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.