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.

Has anyone tried something like this in house rules? I'm putting it forward because I feel like it would pretty much make Nidzilla a balanced list and it just seems fluffy to me. After all a massive Carnifex or greater Daemon would have a hard time hiding in ruins or a forest.

I've never tried it, but I might make a case for it. 5 toughness 7 carnifexes in cover will take over 60 marine lascannon shots to take out. It won't take that many to take out 5 dreadnoughts hanging out in cover.

I'd have to say I don't think it would work. Whether or not the Carnifex stands a couple feet above the trees, the majority of his body will still be inside of the tree line, which would lead to a lot of the fire coming at it be intercepted by the cover.

I'd be willing to concede something like size 1 terrain not allowing cover, but size 2 or 3, definitely.

djones520 wrote:I'd have to say I don't think it would work. Whether or not the Carnifex stands a couple feet above the trees, the majority of his body will still be inside of the tree line, which would lead to a lot of the fire coming at it be intercepted by the cover.

I'd be willing to concede something like size 1 terrain not allowing cover, but size 2 or 3, definitely.

I think this is one of those "it makes the game more balanced" rule proposals rather than "it would make more sense" rule change. We can argue all day about how likely terrain and cover would be to help a giant alien monster against big laser guns but it would be fruitless. However, I think that in terms of game balance it might be a good idea. There are not a whole lot of shooting options that can deal with a creature with that high of a toughness, that many wounds, and that good of an armor save.

My only detraction from it is how does it affect things for armies with only one carnafix? Are they cheep enough to be worth their points with the increased vulnerability if there is only 1 or maybe 2 in the army? Is this change also appropriate for greater daemons, the eldar avatar, eldar dreadnaughts, and other monstrous creatures? This rule can't be looked at only in the context of Zilla Nids because its affects are much more broad reaching than that.

If Nid Zilla is what you really have a problem with, maybe changes to the nid codex are really what's required. Perhaps the option for elite carnafixs needs to be removed. Maybe the options for extra wounds and extra armor saves need to be removed from carnafixs. Maybe carnafixs need a special rule that applies only to them that makes them ineligible for cover saves.

I don't believe I have a solution to the "problem" but be careful when you make broad reaching changes to the rules when what you are really trying to do is fix a specific thing.

Why not just make carnifexes specifically unable to get cover saves? Handwave it away by saying they're not programmed to take advantage of cover or something. Perhaps make an exception and let them get a cover save only if they're lurking.

I like it. I'd say it is 100% makes game balanced and 50% makes sense. It's possible Wraithlords deserve maybe a 5 or 10 pt price reduction after this. Maybe even Carnis, say knock 5 pts off the price of one or two of the more expensive upgrades but Elite Carnis are the same price.

Nothing is wrong with Carnifexes, other than maybe a possible improvement to their mobility. IMO of course.

One reason why I suggest it is that many monstrous creatures (C'tan, Greater daemons, Avatars) have an invulnerable save of some sort to protect them from Lascannons and whatnot. The ones that don't (Wraithlords, Carnifexes) are typically the ones with good guns and thus are better suited to standing back in the bushes and shooting stuff. So I'm saying thats something of a problem. Wraithlords are toughness 8 for crying out loud, krak missiles bounce off them half the time and Carnifexes are typically fielded in groups of six because they can have five wounds and put out an insane amount of high strength fire. A dreadnaught costs as much but wont survive a lascannon shot more than 1/6th of the time, and are disrupted by the shot about half the time. There needs to be some sort of balance so that non-skimmer vehicles, skimmers and monstrous creatures all can be disrupted and destroyed more equitably.

Well, gee, isn't that why they are called "Monsterous"?
Because they are tough, hard to kill, destructive critters? And, if you are going to go this route, then large vehicles (LR, Leman Russ, Predator, etc) shouldn't get cover saves either since they "would have a hard time hiding in ruins or a forest" too.

No offense meant to the OP or anyone else, but when I see things like this it is usually because the person either doesn't know how to effectively deal with a tough model, or they don't have an equivilent critter in their own arsenal.

Maybe a negative reduction to cover saves, rather then a total removal

Laserbait, it's common knowledge that nidzilla are simply too good at certain points levels, and MCs in cover are a large part of this. There is no need to equate any of these suggestions with the poster not knowing how to deal with MCs.

That is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.
Just because it's big, there isn't enough concrete wall in fromt of it to block that single beam of light that someone is trying to aim at it from (to scale) tens or hundreds of yards (meters, whatever) away?

Come on?!?!

Sure, there's MORE of a Carnifex to block, but look at it like this.
A Monstrous creature in HtH is worth 10 models.
Since that is the only correlation I have to use, I will.

Are you saying that a unit of infantry that is 10+ stroung should no longer get cover saves?
Sure, they can separate & duck and cover, but so? There's a lot of them.

Terrain isn't EXACTLY WYSIWYG. In an area of forest, for example, it's not flat ground with a dozen trees around the perimeter. Right? There are nooks & crannies and the topography of the forest varies, as well. There are far more trees assumed to be in the forest than the ones you put on the MODEL of the forest.


Same for every other terrain... it's REPRESENTATIVE.

Trying to eliminate a major rule of the game for something like that is ridiculous.


On the same track, are you saying that tanks should never get a "Hull Down" chance?
They're as big as or bigger than MC's. If a group of trees won't hide that Daemon Prince, then it certainly won't hide a Land Raider.

Now, as far as the idea of validating your idea by saying this:

One reason why I suggest it is that many monstrous creatures (C'tan, Greater daemons, Avatars) have an invulnerable save of some sort to protect them from Lascannons and whatnot

That's nuts. SOME monstrous creatures do... but I don't think it's enough to call it MANY!
Should terminators no longer get cover saves? ALL terminators get Invul saves.


I'm sorry, but this:

The ones that don't (Wraithlords, Carnifexes) are typically the ones with good guns and thus are better suited to standing back in the bushes and shooting stuff. So I'm saying thats something of a problem. Wraithlords are toughness 8 for crying out loud, krak missiles bounce off them half the time and Carnifexes are typically fielded in groups of six because they can have five wounds and put out an insane amount of high strength fire. A dreadnaught costs as much but wont survive a lascannon shot more than 1/6th of the time, and are disrupted by the shot about half the time. There needs to be some sort of balance so that non-skimmer vehicles, skimmers and monstrous creatures all can be disrupted and destroyed more equitably

REALLY DOES make it SOUND like you're suggesting this rule because you have a hard time dealing with them.

Now, I'm not saying it IS true... just that this is how it sounds to me, too.

The RAW are the RAW for a reason.
This one makes as much sense for MC's as anyone else.


Eric

Samwise158 wrote: Wraithlords are toughness 8 for crying out loud, krak missiles bounce off them half the time and Carnifexes are typically fielded in groups of six because they can have five wounds and put out an insane amount of high strength fire. A dreadnaught costs as much but wont survive a lascannon shot more than 1/6th of the time, and are disrupted by the shot about half the time. There needs to be some sort of balance so that non-skimmer vehicles, skimmers and monstrous creatures all can be disrupted and destroyed more equitably.

And SM Dreads have Armor 12, and can take ugrades like extra armor and smoke launchers, AND comes with an assault cannon (S6) as standard for 105 points. And for another 20 points you can make it venerable and force any hits to be rerolled for damage. So why would it get a cover save, and a wraithlord not?

There needs to be some sort of balance so that non-skimmer vehicles, skimmers and monstrous creatures all can be disrupted and destroyed more equitably

...and that's also why they cost different points. Tougher models = higher points.


Eric

First of all I'm not posting this because of any personal problem that I've had in the game, but rather a general perception of what units currently perform at a level far beyond their points cost.

A 2 Twin Linked Devourer Fex costs 113pts and has way more firepower than a standard dreadnaught and is more survivable by far.

Your points about vehicles not being able to get a cover save are valid, but they don't really get a cover save as the rules are now. Obscured isn't a cover save, its a reduction to a glancing hit. Nothing is saved, it is just less screwed up. The vehicle will at least not be able to shoot for a turn, and will possibly lose its best weapon, be immobilized, or blow up. A deep striking group of Guardsmen with 4 Melta Guns has a really good chance of knocking out a tank or a dreadnaught in cover, but have a very slight chance of hurting a Carnifex or Wraithlord in a wood. And even if they hurt it, it isn't suppressed at all. Aside from being slightly closer to being dead, it suffered no ill effect.

My motivation for posting this is to motivate discussion, and because I believe that the current rules benefit monstrous creatures unfairly over vehicles. I proposed the no cover save because it seems fluffy to me, but mainly, as phoenix said, because I'm trying to address an imbalance in the rules. If Monstrous creatures, could have their arms blown off or get killed with a lucky shot to the face then I wouldn't need to post this suggestion.

Nidzilla is the extreme case. Just as Mechdar is the extreme case for a skimmer nerf. I know that they won't come out with a new codex for either of these armies for a while and so I hope that when the 5th Ed. Rules come out they come up with a creative solution to make these extreme armies less powerful.

Maybe Monstrous Creatures need a -1 to hit on their BS roll on a turn after they lose a wound to make up for Crew Shaken.

Modifiers! Oh my!

Wraithlords would of course be immune to this :p

why not have a reduced cover save on level 2 terrain? Aka 4+ becomes 5+ and 6+ becomes no save, as they wouldn't get as much cover as a normal sized model.

Then again... When you start down this path, you start having to deal with other problems. Like why it's as easy for a person to hit a single model as it is to hit a random person in a squad and why a stationary tank using smoke isn't easier to hit then a skimmer moving fast... etc. etc.

eaj731 wrote:why not have a reduced cover save on level 2 terrain? Aka 4+ becomes 5+ and 6+ becomes no save, as they wouldn't get as much cover as a normal sized model.

Then again... When you start down this path, you start having to deal with other problems. Like why it's as easy for a person to hit a single model as it is to hit a random person in a squad and why a stationary tank using smoke isn't easier to hit then a skimmer moving fast... etc. etc.

They're only problems as long as you try and keep a simulationist ideal in a game that has little or no interest in directly simulating individual actions. As long as you keep to the idea that 40k is a reasonably abstract game that focusses on broad strategy over the minute realities of individual models, it works out reasonably well


But in general, I like the idea of MC losing their cover save. A carnifex that's half covered by terrain is still presently a larger area to hit than a marine standing out in the open.


To answer the 'monstrous creature are too tough' argument, I like the idea of giving MC their own wound table. It seems silly to me that a MC with vital areas exposed can know it will survive three lascannon hits before having a chance of dying. A table similar to the vehicle hits table could work well.

Samwise158 wrote:Carnifexes are typically fielded in groups of six because they can have five wounds

As long as you include this, you have no valid argument against the zilla list. Same with the argument about the 6 Toughness 7 Carnis...

lifeafter wrote:I've never tried it, but I might make a case for it. 5 toughness 7 carnifexes in cover will take over 60 marine lascannon shots to take out. It won't take that many to take out 5 dreadnoughts hanging out in cover.

Considering that basing an argument off an illegal list is pointless, you also have to consider that the Carnis are almost twice as expensive (For the upgunned T7 ones) as a base dread.

skyth wrote:Considering that basing an argument off an illegal list is pointless, you also have to consider that the Carnis are almost twice as expensive (For the upgunned T7 ones) as a base dread.

That's the problem... He doesn't HAVE to consider it. He doesn't HAVE to consider anything except his own opinion.

He SHOULD consider it... but it seems as if he refuses to.

The bottom line is that everything is relatively abstract and representative.
Take Level 3, for example. A 3 story building, 4 story building, copse of trees, Land raider, Rhino , Defiler AND A Daemon Prince are ALL Level 3.
Come on. Seriously. They aren't the same size... in most cases, not NEARLY!

Don't even get me started on POINTS.

If you're willing to reduce or eliminate a cover save for Monstrous Creatures, are you also ready to drop their points cost by 25%?
Let's face it... an average table SHOULD be covered with 25% terrain. That means 25% of the time, a model would be in cover.
Not a MC, though... So, since they don't get that 25% bonus, they should get a points reduction to offset that a smaller model spends 133% of the (average) amount of time with cover saves that a MC does.

That being said, my Land Land Raider is larger than my Carnifex. I guess that measley little forest won't let me count as obscured anymore. I'm just toooooo big.

Eric

If you're willing to reduce or eliminate a cover save for Monstrous Creatures, are you also ready to drop their points cost by 25%?

I think the idea behind this is to nerf TMCs, so of course not. The loss or reduction of cover saves is meant to replace the increase in points they would otherwise require.

skyth wrote:

Samwise158 wrote:Carnifexes are typically fielded in groups of six because they can have five wounds

As long as you include this, you have no valid argument against the zilla list. Same with the argument about the 6 Toughness 7 Carnis...

Sorry, I made a mistake about the amount of biomorphs they can have as elites, I don't think that this invalidates my argument. I understand that Gunfexes(typically heavies)
are usually more expensive than the Elite Dakkafexes. I want Tyranids to get what they pay for, but feel as though monstrous creatures could deal with a slight nerfing. You seem to feel that no cover save is too great of a nerfing. Do you feel that there is some need for a nerf or none at all?

MagickalMemories wrote:

skyth wrote:Considering that basing an argument off an illegal list is pointless, you also have to consider that the Carnis are almost twice as expensive (For the upgunned T7 ones) as a base dread.

That's the problem... He doesn't HAVE to consider it. He doesn't HAVE to consider anything except his own opinion.

He SHOULD consider it... but it seems as if he refuses to.

The bottom line is that everything is relatively abstract and representative.
Take Level 3, for example. A 3 story building, 4 story building, copse of trees, Land raider, Rhino , Defiler AND A Daemon Prince are ALL Level 3.
Come on. Seriously. They aren't the same size... in most cases, not NEARLY!

Don't even get me started on POINTS.

If you're willing to reduce or eliminate a cover save for Monstrous Creatures, are you also ready to drop their points cost by 25%?
Let's face it... an average table SHOULD be covered with 25% terrain. That means 25% of the time, a model would be in cover.
Not a MC, though... So, since they don't get that 25% bonus, they should get a points reduction to offset that a smaller model spends 133% of the (average) amount of time with cover saves that a MC does.

That being said, my Land Land Raider is larger than my Carnifex. I guess that measley little forest won't let me count as obscured anymore. I'm just toooooo big.

Eric

I've been trying to address each point that people have brought up as we've gone along, so I don't see how I am refusing to consider other people's opinions. The varieties of cover vary greatly, but I feel that both vehicles and monstrous creatures should derive a similar benefit. In my last post I spoke to your vehicles vs. MCs position. I felt that the obscured rule accomplishes very little and find that MCs recieving a cover save and having no ill effect for being wounded makes them point for point much better than a ground vehicle. Hence the current dominance of Skimmer/Zilla armies. I am suggesting a rule change to balance out that percieved benefit.

Samwise158 wrote:

skyth wrote:

Samwise158 wrote:Carnifexes are typically fielded in groups of six because they can have five wounds

As long as you include this, you have no valid argument against the zilla list. Same with the argument about the 6 Toughness 7 Carnis...

Sorry, I made a mistake about the amount of biomorphs they can have as elites, I don't think that this invalidates my argument.

I'm just tired of the Godzilla list being blown out of proportion by the whiners...A good porportion of the whining is from people who never have played against a zilla list and it's all based off of the 6 Carnies with T7, 5 Wounds, and 2+ save...In my experience, Dakkafexes are increadibly fragile (almost a glass cannon).

MagickalMemories wrote:

skyth wrote:The bottom line is that everything is relatively abstract and representative.
Take Level 3, for example. A 3 story building, 4 story building, copse of trees, Land raider, Rhino , Defiler AND A Daemon Prince are ALL Level 3.
Come on. Seriously. They aren't the same size... in most cases, not NEARLY!

Yeah, it's a largely abstract game, where the minute realities of individual units isn't as important as the overall manouvres taken... which is exactly why your complaint about MCs not receiving cover but land raiders continuing to get a bonus from cover is inconsistant.

What's important is the behaviour the rule encourages. Taking away the cover save from MCs will stop them lurking in buildings and forests, and encourage them to advance to engage the enemy regardless of terrain. They'd be acting exactly as MC's should.

Samwise158 wrote:I'm just tired of the Godzilla list being blown out of proportion by the whiners...A good porportion of the whining is from people who never have played against a zilla list and it's all based off of the 6 Carnies with T7, 5 Wounds, and 2+ save...In my experience, Dakkafexes are increadibly fragile (almost a glass cannon).

The terrifying nature of the nidzilla list and its dakkafex is often overstated... as 40K players will tend to overstate any imbalance.

The dakkafex has limited range, no AP and is surprisingly vulnerable in CC, but it's a touch over 100 point for 4 wounds at T6 with 3+ save. Suggesting they're fragile or a glass cannon is just plain crazy.

Well, they do tend to go down faster than a las/plas squad (Only 4 wounds as opposed to 6). The Toughness 6 and 3+ doesn't make any difference vs Missile Launchers and Lascannons. The only thing that it modifies is plasma, and not all that much. A las/plas squad will absorb the shooting of 3.86 las/plas squads at mid range (>12 <24). A Dakkafex will absorb 3.48 at mid range (Where the Dakkafex will be shooting). 2.25 ML Dev squads vs the las/plas squad vs 1.69 for the Dakkafex.

Yes, Glass cannon is a bit of a misnomer, but they generally are more fragile than a Tac squad.

Pit a Carnifex against a lemanruss of equal points and see how many times out of 10 the leman russ will win the fight. (hint: its usually 1 out of 10 tries)

thehod wrote:Pit a Carnifex against a lemanruss of equal points and see how many times out of 10 the leman russ will win the fight. (hint: its usually 1 out of 10 tries)

I had the same discussion with an old buddy under one of the old 500 point rulesets that allowed him 3x Russes in 500. My counter was 3x Wraithlords with brightlances. It's pretty much a no-go for the russes.

It's funny when Monstrous Creatures are compared to a tac squad the tac squad comes out ahead (or say even), but when compared to vehicles the MC comes out. Maybe the problem isn't Monstrous Creatures but rather vehicles. I noticed in this thread the importance of anti-tank weapons in your tac squads in the event your vehicles are all stunned/shaken.

Vehicles biggest problem is they're completely crippled by Crew Shaken. Maybe Extra Armour should work like the old Spirit Stones (is that why it is 15pts in the new Chaos book?) ... but that's off topic.

skyth wrote:Well, they do tend to go down faster than a las/plas squad (Only 4 wounds as opposed to 6). The Toughness 6 and 3+ doesn't make any difference vs Missile Launchers and Lascannons. The only thing that it modifies is plasma, and not all that much. A las/plas squad will absorb the shooting of 3.86 las/plas squads at mid range (>12 <24). A Dakkafex will absorb 3.48 at mid range (Where the Dakkafex will be shooting). 2.25 ML Dev squads vs the las/plas squad vs 1.69 for the Dakkafex.

Yes, Glass cannon is a bit of a misnomer, but they generally are more fragile than a Tac squad.

Tactical squads are heavily armoured troops, their battlefield role is to be versatile and really, really hard to kill. Coming close to matching them for survivability is no failing. And there are plenty of weapons out there that aren't marine and imperial heavy weapons, which are affected by the dakkafex' greater toughness...

And yeah, tanks are supposed to be vulnerable to dedicated AT weapons. Dakkafexes are still vulnerable to small arms and are very vulnerable to plasma weaponry, while MBT like the Leman Russ are completely immune to anything St 7 or under. Which is pretty much how it should be.

MCs probably have a wound too many, on average, and would probably fit the game a little better if they worked on something other than the wounds system, but the problem isn't with tanks having a reasonable chance of exploding when hit by dedicated AT weapons.

around where I play, only height 2 or better can provide a cover save for MC's. basicly it doesnt seem like a car\picket fence\etc. would give a 2 story wraithlord a cover save.

i dont think the cover save should be taken away, maybe reduced, MAYBE, but not removed. although wraithlords have access to another weapon now, they are more expensive base then they used to be, how is that fair? more expensive and eaiser to kill? and if i lost a wound on the lord, you better believe they better be a lot cheaper. i dont know how many times i have had a one wound lord make it through the game and to be able to for sure be taken out but a dev. squad with 4 ML doesnt seem very fair.


now giving 4 lords and inv 4+ save with the apocalypse stratagem just isnt fair, especially with eldrad backing them up......