to Flamers, which generally constitute an opportunity cost, plus a disadvantage in the fact that they're short ranged. This is a naturally limiting arrangement. Beyond flame weapons you look for opportunities that arise from specialized equipment or rarer units, and balance those within army context. Eldar Missile Launchers with Plasma Missiles could be a good example of another piece of equipment with opportunity cost. Provide the Ignores Cover ability on platforms where, if spammed, create a drop off in efficiency or more gaps in offensive capability against other targets. Build out a balance where some armies are good at it at long range, some short, some hardly at all, with an eye towards the army's other expected capabilities. It takes attentive work, yes. But it's not hard.
Again - easy to say. Not easy to do. You've created a scenario here than has tendrils beyond what has been outlined and you benefit from this obfuscation, because no one has the time to go through this theoretical proposal that has no actual concrete changes.
And all that work -- just to circumvent marines not getting a +1 against AP0. I mean...seriously...
"But it's not hard to get the rules right LOL you just need to think of the whole game at once instead of being a GW simp" - or something like that.
Honestly not worth further debate of the topic imo.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/25 18:07:12
2023/04/25 18:54:27
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
The thing is there are perfect counters. Its called spamming S5 Ap-3 2 damage weapons (or better) as seen this edition. Its pretty clear however GW wants to change that. But they then have to in turn stop the 3+->2+ rules which provoked "give everything a point of AP" in the first place.
Its certainly not giving a conventional D6 hits S4 AP- flamer "ignores cover". If you can somehow bring 4 of them into range, you'd expect to kill a Marine. Not exactly impressive.
2023/04/25 19:12:40
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
Tyran wrote: There is definitely an argument that Marines being 3+ save as standard is harmful to the game and all different iterations of cover and AP systems have just been different ways to try mitigate that design mistake, with different degrees of success.
Not a good one.
2023/04/25 19:16:27
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
Tyran wrote: There is definitely an argument that Marines being 3+ save as standard is harmful to the game and all different iterations of cover and AP systems have just been different ways to try mitigate that design mistake, with different degrees of success.
Not a good one.
The problem is not that Marines have a 3+ save, the problem is that the game is slaved to D6 as a resolution mechanism for basically everything, but attempts to represent things from Gretchins up to Imperial Knights in this simplistic scale. As a result of this, even a +1/-1 modifier represents huge shifts in probabilty, stuff frays at the not-that-far-out edges of 6s always succeding and 1s always failing, which in practice means that your D6 range shrinks to 4 practically usable values, and further problems that derive from this fundamental issue.
2023/04/25 19:21:12
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
Insectum7 wrote: Would adjustments have to be made? Yes. Would compromises need to be struck? Yes. Would people still complain? Of course. But would it really be hard?
Resoundingly "No". Ignores Cover is not inherently some game breaking ability. As always, the balance lies in how much you give it out and to whom. The traditional move is to give it to Flamers, which generally constitute an opportunity cost, plus a disadvantage in the fact that they're short ranged. This is a naturally limiting arrangement. Beyond flame weapons you look for opportunities that arise from specialized equipment or rarer units, and balance those within army context. Eldar Missile Launchers with Plasma Missiles could be a good example of another piece of equipment with opportunity cost. Provide the Ignores Cover ability on platforms where, if spammed, create a drop off in efficiency or more gaps in offensive capability against other targets. Build out a balance where some armies are good at it at long range, some short, some hardly at all, with an eye towards the army's other expected capabilities. It takes attentive work, yes. But it's not hard.
Again - easy to say. Not easy to do. You've created a scenario here than has tendrils beyond what has been outlined and you benefit from this obfuscation, because no one has the time to go through this theoretical proposal that has no actual concrete changes.
And all that work -- just to circumvent marines not getting a +1 against AP0. I mean...seriously...
It just seems like a looooot of work with not a lot of payoff and way more potential for things to go wrong. On top of that it still doesn't deal with other non-3+ armies suffering more, because everyone is ignoring their cover to deal with 3+ armies.
2023/04/25 20:02:41
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
Insectum7 wrote: Would adjustments have to be made? Yes. Would compromises need to be struck? Yes. Would people still complain? Of course. But would it really be hard?
Resoundingly "No". Ignores Cover is not inherently some game breaking ability. As always, the balance lies in how much you give it out and to whom. The traditional move is to give it to Flamers, which generally constitute an opportunity cost, plus a disadvantage in the fact that they're short ranged. This is a naturally limiting arrangement. Beyond flame weapons you look for opportunities that arise from specialized equipment or rarer units, and balance those within army context. Eldar Missile Launchers with Plasma Missiles could be a good example of another piece of equipment with opportunity cost. Provide the Ignores Cover ability on platforms where, if spammed, create a drop off in efficiency or more gaps in offensive capability against other targets. Build out a balance where some armies are good at it at long range, some short, some hardly at all, with an eye towards the army's other expected capabilities. It takes attentive work, yes. But it's not hard.
Again - easy to say. Not easy to do. You've created a scenario here than has tendrils beyond what has been outlined and you benefit from this obfuscation, because no one has the time to go through this theoretical proposal that has no actual concrete changes.
And all that work -- just to circumvent marines not getting a +1 against AP0. I mean...seriously...
"But it's not hard to get the rules right LOL you just need to think of the whole game at once instead of being a GW simp" - or something like that.
It really isn't. GW makes it appear harder than it is, simple as that, and you buy into it.
2023/04/25 20:33:36
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
Insectum7 wrote: Would adjustments have to be made? Yes. Would compromises need to be struck? Yes. Would people still complain? Of course. But would it really be hard?
Resoundingly "No". Ignores Cover is not inherently some game breaking ability. As always, the balance lies in how much you give it out and to whom. The traditional move is to give it to Flamers, which generally constitute an opportunity cost, plus a disadvantage in the fact that they're short ranged. This is a naturally limiting arrangement. Beyond flame weapons you look for opportunities that arise from specialized equipment or rarer units, and balance those within army context. Eldar Missile Launchers with Plasma Missiles could be a good example of another piece of equipment with opportunity cost. Provide the Ignores Cover ability on platforms where, if spammed, create a drop off in efficiency or more gaps in offensive capability against other targets. Build out a balance where some armies are good at it at long range, some short, some hardly at all, with an eye towards the army's other expected capabilities. It takes attentive work, yes. But it's not hard.
Again - easy to say. Not easy to do. You've created a scenario here than has tendrils beyond what has been outlined and you benefit from this obfuscation, because no one has the time to go through this theoretical proposal that has no actual concrete changes.
And all that work -- just to circumvent marines not getting a +1 against AP0. I mean...seriously...
"But it's not hard to get the rules right LOL you just need to think of the whole game at once instead of being a GW simp" - or something like that.
It really isn't. GW makes it appear harder than it is, simple as that, and you buy into it.
Excellent I look forwards to reading your own rules system in that case.
2023/04/25 20:54:33
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
Insectum7 wrote: Alternate solution to the MEQ in cover thing?
Drop Marines back to 1W and allow them to get the cover bonus.
.
This becomes a gigantic hit in efficiency to any elite marine unit. being 30-40pts with one wound and +3sv is very bad. Especialy when other factions gets tanks for 2-3 marines like that. Makes taking something else then a basic marine something a marine player should not be doing, and when that happens we are back to 2x5 minimal troops and either spaming units that somehow go around the +3sv/1W downgrade, or spaming tanks. And if neither thing can be done, then marines become a very bad army. Like post 8th ed Gulliman gunline marines nerf bad.
I mean, the simplest solutions is to make more elite marines 2w and grunt marines 1w. Intercessors, Tacs, Assault marines, etc. are all 1, while Command Squad marines, vets of all sorts, etc. are all 2 wound. Make termies and Gravis 3 wounds and call it a day.
You can't fix the cover rules by breaking the rest of the game
Now GW could have chosen a different route for Cover entirely, but any cover rule will have knock-on effects for the rest of the game. The designers decided the best option was to keep this relatively simple cover rule of +1 Armor Save with a rider to prevent 3+ Saves from improving to a 2+ Save. It may relate to Space Marines in particular, who along with their Chaos brethren are a large part of game. It may also just have to do with 3+ Saves in totality. There are many non-Astartes units in the game, including a vast majority of the vehicles, with 3+ Saves. This rule impacts them as well.
Sorry, If I wasn't clear, i was talking more about the issue of reverting marines to 1 wound making the elites options fall apart. As for the cover system I've not got much of a clue, it's a bit beyond me honestly.
2023/04/25 21:56:19
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46
Tyran wrote: There is definitely an argument that Marines being 3+ save as standard is harmful to the game and all different iterations of cover and AP systems have just been different ways to try mitigate that design mistake, with different degrees of success.
Honestly, I think Insectum7 is right - the real issue is Marines doubling in wounds. That's what makes them ridiculously survivable against basic weapons.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
14000 points 
