This is something that's kind of been troubling me since the news of the meltagun update, which presumably will be translating over to all equivalent styles of weaponry across all codexes.
One of the biggest things we're seeing in the new marine codex and the new necron codex alike is a massive increase to the reliability of antitank weaponry. We've got:
D2 heavy bolters (more effective vs tanks than current Autocannons)
D4 thunder hammers
D3d3 Heavy Destroyer gun (average of 6 damage)
new Void Dragon with a total of 6 3+D3 S9 AP-4 attacks (causing 16.4 unsaved wounds vs a standard 3+sv vehicle) before accounting for any other abilities or powers.
Eradicators, with improved melta causing 14.7 unsaved wounds vs standard vehicles
New Primaris Predator-replacement, with 14.9 unsaved wounds vs standard vehicles within 12"
Sisters of Battle Retributors, who with the new melta update will be a 160pt unit that unlike Eradicators can freely split fire and causes 19.5 unsaved wounds in melta range
And thanks to the new infiltration universal stratagem, every single one of these units can infiltrate for a small number of CP (2CP to infiltrate 3 melta retributor squads if you want at their new power level) and can just appear, turn 2, in melta range.
In the face of these sorts of units, part of me wonders what the purpose behind the distinctions between vehicles' statlines actually is. The distinction between a guard "light tank" like a taurox at T6 Sv3+ W10, a medium tank like a Chimera at T7 Sv3+ W11 and a leman russ at T8 Sv3+ W12 seems pretty laughable in the face of all these units whose gameplay pattern appears to be "shows up and deletes whatever your most expensive unit is, counter them by making your most expensive unit <150pts so they can't instantly make their points back".
There's not a whole lot of durability upgrades, or stratagems, or whatever that seem to make a whole lot of difference. Say I'm playing Eldar and my opponent brings Retributors, and I happen to have brought a Fire Prism, or a Hemlock, or a Night Spinner to the battlefield. It's just gonna be gone, turn 2. I can put Spirit Stones on it, average rolling is still going to easily take it out. I can use Lightning Fast Reactions (well, except for the Hemlock, rip), it's still going to die. I can screen them perfectly out of melta range, ehhhh still an average of 12.4 wounds from those 8 melta shots.
It seems like the best solution is to solve the problem at the listbuilding level by making sure I don't concentrate >160pts in any one model. If anyone else has any ideas for dealing with a threat that reliable, I'm pretty dang interested in hearing it.
Also if you've got thoughts on how to take out models that can only take a certain number of wounds per phase with an army that doesn't have psykers and primarily does damage in either shooting or fighting, I'd love to hear that too.
I will say the Necron effect is likely going to be negligible. We just didn't have really good anti-tank once it was stripped away from our Gauss weapons. Our updated profiles and new stuff just brings us more in line with what we should have since the gauss change.
I will say the Necron effect is likely going to be negligible. We just didn't have really good anti-tank once it was stripped away from our Gauss weapons. Our updated profiles and new stuff just brings us more in line with what we should have since the gauss change.
I would say it will most likely bring Necrons into what going forward will be the "new normal" for damage put out by dedicated anti-tank units.
My question is mostly: It seems like a whole heck of a lot, in terms of damage, and I don't know why I would bring big stuff to the table in light of the output generated by some of this stuff.
If it helps, talk about Sisters Retributors: We know exactly what their rules are going to be with the release of the new marine dex, their point cost, their power level, and their access to strats and traits and auras and whatever. There's no 'well we dont know what x and y and z are going to cost, well we don't have the full profile with all the special rules'
How do you avoid deep-strikeable 8-shot 24" range suicide melta with the new melta damage rule?
Heavy destroyer is 70 pts model(assuming codex doesn't up it). Has about 50% chance of whiffing if enemy has no inv save. So you average about 3 dam per heavy destoyer.
As for how to avoid. Don"t deploy tanks to edges, have screens. Have unit about 3" from vehicle toward table edge. No melta range even for multi melta. Screens are needed for various reasons anyway
Imagine we got a light vehicle heavy meta, who saw that coming? There are already signs with the ork buggy lists using about 20 small vehicles. A cynic would say that's a big money maker for GW...
Kitane wrote: I have no idea what to do with my Nid monsters against this escalation. They will just evaporate when something looks in their direction.
And I don't think the mid-sized 3W 4+ elites will fare much better. They have no answer to the elite-hunting meta either.
Granted, this isn't an ideal situation to be in, but one possibility to consider - try keeping your big bugs off the table in Strategic Reserves and give your other units a shot at taking out or otherwise tying up some of the threats first.
Or, go full zerg rush and take lots of cheaper monster spam (lots of Warriors, default loadout Carnifexes etc) to give your opponent too much target saturation, so that *something* will get through. That's a lot riskier in my eyes, though.
First off dedicated anti-tank was to unreliable previously, D6 damage is complete garbage so anti tank weapons being more reliable to actually deal meaningful damage to a tank is not a bad thing.
But this can mean that the new and improved anit-tank is now to effective and needs to have an increased point cost.
I don't think anybody said that. The problem isn't points values - you could raise the points and they'd still auto-delete anything they shoot at, with guaranteed alpha strike.
The basic problem is that the combination of outflank becoming universal, the smaller board size, and the drastically increased lethality adds up to something that's extremely unfriendly to anything except 1) units with good invulns, or 2) cheap stuff that you don't care if it gets blown off the table.
It feels like the universal outflank really wasn't thought out well in combination with the smaller board size. You either end up in a situation where someone can screen, in which case outflank is useless, or a situation where they can't screen, in which case certain units are essentially guaranteed to make their points back in a single turn of shooting with no option for the opponent but to take it.
I think the real solution is to do what they bizarrely didn't do when they reduced the table size by 25%, and reduce weapon ranges (and probably mobility abilities) by a similar amount.
If MMs had 18" range instead of 24", for example, melta range would be 9", meaning you couldn't outflank into it period, and also making it possible to position in places that can't be easily hit from an outflank in the first place. How does it make any sense that units can lurk just outside the table range and be totally invulnerable, but in such a way that they can hit any point on the table with 24" range weaponry the turn they come in? When standard range small arms fire can hit any point on the table the first turn the unit enters the battle, you've done something pretty weird to your game design.
That said, the obvious time to do this was at the start of the edition, and they pointedly didn't do so. So I think it's safe to say they don't think it's a problem to have this outflank meta where you can hit anywhere on the table T2 with units that make their points back from range in the same turn they come in.
Necrons were one of the most underpowered factions in the game and everything we've seen so far merely brings them into parity with the median. Oh and the new Heavy Destroyer is pants - unless it becomes much cheaper.
As far as Marines go, well they've been broken for a year now so what else is new
The other potential solution, which I just thought of now, is to require the person outflanking a unit to declare what board edge it is outflanking on, without the option to declare the opponent's edge. On T2, it can come in on that edge, or the player can declare the unit is moving to an adjacent board edge instead, where it will come in on T3.
This dramatically changes the opponent's ability to adapt, because they know which side the flankers are coming from. That 24" MM range can actually be played around now, because it's 24" from one edge, not from 3 edges. 48" range suddenly means something again, because it means *those* weapons can hit any point.
Wouldn't it be great to have a game where weapon range actually mattered for heavy weapons, instead of having everything able to hit basically everything? The 42nd millenium sure is a weird place - everybody stands around within easy range of each other's guns, but nobody can actually shoot until someone shoots off the pistol to let you know the battle has begun!
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't think anybody said that. The problem isn't points values - you could raise the points and they'd still auto-delete anything they shoot at, with guaranteed alpha strike.
The basic problem is that the combination of outflank becoming universal, the smaller board size, and the drastically increased lethality adds up to something that's extremely unfriendly to anything except 1) units with good invulns, or 2) cheap stuff that you don't care if it gets blown off the table.
It feels like the universal outflank really wasn't thought out well in combination with the smaller board size. You either end up in a situation where someone can screen, in which case outflank is useless, or a situation where they can't screen, in which case certain units are essentially guaranteed to make their points back in a single turn of shooting with no option for the opponent but to take it.
I think the real solution is to do what they bizarrely didn't do when they reduced the table size by 25%, and reduce weapon ranges (and probably mobility abilities) by a similar amount.
If MMs had 18" range instead of 24", for example, melta range would be 9", meaning you couldn't outflank into it period, and also making it possible to position in places that can't be easily hit from an outflank in the first place. How does it make any sense that units can lurk just outside the table range and be totally invulnerable, but in such a way that they can hit any point on the table with 24" range weaponry the turn they come in? When standard range small arms fire can hit any point on the table the first turn the unit enters the battle, you've done something pretty weird to your game design.
That said, the obvious time to do this was at the start of the edition, and they pointedly didn't do so. So I think it's safe to say they don't think it's a problem to have this outflank meta where you can hit anywhere on the table T2 with units that make their points back from range in the same turn they come in.
I think GW just should have made those tables sizes that absolute minimum size the table can be (which is still likely to have issues) for a set amount of points instead making it the recommend table size. That way it would be less of an issue.
onto the original topic, GW I think mostly wants 40k to be infantry focused, with tanks being an occasional supporting unit. things like core rules enchouraging the use of infantry, while ensuring devestator squads and their equivilants have the tools to deal with tanks. IMHO the most valuable tanks will be the ones that play a role no infantry unit can reasonably duplicate, the Lemen russ will remain a staple of guard lists. but you'll likely not see a ton of tanks in marine lists. (and I suspect those we do see may end up as mostly distraction carnifexes)
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: I think GW just should have made those tables sizes that absolute minimum size the table can be (which is still likely to have issues) for a set amount of points instead making it the recommend table size. That way it would be less of an issue.
I think GW should have not made any sort of table-size recommendations at all, especially when their recommendations just boil down to Buy All Our Playsets & Toys™.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: I think GW just should have made those tables sizes that absolute minimum size the table can be (which is still likely to have issues) for a set amount of points instead making it the recommend table size. That way it would be less of an issue.
I think GW should have not made any sort of table-size recommendations at all, especially when their recommendations just boil down to Buy All Our Playsets & Toys™.
problem with that HMBC is you'd be fine with that, and I'd be fine with that, but little timmy whose just starting out might need some sort of guidance onbare minimum play space
Honest question: Has GW ever put recommended board sizes in the 40K rulebooks in the past? Did 8th have it? 7th? 6th was replaced before the ink was dry so forget that. 5th?
alextroy wrote: Reminds me of when the MFM points were first revealed:
Multimeltas are more expensive than Lascannons. Has GW lost their minds? Lascannons are so much better.
Now it is:
Multimeltas are so deadly. Has GW lost their minds? They need to go up in points.
If gw aren't amateur fools mm will go up. Any half decent game developer puts price on what abilities cost NOW rather than couple months later. If prices don't go up with buffs final nail in coffin for gw's reputation as professionals
I think GW just should have made those tables sizes that absolute minimum size the table can be (which is still likely to have issues) for a set amount of points instead making it the recommend table size. That way it would be less of an issue.
Funny that. They ARE minimum and not recommended. And by very definition of word it's thus not optimal.
It's players who jumped to bandwagon of it's mandatory because itc decided it's good way to get more profits for themselves
I guess it depends on points costs. In 6th and 7th Edition being a vehicle meant the unit was extremely easy to kill and had a lot of restrictions to its shooting and movement compared to any other unit. Nevertheless people brought some, either because transports were necessary or, and that's what could happen in 9th again, because they were extremely cheap. A Rhino was cheaper than a Plague Marine with Plasma gun. In fact at one point a Rhino was 0points for Space Marines.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Honest question: Has GW ever put recommended board sizes in the 40K rulebooks in the past? Did 8th have it? 7th? 6th was replaced before the ink was dry so forget that. 5th?
6th did in fact. But it was in the scenarios (most of them anyway). 'This mission is intended to be played on a battlefield that is 6'x4', although you should adapt the size accordingly if you are using very large or small forces'
8th said 'We typically assume a battlefield is 6'x4' (but yadda yada larger armies) (p186). The six deployment possibilities also assume 6x4, but you have to count the grid squares and compare it to the few areas with measurements.
Rogue Trader puts it as 'Six feet by four feet is a fair size; larger tables are difficult to reach across properly. Many gamers (including the author on occasions) improvise by using the dining room table.'
I'd have to dig for any other editions, bar 7th, where I assume its either exactly the same as 6th or in the handful of pages of errata that they bothered to do to make 6.25 edition 'different enough' for the sake of reselling it.
----
But yes, GW recommended board sizes, all the way back to the beginning.
The furor here is apparently GW is wrong for giving people multiple options rather than just stating what was best and moving on, leaving folks to figure out alternatives that might suit them better on their own.
Honestly I keep wondering this as well. Like for all of 8th everyone has been expected to be able to quickly kill a knight, and now they’ve made it easier for absolutely everyone to do that. Like why would I expect any vehicle I have to survive if damage profiles are starting to say things like D3+6? And saying “just put things in strategic reserve” sounds like a step away from “if you don’t use a unit, it can’t get shot”.
Kitane wrote: I have no idea what to do with my Nid monsters against this escalation. They will just evaporate when something looks in their direction.
And I don't think the mid-sized 3W 4+ elites will fare much better. They have no answer to the elite-hunting meta either.
I don't understand why they don't give Tyranids a blanket 5+ FNP army wide to represent just how brutal and unforgiving they are. When you read stories about Tyranid assaults, they're always taking massive amounts of damage before going down. And while on the subject, wouldn't it be neat if Tyranids had the opposite affect of other armies, the more wounds their monsters take, the faster and harder hitting they become, like a trapped animal lashing out at its predator?
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: I think GW just should have made those tables sizes that absolute minimum size the table can be (which is still likely to have issues) for a set amount of points instead making it the recommend table size. That way it would be less of an issue.
I think GW should have not made any sort of table-size recommendations at all, especially when their recommendations just boil down to Buy All Our Playsets & Toys™.
problem with that HMBC is you'd be fine with that, and I'd be fine with that, but little timmy whose just starting out might need some sort of guidance onbare minimum play space
If little Timmy is smart enough to play 40k, then little Timmy is smart enough to figure out a decent table size on his own. If he can't? Then he's not ready for 40k.
If it helps, talk about Sisters Retributors: We know exactly what their rules are going to be with the release of the new marine dex, their point cost, their power level, and their access to strats and traits and auras and whatever. There's no 'well we dont know what x and y and z are going to cost, well we don't have the full profile with all the special rules'
How do you avoid deep-strikeable 8-shot 24" range suicide melta with the new melta damage rule?
Yeah, we know that but at the moment those retributors are very meh, they need the boost. Adepta Sororitas have Seraphims which can deepstrike and fire 8 melta and 2 plasma shots for 100 points and 1 CP. Lower range than multimelta but they're also way cheaper than retributors (and they don't compete with them in taking precious heavy support slots) and yet no one consider that combo OP.
Retributors with multimelta will be fine, not OP. Maybe Immolators will become viable thanks to the melta boost, which is also a good thing.
the_scotsman wrote: If it helps, talk about Sisters Retributors: We know exactly what their rules are going to be with the release of the new marine dex, their point cost, their power level, and their access to strats and traits and auras and whatever. There's no 'well we dont know what x and y and z are going to cost, well we don't have the full profile with all the special rules'
No. We do NOT know for sure point cost. We only know point cost if GW are totally incompetent fools. If they are even amateur game designer level the multi melta will go up when it gets buff. Point values in field manual should reflect abilities NOW. Not what it is in future.
the_scotsman wrote: If it helps, talk about Sisters Retributors: We know exactly what their rules are going to be with the release of the new marine dex, their point cost, their power level, and their access to strats and traits and auras and whatever. There's no 'well we dont know what x and y and z are going to cost, well we don't have the full profile with all the special rules'
No. We do NOT know for sure point cost. We only know point cost if GW are totally incompetent fools. If they are even amateur game designer level the multi melta will go up when it gets buff. Point values in field manual should reflect abilities NOW. Not what it is in future.
Yeah, the multimelta should be around 35 points under the new rules, but I doubt that GW will update the costs.
Though, if the first leaks are to be believed, the thunder hammer cost is being adjusted, so we could see that too for other weapons.
a_typical_hero wrote: _Maybe_ anti tank units are becoming so efficient so we have to take less in each list to make room for units to deal with horde armies.
As much as I like to see a good reasoning behind it, I doubt GW does have this kind of foresight to their own rules.
Kitane wrote: I have no idea what to do with my Nid monsters against this escalation. They will just evaporate when something looks in their direction.
And I don't think the mid-sized 3W 4+ elites will fare much better. They have no answer to the elite-hunting meta either.
I don't understand why they don't give Tyranids a blanket 5+ FNP army wide to represent just how brutal and unforgiving they are. When you read stories about Tyranid assaults, they're always taking massive amounts of damage before going down. And while on the subject, wouldn't it be neat if Tyranids had the opposite affect of other armies, the more wounds their monsters take, the faster and harder hitting they become, like a trapped animal lashing out at its predator?
There's a Hellforged Land Raider (the Achilles) that starts at WS 5+ and BS 3+, and trades those on brackets as it loses wounds, and that's pretty close to that.
Maybe leave the Weapon Skill at 4+ not affected by brackets; it loses ballistic skill as it becomes blinded by rage, but increases in Attacks and Move as it frenzies.
Yeah, the multimelta should be around 35 points under the new rules, but I doubt that GW will update the costs.
Though, if the first leaks are to be believed, the thunder hammer cost is being adjusted, so we could see that too for other weapons.
A lascannon is 15 and nobody says it's overpowered/undercosted. Aren't two lascannons comparable if not better than a single multi-melta? +1S, twice the range, split fire but +1AP and no melta bonus. Sounds like there is no competition to me.
I'd price a new multimelta 20 points for infantry and 25 for vehicles. Oh wait, it's exactly how they are priced now! The current multimelta does definitely not worth 20/25 points.
Again it's not the profile that screams OP, it's the layer or rules and bonuses upon it. Multimelta's buff on sisters doesn't look horrible, I think they actually need it. On SM though? There has to be some compensation to balance their codex indeed and we have already seen a few nerfs for the poster guys.
Well, the answer to units that can destroy tanks with ease is bringing many MSU units to the battle field.
Then the high damage weapons will be largely wasted.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, the answer to units that can destroy tanks with ease is bringing many MSU units to the battle field.
Then the high damage weapons will be largely wasted.
That's fine. I don't mind overkilling things. If I could arm every model in a squad with a melta, guess what I'd do?
You see waste, I see near assured destruction of target.....
Yeah, the multimelta should be around 35 points under the new rules, but I doubt that GW will update the costs.
Though, if the first leaks are to be believed, the thunder hammer cost is being adjusted, so we could see that too for other weapons.
A lascannon is 15 and nobody says it's overpowered/undercosted. Aren't two lascannons comparable if not better than a single multi-melta? +1S, twice the range, split fire but +1AP and no melta bonus. Sounds like there is no competition to me.
I'd price a new multimelta 20 points for infantry and 25 for vehicles. Oh wait, it's exactly how they are priced now! The current multimelta does definitely not worth 20/25 points.
Again it's not the profile that screams OP, it's the layer or rules and bonuses upon it. Multimelta's buff on sisters doesn't look horrible, I think they actually need it. On SM though? There has to be some compensation to balance their codex indeed and we have already seen a few nerfs for the poster guys.
A lascannon is 20 points (SM - Vehicle). A multimelta is indeed slightly worse than a twin-lascannon, so 35 points (SM- Vehicle) is its correct point level. 25 could be fine SM-Infantry, even if a bit cheap. I would prefer 30 though because infantry is more likely to enter melta range, so a multimelta and a lascannon shots become equal.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, the answer to units that can destroy tanks with ease is bringing many MSU units to the battle field.
Then the high damage weapons will be largely wasted.
That's fine. I don't mind overkilling things. If I could arm every model in a squad with a melta, guess what I'd do?
You see waste, I see near assured destruction of target.....
except from a points POV melta's are a horriably inefficant weapon. if you're taking a melta and I'm taking heavy bolters and we each run infantry heavy lists, I'm proably gonna win
Blackie wrote: A lascannon is 15 and nobody says it's overpowered/undercosted. Aren't two lascannons comparable if not better than a single multi-melta? +1S, twice the range, split fire but +1AP and no melta bonus. Sounds like there is no competition to me.
I think on current rules, two lascannons is superior to an MM solely when shooting a Knight (T8, 5++) at greater than 12" range (or whatever you can buff it too). In half range the MM is still expected to do 17% more damage.
Against T7/3+, the MM does 88% more damage than two lascannons when in half range. I.E an MM's expected damage output in 12" isn't too far off 4 lascannons versus these targets. Which feels a bit crazy good.
The solution seems fairly obvious - a major increase in vehicle wounds. But quite why GW has started this arms race is unclear.
It isn't very different than the current points costs though.
Multi melta is 20 for infantries and 25 for vehicles which looks appropriate for the new profile. It's probably some of the platforms that are too cheap.
Twin Multimelta is 50 points, which also sound fair and quite expensive.
An Immolator with twin multimelta and heavy bolter is 145 points and doesn't look underpriced/overpowered at all, assuming it doesn't change its points cost and its multimeltas get the new profile. At the moment that vehicle is close to trash.
Against T7/3+, the MM does 88% more damage than two lascannons when in half range. I.E an MM's expected damage output in 12" isn't too far off 4 lascannons versus these targets. Which feels a bit crazy good.
Firing from 48'' instead of 12'' is a huge bonus though. No need to start in reserve to get closer and no suicide unit role. A multimelta unit can't even fire most of the times in turn 1 if it starts on the board, unless maybe towards some expendable enemy unit.
The problem seems to stem from GW updating the MFM 2020 with the points costs for weapons from the codex's while guess what no-one is getting their new weapons.
All I can say is this basically confirms playing any xeno codex is pretty much a waste of time, they're paying points for stats they don't have great work GW.
alextroy wrote: Reminds me of when the MFM points were first revealed:
Multimeltas are more expensive than Lascannons. Has GW lost their minds? Lascannons are so much better.
Now it is:
Multimeltas are so deadly. Has GW lost their minds? They need to go up in points.
They literally doubled MM's damage output. So, yeah, before they revealed that, the rules change looked like a strange hard nerf, when they revealed it, it looked like it isn't enough. But mostly because marines marry meltas with just an unreasonable amount of buffs and delivery options.
alextroy wrote: Reminds me of when the MFM points were first revealed:
Multimeltas are more expensive than Lascannons. Has GW lost their minds? Lascannons are so much better.
Now it is:
Multimeltas are so deadly. Has GW lost their minds? They need to go up in points.
They literally doubled MM's damage output. So, yeah, before they revealed that, the rules change looked like a strange hard nerf, when they revealed it, it looked like it isn't enough. But mostly because marines marry meltas with just an unreasonable amount of buffs and delivery options.
Cynista wrote: Necrons were one of the most underpowered factions in the game and everything we've seen so far merely brings them into parity with the median. Oh and the new Heavy Destroyer is pants - unless it becomes much cheaper.
As far as Marines go, well they've been broken for a year now so what else is new
They're looking quite a bit better than median. whether this will persists (and it usually doesn't for the first few books out in an edition) is to be seen, but Necrons are getting the changes that no one other than marines are for the shape of the game into the future, and are flat better at putting damage out than anyone but marines and maybe sisters who are piggybacking off marines and this is going to create a big divide between new edition codexes and old edition codexes.
BrianDavion wrote: onto the original topic, GW I think mostly wants 40k to be infantry focused, with tanks being an occasional supporting unit. things like core rules enchouraging the use of infantry, while ensuring devestator squads and their equivilants have the tools to deal with tanks. IMHO the most valuable tanks will be the ones that play a role no infantry unit can reasonably duplicate, the Lemen russ will remain a staple of guard lists. but you'll likely not see a ton of tanks in marine lists. (and I suspect those we do see may end up as mostly distraction carnifexes)
\\
This does bother me somewhat because, per fluff, marines should really be moving around mechanized (or doing a drop pod assault, but that's not coming back) and hyper mobile and it's a bummer if every marine list is gonna ditch all the tools that makes them work like how they should.
If it helps, talk about Sisters Retributors: We know exactly what their rules are going to be with the release of the new marine dex, their point cost, their power level, and their access to strats and traits and auras and whatever. There's no 'well we dont know what x and y and z are going to cost, well we don't have the full profile with all the special rules'
How do you avoid deep-strikeable 8-shot 24" range suicide melta with the new melta damage rule?
Yeah, we know that but at the moment those retributors are very meh, they need the boost. Adepta Sororitas have Seraphims which can deepstrike and fire 8 melta and 2 plasma shots for 100 points and 1 CP. Lower range than multimelta but they're also way cheaper than retributors (and they don't compete with them in taking precious heavy support slots) and yet no one consider that combo OP.
Retributors with multimelta will be fine, not OP. Maybe Immolators will become viable thanks to the melta boost, which is also a good thing.
Um.
How? IIRC you can only get 4 inferno pistols in a unit, and once you have 4 inferno pistols and 2 plasma pistols you're at over 100pts...
How? IIRC you can only get 4 inferno pistols in a unit, and once you have 4 inferno pistols and 2 plasma pistols you're at over 100pts...
You can have a 5 woman squad with 2x2 Inferno pistols and 1 plasma pistol on the Sister Superior for 100.
You then spend one CP to shoot when they land from DS, so you end up with 8 fusion shots and 2 plasma shots in a round.
How? IIRC you can only get 4 inferno pistols in a unit, and once you have 4 inferno pistols and 2 plasma pistols you're at over 100pts...
You can have a 5 woman squad with 2x2 Inferno pistols and 1 plasma pistol on the Sister Superior for 100.
You then spend one CP to shoot when they land from DS, so you end up with 8 fusion shots and 2 plasma shots in a round.
I think the part where you're confused here is 2x2 = 8?
How? IIRC you can only get 4 inferno pistols in a unit, and once you have 4 inferno pistols and 2 plasma pistols you're at over 100pts...
You can have a 5 woman squad with 2x2 Inferno pistols and 1 plasma pistol on the Sister Superior for 100.
You then spend one CP to shoot when they land from DS, so you end up with 8 fusion shots and 2 plasma shots in a round.
I think the part where you're confused here is 2x2 = 8?
I think you missed the part where it's explained how they shot 2 times. One time after DSing, another time during the shooting phase.
So 2x2 + 2x2 = 8, yup.
How? IIRC you can only get 4 inferno pistols in a unit, and once you have 4 inferno pistols and 2 plasma pistols you're at over 100pts...
You can have a 5 woman squad with 2x2 Inferno pistols and 1 plasma pistol on the Sister Superior for 100.
You then spend one CP to shoot when they land from DS, so you end up with 8 fusion shots and 2 plasma shots in a round.
I think the part where you're confused here is 2x2 = 8?
I think you missed the part where it's explained how they shot 2 times. One time after DSing, another time during the shooting phase.
So 2x2 + 2x2 = 8, yup.
the strat only ups the range temporarily, and they don't get melta range which is now a much bigger deal.
All that is the reason I'm shelving my favorite army, Chaos Knights. I had a decent run with them. But I think until my Codex drops I'm just gonna run my WE, even though they're not really any better off.
I wonder if we'll see a return of the armoured ceramite rule for some vehicles to mitigate the new melta rules. It was always an auto-take for me in 7th for my Fellblade and Sicaran. That said even without that I'm hoping even more that the Legion super heavys get fair prices in the Imperial Armour Compendium, T9 2+ is one of the best defensive stat lines against things like eradicators right now, along with the Achilles T8 2+ 4++. Most other vehicles are in trouble.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I wonder if we'll see a return of the armoured ceramite rule for some vehicles to mitigate the new melta rules. It was always an auto-take for me in 7th for my Fellblade and Sicaran. That said even without that I'm hoping even more that the Legion super heavys get fair prices in the Imperial Armour Compendium, T9 2+ is one of the best defensive stat lines against things like eradicators right now, along with the Achilles T8 2+ 4++. Most other vehicles are in trouble.
Im worried Levis are gonna get a big hit in the compendium...mostly because I just bought one
Gadzilla666 wrote: I wonder if we'll see a return of the armoured ceramite rule for some vehicles to mitigate the new melta rules. It was always an auto-take for me in 7th for my Fellblade and Sicaran. That said even without that I'm hoping even more that the Legion super heavys get fair prices in the Imperial Armour Compendium, T9 2+ is one of the best defensive stat lines against things like eradicators right now, along with the Achilles T8 2+ 4++. Most other vehicles are in trouble.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I wonder if we'll see a return of the armoured ceramite rule for some vehicles to mitigate the new melta rules. It was always an auto-take for me in 7th for my Fellblade and Sicaran. That said even without that I'm hoping even more that the Legion super heavys get fair prices in the Imperial Armour Compendium, T9 2+ is one of the best defensive stat lines against things like eradicators right now, along with the Achilles T8 2+ 4++. Most other vehicles are in trouble.
what did armored ceramite do?
Countered the melta bonus, instead of having 2D6AP in half range they only got D6.
The equivalent qould be you only get D6 damage per wound regardless. (Though at this point I'm not sure just making it turn it from D6 to D3 might not be better served if your trying to keep vehicals viable).
Gadzilla666 wrote: I wonder if we'll see a return of the armoured ceramite rule for some vehicles to mitigate the new melta rules. It was always an auto-take for me in 7th for my Fellblade and Sicaran. That said even without that I'm hoping even more that the Legion super heavys get fair prices in the Imperial Armour Compendium, T9 2+ is one of the best defensive stat lines against things like eradicators right now, along with the Achilles T8 2+ 4++. Most other vehicles are in trouble.
what did armored ceramite do?
Countered the melta bonus, instead of having 2D6AP in half range they only got D6.
The equivalent qould be you only get D6 damage per wound regardless. (Though at this point I'm not sure just making it turn it from D6 to D3 might not be better served if your trying to keep vehicals viable).
that would be a nice buff, but it would be pretty hard to word and future-proof unless GW finally gives weapons keywords.
RIght now it would be "when targeted by a melta/fusion/heatlande/etc, weapon from within half its range ....".
Blackie wrote: A lascannon is 15 and nobody says it's overpowered/undercosted. Aren't two lascannons comparable if not better than a single multi-melta? +1S, twice the range, split fire but +1AP and no melta bonus. Sounds like there is no competition to me.
I'd price a new multimelta 20 points for infantry and 25 for vehicles.
Lascannons are 20 for Marines.
Doing a comparison between one multi-melta to two lascannons, deciding that they're pretty comparable, and concluding that a multi-melta should cost the same as one lascannon is a really bizarre take. Even for armies like Guard where lascannons are 15, getting roughly double the firepower, at lower range but even more powerful if you can get in close, all for just a 33% premium, seems like a steal.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Honest question: Has GW ever put recommended board sizes in the 40K rulebooks in the past? Did 8th have it? 7th? 6th was replaced before the ink was dry so forget that. 5th?
Honest answer(s): Yes, yes, maybe? but ok fine skip it, yes
I'll post more in a separate thread because I imagine this is verging off topic.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I wonder if we'll see a return of the armoured ceramite rule for some vehicles to mitigate the new melta rules. It was always an auto-take for me in 7th for my Fellblade and Sicaran. That said even without that I'm hoping even more that the Legion super heavys get fair prices in the Imperial Armour Compendium, T9 2+ is one of the best defensive stat lines against things like eradicators right now, along with the Achilles T8 2+ 4++. Most other vehicles are in trouble.
what did armored ceramite do?
Countered the melta bonus, instead of having 2D6AP in half range they only got D6.
The equivalent qould be you only get D6 damage per wound regardless. (Though at this point I'm not sure just making it turn it from D6 to D3 might not be better served if your trying to keep vehicals viable).
that would be a nice buff, but it would be pretty hard to word and future-proof unless GW finally gives weapons keywords.
RIght now it would be "when targeted by a melta/fusion/heatlande/etc, weapon from within half its range ....".
"Any time this unit is successfully wounded treat all damage as if that weapon was fired at its maximum range ". Something like that, though it would make conversion beamers great against them. I really hate that we don't have USRs anymore.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I wonder if we'll see a return of the armoured ceramite rule for some vehicles to mitigate the new melta rules. It was always an auto-take for me in 7th for my Fellblade and Sicaran. That said even without that I'm hoping even more that the Legion super heavys get fair prices in the Imperial Armour Compendium, T9 2+ is one of the best defensive stat lines against things like eradicators right now, along with the Achilles T8 2+ 4++. Most other vehicles are in trouble.
what did armored ceramite do?
Countered the melta bonus, instead of having 2D6AP in half range they only got D6.
The equivalent qould be you only get D6 damage per wound regardless. (Though at this point I'm not sure just making it turn it from D6 to D3 might not be better served if your trying to keep vehicals viable).
that would be a nice buff, but it would be pretty hard to word and future-proof unless GW finally gives weapons keywords.
RIght now it would be "when targeted by a melta/fusion/heatlande/etc, weapon from within half its range ....".
"Any time this unit is successfully wounded treat all damage as if that weapon was fired at its maximum range ". Something like that, though it would make conversion beamers great against them. I really hate that we don't have USRs anymore.
Eh, i'd take a buff on them considering how bad they are with 9th edition's ruleset.
Tons of valid arguments and points. And I actualy enjoy seeing the debate and theories. Just adding what I haven't seen that applies to most of these threads, from the cynical viewpoint I have for GW.
GWwants the game over by turn 2-3 at most. They want tanks deleted. They want the game sped up to draw in the CCG and video game crowd that is used to half hour games over and over and over.
They may say differently, but they have constantly upgraded lethality in the game, thus adding model count (and the buy the latest because has the best rules thing) and speeding the game up. Any form of appear and destroy falls under this category. As many many have pointed out, it is not simple to design a balanced game with this many variables...but they aren't even trying.
Now, to some extent, you can even this out, as going 2nd may be the thing with this, since it lets your auto-delete units appear after the opponent's. How this influences VP's is more complex, but the rules letting you take your turns after eliminating the opponent seem to have put "table as fast as you can" back into the game.
Do I agree with this? No. Does that change anything GW seems to be doing? No.
They're 20 for Marine vehicles. They're 15 for Marine infantry units.
My bad. Forgot that distinction.
Still, 5pts to get twice the shots, losing a point of S but gaining a point of AP, losing some max range but getting bonus damage up close, seems like a no-brainer. And it makes removing big expensive vehicles very doable for comparatively much cheaper, potentially sacrificial anti-tank units.
If they're actually going to 25/30 compared to lascannons at 15/20, then that might at least be a bit more of a decision; but I don't think that's very likely.
The MM points cost only makes sense if it's the new points cost for the new stats. It's undercosted at the new points cost by ~5ish points, but the alternative is GW is literally crazy to have priced them higher than a lascannon at their current stats.
Again, the basic problem is the 24" range - what is supposed to be the weakness of the weapon - is not much of a minus any more on the new board sizes with universal outflank. If you couldn't outflank into guaranteed range of anything anywhere on the table, that range would actually be a relevant factor and explain the pointing.
I think GW thinks MMs really are worth 20/25 points at the new stats because they haven't realized they've made the range statistic obsolete.
Blackie wrote: A lascannon is 15 and nobody says it's overpowered/undercosted. Aren't two lascannons comparable if not better than a single multi-melta? +1S, twice the range, split fire but +1AP and no melta bonus. Sounds like there is no competition to me.
I'd price a new multimelta 20 points for infantry and 25 for vehicles.
Lascannons are 20 for Marines.
Doing a comparison between one multi-melta to two lascannons, deciding that they're pretty comparable, and concluding that a multi-melta should cost the same as one lascannon is a really bizarre take. Even for armies like Guard where lascannons are 15, getting roughly double the firepower, at lower range but even more powerful if you can get in close, all for just a 33% premium, seems like a steal.
15 for infantries. I was comparing 2 lascannons vs a multimelta because another poster suggested that multimeltas should be 35, which means more than two lascannons. And I argued that IMHO it'd be too much because two lascannons for 30 points (which no-one considers OP) are better than a new improved multimelta at 35.
If they're actually going to 25/30 compared to lascannons at 15/20, then that might at least be a bit more of a decision; but I don't think that's very likely.
It depends on the platform actually. I'd give lascannons over multimeltas anytime to devastators for example. Melta units are suicide squads typically, sometimes firing 2-3 turns is better than having an improved damage output for a turn and then vanish.
If anything it's the ability to deepstrike and outflank everything that should be nerfed badly.
P.S. A 150 point retributor squad actually gets 12 melta shots on the turn it comes in from reserves - 8 from the 4 guys, plus another 4 from the armorium cherubs, which allow you to fire a gun a second time. Since the MM will have 2 shots, that's an extra 2 shots per cherub.
8 on each turn after that, but they're going to be dead by then anyway, so it probably doesn't matter. And those last 4 shots can be declared after you resolve the first 8, which is actually super powerful and makes splitting fire much safer.
And you can split those 12 shots at up to 6 different targets if you want, and you can boost the range to 36" and add 1 damage (meaning D6+3 damage at under 18") for 2CP if you need to. And you can use a miracle dice on the damage roll (two if you pay for another sister, but I don't think that's worth it) to get an almost guaranteed 6+ damage hit if you need it.
They're like eradicators turned up to 13 - ~twice the damage potential, but with absurd squishiness.
edwardmyst wrote: Tons of valid arguments and points. And I actualy enjoy seeing the debate and theories. Just adding what I haven't seen that applies to most of these threads, from the cynical viewpoint I have for GW.
GWwants the game over by turn 2-3 at most. They want tanks deleted. They want the game sped up to draw in the CCG and video game crowd that is used to half hour games over and over and over.
They may say differently, but they have constantly upgraded lethality in the game, thus adding model count (and the buy the latest because has the best rules thing) and speeding the game up. Any form of appear and destroy falls under this category. As many many have pointed out, it is not simple to design a balanced game with this many variables...but they aren't even trying.
Now, to some extent, you can even this out, as going 2nd may be the thing with this, since it lets your auto-delete units appear after the opponent's. How this influences VP's is more complex, but the rules letting you take your turns after eliminating the opponent seem to have put "table as fast as you can" back into the game.
Do I agree with this? No. Does that change anything GW seems to be doing? No.
That makes a certain amount of sense, but at the same time rerolls and the consistent increase in army sizes suggests the opposite. Even with Aggressors just hosing them off the table setting up and packing away 120+ Daemonettes is going to take a while.
yukishiro1 wrote: P.S. A 150 point retributor squad actually gets 12 melta shots on the turn it comes in from reserves - 8 from the 4 guys, plus another 4 from the armorium cherubs, which allow you to fire a gun a second time. Since the MM will have 2 shots, that's an extra 2 shots per cherub.
8 on each turn after that, but they're going to be dead by then anyway, so it probably doesn't matter. And those last 4 shots can be declared after you resolve the first 8, which is actually super powerful and makes splitting fire much safer.
And you can split those 12 shots at up to 6 different targets if you want, and you can boost the range to 36" and add 1 damage (meaning D6+3 damage at under 18") for 2CP if you need to. And you can use a miracle dice on the damage roll (two if you pay for another sister, but I don't think that's worth it) to get an almost guaranteed 6+ damage hit if you need it.
They're like eradicators turned up to 13 - ~twice the damage potential, but with absurd squishiness.
They are definitely going to get killed fast and easy for sure because at that point level im often thinking an exorcist in cover might be a better investment. I guess they could really be paired will with Immolators now that I think about it! Likelihood though is they will never get in half range of anything
For all those asking for a points hike......its still a meltagun at the end of the day. Last time I checked melta guns and MM weren't exactly lighting up the anti-tank spots in most lists outside of sisters (who have no choice). I think the short range will make a huge difference even when considering the smaller tables. In my opinion anti tank is still going to come down to melee, weight of fire, and versatile guns like plasma.
generalchaos34 wrote: Likelihood though is they will never get in half range of anything
I think you're neglecting the general utility of strategic reserves. If you want to guarantee that a unit will get to shoot, now you can do so.
So maybe your opponent screens well and you don't get within half range- oh well. 12 melta shots at BS3+ does an average of 14 wounds to a Leman Russ, overkilling it. Split up that fire and you're looking at an expected 200-240pts of damage.
That unit is making back 150% of its points cost in one volley under suboptimal conditions and there's basically nothing you can do to stop it. You can then wipe out the rest of the unit in your turn and too bad, they've already done their job.
In 8th you could make the argument that a glass hammer unit might get smashed before it can fight, but in 9th you have numerous ways to bring units onto the field and fire before the enemy can retaliate. If they can make back their cost in a single volley- and if such capabilities are available to a variety of armies- the game's going to start breaking down.
generalchaos34 wrote: Last time I checked melta guns and MM weren't exactly lighting up the anti-tank spots in most lists outside of sisters (who have no choice).
Doubled effectiveness, though.
I really don't understand the posts that essentially amount to saying they weren't that great before so surely they're not great now. I can think of plenty of currently-underperforming weapons and units that would swing right into 'broken' with double the shots.
They are definitely going to get killed fast and easy for sure because at that point level im often thinking an exorcist in cover might be a better investment. I guess they could really be paired will with Immolators now that I think about it! Likelihood though is they will never get in half range of anything
The whole point of my post was that they are guaranteed to get one round of shooting off thanks to strategic reserves, for the princely sum of 1CP. You can hit literally any point on the new board size from strategic reserves with a 24" range weapon, subject only to screening. That's the crux of the entire thread.
So maybe your opponent screens well and you don't get within half range- oh well. 12 melta shots at BS3+ does an average of 14 wounds to a Leman Russ, overkilling it. Split up that fire and you're looking at an expected 200-240pts of damage.
Yep, and then there's strat use, and miracle dice use. If you pop the strat and can get within 18" you're looking at average 26 damage to T8 3+ or 34 to T7 3+, with full ability to split and ability to fire 4 of those shots after the first 8, and the ability to boost one up to a likely 8 or 9 damage hit with a miracle dice. Up to 30 against T8 or 40 against T7 with a reroll 1s aura.
You can basically kill as many tanks as you can manage to get within 18" of.
yukishiro1 wrote: P.S. A 150 point retributor squad actually gets 12 melta shots on the turn it comes in from reserves - 8 from the 4 guys, plus another 4 from the armorium cherubs, which allow you to fire a gun a second time. Since the MM will have 2 shots, that's an extra 2 shots per cherub.
8 on each turn after that, but they're going to be dead by then anyway, so it probably doesn't matter. And those last 4 shots can be declared after you resolve the first 8, which is actually super powerful and makes splitting fire much safer.
And you can split those 12 shots at up to 6 different targets if you want, and you can boost the range to 36" and add 1 damage (meaning D6+3 damage at under 18") for 2CP if you need to. And you can use a miracle dice on the damage roll (two if you pay for another sister, but I don't think that's worth it) to get an almost guaranteed 6+ damage hit if you need it.
True, but at the moment those retributors are trash, they needed a significant boost. So does the Immolator.
It's a single suicide unit, that can't deepstrike but only outflank, for an army that doesn't have super efficient anti tank.
Avoiding the 12'' melta range for the most appropriate target(s) should be easy for the opponent. Getting retributors within melta range is not gonna happen typically.
That unit is making back 150% of its points cost in one volley under suboptimal conditions and there's basically nothing you can do to stop it. You can then wipe out the rest of the unit in your turn and too bad, they've already done their job.
True, but you need to look at the army as a whole, not only a single unit. Are Adepta Sororitas going to be overpowered because melta retributors became double killy? Anything else is irrelevant, every army has one or more units that typically get their points back every game.
It seems like the best solution is to solve the problem at the listbuilding level by making sure I don't concentrate >160pts in any one model. If anyone else has any ideas for dealing with a threat that reliable, I'm pretty dang interested in hearing it.
Also if you've got thoughts on how to take out models that can only take a certain number of wounds per phase with an army that doesn't have psykers and primarily does damage in either shooting or fighting, I'd love to hear that too.
Well does 160 points in one model matter against most of that compared to 160 points in 4 models? You're not talking about 1 shot 16 damage weapons, but 6 or so 2+ shot 2-3-4ish damage weapons. 12 shots/attacks doing 2-4 damage is going to do pretty much the same thing to 4x4 wounds as it will 1x16 wounds. Figure an Impulsor is 6x3 inches or so 18 square inch foot print. 5 30mm base Intercessors are about 20" of footprint plus coherence distance. For just a minute, imagine your get to put down one book with 16 wounds, or one slinky that can change shape with 16 wounds. A unit is a unit, doesn't matter THAT much if it's one book, or a slinky made up of 5 parts.
By the same token, I'd ask if there was a point before these changes either. The "trick" to taking vehicles is target saturation. Get yourself several so one or more will live. Except taking three Land Raiders is roughly half your army. Taking three Repulsor Executioners is more than half closer to . A lot of armies had trouble justifying a large tank or monster as it was before hand. Vehicles have been on life support ever since they got rid of Armor Value.
Vehicles have been on life support ever since they got rid of Armor Value.
Maybe it's true for Land Raiders. All my ork vehicles have been 200% to 500% tougher since 8th edition compared to the times when they had AV.
Rhinos and razorbacks have also gained a lot by jumping to T7 10W 3+ save.
Land Speeders went from AV 10 only glanced by bolters on a 6 to T5, wounded on 5+ Heavy Bolters wound on a 4+ vs Glancing on a 5, Penetrating on a 6.
Predators were what, AV 13 (front Armor)? Couldn't be touched by anything S6 or lower
Dreads were AV 12 S6 only scratched them on a 6, Now they're T7 and its 5+
Very few Vehicles are "tougher" now than they were with AV. Not only are the same guns more likely to hurt them, guns that couldn't even touch them before now can. Even if Whatever X number of wounds they have now approximates their hull point durability from way back when, they have far more guns chipping those wounds off than before.
Many vehicles were AV10 in the back, which means that a crappy unit of 10 trukk boyz could easily get those 3 glancings with their 36 attacks at S4 with choppas, before even getting to roll the power klaw attacks. Now the same squad can barely scratch the same tanks, even after rolling the power klaw attacks.
Those predators, speeders or dreads could get instant killed by a single anti tank shot. And there were less re-rolls, stratagems to buff damage, etc...
Killing a single vehicle with ork shooting is not guaranteed in 9th, let alone two or even more, while I always managed to do it in 7th despite the army was close to trash compared to the current state of orks.
In 7th edition litterally everyone could blow up 3 battlewagons in turn 1, now killing 2 is really hard to achieve. Same with SW, in 7th my 3 rhinos and the flyer died too easily, to the point that after a while I was bringing nothing but pods as the only vehicles in my lists, now it's usually one or two vehicles that go down in turn 1, sometimes even none!
Weapons that couldn't touch vehicles before are going to achieve very little damage now, while weapons that used to wreck vehicles like the were paper things need way more shots now.
Öhm, before 8th edition my and my opponents' vehicles used to die to plasma guns and power fists. These can hardly scratch the paint now. Problem is, vehicles also got much more expensive. In 6th and 7th a Rhino was 30points, just a little more expensive than a single marine - against many weapons it also died faster than a marine because it had no save at all. Now a Rhino is 80 points, actually pretty durable, but everybody runs as fast as a vehicle so you don't really need transports anymore Vehicles overall are in a much better position than in 6th and 7th, though, because they now have 8+ HP instead of 3 and they have an armor save instead of being auto-wounded.
Edit: The only vehicles that survived turn 1 in 6th and 7th edition were vehicles that ignored most vehicle rules
Vehicles have been on life support ever since they got rid of Armor Value.
Maybe it's true for Land Raiders. All my ork vehicles have been 200% to 500% tougher since 8th edition compared to the times when they had AV.
Rhinos and razorbacks have also gained a lot by jumping to T7 10W 3+ save.
Land Speeders went from AV 10 only glanced by bolters on a 6 to T5, wounded on 5+ Heavy Bolters wound on a 4+ vs Glancing on a 5, Penetrating on a 6.
Predators were what, AV 13 (front Armor)? Couldn't be touched by anything S6 or lower
Dreads were AV 12 S6 only scratched them on a 6, Now they're T7 and its 5+
Very few Vehicles are "tougher" now than they were with AV. Not only are the same guns more likely to hurt them, guns that couldn't even touch them before now can. Even if Whatever X number of wounds they have now approximates their hull point durability from way back when, they have far more guns chipping those wounds off than before.
7th edition Trukk Vs Bolters. AV10 and 3 HPs meant to kill a Trukk Space Marines needed 3 6s, which meant they needed 18 hits which is 27 shots. 8th Edition Trukk Vs Bolters. T6, 4+ save and 10 wounds. To get 10 damage the SM's need 20 wounds, to get 20 wounds they need 60 hits, to get 60 hits they need 90 shots.
Price for a trukk in 7th was 30pts but was usually taken with a ram so 35pts, cost SM's was 14pts I believe so in 7th to kill a Trukk a SM player needed 27 shots or equivalent to 27 Marines at 24' range or 14 at 12' range. 14 Marines at 14pts a model = 196pts to kill a Trukk. 1pt of Tactical Marines kills 0.178pts of a trukk
Price for a trukk in 8th was 65pts and in order to kill it tactical marines needed 90 shots which is equivalent to 35 Marines in Rapid fire or 70 not in rapid fire mode. 35 Marines = 420pts. So marines actually got cheaper in 8th but still took MORE points to kill a trukk even pt for pt, which is weird because the trukk actually doubled in price. 1Pt of tactical Marines kills 0.154pts o a trukk.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you want to add in the real ork killer for vehicles the math is significantly worse. in every edition prior to 8th I used Nobz with Powerklaws to kill vehicles. A single Nob with a PK was likely able to kill most vehicles due to the rules at the time which let him penetrate most vehicles on a 3. and with 2AP he was getting +1 to explode so it had a good chance of making a vehicle explode. Now? I don't usually add in the PK because its just a waste of points. 4s to hit and against most vehicles its 3s to wound, they get an armor save of 5+ usually and then it does D3 damage, since most vehicles have 8-12 wounds the likelyhood of killing a vehicle is slim to none.
Take Lootas, the typical ork units that was the answer to light/medium AV: 10 lootas before 8th were able to kill a rhino rolling averages, now they take 6-8W off of it.
A Manz missile with 3 dudes wrecked everything that was AV12 or 13 and was able to cause serious damage to AV4. Now they strip 25-50% of the wounds against the same targets at most.
A single lucky heavy bolter shot could blow up a trukk, now it takes 10 lucky shots from the same weapon to achieve the same result. With the new SM codex just 5 to be honest, but it's still a huge improvement from the old AV system.
Really it's just the land raider and a few other exceptions that were harder to kill before and some armies didn't have any problem against those AV14 boxes anyway. Armies that couldn't one shot a land raider before 8th still can't do it now.
The real problem with the lethality of 8th and vehicles is not the changes to vehicle stats but the ammount of bonus to wound and rerolls availible right now.
As people has shown, with the base stat changes vehicles have become much more resilient.
Galas wrote: The real problem with the lethality of 8th and vehicles is not the changes to vehicle stats but the ammount of bonus to wound and rerolls availible right now.
As people has shown, with the base stat changes vehicles have become much more resilient.
in fairness it wasn't hard to be more resliant then vehicles where in 6th and 7th edition.
So now that we know eradicators are even better than we thought they were, seems like it's only even more clear that vehicles aren't going to see much play. Hard to see why you'd ever take one of those gladiators when you could take 6 eradicators for the same price.
All dreadnoughts in the loyalists codex have Duty Eternal on all the time. So -1 to all incoming damage to a minimum of 1. Assuming equivalent units in other codexes (hellbrutes, wraithguard carnifexes, etc) get a similar rule, what does everyone think that does for their survivability?
Gadzilla666 wrote: All dreadnoughts in the loyalists codex have Duty Eternal on all the time. So -1 to all incoming damage to a minimum of 1. Assuming equivalent units in other codexes (hellbrutes, wraithguard carnifexes, etc) get a similar rule, what does everyone think that does for their survivability?
That only helps those codex's with a dreadnaught analog and only if GW don't avout face mid edition and we know that best case of 1 codex per month someone is going to be waiting untill november of next year for a codex.
The scope of changes has really rendered the game an unbalanced show.
Gadzilla666 wrote: All dreadnoughts in the loyalists codex have Duty Eternal on all the time. So -1 to all incoming damage to a minimum of 1. Assuming equivalent units in other codexes (hellbrutes, wraithguard carnifexes, etc) get a similar rule, what does everyone think that does for their survivability?
That only helps those codex's with a dreadnaught analog and only if GW don't avout face mid edition and we know that best case of 1 codex per month someone is going to be waiting untill november of next year for a codex.
The scope of changes has really rendered the game an unbalanced show.
Like i said, most balance issues and "arms race" feelings are owed to that.
And or when gw indeed decides to feth established edition rules design in favour of lololololololololol.
Blackie wrote: Really it's just the land raider and a few other exceptions that were harder to kill before and some armies didn't have any problem against those AV14 boxes anyway. Armies that couldn't one shot a land raider before 8th still can't do it now.
I can certainly believe that light armor has gotten a lot tougher. But heavy armor now gets hurt by a whole range of mid-strength weapons that AV13/14 used to be able to ignore or at worst be glanced on a 6.
My Leman Russes are threatened by massed Heavy Bolters, Autocannons, Disintegrators, Cyclic Ion Blasters, Plasma Guns (and Cannons), and even infantry weapons like Stalker Bolt Rifles.
Used to be that AV14 on my front arc meant that turn 1 I only needed to worry about big anti-tank weapons.
Even with those anti-tank weapons, used to be that you needed 9 lascannon hits to take out a Russ on hull points against front armor. Now it's just over 5.
You combine nearly halved resistance to dedicated AT with new vulnerability to a whole ton of common weapons, and tanks don't stick around nearly as long.
The real winners are light vehicles; heavies are only marginally tougher despite much higher cost.
Even with those anti-tank weapons, used to be that you needed 9 lascannon hits to take out a Russ on hull points against front armor. Now it's just over 5.
Even with those anti-tank weapons, used to be that you needed 9 lascannon hits to take out a Russ on hull points against front armor. Now it's just over 5.
Or a single shot killed you with no save.
8.3% chance it happens on the first damaging hit. 16% chance it happens in the first or second. 84% chance the vehicle dies from lost hull points, not premature explosion.
It can happen and I'm sure left a lasting impression when it did. But it's not very relevant to the averages; making the vehicle 92% as durable as if that possibility didn't exist.
So call it 8 lascannon hits, then. Still a lot tougher than under the current system.
Even with those anti-tank weapons, used to be that you needed 9 lascannon hits to take out a Russ on hull points against front armor. Now it's just over 5.
Or a single shot killed you with no save.
8.3% chance it happens on the first damaging hit. 16% chance it happens in the first or second. 84% chance the vehicle dies from lost hull points, not premature explosion.
It can happen and I'm sure left a lasting impression when it did. But it's not very relevant to the averages; making the vehicle 92% as durable as if that possibility didn't exist.
So call it 8 lascannon hits, then. Still a lot tougher than under the current system.
Big difference is that it could and did happen - you can't shoot one Lascanon at a undamaged vehicle in 8th/9th and see it explode, or be unable to shoot or move or both.
It's never just one lascannon, multi-meltas are now capable of instakilling tanks anyways, and instead of fishing for rare random weapon loss or immobilization you have predictable (and significant) degradation alongside normal damage.
Anyone who knows what they're doing plays to averages, not to possibilities. D6 damage is not better than 5 damage because yOu MiGhT rOlL a SiX. The single-shot destruction probability is borderline irrelevant to the game- certainly not nearly as significant as being nearly half as hard to kill on average, let alone vulnerability to weapons that wouldn't even scratch the paint before.
Blackie wrote: Really it's just the land raider and a few other exceptions that were harder to kill before and some armies didn't have any problem against those AV14 boxes anyway. Armies that couldn't one shot a land raider before 8th still can't do it now.
I can certainly believe that light armor has gotten a lot tougher. But heavy armor now gets hurt by a whole range of mid-strength weapons that AV13/14 used to be able to ignore or at worst be glanced on a 6.
My Leman Russes are threatened by massed Heavy Bolters, Autocannons, Disintegrators, Cyclic Ion Blasters, Plasma Guns (and Cannons), and even infantry weapons like Stalker Bolt Rifles.
Used to be that AV14 on my front arc meant that turn 1 I only needed to worry about big anti-tank weapons.
Even with those anti-tank weapons, used to be that you needed 9 lascannon hits to take out a Russ on hull points against front armor. Now it's just over 5.
You combine nearly halved resistance to dedicated AT with new vulnerability to a whole ton of common weapons, and tanks don't stick around nearly as long.
The real winners are light vehicles; heavies are only marginally tougher despite much higher cost.
Your Leman Russes were AV10 in the back IIRC though. Which means 10 trukk boyz could wreck it without even using the nob's power klaw. Now the same trukk boyz will strip 6W at most and not without the power klaw (or killsaw), typically even less.
My Battlewagon was AV14/12/10 and died pretty much everytime against a single melta shot that went through saves, in an era in which a drop pod could land in the face of an enemy unit. Now it takes way more lascannons and meltas to kill it. Sure it can also be threatened by S5-6 weapons but overall it's extremely more durable than it was before. And the damage chart now is not as harsh as before when a single pen hit invalidated the whole vehicle for a turn if not the entire battle.
Deff dreads and nauts saw some light at the the end of the tunnel only in 8th, they were trash before (dreads sucked after 3rd actually).
Even with those anti-tank weapons, used to be that you needed 9 lascannon hits to take out a Russ on hull points against front armor. Now it's just over 5.
Or a single shot killed you with no save.
8.3% chance it happens on the first damaging hit. 16% chance it happens in the first or second. 84% chance the vehicle dies from lost hull points, not premature explosion.
It can happen and I'm sure left a lasting impression when it did. But it's not very relevant to the averages; making the vehicle 92% as durable as if that possibility didn't exist.
So call it 8 lascannon hits, then. Still a lot tougher than under the current system.
Big difference is that it could and did happen - you can't shoot one Lascanon at a undamaged vehicle in 8th/9th and see it explode, or be unable to shoot or move or both.
Also, Lascannons were gak at killing vehicles compared to most other guns in those editions. Melta guns and anything else that was AP -1 were essentially guaranteed kills on the damage chart. 2 grav cannons killed basically every non-superheavy in the game on average. Anything that wasn't AV 13 or better would die to 2 scatbikes.
In practice vehicles were tissue paper filled with nitroglycerine in 6th and 7th and that was BEFORE D weapons came in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: It's never just one lascannon, multi-meltas are now capable of instakilling tanks anyways, and instead of fishing for rare random weapon loss or immobilization you have predictable (and significant) degradation alongside normal damage.
Anyone who knows what they're doing plays to averages, not to possibilities. D6 damage is not better than 5 damage because yOu MiGhT rOlL a SiX. The single-shot destruction probability is borderline irrelevant to the game- certainly not nearly as significant as being nearly half as hard to kill on average, let alone vulnerability to weapons that wouldn't even scratch the paint before.
Which again, would be true if it wasn't for the fact that immobilize, weapon destroyed and explodes were INCREDIBLY likely results. Especially in 6th when explodes happened on a 4+ for AP-1 weapons.
You can throw out a bunch of probabilities and whatever but the fact of the matter is that in 9th some armies are willing to pay 70+pts for a rhinos when space marines didn't even take them when they were FREE. (towards the end of the edition.)
I'll still be running larger vehicles. As far as new SM are concerned, new techmarine is better at buffing a big vehicle (repair and +1 to hit) than captain rerolls did before core unit changes. If my opponent shows up with eradicators, into strategic reserves goes the landraider.
The only list building change i've taken on for 9th is more obsec, both small units for actions and durable units to hold key areas.
terror51247 wrote: Vehicles dont seem fragile to me when i am playing HH(basically better 7th) in Tabletop simulator. My knight asterius almost never dies when i use it.
Superheavies are a different animal altogether in 7th than something like a landraider. Back when superheavy was actually a distinct thing and not just a big tank on legs.
Also, a HH army is about...60% of the powerlevel of a late 7th 40k army. Even worse for really cutting edge competitive lists.
So just to be complete here...MM points costs didn't change, as most of us predicted. They were already baked into the MM2020 price. All the weapon prices were already updated.
yukishiro1 wrote: So just to be complete here...MM points costs didn't change, as most of us predicted. They were already baked into the MM2020 price. All the weapon prices were already updated.
Pretty much seems to imply that those points are sadly here to stay untill your codex and well if you don't have a 9th edition codex GG scrub your paying points today for rules you will get at some nebulous time in the future.
yukishiro1 wrote: So just to be complete here...MM points costs didn't change, as most of us predicted. They were already baked into the MM2020 price. All the weapon prices were already updated.
Pretty much seems to imply that those points are sadly here to stay untill your codex and well if you don't have a 9th edition codex GG scrub your paying points today for rules you will get at some nebulous time in the future.
Nah, they just released the erratas. None for fw yet though.
If I could arm every model in a squad with a melta, guess what I'd do?
show.
