Kabalites are +1A - does this bode well for the fighty units (Incubi going up already)? They also go from 5+ to 4+ armor.
Splinter Cannon went from RF3 S- AP- D1 Poison to H3 S3 AP -1 D2 Poison
The splinter cannon loses shots, but they're far more useful. The damage leans towards the new version, because of the AP1 and because it acts like RF in half range all of the time when shooting W2+ stuff.
We should bring back the blurb from the Inubi reveal --
The stabbiest of the Aeldari are about to get stabbier. Their new rules allow you to take the realspace raiding force you’ve dreamed of without being penalised in Command point cost. Want to run a pure Wych cult? You can do that. Have an urge to mix up Kabals with Haemonculi Covens? Do it! The book also introduces new Crusade rules that allow you to expand your influence and become a feared crime lord of Commorragh.
seems like poison is unchanged? Unless its not a flat to-wound to everything.
Splinter cannons getting bonus AP is huge.
Phoenix rising custom kabal obsessions now make a bit more sense if GW is intending for them to get into melee now.
Daedalus81 wrote: Kabalites are +1A - does this bode well for the fighty units (Incubi going up already)? They also go from 5+ to 4+ armor.
Splinter Cannon went from RF3 S- AP- D1 Poison to H3 S3 AP -1 D2 Poison
The splinter cannon loses shots, but they're far more useful. The damage leans towards the new version, because of the AP1 and because it acts like RF in half range all of the time when shooting W2+ stuff.
We should bring back the blurb from the Inubi reveal --
The stabbiest of the Aeldari are about to get stabbier. Their new rules allow you to take the realspace raiding force you’ve dreamed of without being penalised in Command point cost. Want to run a pure Wych cult? You can do that. Have an urge to mix up Kabals with Haemonculi Covens? Do it! The book also introduces new Crusade rules that allow you to expand your influence and become a feared crime lord of Commorragh.
What else does DE need to be competitive?
The 4+ save is probably the biggest upgrade. Not that it matters that much because kabals are usually in a venom anyways. The changes to the venom are pretty nice cause they can take 2 SC. AP-1 and 2 damage will kill marines quickly ESP as flayed skull with ignore cover.
Competitive DE needs to be able to take their whole codex in a single detachment IMO. It is just stupid they are treated like 3 separate armies. Also in regards to incubi - they need invune saves...
VladimirHerzog wrote: seems like poison is unchanged? Unless its not a flat to-wound to everything.
Splinter cannons getting bonus AP is huge.
Phoenix rising custom kabal obsessions now make a bit more sense if GW is intending for them to get into melee now.
1) actual weapon choices. If you filter out the weapon options drukhari have that are just "poison 4+ shots or hits with various numbers of attacks and ranges" and "the dark lance profile, with various numbers of attacks and ranges" you've removed like 75% of their weapon options.
That's the only light in which i see the potential for something useful coming from the new SC - it's a poison weapon with AP and a damage stat. The bad of the change is...as the current rules stand, it's just kind of a bad heavy bolter. Which brings me to #2:
2) something to actually compensate for the drawbacks of poison 4+. basically everything in the codex pays for this rule, and most of the time if you compare it to a basic S4 weapon, a poison weapon is usually either equal or worse. T5+ targets typically have 3+ or 2+ saves making poison weaponry inefficient against them despite what is essentially a +1 to wound roll.
The quintessential drukhari problem is that they have tons of choices for bizarre, unusual, situations like "you have a target that's T5 or lower, with tons of wounds, a crazy high armor save and no invuln save - hooray, you finally get to make good use of your Heat Lance!" or "you have a target with super high toughness but very low save - poison weapons to the rescue!" and almost none for super common situations like basic cheap GEQ and T8 vehicles.
There's plenty of weapons that are currently doing almost nothing at all that GW could rework into neat, viable fillers for the holes in the drukhari weapon roster.
I would put forth for consideration:
-Heat Lances
-Shredders
-Talos weapons that aren't the basic cleaver
-The cronos, and his whole situation
-Archite Glaives
-Every Haemonculus (sorry, probably Acothyst only now ) melee weapon option that isn't an EC whip
-Everything a hellion has and does
-Cluster caltrops
All these are weapons GW could do basically anything they wanted with and nothing of value would be lost.
VladimirHerzog wrote: seems like poison is unchanged? Unless its not a flat to-wound to everything.
Splinter cannons getting bonus AP is huge.
Phoenix rising custom kabal obsessions now make a bit more sense if GW is intending for them to get into melee now.
I doubt any of that will be valid anymore. It would have to be reprinted in the new codex. Personally - I hope they scrap everything in that trash PA book and come up with some real decent rules.
Competitive DE needs to be able to take their whole codex in a single detachment IMO. It is just stupid they are treated like 3 separate armies. Also in regards to incubi - they need invune saves...
This has been a known change since they first announced the codex. And right now, they have the best support for taking multiple detachments (the raiding party rule). As much as it sucks to have the army split in 3, thats the least of our troubles right now.
Incubi don't need invulns IMO, not everything does in the game.
Phoenix rising custom kabal obsessions now make a bit more sense if GW is intending for them to get into melee now.
I doubt any of that will be valid anymore. It would have to be reprinted in the new codex. Personally - I hope they scrap everything in that trash PA book and come up with some real decent rules.
yeah but it does indicate a certain shift in what roles GW sees each subfactions in. kabals probably won't be the exclusively shooty faction anymore.
Also I will bet anyone right now, I will commit to paypalling you twenty dollars or whatever the equivalent in British Doubloons or Canadian Scratch and Sniff Monopoly Dollars, that GW's approach to allowing you to mix kabals, wyches and covens is just to allow you to take them as Mercenary units with no subfaction tactics.
"you can take your whole codex in the same detachment again! Yaaaay! You just have to fight your buddy's space marines with their 7 army wide rules with your no army wide rules! "
Competitive DE needs to be able to take their whole codex in a single detachment IMO. It is just stupid they are treated like 3 separate armies.
That seems to be the case from the earlier reveal. I'd wager allowing you to take a cabal and a cult in the same detachment and not break it. That or they can take 3 patrols with no CP loss or did they FAQ that already? I forget.
Competitive DE needs to be able to take their whole codex in a single detachment IMO. It is just stupid they are treated like 3 separate armies.
That seems to be the case from the earlier reveal. I'd wager allowing you to take a cabal and a cult in the same detachment and not break it. That or they can take 3 patrols with no CP loss or did they FAQ that already? I forget.
The 8th edition codex has always had the "raiding party" rule, and its actually the only rule that got better with the advent of 9th.
the_scotsman wrote: Also I will bet anyone right now, I will commit to paypalling you twenty dollars or whatever the equivalent in British Doubloons or Canadian Scratch and Sniff Monopoly Dollars, that GW's approach to allowing you to mix kabals, wyches and covens is just to allow you to take them as Mercenary units with no subfaction tactics.
"you can take your whole codex in the same detachment again! Yaaaay! You just have to fight your buddy's space marines with their 7 army wide rules with your no army wide rules! "
Bah humbug.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: The 8th edition codex has always had the "raiding party" rule, and its actually the only rule that got better with the advent of 9th.
Oh, right. So the old rule stays and effectively made patrols free. Got it.
Competitive DE needs to be able to take their whole codex in a single detachment IMO. It is just stupid they are treated like 3 separate armies. Also in regards to incubi - they need invune saves...
This has been a known change since they first announced the codex. And right now, they have the best support for taking multiple detachments (the raiding party rule). As much as it sucks to have the army split in 3, thats the least of our troubles right now.
Incubi don't need invulns IMO, not everything does in the game.
Phoenix rising custom kabal obsessions now make a bit more sense if GW is intending for them to get into melee now.
I doubt any of that will be valid anymore. It would have to be reprinted in the new codex. Personally - I hope they scrap everything in that trash PA book and come up with some real decent rules.
yeah but it does indicate a certain shift in what roles GW sees each subfactions in. kabals probably won't be the exclusively shooty faction anymore.
That will be a welcome change.
The issue with incubi is - in a DE army if you are taking incubi as your answer to melee...There is just no chance they win against anything tough and they die so easy in return. This is why invune saves are dumb because at some level everything needs an invune to compete.
I would love for kabals to get something else to make use of that A2 profile. Maybe a knife upgrade on the unit for ap-1 attacks or poison attacks in melee.
-Heat Lances
-Shredders
-Talos weapons that aren't the basic cleaver
-The cronos, and his whole situation
-Archite Glaives
-Every Haemonculus (sorry, probably Acothyst only now ) melee weapon option that isn't an EC whip
-Everything a hellion has and does
-Cluster caltrops
All these are weapons GW could do basically anything they wanted with and nothing of value would be lost.
They seem to be willing to rework weapons so i'll cross my fingers for you.
the_scotsman wrote: Also I will bet anyone right now, I will commit to paypalling you twenty dollars or whatever the equivalent in British Doubloons or Canadian Scratch and Sniff Monopoly Dollars, that GW's approach to allowing you to mix kabals, wyches and covens is just to allow you to take them as Mercenary units with no subfaction tactics.
"you can take your whole codex in the same detachment again! Yaaaay! You just have to fight your buddy's space marines with their 7 army wide rules with your no army wide rules! "
Bah humbug.
is that you taking that bet? Lot you can buy with 20 bucks these days - half an intercessor, six hours of rent, permission to continue to use the electronic gadgets you've purchased for another two weeks, a mcdonalds hamburger...
the_scotsman wrote: is that you taking that bet? Lot you can buy with 20 bucks these days - half an intercessor, six hours of rent, permission to continue to use the electronic gadgets you've purchased for another two weeks, a mcdonalds hamburger...
I don't want to lose my, uhh, you to lose your money. I hope you'll otherwise be pleasantly surprised.
the_scotsman wrote: Also I will bet anyone right now, I will commit to paypalling you twenty dollars or whatever the equivalent in British Doubloons or Canadian Scratch and Sniff Monopoly Dollars, that GW's approach to allowing you to mix kabals, wyches and covens is just to allow you to take them as Mercenary units with no subfaction tactics.
"you can take your whole codex in the same detachment again! Yaaaay! You just have to fight your buddy's space marines with their 7 army wide rules with your no army wide rules! "
De are pretty heavy on the free army wide rules honestly. Power from pain is massive 5 free rules. Flayed skull gives most your army rr's 1 and ignore cover.
If they get something like DE's version of contagions...They could do really well.
the_scotsman wrote: Also I will bet anyone right now, I will commit to paypalling you twenty dollars or whatever the equivalent in British Doubloons or Canadian Scratch and Sniff Monopoly Dollars, that GW's approach to allowing you to mix kabals, wyches and covens is just to allow you to take them as Mercenary units with no subfaction tactics.
"you can take your whole codex in the same detachment again! Yaaaay! You just have to fight your buddy's space marines with their 7 army wide rules with your no army wide rules! "
De are pretty heavy on the free army wide rules honestly. Power from pain is massive 5 free rules. Flayed skull gives most your army rr's 1 and ignore cover.
Yeah but flayed skull is a "chapter tactic" so its kind of expected to give a bigger bonus.
Power from pain and combat drugs are the free "army wide"-ish rules.
the_scotsman wrote: Also I will bet anyone right now, I will commit to paypalling you twenty dollars or whatever the equivalent in British Doubloons or Canadian Scratch and Sniff Monopoly Dollars, that GW's approach to allowing you to mix kabals, wyches and covens is just to allow you to take them as Mercenary units with no subfaction tactics.
"you can take your whole codex in the same detachment again! Yaaaay! You just have to fight your buddy's space marines with their 7 army wide rules with your no army wide rules! "
De are pretty heavy on the free army wide rules honestly. Power from pain is massive 5 free rules. Flayed skull gives most your army rr's 1 and ignore cover.
If they get something like DE's version of contagions...They could do really well.
Nope, I'm not talking about our equivalent to, let me see if I can keep track at this point...
-ability to split 1 max size infantry unit into 2 half size units
-immunity to modifiers to attrition tests
-+1 attack on the charge
-basic rapid fire weaponry working out to full range if you stand still
I'm talking about subfaction tactics. If I can take a Wych Cult unit and a Kabalite unit in the same detachment and they both get some form of subfaction tactics, whether they redesign those in some way or not, doesn't matter, I'll give you 20$.
If I can take a wych cult unit and a kabalite unit in the same detachment but only one of them gets subfaction tactics and the other doesn't, you give me 20$.
Deal?
Come on, you know this is how it's gonna work, you know they're going to take away Raiding Party and 'compensate' for it by allowing you to take Tactics-less wych units in kabal detachments with zero synergies with any unit and no reason to ever be considered, and you know they're going to announce it with a giant fanfare and "YOURE WELCOME DRUKHARI FANS, ASKED AND ANSWERED!"
the_scotsman wrote: Also I will bet anyone right now, I will commit to paypalling you twenty dollars or whatever the equivalent in British Doubloons or Canadian Scratch and Sniff Monopoly Dollars, that GW's approach to allowing you to mix kabals, wyches and covens is just to allow you to take them as Mercenary units with no subfaction tactics.
"you can take your whole codex in the same detachment again! Yaaaay! You just have to fight your buddy's space marines with their 7 army wide rules with your no army wide rules! "
De are pretty heavy on the free army wide rules honestly. Power from pain is massive 5 free rules. Flayed skull gives most your army rr's 1 and ignore cover.
If they get something like DE's version of contagions...They could do really well.
Nope, I'm not talking about our equivalent to, let me see if I can keep track at this point...
-ability to split 1 max size infantry unit into 2 half size units
-immunity to modifiers to attrition tests
-+1 attack on the charge
-basic rapid fire weaponry working out to full range if you stand still
I'm talking about subfaction tactics. If I can take a Wych Cult unit and a Kabalite unit in the same detachment and they both get some form of subfaction tactics, whether they redesign those in some way or not, doesn't matter, I'll give you 20$.
If I can take a wych cult unit and a kabalite unit in the same detachment but only one of them gets subfaction tactics and the other doesn't, you give me 20$.
Deal?
Come on, you know this is how it's gonna work, you know they're going to take away Raiding Party and 'compensate' for it by allowing you to take Tactics-less wych units in kabal detachments with zero synergies with any unit and no reason to ever be considered, and you know they're going to announce it with a giant fanfare and "YOURE WELCOME DRUKHARI FANS, ASKED AND ANSWERED!"
Hummm - I'd be a fool to bet here cause there is literally no telling what GW is gonna do. It would be pretty effing useless to be able to take all the units in 1 detachment but not get the special rules for each...I could see them going this route though....Each kabal/cult/coven have preferred allies. If you take the kabal/cult/coven combo they prefer they get all their rules.
Part of the point of Kalabites is they had absolutely gakky armor and that they relied on fast transports to make up for it as they fire away, so who the hell decided they needed a 4+?
It does definataly reduce the design space for a number of other factions who have always had better armour than or equivalent armour to Kabalites.
I do think that how poison interacts with keywords is going to be key as I can see it being sub par 80% of the time and OP as feth the remaining times.
But sadly that seems to be the way GW is going with lots more rock paper scissors instead of actually balance.
GW writes rules to get players to go "oh cool! I need to start a new army!".
It works, I know several people that buy practically every new shiny they see, and not because they're overflowing with money.
Personally I wish they'd focus on fun, balanced, and elegant rules.
But for most of the playerbase (or at least the player base's purchasing power) this isn't that important. They want cool rules and cool models.
Galas wrote: Kabalites never made sense having a 5+ armour when they were wearing full sci-fi advanced elvish armour.
So do we now get 4+ Sv Guardians?
Do Dire avengers now come with a 3+ Sv?
Guard with a 4+ army wide as they were 5+ Save too.
Do firewarriors get a 3+ or are they just supposed to accept getting worse while being more point's per model?
Probably eldar guardians should have also a 4+ save yes, and Dire Avengers with 3+saves look fine to me.
Imperial guard... nah. They are perfectly fine with 5+. A cadian with a 5+ compared with an eldar guardian or a kabalite with also a 5+ always looked silly. Tau Firewarriors with a 4+ save are perfectly fine, and I say this as a tau player with 60 of those.
"you can take your whole codex in the same detachment again! Yaaaay! You just have to fight your buddy's space marines with their 7 army wide rules with your no army wide rules! "
Considering we already know that's how Demons and DG work, anyone who takes that bet is a fool!
I realize it's not EXACTLY the same thing, but I'd be surprised if it didn't work out that way.
Probably eldar guardians should have also a 4+ save yes, and Dire Avengers with 3+saves look fine to me.
Imperial guard... nah. They are perfectly fine with 5+. A cadian with a 5+ compared with an eldar guardian or a kabalite with also a 5+ always looked silly. Tau Firewarriors with a 4+ save are perfectly fine, and I say this as a tau player with 60 of those.
You realise that Kabalites are 8ppm to fire warriors 9ppm and they are defo not fine compaired to any 9th edition codex's.
I think it is likely. Units needs to survive to score and we're trending this direction.
Just yet more evidence that slow rolling codex's for over 18 months is going to leave the last faction to get a codex as ever increasingly unplayable trash.
Wow! Our advanced Splinter Cannons have been upgraded to . . . Heavy Bolters.
Except worse against vehicles.
And also worse against any non-vehicles with T4 or less.
It should say something about how dismal Dark Eldar weapons are that people are legitimately considering this to be an upgrade.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Part of the point of Kalabites is they had absolutely gakky armor and that they relied on fast transports to make up for it as they fire away, so who the hell decided they needed a 4+?
Ice_can wrote: Just yet more evidence that slow rolling codex's for over 18 months is going to leave the last faction to get a codex as ever increasingly unplayable trash.
And we need to hear it every few days of these 18 months because the past few months weren't enough already.
Galas wrote: Kabalites never made sense having a 5+ armour when they were wearing full sci-fi advanced elvish armour.
So do we now get 4+ Sv Guardians?
Do Dire avengers now come with a 3+ Sv?
Guard with a 4+ army wide as they were 5+ Save too.
Do firewarriors get a 3+ or are they just supposed to accept getting worse while being more point's per model?
I think it makes plenty of sense for all the fully armor suited xenos (fire warriors, guardians, kabalites) to have a 4+ save, now that we've cleared Astartes out of the 1W 3+sv design space into their new W2 3+ space.
Guardsmen are wearing a flak vest, shoulderpads and helmet, nothing on their arms, nothing on their legs, nothing over their stomachs. Fully armor suited eldar guardians should absolutely have the equivalent of carapace armor.
Just normalize on Aspect warriors and equivalents having 3+ armor rather than some having 4+ and some having 3+ for no adequately explained reason (their armor suits look basically the same)
Or just keep lighter aspects at 4+ and also have Guardians at 4+. A guardian and a dire avenger do not look like they're wearing significantly different armor.
vipoid wrote: Wow! Our advanced Splinter Cannons have been upgraded to . . . Heavy Bolters.
Except worse against vehicles.
And also worse against any non-vehicles with T4 or less.
It should say something about how dismal Dark Eldar weapons are that people are legitimately considering this to be an upgrade.
I'm not understanding you. Poison always wounded vehicles on a 6. This update gives you AP plus the equivalent of being in RF range all of the time.
It goes from 0.11 damage to 0.33 against a 3+ vehicle - it triples in effectiveness (when over half range and is still more effective when under half due to AP).
Poison wounds on 4 for everything else. The S3 lets it would T2 on a 3, but otherwise there's no downside. What am I missing here?
vipoid wrote: Wow! Our advanced Splinter Cannons have been upgraded to . . . Heavy Bolters.
Except worse against vehicles.
And also worse against any non-vehicles with T4 or less.
It should say something about how dismal Dark Eldar weapons are that people are legitimately considering this to be an upgrade.
I'm not understanding you. Poison always wounded vehicles on a 6. This update gives you AP plus the equivalent of being in RF range all of the time.
It goes from 0.11 damage to 0.33 against a 3+ vehicle - it triples in effectiveness.
Poison wounds on 4 for everything else. The S3 lets it would T2 on a 3, but otherwise there's no downside. What am I missing here?
the majority of people who had splinter cannons in their army were taking them to deal with GEQ, and were taking them on kabalite warriors where the Heavy Dark Lance was less efficient, so they took the Rapid Fire splinter cannon instead.
Now they're not an anti-GEQ weapon, and they're now Heavy. That leaves me very slightly irritated (obviously, not knowing what the various special rules actually do) in the same way I was irritated when they decided to change the harlequin weapons around and make the anti-horde harlequin melee weapon into just a third anti-elite choice.
With all the marines, the change to damage 2 is pretty nice, but it does restrict the usage vs other targets, and is substantially worse vs death guard.
Less a buff or a nerf, but a total change in the roll of the weapon. We'll have to wait and see them on the table to see what folks think of it.
Makes there more of a case for the twin-shuriken rifle on the venom for anti-horde shooting, which is nice for that weapon to have a role on that platform besides just being the cheaper choice.
the majority of people who had splinter cannons in their army were taking them to deal with GEQ, and were taking them on kabalite warriors where the Heavy Dark Lance was less efficient, so they took the Rapid Fire splinter cannon instead.
Now they're not an anti-GEQ weapon, and they're now Heavy. That leaves me very slightly irritated (obviously, not knowing what the various special rules actually do) in the same way I was irritated when they decided to change the harlequin weapons around and make the anti-horde harlequin melee weapon into just a third anti-elite choice.
Right, but GEQ wasn't giving more heartburn than marines though, right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jaredb wrote: and is substantially worse vs death guard.
Poison wounds on 4 for everything else. The S3 lets it would T2 on a 3, but otherwise there's no downside. What am I missing here?
You mean aside from now having half the shots (making D2 a downgrade) halved and getting a -1 to hit if the infantry in a mobile army have the gall to move?
To put it a different way, what is the target for this weapon? It's clearly not vehicles, but if it's meant to be shooting infantry then why did they give it D2 instead of leaving it at a potential 6 shots?
Hell, this is the problem with poison in general - it's already an unbelievably niche weapon. A relic from the days when Monsters had 6 wounds at most and when infantry were basically all 1-wound.
But now wounds have doubled or even tripled, yet Poison remains the same. Even this change is basically just treading water, exchanging shots for damage. AP-1 is something, at least, but the real question will be whether it makes it onto other poison weapons.
I guess I should clarify - at 36" the new version is better when shooting things with more than 1 wound. At 18" the new one would be equivalent to the old one except that it also has AP. So in all scenarios the new one is an improvement under targeted considerations.
I get losing an anti-GEQ option, but is the role change not a good thing considering it used to just be a bigger splinter rifle? Wouldn't it be better to have more tools and to leave anti-GEQ to something like Wyches with 3/4 (4/5) attacks? Were you really happy spending points to wound GEQ on 4s?
vipoid wrote: Wow! Our advanced Splinter Cannons have been upgraded to . . . Heavy Bolters.
Except worse against vehicles.
And also worse against any non-vehicles with T4 or less.
It should say something about how dismal Dark Eldar weapons are that people are legitimately considering this to be an upgrade.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Part of the point of Kalabites is they had absolutely gakky armor and that they relied on fast transports to make up for it as they fire away, so who the hell decided they needed a 4+?
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
you can complain as much as you want about the codex. But yes, gaining bonus AP and damage IS an upgrade...
Daedalus81 wrote: I guess I should clarify - at 36" the new version is better when shooting things with more than 1 wound. At 18" the new one would be equivalent to the old one except that it also has AP. So in all scenarios the new one is an improvement under targeted considerations.
That's not quite true.
At 18", the new version will suffer against:
- single-wound models
- multi-wound models with an odd number of wounds
- 2-wound models with FNP - Death Guard (and anything else with a -1 damage ability)
Given that Splinter Cannons weren't exactly oversold on good targets to begin with, you'll forgive me if I'm not overly impressed by this "upgrade".
I get losing an anti-GEQ option, but is the role change not a good thing considering it used to just be a bigger splinter rifle? Wouldn't it be better to have more tools and to leave anti-GEQ to something like Wyches with 3/4 (4/5) attacks? Were you really happy spending points to wound GEQ on 4s?
I mean, this has been a problem with our codex for the last few editions. Poison was a neat idea in 5th, but the game has moved on since then and it's just become a lead weight, dangling around the codex's feet. It's an outdated mechanic and I'd like to see it removed altogether, rather than them trying to "differentiate" Poison weapons in the least-helpful way possible.
Gaining +1D in exchange for halving shots is a downgrade.
as daedalus pointed out, it deals more damage to vehicles than before, its an upgrade.
Its not like our army has a hard time dealing with Geq's anyway.
Who thought a bonus attack on a shooting unit was worth something? Especially a weedy s3 t3 unit?
That it's the first major highlight of the article is baffling.
'Crucial' and a 'long time coming' is just laughable.
Are they going to have to pay for that?
Shame there aren't any new or revised in plastic units to get excited about...
With all the marines, the change to damage 2 is pretty nice, but it does restrict the usage vs other targets, and is substantially worse vs death guard.
It's classic GW at this point. The game is too lethal! Update to two wounds! But ... also, now those units are too survivable ... UPDATE THE GINS TO D2! Perfect. We've solved it ...
I'm REALLY hoping there are some special rules we haven't seen yet, or even better, some new weapons they're going to unveil, that will cause this to make more sense and be less ... irritating.
Shame they aren't any new or revised in plastic units to get excited about...
Sadly, with the investment of production capacity they've sunk into marines, and with 'Crons getting a (much needed) massive upgrade, I don't think we'll see too many additional unit releases for most armies for a while. A unit here, a unit there ... that's probably about it.
This article is made because they reboxed some units and the new statlines are going to be leaked. Those are not major changes, but they prefer to reveal it themselves that someone uploads photos of the new booklets online.
I like all the changes, as long as the prices are the same as we have now.
Warriors are quite better with an extra attack and +1 to the Sv.
The Cannon is just different, and I like changes. Old one was just a boring version of a rifle that everyone played because they are stock on Venoms.
Who thought a bonus attack on a shooting unit was worth something? Especially a weedy s3 t3 unit?
That it's the first major highlight of the article is baffling.
'Crucial' and a 'long time coming' is just laughable.
Are they going to have to pay for that?
Shame they aren't any new or revised in plastic units to get excited about...
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, I guess? It is the underlying basis to sweep the whole army with an additional attack. Primaris are a shooting unit, but they don't mind the extra attack. Doubling the attack for a unit won't hurt - presuming cost doesn't go up ( doubtfully ).
Daedalus81 wrote: I guess I should clarify - at 36" the new version is better when shooting things with more than 1 wound. At 18" the new one would be equivalent to the old one except that it also has AP. So in all scenarios the new one is an improvement under targeted considerations.
I get losing an anti-GEQ option, but is the role change not a good thing considering it used to just be a bigger splinter rifle? Wouldn't it be better to have more tools and to leave anti-GEQ to something like Wyches with 3/4 (4/5) attacks? Were you really happy spending points to wound GEQ on 4s?
Well, given that GW has decreed that all three thirds of the already fairly small drukhari model range must be self-contained, separated factions with no overlap between their rules except for having to share the same pool of Stratagems, no, losing a an anti-GEQ option in Kabal in favor of a redundant anti-MEQ option right next to Disintegrators is a bad thing.
Like I said: The only unit for which this change is interesting potentially is the Talos, because now the Talos has the stinger pod for anti-geq, the double splinter for anti-meq, the haywire for anti vehicle and the heat lance for picking your teeth as you pop out the rest of the sprue.
Who thought a bonus attack on a shooting unit was worth something? Especially a weedy s3 t3 unit?
That it's the first major highlight of the article is baffling.
'Crucial' and a 'long time coming' is just laughable.
Are they going to have to pay for that?
Shame they aren't any new or revised in plastic units to get excited about...
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, I guess? It is the underlying basis to sweep the whole army with an additional attack. Primaris are a shooting unit, but they don't mind the extra attack. Doubling the attack for a unit won't hurt - presuming cost doesn't go up ( doubtfully ).
Yeah, I'm actually pretty pleased with the new kabalite profile. It'll be nice to have occasions where closing to melee and butchering a hapless GEQ squad or fire warrior squad or something purely for the sick pleasure of it rather than any kind of mechanical advantage won't result in an even slapfight between the terrifying hideous alien pirates and the tau fire warrior cadre.
Daedalus81 wrote: I guess I should clarify - at 36" the new version is better when shooting things with more than 1 wound. At 18" the new one would be equivalent to the old one except that it also has AP. So in all scenarios the new one is an improvement under targeted considerations.
That's not quite true.
At 18", the new version will suffer against:
- single-wound models
- multi-wound models with an odd number of wounds
- 2-wound models with FNP - Death Guard (and anything else with a -1 damage ability)
Given that Splinter Cannons weren't exactly oversold on good targets to begin with, you'll forgive me if I'm not overly impressed by this "upgrade".
Isn't that just a list of things that it's better to point either D1 or AT weapons at? If this encourages running a greater mix of weapon profiles in a Dark Eldar army instead of just spamming a couple I'd say it's a good thing. If Splinter Rifles get similar rules they'll be considerably better against Death Guard than bolters and lasguns. I think we need to see what changes, if any, we'll be seeing for other Dark Eldar weapons before we can fully evaluate the changes to Splinter Cannons.
Pessimism aside, I wouldn't be surprised if Heat Lances ended up a winner.
They could get a power buff in line with other 'meltas', and do well on smaller battlefields with fast moving units; Heat Lance Scourge, Reavers, and Taloi might see some action.
I had always perceived Dark/Bright Lances as superior Lascannons in prior editions.
D3+3 puts them on par with railguns, not that, this is an issue per say but I'm not sure GW would be able to balance out the advantage of becoming assualt on vehicals. Vrs how bad they'd be on infantry.
I had always perceived Dark/Bright Lances as superior Lascannons in prior editions.
D3+3 puts them on par with railguns, not that, this is an issue per say but I'm not sure GW would be able to balance out the advantage of becoming assualt on vehicals. Vrs how bad they'd be on infantry.
The same way they balance heavy weapons that can be taken for both infantry and vehicles in other codexes? Make them more expensive for vehicles.
harlokin wrote: Pessimism aside, I wouldn't be surprised if Heat Lances ended up a winner.
They could get a power buff in line with other 'meltas', and do well on smaller battlefields with fast moving units; Heat Lance Scourge, Reavers, and Taloi might see some action.
Not at str 6. Must be at least str 7 to do their job.
If dark lances go up to D3+3 I would expect it to only be against vehicles, like the rule the C'tan has. It would contrast well with poison weapons that don't do well against vehicles and would reflect back on the old lance rules.
Making lances d6 damage with a minimum damage of 3 would also work. It's just those 1s and 2s that sting.
I'm weirdly excited about kabalites going up to 2 attacks. As a Poisoned Tongue player, I've frequently found myself wishing I had a way to get a bit more use out of the melee half of my chapter tactic. Power sword sybarites with 3 attacks, while not all that impressive, would at least have a shot at contributing a wound or two in melee.
Plus, if the extra attack is meant to represent the superhuman speed of the aeldari, then we might see a similar change for asuryani units. An extra attack would do a lot for my banshees, scorpions, and even the humble storm guardian.
I'm probably okay with the new splinter cannon. It gives it a "kill multi-wound models" role rather than just being a way to squirt out additional generic splinters. It does have, "heavy bolter but worse," vibes. Shooting 12 shots from a venom felt nice even if it just averaged out to 4 AP- saves. The new profile feels very much like a reaction to marines having more wounds. It also feels pretty redundant with the disintegrator unless they've overhauled that profile.
Galas wrote: Kabalites never made sense having a 5+ armour when they were wearing full sci-fi advanced elvish armour.
So do we now get 4+ Sv Guardians?
Do Dire avengers now come with a 3+ Sv?
Guard with a 4+ army wide as they were 5+ Save too.
Do firewarriors get a 3+ or are they just supposed to accept getting worse while being more point's per model?
To answer tour questions:
Yes
Yes
No
No
In 2nd ed flak armour had a 6+ save, only improving to 5+ against blast weapons like frag grenades. Eldar mesh armour was always 5+ and thus always better.
GW squashed the design space by giving guard better armour in 3rd and eldar guardians have always looked ridiculous ever since.
So yes, I expect and hope that the eldar shift to 4+ guardians and 3+ aspects (the defender suit vs the war suit). It makes their armies more survivable, and makes their citizens look less like chaff. Now if only they'd give them lasblasters and longer ranged shuriken catapults again as their main weapon options and we can put the guardians back to the support units they should be.
Giving all the aspects 3+ saves shows a clear and simple delineation between guardians and aspects, between the militia and the professional soldiers, especially in the advanced tech of the eldar.
I feel CWE speculation may be straying off topic - but I think the issue is less 20 year old injustices, and more "what do you get for your points".
Defensively, a Guardsman is 5.5 points for T3/5+ and a Sister is 11 points for T3/3+. Leaving aside whether these are "right" (not sure Guardsmen needed the nerf given IG performances) - and recognising that Army synergy makes things a bit murky - it seems at 8-9 points, you probably should be getting a 4+ save. You can then have a debate over BS 4+ lasguns, BS3+ splinter rifles and BS3+ bolt guns.
In any case though, its easier to balance a game if you marry up offense and defence in a single points total without massively leaning one way or the other. Which obviously you have to if Eldar Troops are essentially just GEQ with supposedly better guns.
Galas wrote: Kabalites never made sense having a 5+ armour when they were wearing full sci-fi advanced elvish armour.
So do we now get 4+ Sv Guardians?
Do Dire avengers now come with a 3+ Sv?
Guard with a 4+ army wide as they were 5+ Save too.
Do firewarriors get a 3+ or are they just supposed to accept getting worse while being more point's per model?
To answer tour questions:
Yes
Yes
No
No
In 2nd ed flak armour had a 6+ save, only improving to 5+ against blast weapons like frag grenades. Eldar mesh armour was always 5+ and thus always better.
GW squashed the design space by giving guard better armour in 3rd and eldar guardians have always looked ridiculous ever since.
So yes, I expect and hope that the eldar shift to 4+ guardians and 3+ aspects (the defender suit vs the war suit). It makes their armies more survivable, and makes their citizens look less like chaff. Now if only they'd give them lasblasters and longer ranged shuriken catapults again as their main weapon options and we can put the guardians back to the support units they should be.
Giving all the aspects 3+ saves shows a clear and simple delineation between guardians and aspects, between the militia and the professional soldiers, especially in the advanced tech of the eldar.
So how on the remotely balanced concept do you justify
M7 WS3+, BS3+, S3 T3, 1W 2A 4+Sv at 8 points (probably fair against SoB and Marines)
While M6 WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 1W 1A 4+Sv at 9 points?
Galas wrote: Kabalites never made sense having a 5+ armour when they were wearing full sci-fi advanced elvish armour.
So do we now get 4+ Sv Guardians?
Do Dire avengers now come with a 3+ Sv?
Guard with a 4+ army wide as they were 5+ Save too.
Do firewarriors get a 3+ or are they just supposed to accept getting worse while being more point's per model?
To answer tour questions:
Yes
Yes
No
No
In 2nd ed flak armour had a 6+ save, only improving to 5+ against blast weapons like frag grenades. Eldar mesh armour was always 5+ and thus always better.
GW squashed the design space by giving guard better armour in 3rd and eldar guardians have always looked ridiculous ever since.
So yes, I expect and hope that the eldar shift to 4+ guardians and 3+ aspects (the defender suit vs the war suit). It makes their armies more survivable, and makes their citizens look less like chaff. Now if only they'd give them lasblasters and longer ranged shuriken catapults again as their main weapon options and we can put the guardians back to the support units they should be.
Giving all the aspects 3+ saves shows a clear and simple delineation between guardians and aspects, between the militia and the professional soldiers, especially in the advanced tech of the eldar.
So how on the remotely balanced concept do you justify
M7 WS3+, BS3+, S3 T3, 1W 2A 4+Sv at 8 points (probably fair against SoB and Marines)
While M6 WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 1W 1A 4+Sv at 9 points?
Because GW changes points at the drop of a hat so the points value is the MOST malleable part of the equation?
What makes you think that the new dark eldar book will have 8pt dudes anyway?
Also the 9point model has a 30" F5 gun and the other one has a 24" F(3) poison weapon. But we are comparing "buffed" kabalite warrior vs unbuffed fire caste warrior.
So how on the remotely balanced concept do you justify
M7 WS3+, BS3+, S3 T3, 1W 2A 4+Sv at 8 points (probably fair against SoB and Marines)
While M6 WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 1W 1A 4+Sv at 9 points?
Well, am I mistaken in thinking that the 9 point price includes a gun that wounds marines on 3s and has a 30" range? Because that helps. ;D
More seriously, I don't think most people would be opposed to revisiting the points and/or abilities of a a fire warrior these days. I also wouldn't mind if guardians went back to being WS/BS 4+. Especially if you also gave them a lasblaster option and lowered their minimum squad size.
4+ armor for one of the oldest and most technologically advanced factions in the galaxy probably makes sense. Part of me just hopes this isn't a sign/symptom of an inelegant power creep meant to address the modern marine design.
So how on the remotely balanced concept do you justify
M7 WS3+, BS3+, S3 T3, 1W 2A 4+Sv at 8 points (probably fair against SoB and Marines)
While M6 WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 1W 1A 4+Sv at 9 points?
Well, am I mistaken in thinking that the 9 point price includes a gun that wounds marines on 3s and has a 30" range? Because that helps. ;D
More seriously, I don't think most people would be opposed to revisiting the points and/or abilities of a a fire warrior these days. I also wouldn't mind if guardians went back to being WS/BS 4+. Especially if you also gave them a lasblaster option and lowered their minimum squad size.
4+ armor for one of the oldest and most technologically advanced factions in the galaxy probably makes sense. Part of me just hopes this isn't a sign/symptom of an inelegant power creep meant to address the modern marine design.
Nah, they should have always been 4+, that they were 5+ for 20 years didn't make it a GOOD design decision. Eldar armour was always better than guard armour and ranged to being just as good as power armour.
This is a correction 20 years in the making rather than some weird nonsensical change.
Galas wrote: Kabalites never made sense having a 5+ armour when they were wearing full sci-fi advanced elvish armour.
So do we now get 4+ Sv Guardians?
Do Dire avengers now come with a 3+ Sv?
Guard with a 4+ army wide as they were 5+ Save too.
Do firewarriors get a 3+ or are they just supposed to accept getting worse while being more point's per model?
To answer tour questions:
Yes
Yes
No
No
In 2nd ed flak armour had a 6+ save, only improving to 5+ against blast weapons like frag grenades. Eldar mesh armour was always 5+ and thus always better.
GW squashed the design space by giving guard better armour in 3rd and eldar guardians have always looked ridiculous ever since.
So yes, I expect and hope that the eldar shift to 4+ guardians and 3+ aspects (the defender suit vs the war suit). It makes their armies more survivable, and makes their citizens look less like chaff. Now if only they'd give them lasblasters and longer ranged shuriken catapults again as their main weapon options and we can put the guardians back to the support units they should be.
Giving all the aspects 3+ saves shows a clear and simple delineation between guardians and aspects, between the militia and the professional soldiers, especially in the advanced tech of the eldar.
So how on the remotely balanced concept do you justify
M7 WS3+, BS3+, S3 T3, 1W 2A 4+Sv at 8 points (probably fair against SoB and Marines)
While M6 WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 1W 1A 4+Sv at 9 points?
Easy, give the FW BS3+. once you have that and you have the improved gun and always-on overwatch that makes 9ppm make sense.
So how on the remotely balanced concept do you justify
M7 WS3+, BS3+, S3 T3, 1W 2A 4+Sv at 8 points (probably fair against SoB and Marines)
While M6 WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 1W 1A 4+Sv at 9 points?
Well, am I mistaken in thinking that the 9 point price includes a gun that wounds marines on 3s and has a 30" range? Because that helps. ;D
More seriously, I don't think most people would be opposed to revisiting the points and/or abilities of a a fire warrior these days. I also wouldn't mind if guardians went back to being WS/BS 4+. Especially if you also gave them a lasblaster option and lowered their minimum squad size.
4+ armor for one of the oldest and most technologically advanced factions in the galaxy probably makes sense. Part of me just hopes this isn't a sign/symptom of an inelegant power creep meant to address the modern marine design.
It feels like it. Remember the incubi profile back in november? WS2+, strength bump to the weapons, and D2. Seems specifically aimed at marines, but felt like a decent improvement to a unit that really needed one.
But now the Heavy Splinter Bolter (Snowflake bolter? Not sure which I like better).
Still too early to say for certain, but between these and no models (well, OK, Lelith #3, for what little that's worth), its showings signs of quick way to dump out a meta spoiler army.
So how on the remotely balanced concept do you justify
M7 WS3+, BS3+, S3 T3, 1W 2A 4+Sv at 8 points (probably fair against SoB and Marines)
While M6 WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 1W 1A 4+Sv at 9 points?
Well, am I mistaken in thinking that the 9 point price includes a gun that wounds marines on 3s and has a 30" range? Because that helps. ;D
More seriously, I don't think most people would be opposed to revisiting the points and/or abilities of a a fire warrior these days. I also wouldn't mind if guardians went back to being WS/BS 4+. Especially if you also gave them a lasblaster option and lowered their minimum squad size.
4+ armor for one of the oldest and most technologically advanced factions in the galaxy probably makes sense. Part of me just hopes this isn't a sign/symptom of an inelegant power creep meant to address the modern marine design.
It feels like it. Remember the incubi profile back in november? WS2+, strength bump to the weapons, and D2. Seems specifically aimed at marines, but felt like a decent improvement to a unit that really needed one.
But now the Heavy Splinter Bolter (Snowflake bolter? Not sure which I like better).
Still too early to say for certain, but between these and no models (well, OK, Lelith #3, for what little that's worth), its showings signs of quick way to dump out a meta spoiler army.
So, having access to D2 weapons with mid level strength and good AP is "meta spoiling"? Isn't that like, every army with a 9th edition codex? Killing loyalists with D2 weapons isn't anything new, even for Dark Eldar, Disintegrator Cannons are a popular option for a reason. If any army is a "meta spoiler", I'd say it's the one that laughs at all those D2 weapons.
Just yet more evidence that slow rolling codex's for over 18 months is going to leave the last faction to get a codex as ever increasingly unplayable trash.
But wait, the SoB generally come last in an editions life. I thought according to most of the tourney data you all worship that the SoB were really strong atm? You really expect the Sisters to tail off to unplayable trash?
IMO eldar and dark eldar don’t really work well/make sense in a game rule set without an initiative statline. Their speed and agility were best represented in that way, and they played more thematically within that rules framework
Gregor Samsa wrote: IMO eldar and dark eldar don’t really work well/make sense in a game rule set without an initiative statline. Their speed and agility were best represented in that way, and they played more thematically within that rules framework
It certainly helped represent them in melee, but they had no speed defence at range, unlike in 2nd ed when they were at -1 to hit while running.
In the current rules, the only way to make it work would be to give them always strike first as they would generally strike before every other army in the game anyway...
From a thematic standpoint, I could easily see DE having some ability that shuts down a unit's ability to hold points for a turn. Make it so they can win the game by holding whatever objectives they happen to be near that turn while using relics and special abilities to disrupt the enemy's plans. It would be thematic and fun as long as it had some form of counter play.
Gregor Samsa wrote: IMO eldar and dark eldar don’t really work well/make sense in a game rule set without an initiative statline. Their speed and agility were best represented in that way, and they played more thematically within that rules framework
Initiative was nice (for us), but all it really did was set the order of operations in the assault phase. I don't feel that taking turns in the fight phase has gutted the aeldari as an army concept, even if our speed has been largely reduced to a slightly-better-than-marines movement stat.
In the current rules, the only way to make it work would be to give them always strike first as they would generally strike before every other army in the game anyway...
I've wondered about that. We'd be stealing slaaneshi armies' "thing," but giving "Always Strike First" to every model with battle focus, PFP, or rising crescendo would make a lot of sense. If to-hit rolls were determined by comparing WS stats and/or by comparing BS to an Evasion stat, then simply giving us high WS and Evasion would make a lot of sense. The non-stacking nature of to-hit penalties was a good 9th edition change, but we're definitely feeling it.
I suspect that the additional attack on kabalite warriors is a sign of things to come for aeldari in general. I imagine that +1 Attacks will be the new way they try to represent our speed.
Slannesh being created by eldar having similar eldar features isn't a bad thing, but they've spent many editions giving the gods different rules to be their 'thing', so always strike first is unlikely to stay that way forever.
You could have slanneshi speed represented by '6s to hit cause 2 hits' for example.
Canadian 5th wrote: From a thematic standpoint, I could easily see DE having some ability that shuts down a unit's ability to hold points for a turn. Make it so they can win the game by holding whatever objectives they happen to be near that turn while using relics and special abilities to disrupt the enemy's plans. It would be thematic and fun as long as it had some form of counter play.
I'd love that. It might make sense to give craftworlders something similar. If executed well, it would allow aeldari armies to have a good chance at winning without relying on having the same raw offense or defense as marines and marine accessories. Picture banshees stunning a unit in melee for a turn to prevent retaliation and shut down guns. Warp spiders tangling up melee units with monofilament wires to keep them from moving into charge range. Dire avengers with tarpit builds countercharging an enemy deepstriker to keep them from tying up the dark reapers.
Similarly, you could give drukhari mechanics for disrupting enemy auras, debuffing enemy offense, taking away obsec, etc. Do all that, and the drukhari gain a playstyle beyond "Glass cannon." Being moderately killy but really good at staying alive by being mean to the enemy seems very on-brand.
Canadian 5th wrote: From a thematic standpoint, I could easily see DE having some ability that shuts down a unit's ability to hold points for a turn. Make it so they can win the game by holding whatever objectives they happen to be near that turn while using relics and special abilities to disrupt the enemy's plans. It would be thematic and fun as long as it had some form of counter play.
I'd love that. It might make sense to give craftworlders something similar. If executed well, it would allow aeldari armies to have a good chance at winning without relying on having the same raw offense or defense as marines and marine accessories. Picture banshees stunning a unit in melee for a turn to prevent retaliation and shut down guns. Warp spiders tangling up melee units with monofilament wires to keep them from moving into charge range. Dire avengers with tarpit builds countercharging an enemy deepstriker to keep them from tying up the dark reapers.
Similarly, you could give drukhari mechanics for disrupting enemy auras, debuffing enemy offense, taking away obsec, etc. Do all that, and the drukhari gain a playstyle beyond "Glass cannon." Being moderately killy but really good at staying alive by being mean to the enemy seems very on-brand.
You're definitely on my wavelength here. Rather than glass cannon armies, because they're as bad for the game as unkillable skew is, I want the fragile armies to have some trick or niche that isn't just 'kill slightly better' or '+1 to movement'.
DE should be terrifying because they just scream at you from any angle and make it impossible to accomplish your objectives.
Eldar should be terrifying because that 'mistake' they made was actually them accomplishing one of their secret tasks that puts them that much closer to victory.
GSC should be terrifying because they pop up from terrain features and have a seemingly endless wave of cheap fodder to protect their leadership and elites with.
And so on until everybody feels unique and plays a style that isn't exactly like anybody else's.
Canadian 5th wrote: From a thematic standpoint, I could easily see DE having some ability that shuts down a unit's ability to hold points for a turn. Make it so they can win the game by holding whatever objectives they happen to be near that turn while using relics and special abilities to disrupt the enemy's plans. It would be thematic and fun as long as it had some form of counter play.
I'd love that. It might make sense to give craftworlders something similar. If executed well, it would allow aeldari armies to have a good chance at winning without relying on having the same raw offense or defense as marines and marine accessories. Picture banshees stunning a unit in melee for a turn to prevent retaliation and shut down guns. Warp spiders tangling up melee units with monofilament wires to keep them from moving into charge range. Dire avengers with tarpit builds countercharging an enemy deepstriker to keep them from tying up the dark reapers.
Similarly, you could give drukhari mechanics for disrupting enemy auras, debuffing enemy offense, taking away obsec, etc. Do all that, and the drukhari gain a playstyle beyond "Glass cannon." Being moderately killy but really good at staying alive by being mean to the enemy seems very on-brand.
You're definitely on my wavelength here. Rather than glass cannon armies, because they're as bad for the game as unkillable skew is, I want the fragile armies to have some trick or niche that isn't just 'kill slightly better' or '+1 to movement'.
DE should be terrifying because they just scream at you from any angle and make it impossible to accomplish your objectives.
Eldar should be terrifying because that 'mistake' they made was actually them accomplishing one of their secret tasks that puts them that much closer to victory.
GSC should be terrifying because they pop up from terrain features and have a seemingly endless wave of cheap fodder to protect their leadership and elites with.
And so on until everybody feels unique and plays a style that isn't exactly like anybody else's.
These kinds of things while nice, may feel gimmicky especially if someone loses to them but otherwise seems to have won.
As an example, BFG Necron rules had their opponents able to score many VPs for doing damage and destroying their ships. This was a band-aid solution to the problem of the Necron rules being overpowered. While the intent was to force cautious Necron play or disengagement at the threat of losing VPs, it was not unknown for a Necron player to ignore VPs entirely and wipe out the enemy entirely. Sure they would "lose" on VPs due to the damage taken, but it wasn't a satisfying feeling for the "winning" opponent who was effectively tabled. The gimmick of the VPs was therefore not an effective balancing solution.
Canadian 5th wrote: From a thematic standpoint, I could easily see DE having some ability that shuts down a unit's ability to hold points for a turn. Make it so they can win the game by holding whatever objectives they happen to be near that turn while using relics and special abilities to disrupt the enemy's plans. It would be thematic and fun as long as it had some form of counter play.
I'd love that. It might make sense to give craftworlders something similar. If executed well, it would allow aeldari armies to have a good chance at winning without relying on having the same raw offense or defense as marines and marine accessories. Picture banshees stunning a unit in melee for a turn to prevent retaliation and shut down guns. Warp spiders tangling up melee units with monofilament wires to keep them from moving into charge range. Dire avengers with tarpit builds countercharging an enemy deepstriker to keep them from tying up the dark reapers.
Similarly, you could give drukhari mechanics for disrupting enemy auras, debuffing enemy offense, taking away obsec, etc. Do all that, and the drukhari gain a playstyle beyond "Glass cannon." Being moderately killy but really good at staying alive by being mean to the enemy seems very on-brand.
You're definitely on my wavelength here. Rather than glass cannon armies, because they're as bad for the game as unkillable skew is, I want the fragile armies to have some trick or niche that isn't just 'kill slightly better' or '+1 to movement'.
DE should be terrifying because they just scream at you from any angle and make it impossible to accomplish your objectives.
Eldar should be terrifying because that 'mistake' they made was actually them accomplishing one of their secret tasks that puts them that much closer to victory.
GSC should be terrifying because they pop up from terrain features and have a seemingly endless wave of cheap fodder to protect their leadership and elites with.
And so on until everybody feels unique and plays a style that isn't exactly like anybody else's.
These kinds of things while nice, may feel gimmicky especially if someone loses to them but otherwise seems to have won.
As an example, BFG Necron rules had their opponents able to score many VPs for doing damage and destroying their ships. This was a band-aid solution to the problem of the Necron rules being overpowered. While the intent was to force cautious Necron play or disengagement at the threat of losing VPs, it was not unknown for a Necron player to ignore VPs entirely and wipe out the enemy entirely. Sure they would "lose" on VPs due to the damage taken, but it wasn't a satisfying feeling for the "winning" opponent who was effectively tabled. The gimmick of the VPs was therefore not an effective balancing solution.
I don't know, I think it feels exaclty like it is supposed to feel. Like someone fighting dirty! You should've won, your better than him, but he still wins. And while gimmicky it should feel incredibly satisfying for the DE/GSC/Eldar player.
EDIT: by "better than him" I don't mean literally the better player but figuratively
Iracundus wrote: As an example, BFG Necron rules had their opponents able to score many VPs for doing damage and destroying their ships. This was a band-aid solution to the problem of the Necron rules being overpowered. While the intent was to force cautious Necron play or disengagement at the threat of losing VPs, it was not unknown for a Necron player to ignore VPs entirely and wipe out the enemy entirely. Sure they would "lose" on VPs due to the damage taken, but it wasn't a satisfying feeling for the "winning" opponent who was effectively tabled. The gimmick of the VPs was therefore not an effective balancing solution.
I feel like that's a bad example because the issue with Necrons in BFG wasn't that special victory condition but the fact that they were OP as hell.
The goal of my ideas would be to take armies that, by the numbers, aren't strong enough to compete by simply killing the enemy and holding ground a gimmick to play around. They need to have enough power to grab a win from 'behind' but have obvious enough play patterns that their opponent doesn't feel like a win came out of nowhere or that them killing enemy units didn't matter. It's a balancing act and a damned tough one but I think it'd be cool if every codex had its own thing and thus every game you had two armies fighting and aiming for goals that weren't just stand on as many of 4 to 6 objective markers as you can, kill specific unit types, and maybe stand in a table quarter.
Since AOS is often a test bed for many 40k mechanics, I could easily see Aeldari of all flavours getting the Lightning Reactions rule that Lumineth have (you can activate two units at a time to fight, rather than one)
Gregor Samsa wrote: IMO eldar and dark eldar don’t really work well/make sense in a game rule set without an initiative statline. Their speed and agility were best represented in that way, and they played more thematically within that rules framework
Harlequins turned out very well from them their WD update.
The two for one activation seems a bit more reasonable to balance than a flat army wide always fights first also avoids the never ending argument of who fights first of all the first fighters.
Just yet more evidence that slow rolling codex's for over 18 months is going to leave the last faction to get a codex as ever increasingly unplayable trash.
But wait, the SoB generally come last in an editions life. I thought according to most of the tourney data you all worship that the SoB were really strong atm? You really expect the Sisters to tail off to unplayable trash?
SoB are roumered to be one of the next 3 codex's so hardly last realistically they are going to be in the first half of codex's for 9th.
vipoid wrote: Wow! Our advanced Splinter Cannons have been upgraded to . . . Heavy Bolters.
Except worse against vehicles.
And also worse against any non-vehicles with T4 or less.
It should say something about how dismal Dark Eldar weapons are that people are legitimately considering this to be an upgrade.
I'm not understanding you. Poison always wounded vehicles on a 6. This update gives you AP plus the equivalent of being in RF range all of the time.
It goes from 0.11 damage to 0.33 against a 3+ vehicle - it triples in effectiveness.
Poison wounds on 4 for everything else. The S3 lets it would T2 on a 3, but otherwise there's no downside. What am I missing here?
the majority of people who had splinter cannons in their army were taking them to deal with GEQ, and were taking them on kabalite warriors where the Heavy Dark Lance was less efficient, so they took the Rapid Fire splinter cannon instead.
Now they're not an anti-GEQ weapon, and they're now Heavy. That leaves me very slightly irritated (obviously, not knowing what the various special rules actually do) in the same way I was irritated when they decided to change the harlequin weapons around and make the anti-horde harlequin melee weapon into just a third anti-elite choice.
Except Splinter Cannons are really bad as anti-GEQ as they were wounding mostly T3 units(average GEQ) and lower on a 4+. Those extra shots you got at sub-18" range you were at best getting 1 through and that is before a save. Splinter Cannons are utter garbage in 8th. You would have to bring several Splinter Cannons just to get one extra dead 1 wound critter on average and that's a lot of wasted points to kill one guardsman or termagant. For less points you could take an extra Kabalite warrior that gave you 2/3 shots as well as provided an extra wound. Same goes for Scourges. You are always going to be better off getting another body on the floor than taking the current Splinter Cannon.
Last time Splinter Cannons were any good was in 5th edition because they had some AP, were not rapid fire(but had ton of shots at full range), and you could take a couple of them on Trueborns for that extra bang.
So how on the remotely balanced concept do you justify
M7 WS3+, BS3+, S3 T3, 1W 2A 4+Sv at 8 points (probably fair against SoB and Marines)
While M6 WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 1W 1A 4+Sv at 9 points?
Good to know you already know tau codex changes.
Old codexes are fairly irrelevant for balance comparisons. They are screwed by power creep anyway. You need to compare to 9e codexes. If you balance things now vs 8e codexes you end up with underpowered codex in the end. You hate de so much you want them to be rock bottom?
Canadian, that's a great idea for Eldar design. I often lurk these threads and read people's thoughts about the tricky nature of balancing Eldar for the modern ultra-lethal game, and I think that is one of the best solutions I have seen.
The only (minor) downside I can see is that it would "feel bad", but then so does getting tabled. I thematically it works brilliantly, because Eldar are always UP TO SOMETHING in the background, usually something beyond the comprehension of the dull witted human brutes.
So how on the remotely balanced concept do you justify
M7 WS3+, BS3+, S3 T3, 1W 2A 4+Sv at 8 points (probably fair against SoB and Marines)
While M6 WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 1W 1A 4+Sv at 9 points?
Good to know you already know tau codex changes.
Old codexes are fairly irrelevant for balance comparisons. They are screwed by power creep anyway. You need to compare to 9e codexes. If you balance things now vs 8e codexes you end up with underpowered codex in the end. You hate de so much you want them to be rock bottom?
Notice I said they needed the statline changes to balance against the upper factions now.
Given we just got the MFM updates and the Dark eldar points barely changed for their codex.
So essentially the MFM has been bs from the start we are apparently all paying 9th edition points for 8th edition rules untill we get a codex.
That or GW is unable or unwilling to actually discount armies stuck on 8th edition rules to give them a frightening chance at playing an edition that's almost 9 months old and on its second points update.
Iracundus wrote: As an example, BFG Necron rules had their opponents able to score many VPs for doing damage and destroying their ships. This was a band-aid solution to the problem of the Necron rules being overpowered. While the intent was to force cautious Necron play or disengagement at the threat of losing VPs, it was not unknown for a Necron player to ignore VPs entirely and wipe out the enemy entirely. Sure they would "lose" on VPs due to the damage taken, but it wasn't a satisfying feeling for the "winning" opponent who was effectively tabled. The gimmick of the VPs was therefore not an effective balancing solution.
I feel like that's a bad example because the issue with Necrons in BFG wasn't that special victory condition but the fact that they were OP as hell.
The goal of my ideas would be to take armies that, by the numbers, aren't strong enough to compete by simply killing the enemy and holding ground a gimmick to play around. They need to have enough power to grab a win from 'behind' but have obvious enough play patterns that their opponent doesn't feel like a win came out of nowhere or that them killing enemy units didn't matter. It's a balancing act and a damned tough one but I think it'd be cool if every codex had its own thing and thus every game you had two armies fighting and aiming for goals that weren't just stand on as many of 4 to 6 objective markers as you can, kill specific unit types, and maybe stand in a table quarter.
The BFG Necrons being overpowered is a separate issue. My point was that "winning by gimmick" was not very satisfying if it became the most realistic way to actually win.
Just as the non-Necron player did not find it satisfying to win on VPs while having their fleet nearly wiped out, I don't think having for example Eldar armies "winning" by gimmick (while being shattered) would be very satisfying for the Eldar player or their opponent either. It can feel like a hollow victory for the former, and a win snatched away for the latter.
Sure have some gimmicks but these factions still ultimately need to be able to stand on their own and be reasonably competitive.
Yes and I think people look back on those old Necrons with heavily rose tinted glasses. Things like phase out were not enjoyable. The idea is cool, but was frustrating in practice at the time.
Necrons feel like implacable warriors who just keep coming, armed with high quality weaponry that can flay the skin. Tesla bounces between enemies like energy current. They feel good without just playing a different game. Arguably 8.5 SM played like narrative marines, but that doesn't make for a good game.
So how on the remotely balanced concept do you justify
M7 WS3+, BS3+, S3 T3, 1W 2A 4+Sv at 8 points (probably fair against SoB and Marines)
While M6 WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 1W 1A 4+Sv at 9 points?
Good to know you already know tau codex changes.
Old codexes are fairly irrelevant for balance comparisons. They are screwed by power creep anyway. You need to compare to 9e codexes. If you balance things now vs 8e codexes you end up with underpowered codex in the end. You hate de so much you want them to be rock bottom?
It is 100% relevant.
The 9th codici don't bring power creep, they bring a rebalance.
They have been quite consistent in what they do:
- Jack up the thoughness of melee footslogging models
- Nerf vehicle lists
- Power up single/double shot AT weapons
- Nerf efficient shooting options and stratagems
- Rebalance AP - Convert Dd3 to D2
- Remove silly and gamey interactions
As such, firewarriors are not looking at a bright future if GW doesn't go out of their way with the T'au faction.
Spoletta wrote: As such, firewarriors are not looking at a bright future if GW doesn't go out of their way with the T'au faction.
Undoubtedly boring - but give them BS3+ and you'd probably be fine.
Would actually work across the whole range of the codex, which seems to be balanced on the assumption you can throw down about 10~ marker lights every turn with no chance of failure and for free.
There's probably a more fun/interactive way of doing things though. But so long as Tau are the "we don't assault" faction in an edition all about assaulting, they are going to be in trouble.
So clearly the answer is for Fire Warriors to get WS 4+ and 2 attacks.
Gregor Samsa wrote: IMO eldar and dark eldar don’t really work well/make sense in a game rule set without an initiative statline. Their speed and agility were best represented in that way, and they played more thematically within that rules framework
Harlequins turned out very well from them their WD update.
Yeah, but harlequins are crazy RN because I can just deploy a huge pile of them fairly easily in a gigantic clump of 14ppm dudes with 4++, 6+FNP, -1 to hit, -1 to wound, and you count as 6" further away from me.
I played my Harlies as Orklequins recently and both me and my opponent were just like "So....what the feth are you supposed to do about THAT?"
str 5 rapid fire 30 is a huge upgrade from poison. Firewarriors and warriors should probably cost about the same. Currently with the buff warriors are better than firewarriors even if firewarriors were currently 8 points. I'd say strap on some kind of on 6 proc for the fire warriors (6's to hit are damage 2) or something.
I feel Harlequins are an example of "everything's fluffy when its overpowered".
DE enjoyed a similar honeymoon when their 8th edition codex came out. Unfortunately you then saw the usual devolution - which meant the weaker stuff became really weak, and the good stuff became "you need to play this to have much of a chance".
I'm certainly cynical about "initiative" of all things defining a faction - because it just brings back flashbacks of your initiative being 1 if you charged into cover.
And someone from GW observing Eldar and Tyranid assault units shouldn't just get assault grenades to bypass this rule, because if everyone had such grenades why bother with the rule?
Why indeed.
Gregor Samsa wrote: IMO eldar and dark eldar don’t really work well/make sense in a game rule set without an initiative statline. Their speed and agility were best represented in that way, and they played more thematically within that rules framework
Harlequins turned out very well from them their WD update.
Yeah, but harlequins are crazy RN because I can just deploy a huge pile of them fairly easily in a gigantic clump of 14ppm dudes with 4++, 6+FNP, -1 to hit, -1 to wound, and you count as 6" further away from me.
I played my Harlies as Orklequins recently and both me and my opponent were just like "So....what the feth are you supposed to do about THAT?"
My harlequin opponent wont listen to me. A few 10 man units just barebones with aldarie blades next to a troop master is doing just about as much damage while being super durable due to being cheap. Heck - you could take 60-80 of them like that and you'd probably turn 3-4 table any army you run into.
Gregor Samsa wrote: IMO eldar and dark eldar don’t really work well/make sense in a game rule set without an initiative statline. Their speed and agility were best represented in that way, and they played more thematically within that rules framework
Harlequins turned out very well from them their WD update.
Yeah, but harlequins are crazy RN because I can just deploy a huge pile of them fairly easily in a gigantic clump of 14ppm dudes with 4++, 6+FNP, -1 to hit, -1 to wound, and you count as 6" further away from me.
I played my Harlies as Orklequins recently and both me and my opponent were just like "So....what the feth are you supposed to do about THAT?"
My harlequin opponent wont listen to me. A few 10 man units just barebones with aldarie blades next to a troop master is doing just about as much damage while being super durable due to being cheap. Heck - you could take 60-80 of them like that and you'd probably turn 3-4 table any army you run into.
I don't know about that, but for fun I tried playing footslogging ork-clowns with my new pile of ancient rogue trader metal harlequins and my philosphy was "If I'm going to run these dudes on foot with zany nonsense wargear dictated by what the metal models are holding, I'm going to need to powergame the auras and traits and such" and no.
No I did not have to do that, apparently. Apparently, the ability to have a model rocking two stacking very similarly powerful auras right on top of one another for 1cp was a very dumb and stupid idea on GW's part, whodathunkit?
I'm certainly cynical about "initiative" of all things defining a faction - because it just brings back flashbacks of your initiative being 1 if you charged into cover.
And someone from GW observing Eldar and Tyranid assault units shouldn't just get assault grenades to bypass this rule, because if everyone had such grenades why bother with the rule?
Why indeed.
To be honest, this seems like a problem specific to the cover rules.
Indeed, I argued repeatedly at the time that it would have been far more sensible for cover to negate the +1 attack units received from charging (as that would have penalised all chargers - not just ones that relied on good initiative).
The "middle class" stuff has all seemed overcosted with the 9E points. The extra attack and armor here seem like a good step in the right direction. They can decisively beat the lower end troops, the squad leader's weapon is that much better, and they can soak up a little more fire in cover.
The cannon still seems overcosted considering the "usually undergunned, sometimes way overgunned" aspect of the poison weapons. Maybe 4 shots would have been more fair.
Regarding Tau, don't D2 Pulse Rifles (not carbines) make the most sense? I think they might go that way.
Hopefully GW will tease the Scourge datasheet next!
harlokin wrote: Yes, I was referring to the WD update, which seems to have been a massive game changer for the army.
If your competitive win rate is way out ahead of other factions its usually a sign of being overpowered. I feel the only thing keeping them in check is the limited uptake of Harlequin armies.
I guess you can debate though whether they are just first amongst equals with 9th edition codexes. Quite a lot of factions still outside that pot though.
Tyel wrote: I feel Harlequins are an example of "everything's fluffy when its overpowered".
Is the perception really that Quins are overpowered, rather than a '9th edition-style codex' released early?
It was released in 2018 between T'au and Knights. Not sure but it I think it's the white dwarf Psychic Awakening that is helping.
Yes, I was referring to the WD update, which seems to have been a massive game changer for the army.
It is basically a 50% reduction in damage from low quality attacks compared to previously before the WD. Yes is massive. Clearly broken. What the heck do you shoot at a Starweaver to kill it?
-1 to hit and wound makes single shot weapons wound 1/4 if you hit on 3's. High ROF weapons typically are str 5/4 which now wound on 5's and 6's. Twin assault cannons are probably the ideal weapon to hit them with but their range is cut to 18" which means you are auto charged the next turn and its essentially GG once this army collapses on you.
I played against quinns a lot in 8th eddition. They were strong then too. The were tittering at the almost OP level. Because it was totally possible to deal a death blow to them turn 1. Now you can't. There is no army in the game that can avoid being charged by every unit in a quin army on turn 2. Then their natural OP traits come into play. Everything you are fighting ignores your AP/ignores your strength/ and also ignores your tougness as they reroll all wounds with an auto include cheapo HQ. Don't even get my started about the solitare...or hawywire bikes...
Regarding Tau, don't D2 Pulse Rifles (not carbines) make the most sense? I think they might go that way.
That'd be terrible. Straight-up bad-for-the-game terrible, as that would be a major jump in ranks of anti-vehicle effectiveness. Except against dreads, of course.
As a tau player with hordes of firewarriors, pulse rifles are fine. S5 is great for a basic weapon that you can spam in 8-9 point models. I would not change anything about Strike Squads, TBH.
I prefer to run breachers for my Farsight enclaves, so those would be probably where more help is needed. Maybe +3" of range for each profile of the blaster.
The problems of Tau lie elsewhere than in the humble fire warrior.
Regarding Tau, don't D2 Pulse Rifles (not carbines) make the most sense? I think they might go that way.
That'd be terrible. Straight-up bad-for-the-game terrible, as that would be a major jump in ranks of anti-vehicle effectiveness. Except against dreads, of course.
True. but going from 180 shots to kill a Rhino to "only" 90 for this hypothetical 2 damage Pulse Rifle doesn't seem too scary really. My thought is that the gun is already pretty good against other infantry, but 20 shots to kill one marine is just too weak to matter. It seems likely they'll lose at least some of their shooting buffs in a new codex also. Anyway, just a thought. What would you suggest?
Canadian 5th wrote: From a thematic standpoint, I could easily see DE having some ability that shuts down a unit's ability to hold points for a turn. Make it so they can win the game by holding whatever objectives they happen to be near that turn while using relics and special abilities to disrupt the enemy's plans. It would be thematic and fun as long as it had some form of counter play.
This ability should really not be spammed that much in various factions tho.
IMO , it only makes sense for DA, Night lords and Drukhari, i really hope GW doesnt give it to every army.
But yes, with initiative gone, elfs should be the rules bender faction. Stuff like the "reduce range" aura that harlequins got is a perfect example of what trickery they should have.
No drukhari article is literally orwell's nightmare. GW I need large doses of seratonin from a gradual revelation of the rules changes so that I can imagine they're more sweeping that they are and so that I spend large sums of money on the new thing!
...or maybe it'll just get me so hyped and excited that I painstakingly spend an hour and a half screencapping the entire book from blurry youtube jpgs the second the embargo lifts and I end up not bothering to buy the thing after putting in all that effort.
Back in the day, Fire Warriors slagged a Rhino in an average of just 9 hits, so it wouldn't be that unreasonable to make them D2.
I mean, people are saying it'd break the game with anti-vehicle damage as if Stalker Bolt Rifles don't already exist. Take a comparison vs T8/3+ at 24", turn 1:
[edit: math where I forget an SBR doesn't get to bolter discipline out two shots, never mind!]
But I don't think D2 is especially likely; AP-1 seems a more reasonable change, now that S5/AP-1/D1 is no longer a heavy bolter profile. Wounding Marines on 3s and reducing them to a 4+ save is pretty spicy for a 30" rifle on a sub-10pt platform.
You only get two shots if you spend 2 CP. I would not take that as baseline for a comparison as it is limited to one unit per turn and costs a lot of your ressources.
You only get two shots if you spend 2 CP. I would not take that as baseline for a comparison as it is limited to one unit per turn and costs a lot of your ressources.
You only get two shots if you spend 2 CP. I would not take that as baseline for a comparison as it is limited to one unit per turn and costs a lot of your ressources.
My bad and thanks for the correction, got my bolt weapon profiles mixed up.
In abstract I like the idea of a basic rifle being effective enough at AT that the faction doesn't need dedicated heavy weapons, but yeah D2 might be pushing it for how cheap they are. I still think AP-1 is much more likely.
Anyways, back to Eldar- I think this hints at some of the changes we might see for Craftworlds. Guardians in particular seem likely to go to 4+, which will help as currently they're hideously overcosted. I think GW is recognizing now that the AP modifier system allows for more scope to mess with armor values without running into problems with breakpoints like the old system.
I could see craftworld guardians getting 4+Save. But I wouldn’t expect them to get the additional attack that kabalites get. Dark eldar has always been more martially inclined than their craftworld cousins (who used to compensate with buffs, through a broad access to psykers). It would be really nice to see that martial difference be represented in their stat lines, once again. To me, at least. (But I could see aspect warriors getting it)
So do we now get 4+ Sv Guardians?
Do Dire avengers now come with a 3+ Sv?
Guard with a 4+ army wide as they were 5+ Save too.
Do firewarriors get a 3+ or are they just supposed to accept getting worse while being more point's per model?
I'd probably move Guardians to a 4+ save and then Aspects to 2w but keep the save. Same for Incubi, Mandrakes, Hellions, everything Harliequin, etc. That gives them durability against things like bolters while rewarding the enemy for having mid strength anti-elite weapons (like the new splinter cannon, for example). Things get kind of weird anyway if the offense/defense of a unit gets too out of proportion.
Under this model Fire warriors would stay at 4+ because the elite models in a Tau army are the battlesuits.
So do we now get 4+ Sv Guardians?
Do Dire avengers now come with a 3+ Sv?
Guard with a 4+ army wide as they were 5+ Save too.
Do firewarriors get a 3+ or are they just supposed to accept getting worse while being more point's per model?
I'd probably move Guardians to a 4+ save and then Aspects to 2w but keep the save. Same for Incubi, Mandrakes, Hellions, everything Harliequin, etc. That gives them durability against things like bolters while rewarding the enemy for having mid strength anti-elite weapons (like the new splinter cannon, for example). Things get kind of weird anyway if the offense/defense of a unit gets too out of proportion.
Under this model Fire warriors would stay at 4+ because the elite models in a Tau army are the battlesuits.
If FW is any indication thats a nope for CWE aspects. Also ANYTHING getting more than 4 attacks..
I doubt we actually get that, Incubi are already not where I said they should be. I just think that's the right spot, GW should be fairly generous about moving units up to 2w if they represent elite infantry but also be generous about giving out guns that deal 2w.
Dark lances (and Bright lances) are most likely going to change in only one way. They are probably going to be -1 to save against.
They used to ignore AV higher than 12. So either they go to always wound on a 4+ vs everything (mostly pointless), or they go to a -1 to saves. This makes them fairly unique as a ranged weapon and not at all bad.
novembermike wrote: I doubt we actually get that, Incubi are already not where I said they should be. I just think that's the right spot, GW should be fairly generous about moving units up to 2w if they represent elite infantry but also be generous about giving out guns that deal 2w.
That feels... pointless. As if none of the 'real contenders' have really gained or lost anything.
It also has unintended consequences. Making vehicles/monsters worse (as they're also hit by an extra abundance of D2 weapons), and makes really cheap 1W horde armies a meta spoiler, and in a fairly absurd way, oddly elite for being 'non-preferred' targets.
It also makes mid-tier units who can't boast low cost, 2W or 2D, both too expensive for the little they can achieve and not durable enough to last against the improved firepower. Worst of all possible worlds, and that currently affects a lot of (non marine) armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eihnlazer wrote: Dark lances (and Bright lances) are most likely going to change in only one way. They are probably going to be -1 to save against.
They used to ignore AV higher than 12. So either they go to always wound on a 4+ vs everything (mostly pointless), or they go to a -1 to saves. This makes them fairly unique as a ranged weapon and not at all bad.
Always wound on a 4+ would be _terrible_. The number of things that are T9 or above is very low. They'd be worse against everything T7 or below, which is a _heck_ of a lot more. That's a horrifying downgrade.
-1 to save against is pointless. They're already -4. Their AP is fine. Dark and Bright lances already have good AP (better than imperial lascannons, equal to melta weapons), so I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Their big issue is they're not great at wounding the things they're supposed to be shooting at (heavy vehicles), and they've got lol!random damage. Neither are good for what were dedicated heavy tank hunter weapons (that incidentally also popped light vehicles).
The problem is things that are supposed to be less effective anti-tank (pulse lasers and disintegrators) are actually statistically better against a lot of targets, because of multiple shots and reliable damage.
---
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Part of the point of Kalabites is they had absolutely gakky armor and that they relied on fast transports to make up for it as they fire away, so who the hell decided they needed a 4+?
I had always perceived Dark/Bright Lances as superior Lascannons in prior editions.
Presumably in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
Guess you've never played 40k before 8th edition then
During the AV era of 40k, the brightlance was only superior against AV14, it was equal to a lascannon against AV13 and worse against AV everything else. And that doesn't include its 12" shorter range.
Given that the majority of AV in 40k back then was 10-13 and 14 only appeared on a couple of vehicles or vehicle faces, in practice the brightlance was never as good as a S9 lascannon.
I of course meant always wounds on nothing less than a 4+. You would still wound T7 on a 3+ and T4 on a 2+.
Nothing could make you wound on less than a 4+ however, so like the opposite of transhuman. I apologize for not explaining that better.
Eh. That's still just pointless special rules bloat. It just doesn't affect much of anything, there is almost nothing that isn't a LoW that more than T8, and even a lot of LoW's aren't.
For example, even Monoliths and Land Raiders are T8, and land raiders were part of the reason the old lance rule existed. This would do basically nothing but add word count (and convince GW that they need to cost more points, despite how useless the rule is).
Also, -1 save would not be useless as it would effect invuns.............
Yeah, no. We don't need more special rules that exist only to counter other rules. What reason would they have to affect invulnerable saves?
Weapons just need to be effective. They don't need word salad jammed into the abilities column.
The only units I'm aware of that have a toughness value greater than 8 are the Mastodon (800 PPM), the Revenant Titan (1500 PPM), and the Phantom Titan (3000 PPM) all of which are T9. So yeah, always wounding on a 4+ or lower wouldn't be useful very often.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The only units I'm aware of that have a toughness value greater than 8 are the Mastodon (800 PPM), the Revenant Titan (1500 PPM), and the Phantom Titan (3000 PPM) all of which are T9. So yeah, always wounding on a 4+ or lower wouldn't be useful very often.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The only units I'm aware of that have a toughness value greater than 8 are the Mastodon (800 PPM), the Revenant Titan (1500 PPM), and the Phantom Titan (3000 PPM) all of which are T9. So yeah, always wounding on a 4+ or lower wouldn't be useful very often.
Argive wrote: "Cearly need al that posion. The warlord titan we see at all that pick up games these days is a big problem"
Said nobody ever...
This is all going to be just great.. I can feel it already...
It was in the interests of accuracy, not an indication of efficacy...
T5 Gravis armour marines are going to be taking it a bit harder though.
I know I know.
I was just sporting. The thought of some designer saying: "Ugh I have to do some lame alien stuff... I just want to write good rules for my sons fav chapter... Ugh what a drag.. How about this. these rando dark aliens wont be good vs a lot of stuff... But they will be really good against T9+. Thats warlord titan level of toughness! This ought to amke people happy"
Eihnlazer wrote:
I of course meant always wounds on nothing less than a 4+. You would still wound T7 on a 3+ and T4 on a 2+.
Nothing could make you wound on less than a 4+ however, so like the opposite of transhuman. I apologize for not explaining that better.
Also, -1 save would not be useless as it would effect invuns.............
Personally, I'd rather not go that route. Never wounding on worse than a 4+ would be so extremely niche that I'd rather just not have the ability. Even if they didn't charge us any points for it, the existence of such a rule would make me worry about just how well the guys tasked with writing our book understand the faction/the game overall.
Also not a fan of lowering invuln saves with lances if only for fluff reasons. Nothing about a lance makes me think it should be especially good at hitting targets cloaked by hologram tech (like venoms and star weavers), targets that are jinking (like Raven Wing), or especially good at overcoming the non-physics that govern daemonic invuln saves. You could make try to come up with a reason for it to be good at piercing forcefields, but those are just a small subset of invulns in the game and aren't currently labeled with any sort of keyword. Such a rule would create dissonance between the fluff and the crunch for me.
Eihnlazer wrote:It would certainly effect things that have -1 to wound on them or abilities that lower the strength of the weapon being fired at them.
It would not be a major effect, but a slight buff to a lackluster weapon.
How many things are lowering to-wound rolls to worse than a 4+ against a strength 8 weapon? Even harlequin vehicles with a -1 to wound aura on them would still be getting wounded on a 4+ by a bright lance. How many situations can you think of where always wounding on a 4+ would benefit a dark/bright lance? And how many points are you willing to pay every time you take that weapon on the off-chance that the rule matters?
Not trying to be a jerk, but I'd really rather not bother remembering the text or paying the points for such a highly-specific rule. Personally, I don't think dark/bright lances are all that bad, though the latter have certainly benefitted from Expert Crafters lately. If we really wanted to give those weapons a boost, just make them d6 damage minimum 3. You have the same chance of spiking your damage high as you do now, but you no longer have to worry about rolling an annoyingly low damage result. Not so good that drukhari spamming darklight becomes a problem. Not so niche that you'll forget you even have it.
Canadian 5th wrote: Why not just make lance weapons ignore any modifiers to wound and call it a day?
There's not too many of those though for that to be worth it.
DG has a fair few, including some on targets lances would rather like to wound normally. We also don't know what's planned for other armies as I could easily see Chaos Marines, Tyranids, and Custodes having a -1 to wound rule/stratagem that could easily impact lance targets.
That or make them ignore damage mitigation effects like DG, Astartes Dreadnaughts. -1 making things 1-5 but keeping yourself at 1-6 might not feel like much buts it's an avarage bump of +.88 Damage.
If that doesn't feel enough maybe some anti FNP rule though I think that has it's own raft of issues.
Though to be blunt are people running the risk of doing the GW special of trying to invent a rule to reflect fluff when in game terms on a D6 that difference just isnt enough to be statistically significant?
As a lance with a better points vost and basic stats actually going to be more useful than going daft with paying extra points for a rule that doesnt always effect the result?
Gadzilla666 wrote: The only units I'm aware of that have a toughness value greater than 8 are the Mastodon (800 PPM), the Revenant Titan (1500 PPM), and the Phantom Titan (3000 PPM) all of which are T9. So yeah, always wounding on a 4+ or lower wouldn't be useful very often.
Canadian 5th wrote: Why not just make lance weapons ignore any modifiers to wound and call it a day?
There's not too many of those though for that to be worth it.
DG has a fair few, including some on targets lances would rather like to wound normally. We also don't know what's planned for other armies as I could easily see Chaos Marines, Tyranids, and Custodes having a -1 to wound rule/stratagem that could easily impact lance targets.
i'd rather GW stopped fething around with the wounding chart tbh. Lances should do damage in the form of mortal wounds, and be D3+3. That way the damage wouldnt be reduceable and it would still be better than lascannons
I would really rather we didn't continue just piling special rules on top of special rules.
Especially since these aren't even universal rules, they're generic, wish-washy call outs to rules that are universal for all intents and purposes but GW insists aren't and has a bespoke name for every single one of them.
I would rather lances just not have any special rule, if adding one would be that complex.
VladimirHerzog wrote: i'd rather GW stopped fething around with the wounding chart tbh. Lances should do damage in the form of mortal wounds, and be D3+3. That way the damage wouldnt be reduceable and it would still be better than lascannons
Lances have been worse than lascannons for most of the game's history, they had an advantage against AV14 and that's it. So give them some minor special rule, leave them at S8, and give them a reasonable points cost and call it a day.
VladimirHerzog wrote: It just doesnt fit with me that lances are worse than lascannons when both kinds are so much more technologically advanced than the human counterpart.
This feels very much a fluff vrs crunch issue.
At this point I'm starting to wonder how many issues are people reading faction A's fiction where A&B always results in result X
While in faction B's fiction where B&A always results in Y
The truth is probably more some half way house of X and Y that's just not functionally significant on a D6 scale.
Ok lances are more advanced than lascannons, yes they are that's why they arnt connected to the 40k equivalent of a tesla battery to make them work that's the more advanced tech right there.
They dont need MW or other rules to be better they can just be pointed correctly.
VladimirHerzog wrote: It just doesnt fit with me that lances are worse than lascannons when both kinds are so much more technologically advanced than the human counterpart.
More technologically advanced doesn't always mean strictly better in every way; it could just as easily mean that a lance is significantly more power-efficient than a lascannon, that a lance requires less maintenance, or that lances just cost less to build.
VladimirHerzog wrote: It just doesnt fit with me that lances are worse than lascannons when both kinds are so much more technologically advanced than the human counterpart.
More technologically advanced doesn't always mean strictly better in every way; it could just as easily mean that a lance is significantly more power-efficient than a lascannon, that a lance requires less maintenance, or that lances just cost less to build.
This has to be the most truly adorable rationalization for why the weaponry of the Tau, Necrons, and Eldar should be less powerful than the weaponry used by the imperium that I've ever heard. I love it so much.
I hope that the pulse weaponry used by the Tau is technologically advanced so it has snack compartments. This has no in game effect, of course, but the player is free to imagine any tasty snacks their fire warriors might be enjoying while being out-shot point for point by models that can instantly sweep through them in melee as well.
the_scotsman wrote: This has to be the most truly adorable rationalization for why the weaponry of the Tau, Necrons, and Eldar should be less powerful than the weaponry used by the imperium that I've ever heard. I love it so much.
I hope that the pulse weaponry used by the Tau is technologically advanced so it has snack compartments. This has no in game effect, of course, but the player is free to imagine any tasty snacks their fire warriors might be enjoying while being out-shot point for point by models that can instantly sweep through them in melee as well.
Just ignore the fact that I suggested giving lance weapons the ability to ignore modifiers to wound.
My response also came after Herzog suggested making dark lances 3+d3 for damage with potential mortal wounds on top of that, that's a bit crazy in terms of rules given that lances have never been strictly better than lascannons on the tabletop at any point in the history of the game... But sure, make some pointless argument against a strawman.
VladimirHerzog wrote: i'd rather GW stopped fething around with the wounding chart tbh. Lances should do damage in the form of mortal wounds, and be D3+3. That way the damage wouldnt be reduceable and it would still be better than lascannons
Lances have been worse than lascannons for most of the game's history, they had an advantage against AV14 and that's it. So give them some minor special rule, leave them at S8, and give them a reasonable points cost and call it a day.
They also have the advantage of AP-4. SUPER MINOR, but it's there. As I recall, were they not AP1 back in ye olde days?
VladimirHerzog wrote: i'd rather GW stopped fething around with the wounding chart tbh. Lances should do damage in the form of mortal wounds, and be D3+3. That way the damage wouldnt be reduceable and it would still be better than lascannons
Lances have been worse than lascannons for most of the game's history, they had an advantage against AV14 and that's it. So give them some minor special rule, leave them at S8, and give them a reasonable points cost and call it a day.
They also have the advantage of AP-4. SUPER MINOR, but it's there. As I recall, were they not AP1 back in ye olde days?
I do belive melta was the only ap1 weapon in good use. But they had a very short range.
VladimirHerzog wrote: i'd rather GW stopped fething around with the wounding chart tbh. Lances should do damage in the form of mortal wounds, and be D3+3. That way the damage wouldnt be reduceable and it would still be better than lascannons
Lances have been worse than lascannons for most of the game's history, they had an advantage against AV14 and that's it. So give them some minor special rule, leave them at S8, and give them a reasonable points cost and call it a day.
They also have the advantage of AP-4. SUPER MINOR, but it's there. As I recall, were they not AP1 back in ye olde days?
I do belive melta was the only ap1 weapon in good use. But they had a very short range.
VladimirHerzog wrote: It just doesnt fit with me that lances are worse than lascannons when both kinds are so much more technologically advanced than the human counterpart.
More technologically advanced doesn't always mean strictly better in every way; it could just as easily mean that a lance is significantly more power-efficient than a lascannon, that a lance requires less maintenance, or that lances just cost less to build.
This has to be the most truly adorable rationalization for why the weaponry of the Tau, Necrons, and Eldar should be less powerful than the weaponry used by the imperium that I've ever heard. I love it so much.
I hope that the pulse weaponry used by the Tau is technologically advanced so it has snack compartments. This has no in game effect, of course, but the player is free to imagine any tasty snacks their fire warriors might be enjoying while being out-shot point for point by models that can instantly sweep through them in melee as well.
Ha - maybe he has a point - maybe Eldars weapons are super tech advanced but instead of hitting harder and being more killy they just are more eco-friendly. Shuriken clips are biodegradable dont-cha-know
VladimirHerzog wrote: i'd rather GW stopped fething around with the wounding chart tbh. Lances should do damage in the form of mortal wounds, and be D3+3. That way the damage wouldnt be reduceable and it would still be better than lascannons
Lances have been worse than lascannons for most of the game's history, they had an advantage against AV14 and that's it. So give them some minor special rule, leave them at S8, and give them a reasonable points cost and call it a day.
They also have the advantage of AP-4. SUPER MINOR, but it's there. As I recall, were they not AP1 back in ye olde days?
I do belive melta was the only ap1 weapon in good use. But they had a very short range.
VladimirHerzog wrote: It just doesnt fit with me that lances are worse than lascannons when both kinds are so much more technologically advanced than the human counterpart.
More technologically advanced doesn't always mean strictly better in every way; it could just as easily mean that a lance is significantly more power-efficient than a lascannon, that a lance requires less maintenance, or that lances just cost less to build.
This has to be the most truly adorable rationalization for why the weaponry of the Tau, Necrons, and Eldar should be less powerful than the weaponry used by the imperium that I've ever heard. I love it so much.
I hope that the pulse weaponry used by the Tau is technologically advanced so it has snack compartments. This has no in game effect, of course, but the player is free to imagine any tasty snacks their fire warriors might be enjoying while being out-shot point for point by models that can instantly sweep through them in melee as well.
Ha - maybe he has a point - maybe Eldars weapons are super tech advanced but instead of hitting harder and being more killy they just are more eco-friendly. Shuriken clips are biodegradable dont-cha-know
Yeah wouldint want to pollute some imperial forge world or Nurgle's garden with non-bio-degradable shuriken
Gadzilla666 wrote: The only units I'm aware of that have a toughness value greater than 8 are the Mastodon (800 PPM), the Revenant Titan (1500 PPM), and the Phantom Titan (3000 PPM) all of which are T9. So yeah, always wounding on a 4+ or lower wouldn't be useful very often.
The Warlord Titan is also T9.
Whoops, sorry, forgot about the Warlord.
Some of the Fortifications are T9 and above. The Imperial Bastion and Plasma Obliterator are T9. The Aquilla Strongpoints (Macro-Cannon and Vortex Missile Variants) are T10.
A lot less expensive to field than the Titans, too. They might actually show up from time to time. I saw the Bastion a couple times in 8th.
Canadian 5th wrote: Lances have been worse than lascannons for most of the game's history, they had an advantage against AV14 and that's it. So give them some minor special rule, leave them at S8, and give them a reasonable points cost and call it a day.
They also have the advantage of AP-4. SUPER MINOR, but it's there. As I recall, were they not AP1 back in ye olde days?
They've been AP2 for since 3e, I even went back and checked just in case I missed something. So rather than ALL CAPS WORDS at me, try looking up the rules next time.
petrov27 wrote: Ha - maybe he has a point - maybe Eldars weapons are super tech advanced but instead of hitting harder and being more killy they just are more eco-friendly. Shuriken clips are biodegradable dont-cha-know
Or it could turn out the using handheld railguns to fire metal disks at the enemy is actually just worse than using chemicals to fire explosive rounds instead. It doesn't have to be that way, but shuriken weapons have been worse* than bolters since 3e so there could also be something to the idea.
*Debatably so with the introduction of Avenger Shuriken Catapults in 5e.
Canadian 5th wrote: Lances have been worse than lascannons for most of the game's history, they had an advantage against AV14 and that's it. So give them some minor special rule, leave them at S8, and give them a reasonable points cost and call it a day.
They also have the advantage of AP-4. SUPER MINOR, but it's there. As I recall, were they not AP1 back in ye olde days?
They've been AP2 for since 3e, I even went back and checked just in case I missed something. So rather than ALL CAPS WORDS at me, try looking up the rules next time.
Brightlances have been S8 -4 D6 ever since 8th edition.
Vs Lascannons S9 -3 D6
Eihnlazer wrote: no, lances were just AP2. Only fusion, melta, and Heavy rail cannons were AP1.
Lances just ignored high AV. Thicker armor meant nothing. This translated into a higher ap value in 8th, which was fair.
Lazcannons havent gotten any buffs, just got cheaper so dont expect lances to get much of a buff either.
Ignoring wound modifiers and or reducing invuns by 1 would be plenty of a buff for them.
Dark lances were typically better than lascannons vs high armor (now toughness)...they have reversed that.
I think Dark/Bright lance should always wound vehicles/monsters on a 3+. Lower their str to str 7 so they don't wound infantry on 2's. It would give them more specialization (this game rewards specialization)
Eihnlazer wrote: no, lances were just AP2. Only fusion, melta, and Heavy rail cannons were AP1.
Lances just ignored high AV. Thicker armor meant nothing. This translated into a higher ap value in 8th, which was fair.
Lazcannons havent gotten any buffs, just got cheaper so dont expect lances to get much of a buff either.
Ignoring wound modifiers and or reducing invuns by 1 would be plenty of a buff for them.
Dark lances were typically better than lascannons vs high armor (now toughness)...they have reversed that.
I think Dark/Bright lance should always wound vehicles/monsters on a 3+. Lower their str to str 7 so they don't wound infantry on 2's. It would give them more specialization (this game rewards specialization)
Right because the issue is wounding T4 on 2's.
What is more prevalent in the meta T4 or T8?
Your change would make them worse or the same against what they will fight 90% of the time and make taking T8 vehicals even more a a joke than they already are.
Canadian 5th wrote: Lances have been worse than lascannons for most of the game's history, they had an advantage against AV14 and that's it. So give them some minor special rule, leave them at S8, and give them a reasonable points cost and call it a day.
So here we are, comparing the two weapons similarities for most of the game's history.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Brightlances have been S8 -4 D6 ever since 8th edition.
Vs Lascannons S9 -3 D6
Yes, and neither weapon has been amazing in 8e or 9e so what's your point?
Then all of a sudden, comparing them in 8e or 9e isnt a valid argument anymore. The fact that both weren't the optimal weapon doesnt change the fact that theyre very similar, with Lances having better pen. And jut because theyre not optimal doesn't mean they aren't being used by anyone. Most players won't play the most competitive options and spam them.
Eihnlazer wrote: no, lances were just AP2. Only fusion, melta, and Heavy rail cannons were AP1.
Lances just ignored high AV. Thicker armor meant nothing. This translated into a higher ap value in 8th, which was fair.
Lazcannons havent gotten any buffs, just got cheaper so dont expect lances to get much of a buff either.
Ignoring wound modifiers and or reducing invuns by 1 would be plenty of a buff for them.
Dark lances were typically better than lascannons vs high armor (now toughness)...they have reversed that.
I think Dark/Bright lance should always wound vehicles/monsters on a 3+. Lower their str to str 7 so they don't wound infantry on 2's. It would give them more specialization (this game rewards specialization)
Right because the issue is wounding T4 on 2's.
What is more prevalent in the meta T4 or T8?
Your change would make them worse or the same against what they will fight 90% of the time and make taking T8 vehicals even more a a joke than they already are.
I am speaking from a fluff perspective here as well as a small balance attempt. If LC and DL are going to cost about the same and one autowounds vehicals on a 3+ it should be worse against infantry to compensate.
I agree T8 is a joke and doesn't offer enough protection. Raising that toughness value higher (which they should have done for a lot of things) would fix that problem and the BL/DL would be the solution to that problem.
Then we have the issue for things like MM...we can have tons of t9 vehicals running around with MM wounding them on 5's. This is why they stuck with t8 being the max. Because they didn't want to redo every single weapon profile in the game at the start of 8th. They should have though - because with a max t8 weapon profiles don't have a lot of room for specialization. I think BL/DL need something to make them interesting. ATM there is no reason to take them over a star cannon or even an ELM.
A Lance only needs to be worse than a Lascannon against infantry while better against vehicles if they can be taken by the same model at the same points costs.
There’s nothing wrong with one weapon being better than another-Lightning Claws versus Chainswords, for instance.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Then all of a sudden, comparing them in 8e or 9e isnt a valid argument anymore. The fact that both weren't the optimal weapon doesnt change the fact that theyre very similar, with Lances having better pen. And jut because theyre not optimal doesn't mean they aren't being used by anyone. Most players won't play the most competitive options and spam them.
Quoting their stats at me when my response was to Slayer claiming they used to AP1 does feth all for the discussion so why bring it up at all?
I've made my suggestion for how to add a little spice into the lance recipe by letting them ignore modifiers to wound. I see it as a fun nod to how they used to treat everything as AV12 without being crazy OTT like suggestions of lances being 3+d3 damage with a mortal wound clause attached.
We're spending a lot of time talking about adding some pretty niche or wordy rules onto lance weapons, but do they really need changing in the first place?
Craftworlders have enough rerolls to make bright lances reasonably reliable, and drukhari can put enough dark light in enough places (blaster warriors, scourges, ravagers, raiders, etc.) that they become reliable through sheer volume of shots. Rolling low on the d6 damage can be annoying, but a single command point can go a long way towards making you feel like you had a productive shooting phase. The lances having lower strength but better AP seems like a decent way to make the eldar weapons feel more "elegant" compared to the clumsy brutality of a lascannon. That's enough of a nod to our "advanced tech" fluff for me; I don't need every eldar weapon to be a +1 version of their imperial counterparts.
I'm way more interested in revising our various melee weapons than in tweaking the dark lance. They've steadily gone from being evocatively weird (but situationally useful) to being really homogenous and redundant. Just look at how the mindphase gauntlet has devolved since 5th edition. The way some of those options (venom blades) have ceased to be options for certain models is pretty annoying too.
If they were to go the route canadian suggested and make drukhari good at debuffing the enemy, things like the mindphase gauntlet, electrocorrosive whip, agonizer, flesh gauntlet, and venom blade all seem like they'd be good candidates for weapons that can defang the enemy even if they don't immediately kill the enemy. The way they've homogenized these weapons' points costs makes it even more important to differentiate them in a meaningful way. Currently, the agonizer is a strictly worse electrocorrosive whip, and the mindphase gauntlet is probably beaten out by every other melee weapon in the same slot.
The problem with debuffs in "weapons" is that theres no worse debuff than being dead. So debuffs have to be extremely easy to do and extremely potent to be worth it (Like eldar "Doom" or -1 to saves)
novembermike wrote: I doubt we actually get that, Incubi are already not where I said they should be. I just think that's the right spot, GW should be fairly generous about moving units up to 2w if they represent elite infantry but also be generous about giving out guns that deal 2w.
That feels... pointless. As if none of the 'real contenders' have really gained or lost anything.
It also has unintended consequences. Making vehicles/monsters worse (as they're also hit by an extra abundance of D2 weapons), and makes really cheap 1W horde armies a meta spoiler, and in a fairly absurd way, oddly elite for being 'non-preferred' targets.
It also makes mid-tier units who can't boast low cost, 2W or 2D, both too expensive for the little they can achieve and not durable enough to last against the improved firepower. Worst of all possible worlds, and that currently affects a lot of (non marine) armies.
I'm not really sure what's hard to understand. In older editions a banshee would be twice as tough against a bolter as a guardian and you needed a heavy bolter to even things up. This just maintains that relative balance. The vehicle issue would be a problem in 8th but with the 9th edition codexes we're seeing design tools to deal with that. Death Guard are going to laugh at you saying that D2 weapons would destroy them. Realistically though under this model we would probably move heavy vehicles up in wounds quite a bit but also bump up dedicated anti-tank weaponry. A 20 wound Leman Russ with a Vanquisher battlecannon dealing 6+2d6 damage wouldn't be completely out of balance, since you'd have a relatively inaccurate platform and few shots so it's kind of terrible at shooting small things.
The goal here should be providing tension for both the player picking the targets and the player picking the answers.
Galas wrote: The problem with debuffs in "weapons" is that theres no worse debuff than being dead. So debuffs have to be extremely easy to do and extremely potent to be worth it (Like eldar "Doom" or -1 to saves)
True, but I still think there's room to make it work. The mindphase gauntlet could reduce an enemy character, monster, or vehicle's attacks by 1 for each hit you land with it, thus allowing you to severely diminish the offense of things like dreadnaughts provided you swing before they do. The electro-corrosive whip could provide bonus AP to allies attacking a target within 1", representing the whip eating away at enemy armor or slowing the target's reaction speed. Things like that.
Wyldhunt wrote: We're spending a lot of time talking about adding some pretty niche or wordy rules onto lance weapons, but do they really need changing in the first place?
I'm basing this off of the words of DE players, but I often see people question why anybody would use a Lance or Splinter Cannon when Disintegrators exist and do better against a lot of common targets while still being good enough against vehicles. Hence my suggestion that we give them a buff that at least makes them interesting against a common type of protection we've been seeing on tough units. I do rather wish I could make such suggestions without facing a dogpile but the mods *shrugs* they have their own ideas.
I'm way more interested in revising our various melee weapons than in tweaking the dark lance. They've steadily gone from being evocatively weird (but situationally useful) to being really homogenous and redundant. Just look at how the mindphase gauntlet has devolved since 5th edition. The way some of those options (venom blades) have ceased to be options for certain models is pretty annoying too.
If they were to go the route canadian suggested and make drukhari good at debuffing the enemy, things like the mindphase gauntlet, electrocorrosive whip, agonizer, flesh gauntlet, and venom blade all seem like they'd be good candidates for weapons that can defang the enemy even if they don't immediately kill the enemy. The way they've homogenized these weapons' points costs makes it even more important to differentiate them in a meaningful way. Currently, the agonizer is a strictly worse electrocorrosive whip, and the mindphase gauntlet is probably beaten out by every other melee weapon in the same slot.
For the types of rules I'm picturing I think they'd work better as Stratagems, Warlord Traits, Relics, or Unit special rules than as rules applied to melee weapons. For your melee issues, I'd probably just make them into flavors of power weapons and find a way to give that profile a tweak that feels DE flavored.
I'm basing this off of the words of DE players, but I often see people question why anybody would use a Lance or Splinter Cannon when Disintegrators exist and do better against a lot of common targets while still being good enough against vehicles. Hence my suggestion that we give them a buff that at least makes them interesting against a common type of protection we've been seeing on tough units. I do rather wish I could make such suggestions without facing a dogpile but the mods *shrugs* they have their own ideas.
I think your point is well made.
Dissies are taken in preference to DL (even after the points were adjusted) because they are more reliable (particularly when facing invul. saves) and more versatile (due to muliple shots).
The solution should lie either in DL having higher damage and/or some means of obviating invul. saves.
They are the main anti vehicle weapon in a faction that is not over blessed with such options, and I don't think the answer is to "take more of them" or to nerf dissies.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Then all of a sudden, comparing them in 8e or 9e isnt a valid argument anymore. The fact that both weren't the optimal weapon doesnt change the fact that theyre very similar, with Lances having better pen. And jut because theyre not optimal doesn't mean they aren't being used by anyone. Most players won't play the most competitive options and spam them.
Quoting their stats at me when my response was to Slayer claiming they used to AP1 does feth all for the discussion so why bring it up at all?
I've made my suggestion for how to add a little spice into the lance recipe by letting them ignore modifiers to wound. I see it as a fun nod to how they used to treat everything as AV12 without being crazy OTT like suggestions of lances being 3+d3 damage with a mortal wound clause attached.
i don't see how making the damage into mortal wounds would be crazy or break anything, instead of messing around on the wound chart, it would simple prevent damage prevention skills that are much more present in the game than transhuman physiology
Wyldhunt wrote: We're spending a lot of time talking about adding some pretty niche or wordy rules onto lance weapons, but do they really need changing in the first place?
The issue really is opportunity cost.
If we were in the world of early 8th, when the Lascannon was a respectable weapon, then a few points reductions would probably be enough.
But this is the melta-meta. Where 2 S8 AP-4 D6 damage shots, doing +2 damage in half range, costs... well not that many points. Retributors. Eradicators. MM Attack Bikes, etc.
In that world a 3 Lance Ravager should cost... what? 90ish points? With a lot of those points going towards toughness and movement to contribute to its weaker damage output? Its no where near 140 - that gives it half the damage output of those units (quite a bit less in the case of retributors).
Its a similar situation with say Scourge. For 27 points I get one shot, and for 34 points Retributors get 2. Now putting a bazillion rules here maybe can help - but I think thats a bridge too far. How low can you go? Should dark lance/heat lance Scourge be just 17ish points?
I suspect in time MMs will be nerfed (either a massive points hike, or stripping the extra shot), and rejigging the whole game to make up for stupidly isn't sensible. But... yeah. Balance dictates some of this.
There perhaps other alternatives - like say all forms of Eldar *always* reroll 1s to hit and 1s to wound because they are super special snowflakes. But I think that would be a bad direction for the game.
Dissies are taken in preference to DL (even after the points were adjusted) because they are more reliable (particularly when facing invul. saves) and more versatile (due to muliple shots).
The solution should lie either in DL having higher damage and/or some means of obviating invul. saves.
They are the main anti vehicle weapon in a faction that is not over blessed with such options, and I don't think the answer is to "take more of them" or to nerf dissies.
I've nothing more to add here but I wanted to give you a kudos that's more tangible than a simple exalt.
VladimirHerzog wrote: i don't see how making the damage into mortal wounds would be crazy or break anything, instead of messing around on the wound chart, it would simple prevent damage prevention skills that are much more present in the game than transhuman physiology
The changes you suggested would make lances into the single best long ranged anti-tank option around and it wouldn't be close.
In a world where meltas are causing people to call for nerfs your idea would just throw gas on the fire.
Canadian 5th wrote: Lances have been worse than lascannons for most of the game's history, they had an advantage against AV14 and that's it. So give them some minor special rule, leave them at S8, and give them a reasonable points cost and call it a day.
They also have the advantage of AP-4. SUPER MINOR, but it's there. As I recall, were they not AP1 back in ye olde days?
They've been AP2 for since 3e, I even went back and checked just in case I missed something. So rather than ALL CAPS WORDS at me, try looking up the rules next time.
Brightlances have been S8 -4 D6 ever since 8th edition.
Vs Lascannons S9 -3 D6
So the odds of an unsaved Wound between the two are:
Against T7 Sv 3+:
Brightlance: 66.7%
Lascannon: 55.6%
Against T8 Sv 3+:
Brightlance: 50%
Lascannon: 55.6%
Against T8 Sv 2+:
Brightlance: 41.7%
Lascannon: 44.4%
Against T9 Sv 3+:
Brightlance: 50%
Lascannon: 41.7%
Looks like the Brightlance could use a little something since it is worst against T8 models regardless of Sv value. Call me crazy, but I say make it S9 AP -4 DmgD6 and go home.
Lance weapons are specialised penetration weapons aimed at taking out high armoured/ force fielded thingies..
So make lance weapons flat 6 damage vs vehicals and mosnters with an invuln while D6 against everything else.
The issue with lance weapons is that that they are stupidly expensive for 1 shot dealing D6 damage.
Single shot weapons with D6 damage are just garbage.. So that single shot really needs to be scary and really needs to count.
Whenever Ive taken a bright lance or twin bright lance I have always regretted not taking AML or star cannons isntead...
So more reliable (and slightly higher average damage) than currently, but without the higher ceiling.
Otherwise, I liked the earlier suggestion of them also reducing/ignoring invulnerable saves - as I think those are one of the killers for single-shot weapons at the moment.
vipoid wrote: What if Lances did a straight 4 damage?
So more reliable (and slightly higher average damage) than currently, but without the higher ceiling.
Otherwise, I liked the earlier suggestion of them also reducing/ignoring invulnerable saves - as I think those are one of the killers for single-shot weapons at the moment.
Well think about it like this. The titanic pulsars that eldar use are:
Without rerolls its not that scary. I fully expect expert crafters not to make it into 9e. ANd lets not forget that only one faction is blessed with "everything is core" so any rerolls will be unlikely.
At 20pts theres only so many you can take and as soon as you come up against infantry and elite infantry or vehicles without invulns its just exatly the same as it is..
Without rerolls its not that scary. I fully expect expert crafters not to make it into 9e. ANd lets not forget that only one faction is blessed with "everything is core" so any rerolls will be unlikely.
At 20pts theres only so many you can take and as soon as you come up against infantry and elite infantry or vehicles without invulns its just exatly the same as it is..
Yeah. Against a Knight, it's an average of 4/3 damage per shot hitting on a 3+.
Compare to a Lascannon, which does 1.03 damage per shot hitting on a 3+.
Assuming 5++. Decrease damage by 25% for a 4++.
Edit: It'd be pretty mean to Sisters of Battle, though... They have a 6++ army-wide, which barely offers any protection, but would still increase the damage to a flat 6.
VladimirHerzog wrote: i don't see how making the damage into mortal wounds would be crazy or break anything, instead of messing around on the wound chart, it would simple prevent damage prevention skills that are much more present in the game than transhuman physiology
The changes you suggested would make lances into the single best long ranged anti-tank option around and it wouldn't be close.
In a world where meltas are causing people to call for nerfs your idea would just throw gas on the fire.
Why? it would be the exact same damage output as regular lascannons except in mortal wounds form to prevent FnPs.
VladimirHerzog wrote: i don't see how making the damage into mortal wounds would be crazy or break anything, instead of messing around on the wound chart, it would simple prevent damage prevention skills that are much more present in the game than transhuman physiology
The changes you suggested would make lances into the single best long ranged anti-tank option around and it wouldn't be close.
In a world where meltas are causing people to call for nerfs your idea would just throw gas on the fire.
Why? it would be the exact same damage output as regular lascannons except in mortal wounds form to prevent FnPs.
Daedalus81 wrote: Because you massively heighten the chance to a huge swing in damage on a bad streak of invulnerable saves. A Ravager with 3 of them is only 140.
The very popular Greater Daemons are sitting on a 5++ most of the time and it takes just three to go through for a killing blow.
You mean like people with vehicle heavy armies that have invuln would have to prioratise lance platforms over other stuff ? While people taking lances will be usless against not intended targets ?
Also the wing now is on you rolling a 6 on the damage so the wing just moves elsewhere but at least would make lances need to be dealt with.
Seems fine to me. Tailoring would suck for sure, but in a TAC environment I dont think that egregious.
Im not sure what the fix is but 1 shot D6 damage weapons just suck currently. If I had a £1 for every time i failed to kill something cos roll 1-2 id have some new models.
I get that long-range anti-tank is an area that needs buffing across all factions but should lances be significantly better than lascannons? I know a lot of Xenos players will treat this as a Marine rules (Eradicators) versus Xenos rules (Fire Dragons) but I have to question if anybody really wants a constant cycle of something being fixed for only a single faction. Many of these ideas to change lances are great and should apply to everything in that class of weapons but probably shouldn't happen unless GW is planning to change them for everybody.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Why? it would be the exact same damage output as regular lascannons except in mortal wounds form to prevent FnPs.
This:
Lances should do damage in the form of mortal wounds, and be D3+3. That way the damage wouldnt be reduceable and it would still be better than lascannons
ZebioLizard2 wrote: People consider some of the things GW do to be overpowered while writing things like these profiles out without a genuine hint of irony?
Sometimes (often) its different people.
But also yes. I've frequently noticed that when people tout their own homebrew, house rules, suggestion, or their own system, it definitely isn't ever overpowered. No matter what.
vipoid wrote: What if Lances did a straight 4 damage?
So more reliable (and slightly higher average damage) than currently, but without the higher ceiling.
Speaking as someone who regularly uses both dissies and dark lances, making lances a flat 4 damage would (oddly enough) make me strongly consider not using lances.
Currently, disintegrators are more flexible than a dark lance (they have more shots and are quite good at killing marines) and are only slightly worse than a lance at hurting a T6 or T7 vehicle. They're also (if I remember some math I ran over a year ago correctly) less likely to do nothing than a lance is due to the higher number of shots. Additionally, they synergize better than lances do with things like the archon's captain aura (more shots means more chances to roll 1s that then get rerolled into hits), Test of Skill (+1 to wound versus vehicles with enough wounds; 50% increase in wounds on dissies vs only a 33% or 25% increase for lances), and Dark Technomancers (+1 to wound and +1 damage; potentially +3 damage on dizzies and a proportionately higher increase in number of wounds compared to a dark lance).
So why do I bother with lances at all? Other than nostalgia and liking how a high damage roll feels, dark lances present an opportunity to spike high on damage. Basically, it takes less good luck to roll a 5 or 6 on a dark lance's damage roll than to do 6 damage with a disintegrator (though I'm not sure if that's still true where Dark Techno is concerned). Every once in a while, a single lance will kill a star weaver, or two lances will kill something like a rhino. I can't rely on those damage spikes happening at a specific time, but I can give myself a lot of opportunities for those spikes to happen thorughout the game by taking enough lances. When those spikes happen, they can mean that I suddenly have a bunch of guns freed up to shoot at additional targets.
Basically, they're a gambler's choice. An occassional high spike in damage can be worth trading a little reliability or even a little average damage. Making them a flat 4 damage would remove their chance to spike high on damage and risk making disintegrators the clearly better choice by virtue of having an almost as high (sometimes higher?) average damage and more flexibility. On the other hand, making lances d3+3 or d6 minimum 3 damage would avoid raising their max damage, avoid troublingly low damage rolls, and preserve the possibility of a damage spike.
Otherwise, I liked the earlier suggestion of them also reducing/ignoring invulnerable saves - as I think those are one of the killers for single-shot weapons at the moment.
Not a fan of making lances good against invulnerable saves. What about a lance weapon would make it better at bypassing the holographic defenses of a starweaver/venom or the jink maneuvers of a raven wing model or the supernatural powers of a daemon?
GW has been doing a bit of redesign on the durability front, to counter the worst things that happened during 8th.
GW introduced many -1 damage rules, to give a clear counter to high ROF multi damage weapons.
GW is increasing a few armor values and removing 3+ invul saves, to make AP matter more.
In the DA supplement, there is a relic which caps a target to 5+ invul saves. I suspect that this is just an hint of a new mechanic, which will become more widespread with xenos. It introduces a counter to the lists that overly rely on 4++ saves.
I could see blasters and dark lances having this last one.
VladimirHerzog wrote: i'd rather GW stopped fething around with the wounding chart tbh. Lances should do damage in the form of mortal wounds, and be D3+3. That way the damage wouldnt be reduceable and it would still be better than lascannons
So lance should somehow become very good at dealing infantry? Isn't that bit odd way?
Speaking as someone who regularly uses both dissies and dark lances, making lances a flat 4 damage would (oddly enough) make me strongly consider not using lances.
Currently, disintegrators are more flexible than a dark lance (they have more shots and are quite good at killing marines) and are only slightly worse than a lance at hurting a T6 or T7 vehicle. They're also (if I remember some math I ran over a year ago correctly) less likely to do nothing than a lance is due to the higher number of shots. Additionally, they synergize better than lances do with things like the archon's captain aura (more shots means more chances to roll 1s that then get rerolled into hits), Test of Skill (+1 to wound versus vehicles with enough wounds; 50% increase in wounds on dissies vs only a 33% or 25% increase for lances), and Dark Technomancers (+1 to wound and +1 damage; potentially +3 damage on dizzies and a proportionately higher increase in number of wounds compared to a dark lance).
So why do I bother with lances at all? Other than nostalgia and liking how a high damage roll feels, dark lances present an opportunity to spike high on damage. Basically, it takes less good luck to roll a 5 or 6 on a dark lance's damage roll than to do 6 damage with a disintegrator (though I'm not sure if that's still true where Dark Techno is concerned). Every once in a while, a single lance will kill a star weaver, or two lances will kill something like a rhino. I can't rely on those damage spikes happening at a specific time, but I can give myself a lot of opportunities for those spikes to happen thorughout the game by taking enough lances. When those spikes happen, they can mean that I suddenly have a bunch of guns freed up to shoot at additional targets.
Basically, they're a gambler's choice. An occassional high spike in damage can be worth trading a little reliability or even a little average damage. Making them a flat 4 damage would remove their chance to spike high on damage and risk making disintegrators the clearly better choice by virtue of having an almost as high (sometimes higher?) average damage and more flexibility. On the other hand, making lances d3+3 or d6 minimum 3 damage would avoid raising their max damage, avoid troublingly low damage rolls, and preserve the possibility of a damage spike.
That's fair. And I'd have no objections to d3+3 damage.
Not a fan of making lances good against invulnerable saves. What about a lance weapon would make it better at bypassing the holographic defenses of a starweaver/venom or the jink maneuvers of a raven wing model or the supernatural powers of a daemon?
Surely you could ask the exact same questions of a Vindicare Assassin's rifle/pistol?
Surely you could ask the exact same questions of a Vindicare Assassin's rifle/pistol?
Lore wise that is superior technology. Rules wise that is one model in an army. While lances could be easily spamed, if they were good, rules and cost wise.
It is like ++4inv and -1 to hit. On one model it is good, but not broken, on an entire army it is very much broken, because it halfs the incoming damage on avarge, but more important creates spikes in damage which are impossible to deal with with limited number of units and heavier weapons.
So I imagine they'll probably be rebuilding them to align with this in some way.
Pulsars are heavy 6 (or 8 in the Phantom's case) though.
At heavy 2, lances would be like multimeltas with longer range and no bonus damage for being close. While a bit uninspired, it might be enough.
Surely you could ask the exact same questions of a Vindicare Assassin's rifle/pistol?
Lore wise that is superior technology. Rules wise that is one model in an army. While lances could be easily spamed, if they were good, rules and cost wise.
It is like ++4inv and -1 to hit. On one model it is good, but not broken, on an entire army it is very much broken, because it halfs the incoming damage on avarge, but more important creates spikes in damage which are impossible to deal with with limited number of units and heavier weapons.
If you look up further in the thread, you'll note that someone has already claimed that "superior technology" could mean any number of things that doesn't result in increased combat effectiveness.
(This was when we were talking about why the "Superior Technology" of the drukhari Splinter Cannons and Dark Lances were inferior to the "mass produced" imperial guard heavy bolters and lascannons)
VladimirHerzog wrote: i don't see how making the damage into mortal wounds would be crazy or break anything, instead of messing around on the wound chart, it would simple prevent damage prevention skills that are much more present in the game than transhuman physiology
The changes you suggested would make lances into the single best long ranged anti-tank option around and it wouldn't be close.
In a world where meltas are causing people to call for nerfs your idea would just throw gas on the fire.
Why? it would be the exact same damage output as regular lascannons except in mortal wounds form to prevent FnPs.
That's not how Mortal Wounds or FNPs work.
yeah i miss typed, i meant to say the new DR-like abilities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canadian 5th wrote: I get that long-range anti-tank is an area that needs buffing across all factions but should lances be significantly better than lascannons? I know a lot of Xenos players will treat this as a Marine rules (Eradicators) versus Xenos rules (Fire Dragons) but I have to question if anybody really wants a constant cycle of something being fixed for only a single faction. Many of these ideas to change lances are great and should apply to everything in that class of weapons but probably shouldn't happen unless GW is planning to change them for everybody.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Why? it would be the exact same damage output as regular lascannons except in mortal wounds form to prevent FnPs.
This:
Lances should do damage in the form of mortal wounds, and be D3+3. That way the damage wouldnt be reduceable and it would still be better than lascannons
Is the same as:
Heavy 1 S9 AP-3 D1d6
In what world are these profiles the same?
Then just make if D6 damage, keep the S8 but make the damage output be in mortals only against vehicles/monsters.
That way lances still suck against infantry (as they should) but are marginally better against their intended targets because most of the time they'll have the same damage output than lascannons do. Until you shoot at some DG or dreadnought or anything with a damage reduction rule.
Canadian 5th wrote: I get that long-range anti-tank is an area that needs buffing across all factions but should lances be significantly better than lascannons? I know a lot of Xenos players will treat this as a Marine rules (Eradicators) versus Xenos rules (Fire Dragons) but I have to question if anybody really wants a constant cycle of something being fixed for only a single faction. Many of these ideas to change lances are great and should apply to everything in that class of weapons but probably shouldn't happen unless GW is planning to change them for everybody.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Why? it would be the exact same damage output as regular lascannons except in mortal wounds form to prevent FnPs.
This:
Lances should do damage in the form of mortal wounds, and be D3+3. That way the damage wouldnt be reduceable and it would still be better than lascannons
Is the same as:
Heavy 1 S9 AP-3 D1d6
In what world are these profiles the same?
Then just make if D6 damage, keep the S8 but make the damage output be in mortals only against vehicles/monsters.
That way lances still suck against infantry (as they should) but are marginally better against their intended targets because most of the time they'll have the same damage output than lascannons do. Until you shoot at some DG or dreadnought or anything with a damage reduction rule.
Marginal? Remember, MWs bypass all saves as well as damage reduction abilities (besides FNP). It takes 21 lascannon shots from a BS3 platform on average to kill a Leviathan. Your proposal for lance weapons would do it in 9 shots. How would you price these Super Lances? Changing them to Dd3+3 would reduce swinginess and result in an increase of 30-70% average damage depending on intended target vs lascannons. That sounds pretty good.
I'm fairly certain that the suggestion is that the weapon hits, wounds and saves normally, just that the damage is treated as 'mortal wounds' for the pupose of ignoring damge reduction abilities.
the_scotsman wrote: I'm fairly certain that the suggestion is that the weapon hits, wounds and saves normally, just that the damage is treated as 'mortal wounds' for the pupose of ignoring damge reduction abilities.
IDK. Maybe Im wrong.
Thats what my suggestion is, yes. Basically it would fit with how lances are supposed to be able to penetrate anything they hit. The dreadnought being extra tough doesnt matter, all the damage is goind through. Against 90% of the vehicles/mosnters in the game, it would have zero effect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
harlokin wrote: I think that giving DLsMW damage ends up stepping on the toes of Haywire, which is already super specialised toward anti vehicle.
In my mind, you'd still get to save against the lances, it wouldnt be automatic mortal wounds on hit like the haywire.
the_scotsman wrote: I'm fairly certain that the suggestion is that the weapon hits, wounds and saves normally, just that the damage is treated as 'mortal wounds' for the pupose of ignoring damge reduction abilities.
IDK. Maybe Im wrong.
Thats what my suggestion is, yes. Basically it would fit with how lances are supposed to be able to penetrate anything they hit. The dreadnought being extra tough doesnt matter, all the damage is goind through. Against 90% of the vehicles/mosnters in the game, it would have zero effect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
harlokin wrote: I think that giving DLsMW damage ends up stepping on the toes of Haywire, which is already super specialised toward anti vehicle.
In my mind, you'd still get to save against the lances, it wouldnt be automatic mortal wounds on hit like the haywire.
So instead of:
VladimirHerzog wrote:Then just make if D6 damage, keep the S8 but make the damage output be in mortals only against vehicles/monsters.
You meant just give them a rule that negates all damage reducing abilities? So they'd be better against dreadnoughts and Death Guard units than lascannons, but remain worse against anything T8 without abilities like that?
Yeah, I feel like classifying it as 'mortal wounds' just has the potential to cause stupid consequences. Just have the damage from them not be blockable by any damage reduction or wound ignoring abilities (boy, if only we could have some sort of system of rules letting us know if a rule is damage reducing or damage ignoring, some kind of "universal" way to call those kinds of "special rules" out....)
I'd just bump up the damage. Lascannons are too low damage, that's no reason to keep lances down. One shot doing 3 + d6 damage or something seems appropriate, although you might have to raise the price.
You meant just give them a rule that negates all damage reducing abilities? So they'd be better against dreadnoughts and Death Guard units than lascannons, but remain worse against anything T8 without abilities like that?
Yeah basically, i just don't find the whole "this ability prevents this ability from preventing this ability" kind of rules to be elegant.
"Nuh uh, my soldier has a SUPER feel no pain that cant be prevented" feels like playing with a playground bully.
You meant just give them a rule that negates all damage reducing abilities? So they'd be better against dreadnoughts and Death Guard units than lascannons, but remain worse against anything T8 without abilities like that?
Yeah basically, i just don't find the whole "this ability prevents this ability from preventing this ability" kind of rules to be elegant.
"Nuh uh, my soldier has a SUPER feel no pain that cant be prevented" feels like playing with a playground bully.
This kinda discribes the entire game though.
Ap negates armor but not invune saves or FNP.
Wound on 4+ abilities are negated by -1 to wound abilities.
So on - so on. You win by negataging more rules of your opponent than they negate from you.
You meant just give them a rule that negates all damage reducing abilities? So they'd be better against dreadnoughts and Death Guard units than lascannons, but remain worse against anything T8 without abilities like that?
Yeah basically, i just don't find the whole "this ability prevents this ability from preventing this ability" kind of rules to be elegant.
"Nuh uh, my soldier has a SUPER feel no pain that cant be prevented" feels like playing with a playground bully.
This kinda discribes the entire game though.
Ap negates armor but not invune saves or FNP.
Wound on 4+ abilities are negated by -1 to wound abilities.
So on - so on. You win by negataging more rules of your opponent than they negate from you.
Im aware, it doesnt change the fact that i dont find it elegant game design.
You meant just give them a rule that negates all damage reducing abilities? So they'd be better against dreadnoughts and Death Guard units than lascannons, but remain worse against anything T8 without abilities like that?
Yeah basically, i just don't find the whole "this ability prevents this ability from preventing this ability" kind of rules to be elegant.
"Nuh uh, my soldier has a SUPER feel no pain that cant be prevented" feels like playing with a playground bully.
Very much this.
Also, how many points do people propose we charge for a special rule that only matters against a handful of units in the game? If the answer is more than 0, then I don't want it. If the answer is 0... I still don't really want it because it feels inelegant and clunky.
What problem would that rule solve that isn't better solved by just making lance damage d3+3 or d6 minimum 3?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: Basically it would fit with how lances are supposed to be able to penetrate anything they hit. The dreadnought being extra tough doesnt matter, all the damage is goind through. Against 90% of the vehicles/mosnters in the game, it would have zero effect.
Isn't a weapon's ability to penetrate an enemy's armor generally represented by the weapon's Armor Penetration stat?
Not a fan of making lances good against invulnerable saves. What about a lance weapon would make it better at bypassing the holographic defenses of a starweaver/venom or the jink maneuvers of a raven wing model or the supernatural powers of a daemon?
Surely you could ask the exact same questions of a Vindicare Assassin's rifle/pistol?
You definitely could. I give the vindicare a little more slack, however, partly because you'll generally only see a single one of them at a time (versus bright/dark lances potentially appearing all over the place in an aeldari army), and partly because of the "weight" given to assassins. I can squint my eyes and imagine that whomever deployed the assassin knew he'd be shooting at space elves or traitor marines or whatever and sent them out with appropriate ammo. Assassinating a bouncy space elf with a proclivity for backflips and holograms? Pack the rounds that track heat signatures or lock onto souls or whatever. Afraid your tzeentchian daemon prince target is going to turn your bullets into snowflakes? Pack the blessed rounds that have been dipped in the blood of a psychic blank. Know that the radical inquisitor you're taking care of likes to utilize force fields? Pack the two-stage rounds that punch a hole in force fields and then fill the gap with shrapnel or whatever.
Bright/dark lances don't seem capable of the same flexibility, and I don't want to contort the fluff to retroactively create bright lance tracer rounds or what have you purely because lances are slightly less efficient than lascannons on the tabletop.
You meant just give them a rule that negates all damage reducing abilities? So they'd be better against dreadnoughts and Death Guard units than lascannons, but remain worse against anything T8 without abilities like that?
Yeah basically, i just don't find the whole "this ability prevents this ability from preventing this ability" kind of rules to be elegant.
"Nuh uh, my soldier has a SUPER feel no pain that cant be prevented" feels like playing with a playground bully.
Very much this.
Also, how many points do people propose we charge for a special rule that only matters against a handful of units in the game? If the answer is more than 0, then I don't want it. If the answer is 0... I still don't really want it because it feels inelegant and clunky.
What problem would that rule solve that isn't better solved by just making lance damage d3+3 or d6 minimum 3?
As I said, it would make lance weapons better than lascannons against dreadnoughts and Death Guard units, but keep them weaker against any other T8 unit I can think of. In fact, you'd only be looking at about an increase of 5% damage against those T8 units that do reduce damage (PBCs and Ironclads being all I can think of right now) compared to lascannons. However, going to Dd3+3 or Dd6 minimum 3 would make them better against everything than they currently are, including units with damage reduction abilities.
As I said, it would make lance weapons better than lascannons against dreadnoughts and Death Guard units, but keep them weaker against any other T8 unit I can think of. In fact, you'd only be looking at about an increase of 5% damage against those T8 units that do reduce damage (PBCs and Ironclads being all I can think of right now) compared to lascannons. However, going to Dd3+3 or Dd6 minimum 3 would make them better against everything than they currently are, including units with damage reduction abilities.
Yes. Exactly. My point is that a 5% increase against a very short list of units is so extremely niche that it's probably a bad idea. If I pitched a rule that let lances reroll to-wound rolls of 1 but only against markerlight drones that are painted blue, we'd all acknowledge that it was too specific to be worth any points or even the space in our memory banks needed to remember the rule. The "ignore damage reduction" rule is, to my mind, similarly too specific to be a good rule. Again, how many points would you increase the cost of a lance weapon by to include such a rule, and would such a minor benefit really be worth the extra rules clutter it would add to the game?
If lances do need a buff (and I'm ambivalent as to whether or not that's true), then the d3+3 or d6 minimum 3 approach would, in fact, buff them against everything (that has more than 1 wound). It would be a change significant enough to matter/be worth remembering, and it would be more uniformly useful regardless of your opponent's list thus making it easier to price.
You meant just give them a rule that negates all damage reducing abilities? So they'd be better against dreadnoughts and Death Guard units than lascannons, but remain worse against anything T8 without abilities like that?
Yeah basically, i just don't find the whole "this ability prevents this ability from preventing this ability" kind of rules to be elegant.
"Nuh uh, my soldier has a SUPER feel no pain that cant be prevented" feels like playing with a playground bully.
This kinda discribes the entire game though.
Ap negates armor but not invune saves or FNP.
Wound on 4+ abilities are negated by -1 to wound abilities.
So on - so on. You win by negataging more rules of your opponent than they negate from you.
Yeah but that is all because GW is trying to work around basic problems with the game through special rules rather then addressing the action problems.
They could have used 9th edition to redo weapon profiles and tone everything down a bit.
Instead we get more special rules on top of special rules to try and make a terminator survive for more then 5 seconds.
I'm not sure why we needed multiple pages of discussion on rules bloat, all the Dark Lance needs is 3+D3 damage. This does away with the one reason that people take Disintegrators instead for their anti tank, the variance was so high that it was ridiculously unreliable, now it would be mathematically better against every T6, 7 or 8 target regardless or invulns in the game, i.e. monsters and vehicles.
I don't care about comparisons to the Lascannon, Drukhari don't have access to the Lascannon and while it's frustrating for those factions to have an objectively bad weapon, they also tend to have a very wide array of options to use in it's place where Drukhari just don't.
And whilst we're wishlisting, I'd like to see the Voidlance go to 3D3 damage and the Dark Scythe a flat 3 shots and D3 (seriously, the Voidraven is 200pts but only has 2 guns, it would be nice if it has a chance to actually kill something). The missiles for both flyers need a ground up rework, given GW's current willingness to mess with profiles that may happen.
I don't care about comparisons to the Lascannon, Drukhari don't have access to the Lascannon and while it's frustrating for those factions to have an objectively bad weapon, they also tend to have a very wide array of options to use in it's place where Drukhari just don't.
A lascanon dreads is one of the few anti tank options some armies have. There isn't really much of a replacment, unless it is melee options, but that is a separate cathegory.
Galas wrote: Plaguebuster Crawler Entropy Cannon, Chronomancer staff, theres a good bunch of 3+d3 damage weapons out there allready and more will come.
Both of those are items that are exclusive to a single unit entry and one of those has 18" range and fits the melta roll far more closely than it does the role of a lance or lascannon.
Daedalus81 wrote: Even 3+D3 is a bit much. I don't think any non-titanic ranged weapon has that profile that I can recall. Redemptors have it on their fist.
Just off the top of my head: Lancer Laser Destroyer, the Repulsor Executioner's Heavy Laser Destroyer, Vindicator Laser Destroyer's Laser Volley Canon on Volley Fire (overcharg is flat D6), the Caladius Grav-Tank's Twin Arachnus Heavy Beam Cannon on the "Beam" profile, Warp Hunter D- Flail on the "Blast" profile, Reaper Storm Vortex Projector on the "Blast" profile (Hey, that one's a Dark Eldar unit. Setting a precedent maybe?), and the Swiftstrike Railgun mounted on the AX-5-2 Barracuda.
Ok, that wasn't really off the top of my head. I just listed the Primaris tanks because I knew those and then did a quick flip through of the Compendium.
And if you want to stick with infantry, I'll once again point out that 1 S8, AP-4, Dd3+3 shot is a lot less nasty than 2 S8, AP-4, D6+2 (D6+4 within 12) shots from a single infantry gun. Just one of those shots has a higher average damage, and higher max-damage than that one (hypothetical) lance shot, and every Heavy Melta-Rifle puts out 2 of them.
Insectum7 wrote: Wait, so are those 3 +D3 or are they D6 with a minimum if 3?
Because one will give you a minimum of 4 at 33% chane and one will give you a 50% chance at a minimum of 3.
Everything I listed is Dd3+3.
Edit: And I left out the Laser Destroyer that the Rapier Carrier and Rapier Laser Destroyer Battery have. Sorry. But I think it stands to reason: Laser Destroyer = Dd3+3.
Daedalus81 wrote: Even 3+D3 is a bit much. I don't think any non-titanic ranged weapon has that profile that I can recall. Redemptors have it on their fist.
Just off the top of my head: Lancer Laser Destroyer, the Repulsor Executioner's Heavy Laser Destroyer, Vindicator Laser Destroyer's Laser Volley Canon on Volley Fire (overcharg is flat D6), the Caladius Grav-Tank's Twin Arachnus Heavy Beam Cannon on the "Beam" profile, Warp Hunter D- Flail on the "Blast" profile, Reaper Storm Vortex Projector on the "Blast" profile (Hey, that one's a Dark Eldar unit. Setting a precedent maybe?), and the Swiftstrike Railgun mounted on the AX-5-2 Barracuda.
Isn't that entire list from Forge World?
And if you want to stick with infantry, I'll once again point out that 1 S8, AP-4, Dd3+3 shot is a lot less nasty than 2 S8, AP-4, D6+2 (D6+4 within 12) shots from a single infantry gun. Just one of those shots has a higher average damage, and higher max-damage than that one (hypothetical) lance shot, and every Heavy Melta-Rifle puts out 2 of them.
You should probably look at the range of those weapons and which units can reliably take them before comparing melta weapons to lances.
I'm not saying this list would be good, but you could easily run something like:
This works out to around 1,500 points without any upgrades. This can easily drop 18 lance shots as an alpha strike and if they feel so inclined these shots can be D4+d3, all safely let loose from as far back as 36".
Again, it might not be a good list but it could certainly be unfun to play against.
Insectum7 wrote: Wait, so are those 3 +D3 or are they D6 with a minimum if 3?
Because one will give you a minimum of 4 at 33% chane and one will give you a 50% chance at a minimum of 3.
Everything I listed is Dd3+3.
Wow, interesting. Is that a lot of FW stuff?
Everything except the two Repulsor tanks. Like I said, I just flipped through the Compendium.
Edit: @Canadian 5th: Yes, as I've said, everything except the primaris tanks are fw sorry, the only stuff I have with 9th edition rules is fw. Also everything is range 36 or greater except for the Warp Hunter D-Flail which is range 24. As for the Heavy Melta-Rifles "only" being range 24, yeah, so are bolters, never had much trouble getting those in range. And this is all hypothetical, lances may stay exactly the same, just like lascannons.
Daedalus81 wrote: Even 3+D3 is a bit much. I don't think any non-titanic ranged weapon has that profile that I can recall. Redemptors have it on their fist.
Just off the top of my head: Lancer Laser Destroyer, the Repulsor Executioner's Heavy Laser Destroyer, Vindicator Laser Destroyer's Laser Volley Canon on Volley Fire (overcharg is flat D6), the Caladius Grav-Tank's Twin Arachnus Heavy Beam Cannon on the "Beam" profile, Warp Hunter D- Flail on the "Blast" profile, Reaper Storm Vortex Projector on the "Blast" profile (Hey, that one's a Dark Eldar unit. Setting a precedent maybe?), and the Swiftstrike Railgun mounted on the AX-5-2 Barracuda.
Isn't that entire list from Forge World?
And if you want to stick with infantry, I'll once again point out that 1 S8, AP-4, Dd3+3 shot is a lot less nasty than 2 S8, AP-4, D6+2 (D6+4 within 12) shots from a single infantry gun. Just one of those shots has a higher average damage, and higher max-damage than that one (hypothetical) lance shot, and every Heavy Melta-Rifle puts out 2 of them.
You should probably look at the range of those weapons and which units can reliably take them before comparing melta weapons to lances.
I'm not saying this list would be good, but you could easily run something like:
This works out to around 1,500 points without any upgrades. This can easily drop 18 lance shots as an alpha strike and if they feel so inclined these shots can be D4+d3, all safely let loose from as far back as 36".
Again, it might not be a good list but it could certainly be unfun to play against.
As opposed to dropping 36 Melta shots for just over 800 points?
Not to mention, if you hang back and just gunline, you're gonna lose on objectives.
JNAProductions wrote: As opposed to dropping 36 Melta shots for just over 800 points?
At lower range, on less mobile platforms. Plus, meltas probably shouldn't be our benchmark for a balanced weapon in 9e unless you want the arms race to keep escalating.
I wager DLs will get something like the 3 + D3 for damage thing. How they do it exactly who knows but that seems to be the design space they are going with those kinds of AT weapons.
Daedalus81 wrote: Even 3+D3 is a bit much. I don't think any non-titanic ranged weapon has that profile that I can recall. Redemptors have it on their fist.
Just off the top of my head: Lancer Laser Destroyer, the Repulsor Executioner's Heavy Laser Destroyer, Vindicator Laser Destroyer's Laser Volley Canon on Volley Fire (overcharg is flat D6), the Caladius Grav-Tank's Twin Arachnus Heavy Beam Cannon on the "Beam" profile, Warp Hunter D- Flail on the "Blast" profile, Reaper Storm Vortex Projector on the "Blast" profile (Hey, that one's a Dark Eldar unit. Setting a precedent maybe?), and the Swiftstrike Railgun mounted on the AX-5-2 Barracuda.
Ok, that wasn't really off the top of my head. I just listed the Primaris tanks because I knew those and then did a quick flip through of the Compendium.
And if you want to stick with infantry, I'll once again point out that 1 S8, AP-4, Dd3+3 shot is a lot less nasty than 2 S8, AP-4, D6+2 (D6+4 within 12) shots from a single infantry gun. Just one of those shots has a higher average damage, and higher max-damage than that one (hypothetical) lance shot, and every Heavy Melta-Rifle puts out 2 of them.
I stand corrected, but those are more expensive to field than a 140 point ravager with 3 DL.
Daedalus81 wrote: Even 3+D3 is a bit much. I don't think any non-titanic ranged weapon has that profile that I can recall. Redemptors have it on their fist.
Just off the top of my head: Lancer Laser Destroyer, the Repulsor Executioner's Heavy Laser Destroyer, Vindicator Laser Destroyer's Laser Volley Canon on Volley Fire (overcharg is flat D6), the Caladius Grav-Tank's Twin Arachnus Heavy Beam Cannon on the "Beam" profile, Warp Hunter D- Flail on the "Blast" profile, Reaper Storm Vortex Projector on the "Blast" profile (Hey, that one's a Dark Eldar unit. Setting a precedent maybe?), and the Swiftstrike Railgun mounted on the AX-5-2 Barracuda.
Ok, that wasn't really off the top of my head. I just listed the Primaris tanks because I knew those and then did a quick flip through of the Compendium.
And if you want to stick with infantry, I'll once again point out that 1 S8, AP-4, Dd3+3 shot is a lot less nasty than 2 S8, AP-4, D6+2 (D6+4 within 12) shots from a single infantry gun. Just one of those shots has a higher average damage, and higher max-damage than that one (hypothetical) lance shot, and every Heavy Melta-Rifle puts out 2 of them.
I stand corrected, but those are more expensive to field than a 140 point ravager with 3 DL.
True, except for the Rapier Carrier, which is 120 PPM, and the Rapier Laser Destroyer Battery, which is 85 PPM, probably because it's BS4 vs the marine Rapier Carrier at BS3. But both are putting out 3 S10, AP-4, Dd3+3 shots. But as Canadian 5th correctly points out, they are far less mobile. The Vindicator Laser Destroyer is only 35 PPM more than your hypothetical Ravager, and has the option to overcharge for 3 S10, AP-4, D6 shots, only suffering 1MW for every unmodified hit roll of one if it moves (which isn't a problem for Ultramarines or Death Guard).
Canadian 5th wrote:
JNAProductions wrote: As opposed to dropping 36 Melta shots for just over 800 points?
At lower range, on less mobile platforms. Plus, meltas probably shouldn't be our benchmark for a balanced weapon in 9e unless you want the arms race to keep escalating.
I don't think anyone wants the Heavy Melta-Rifles to be the benchmark we aim for. One of those on a BS3 platform averages 3.667 damage against a T8 3+ target, while the proposed Heavy 1, S8, AP-4, Dd3+3 lance weapons would deal 1.667 damage from a BS3 platform against the same target. The Heavy Melta-Rifles do 120% more damage.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I don't think anyone wants the Heavy Melta-Rifles to be the benchmark we aim for. One of those on a BS3 platform averages 3.667 damage against a T8 3+ target, while the proposed Heavy 1, S8, AP-4, Dd3+3 lance weapons would deal 1.667 damage from a BS3 platform against the same target. The Heavy Melta-Rifles do 120% more damage.
That same Dd3+3 profile is however going from 1.167 damage to 1.667 damage on average all while keeping the same chance to score six damage and having no risk of dealing less damage. It's a huge step up in terms of lethality and while a faction like DE might need just such an increase other factions probably don't need the same.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I don't think anyone wants the Heavy Melta-Rifles to be the benchmark we aim for. One of those on a BS3 platform averages 3.667 damage against a T8 3+ target, while the proposed Heavy 1, S8, AP-4, Dd3+3 lance weapons would deal 1.667 damage from a BS3 platform against the same target. The Heavy Melta-Rifles do 120% more damage.
That same Dd3+3 profile is however going from 1.167 damage to 1.667 damage on average all while keeping the same chance to score six damage and having no risk of dealing less damage. It's a huge step up in terms of lethality and while a faction like DE might need just such an increase other factions probably don't need the same.
Perhaps, but as we've seen, gw is already increasing the damage output of a lot of weapons, even in the Compendium, which is supposed to bring fw units "in line" with codex units. And those Heavy Melta-Rifles are a huge outlier (I don't personally have a problem with the changes to other melta weapons, but those are ridiculous). And we're just hypothesizing here, we don't know that lances are changing. But Dark Eldar need some Cannon to go with their Glass.
Insectum7 wrote:D6 min 3 splits the difference.
That's true, but do any weapons in 9th edition books have that profile? They may be moving away from it.
Personally, I'd like to see the lances as a weapon that loses potency as range increases, but being right in front is deadly.
Stats the same except damage.
bullyboy wrote: Personally, I'd like to see the lances as a weapon that loses potency as range increases, but being right in front is deadly.
Stats the same except damage.
0-12" D6+2
13-24" D6+1
25-36" D6.
Sorta in line with Melta, which is nice and all, but eh. That kinda steps on the tails of Cannon Wraithguard and Fire Dragons. I'd opt for the C Beamer approach, where the further our you are the deadlier you are. Ya know, like a real lance!
bullyboy wrote: Personally, I'd like to see the lances as a weapon that loses potency as range increases, but being right in front is deadly.
Stats the same except damage.
0-12" D6+2
13-24" D6+1
25-36" D6.
Sorta in line with Melta, which is nice and all, but eh. That kinda steps on the tails of Cannon Wraithguard and Fire Dragons. I'd opt for the C Beamer approach, where the further our you are the deadlier you are. Ya know, like a real lance!
ither of those could be mechanically interesting. Wouldn't that be a bit of an odd property to retcon onto an existing weapon so late into their history though? As far as I"m aware, there's no fluff talking about how bright lances are particularly lethal up close or at a distance. It would be sort of like suddenly describing how shuriken projectiles all boomerang back into their ammo clip after they're fired or something. XD
Then again, "energy beam up close hurt more," makes a certain amount of caveman brain sense to me.
bullyboy wrote: Personally, I'd like to see the lances as a weapon that loses potency as range increases, but being right in front is deadly.
Stats the same except damage.
0-12" D6+2
13-24" D6+1
25-36" D6.
Sorta in line with Melta, which is nice and all, but eh. That kinda steps on the tails of Cannon Wraithguard and Fire Dragons. I'd opt for the C Beamer approach, where the further our you are the deadlier you are. Ya know, like a real lance!
ither of those could be mechanically interesting. Wouldn't that be a bit of an odd property to retcon onto an existing weapon so late into their history though? As far as I"m aware, there's no fluff talking about how bright lances are particularly lethal up close or at a distance. It would be sort of like suddenly describing how shuriken projectiles all boomerang back into their ammo clip after they're fired or something. XD
Then again, "energy beam up close hurt more," makes a certain amount of caveman brain sense to me.
There's a lot of stuff not covered in fluff that present on the tabletop, and a bunch of fluff on stuff not on the tabletop. I simply don't think it's anything people will bat an eye at.
JNAProductions wrote: As opposed to dropping 36 Melta shots for just over 800 points?
At lower range, on less mobile platforms. Plus, meltas probably shouldn't be our benchmark for a balanced weapon in 9e unless you want the arms race to keep escalating.
While I don't disagree entirely, if Drukhari can't be an outlier in terms of pushing the damage envelope, then the whole concept of them as 'glass cannons' ceases to exist.
Daedalus81 wrote: Even 3+D3 is a bit much. I don't think any non-titanic ranged weapon has that profile that I can recall. Redemptors have it on their fist.
Just off the top of my head: Lancer Laser Destroyer, the Repulsor Executioner's Heavy Laser Destroyer, Vindicator Laser Destroyer's Laser Volley Canon on Volley Fire (overcharg is flat D6), the Caladius Grav-Tank's Twin Arachnus Heavy Beam Cannon on the "Beam" profile, Warp Hunter D- Flail on the "Blast" profile, Reaper Storm Vortex Projector on the "Blast" profile (Hey, that one's a Dark Eldar unit. Setting a precedent maybe?), and the Swiftstrike Railgun mounted on the AX-5-2 Barracuda.
Isn't that entire list from Forge World?
Given the GW rules team wrote the current profiles, I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.
JNAProductions wrote: As opposed to dropping 36 Melta shots for just over 800 points?
At lower range, on less mobile platforms. Plus, meltas probably shouldn't be our benchmark for a balanced weapon in 9e unless you want the arms race to keep escalating.
Bit late to try and keep that train from going.
Unless GW is willing to go back and change all the Imperial profiles yet again the escalation has already happened and the only choice is to bring everyone else into line.
JNAProductions wrote: As opposed to dropping 36 Melta shots for just over 800 points?
At lower range, on less mobile platforms. Plus, meltas probably shouldn't be our benchmark for a balanced weapon in 9e unless you want the arms race to keep escalating.
While I don't disagree entirely, if Drukhari can't be an outlier in terms of pushing the damage envelope, then the whole concept of them as 'glass cannons' ceases to exist.
Yep, its the logical result of buffing the durable space marine armies with so much damage, either glass cannons become absolutely insane or they become garbage.
Compare any old elite combat unit with the profile of a basic assault intercessor and the buffs GW needs to be throwing left right and center become ridiculous.
bullyboy wrote: Personally, I'd like to see the lances as a weapon that loses potency as range increases, but being right in front is deadly.
Stats the same except damage.
0-12" D6+2
13-24" D6+1
25-36" D6.
Sorta in line with Melta, which is nice and all, but eh. That kinda steps on the tails of Cannon Wraithguard and Fire Dragons. I'd opt for the C Beamer approach, where the further our you are the deadlier you are. Ya know, like a real lance!
ither of those could be mechanically interesting. Wouldn't that be a bit of an odd property to retcon onto an existing weapon so late into their history though? As far as I"m aware, there's no fluff talking about how bright lances are particularly lethal up close or at a distance. It would be sort of like suddenly describing how shuriken projectiles all boomerang back into their ammo clip after they're fired or something. XD
Then again, "energy beam up close hurt more," makes a certain amount of caveman brain sense to me.
There's a lot of stuff not covered in fluff that present on the tabletop, and a bunch of fluff on stuff not on the tabletop. I simply don't think it's anything people will bat an eye at.
It's not like GW aren't prone to changing weapon design, remember scatter lasers?
I'm not fully versed in lance "fluff" to justify the change, but I'm not sure it treads on fusion as much since they don't have all equivalent. But I guess it does infringe on the range band too much and the inverse would want you to keep more distance and therefore have a different role.
JNAProductions wrote: As opposed to dropping 36 Melta shots for just over 800 points?
At lower range, on less mobile platforms. Plus, meltas probably shouldn't be our benchmark for a balanced weapon in 9e unless you want the arms race to keep escalating.
Bit late to try and keep that train from going.
Unless GW is willing to go back and change all the Imperial profiles yet again the escalation has already happened and the only choice is to bring everyone else into line.
JNAProductions wrote: As opposed to dropping 36 Melta shots for just over 800 points?
At lower range, on less mobile platforms. Plus, meltas probably shouldn't be our benchmark for a balanced weapon in 9e unless you want the arms race to keep escalating.
While I don't disagree entirely, if Drukhari can't be an outlier in terms of pushing the damage envelope, then the whole concept of them as 'glass cannons' ceases to exist.
Yep, its the logical result of buffing the durable space marine armies with so much damage, either glass cannons become absolutely insane or they become garbage.
Compare any old elite combat unit with the profile of a basic assault intercessor and the buffs GW needs to be throwing left right and center become ridiculous.
Well, it seems they've at least gotten Incubi right. 7 Incubi using the Demi-Klaives on the "double blade" profile: +2 two attacks for each Incubi for 5 and 6 on the Klaivex for 36 total, +1 strength for S4, AP-2, D2, hitting on 2s vs intercessors:
36 attacks, hitting on 2s, wounding on 4s, loyalists saving on 5s: 36×5/6=30, 30×1/2=15, 15×2/3=10. 10 unsaved wounds at 2 damage apiece gets you 10 dead intercessors. Assuming that the current points stand that's 112 points of Incubi killing either 190 points of assault intercessors or 200 points of standard intercessors. Just make sure they fight first, because at T3, 3+, 1W, they also fulfill the "glass" part of glass cannon.
isnt it the point of elves to be glass cannons? So why would having D3+3 lances be bad when the things carrying them die to anything that sneezes at them? Thats the whole point of the army : Go fast, Hit hard, die quick, don't even think about holding an objective
Well, it seems they've at least gotten Incubi right. 7 Incubi using the Demi-Klaives on the "double blade" profile: +2 two attacks for each Incubi for 5 and 6 on the Klaivex for 36 total, +1 strength for S4, AP-2, D2, hitting on 2s vs intercessors:
36 attacks, hitting on 2s, wounding on 4s, loyalists saving on 5s: 36×5/6=30, 30×1/2=15, 15×2/3=10. 10 unsaved wounds at 2 damage apiece gets you 10 dead intercessors. Assuming that the current points stand that's 112 points of Incubi killing either 190 points of assault intercessors or 200 points of standard intercessors. Just make sure they fight first, because at T3, 3+, 1W, they also fulfill the "glass" part of glass cannon.
I thought only the Kalivex had access to Demi-Klaives?
VladimirHerzog wrote: isnt it the point of elves to be glass cannons? So why would having D3+3 lances be bad when the things carrying them die to anything that sneezes at them? Thats the whole point of the army : Go fast, Hit hard, die quick, don't even think about holding an objective
The thing with dark eldars is that they have also a 1/3 of the army that is literally "elves but extremely tought". Not thats a bad thing. I'm not opposed to d3+3 lances. Single shot weapons have always been garbage, and in an edition where infantry is king, is not like is gonna make a difference for vehicles without an invul, they aren't used.
VladimirHerzog wrote: isnt it the point of elves to be glass cannons? So why would having D3+3 lances be bad when the things carrying them die to anything that sneezes at them? Thats the whole point of the army : Go fast, Hit hard, die quick, don't even think about holding an objective
The thing with dark eldars is that they have also a 1/3 of the army that is literally "elves but extremely tought". Not thats a bad thing. I'm not opposed to d3+3 lances. Single shot weapons have always been garbage, and in an edition where infantry is king, is not like is gonna make a difference for vehicles without an invul, they aren't used.
the tough elves don't get dark lances tho. And yeah, even if lances could one shot every vehicle in the game, disintegrators would still be better because of their overall better stat. Plus if you spam lances on infantry youre gonna be shooting with less efficiency since theyre heavy weapons.
Well, it seems they've at least gotten Incubi right. 7 Incubi using the Demi-Klaives on the "double blade" profile: +2 two attacks for each Incubi for 5 and 6 on the Klaivex for 36 total, +1 strength for S4, AP-2, D2, hitting on 2s vs intercessors:
36 attacks, hitting on 2s, wounding on 4s, loyalists saving on 5s: 36×5/6=30, 30×1/2=15, 15×2/3=10. 10 unsaved wounds at 2 damage apiece gets you 10 dead intercessors. Assuming that the current points stand that's 112 points of Incubi killing either 190 points of assault intercessors or 200 points of standard intercessors. Just make sure they fight first, because at T3, 3+, 1W, they also fulfill the "glass" part of glass cannon.
I thought only the Kalivex had access to Demi-Klaives?
So it would be 27 attacks in total, not 36.
21 of those attacks would be AP-3, though.
Is that right? Sorry, I was going by the leaked datasheet, my apologies.
VladimirHerzog wrote: isnt it the point of elves to be glass cannons? So why would having D3+3 lances be bad when the things carrying them die to anything that sneezes at them? Thats the whole point of the army : Go fast, Hit hard, die quick, don't even think about holding an objective
Because the other elf army mounts their lances exclusively on things that _don't_ die when sneezed on. You just don't see them much because they aren't that great compared to the other weapons, but double lance wave serpents could totally be a thing if they were better. And wraithlords. And war-walkers. The odd one on a falcon. Even some on guardian HW platforms, though that would be the most vulnerable option, but would still have 10 ablative wounds each.
VladimirHerzog wrote: isnt it the point of elves to be glass cannons? So why would having D3+3 lances be bad when the things carrying them die to anything that sneezes at them? Thats the whole point of the army : Go fast, Hit hard, die quick, don't even think about holding an objective
The thing with dark eldars is that they have also a 1/3 of the army that is literally "elves but extremely tought". Not thats a bad thing. I'm not opposed to d3+3 lances. Single shot weapons have always been garbage, and in an edition where infantry is king, is not like is gonna make a difference for vehicles without an invul, they aren't used.
I would be okay with all the d6 weapons getting this profile.
VladimirHerzog wrote: isnt it the point of elves to be glass cannons? So why would having D3+3 lances be bad when the things carrying them die to anything that sneezes at them? Thats the whole point of the army : Go fast, Hit hard, die quick, don't even think about holding an objective
Because the other elf army mounts their lances exclusively on things that _don't_ die when sneezed on. You just don't see them much because they aren't that great compared to the other weapons, but double lance wave serpents could totally be a thing if they were better. And wraithlords. And war-walkers. The odd one on a falcon. Even some on guardian HW platforms, though that would be the most vulnerable option, but would still have 10 ablative wounds each.
Aren't we discussing specifically Darklances? Brightlances could very well have some other rule, its not the same weapons at all.
Daedalus81 wrote: I sense that many people are going to be upset after this wishlisting.
At least you'll get to feel superior, as usual!
I'm not crazy about 3+d3 damage dark lances (DE really can spam those; Eldar can't spam bright lances as efficiently so I'm less concerned there but the profiles should be the same) but I'm also not crazy about current melta/multimelta or several of the recent encroachments on game balance from new codices. I don't see how this is any worse.
ETA: Huh, Voss is saying the opposite of me, which is interesting. I think I'd rather have a cheapo Raider with a DL + 5++ than a 180 point Wave Serpent with 2 BLs but no invuln. But it's an interesting point; I never bring war walkers/wraithlords with BLs but I could. Maybe Voss is right. But again, I don't think it's an escalation that's out of keeping with the rest of the 9th codices. As others have said, I almost guarantee Eldar will lose Expert Crafters which is what makes this really nasty (Marines still will get re-rolls on their heavy weapon platforms, Eldar might only get Guide at best.)
I'm not crazy about 3+d3 damage dark lances (DE really can spam those; Eldar can't spam bright lances as efficiently so I'm less concerned there but the profiles should be the same)
Should Splinter Cannons and Shuriken Cannons have the same profiles?......they both have the word Cannon in them.
harlokin wrote: Should Splinter Cannons and Shuriken Cannons have the same profiles?......they both have the word Cannon in them.
Go back and look at Bright and Drak Lances throughout the game's history. They've always had the same profile and, when they've had any, the same special rules baked into them. It would be very strange to change that now.
Daedalus81 wrote: I sense that many people are going to be upset after this wishlisting.
At least you'll get to feel superior, as usual!
I'm not crazy about 3+d3 damage dark lances (DE really can spam those; Eldar can't spam bright lances as efficiently so I'm less concerned there but the profiles should be the same) but I'm also not crazy about current melta/multimelta or several of the recent encroachments on game balance from new codices. I don't see how this is any worse.
Man, Multi-Melta has been bad for most of its existence, so what are you talking about with that recent design?
harlokin wrote: Should Splinter Cannons and Shuriken Cannons have the same profiles?......they both have the word Cannon in them.
Go back and look at Bright and Drak Lances throughout the game's history. They've always had the same profile and, when they've had any, the same special rules baked into them. It would be very strange to change that now.
Doesn't mean it couldn't be changed. Plenty of things get updated between editions.
Man, Multi-Melta has been bad for most of its existence, so what are you talking about with that recent design?
i think complaining about MM's current strength is a valid thing. Yes, the weapon needed a buff, but as it stands, its too much of a buff (with too little of a pts increase)
harlokin wrote: Should Splinter Cannons and Shuriken Cannons have the same profiles?......they both have the word Cannon in them.
Go back and look at Bright and Drak Lances throughout the game's history. They've always had the same profile and, when they've had any, the same special rules baked into them. It would be very strange to change that now.
Doesn't mean it couldn't be changed. Plenty of things get updated between editions.
Exactly. The true Eldar and Asuryani have armies with different strengths and weaknesses. There is no reason why a previous lack of imagination should be a barrier to change.
In a thread where we are wishlisting, i'll 100% ask for new changes instead of defaulting to the statu quo
well wish listing has to fall within specific company and game reality. Otherwise one could just say that they won't be okey with the game until their ork mega blaster gun doesn't just blow up the other side of the table, and 1/3 of the time does it for real.
3+d3 dark/bright lance makes sense. Thinking that after multiple itteration of books making both the same, now they are going to be different seems to be strange to me. I don't question the ability to want it, but it is like saying you want to fly or be 2,2m tall , when you know you won't be.
Daedalus81 wrote: I sense that many people are going to be upset after this wishlisting.
At least you'll get to feel superior, as usual!
I'm not crazy about 3+d3 damage dark lances (DE really can spam those; Eldar can't spam bright lances as efficiently so I'm less concerned there but the profiles should be the same) but I'm also not crazy about current melta/multimelta or several of the recent encroachments on game balance from new codices. I don't see how this is any worse.
Man, Multi-Melta has been bad for most of its existence, so what are you talking about with that recent design?
That's not how this works. Multi-melta is somewhat (not incredibly) unbalanced with the game as a whole at the moment. That could change.
In a thread where we are wishlisting, i'll 100% ask for new changes instead of defaulting to the statu quo
well wish listing has to fall within specific company and game reality. Otherwise one could just say that they won't be okey with the game until their ork mega blaster gun doesn't just blow up the other side of the table, and 1/3 of the time does it for real.
3+d3 dark/bright lance makes sense. Thinking that after multiple itteration of books making both the same, now they are going to be different seems to be strange to me. I don't question the ability to want it, but it is like saying you want to fly or be 2,2m tall , when you know you won't be.
This is a gak comparison honestly.
The odds of suddenly being 2.2m or being able to fly are much smaller than the odds of two weapons with different names getting different ruleset, even if theyve had the same in the past.
Well the thing is without the double shot, it was considered a really bad version of a lascanon or rocket launcher. high cost, less efficient and worse then either. the 9th ed changes could of course be reverted , but then you just get marines, and important SoB, without any form of good anti tank or anti heavy infantry.
Not that such situations didn't happen in the past, but that is like wishing entire factions to be bad. SoB really don't have a replacment for multi meltas, so even if GW decided to make one shot weapons like lascanons or lances, the go to option, they wouldn't profit from it , because their heavy weapon is the Multi Melta.
Daedalus81 wrote: I sense that many people are going to be upset after this wishlisting.
Which is why I keep reminding everyone all of this talk about Dd3+3 lance weapons is hypothetical. Including a certain fellow who seems a bit concerned about 3 S8, AP-4, Dd3+3 shots mounted on a 10W, T6, 4+, 5++ floating slave barge.
Voss does have a point about Bright Lances mounted on "Good Guy" Eldar vehicles though.
This is a gak comparison honestly.
The odds of suddenly being 2.2m or being able to fly are much smaller than the odds of two weapons with different names getting different ruleset, even if theyve had the same in the past.
you know maybe it is my non english brain, doing the translations. But Bright and Dark lance to me, sound like dark and white bread. And expecting one of those to end up being a cake, has more or less the same chance of happening. Specialy as others pointed out, that each time that bright and dark lances existed they did have the same rules. And GW loves to do copy paste. They would have to rewrite the entire CWE or DE codex for them to be different, and that is a lot to expect, considering they don't do full rewrites for all factions. Or at least they didn't do them in 8th.
I mean, whatever we do for the Dark Lance shouldn't go to the Bright Lance, but the "Lance" profile of the Fire Prism needs something.
Heavy 1 Strength 12 AP-5 Dd6 sounds scary, but the Focused profile (Heavy d3 Str 9, AP-4, Dd3) is statistically better against almost all relevant targets, damage-wise, especially since the Fire Prism shoots twice.
Not to take things off topic, mind, but I don't think we should fear buffing CWE vehicles too much; they're not exactly wrecking house atm.
harlokin wrote: Should Splinter Cannons and Shuriken Cannons have the same profiles?......they both have the word Cannon in them.
Go back and look at Bright and Drak Lances throughout the game's history. They've always had the same profile and, when they've had any, the same special rules baked into them. It would be very strange to change that now.
Doesn't mean it couldn't be changed. Plenty of things get updated between editions.
Man, Multi-Melta has been bad for most of its existence, so what are you talking about with that recent design?
i think complaining about MM's current strength is a valid thing. Yes, the weapon needed a buff, but as it stands, its too much of a buff (with too little of a pts increase)
Yeah because heaven forbid a 20+ point weapon have two shots AND have an ability to negate Randumb.
This is a gak comparison honestly.
The odds of suddenly being 2.2m or being able to fly are much smaller than the odds of two weapons with different names getting different ruleset, even if theyve had the same in the past.
you know maybe it is my non english brain, doing the translations. But Bright and Dark lance to me, sound like dark and white bread. And expecting one of those to end up being a cake, has more or less the same chance of happening. Specialy as others pointed out, that each time that bright and dark lances existed they did have the same rules. And GW loves to do copy paste. They would have to rewrite the entire CWE or DE codex for them to be different, and that is a lot to expect, considering they don't do full rewrites for all factions. Or at least they didn't do them in 8th.
"Lance" is nothing more than the category of weapon it is. Just like shuriken and splinter, Bright and Dark are two different technologies.
GW wouldnt need to rewrite the entire codex to change a weapon's stats, wtf are you talking about.
harlokin wrote: Should Splinter Cannons and Shuriken Cannons have the same profiles?......they both have the word Cannon in them.
Go back and look at Bright and Drak Lances throughout the game's history. They've always had the same profile and, when they've had any, the same special rules baked into them. It would be very strange to change that now.
Doesn't mean it couldn't be changed. Plenty of things get updated between editions.
Man, Multi-Melta has been bad for most of its existence, so what are you talking about with that recent design?
i think complaining about MM's current strength is a valid thing. Yes, the weapon needed a buff, but as it stands, its too much of a buff (with too little of a pts increase)
Yeah because heaven forbid a 20+ point weapon have two shots AND have an ability to negate Randumb.
it shoudve been either or, not both IMO, or a more expensive cost to the weapon.
Daedalus81 wrote: I sense that many people are going to be upset after this wishlisting.
Which is why I keep reminding everyone all of this talk about Dd3+3 lance weapons is hypothetical. Including a certain fellow who seems a bit concerned about 3 S8, AP-4, Dd3+3 shots mounted on a 10W, T6, 4+, 5++ floating slave barge.
Voss does have a point about Bright Lances mounted on "Good Guy" Eldar vehicles though.
Not really concerned. Just tempering the enthusiasm around the idea.
I'm really quite curious to see what kind of army DE will be capable of with the codex. Since DG and DA I see a strong likelihood that some of the strong RPS elements become more muted. The games becomes more about understanding your own army and the mechanics rather than "I took 6 multi-meltas so tanks are covered". Posts on "how do I kill X" might be thinking the wrong way about their issues.
Note: these thoughts don't apply universally, because of local meta. They may not even apply at all. Just crap tumbling around in my head since I don't have direct experience with these issues yet.
Initially there were tiers shaping up in terms of infantry and weapons - W1/D1, W2/D2, W3/D3. Then DG said, uhhh, nope.
A lot of marines posts elsewhere are scrambling to solve for DG. PBCs wreck units they can in the backfield and even HI won't be safe with the D3 strat. Marines have few tools in their current lists that can get to the backfield and make decisive kills on things like a PBC. Eradicators ae great, but they aren't getting there. Attack Bikes then become more common - they already are, because you need more precision than outright force applied to the thing right in front of you. White Scars enjoying the D2 lightning claws struggle tremendously against T5 and -1D. Similarly DA terminators spoil a lot of D2 and weapons hoping to crack them a little more easily. Thunderhammers? Great against most DG ( especially WS versions ), but terrible versus DA ( womp womp ). Necrons just don't give a gak about what you shoot at them just as long as there isn't a ton of it.
In that sense I hope DE get something like forcing a unit to fallback ( maybe a LD test or something ). Previously having something to prevent fallback was coveted, but now forcing an opponent to move off an objective would be far more valuable, I think. I can see that fitting in with the De aesthetic and motives quite well.
Anyway, the more varied each factions abilities become the less you can rely on bring X to beat Y or overstack in the most efficient unit sort of thing.
Honestly GW has a lot of issues properly pricing single shot weapons properly, or giving them rules that match their fluff.
A railgun/Vanquisher cannon or the lance profile on a Fire Prism should have a decent chance of chunking a tank or dreadnought in a single shot, maybe requiring a second shot on vehicles stronger than a Leman Russ but weaker than an a Gorkanaut or the various other "almost LOWs" like Tyranid Heirodules.
A serious single shot weapon like the Prism's Lance should be something like d6+5 damage or something hilarious like that, and Void Lances should be along that level. Sure those guns will rip apart any infantry they shoot but if you keep these weapons as single shots they'll solidly occupy their knocking chunks out of tanks. They'll have a counter in the form of invulns or making their target harder to hit.
But GW seriously needs to revaluate their weaponry rules.
The main issue is that penetration tests and random damage tables are a more realistic representation of combat against armored targets than "hit points." But game mechanics where you either ace a heavy target in a single shot or cant harm it are frustrating in a game.
the_scotsman wrote: The main issue is that penetration tests and random damage tables are a more realistic representation of combat against armored targets than "hit points." But game mechanics where you either ace a heavy target in a single shot or cant harm it are frustrating in a game.
Unless your goal is to be consistent with the background, then it's more frustrating when things don't work that way.
But why would we want to be consistent with the background, amirite? No one who plays this game likes the lore, after all.
Daedalus81 wrote: Even 3+D3 is a bit much. I don't think any non-titanic ranged weapon has that profile that I can recall. Redemptors have it on their fist.
Necrons have the Lokhust Heavy Destroyer thats Heavy 1 S10, -4, 3D3 and the Death Ray on the Doom Scythe thats Heavy 3, S12, -4, D3+3. Pretty sure that the Repulsor Executioner and the melta and lancer variants of the Gladious have profiles on their main gun that reduce the randomness on damage as well. It seems clear that GW is moving at least some of it's heavy weapons in that direction so that every faction has access to at least 1 like that.
harlokin wrote: Should Splinter Cannons and Shuriken Cannons have the same profiles?......they both have the word Cannon in them.
Go back and look at Bright and Drak Lances throughout the game's history. They've always had the same profile and, when they've had any, the same special rules baked into them. It would be very strange to change that now.
Honestly there has never been a reason in the fluff or on the table top for the Dark Lance and Bright Lance to have the same stats beyond lazyness, would probably be a good thing to have the diverge rules wise, the BL might then be able to find a niche for itself in Craftworld armies rather than being strictly inferior the to Pulse Lase and Missile Launcher.
panzerfront14 wrote: Honestly GW has a lot of issues properly pricing single shot weapons properly, or giving them rules that match their fluff.
.
That is because GW points and judges stuff around a cool moment when you hit, wounded, opponent failed save and you rolled max damage. That is why melee upgrades are either under or over costed. GW prices them as if a unit that has the options, like lets say banshees was starting in charge or outright melee range, and swining in first. When we all know that this almost never happens. On the other hand units that can do it, like old smash captins or units with 40" charges often end up really good in melee, even when they have a higher point costs.
Paying for potential of doing something is often very dissappointing.
I would be happier to see eldar(necrons too - the advanced races) get rules that ignore invune saves a lot more as a counter to invune save spam. That is the primary issue with heavy weapons anyways. You can hit wound every time if they keep making invunes you deal 0 damage. Even if you do flat 6 damage.
Make a BL/DL give a -1 to invune saves. Make a stratagem to give a single weapon complete invune save ignore. That would make the DL/BL hit harder than any boost to it's damage.
So I have 3 Talos built with splinter cannons because I love them as screen killers with rapid 3. Now it's moved to heavy I'm I SOL because I can't move and shoot them effectively.
the_scotsman wrote: The main issue is that penetration tests and random damage tables are a more realistic representation of combat against armored targets than "hit points." But game mechanics where you either ace a heavy target in a single shot or cant harm it are frustrating in a game.
I gotta disagree with that. Personally I think it's more exciting on a per-roll basis, and more interesting tactically when you can have units that are straight immune to some others. Grinding down vehicles with assault rifles is not fun.
ballzonya wrote: So I have 3 Talos built with splinter cannons because I love them as screen killers with rapid 3. Now it's moved to heavy I'm I SOL because I can't move and shoot them effectively.
In a thread where we are wishlisting, i'll 100% ask for new changes instead of defaulting to the statu quo
well wish listing has to fall within specific company and game reality. Otherwise one could just say that they won't be okey with the game until their ork mega blaster gun doesn't just blow up the other side of the table, and 1/3 of the time does it for real.
3+d3 dark/bright lance makes sense. Thinking that after multiple itteration of books making both the same, now they are going to be different seems to be strange to me. I don't question the ability to want it, but it is like saying you want to fly or be 2,2m tall , when you know you won't be.
Oh come on, it you're going to hyperbole go all out. I'll be ok with the game state when every time a bolt pistol fires in game the living embodiment of the concept of a Lord of War at 40k scale tears itself from the fabric of reality and commits seppuku on the nearest zebra-skin rug.
Imateria wrote:Honestly there has never been a reason in the fluff or on the table top for the Dark Lance and Bright Lance to have the same stats beyond lazyness, would probably be a good thing to have the diverge rules wise, the BL might then be able to find a niche for itself in Craftworld armies rather than being strictly inferior the to Pulse Lase and Missile Launcher.
I rather disagree. It would make sense for them to have the same stats as they would be competing against each other in their development. A way to differentiate them would be to each having different affects beyond the Wounding phase, such as Bright Lances literally lighting up the target making them easier To Hit (successful Wounds grant +1 to To Hit rolls against this target for one round) and Dark Lances casting them in to shadow (successful Wounds force this model to add -1 to all To Hit rolls for one round).
Xenomancers wrote:I would be happier to see eldar(necrons too - the advanced races) get rules that ignore invune saves a lot more as a counter to invune save spam. That is the primary issue with heavy weapons anyways. You can hit wound every time if they keep making invunes you deal 0 damage. Even if you do flat 6 damage.
Necrons used to do that in 3rd Ed with Warscythes and the C'tan's basic attacks. Of course, back then Monoliths could ignore Melta and Lance rules, too.
Galas wrote: The problem of single shot weapons is invulnerable saves. Theres just too damm much invulnerable saves in this game.
There's an additional problem in that GW's business model and release schedule encourages perpetual power creep and scaling up.
If you released all codices at once (say, as free PDF documents) then you could easily make sweeping changes, such as lowering/removing a lot of invulnerable saves from the game.
However, when you release books one at a time, reducing invulnerable saves is going to make that book terribly underpowered for the next two years, until the other books are all released (and that's assuming GW don't just get bored and reverse their design philosophy halfway though the edition).
Galas wrote: The problem of single shot weapons is invulnerable saves. Theres just too damm much invulnerable saves in this game.
GW has chipped away at that. AP is more relevant now than before. The most popular faction is wide open to taking AP4 on the chin for the majority of its units. An AP4 weapon is only losing 1AP when shooting SS termies, termies/BGV in cover as well.
I don't think anyone should really shy away from them from fear of invulnerable saves.
Galas wrote: The problem of single shot weapons is invulnerable saves. Theres just too damm much invulnerable saves in this game.
GW has chipped away at that. AP is more relevant now than before. The most popular faction is wide open to taking AP4 on the chin for the majority of its units. An AP4 weapon is only losing 1AP when shooting SS termies, termies/BGV in cover as well.
I don't think anyone should really shy away from them from fear of invulnerable saves.
The sad thing is d6 damage and the fact anything with good armor usually has a good inv. save too tends to make single shot weapons less valuable. This in turn makes multiple shot, multiple damage, average ap weapons the go to choice vs units with both saves (basically disintegrators).
) melee weapon option that isn't an 
