September Big FAQ speculation and wishlisting

[Panzer]

 

I don't want templates back, but more things need bonuses against large squad sizes like the grav weapon on leviathans.

Morale isn't cutting it, as per the usual for 40k.

 

New <MASS INFANTRY> keyword added to units such as IG troopers, cultists, poxwalkers, etc.

 

If a unit with the <MASS INFANTRY> keyword is above [model count] models, wounds inflicted by multi-damage weapons spill over against targets in this unit.

 

Robert is your proverbial uncle's brother. A large group of infantry in close formation would, realistically, be just as vulnerable to anti tank weaponry as small arms- The beam of a lascannon isn't going to stop dead as soon as it hits that first cultist, it's going to keep going and incinerate the other four guys stood behind him.

 

I've thought about this a fair bit and I can't see a downside honestly.

 

 

The one downside I can see is that it would turn anti-tank weapons into great anti-horde weapons too. A Lascannon could just wipe 1d6 Guardsmen per shot. That's not its job though. That's why actual anti-horde weapons have multiple shots and anti-tank weapons have multi-damage as stats.

 

 

 

I'm dying for a tweak to the terrain rules. Bring back abstract terrain rules - true line of sight has never been a success from day one.

 

- Woods/ruins should block line of sight through their base but you can shoot into and out of freely.

 

- Bring back unit sizes. A Rhino should block line of sight to a model rather than a tiny part of the model behind being seen and thus being open to being shot. Models would be dynamic in reality and duck and stoop etc.

No to all of that.

Legit curious as to your objections, here. I feel like one thing that almost everyone agrees on about 8th Ed is that it’s terrain/LoS rules are utter crap.

No, the cover rules are crap. The terrain and LoS rules are fine.

 

As goofy as true LoS works, abstraction is almost always worse. 'I have a knight here so you can't shoot the left side of the table.' 'I have a rhino so half my army is out of LoS even though you can clearly see them' 'oh you can't shoot through the ruin but you can shoot into and out of it despite that being stupid as heck'.

 

Plus it's a bunch of tedious memorization that ends up adding even more bad to the game than good.

 

 

Eh I disagree. Can't really say anything more about it since it's simply a personal preference thing though.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

I'm dying for a tweak to the terrain rules. Bring back abstract terrain rules - true line of sight has never been a success from day one.

 

- Woods/ruins should block line of sight through their base but you can shoot into and out of freely.

 

- Bring back unit sizes. A Rhino should block line of sight to a model rather than a tiny part of the model behind being seen and thus being open to being shot. Models would be dynamic in reality and duck and stoop etc.

No to all of that.

Legit curious as to your objections, here. I feel like one thing that almost everyone agrees on about 8th Ed is that it’s terrain/LoS rules are utter crap.

No, the cover rules are crap. The terrain and LoS rules are fine.

 

As goofy as true LoS works, abstraction is almost always worse. 'I have a knight here so you can't shoot the left side of the table.' 'I have a rhino so half my army is out of LoS even though you can clearly see them' 'oh you can't shoot through the ruin but you can shoot into and out of it despite that being stupid as heck'.

 

Plus it's a bunch of tedious memorization that ends up adding even more bad to the game than good.

I agree in general but I think true line of sight needs to go back to ignoring banners, trailing cloaks etc and just include the body, arms, legs and head of the model.

 

I no longer build any marines with banners on their back and that’s really sad but I don’t do it because it means they can’t hide behind rhinos and low walls. People may even call it modelling for advantage (and maybe it is) but I’m not having my units wiped out because someone can draw line of sight on the top of a banner pole whilst not being able to see any actual models :(

[Wulf Vengis]

I agree LOS should NOT include capes banner poles etc, however that banner pole realistically, WILL get the model carrying it shot at. The person lining up the shot can't see the banner carrier but can see the banner and will just watch that for its owner to step out into the open before opening fire.

 

I also feel models should not be allowed to shoot through ruins, trees etc. I understand shooting into or out of but we're expected to believe that ruins/whatnot aren't just exactly as they appear to us the players. They're larger, thicker, more obstructive than what we as players see on the table.

 

I also feel that if only one model is visible in cover than extra wounds shouldn't carry over into the rest of the unit and any unsaved wounds should be relegated to that specific model.

[Vermintide]

The one downside I can see is that it would turn anti-tank weapons into great anti-horde weapons too. A Lascannon could just wipe 1d6 Guardsmen per shot. That's not its job though. That's why actual anti-horde weapons have multiple shots and anti-tank weapons have multi-damage as stats.

 

True, though I could argue that the already swingy nature of those D6 weapons makes them a little bit overcosted already for their unreliability; giving them more utility might address that without changing the weapon profile itself.

 

It would make flat damage weapons pretty strong, but I can only say I like the idea of a thunder hammer turning 3 cultists into paste with one swing

[MARK0SIAN]

I agree LOS should NOT include capes banner poles etc, however that banner pole realistically, WILL get the model carrying it shot at. The person lining up the shot can't see the banner carrier but can see the banner and will just watch that for its owner to step out into the open before opening fire.

 

I also feel models should not be allowed to shoot through ruins, trees etc. I understand shooting into or out of but we're expected to believe that ruins/whatnot aren't just exactly as they appear to us the players. They're larger, thicker, more obstructive than what we as players see on the table.

 

I also feel that if only one model is visible in cover than extra wounds shouldn't carry over into the rest of the unit and any unsaved wounds should be relegated to that specific model.

Well yeah in real life they’d see the banner and shoot it. In real life he’d also see the gaudy commanders and shoot them, people would be hampered by capes and helmet plumes, they’d all paint their armour in camo colours and no one would bring a sword and shield to war.

 

Banners, cloaks etc are part of the aesthetic that makes it 40k and you can’t apply any real principle to them whatsoever, you’ve just got to suspend disbelief.

 

The original LoS rules were specifically stated to work on the body of the model so as not to discourage creative modelling. 8th edition’s mono-pose model’s and refusal to give rules for anything they don’t sell an actual model for already gives less opportunity for kitbashing and modelling, I’d prefer they have that side of it more weight in the future.

 

I agree you shouldn’t be able to shoot through ruins etc, just over them if you’ve got a height advantage.

 

I would say wounds have definitely got to carry over though, otherwise you’ll switch the balance too far the other way and neuter shooting too much.

[Wulf Vengis]

I agree with you on the wounds carrying over thing, it's just always been a personal peave of mine to lose a unit of something because one guys elbow slipped out.

[Claws and Effect]

I agree with you on the wounds carrying over thing, it's just always been a personal peave of mine to lose a unit of something because one guys elbow slipped out.

Pretty sure the rest of that guy's unit aren't going to be happy with him either. Soldiers that get their squad shot at by being sloppy aren't very popular.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

 

 

I don't want templates back, but more things need bonuses against large squad sizes like the grav weapon on leviathans.

Morale isn't cutting it, as per the usual for 40k.

If it was like 30k where msu was more expensive and you got a discount for larger squads (though I don't know how that would work out for non marine factions, or how it would do with stuff like Primaris who don't have options)

That would make hordes broken. If they got cheaper the more models you took, you'd see 150 models at the same points that 120 are at now, while not doing anything at all for Marines because their rules encourage you to take smaller squads in the first place.

... more broken.

[Ishagu]

True LoS is better than abstract, definitely.

We just need more LoS blocking ruins.

[kombatwombat]

True LoS is better than abstract, definitely.

We just need more LoS blocking ruins.

It isn’t just that. It’s also the move to ‘the tip of my Shadowsword’s aerial can see part of that guy’s billowing cape through six windows and eighteen doorways from the other end of the board, so I can shoot my Volcano Cannon at him without penalty’.

 

The previous incarnation of this rule didn’t have these problems because it specifically required drawing line of sight from the model’s body (or weapon for vehicles) to the body or hull of the target. I can’t really see a downside to going back to that, and it’s easy enough to fit in a Big FAQ.

 

While they’re at it, they could also reinstate the previous rule of ‘models may only be removed as casualties if they are within range and LoS of the firing unit’. It removes the issue of one model inadvertently sticking out from cover just a touch, and an enemy unit being able to kill the entire unit. Nowadays you’d just need to add a one-liner saying that the exception to this is that you still remove a wounded model first, even if it’s not in LoS/range.

 

These aren’t big, sweeping, ‘can we go back to 7th Ed pls’ changes. They’re simple quality of life changes that don’t massively impact the flow of the game but get rid of some of the bad taste these situations can leave in people’s mouths.

[MegaVolt87]

 

 

I don't want templates back, but more things need bonuses against large squad sizes like the grav weapon on leviathans.

Morale isn't cutting it, as per the usual for 40k.

 

New <MASS INFANTRY> keyword added to units such as IG troopers, cultists, poxwalkers, etc.

 

If a unit with the <MASS INFANTRY> keyword is above [model count] models, wounds inflicted by multi-damage weapons spill over against targets in this unit.

 

Robert is your proverbial uncle's brother. A large group of infantry in close formation would, realistically, be just as vulnerable to anti tank weaponry as small arms- The beam of a lascannon isn't going to stop dead as soon as it hits that first cultist, it's going to keep going and incinerate the other four guys stood behind him.

 

I've thought about this a fair bit and I can't see a downside honestly.

 

 

The one downside I can see is that it would turn anti-tank weapons into great anti-horde weapons too. A Lascannon could just wipe 1d6 Guardsmen per shot. That's not its job though. That's why actual anti-horde weapons have multiple shots and anti-tank weapons have multi-damage as stats.

 

 

Oh man this triggered a deep memory for me. One of my first games of 3rd ed against the neighborhood kid's Ultramarines with my Black Legion, his lascannons and melta weapons could hit the front model and anyone behind them like flamers without a template, because apparently the rules and story were pretty much the same he said. Still was learning to play, thought how it worked. Went to LGS, had a game against someone tried to do that they were like   kid WHAT ARE YOU DOING?! Basically got a 3ed step by step game for dummies taught to me that day lol. Had a re-match with my new list the older guy wrote for me at the store, showed him how the actual rules and rapid fire plasma worked. I crushed his UM's with my BL + hidden fists FTW. Neighbor kid never wanted to play me again. 

 

Anyway, always thought the 8e high strength multi wound guns were balanced with low shots. I mean sure, my IW's lascannons ignoring cover bonus and removing 3-6 models a shot it just seems a bit much.

 

Man the good old days when the hordes didn't get their 5+ or 6+ amour save from the humble bolter because of the old AP rules. When you could laugh in heavy bolter when they moved up "elite" 4+ save troops.*

 

*Old man yelling at sky. 

[Closet Skeleton]

Anyway, always thought the 8e high strength multi wound guns were balanced with low shots. I mean sure, my IW's lascannons ignoring cover bonus and removing 3-6 models a shot it just seems a bit much.

 

Man the good old days when the hordes didn't get their 5+ or 6+ amour save from the humble bolter because of the old AP rules. When you could laugh in heavy bolter when they moved up "elite" 4+ save troops.*

 

*Old man yelling at sky. 

 

 

You mean the days when guardsmen had the same saving throw as marines because AP2 was everywhere and nobody ever left cover.

 

The 'balanced' guns are the ones nobody takes anyway. Broadside Battlesuits, Knight Gatling Cannons and Leviathan Storm cannon arrays laugh at the idea of 'balanced' guns.

[Panzer]

 

Anyway, always thought the 8e high strength multi wound guns were balanced with low shots. I mean sure, my IW's lascannons ignoring cover bonus and removing 3-6 models a shot it just seems a bit much.

 

Man the good old days when the hordes didn't get their 5+ or 6+ amour save from the humble bolter because of the old AP rules. When you could laugh in heavy bolter when they moved up "elite" 4+ save troops.*

 

*Old man yelling at sky. 

 

 

You mean the days when guardsmen had the same saving throw as marines because AP2 was everywhere and nobody ever left cover.

 

The 'balanced' guns are the ones nobody takes anyway. Broadside Battlesuits, Knight Gatling Cannons and Leviathan Storm cannon arrays laugh at the idea of 'balanced' guns.

 

^this

Marines were only more durable than today when people didn't take AP2 weapons wherever possible. Sure there were a bunch of S7 AP4 weapons as well, however those were wounding all infantry on a 2+ and came with good rate of fire to just laugh about armour saves anyway. And since those weapons were everywhere Guardsmen and Marines had basically the same save ... none outside of cover.

[Ishagu]

 

True LoS is better than abstract, definitely.

We just need more LoS blocking ruins.

It isn’t just that. It’s also the move to ‘the tip of my Shadowsword’s aerial can see part of that guy’s billowing cape through six windows and eighteen doorways from the other end of the board, so I can shoot my Volcano Cannon at him without penalty’.

 

The previous incarnation of this rule didn’t have these problems because it specifically required drawing line of sight from the model’s body (or weapon for vehicles) to the body or hull of the target. I can’t really see a downside to going back to that, and it’s easy enough to fit in a Big FAQ.

 

While they’re at it, they could also reinstate the previous rule of ‘models may only be removed as casualties if they are within range and LoS of the firing unit’. It removes the issue of one model inadvertently sticking out from cover just a touch, and an enemy unit being able to kill the entire unit. Nowadays you’d just need to add a one-liner saying that the exception to this is that you still remove a wounded model first, even if it’s not in LoS/range.

 

These aren’t big, sweeping, ‘can we go back to 7th Ed pls’ changes. They’re simple quality of life changes that don’t massively impact the flow of the game but get rid of some of the bad taste these situations can leave in people’s mouths.

That's a very specific example and honestly not one that I care for. Sounds like you need more true LOS blocking terrain to me, or that you need a bigger cover to hide the model.

 

The old rules where wings didn't count as the model, etc were absolutely ridiculous.

[Slasher956]

take a leaf out of another game systems book for example a couple of ways are :

Infinity-  where each model has a silhouette size attached to their models

WM/H - each model has a volume dictated by their base size

[Ishagu]

How is that better than true LoS? It's simply easier to get more LoS blocking terrain. You can buy such terrain painted and ready to go.

[The Unseen]

Uhh...

So we aren't limited to playing on boards that have walls covering everything maybe?

Jesus Ishagu, take your opinion that the current rules are fine and dandy and treat it like what it is.

An opinion, that many people here disagree with.

 

I love bolt actons terrain system.

If 50% of the target is obscured to 50% of the firing unit, they're in cover.

Whether that be walls, other units, etc.

And cover is split between soft obscuring cover and hard bullet resistant stuff.

Area terrain blocks line of sight over it but not into itself.

[Ishagu]

The true LoS only applies to being able to target models. The ruin rules are pretty good (they should allow monsters to enter them - why can't a carnifex smash through walls?).

 

Any rule which has people trying to judge % of cover leads to time wasting and potential arguments. It currently applies to vehicles and it needs fixing - that's something that should be updated.

[Lexington]

 

 

True LoS is better than abstract, definitely.

We just need more LoS blocking ruins.

It isn’t just that. It’s also the move to ‘the tip of my Shadowsword’s aerial can see part of that guy’s billowing cape through six windows and eighteen doorways from the other end of the board, so I can shoot my Volcano Cannon at him without penalty’.

That's a very specific example and honestly not one that I care for. Sounds like you need more true LOS blocking terrain to me

Care for it or not, it’s a perfectly cromulent example of why 8th Ed’s LoS and cover/terrain rules are pretty widely considered the system’s worst aspect. People have and want terrain that reflects the variety of environments of the 40K universe. They shouldn’t have to limit themselves to large, linear shapes just to keep up with the system’s deficiencies in creating a satisfying tabletop experience.

[chapter master 454]

I agree with needing to add that banners, aerials and the like shouldn't count (personally I don't count them myself but I suppose I should watch for it) but a head or full arm would count.

 

Not sure about the whole "models only in range thing" because then you get sergeants, special weapons and heavy weapons being positioned at the back of units instead of front which just looks daft "Ok sir, lead us to victory" "Hmm, you guys just start going forward first, I will heroically follow to cover the rearguard and not because of any gamy mechanics". I can see the case but to be honest it just feels like there are arguments waiting to happen over this (like if certain models aren't visible but others are, or positioning yourself so only certain models are visible). People will say "that won't happen" but then Coldstar spam happened in 8th along with Flyrants, people WILL do it to the best of their ability and we even have it to some extent with using units to direct smites (Not common but again...seems a little weird).

[BlueBiscuit Raider]

The only thing I want off the top of my head is for the Plaguecleaver relic to be FAQd so that finally Daemon Princes can take it.

[kombatwombat]

That's a very specific example and honestly not one that I care for. Sounds like you need more true LOS blocking terrain to me, or that you need a bigger cover to hide the model.

 

The old rules where wings didn't count as the model, etc were absolutely ridiculous.

I’m actually extremely fortunate to play in Perth where Objective Secured provide a wealth of excellent LoS blocking terrain for the majority of events I play in, and the rest of my games tend to be at my local club where they have, if anything, even more of it. So no, lack of LoS blockers is not my issue.

 

It was a specific example to demonstrate a problem that is both common and frequently complained about on this forum and elsewhere. Whether you care for the example or not has no relevance; there are plenty of people who do care about this issue.

 

I mean, you can sort of argue wings should count, depending on the model? But then that kind of comes crashing down when you try and argue that the guy who modelled his Flyrant with a heroic and interesting wings-unfurled pose should be punished compared to the guy who modelled his Flyrant as meekly tucking his wings in. If it really, really matters to you, clarify ‘a plane’s wings are part of its hull’, which I believe was in a 7th Ed FAQ anyway.

 

None of the old rules for LoS were ever as ridiculous as ‘my banner shoots your spear tip’.

 

I don’t get your resistance to this. This change wouldn’t really hurt you, and it would bring happiness to the people who do care. There isn’t really a downside that I can see. Except perhaps rules bloat, but that ship hasn’t so much sailed as strapped on a Saturn V rocket and buggered off the planet.

 

Not sure about the whole "models only in range thing" because then you get sergeants, special weapons and heavy weapons being positioned at the back of units instead of front which just looks daft "Ok sir, lead us to victory" "Hmm, you guys just start going forward first, I will heroically follow to cover the rearguard and not because of any gamy mechanics". I can see the case but to be honest it just feels like there are arguments waiting to happen over this (like if certain models aren't visible but others are, or positioning yourself so only certain models are visible).

To be fair, we already have that exact situation with the character rules. Now one element of the rules being bad doesn’t justify making other elements bad in a similar way, but it does at least mean this would be consistent.

 

Ultimately which of the following leaves more of a bad taste in your mouth?

 

Marines are taking cover behind a building, hiding from the Riptide that’d like to tear them several new ones. One of them inadvertently sticks his boot out from behind the building. The Riptide instantly opens fire and annihilates the entire squad for that Marine’s wayward foot. Or in game terms, you tried to use clever positioning to keep your Marine safe from the Heavy Burst Cannon, but a sliiiiiight misjudgement or lack of movement distance means just one model missed cover by the tiniest margin, so now the entire unit dies.

 

vs

 

Said Marine unit has the guys with bolters up front and the plasma gunner and sergeant behind.

 

I get your point, but I think this is a ‘lesser of two evils’ case.

[Wulf Vengis]

I stand by wounds allocation going in order of LOS first as well but wouldn't argue that the rules need to change to reflect that. I would suggest however that the first casualty should always be the closest model in a unit (eg: the model closest to the firing unit) but wound allocation beyond the closest target should fall wholly under the discretion of victims owner.

 

Ex: that guy whose foot got caught out, ya he's dead but the rest of the wounds should be allocated by that units owner.

[Ishagu]

The guy who stuck his boot out revealed the position of his squad. Perfectly fitting that wound spill over.

 

It's a skill based game, be better in positioning!

[Tyriks]

I would hate it if they changed wound allocation. Sure, it doesn't always make perfect sense, but it's easy and simple right now. I'd rather lose a few models out of LOS sometimes than slow the game down even more by mucking around with something that works as is. I don't see any benefit in changing it.