Void Shielding and Markerlights

[Gleipnir]

Here's a rules conundrum for you, say I have a unit standing on a building with Void Shielding, based on the wording for void shields until the void shields are down markerlights are unable to hit the target standing on the battlements as they simply ping off the Void shields all day and are incapable of penetrating its armor, and since they cannot hit anything but the void shields and the void shields themselves cannot be targeted only the units they are protecting you can't thus spend markerlight hits that are applied to the shield.


That sound accurate for RAW?

[Demonus]

Sounds correct to me.

[Sly]

Sounds reasonable. It's the same thing that happens with weapons of S5 or lower.

[John Bower]

who ya gonna call.... Tau Busters... Sorry, couldn't resist the gag. :)

[Anggul]

Quite why anyone needs Markerlights to hit a massive great void shield I'll never know.

This game needs 'large target' and 'small target' rules I feel.

[GravesDisease]

Quite why anyone needs Markerlights to hit a massive great void shield I'll never know.

This game needs 'large target' and 'small target' rules I feel.

The earlier editions had that and whilst it made sense i don't know if it actually made it any fun. You would have a chart that was BS and target size, plus you had modifiers for cover and movement. Have you played Battlefleet gothic? Not exactly thrilling stuff.

[Anggul]

We have easily recognisable size classifications now though. Bulky, Very Bulky and Extremely Bulky. I wouldn't say Bulky stuff would give bonuses to hit, just the really big things like a big tank or a building. If you walk up to a Leman Russ with a Meltagun, you are not going to miss. Similarly if you fire at a bastion, you would have to really, really suck to miss.

I much prefer the 'to hit' modifer system of cover, for example. It means taking cover still means something even if your armour isn't ignored, as it should be. Of course this sort of thing would require game-wide rebalancing to accomodate it, but it would be good I think.

[John Bower]

We have easily recognisable size classifications now though. Bulky, Very Bulky and Extremely Bulky. I wouldn't say Bulky stuff would give bonuses to hit, just the really big things like a big tank or a building. If you walk up to a Leman Russ with a Meltagun, you are not going to miss. Similarly if you fire at a bastion, you would have to really, really suck to miss.

I much prefer the 'to hit' modifer system of cover, for example. It means taking cover still means something even if your armour isn't ignored, as it should be. Of course this sort of thing would require game-wide rebalancing to accomodate it, but it would be good I think.

Something I've said about cover for a long time, it's dumb. If you have a squad of marines, what point in taking cover? You get the same save regardless. Now if cover made you harder to hit, that would make more sense. I know why they did it, to speed up gameplay, but now they've added so much stuff with measuring etc. that slows it down anyway. Overwatch, slowed the game down, model by model range and saves, slowed the game down. Challenges, slow the game down. Some of it is fun, but challenges? Really? On a wartorn battlefield against bugs that can't understand a word you're screaming? C'mon GW, you didn't think that through - hmmm, hindsight here, that's pretty normal for them.

[evilamericorp]

Something I've said about cover for a long time, it's dumb. If you have a squad of marines, what point in taking cover? You get the same save regardless. Now if cover made you harder to hit, that would make more sense. I know why they did it, to speed up gameplay, but now they've added so much stuff with measuring etc. that slows it down anyway. Overwatch, slowed the game down, model by model range and saves, slowed the game down. Challenges, slow the game down. Some of it is fun, but challenges? Really? On a wartorn battlefield against bugs that can't understand a word you're screaming? C'mon GW, you didn't think that through - hmmm, hindsight here, that's pretty normal for them.

Challenges exist to balance the power if ICs and hidden powerfists vs large monstrous characters without a unit to hide in.

[This Dave]

Something I've said about cover for a long time, it's dumb. If you have a squad of marines, what point in taking cover? You get the same save regardless. Now if cover made you harder to hit, that would make more sense. I know why they did it, to speed up gameplay, but now they've added so much stuff with measuring etc. that slows it down anyway. Overwatch, slowed the game down, model by model range and saves, slowed the game down. Challenges, slow the game down. Some of it is fun, but challenges? Really? On a wartorn battlefield against bugs that can't understand a word you're screaming? C'mon GW, you didn't think that through - hmmm, hindsight here, that's pretty normal for them.

The part about cover oddly enough GW originally went this way to get Marines to stop lurking in it all the time. In early editions there was a to hit modifier for being in cover and then you got your armor save if you had one after all the mods. So most players would keep their troops in cover to get the maximum benefit. So games would be more like modern combat with stationary units clinging to cover and shooting or waiting in Overwatch for the enemy to move. GW deliberately made it so there wasn't any benefit for heroic Marines to cower behind a shrub from Lasgun fire. Of course with all the AP 3 stuff around they're back to hiding so it has almost come full circle.

As for Challenges I agree with you. I understand they wanted more heroic combats but the main thing I've seen happen is minor characters like Nobs and Sergeants stopped having wargear put on them as they'll just be murdered in a basically unavoidable challenge by a full character.

[Anggul]

Not to mention so many characters who should be great in challenges actually being really bad at them. Looking at you Succubi and Autarchs. That said, they're just generally not as good at combat as they should be, not specifically challenges.

[DarkLink]

Challenges exist to balance the power if ICs and hidden powerfists vs large monstrous characters without a unit to hide in.

...because they needed to make MCs better? Heck, most MCs in the game aren't ​characters.

[dirkspair]

The earlier editions had that and whilst it made sense i don't know if it actually made it any fun. You would have a chart that was BS and target size, plus you had modifiers for cover and movement. Have you played Battlefleet gothic? Not exactly thrilling stuff.

Battlefleet Gothic is the game 40k should be, simple, elegant and relying on strategy and tactics, not on cheese and gimmicks. And because it is so perfect it went the way of the dodo bird, once the game is good there is no need for more stuff once you have the basics. 40k needs a new edition every few years because they purposely build flaws into it that need to be "fixed" while a brand new set of flaws get introduced.

[evilamericorp]

...because they needed to make MCs better? Heck, most MCs in the game aren't ​characters.

Without challenges, you have to kill every other member of a squad before you can touch the one model that can hurt you, and often die in the process. It makes sense for hive tyrants or daemon princes to be able to selectively kill threats, not get whittled to death by a 40 point sergeant.

[DarkLink]

It makes no sense for the rest of the squad to just stand by. Plus, the result is that units like Tactical Marines become virtually useless in assault because their only means of doing any real damage just became completely useless, and now the only reason to ever, ever, ever take any sort of veteran upgrade is for the bonus Ld, and maaaaybe meltabombs.

And, again, most MCs are not Characters.

[Anggul]

But at the same time it makes no sense that a random harmless Sergeant could hold off said Hive Tyrant for a turn, preventing it from just cleaving through half of the squad. It works both ways. I would never take Power Fists on Sergeants any more because of challenges. A character with one paired with a Lightning Claw yes, a squad member such as a Terminator, Death Company and so on yes, but not a squad leader that will be in challenges. Challenges basically eliminated the hidden Power Fist from lists and made it so the resultant less punchy Sergeant will be a nonsensical speed bump for the big killy thing.

I'm sure there's a better way of solving the issues. Having challenges in 40k is just silly. It is not a galaxy of honour and pride, it's a galaxy of slaughter and hate, and aliens that have no concept of a one-on-one challenge, they just want to kill you in the most efficient way possible. Also if your leader is blatantly going to be ripped in half by that giant monster, you don't just stand there cheering him on, you jump in and help! Just increase the chance of Precision Strike maybe? I don't know, it would take a fair bit of thought.

[DarkLink]

Right, that's kind of my point, it's extremely arbitrary and generally an overly complex, pointless game mechanic that really doesn't have a place.

If you have a problem with hidden power fists, well, there's this neat little rule they introduced called Precision Shot. Problem solved (yes, I know that you can currently LOS them, but we're talking about changing rules here, so there's no reason that couldn't change as well, or maybe LOS itself nerfed from the 4+ it currently is).

[John Bower]

Right, that's kind of my point, it's extremely arbitrary and generally an overly complex, pointless game mechanic that really doesn't have a place.

If you have a problem with hidden power fists, well, there's this neat little rule they introduced called Precision Shot. Problem solved (yes, I know that you can currently LOS them, but we're talking about changing rules here, so there's no reason that couldn't change as well, or maybe LOS itself nerfed from the 4+ it currently is).

I'd nerf LoS in so many ways, situations where it's dumb, CC for example shouldn't have it, nor should sniper rifles allow it, and certainly not flamers, sorry you can't jump between a gout of flame and your sarge, anymore than you can get in the way of a blast weapon. I think all snipers by the same token should be at least hit on a 3+, after all you don't give just any grunt a sniper rifle, even in the fluff the snipers are the best shots in the platoon. What IG particularly need to counter this is 'snper teams' of 2 guys per team, like a heavy weapon team, a spotter and a sniper, both BS4 or upgradeable perhaps to BS5 for a reasonable cost. The rifle itself isn't too bad, except a 5 or 6 to wound should be rending and a double 6 (hit and wound) cause ID. That way it wouldn't be unreasonable to cost 100 points for a sniper team, with a 25 point upgrade for the BS5. Powerful sure, but expensive to boot.

[DWest]

The problem with making sniper rifles that good is it would make sniper units bad. I regularly play against a buddy who runs GK as an allied contingent, and loves his Vindicare, and every game he pouts and goes "why did you kill the Vindy on turn 1?" and I reply "because otherwise, he's going to be sniping ~200 points out of my army each turn". Sniper weapons as-is are good enough to do something different than normal, and yet still weak enough that they have a chance to live through Turn 1 and get to shoot.

Keep in mind that what we are playing is a *simulation* of warfighting, which has then been further compromised in the sake of simplicity, balance, and enjoyment (you may argue as to whether it has succeeded in those categories, but the intent is there). LOS and Challenges are the same thing- they're intended to add a tool to your kit of actions and reactions in the game world, not accurately simulate how people would act (even taking into account 38,000 years of evolution, genetic manipulation, aliens, etc). In the real world, studies from WWII showed pretty reliably that in a given combat situation only roughly 20% of soldiers would actually shoot their weapons, even at a clear target, even when the enemy was shooting them. So for accuracy's sake, we could add a chart allowing only 20% of a unit to shoot, perhaps modified by Ld and/or bonus for shooting at units not a member of your species, but I don't see that adding to the enjoyment of the game.

[John Bower]

The problem with making sniper rifles that good is it would make sniper units bad. I regularly play against a buddy who runs GK as an allied contingent, and loves his Vindicare, and every game he pouts and goes "why did you kill the Vindy on turn 1?" and I reply "because otherwise, he's going to be sniping ~200 points out of my army each turn". Sniper weapons as-is are good enough to do something different than normal, and yet still weak enough that they have a chance to live through Turn 1 and get to shoot.

Keep in mind that what we are playing is a *simulation* of warfighting, which has then been further compromised in the sake of simplicity, balance, and enjoyment (you may argue as to whether it has succeeded in those categories, but the intent is there). LOS and Challenges are the same thing- they're intended to add a tool to your kit of actions and reactions in the game world, not accurately simulate how people would act (even taking into account 38,000 years of evolution, genetic manipulation, aliens, etc). In the real world, studies from WWII showed pretty reliably that in a given combat situation only roughly 20% of soldiers would actually shoot their weapons, even at a clear target, even when the enemy was shooting them. So for accuracy's sake, we could add a chart allowing only 20% of a unit to shoot, perhaps modified by Ld and/or bonus for shooting at units not a member of your species, but I don't see that adding to the enjoyment of the game.

At least that last part explains why you only hit on a 4+ with guardsmen, when even I could shoot in a simulated combat zone as good as that with no training. (Yes a proper simulation, not on PC, it was an army trainer, overseen by Army sergeants, who even yelled at my mate for trying to fire an SA80 left handed). The art of using a Vindicare is not to have him out in the open, if he's dying on turn 1 he's either incredibly unlucky every time or he's not in the right cover. That guy should be getting close to a 2+ cover save and therefore damned hard to kill with all but a lucky shot from an ID weapon.

[DWest]

Weight of fire, actually. He's only T4 and 2W, so it might take my entire turn 1 shooting on a single target, but he *will* die.

[DarkLink]

It won't take that much shooting. He's easy to kill. He'll normally only have a 3+ at best, anyways.

[Lord Krungharr]

I could see a Sgt. barreling forth to grab onto a charging Hive Tyrant to slow it down for a bit. Sure he'll die, but darn it, he'll help the squad survive for a few minutes more. I could also see arrogant Champions waving the others back whilst they duel to see who's the mac daddy of combat. Wouldn't samurai lords do such a thing?

[Tynskel]

It makes no sense for the rest of the squad to just stand by. Plus, the result is that units like Tactical Marines become virtually useless in assault because their only means of doing any real damage just became completely useless, and now the only reason to ever, ever, ever take any sort of veteran upgrade is for the bonus Ld, and maaaaybe meltabombs.

And, again, most MCs are not Characters.

This is so hilariously tournament minded.

Have you ever thought that the reason to take upgrades is because you want to have an epic character with an epic duel, with a story to tell 5 years later?

[DarkLink]

This is so hilariously tournament minded.

I know you've got a stick up your *** about anyone playing the game in any way other than your own personally approved way, but seriously? Virtually no one runs any upgrades on squad leaders anymore. You can talk smack about how everyone should just beer and pretzel it up, but I frankly don't see many people actually playing it that way.



Have you ever thought that the reason to take upgrades is because you want to have an epic character with an epic duel, with a story to tell 5 years later?

And then your "epic" character gets splatted by any real combat character without doing anything. Epic duel, bro. Same time next week?

[Anggul]

I know you've got a stick up your *** about anyone playing the game in any way other than your own personally approved way, but seriously? Virtually no one runs any upgrades on squad leaders anymore. You can talk smack about how everyone should just beer and pretzel it up, but I frankly don't see many people actually playing it that way.



And then your "epic" character gets splatted by any real combat character without doing anything. Epic duel, bro. Same time next week?

Pretty much. Epic duels are cool, but the way the game works rarely makes this a possibility. Challenges between single wound characters are usually: 'Right, who has higher initiative? Probably win.' and when it comes to multi-wound characters it's: 'I have Eternal Warrior and a high strength weapon and you don't?' -splat-. The only time you get a decent duel between commanders is when they're both combat characters with Eternal Warrior/T5, otherwise it's usually just first to Power Fist/Smash wins.

Too many characters just aren't as good in a fight as their fluff makes them out to be due to how the stats in this game work. An Autarch with a Power Sword should be able to wound Marines easily because it's a Power Sword and they have the deadly skill to thrust/slash etc. right where they need to to kill, but S3 and a lack of consideration for skill helping you to wound means the Power Sword somehow struggles to go through the Marine. If only they had given Autarchs the same statline as Archons and access to Executioners, then they would have actually been decent in a fight.

You know what would make for more epic fights? Make the WS chart mean more. A WS6 character should not hit a WS8 character half the time. A Succubus should be able to dodge around a Captain's attacks with incredible skill, not probably just get hit and killed with ease. Sure it would mean most ICs would have to be completely re-costed, but I think it would be well worth it. As it is, characters with low strength and toughness but are supposed to be incredibly skilled and deadly fighters (as I've said so far, Autarchs, Archons and Succubi are prime examples) just get Instant Deathed by almost any enemy character and are relegated to helping kill off standard squad guys rather than engaging in epic duels. Even the Huskblade Archon is being neutered by the Shield Eternal granting easy access to Eternal Warrior to anyone, and the Huskblade Archon didn't make for any epic fights due to killing the enemy before anything even happened. The only reason Archons are still half-decent in a fight is the Shadow Field, which might just fail early on and you're as good as dead.

I haven't figured out the statistics of such theoretical fights yet, but what if the WS chart worked closer to the S-T chart? Just a thought. Maybe not quite to the same immediate extent of +1/-1 for every point of WS higher or lower, but I really think it should matter more. Guardsmen hitting Death Company on 6s? Sure. Marines hitting Incubi on 5+? Sounds about right. An Autarch hitting a Succubus on 5+, while she hits him on 3+? Again, sounds much more likely. I think it's a good call, though it would take a while to balance out the costs again. I imagine it would mostly be the quick-skilled characters (Mostly Eldar, Broodlords, Dante and Mephiston) going up in price, and I would be happy to pay more points for an Autarch to be a close combat threat.