MrMoustaffa wrote: Where are you guys seeing this? Didn't see it on Warhammer community
Stream.
I just hope that this doesn't completely ruin horde armies. Those should be a viable option too, not one or the other.
Yea, I have concerns about how this makes anti-infantry weapons obsolete, too (though these should be anti-infantry weapons). It almost feels like we need multiple saves back.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: I think that only D6 weapons will have the blast rule.
Nada. Most random shot weapons that do not auto-hit will be blast.
Yeah, the minimum 3 attacks is for the weapon, not for each individual die. So something like a Wyvern (4D6 shots) will get 4D6 shots against 1-10 models, then flat 24 shots against 11+.
Now I'm really interested to see what they're doing to buff hordes, because this sounds pretty nasty.
I'm still kind of holding out hope here (my armies tend to be VERY light infantry heavy) that this means they'll be returning terrain to how it was in every other edition: Much more impactful for light infantry than heavy infantry.
If you make the role of light infantry go from "Required to generate CP for your army" to "The best at hunkering down in terrain and holding objectives" then fair's fair and they still get to have a job.
For several editions now light infantry have had this issue where, they are almost always the least efficient way to deal with heavy stuff, and heavy stuff can efficiently deal with either other heavy stuff or light infantry.
So why ever take any light infantry?
and GW's response has historically been 'because we told you to. Here, you are now required to take 2-3 units of light infantry before you're allowed your dessert"
They have also put in strange loopholes that allow light infantry to punch/annoy above their weight class, like vehicles always using their rear armor in melee (leading to the dreaded Klaw Nob Sergeant one-shotting your tank) or vehicles not being able to shoot when cheapo troops bad touch them.
GW just needs to have the balls to commit to allowing a unit to be annoying to kill.
Ok now I can see it. This rule feels like it should've existed at the start of 8th back in the day of conscript/zombie/Boyz/ and gaunts spam. Not sure if it's really necessary now. Armies like admech, marines, and guards put out so many shot already that it doesn't seem that necessary of a change to me. Not like it would've been in index days, where this would've been a gift from the emperor and well received.
It will all come down to how new points shake out and what the "horde" ability does, if it's a thing and not just a rumor I mistook as a real thing. If marines and vehicles get higher comparitive price bumps than infantry does, these could be necessary rules to help them survive green tide for example. I worry that this will just lead to armies like guard mercilessly pasting hordes, but to be fair, guardsmen will probably be 6ppm now and I highly expect guard tanks getting a significant price bump across the board, a Russ for example will probably be closer to 150-170, possibly even 200pts depending on what else changes.
I'm still waiting to see what else is in store, but this is the first rule to concern me, without other info to go off of at least. Im cool with this if for example morale is reworked to punish smaller units more than big ones, as it should. Then you'd have a genuine trade-off, do you stay small to avoid blast effectiveness but risk men running easier, or do you run big squads for morale insurance at the risk of easier to kill outright units. Also we could just see an outright price increase on blast weapons that balances it out. For example, we could see infantry have to actually pay for their frag grenades now, especially armies that have ways to throw multiple grenades
catbarf wrote: Yeah, the minimum 3 attacks is for the weapon, not for each individual die. So something like a Wyvern (4D6 shots) will get 4D6 shots against 1-10 models, then flat 24 shots against 11+.
Now I'm really interested to see what they're doing to buff hordes, because this sounds pretty nasty.
Volcano was specifically called out on stream as 9 shots against 6 models. Possibly they misspoke (or I misheard).
A 2D6 gun than rolls a 1 and a 2 does 3 shots against 10 models, but 12 against 11? Does that make sense to you?
Maybe that's the proper interpretation, because it protects elite units, I guess, but savages the hell out of hordes.
Hmmm. No less than 3 shots against units of 6 or more models. It would seem like it would be nice to have units that could be broken up into 5 man "combat squads" at the start of a battle if your opponent has a lot of blast weapons. Can anyone think of a faction that has a lot of those?
I'm wondering what they're going to do with flamers. On one hand all the "bonus hits vs. large squads" makes sense for them, but on the other hand flamers in melee makes a lot more sense than high-explosives in melee.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Hmmm. No less than 3 shots against units of 6 or more models. It would seem like it would be nice to have units that could be broken up into 5 man "combat squads" at the start of a battle if your opponent has a lot of blast weapons. Can anyone think of a faction that has a lot of those?
None come to mind at all, though I usually only field my guys in squads of 5 anyways so no real change for my stuff.
Interesting thought (for me at least): that makes the frag option of guard grenade and missile launchers suddenly much more tempting. It's still just S3 AP0, but the described versatility of frag/krak is a bit better represented.
But as infantry heavy guard player I also hope that the terrain rules will give a chance to let your puny mortals survive now that we seem to see multiple buffs AGAINST hordes
I'm not super happy about this set of rules so far, mostly concerning the numbers and amount of shots. D3 blast weapons getting 3 shots all the time against 6+ models is not great. The max blast weapons for only 11+ is going to be brutal. They're going to need to not raise (Or actively decrease)the price of Horde units otherwise they are going to be pointless.
The terrain rules are going to have to just be bonkers otherwise.
Can confirm in the stream there was a long discussion of volcano cannons, and while the implication *I* got was that versus 11+ models you would get 9 shots, the above ruling would tend to suggest 9 shots versus 6+ models as well.
Seems... kind of logical that D3 damage weapons should instead get a minimum of 2 hits on 6-10 models but there you go.
All in all.... yeah.
If this system came into being at the start of 8th I think it would be fine. Grafting it onto a system which has essentially grown up to get around the weakness of the rule at the outset is however just going to make monsters. Yes I think ye old frag missiles did need a buff. But this just seems daft on things like Basilisks which didn't. (Basilisks probably not the best pick due to their rules, but you get the idea.)
All can be fixed by points perhaps - but I felt the stream was made a bit weird by the fact they kept going on about "you can now really mangle that horde of gaunts with battle cannons and volcano cannons and the humble frag grenade".
Newsflash to GW - no one is going to be running gaunts unless they get some amazing new rules. Those big blobs of Ork Boys also simply won't be on the table after the first month if they are there just to be obliterated.
Unless we start to see some changes to LoS/wound allocation and price changes for blast weapons, and the effects of terrain, it's going to look like the mother of all MSU editions. Given the literal doubling in firepower this will result in for many weapons against hordes, in what is already the most lethal metagame of 40k's history, I'm not sure taking squads above 10 will be terribly viable. Hopefully we'll see some additional changes.
I'm also imagining an Infantry Squad spending 1 CP for Grenadiers and toss 60 attacks at something
the_scotsman wrote:I'm still kind of holding out hope here (my armies tend to be VERY light infantry heavy) that this means they'll be returning terrain to how it was in every other edition: Much more impactful for light infantry than heavy infantry.
If you make the role of light infantry go from "Required to generate CP for your army" to "The best at hunkering down in terrain and holding objectives" then fair's fair and they still get to have a job.
For several editions now light infantry have had this issue where, they are almost always the least efficient way to deal with heavy stuff, and heavy stuff can efficiently deal with either other heavy stuff or light infantry.
So why ever take any light infantry?
and GW's response has historically been 'because we told you to. Here, you are now required to take 2-3 units of light infantry before you're allowed your dessert"
They have also put in strange loopholes that allow light infantry to punch/annoy above their weight class, like vehicles always using their rear armor in melee (leading to the dreaded Klaw Nob Sergeant one-shotting your tank) or vehicles not being able to shoot when cheapo troops bad touch them.
GW just needs to have the balls to commit to allowing a unit to be annoying to kill.
Totally agree with everything in this post; you've hit the nail on the head. Light infantry need a purpose; being able to take advantage of cover is a great one and IMO more satisfying than CP batteries, screening, or gimmicks.
Daedalus81 wrote:
catbarf wrote: Yeah, the minimum 3 attacks is for the weapon, not for each individual die. So something like a Wyvern (4D6 shots) will get 4D6 shots against 1-10 models, then flat 24 shots against 11+.
Now I'm really interested to see what they're doing to buff hordes, because this sounds pretty nasty.
Volcano was specifically called out on stream as 9 shots against 6 models. Possibly they misspoke (or I misheard).
A 2D6 gun than rolls a 1 and a 2 does 3 shots against 10 models, but 12 against 11? Does that make sense to you?
Maybe that's the proper interpretation, because it protects elite units, I guess, but savages the hell out of hordes.
I missed that Volcano Cannon example; you could be right- but the writing in the actual rule as presented explicitly describes the minimum shots for a weapon, not for an individual die.
I agree, it doesn't make sense to go from a Wyvern doing 14 shots on average against 10 models to a flat 24 shots against 11 models. On the flipside, it doesn't make sense either for a 4D3 weapon to do the same thing against 5 models as against 50.
There are inevitably going to be some peculiar breakpoints; this one at least means that really-high-volume blast weapons will need to target 11+ model units to get their full benefit.
Sasori wrote:I'm not super happy about this set of rules so far, mostly concerning the numbers and amount of shots. D3 blast weapons getting 3 shots all the time against 6+ models is not great. The max blast weapons for only 11+ is going to be brutal. They're going to need to not raise (Or actively decrease)the price of Horde units otherwise they are going to be pointless.
The terrain rules are going to have to just be bonkers otherwise.
Food for thought- if terrain goes back to being a 5+ invuln save, then that 50% increase in survivability would exactly offset the 50% increase in damage when going from 2 shots average to flat 3 shots.
Terrain has the potential to be the equalizer here. I'm really interested to see what they've done. If they're still using the '+1 to your save' system, even if combined with a -1 to hit it's going to still benefit Marines the most and screw over light infantry.
Vaktathi wrote: Unless we start to see some changes to LoS/wound allocation and price changes for blast weapons, and the effects of terrain, it's going to look like the mother of all MSU editions. Given the literal doubling in firepower this will result in for many weapons against hordes, in what is already the most lethal metagame of 40k's history, I'm not sure taking squads above 10 will be terribly viable. Hopefully we'll see some additional changes.
I'm also imagining an Infantry Squad spending 1 CP for Grenadiers and toss 60 attacks at something
I won't complain much yet, because it makes Grotesque hordes a lot more risky. I hate those effin' things.
catbarf wrote: Yeah, the minimum 3 attacks is for the weapon, not for each individual die. So something like a Wyvern (4D6 shots) will get 4D6 shots against 1-10 models, then flat 24 shots against 11+.
Now I'm really interested to see what they're doing to buff hordes, because this sounds pretty nasty.
Volcano was specifically called out on stream as 9 shots against 6 models. Possibly they misspoke (or I misheard).
A 2D6 gun than rolls a 1 and a 2 does 3 shots against 10 models, but 12 against 11? Does that make sense to you?
Maybe that's the proper interpretation, because it protects elite units, I guess, but savages the hell out of hordes.
The phrasing of the rule makes me think they mean 3 shots total and not per die. However, one thing to keep in mind is that GW tend to use the word “dice” when they mean a single die, so minimum 3 per die could be the interpretation they intended if that is what they stated on the stream.
I’m not so sure that the wording is actually ambiguous, but we all know how good GW is at actually writing what they mean.
Please, read the rule. "A minimum of 3 attacks" is not the same as "Each dice is a minimum of 3". If you roll 3D3, you get a number between 3 and 9. So the "minimum of 3" doesn't actually benefit a 3D3 blast weapon.
Likewise, a 2D6 blast weapon can roll between 2 and 12. If you roll a 2, it becomes 3. If you roll a 3, it stays as a 3.
catbarf wrote: Yeah, the minimum 3 attacks is for the weapon, not for each individual die. So something like a Wyvern (4D6 shots) will get 4D6 shots against 1-10 models, then flat 24 shots against 11+.
Now I'm really interested to see what they're doing to buff hordes, because this sounds pretty nasty.
Volcano was specifically called out on stream as 9 shots against 6 models. Possibly they misspoke (or I misheard).
A 2D6 gun than rolls a 1 and a 2 does 3 shots against 10 models, but 12 against 11? Does that make sense to you?
Maybe that's the proper interpretation, because it protects elite units, I guess, but savages the hell out of hordes.
The phrasing of the rule makes me think they mean 3 shots total and not per die. However, one thing to keep in mind is that GW tend to use the word “dice” when they mean a single die, so minimum 3 per die could be the interpretation they intended if that is what they stated on the stream. Although I’m not so sure that the wording is actually ambiguous, but we all know how good GW is at actually writing what they mean.
Yea, my brain conceptualizes the Volanco cannon as three separate blasts. So it stood to reason (in my head) that each dice roll benefits from the blast dynamic. The rule wording is potentially fine if you forget about my mental musings - but also what BCB said above.
A volcano getting NINE shots at any unit with 6-10 models is bonkers and incredibly troubling. I really hope that's not what they meant.
So far, all of the buffs seems to be to shooty gunline armies. Mech Guard looks to be brutal and a hard counter to a lot of melee armies now that they can no longer be stopped from shooting by combat. Granted we're only seeing a small piece of the puzzle that is 9th so far, but the terrain rules and close combat rules will really need to be stellar to keep pace with the boosts to shooting that we've already seen.
Vaktathi wrote: Unless we start to see some changes to LoS/wound allocation and price changes for blast weapons, and the effects of terrain, it's going to look like the mother of all MSU editions. Given the literal doubling in firepower this will result in for many weapons against hordes, in what is already the most lethal metagame of 40k's history, I'm not sure taking squads above 10 will be terribly viable. Hopefully we'll see some additional changes.
I'm also imagining an Infantry Squad spending 1 CP for Grenadiers and toss 60 attacks at something
Yeah there basically HAS to be other adjustments that we're not seeing yet because as it stands this looks naaaaaasty.
catbarf wrote: Yeah, the minimum 3 attacks is for the weapon, not for each individual die. So something like a Wyvern (4D6 shots) will get 4D6 shots against 1-10 models, then flat 24 shots against 11+.
Now I'm really interested to see what they're doing to buff hordes, because this sounds pretty nasty.
Volcano was specifically called out on stream as 9 shots against 6 models. Possibly they misspoke (or I misheard).
A 2D6 gun than rolls a 1 and a 2 does 3 shots against 10 models, but 12 against 11? Does that make sense to you?
Maybe that's the proper interpretation, because it protects elite units, I guess, but savages the hell out of hordes.
The phrasing of the rule makes me think they mean 3 shots total and not per die. However, one thing to keep in mind is that GW tend to use the word “dice” when they mean a single die, so minimum 3 per die could be the interpretation they intended if that is what they stated on the stream. Although I’m not so sure that the wording is actually ambiguous, but we all know how good GW is at actually writing what they mean.
'If a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, it always makes a minimum of 3 attacks' seems clear and unambiguous to me. It's not saying 'if a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, count any dice which show less than 3 as 3 instead'.
sweetbacon wrote: A volcano getting NINE shots at any unit with 6-10 models is bonkers and incredibly troubling. I really hope that's not what they meant.
I mean a likely 600 point model spending that kind of gun on infantry type units isn't necessarily a bad thing. It just means someone can take a Shadowsword in their list and not worrying about getting swamped by hordes / infantry.
A Volcano Cannon will get no benefit from the blast rule for 10 or less models. But will magically go up to 9 shots when the unit is 11+ models. Seems legit.
sweetbacon wrote: A volcano getting NINE shots at any unit with 6-10 models is bonkers and incredibly troubling. I really hope that's not what they meant.
I mean a likely 600 point model spending that kind of gun on infantry type units isn't necessarily a bad thing. It just means someone can take a Shadowsword in their list and not worrying about getting swamped by hordes / infantry.
It doesn't get 9 shots. It gets 3-9 shots against 10 or less, and 9 shots against 11+.
catbarf wrote: 'If a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, it always makes a minimum of 3 attacks' seems clear and unambiguous to me. It's not saying 'if a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, count any dice which show less than 3 as 3 instead'.
That is correct. A Blast weapon that that makes 2D6 shots will get between 3 and 12 shots against 6-10 and 12 shots against 11+
catbarf wrote: Yeah, the minimum 3 attacks is for the weapon, not for each individual die. So something like a Wyvern (4D6 shots) will get 4D6 shots against 1-10 models, then flat 24 shots against 11+.
Now I'm really interested to see what they're doing to buff hordes, because this sounds pretty nasty.
Volcano was specifically called out on stream as 9 shots against 6 models. Possibly they misspoke (or I misheard).
A 2D6 gun than rolls a 1 and a 2 does 3 shots against 10 models, but 12 against 11? Does that make sense to you?
Maybe that's the proper interpretation, because it protects elite units, I guess, but savages the hell out of hordes.
The phrasing of the rule makes me think they mean 3 shots total and not per die. However, one thing to keep in mind is that GW tend to use the word “dice” when they mean a single die, so minimum 3 per die could be the interpretation they intended if that is what they stated on the stream. Although I’m not so sure that the wording is actually ambiguous, but we all know how good GW is at actually writing what they mean.
Yea, my brain conceptualizes the Volanco cannon as three separate blasts. So it stood to reason (in my head) that each dice roll benefits from the blast dynamic. The rule wording is potentially fine if you forget about my mental musings - but also what BCB said above.
It’s definitely not outside the realm of possibility that this is the way GW think about it as well.
For units 1-5 Roll as normal.
For units of 6-10, each D3 rolled has a minimum of 2, each D6 rolled has a minimum of 3.
For units 11+ all rolls are max.
Vaktathi wrote: Unless we start to see some changes to LoS/wound allocation and price changes for blast weapons, and the effects of terrain, it's going to look like the mother of all MSU editions. Given the literal doubling in firepower this will result in for many weapons against hordes, in what is already the most lethal metagame of 40k's history, I'm not sure taking squads above 10 will be terribly viable. Hopefully we'll see some additional changes.
I'm also imagining an Infantry Squad spending 1 CP for Grenadiers and toss 60 attacks at something
I won't complain much yet, because it makes Grotesque hordes a lot more risky. I hate those effin' things.
I mean, for the primary armies I run (tank heavy Guard and CSM's) these are all broadly powerful buffs with little downside. I just don't think an opponent is going to be terribly amused when a single Cadian tank commander mulches half a thirty-strong Boyz squad in one average round of shooting.
Against an opponent with a significant amount of blast weapons, large units are going to be actively more dangerous to you than they will be helpful, or at least won't be any more functional than smaller units. Whether an Ork Boyz Mob is 10, 20 or 30 models, it'll still only take about 2 rounds of max-blast Cadian Tank Commander fire to kill (the ~4 dudes left over on average afterwards in the 30 strong unit probably aren't particularly terrifying), and nobody's gonna buy full sized Loota squads ever again
Yeah there basically HAS to be other adjustments that we're not seeing yet because as it stands this looks naaaaaasty.
And I have LOADS of Plasma Cannons ready to go.
Yeah, without further adjustments, which I'm hoping will be revealed, I don't think this is a net positive change for the game. We haven't heard much on changes to terrain/LoS/wound allocation (unless I missed something), so hopefully that counterbalances some stuff.
All this changes are good. The ones to vehicles , too. They add consistence.
Nothing of this has any relation to lethality on the game, as many people claim. Offensive and deffensive profiles are, by the most part, actually fine.
The problem with 8th, and 9th too, is the accumulation of bonuses on units, Magic the Gathering style.
I get it. We all love sinergyes. To make something that is greater than the sum of is parts. But things have become just too silly.
They should max it at 1 negative and one possitive stratagem and/or psychic power per unit, to make you spread your buffs in your army, diluting the offensive power, because buffs are multiplicative, both offensive and deffensive, the more you have the better they all become.
Another potential side-effect -- the cost of blast weapons could go up considerably as compared to straight shot anti-tank (lascannon), which could open up space for those weapons, too.
Insectum7 wrote: Also Thunderfires are going to be abominable against hordes with this.
Esp. with fire-twice.
Unless you drop the target unit below 11 models with the first shot.
Shoot it at a different target then, and spread the love.
Many 'fire-twice' abilities and stratagems don't allow that though; so marginally less useful on the 2nd shot.
Not that I know of, certainly not for the Thunderfire/Whirlwind Strat. And if you're shooting at real horde units (20+) you're pretty unlikely to kill them to less than 11 with the first salvo.
catbarf wrote: Yeah, the minimum 3 attacks is for the weapon, not for each individual die. So something like a Wyvern (4D6 shots) will get 4D6 shots against 1-10 models, then flat 24 shots against 11+.
Now I'm really interested to see what they're doing to buff hordes, because this sounds pretty nasty.
Volcano was specifically called out on stream as 9 shots against 6 models. Possibly they misspoke (or I misheard).
A 2D6 gun than rolls a 1 and a 2 does 3 shots against 10 models, but 12 against 11? Does that make sense to you?
Maybe that's the proper interpretation, because it protects elite units, I guess, but savages the hell out of hordes.
The phrasing of the rule makes me think they mean 3 shots total and not per die. However, one thing to keep in mind is that GW tend to use the word “dice” when they mean a single die, so minimum 3 per die could be the interpretation they intended if that is what they stated on the stream. Although I’m not so sure that the wording is actually ambiguous, but we all know how good GW is at actually writing what they mean.
'If a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, it always makes a minimum of 3 attacks' seems clear and unambiguous to me. It's not saying 'if a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, count any dice which show less than 3 as 3 instead'.
It *could* be ambiguous if GW conceptualizes each die as a separate blast as Daedalus suggested. That’s definitely not the way other rules are written, and I’d agree it’s a bit of a stretch to extrapolate that into such an interpretation as written. But again, GW rules writing.
Vaktathi wrote: Unless we start to see some changes to LoS/wound allocation and price changes for blast weapons, and the effects of terrain, it's going to look like the mother of all MSU editions. Given the literal doubling in firepower this will result in for many weapons against hordes, in what is already the most lethal metagame of 40k's history, I'm not sure taking squads above 10 will be terribly viable. Hopefully we'll see some additional changes.
I'm also imagining an Infantry Squad spending 1 CP for Grenadiers and toss 60 attacks at something
Yeah there basically HAS to be other adjustments that we're not seeing yet because as it stands this looks naaaaaasty.
And I have LOADS of Plasma Cannons ready to go.
At this point I only have to assume GW is only drip feeding enough info to keep the community riled up over telling us anything that calms the community down.
If we're all arguing then we're still invested in what the next bit of news is, and what the rules look like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jullevi wrote: But hey, this time GW spent lots of time to make rules as clear as possible.
A lot of 9th ed rules have been written like that. I approve of the more exact wording.
Small sidenote: IF they make the terrain rules sooo awesome that they keep light infantry viable, the IG custom regiment trait "Wilderness survivors" (infantry is always in cover against shooting if it did not advance) becomes pretty bonkers.
Also some weapons like Eradicator or Hellhammer that negate cover could suddenly be more appealing.
Vaktathi wrote: Unless we start to see some changes to LoS/wound allocation and price changes for blast weapons, and the effects of terrain, it's going to look like the mother of all MSU editions. Given the literal doubling in firepower this will result in for many weapons against hordes, in what is already the most lethal metagame of 40k's history, I'm not sure taking squads above 10 will be terribly viable. Hopefully we'll see some additional changes.
I'm also imagining an Infantry Squad spending 1 CP for Grenadiers and toss 60 attacks at something
I won't complain much yet, because it makes Grotesque hordes a lot more risky. I hate those effin' things.
Grotesques are broken AF. They are better than Custodes in many ways. Bonkers.
I'm really curious what bones they are gonna throw to hordes. It's looking a bit rough if you want to take 11+ models.
It could be blast weapons get a truly hefty point increase, as even their consistency against 6-10 man squads has gone up, but stuff like thunderfire cannons getting 12 shots max, firing twice, is horrifying as a horde player.
Considering what we got as a melee 'equivalent' to overwatch it's probably more like:
Any model with a thunder hammer now makes D3 attacks at -1 to hit. Roll 1 single die to determine how many attacks each model makes. A new stratagem has been added!
2CP: Smashiferous Bludgeonment. Reroll the die to determine how many attacks a unit with one or more thunder hammers make with the thunder hammers in the unit with the thunder hammers (e.g. if there are 2 thunder hammers and you roll a 1 on the d3 to determine that the unit with the thunder hammers would make 1 attack each with each thunder hammer you may pick that die up, roll it around in your hand, blow on it if desired and drop it, while rotating, onto the table to re-determine randomly how many thunder hammer attacks each model in the unit with one or more thunder hammers make with the thunder hammers they have)
Daedalus81 wrote: Another potential side-effect -- the cost of blast weapons could go up considerably as compared to straight shot anti-tank (lascannon), which could open up space for those weapons, too.
Like lascannons need a buff.
Lascannons aren't the single-fire AT weapon that needs help. The Railcannons and Vanquisher Cannons, real, tank mounted, AT weapons that are directly completing with multiple-shot multiple-damage weapons but are actually just a Lascannon because nothing can do more than 1d6 damage.
Daedalus81 wrote: Another potential side-effect -- the cost of blast weapons could go up considerably as compared to straight shot anti-tank (lascannon), which could open up space for those weapons, too.
Like lascannons need a buff.
Lascannons aren't the single-fire AT weapon that needs help. The Railcannons and Vanquisher Cannons, real, tank mounted, AT weapons that are directly completing with multiple-shot multiple-damage weapons but are actually just a Lascannon because nothing can do more than 1d6 damage.
well, except for the things that do more than 1d6 damage that are fine, like the neutron laser.
What I can see happening is that High ROF weapons getting a price hike, and due to a bit more consistency, blast weapons will follow suit. This does alleviate design space as it does allow for high quality shots to remain relatively cheaper, making them a more efficient AV tool
And this would mean that vehicles and monsters suddenly become very hard to kill. So any army that can be run with a lot of them would be better, then a normal infantry based one.
Karol wrote: And this would mean that vehicles and monsters suddenly become very hard to kill. So any army that can be run with a lot of them would be better, then a normal infantry based one.
Would invalidate a lot of marine lists too.
Conversely it also makes bringing anti-horde weapons more expensive, which helps infantry blobs. Whether it would be enough to offset the new buffs that explosives get vs hordes remain to be seen.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Where are you guys seeing this? Didn't see it on Warhammer community
Stream.
I just hope that this doesn't completely ruin horde armies. Those should be a viable option too, not one or the other.
I hope it completely ruins horde armies. No offense, but they're awful to play against. Nothing like spending 45 minutes watchjng someone shuffle Orkz around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Can't say I'm happy with how they play right now.
I feel like your track record has proven that you only really need the first 4 words in that sentence.
I hope it completely ruins horde armies. No offense, but they're awful to play against. Nothing like spending 45 minutes watchjng someone shuffle Orkz around.
Actually SM armies require much more time to play with than ork hordes... sick of spending 45 minutes watching someone re-rolling the 450000 shots they fire every turn
Sasori wrote: I'm not super happy about this set of rules so far, mostly concerning the numbers and amount of shots. D3 blast weapons getting 3 shots all the time against 6+ models is not great. The max blast weapons for only 11+ is going to be brutal. They're going to need to not raise (Or actively decrease)the price of Horde units otherwise they are going to be pointless.
The terrain rules are going to have to just be bonkers otherwise.
Except horde units are getting price hikes as well. Cultist got 50% rise. With them 6 pts no way ork boy will stay same so will go to 8 minimum. 9 possible. Even 8 is relatively same up % as intercessors while rules help the marine and hurts boy. Grots could very well go 4 pts model as well. IG infantry? 5.
When company and playtesters want horde units go away they aren't being subtle about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: All can be fixed by points perhaps - but I felt the stream was made a bit weird by the fact they kept going on about "you can now really mangle that horde of gaunts with battle cannons and volcano cannons and the humble frag grenade".
Newsflash to GW - no one is going to be running gaunts unless they get some amazing new rules. Those big blobs of Ork Boys also simply won't be on the table after the first month if they are there just to be obliterated.
And ork boyz. They kept using boyz as punching bag. Dreadnoughts cutting through hordes of boyz shooting and smashing them apart. Basilisk blowing huge holes to hordes of boyz.
As I said. GW isn't being subtle at all. Horde units are relegated as cannon fodder to marines if somebody is silly enough to bring them.
I agree, it doesn't make sense to go from a Wyvern doing 14 shots on average against 10 models to a flat 24 shots against 11 models. On the flipside, it doesn't make sense either for a 4D3 weapon to do the same thing against 5 models as against 50.
Idea of blast weapons is good as such. GW just went too overboard with their crusade against horde models. Minimum(maybe scalable based on unit size) rather than just flat outs. 11+ unit and dice rolls less than 3 counts as 3. Much more reasonable and removes those complete whiffs.
While I might wait until more rules and points values are released, buying a forgefiend and making it into a cerberite actually might make sense now as it would give me a serious anti-infantry platform (I'm guessing that ecotplasma cannons will have the blast ability) and not just something that I want to get because it looks cool.
I hope it completely ruins horde armies. No offense, but they're awful to play against. Nothing like spending 45 minutes watchjng someone shuffle Orkz around.
Actually SM armies require much more time to play with than ork hordes... sick of spending 45 minutes watching someone re-rolling the 450000 shots they fire every turn
Yep. Slowest games I have are against marines and eldar. Particularly dark eldars takes ages.
I hope it completely ruins horde armies. No offense, but they're awful to play against. Nothing like spending 45 minutes watchjng someone shuffle Orkz around.
Actually SM armies require much more time to play with than ork hordes... sick of spending 45 minutes watching someone re-rolling the 450000 shots they fire every turn
Orks are as guilty rerolling 1s with exploding 6s.
I'd assume blast weapons are more expensive now that they don't suck as much. I don't think it should be immediately decried as a bad thing that frag grenades are actually worth something.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Where are you guys seeing this? Didn't see it on Warhammer community
Stream.
I just hope that this doesn't completely ruin horde armies. Those should be a viable option too, not one or the other.
I hope it completely ruins horde armies. No offense, but they're awful to play against. Nothing like spending 45 minutes watchjng someone shuffle Orkz around.
By far my slowest experiences in the current edition have been with armies chocked to the gills with special rules, character shennanigans, and gobs of rerolls, not hordes. The only game this edition I've genuinely been tempted to quit mid game due to how long everything was taking and just give my opponent the win on during a Tournament was a "Raven Guard" (that week) list built mostly around MSU primaris units with less than 40 models.
Martel732 wrote: All single shot high quality weapons are basically garbage now.
I'd like to hear your reasoning for this one.
While I don't agree entirely, there is a case to be made that they're substantially less useful than they should be, as they're much more vulnerable to whiffing single rolls and abilities like invuls on many prime targets substantially reduce their viability in favor of more generalist weapons, or even small arms when sufficient rerolls and AP bonuses are present. A squad of intercessors sporting S4 AP-2 and getting hit and wound rerolls will do more to a typical tank than than a quad bank of BS3+ lascannons will. GW appears to substantially overvalue such weapons (see the Vanquisher vs Battlecannon too )
Martel732 wrote: All single shot high quality weapons are basically garbage now.
I'd like to hear your reasoning for this one.
Would you really? I'll let someone else field this.
I'll take that bullet for you Martel.
What he is saying is that since blast weapons are so awesome, it's better to take them. Being guaranteed a certain number of shots is huge, especially if each shot does multiple damage. That's the theory, and it does hold water. Of course, we don't know relative points values between single shot high damage and blast weapons. We've hypothesized the later will go up, but we know nothing about what's happening with the former.
Without knowing points, it's true, blast is so much better, that many will stop taking non-blast.
Most of us, I think, are assuming that points will go some distance toward fixing the issue. Martel, in my experience, is a bit too jaded to hope for that.
Their is another issue that's common in the language of competitive players- the idea that only the best is not garbage. Are their 3 elite options in your book? One is OP and obviously the other two are garbage. Got two different options for troops? Well that means one's good and the other is garbage. It's the reduction of a spectrum of performance to a binary.
Martel is not alone in this perceptual/ linguistic over simplification. When it is used, it tends to make legitimate concerns sound far more unreasonable than they actually are. Often, I think these guys just feel bad about something they used to like, and respond in the moment, and passionate language takes over.
Anyway, if the cost for single shot high damage stays the same or goes down, and blasts go up significantly, well in that case, the former still has a place at the table. If not, I'd say the concern is legit, even if the language is a bit over the top.
Orks are as guilty rerolling 1s with exploding 6s.
We are probably the army that have lesser re-rolling 1s tools. I can only think of badrukk giving that aura to flash gitz and flash gitz alone and a couple of clans/subcultures that allow those re-rolls. Orks are probably the only army in the entire 40k universe that doesn't have a single unit/character that provides universal re-rolls by some aura. Even their "shooting twice" stratagems have harsh limitations: once is locked into a specific clan (one of the worst), the other one only works on walkers and big meks and requires an additional CP just to give those units the keyword that grants them the possibility to burn another 2 CPs in order to fire twice.
I've played SoB, orks, SW and drukhari in 8th and orks were definitely the ones with lesser re-rolls available.
I am glad someone started a discussion thread on this, as I hate putting long opinions on the news tread.
This is the first of the new 9th rules I really don't like. I don't think the 6+ getting a min of 3 shots is all that bad. I think 11+ for that rule and 21+ for the max hits would have been better but the 6+ for the 3 shots is not what is bothering me. Nor is it weapons like grenades, battle canon or other D6 shot weapons getting 6 max hits without rolling. For me what the problem is going to be is all of the multiple dice shot weapons, like Knight battle cannons, IG artillery etc. And the problem is the wording states at 11+ you get max shots. There is a big difference between D6 max shots and 4D6 max shots, or even just 2D6 max shots.
Personally I think the rule would have been much much better if it was min 3 shots at 6+ min 6 shots at 11+ and maybe add a min 9 shots (if they have it) at 21+.
Right now we don't know what will be blast (maybe knight battle cannons won't be, but I doubt it) but the max shot issue for big titanic weapons are just going to make those units even more of an issue to balance. Now maybe blast weapons got way more expensive, or they are balancing those type of weapons another way, but right now this is the first rule of 9th I am hoping to get a FAQ to change 6 months from the release.
A marine with a meltagun averages 1.5 W at melta range vs t8. 1 solitary wound if t8 has a 5++. The math is not much better for other single shot weapons. Then look at what gw charges foe this privilege.
Theyre garbage, even for casual play because its so counter intiitive
xeen wrote: I am glad someone started a discussion thread on this, as I hate putting long opinions on the news tread.
This is the first of the new 9th rules I really don't like. I don't think the 6+ getting a min of 3 shots is all that bad. I think 11+ for that rule and 21+ for the max hits would have been better but the 6+ for the 3 shots is not what is bothering me. Nor is it weapons like grenades, battle canon or other D6 shot weapons getting 6 max hits without rolling. For me what the problem is going to be is all of the multiple dice shot weapons, like Knight battle cannons, IG artillery etc. And the problem is the wording states at 11+ you get max shots. There is a big difference between D6 max shots and 4D6 max shots, or even just 2D6 max shots.
Personally I think the rule would have been much much better if it was min 3 shots at 6+ min 6 shots at 11+ and maybe add a min 9 shots (if they have it) at 21+.
Right now we don't know what will be blast (maybe knight battle cannons won't be, but I doubt it) but the max shot issue for big titanic weapons are just going to make those units even more of an issue to balance. Now maybe blast weapons got way more expensive, or they are balancing those type of weapons another way, but right now this is the first rule of 9th I am hoping to get a FAQ to change 6 months from the release.
You realise a Knight Battle Cannon is 102 points and currently sucks hence why they are generally never take and it's gattling or thermal cannons only.
It avarages less shots than a 22 point Battle cannon on a Leman Russ FFS.
Also fun fact a Leman Russ gains more from this rule as minimums at 6 shots for 6-10 models and 12 at 11+
The Rapid fire battlecannon minimus at 3 against 6-10 on 2d6 and 12 at the 11+ it gains nothing against 90% of the field.
Not up on my statically maths right now but a Leman russ avarages 8+ shots into 6-10 model units.
Russes have to be getting a massive points increase surely.
xeen wrote: I am glad someone started a discussion thread on this, as I hate putting long opinions on the news tread.
This is the first of the new 9th rules I really don't like. I don't think the 6+ getting a min of 3 shots is all that bad. I think 11+ for that rule and 21+ for the max hits would have been better but the 6+ for the 3 shots is not what is bothering me. Nor is it weapons like grenades, battle canon or other D6 shot weapons getting 6 max hits without rolling. For me what the problem is going to be is all of the multiple dice shot weapons, like Knight battle cannons, IG artillery etc. And the problem is the wording states at 11+ you get max shots. There is a big difference between D6 max shots and 4D6 max shots, or even just 2D6 max shots.
Personally I think the rule would have been much much better if it was min 3 shots at 6+ min 6 shots at 11+ and maybe add a min 9 shots (if they have it) at 21+.
Right now we don't know what will be blast (maybe knight battle cannons won't be, but I doubt it) but the max shot issue for big titanic weapons are just going to make those units even more of an issue to balance. Now maybe blast weapons got way more expensive, or they are balancing those type of weapons another way, but right now this is the first rule of 9th I am hoping to get a FAQ to change 6 months from the release.
You realise a Knight Battle Cannon is 102 points and currently sucks hence why they are generally never take and it's gattling or thermal cannons only.
It avarages less shots than a 22 point Battle cannon on a Leman Russ FFS.
Also fun fact a Leman Russ gains more from this rule as minimums at 6 shots for 6-10 models and 12 at 11+
The Rapid fire battlecannon minimus at 3 against 6-10 on 2d6 and 12 at the 11+ it gains nothing against 90% of the field.
Not up on my statically maths right now but a Leman russ avarages 8+ shots into 6-10 model units.
Russes have to be getting a massive points increase surely.
Yea I just picked the Knight battle cannon as it is one of the few weapons off the top of my head that is multi D6 shots. I mean I don't know if they will be good or not without points, but getting max hits is still really good. And I am sure others out there could pin point other multi D6 shot weapons that will be getting a heaping load of shots against 11+.
I forgot the Russ tanks got to shoot twice. Yea they are going to eat anything 11+ alive. It looks like most of guard are going to cut though hoards like a hot knife though butter.
Regardless, my point was this is really the first 9th rule I don't like, maybe I am over blowing it, maybe not only time will tell.
BaconCatBug wrote: Please, read the rule. "A minimum of 3 attacks" is not the same as "Each dice is a minimum of 3". If you roll 3D3, you get a number between 3 and 9. So the "minimum of 3" doesn't actually benefit a 3D3 blast weapon.
Likewise, a 2D6 blast weapon can roll between 2 and 12. If you roll a 2, it becomes 3. If you roll a 3, it stays as a 3.
xeen wrote: I am glad someone started a discussion thread on this, as I hate putting long opinions on the news tread.
This is the first of the new 9th rules I really don't like. I don't think the 6+ getting a min of 3 shots is all that bad. I think 11+ for that rule and 21+ for the max hits would have been better but the 6+ for the 3 shots is not what is bothering me. Nor is it weapons like grenades, battle canon or other D6 shot weapons getting 6 max hits without rolling. For me what the problem is going to be is all of the multiple dice shot weapons, like Knight battle cannons, IG artillery etc. And the problem is the wording states at 11+ you get max shots. There is a big difference between D6 max shots and 4D6 max shots, or even just 2D6 max shots.
Personally I think the rule would have been much much better if it was min 3 shots at 6+ min 6 shots at 11+ and maybe add a min 9 shots (if they have it) at 21+.
Right now we don't know what will be blast (maybe knight battle cannons won't be, but I doubt it) but the max shot issue for big titanic weapons are just going to make those units even more of an issue to balance. Now maybe blast weapons got way more expensive, or they are balancing those type of weapons another way, but right now this is the first rule of 9th I am hoping to get a FAQ to change 6 months from the release.
You realise a Knight Battle Cannon is 102 points and currently sucks hence why they are generally never take and it's gattling or thermal cannons only.
It avarages less shots than a 22 point Battle cannon on a Leman Russ FFS.
Also fun fact a Leman Russ gains more from this rule as minimums at 6 shots for 6-10 models and 12 at 11+
The Rapid fire battlecannon minimus at 3 against 6-10 on 2d6 and 12 at the 11+ it gains nothing against 90% of the field.
Not up on my statically maths right now but a Leman russ avarages 8+ shots into 6-10 model units.
Russes have to be getting a massive points increase surely.
Yea I just picked the Knight battle cannon as it is one of the few weapons off the top of my head that is multi D6 shots. I mean I don't know if they will be good or not without points, but getting max hits is still really good. And I am sure others out there could pin point other multi D6 shot weapons that will be getting a heaping load of shots against 11+.
I forgot the Russ tanks got to shoot twice. Yea they are going to eat anything 11+ alive. It looks like most of guard are going to cut though hoards like a hot knife though butter.
Regardless, my point was this is really the first 9th rule I don't like, maybe I am over blowing it, maybe not only time will tell.
RFBC are probably one of the weapons that could be given the rule and probably still need a points reduction.
You want to make sure no-one ever takes more than 10 models in a units take a Wyvern 24 shots on 11+ model units with in built reroll wounds, NLOS required.
Manticore 2d6 S10 -2 d3 120 inch range and NLOS for only 30 points more than a RFBC.
BaconCatBug wrote: Please, read the rule. "A minimum of 3 attacks" is not the same as "Each dice is a minimum of 3". If you roll 3D3, you get a number between 3 and 9. So the "minimum of 3" doesn't actually benefit a 3D3 blast weapon.
Likewise, a 2D6 blast weapon can roll between 2 and 12. If you roll a 2, it becomes 3. If you roll a 3, it stays as a 3.
BaconCatBug wrote: Please, read the rule. "A minimum of 3 attacks" is not the same as "Each dice is a minimum of 3". If you roll 3D3, you get a number between 3 and 9. So the "minimum of 3" doesn't actually benefit a 3D3 blast weapon.
Likewise, a 2D6 blast weapon can roll between 2 and 12. If you roll a 2, it becomes 3. If you roll a 3, it stays as a 3.
Well that's completely braindead.
Who the hell wrote this rule?
Real talk? They probably forgot that some "blast" weapons could have multiple dice. Or they wrote the blast rule only to buff D6 weapons.
The funniest thing is that a Leman Russ with Battle Cannon against a 10 model unit gets a minimum of 6 shots (3 for the first shot, 3 for the second assuming 6+ models are left) while a Macharius Battle Cannon (which is basically two battlecannons and fires 2D6 shots) only gets a minimum of 3.
BaconCatBug wrote: Please, read the rule. "A minimum of 3 attacks" is not the same as "Each dice is a minimum of 3". If you roll 3D3, you get a number between 3 and 9. So the "minimum of 3" doesn't actually benefit a 3D3 blast weapon.
Likewise, a 2D6 blast weapon can roll between 2 and 12. If you roll a 2, it becomes 3. If you roll a 3, it stays as a 3.
Well that's completely braindead.
Who the hell wrote this rule?
Real talk? They probably forgot that some "blast" weapons could have multiple dice. Or they wrote the blast rule only to buff D6 weapons.
The funniest thing is that a Leman Russ with Battle Cannon against a 10 model unit gets a minimum of 6 shots (3 for the first shot, 3 for the second assuming 6+ models are left) while a Macharius Battle Cannon (which is basically two battlecannons and fires 2D6 shots) only gets a minimum of 3.
I'm going to assume that gets addressed at some point. But hey, 3 is better than 2!
BaconCatBug wrote: Please, read the rule. "A minimum of 3 attacks" is not the same as "Each dice is a minimum of 3". If you roll 3D3, you get a number between 3 and 9. So the "minimum of 3" doesn't actually benefit a 3D3 blast weapon.
Likewise, a 2D6 blast weapon can roll between 2 and 12. If you roll a 2, it becomes 3. If you roll a 3, it stays as a 3.
Well that's completely braindead.
Who the hell wrote this rule?
Real talk? They probably forgot that some "blast" weapons could have multiple dice. Or they wrote the blast rule only to buff D6 weapons.
The funniest thing is that a Leman Russ with Battle Cannon against a 10 model unit gets a minimum of 6 shots (3 for the first shot, 3 for the second assuming 6+ models are left) while a Macharius Battle Cannon (which is basically two battlecannons and fires 2D6 shots) only gets a minimum of 3.
I'm going to assume that gets addressed at some point. But hey, 3 is better than 2!
What makes you think that? It's not like a Macharius is a fw unit and gw is about to release new fw boo.....
Oh yeah. No point assuming that the Macharius's rules are staying the same is there?
BaconCatBug wrote: Real talk? They probably forgot that some "blast" weapons could have multiple dice. Or they wrote the blast rule only to buff D6 weapons.
I'd bet good money on the "they forgot" side of things. Just like I'd bet that whoever wrote the new infantry HW rule forgot/didn't know that 8th changed it to model rather than unit.
Gadzilla666 wrote:What makes you think that? It's not like a Macharius is a fw unit and gw is about to release new fw boo.....
Oh yeah. No point assuming that the Macharius's rules are staying the same is there?
The Rapid Fire battle Cannon for Imperial Knights is a GW Example.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote: Real talk? They probably forgot that some "blast" weapons could have multiple dice. Or they wrote the blast rule only to buff D6 weapons.
I'd bet good money on the "they forgot" side of things. Just like I'd bet that whoever wrote the new infantry HW rule forgot/didn't know that 8th changed it to model rather than unit.
A good example is the Wyvern 4D6 mortar. I mean, I assume they are going to make Mortars blast, right?
GW logic (Assuming the Wyvern mortar is still the same Heavy 4D6 weapon and made blast): Wyvern shooting at 10 Termagants, minimum of 4 shots. Shooting at 11 Termagants, minimum 24 shots.
Gadzilla666 wrote:What makes you think that? It's not like a Macharius is a fw unit and gw is about to release new fw boo.....
Oh yeah. No point assuming that the Macharius's rules are staying the same is there?
The Rapid Fire battle Cannon for Imperial Knights is a GW Example.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote: Real talk? They probably forgot that some "blast" weapons could have multiple dice. Or they wrote the blast rule only to buff D6 weapons.
I'd bet good money on the "they forgot" side of things. Just like I'd bet that whoever wrote the new infantry HW rule forgot/didn't know that 8th changed it to model rather than unit.
A good example is the Wyvern 4D6 mortar. I mean, I assume they are going to make Mortars blast, right?
GW logic (Assuming the Wyvern mortar is still the same Heavy 4D6 weapon and made blast): Wyvern shooting at 10 Termagants, minimum of 4 shots. Shooting at 11 Termagants, minimum 24 shots.
Yea this. That level of disparity is not good for the game, even if it is only one unit. Like I said I think the issue is that the 3 minimum shots and max shots can be just so divergent and have such a drastically different effect based on specific units (the Russ shoot twice is technically better than 2D6 shots that was mention above) that it just makes the rule feel really clunky.
Thier is one way that might actually dig GW out of this hole which is Grinding advance has finally been burned and removed so weapons can actually be fixed properly instead of being twice as efficent for 0 points.
At least in thew Leman Russ example you can explain it by the fact the gunner can aim for another dense blob as opposed to the Macharius which double-pounds a single group.
The more the blast weapons change gets explored, increasingly it's going to look like either the early metagame of 9E is going to be insanely awkward due to all the 8E artefacts, or the codex books are going to need to be so heavily rebalanced that they don't *actually* carry over all that much
Knowing GW, probably both
I'm hoping to see LoS/Wound Allocation/Cover and Points changes soon to give us a better idea of how this is all going to work. Mostly looking at the stuff coming out of GW lately it feels like they're just spiking the killing power even further and highlighting "how awesome" it all is, but I'm thinking of current lists now that already are insanely alpha strike-ey, and that are only going to be moreso with the changes unveiled thus far, and I don't think that's going to be a net positive. If we end up with older style rules for some of these things (no drawing LoS to banners or wingtips, no drawing LoS from the tips of gun barrels to targets they can't actually traverse to aim at, no spilling over of wounds onto models out of range/LoS, etc) I think things will work out. If they largely stay the same, woe betide they that go 2nd...
Gadzilla666 wrote:What makes you think that? It's not like a Macharius is a fw unit and gw is about to release new fw boo.....
Oh yeah. No point assuming that the Macharius's rules are staying the same is there?
The Rapid Fire battle Cannon for Imperial Knights is a GW Example.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote: Real talk? They probably forgot that some "blast" weapons could have multiple dice. Or they wrote the blast rule only to buff D6 weapons.
I'd bet good money on the "they forgot" side of things. Just like I'd bet that whoever wrote the new infantry HW rule forgot/didn't know that 8th changed it to model rather than unit.
A good example is the Wyvern 4D6 mortar. I mean, I assume they are going to make Mortars blast, right?
GW logic (Assuming the Wyvern mortar is still the same Heavy 4D6 weapon and made blast): Wyvern shooting at 10 Termagants, minimum of 4 shots. Shooting at 11 Termagants, minimum 24 shots.
This, alone, shows how bad the rule is. I knew it would be impossible to make a good “blast weapon hurts hordes harder” rule since they’re have to use a single model count breakpoint that would create nonsensical situations.
9th was looking great till this rule came out...so let’s hope more rules and points raises make it more of an annoyance than a real issue
To be far in 7th when the new Wyvern kit came out, the Horde player was lucky to be hit with less than 24 shots, it was normally 5x what the unit had in it.
Bitharne wrote: 9th was looking great till this rule came out...so let’s hope more rules and points raises make it more of an annoyance than a real issue
Yeah, and I'm more annoyed at this rule from a transition perspective rather than a rules/balance POV.
Like, was anyone complaining about this? Was it actually an issue? Was this on anyone's "top 3" of things they wanted changed? Of the rules previewed, most required only minor FAQs or sweeping rules that could be universally applied. The points changes will require more updating, but we do that with Chapter Approved every year already. This one has major balance ramifications and requires a whole new set of keywords and bespoke FAQs to work for the 174 weapons that are changing. It seems like the desire for an "awesome" update is the enemy of a "good enough" update that would be a lot smoother.
GW logic (Assuming the Wyvern mortar is still the same Heavy 4D6 weapon and made blast): Wyvern shooting at 10 Termagants, minimum of 4 shots. Shooting at 11 Termagants, minimum 24 shots.
This, alone, shows how bad the rule is. I knew it would be impossible to make a good “blast weapon hurts hordes harder” rule since they’re have to use a single model count breakpoint that would create nonsensical situations.
This presumes you subscribe to the 'per attack' interpretation.
And let's step back at that logic. You apply the first half of the rule to only one dice, but the second half of the rule to all dice - why? They did not give an example of a 2D6 weapon so you're extrapolating regardless. The rule as written makes perfect sense if you're only using a D3 or a D6.
Let's look at a 2D6 weapons.
Shooting at 6 models it averages 7.9 by replacing one of the dice rolls of 1 or 2. Shooting at 11 models you get 12 shots.
If instead you think it is per dice then you get an average of 8 and 12.
That isn't wildly different, is it? You only get massive differences with D3-style weapons. Complaints around this may not be the best approach until we get clarification - especially regarding the lethality of guns in this edition without knowing cover and terrain.
Amishprn86 wrote: To be far in 7th when the new Wyvern kit came out, the Horde player was lucky to be hit with less than 24 shots, it was normally 5x what the unit had in it.
Wyvern came out in 6th. And it was a 3" template, not a 5" template, and it only fired 4 shots, so at best if your entire unit was under the 4 templates it would make out at 4x model count.
Getting to 24 hits would be pretty extreme even for a horde. I would say average number of hits-on-unit was in the range of 12-15 firing on clustered infantry in previous editions, from experience.
Amishprn86 wrote: To be far in 7th when the new Wyvern kit came out, the Horde player was lucky to be hit with less than 24 shots, it was normally 5x what the unit had in it.
Wyvern came out in 6th. And it was a 3" template, not a 5" template, and it only fired 4 shots, so at best if your entire unit was under the 4 templates it would make out at 4x model count.
Getting to 24 hits would be pretty extreme even for a horde. I would say average number of hits-on-unit was in the range of 12-15 firing on clustered infantry in previous editions, from experience.
It was "small blast" but i never said it was large, and yes it was 4 PER TANK in units of 3, with re-rolls on the scatter dice and almost perfect placements how the rules were, if you hit 3 guys, it was 3x4 per tank for 36 hits, if they miss placed their models and you hit 4-5 guys, well that unit was 100% dead.
Ah, they clarified on the stream that the rule makes EACH D6 rolled for a blast weapon count as a die-roll of 3 on squads of 6-10. Which means to get a D3 result, the D6 rolls of 1 and 2 count as 3, so results in 2 attacks minimum. So still a little weird, but consistent.
Honestly, the improvement for the average hits against 6-10 models is ~14% for a D6. It's not a huge improvement to expected damage, just consistency. The jump at 11 is a 58% improvement, but the vast majority of units are either taken at 10 models or 30. For hordes, you just accept that blasts deal lots of damage and the breakpoint isn't so jarring.
It does seem that armies that struggle to take effective MSUs are being unfairly punished with these rules. Most light infantry comes at a minimum model count of ten, and generally only perform well when taken in bigger numbers, which is now being punished by them being mulched instantly by blast weapons. As an ork player, I can comfortably say that our units that come at a minimum of five are generally gak unless you take them at max unit size.
I know things like Ork boys and termagants are cheap and they die in droves anyway, but points increases across the board and giving larger units the middle finger with blast weapons seems like someone upstairs at GW has a serious issue with certain armies.
Unless horde units actually get a points drop or a benefit for being taking in larger numbers, then no one is going to run them.
In the stream they specifically mention the anxiety that horde players would be feeling. The interviewer, Eddie Eccles, plays 'Nids and Orks specifically. They said several times that there are lots of rules that benefit horde players yet to be revealed.
I've liked all the rules they've posted so far, and everything I've heard from the play testers has been encouraging. I think they'll have some good stuff for hordes and you don't have to worry. They are purposefully revealing bits at a time to cause commotions and keep up engagement.
Martel732 wrote: A marine with a meltagun averages 1.5 W at melta range vs t8. 1 solitary wound if t8 has a 5++. The math is not much better for other single shot weapons. Then look at what gw charges foe this privilege.
Theyre garbage, even for casual play because its so counter intiitive
I'm in. Lets assume that's a sister with a melta, because I want to prove a point.
That's a 9 point model with a 14 point gun (23 total) taking 1.5 wounds off say a land raider (277 points) if it hits and wounds which is 50/50 all in so .75 wounds
A leman russ with a battle cannon (137 points) who we can assume is moving under half etc with no upgrades (so just heavy bolter hull weapon) does roughly 2 damage.
Now obviously sisters come in units of 5, so 2 x 5 with 2 melta guns in each is 146 points, those 10 sisters do 3 wounds to the land raider + whatever the bolters/grenades accomplish.
Edit: further question to the thread, what units are people worried about having deleted by this change? The most expensive blobs I can think of are stealers or plaguebearers, nothing else above 10 points is seen in units over 10 anyway, so if losing 50% more termagants to a battlecannon is a concern that's not really that bad if they're firing their main weapons at cheap infantry. Obviously this is based on existing points costs.
You can't just say a melta gun is objectively worse than a single shot weapon without factoring in what's carrying it. Those sisters are small and can hide, move through ruins and are obsec. I'm intentionally leaving out faction abilities just so it's the naked profile.
Afrodactyl wrote: It does seem that armies that struggle to take effective MSUs are being unfairly punished with these rules. Most light infantry comes at a minimum model count of ten, and generally only perform well when taken in bigger numbers, which is now being punished by them being mulched instantly by blast weapons. As an ork player, I can comfortably say that our units that come at a minimum of five are generally gak unless you take them at max unit size.
I know things like Ork boys and termagants are cheap and they die in droves anyway, but points increases across the board and giving larger units the middle finger with blast weapons seems like someone upstairs at GW has a serious issue with certain armies.
Unless horde units actually get a points drop or a benefit for being taking in larger numbers, then no one is going to run them.
At least losing 10 IG or 20 orcs is just losing some light infantry. Imagine having a codex writen in a such a way that all rules work best with 10models, and you are an elite army, and you take msu units only as tax. But who knows maybe there are some rules to balance it all out, somehow.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface 789124 10827281 wrote:
I'm in. Lets assume that's a sister with a melta, because I want to prove a point.
That's a 9 point model with a 14 point gun (23 total) taking 1.5 wounds off say a land raider (277 points) if it hits and wounds which is 50/50 all in so .75 wounds
A leman russ with a battle cannon (137 points) who we can assume is moving under half etc with no upgrades (so just heavy bolter hull weapon) does roughly 2 damage.
Now obviously sisters come in units of 5, so 2 x 5 with 2 melta guns in each is 146 points, those 10 sisters do 3 wounds to the land raider + whatever the bolters/grenades accomplish.
Edit: further question to the thread, what units are people worried about having deleted by this change? The most expensive blobs I can think of are stealers or plaguebearers, nothing else above 10 points is seen in units over 10 anyway, so if losing 50% more termagants to a battlecannon is a concern that's not really that bad if they're firing their main weapons at cheap infantry. Obviously this is based on existing points costs.
You can't just say a melta gun is objectively worse than a single shot weapon without factoring in what's carrying it. Those sisters are small and can hide, move through ruins and are obsec. I'm intentionally leaving out faction abilities just so it's the naked profile.
the weapon has low range vs fast moving or long range units, melta armed units often end up doing nothing. A LR is always doing something and is always in range.
the weapon has low range vs fast moving or long range units, melta armed units often end up doing nothing. A LR is always doing something and is always in range.
Oh definitely, but just flatly saying that a battlecannon is better than a meltagun with no context is pointless. Majority of the time the blast weapons aren't going to do more to single targets than the single shot anti-armour weapons. A meltagun is probably the worst of those for the reasons you mention but a lascannon vs a battlecannon firing once because not all battlecannons are on a russ, the lascannon wins almost every time vs big armoured targets.
DarkHound wrote: Ah, they clarified on the stream that the rule makes EACH D6 rolled for a blast weapon count as a die-roll of 3 on squads of 6-10. Which means to get a D3 result, the D6 rolls of 1 and 2 count as 3, so results in 2 attacks minimum. So still a little weird, but consistent.
Honestly, the improvement for the average hits against 6-10 models is ~14% for a D6. It's not a huge improvement to expected damage, just consistency. The jump at 11 is a 58% improvement, but the vast majority of units are either taken at 10 models or 30. For hordes, you just accept that blasts deal lots of damage and the breakpoint isn't so jarring.
Nah. For hordes you accept GW made hordes suck and go for MSU. Luckily no army is without suitable alternatives but pity players who need to buy more models. I for one will shelve my orks until I have money to get units I need to avoid having 0% win rate. Having largely large groups of infantry existing collection is hosed in 9th ed. Odd gorkanaut and battlewagon doesn't cut it.
Now obviously sisters come in units of 5, so 2 x 5 with 2 melta guns in each is 146 points, those 10 sisters do 3 wounds to the land raider + whatever the bolters/grenades accomplish.
Edit: further question to the thread, what units are people worried about having deleted by this change? The most expensive blobs I can think of are stealers or plaguebearers, nothing else above 10 points is seen in units over 10 anyway, so if losing 50% more termagants to a battlecannon is a concern that's not really that bad if they're firing their main weapons at cheap infantry. Obviously this is based on existing points costs.
You can't just say a melta gun is objectively worse than a single shot weapon without factoring in what's carrying it. Those sisters are small and can hide, move through ruins and are obsec. I'm intentionally leaving out faction abilities just so it's the naked profile.
Main reason why sisters use meltagun: a) we don't have any better AT weapons(for infantry) b) at least MD gives you quaranteed high rolls and even quaranteed wound making the 4+ to wound suck less.
One massive thing that almost everyone seems to have overlooked is that minimum size Guardian squads with a weapon platform now count as a horde because they're 11 models.
As if Guardians weren't in a rough enough spot already. Hopefully the points increases don't hit them at all.
This is probably the worst rule change they've revealed yet, though I accept that we haven't seen enough of the new rules to make a definitive judgement. One thing I'm wondering is whether this appendix of Blast weapons in the rulebook will just be adding the Blast type to each weapon or will it also be used to adjust the number of shots? Things like the Wyvern mortar spring to mind. They were clearly designed to get a consistent number of shots somewhere between 12-16 but the new rules give them a huge jump in effectiveness against 11+ models so maybe we'll see GW change the number of shots down to compensate?
Afrodactyl wrote: I'm hoping that those numbers are a typo. How is 6 models a horde?
Looks like orks are going to be near unplayable if you want to use half of the units in the codex.
keep in mind they've suggested hoards also get some bonuses themselves. I know that AOS does this with some armies. for example if you take chaos warriors in a squad of 10 or more you can re-roll armor saves.
Afrodactyl wrote: I'm hoping that those numbers are a typo. How is 6 models a horde?
Looks like orks are going to be near unplayable if you want to use half of the units in the codex.
keep in mind they've suggested hoards also get some bonuses themselves. I know that AOS does this with some armies. for example if you take chaos warriors in a squad of 10 or more you can re-roll armor saves.
I'm hoping the the bonuses are good enough to counteract the downsides. It's just hard to stay positive when all you're seeing is downsides. I've just finished painting 60 boys and 40 grots and will be gutted if they're unusable
I'm already leaning towards a dreadbash list with nobs over boys at the moment, but I still want those boys to be useful.
I still don't think a single squad of guardsmen qualifies as a horde though.
Afrodactyl wrote: I'm hoping that those numbers are a typo. How is 6 models a horde?
Looks like orks are going to be near unplayable if you want to use half of the units in the codex.
keep in mind they've suggested hoards also get some bonuses themselves. I know that AOS does this with some armies. for example if you take chaos warriors in a squad of 10 or more you can re-roll armor saves.
I'm hoping the the bonuses are good enough to counteract the downsides. It's just hard to stay positive when all you're seeing is downsides. I've just finished painting 60 boys and 40 grots and will be gutted if they're unusable
I'm already leaning towards a dreadbash list with nobs over boys at the moment, but I still want those boys to be useful.
I still don't think a single squad of guardsmen qualifies as a horde though.
And when you remember that according to playtesters we haven't even seen all the nerfs yet...
Assuming 25% price hike made ork list if I were to repaint my army(numerous reasons why to do that. One being at least that way I would need less models bought to work with 9th ed). Ghaz, mek w/KFF, mek w/ssag, 3x10 grots, 5 meganobz in bonebreaka, 2 gorkanauts. Feels so small and weird with no boyz but those are just point sinks now.
Afrodactyl wrote: I'm hoping that those numbers are a typo. How is 6 models a horde?
Looks like orks are going to be near unplayable if you want to use half of the units in the codex.
keep in mind they've suggested hoards also get some bonuses themselves. I know that AOS does this with some armies. for example if you take chaos warriors in a squad of 10 or more you can re-roll armor saves.
I'm hoping the the bonuses are good enough to counteract the downsides. It's just hard to stay positive when all you're seeing is downsides. I've just finished painting 60 boys and 40 grots and will be gutted if they're unusable
I'm already leaning towards a dreadbash list with nobs over boys at the moment, but I still want those boys to be useful.
I still don't think a single squad of guardsmen qualifies as a horde though.
They won't be unusable, they'll just die faster to blast weapons. I've got about 6k of chaos models and it dawned on me the only blast weapons I own in likelihood are frag grenades and soulburner petards, I'm sure other players are the same and not everyone has 15 leman russ sat at home ready to waste shots on cheap hordes.
They were already fairly weak in 8th. When 60 boyz dead in single turn isn't even particularly hard archievement they hardly were problem to begin with...
Anybody who thinks hordes are problem in balance has not been playing 40k for long time. Hordes being king is so 3 year ago thing.
And people might not have but they will get them. Just as GW planned.
tneva82 wrote: Hordes being king is so 3 year ago thing.
Well then GW making these changes makes perfect sense. They're always in a rush to fix problems that were solved years ago.
They solved the issue of hordes being dominant.
They still didn't fix that fixed number of shot medium weapons where generalist wepaons that did everything better than the tools supposed to counter specific units.
Blast weapons have never really worked in 8th period, this atleast makes something other than Guard actually having potential to make some of these weapons viable.
That Hordes are in need of a buff to counter some of these changes is apparently coming according to playtesters, the balance has probably shifted but your shouting that the sky is falling when we know GW are being deliberately slow and counting on the Reactions to add to the hype.
Dudeface wrote: They won't be unusable, they'll just die faster to blast weapons. I've got about 6k of chaos models and it dawned on me the only blast weapons I own in likelihood are frag grenades and soulburner petards, I'm sure other players are the same and not everyone has 15 leman russ sat at home ready to waste shots on cheap hordes.
Yes.
Really its a cyclic meta.
If blast->Hordes, you won't see hordes, which means you won't see blast weapons, which means you can see hordes.
Which is sort of where we are now. I think every faction can list tailor to wipe loads of Boyz off the table. But I think Ork tournament success (however limited under the Marine domination) was rooted in the fact people were tailoring more to kill Marines, Knights, Eldar Flyer spam etc - which prefers different tools.
The issue is whether blast weapons will be competitive anyway, and are then extra competitive versus hordes. Which is hard to say without points.
Because okay, a Leman Russ shooting 11+ Orks twice with a battle cannon before any buffs/debuffs/protections would on average get 7 shots, 3.5 hits, 2.911 kills.
Now it would be 5 kills. Which seems like a big points increase - but in the grand scheme of things doesn't necessarily add up to all that. Especially if Orks were to remain the same, but Russ went up 15% for example.
On the smaller scale, going from 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6 from 1-6 when shooting 6-10 models is a buff - but the average is only nudging up to 4 from 3.5. Greater reliability is good, but it can easily be taken account for with a slight points increase.
I think my concern is more that it might prove an annoying fiddly rule if you have to count up what's in an enemy unit every time you shoot at it. (In a world where people get annoyed by rerolls, this seems much more tedious.)
Like a lot of things - I think rules can be cool if each player has one such weapon and so its a special case. It may be decidedly less fun for say Guard players who can bring dozens of them.
tneva82 wrote: They were already fairly weak in 8th. When 60 boyz dead in single turn isn't even particularly hard archievement they hardly were problem to begin with...
Anybody who thinks hordes are problem in balance has not been playing 40k for long time. Hordes being king is so 3 year ago thing.
And people might not have but they will get them. Just as GW planned.
OooooOOooOo the nefarious GW strikes again! It's a good thing we're not jumping to conclusions.
People bitched all the time about random shot weapons. Maybe we can just appreciate the design space this opens for the moment and wait for more rules? Naaaah.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nemesis464 wrote: I’m surprised they’re not buffing hordes like crazy, considering they’re the most expensive armies to buy
Because a good system sells just as well, if not better, than a skewed one and conspiracy theories are bs. Also, they raised the prices on their kits to compensate for smaller armies, but then they gave us free digital copies with codexes.
DarkHound wrote:Ah, they clarified on the stream that the rule makes EACH D6 rolled for a blast weapon count as a die-roll of 3 on squads of 6-10. Which means to get a D3 result, the D6 rolls of 1 and 2 count as 3, so results in 2 attacks minimum. So still a little weird, but consistent.
Honestly, the improvement for the average hits against 6-10 models is ~14% for a D6. It's not a huge improvement to expected damage, just consistency. The jump at 11 is a 58% improvement, but the vast majority of units are either taken at 10 models or 30. For hordes, you just accept that blasts deal lots of damage and the breakpoint isn't so jarring.
I trust nothing they say on the stream that is directly contradicted by the rules posted on Warhammer Community. This is a perfect example. Just like the day they talked about vehicles and monsters having a -1 to Hit when firing at units within Engagement range, but forgot to mention that counts only for Heavy weapons.
The rule is very clear. Blast attacks against 6-10 models get a minimum of 3 attacks. Doesn't matter if your weapon is d3, d6, 2d6, or any other variable attack number.
DarkHound wrote:Ah, they clarified on the stream that the rule makes EACH D6 rolled for a blast weapon count as a die-roll of 3 on squads of 6-10. Which means to get a D3 result, the D6 rolls of 1 and 2 count as 3, so results in 2 attacks minimum. So still a little weird, but consistent.
Honestly, the improvement for the average hits against 6-10 models is ~14% for a D6. It's not a huge improvement to expected damage, just consistency. The jump at 11 is a 58% improvement, but the vast majority of units are either taken at 10 models or 30. For hordes, you just accept that blasts deal lots of damage and the breakpoint isn't so jarring.
I trust nothing they say on the stream that is directly contradicted by the rules posted on Warhammer Community. This is a perfect example. Just like the day they talked about vehicles and monsters having a -1 to Hit when firing at units within Engagement range, but forgot to mention that counts only for Heavy weapons.
The rule is very clear. Blast attacks against 6-10 models get a minimum of 3 attacks. Doesn't matter if your weapon is d3, d6, 2d6, or any other variable attack number.
Yeah unless they errata day 0 or pulp the books and try again, that isn't what the rule says.
Still, Zero Day Errata isn't unprecedented and not surprising.
Martel732 wrote: If that happens. GW has a hardon for charging huge amounts for AP.
I thought AP got thrown around like candy and eveyrone and everything had -3AP so power armor is useless, what happened?
I don't know if you're just making a jab, but both can be correct. GW undervalues that first point of AP, and often uses AP as a go-to solution for balancing, so armies like Marines have both AP-1 across the board and an army-wide buff to get an extra point of AP. A 3+ save becomes mediocre when literally the entire enemy army is AP-2 or better.
At the same time, GW dramatically overvalues AP-3 and up, where there is both less benefit to increasing AP (going from 3+ to 5+ save is statistically more impactful than going from 5+ to no save) and a greater likelihood that the difference will be negated by an invuln save. Against a vehicle with a 3+ save, going from AP-2 to AP-4 only nets you a 50% increase in power, and if they have a 5++ then the extra AP is wasted altogether.
The combination of factors leads to a meta where AP-2 is the sweet spot and all over the place, but higher-AP weapons tend to be both more expensive and only marginally better against tanks, at the cost of all multirole capability. So you spam multishot AP-2 weapons and you're good against everything.
If vehicles had 2+ saves rather than 3+ (with fewer wounds to compensate), and invulns were rare to nonexistent, it would be a very different story.
Martel732 wrote: If that happens. GW has a hardon for charging huge amounts for AP.
I thought AP got thrown around like candy and eveyrone and everything had -3AP so power armor is useless, what happened?
It is thrown around like candy in the wrong places. Marine troops can easily get -2 and -3 on cheap weapons. The weapons that actually pay for their AP get really shafted.
Martel732 wrote: If that happens. GW has a hardon for charging huge amounts for AP.
I thought AP got thrown around like candy and eveyrone and everything had -3AP so power armor is useless, what happened?
I don't know if you're just making a jab, but both can be correct. GW undervalues that first point of AP, and often uses AP as a go-to solution for balancing, so armies like Marines have both AP-1 across the board and an army-wide buff to get an extra point of AP. A 3+ save becomes mediocre when literally the entire enemy army is AP-2 or better.
At the same time, GW dramatically overvalues AP-3 and up, where there is both less benefit to increasing AP (going from 3+ to 5+ save is statistically more impactful than going from 5+ to no save) and a greater likelihood that the difference will be negated by an invuln save. Against a vehicle with a 3+ save, going from AP-2 to AP-4 only nets you a 50% increase in power, and if they have a 5++ then the extra AP is wasted altogether.
The combination of factors leads to a meta where AP-2 is the sweet spot and all over the place, but higher-AP weapons tend to be both more expensive and only marginally better against tanks, at the cost of all multirole capability. So you spam multishot AP-2 weapons and you're good against everything.
If vehicles had 2+ saves rather than 3+ (with fewer wounds to compensate), and invulns were rare to nonexistent, it would be a very different story.
This ^^^^^^^. The devil is in the math details. AP -1 is the most important jump unless you are firiing at 2+ in cover.
Feels like people have some horrifically short memories here. Early 8th was defined by impossible to kill hordes of brimstones and other tiny models that were just there to take up space - it took some pretty unreasonable points changes and extra rules to get to the marine meta. 8th at its core favored hordes and GW had to push their thumb down on the scale real hard to make it otherwise. I think if this change had been announced before the marine codex people would be praising it.
Arachnofiend wrote: Feels like people have some horrifically short memories here. Early 8th was defined by impossible to kill hordes of brimstones and other tiny models that were just there to take up space - it took some pretty unreasonable points changes and extra rules to get to the marine meta. 8th at its core favored hordes and GW had to push their thumb down on the scale real hard to make it otherwise. I think if this change had been announced before the marine codex people would be praising it.
I think a lot of the posters here never faced 240 conscripts or 180 guardsmen consistently enough to get it burned into their brain. If you fill the board with LoS blocking terrain like so many suggest, cheap models can still be very problematic for many marine builds.
Brimstones, Poxwalkers and Conscripts were all issues in 2017 - but I think they were pretty much toast after then. Sure this is because of nerfs - but Guilliman+whatever was a problem *until it got nerfed* too.
Eldar/Ynnari were dominating by the end of the year and the Castellan dominated from Mid 2018.
I'm not convinced the period between the Castellan nerf and the new Marine Codex was especially favourable towards hordes, even if some armies with horde characteristics had some success.
Because a good system sells just as well, if not better, than a skewed one and conspiracy theories are bs. Also, they raised the prices on their kits to compensate for smaller armies, but then they gave us free digital copies with codexes.
Lmao it’s not a conspiracy theory to say GW write rules as a way to influence sales, it’s been this way since I started in 4th ed. .
alextroy wrote: The rule is very clear. Blast attacks against 6-10 models get a minimum of 3 attacks. Doesn't matter if your weapon is d3, d6, 2d6, or any other variable attack number.
Yeah unless they errata day 0 or pulp the books and try again, that isn't what the rule says.
Still, Zero Day Errata isn't unprecedented and not surprising.
I'm confused. What part of "If a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, it always makes a minimum of 3 attacks" do you think I have wrong when I say a Blast weapon that does 2d6 attacks get a minimum of 3 attacks?
alextroy wrote: The rule is very clear. Blast attacks against 6-10 models get a minimum of 3 attacks. Doesn't matter if your weapon is d3, d6, 2d6, or any other variable attack number.
Yeah unless they errata day 0 or pulp the books and try again, that isn't what the rule says.
Still, Zero Day Errata isn't unprecedented and not surprising.
I'm confused. What part of "If a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, it always makes a minimum of 3 attacks" do you think I have wrong when I say a Blast weapon that does 2d6 attacks get a minimum of 3 attacks?
Sorry, I was agreeing with you! When I said "that isn't what the rule says" i was referring to the minimum 3 per dice claim.
Time to issue an errata to my post!
Yeah, [you are correct]. [U]nless they errata day 0 or pulp the books and try again, [then the minimum of 3 per dice "interpretation" is not correct].
Still, Zero Day Errata isn't unprecedented and not surprising.
Because a good system sells just as well, if not better, than a skewed one and conspiracy theories are bs. Also, they raised the prices on their kits to compensate for smaller armies, but then they gave us free digital copies with codexes.
Lmao it’s not a conspiracy theory to say GW write rules as a way to influence sales, it’s been this way since I started in 4th ed. .
Yes, it is, when your own internal logic for why something is being pushed doesn't pass the sniff test.
alextroy wrote: The rule is very clear. Blast attacks against 6-10 models get a minimum of 3 attacks. Doesn't matter if your weapon is d3, d6, 2d6, or any other variable attack number.
Yeah unless they errata day 0 or pulp the books and try again, that isn't what the rule says.
Still, Zero Day Errata isn't unprecedented and not surprising.
I'm confused. What part of "If a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, it always makes a minimum of 3 attacks" do you think I have wrong when I say a Blast weapon that does 2d6 attacks get a minimum of 3 attacks?
Sorry, I was agreeing with you! When I said "that isn't what the rule says" i was referring to the minimum 3 per dice claim.
Time to issue an errata to my post!
Yeah, [you are correct]. [U]nless they errata day 0 or pulp the books and try again, [then the minimum of 3 per dice "interpretation" is not correct].
Still, Zero Day Errata isn't unprecedented and not surprising.
Got you. That does explain why I was confused.
They have indicated there will be Day 1 FAQ documents for all the codexes to cover rules that no longer work like they did in 8th edition. For example, they indicated that POTMS will do something in 9th Edition now that all vehicles get to ignore -1 Hit from moving when firing Heavy weapons.
Whilst I generally agree with the points raised about the previewed blast rule being a bit arbitrary in the sudden jump to max shots and the wonky way it will be applied to various weapons with xD3 shots vs xD6 shots, does anyone really think this is going to break the game? I can't really see anyone trading in aggressors for whirlwinds or punisher tank commanders for wyverns, and I'm assuming horde players won't be too put out if super heavy weapons are focussing on gaunts rather than monsters due to it still being incredibly points inefficient?
Insularum wrote: Whilst I generally agree with the points raised about the previewed blast rule being a bit arbitrary in the sudden jump to max shots and the wonky way it will be applied to various weapons with xD3 shots vs xD6 shots, does anyone really think this is going to break the game? I can't really see anyone trading in aggressors for whirlwinds or punisher tank commanders for wyverns, and I'm assuming horde players won't be too put out if super heavy weapons are focussing on gaunts rather than monsters due to it still being incredibly points inefficient?
It probably doesn't break the game. Against 6-10 man squads the new rules grants a very tiny advantage since 66% of the times there would be no advantage at all, and in the other 33% is actually a gain of 1-2 shots that have to hit, wound and bypass saves. Blast weapons will also probably get a price hike, not the flat one that everything is getting, but a more significant one because GW guys clearly think that they have improved those guns. Anti tank/heavy infantry blast weapons are not going to target 6+ man squads anyway most of the times, because there aren't many of those units that must be large squads to do good.
Hordes would probably get a more serious hit than the blast rule by the new mechanics in list buildings as the first advantage in bringing lots of cheap bodies is tipycally to get more CPs, especially those armies that can have enough option to choose not to play hordes style, like orks.
I don't think it will really break the game, but depending on what else will be changed, it makes some bigger units less attractive (Conscripts, bigger Boys units etc.).
On the other side there are a variety of weapons in other codizes that suddenly become a lot more attractive. You mentioned that nobody will switch a Punisher LR for a Whirlwind because of that, but look at the IG Missile launcher now... The frag missile now has guaranteed 3 shots against 6+ models and 6 against 11+ thus suddenly becoming better than the heavy bolter against 11+ T3 6+ (Conscripts, Cultists) or T4 6+ (boyz) and also closes the gap to the heavy bolter against 6+ models. So the much debated versatility of the missile launcher might (!) actually be worth it now (at least with the IG pricetag).
The same might (!) be the case for the grenade launcher and the now more expensive mortar.
I personally think the second part is a good thing, as it might make the usual special/heavy weapons choices less dominant. On the other hand as some who likes to paint and collect infantry and thus was always eyeing to include some conscript blobs I'm a bit saddened how much punishment they might get. And I feel for hoardy Ork and Nid-players. But I try to stay optimistic as we haven't even seen half of the new rules.
Insularum wrote: Whilst I generally agree with the points raised about the previewed blast rule being a bit arbitrary in the sudden jump to max shots and the wonky way it will be applied to various weapons with xD3 shots vs xD6 shots, does anyone really think this is going to break the game? I can't really see anyone trading in aggressors for whirlwinds or punisher tank commanders for wyverns, and I'm assuming horde players won't be too put out if super heavy weapons are focussing on gaunts rather than monsters due to it still being incredibly points inefficient?
It probably doesn't break the game. Against 6-10 man squads the new rules grants a very tiny advantage since 66% of the times there would be no advantage at all, and in the other 33% is actually a gain of 1-2 shots that have to hit, wound and bypass saves. Blast weapons will also probably get a price hike, not the flat one that everything is getting, but a more significant one because GW guys clearly think that they have improved those guns. Anti tank/heavy infantry blast weapons are not going to target 6+ man squads anyway most of the times, because there aren't many of those units that must be large squads to do good.
Hordes would probably get a more serious hit than the blast rule by the new mechanics in list buildings as the first advantage in bringing lots of cheap bodies is tipycally to get more CPs, especially those armies that can have enough option to choose not to play hordes style, like orks.
Yep, I agree that other mechanical changes like list CP are probably going to have much more impact. As far as blast weapons go, I expect that bullets will still outperform blasts, as there has been nothing to indicate that units that throw buckets of dice are going to change, so they can continue to enjoy max shots against all target profiles all the time.
Pyroalchi wrote: I don't think it will really break the game, but depending on what else will be changed, it makes some bigger units less attractive (Conscripts, bigger Boys units etc.).
On the other side there are a variety of weapons in other codizes that suddenly become a lot more attractive. You mentioned that nobody will switch a Punisher LR for a Whirlwind because of that, but look at the IG Missile launcher now... The frag missile now has guaranteed 3 shots against 6+ models and 6 against 11+ thus suddenly becoming better than the heavy bolter against 11+ T3 6+ (Conscripts, Cultists) or T4 6+ (boyz) and also closes the gap to the heavy bolter against 6+ models. So the much debated versatility of the missile launcher might (!) actually be worth it now (at least with the IG pricetag).
The same might (!) be the case for the grenade launcher and the now more expensive mortar.
I personally think the second part is a good thing, as it might make the usual special/heavy weapons choices less dominant. On the other hand as some who likes to paint and collect infantry and thus was always eyeing to include some conscript blobs I'm a bit saddened how much punishment they might get. And I feel for hoardy Ork and Nid-players. But I try to stay optimistic as we haven't even seen half of the new rules.
The problem is many of the wepaons likely to get the blast keyword were not exactly stand out performers at the undercosted side of competitive.
While some models will needs points increases GW has said every blast weapon is going up in points and that's going to leave a lot of them sadly still in the "that's HOW MANY points?" Category.
Average unit size will increase in 9th. Being limited in the amount of squads you can field due to the new detachment system hinders the MSU style quite a bit.
Also, if I know GW, the new morale rules will harm MSU. I wouldn't put it past them that you get a -1 Ld for every unit lost.
Gameplay wise would make a lot of sense.
Punish horsed with blasts (they are often protected from morale).
Punish MSU with morale.
I would like it.
They like to learn from their other games, and in KT you get a -1 for every model killed/injured...
Spoletta wrote: Average unit size will increase in 9th. Being limited in the amount of squads you can field due to the new detachment system hinders the MSU style quite a bit.
Also, if I know GW, the new morale rules will harm MSU. I wouldn't put it past them that you get a -1 Ld for every unit lost.
Hrm, there's lots of armies that can do MSU well within a single detachment even now if they want to (in fact, often the trouble in 8E is effectively utilizing building a second detachment to get additional CP), and morale rules in every edition thus far have typically been favorable to MSU's over hordes. We'll have to wait and see how the rules look, but historically GW's morale rules have strongly incentivized small elite squads and there's more than enough slots in a current Battalion detachment for many MSU if additional CP's aren't a concern.
On the other side there are a variety of weapons in other codizes that suddenly become a lot more attractive. You mentioned that nobody will switch a Punisher LR for a Whirlwind because of that, but look at the IG Missile launcher now... The frag missile now has guaranteed 3 shots against 6+ models and 6 against 11+ thus suddenly becoming better than the heavy bolter against 11+ T3 6+ (Conscripts, Cultists) or T4 6+ (boyz) and also closes the gap to the heavy bolter against 6+ models. So the much debated versatility of the missile launcher might (!) actually be worth it now (at least with the IG pricetag).
While the ML vs HB comparison is interesting in a relative sense, at the same time the Heavy Bolter isn't actually all that great an anti-horde weapon to begin with either, and it's the dedicated anti-infantry option. The Grenade Launcher however is going to have much more value I think, though if there aren't significant changes to the rules in other ways, I suspect we may not see horde units enough to make the difference.
The armies I have are Renegades (played as GSC / Guard) & Nids. I'm generally fond of lots of little dudes.
Unless the cover rules are absolutely insane, or Hordes get some serious buffs to counteract this, I'll probably just sit this edition out. Really no point in playing a game where vehicles cannot be bogged down AND they flatten hordes to paste.
Insularum wrote: Whilst I generally agree with the points raised about the previewed blast rule being a bit arbitrary in the sudden jump to max shots and the wonky way it will be applied to various weapons with xD3 shots vs xD6 shots, does anyone really think this is going to break the game? I can't really see anyone trading in aggressors for whirlwinds or punisher tank commanders for wyverns, and I'm assuming horde players won't be too put out if super heavy weapons are focussing on gaunts rather than monsters due to it still being incredibly points inefficient?
Personally I don't think Blast will break the game on its own, but I question the necessity of a nerf to large units in the first place, especially if horde models are going up in points as the preview for Cultists (going from 4 to 6) seemed to imply.
If that's carried through with other troops, we're going to see light infantry go up in cost and Blast serving as a disincentive to take larger units. Since the cover rules that have been revealed show that terrain will continue to favor heavy infantry over light infantry, and shutting down tanks by tagging them is gone, I don't see what role light infantry will have other than slot-fillers.
Wish they would rule that a model can't get hit/targeted more than once per blast. You could then make blast weapons something like 3d6 attacks, but if the group you shoot at has only 5 guys (only roll 5 attacks), you'll lose a lot of potential attacks, vs. against say a group with 20 models.
Would make shooting blast weapons at groups more desirable, and make them less effective than singular shot high-damage weapons (i.e., using HE rounds vs. AT rounds in the case of Battlecannon vs. Vanquisher cannons).
Stormonu wrote: Wish they would rule that a model can't get hit/targeted more than once per blast. You could then make blast weapons something like 3d6 attacks, but if the group you shoot at has only 5 guys (only roll 5 attacks), you'll lose a lot of potential attacks, vs. against say a group with 20 models.
Would make shooting blast weapons at groups more desirable, and make them less effective than singular shot high-damage weapons (i.e., using HE rounds vs. AT rounds in the case of Battlecannon vs. Vanquisher cannons).
I thought the same.
My proposal for Blast weapons would be: Blast X: Fires one shot per model in the target unit to a maximum of X. When firing this weapon at a unit with 11 or more models, double the number of shots.
Fire a Blast 3 weapon at a 1 model unit? 1 Shot. Fire a Blast 3 weapon at a 4 model unit? 3 Shots. Fire a Blast 3 weapon at a 20 model unit? 6 shots.
Not only does it remove the stupidity of random shot values, it allows blasts to always be effective against hoards. Weapons with a random value would become a number of shots equal to the average, rounding up or down on a case by case basis (e.g. D6 becomes 3 or 4, 2D6 becomes 7, etc.)
That's the way blast weapons worked back in the day - one hit on one thing.
The reason that didn't make much sense is because against bigger things, a blast should do more damage. For example, a Leman Russ shell vs a Carnifex should be more effective than a Leman Russ shell vs a Gaunt.
Leman Russes in the lore are described as "disembowling" Squiggoths in a single shot (e.g. the War of Armageddon series), but back in the day when they did one hit, they did... 1 hit. There was deep incongruity between the Leman Russ's capability against single targets in the fluff vs in the game.
It got worse with Baneblades. Shooting at a Baneblade with a single blast weapon meant that the baneblade ate the entire energy of the shell (since a direct hit meant you were not likely to hit anything else), but suffers no difference than hitting a Gaunt who barely takes up any space at all.
EDIT:
As always, the 4th edition solution was quite elegant: you could make the center of the blast be a strong hit (e.g. strength 10) but have the surrounding hits be at half strength (rounded up). That meant it was very effective against single targets.
In 8th you could say:
Against single model units, 1 hit with Str x2
Against bigger units, more hits. Simples.
Eh, I wouldn't say they were terribly effective in 4E against single targets, they were just more effective if you landed a solid hit than if you deviated. A battlecannon was still only ever doing 1 hit and 1 wound/damage table roll max to a single model unless it's T was low enough to suffer Instant Death. Hitting a Carnifex with the center of the blast just meant you wounded on a 2+ (S8 vs T6) instead of a 6+ (S4 vs T6).
I'm ok with the idea of single models being hit multiple times by blast weapons in theory (representing either eating the full blast power, taking multiple hits from rebounding shockwaves or multiple different bits of shrapnel, etc), but, much like vehicle rules themselves, GW's never quite nailed rules for blast weapons in a way that wasn't odd in some way.
In 2nd Ed a blast hit every section of the vehicle it touched, so a 2" radius blast (Multimelta in those days) could easily hit the Hull, Weapon, and Tracks of a Land Raider, rolling hit results against all three.
Sorry if I missed it, but a d3 is actually a d6 read differently. So when they say "a 1 or 2 rolled on a d6 counts as a three" I see the d3 weapon getting two shots, not three.
You are to treat the 1-2 as a 3 on the d6. When you roll a "3" on the d6 for a d3 weapon, what does that count as?
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Sorry if I missed it, but a d3 is actually a d6 read differently. So when they say "a 1 or 2 rolled on a d6 counts as a three" I see the d3 weapon getting two shots, not three.
You are to treat the 1-2 as a 3 on the d6. When you roll a "3" on the d6 for a d3 weapon, what does that count as?
A "2"
The rule as released on the website says if you target a unit with 6-10 models with a Blast Weapon, you always get a minimum of 3 attacks. Rules as written, this doesn't matter whether you have D3, D6, or 4D6 shots. You just always get *at least* 3 shots. In which case your D3 Blast weapon would get 3 shots when targetting any unit with 6+ models.
This seems like... a rather odd system though, so its probably worth waiting on say seeing the full rules rather than loading up on... idk, Dark Scythe equipped Voidravens or something.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Sorry if I missed it, but a d3 is actually a d6 read differently. So when they say "a 1 or 2 rolled on a d6 counts as a three" I see the d3 weapon getting two shots, not three.
You are to treat the 1-2 as a 3 on the d6. When you roll a "3" on the d6 for a d3 weapon, what does that count as?
A "2"
Except it doesn't say "The minimum result on die is 3", it says your minimum attacks are 3.
So d3 weapons benefit a ton, d6 a decent amount, and 3d3 not at all.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Sorry if I missed it, but a d3 is actually a d6 read differently. So when they say "a 1 or 2 rolled on a d6 counts as a three" I see the d3 weapon getting two shots, not three.
You are to treat the 1-2 as a 3 on the d6. When you roll a "3" on the d6 for a d3 weapon, what does that count as?
A "2"
That's not how any of this works. That isn't how a D3 is defined in the rules. The rule cares about the result of the roll, not what the dice reads.
Something I am also curious about regarding weapons with multiple D3/D6 as shotcounts is if they will differentiate between weapon systems were this comes from multiple projectiles being fired (for example IG Wyvern, Macharius Battlecannon) and those were it seems to represent a bigger blast (for example Shadowsword). So in a sense if they reword between 2D6 and 2 x D6 to account for that.
On a fluff level it would make sense that each of the Wyverns 4 mortars would put min 3 shots against 6+ models each, but on a crunch level it would make it's buff even more extreme.
We will have to see what they do. The Wyvern is the most extreme case. 4d6 means the Blast rule has no impact on units of 6-10 models (since 4 is greater than 3). However, 24 attacks when the unit is 11+ models is crazy. Will they massively bump up the points value of the Wyvern to account for this or do some other alteration to make it less mental?
alextroy wrote: We will have to see what they do. The Wyvern is the most extreme case. 4d6 means the Blast rule has no impact on units of 6-10 models (since 4 is greater than 3). However, 24 attacks when the unit is 11+ models is crazy. Will they massively bump up the points value of the Wyvern to account for this or do some other alteration to make it less mental?
I think they will likely increase the points, but I think there is a strong chance that they might reduce the number of shots from 4d6 too. 3d6 seems a more sensible number, but that is hard to marry up with the fact that there are 4 separate barrels. 24 attacks seems an awful lot though.
This really would have made more sense as a sliding scale. Min 3 at 6-10, Min 6 or maximum, whichever is lower at 11-15, Min 9 or maximum, whichever is lower at 16- 20 and min 12 or max etc. at 21+. That way nothing goes insane, whilst still being a big benefit. Exact break points and numbers could vary, but you get the idea.
I think wyverns are going to be this odd "that guy" take and a woe of internet forums rather than reality.
Because okay, 24 shots into 11+ Orks could be horrendous (depending on the points of everything).
But on average 14 shots into say 5-10 Primaris getting cover? Enjoy your one wound.
If Primaris are setting the meta rather than Orks (see the last 12 months), you probably just won't see Wyverns (although having a bit of non-LOS shooting is usually a good idea.)
The real issue is that given these rules I don't think you can avoid this overpowered/crap dichotomy just by points.
But they could always change the rules when guard get a new codex.
Drager wrote: This really would have made more sense as a sliding scale. Min 3 at 6-10, Min 6 or maximum, whichever is lower at 11-15, Min 9 or maximum, whichever is lower at 16- 20 and min 12 or max etc. at 21+. That way nothing goes insane, whilst still being a big benefit. Exact break points and numbers could vary, but you get the idea.
I agree 100%. I think I said this same thing earlier in this thread. I don't understand why it goes 3 min hit straight to max hits, when a scale makes way more sense.
Drager wrote: This really would have made more sense as a sliding scale. Min 3 at 6-10, Min 6 or maximum, whichever is lower at 11-15, Min 9 or maximum, whichever is lower at 16- 20 and min 12 or max etc. at 21+. That way nothing goes insane, whilst still being a big benefit. Exact break points and numbers could vary, but you get the idea.
I agree 100%. I think I said this same thing earlier in this thread. I don't understand why it goes 3 min hit straight to max hits, when a scale makes way more sense.
Or even something like +1 per dice rolled for shots, up to the maximum number of shots, for every up to 5 models in the target unit after the first 5. (So 0-5/+0, 6-10/+1, 11-15/+2)
So you're bumping up the minimum, keeping the random nature, and making the maximum a bit more likely the larger the target unit is. Bit more thinking involved perhaps, so maybe that's too hard.
Drager wrote: This really would have made more sense as a sliding scale. Min 3 at 6-10, Min 6 or maximum, whichever is lower at 11-15, Min 9 or maximum, whichever is lower at 16- 20 and min 12 or max etc. at 21+. That way nothing goes insane, whilst still being a big benefit. Exact break points and numbers could vary, but you get the idea.
I agree 100%. I think I said this same thing earlier in this thread. I don't understand why it goes 3 min hit straight to max hits, when a scale makes way more sense.
As I change my view I think it's a bit like this-
A big blast is liable to catch something even if it drifts a bit. Smaller units are hard to hit without drifting. A small singular blast can drift off very easily.
With big units it is almost impossible to miss the zone regardless of blast size.
Maybe: " Blast weapon: if the attacked unit contains at least 5/10/15/20/25 models all dice rolled for number of shots count as at least 2/3/4/5/6"
It's a compact rule, it has a sliding progression and also affects MSU at least a bit.
With the Wyvern as example: it would score min 8/12/16/20/24 hits against 5/10/15/20/25+ model units.
Pyroalchi wrote: Maybe: " Blast weapon: if the attacked unit contains at least 5/10/15/20/25 models all dice rolled for number of shots count as at least 2/3/4/5/6"
It's a compact rule, it has a sliding progression and also affects MSU at least a bit.
With the Wyvern as example: it would score min 8/12/16/20/24 hits against 5/10/15/20/25+ model units.
That would make the Wyvern do fewer attacks than it does now for the vast majority of targets available to it, which is also true for any amount of D6s since you're fixed it to a flat 3 from 10 to 14 models and 2 for less than 10 models - well down from the 3.5 now.
Pyroalchi wrote: Maybe: " Blast weapon: if the attacked unit contains at least 5/10/15/20/25 models all dice rolled for number of shots count as at least 2/3/4/5/6"
It's a compact rule, it has a sliding progression and also affects MSU at least a bit.
With the Wyvern as example: it would score min 8/12/16/20/24 hits against 5/10/15/20/25+ model units.
That would make the Wyvern do fewer attacks than it does now for the vast majority of targets available to it, which is also true for any amount of D6s since you're fixed it to a flat 3 from 10 to 14 models and 2 for less than 10 models - well down from the 3.5 now.
Pyroalchi wrote: Maybe: " Blast weapon: if the attacked unit contains at least 5/10/15/20/25 models all dice rolled for number of shots count as at least 2/3/4/5/6"
It's a compact rule, it has a sliding progression and also affects MSU at least a bit.
With the Wyvern as example: it would score min 8/12/16/20/24 hits against 5/10/15/20/25+ model units.
That would make the Wyvern do fewer attacks than it does now for the vast majority of targets available to it, which is also true for any amount of D6s since you're fixed it to a flat 3 from 10 to 14 models and 2 for less than 10 models - well down from the 3.5 now.
Did you miss the "at least" there?
True however it also scales slightly better than GW current ruke which means D3 weapons max shots at 6 models and double shooting a D6 weapon is minimum 6 shots against a 6 model units but 2d6 shots is minimum 3 shots because you know balance
Pyroalchi wrote: Maybe: " Blast weapon: if the attacked unit contains at least 5/10/15/20/25 models all dice rolled for number of shots count as at least 2/3/4/5/6"
It's a compact rule, it has a sliding progression and also affects MSU at least a bit.
With the Wyvern as example: it would score min 8/12/16/20/24 hits against 5/10/15/20/25+ model units.
That would make the Wyvern do fewer attacks than it does now for the vast majority of targets available to it, which is also true for any amount of D6s since you're fixed it to a flat 3 from 10 to 14 models and 2 for less than 10 models - well down from the 3.5 now.
Did you miss the "at least" there?
I took "at least" to mean "this is my proposed levels", but fair enough.
It means 5 models or less GW's 3.5 goes to 3.7 - so blast gets better against the smallest units.
6 to 10 it goes to 4, which is the same as GW's rule.
Then it goes to 4.5 then 5.2 and then 6 - so it adds granularity, but does it solve a problem? Not sure.
I'm being a pedantic son of a beech, but you like that.
Just bring back blast templates and add a rule "Intent is important, if a player wanted his models 1" away but they are 0.99 away take the intent over the measurement".
ie, blast marker is 3" wide, err on the side of caution if a model's base is only partially inside.
If you're playing with mates that are witches no game is better than a bad game. For Tourneys if there's a fight just bring a TO across and yellow card both players.
Pyroalchi wrote: Maybe: " Blast weapon: if the attacked unit contains at least 5/10/15/20/25 models all dice rolled for number of shots count as at least 2/3/4/5/6"
It's a compact rule, it has a sliding progression and also affects MSU at least a bit.
With the Wyvern as example: it would score min 8/12/16/20/24 hits against 5/10/15/20/25+ model units.
That would make the Wyvern do fewer attacks than it does now for the vast majority of targets available to it, which is also true for any amount of D6s since you're fixed it to a flat 3 from 10 to 14 models and 2 for less than 10 models - well down from the 3.5 now.
Did you miss the "at least" there?
I took "at least" to mean "this is my proposed levels", but fair enough.
It means 5 models or less GW's 3.5 goes to 3.7 - so blast gets better against the smallest units.
6 to 10 it goes to 4, which is the same as GW's rule.
Then it goes to 4.5 then 5.2 and then 6 - so it adds granularity, but does it solve a problem? Not sure.
I'm being a pedantic son of a beech, but you like that.
Yes it does because it scales with number of dice,
2d6 RFBC
GW 0-5 model 2d6 6-10 models 2d6 min3
11+ 12 shots
Battle cannon russ
0-5, 2d6 6-10 2d6 minimum 6
11+, 12 shots
Proposed system works for any number of D6 shots, how it translates in D3 weapons i'm not sure which is fairest.
My intention for D3 weapons would have been " if the target unit contains at least 5/15 models each dice for number of shots is treated as at least 2/3." My intention for these cutoffs would be that a small blast should start to have an effect if a unit has 5+ dudes.
I thought 
