Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

was thinking titanic models here. They often just end up dying, and i feel like there are quite a few toughness 8 attacks already out there. Would that make such units over powered? Has there ever been toughness 9 models before?

Because GW can't into rules.

Warlord titan has t9. About only one i can recall.

There were a few T9 SM superheavies in 8e, but they were often paying a 5-600pt surcharge for the privilege of being made of resin, so nobody ever used them.

Infernal Chaos Knights can get Toughness 9 by using their special rules.

The Acastus Knight Porphyrion was notably T9 until relatively recently. When the main rules team took over from Forge World and 're-wrote' the 40K rules for FW models, it was set to T8.

The most recent fw rules have afaik only 3 to models:

Warlord titan
Phantom titan
Revenant titan

There were in 8th, and for some odd reason they went back on that. Go figure.

I was wondering the same, why is toughness capped at 8, things like super heavies and titans could be easily T12+, we have the system for it now so I do not see why not.

I mean a lascannon wounding a land raider on a 5+ would be pretty decent, make it T10

I agree wholeheartedly. The cap of T8 seems entirely arbitrary now that anything can be wounded. There's plenty of weapons that are starting to break into S12 or higher for shooting and S14 or S16 for combat isn't uncommon for big walkers.
For large vehicles and big monsters to actually feel tanky, they need to broaden the range of their toughness stats. Anything that's a "tank" should at least be T8 with a 2+ save, and larger vehicles/monsters like landraiders could go up to T9 or T10 with a 1+ or 0+ save

I say increase the armour save rather than tack on an invuln or damage reduction to standard vehicles because that gives room for proper anti-tank weapons to still do their job. It raises the durability "floor" rather than the lowering the "ceiling. A 0+ save flat-out ignores AP -1 and -2, making them much more durable to medium AP chipfire, but something like an AP-5 meltagun can still punch through.

Up until 8th ed, a lascannon needed a 6 to penetrate a landraider!

 Hellebore wrote:
The most recent fw rules have afaik only 3 to models:

Warlord titan
Phantom titan
Revenant titan

The Mastodon is also still T9, so if you want something T9 the price starts at 800 PPM and goes up from there.

Gw doesn't seem to like making anything tougher than T8 by stats alone, and instead prefer doing it with special rules.

In 8th fw made ALL of the Legion Super Heavys, minus the Spartan, T9 with no additional special rules besides the Void Shields on the Mastodon. They then gave them fair prices for the Index era. Then gw did their first "balance update" in CA and increased all of their prices beyond usability (a Fellblade, for instance, went from 697 PPM to 917), and left them there for the rest of the edition, while almost everything else just kept getting cheaper as the edition wore on.

Fast forward to 9th, and all of them save the Mastodon are dropped to T8, and given fair prices. But now they have access to the defensive stratagem "Smokescreen", which makes all shooting attacks against them -1 to hit for 1CP. Mathematically, this makes them tougher against everything S7 and lower and S10-15, roughly equal against S9, and only about 10-15% weaker against S8.

So units being naturally T9 was apparently too much, and anything with that stat had to be nerfed into the ground, but if that toughness comes from a special rule, it's fine. Gw doesn't like toughness to come from pure stats, and instead prefer using special rules like invulnerable saves, FNP, damage reduction, and penalties to hit to achieve the same result. Why is anyone's guess.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

The Mastodon is also still T9, so if you want something T9 the price starts at 800 PPM and goes up from there.

Gw doesn't seem to like making anything tougher than T8 by stats alone, and instead prefer doing it with special rules.

In 8th fw made ALL of the Legion Super Heavys, minus the Spartan, T9 with no additional special rules besides the Void Shields on the Mastodon. They then gave them fair prices for the Index era. Then gw did their first "balance update" in CA and increased all of their prices beyond usability (a Fellblade, for instance, went from 697 PPM to 917), and left them there for the rest of the edition, while almost everything else just kept getting cheaper as the edition wore on.

Fast forward to 9th, and all of them save the Mastodon are dropped to T8, and given fair prices. But now they have access to the defensive stratagem "Smokescreen", which makes all shooting attacks against them -1 to hit for 1CP. Mathematically, this makes them tougher against everything S7 and lower and S10-15, roughly equal against S9, and only about 10-15% weaker against S8.

So units being naturally T9 was apparently too much, and anything with that stat had to be nerfed into the ground, but if that toughness comes from a special rule, it's fine. Gw doesn't like toughness to come from pure stats, and instead prefer using special rules like invulnerable saves, FNP, damage reduction, and penalties to hit to achieve the same result. Why is anyone's guess.

It is a very strange practice. The toughness stat and its interaction with weapon strength is a basic rule in 40K. Everyone who plays understands that interaction, it's a standard.

You're right, T9 effectively existing via special rules is a thing, and increases rules bloat (something GW had indicated they wanted to cut down on previously), when you could just... make a unit T9?

It's a very odd line in the sand to draw.

They made a big song and dance when 8th came about that now profiles could go above 10, so we can have Strength 16 weapons and Toughness 14 models and whatnot, but then they just never used it.

We get the odd high-strength weapon, usually due a Sx2 weapon or things like that, but they are stupidly reluctant to do the same with with Toughness values.

Given how borked 40k's wound table is, it would improve the game to start using Toughness as a measure of, well, how tough something is, and start handing out higher T values to the things that should have it (like friggin' Land Raiders).

I also feel GW is not using their stats to the fullest, vehicles should have much better toughness/save stats overall and should be getting a FnP against damage 1 weapons.

Titans being T10 or more would make sense imo. I also don't understand the cap at T8. Does not make much sense with the prevalence of >S10 weapons as many have already pointed out.

What I am asking myself is if the landraider were to be T9, would it finally be viable?

In order to be viable I think the Land Raider need to be AT LEAST T=14
Everything wound it on 6+ up to the Autocannon or the non supercharged plasma.

Meltas, supercharged plasma and laser will wound on 5+.
A Dreadnought in close combat will wound on 4+, an Imperial Knight with a big chainsword on 4+ (on 3+ with the gauntlet). A terminator will wound on 5+.

Seems okayish.

 Cybtroll wrote:
In order to be viable I think the Land Raider need to be AT LEAST T=14
Everything wound it on 6+ up to the Autocannon or the non supercharged plasma.

Meltas, supercharged plasma and laser will wound on 5+.
A Dreadnought in close combat will wound on 4+, an Imperial Knight with a big chainsword on 4+ (on 3+ with the gauntlet). A terminator will wound on 5+.

Seems okayish.

While I am almost always on the side of buffing the landraider to be viable, this seems a bit excessive.

StrayIight wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

The Mastodon is also still T9, so if you want something T9 the price starts at 800 PPM and goes up from there.

Gw doesn't seem to like making anything tougher than T8 by stats alone, and instead prefer doing it with special rules.

In 8th fw made ALL of the Legion Super Heavys, minus the Spartan, T9 with no additional special rules besides the Void Shields on the Mastodon. They then gave them fair prices for the Index era. Then gw did their first "balance update" in CA and increased all of their prices beyond usability (a Fellblade, for instance, went from 697 PPM to 917), and left them there for the rest of the edition, while almost everything else just kept getting cheaper as the edition wore on.

Fast forward to 9th, and all of them save the Mastodon are dropped to T8, and given fair prices. But now they have access to the defensive stratagem "Smokescreen", which makes all shooting attacks against them -1 to hit for 1CP. Mathematically, this makes them tougher against everything S7 and lower and S10-15, roughly equal against S9, and only about 10-15% weaker against S8.

So units being naturally T9 was apparently too much, and anything with that stat had to be nerfed into the ground, but if that toughness comes from a special rule, it's fine. Gw doesn't like toughness to come from pure stats, and instead prefer using special rules like invulnerable saves, FNP, damage reduction, and penalties to hit to achieve the same result. Why is anyone's guess.

It is a very strange practice. The toughness stat and its interaction with weapon strength is a basic rule in 40K. Everyone who plays understands that interaction, it's a standard.

You're right, T9 effectively existing via special rules is a thing, and increases rules bloat (something GW had indicated they wanted to cut down on previously), when you could just... make a unit T9?

It's a very odd line in the sand to draw.

Yeah, it's weird. I was hoping they'd fix the prices for the Legion Super Heavys in the Compendium, and they did. And I was expecting them to drop them to T8, and they did. But then they just gave them a 1CP strategem that effectively gave T9 back, but better against certain strength profiles? Weird.

Tiberias wrote:Titans being T10 or more would make sense imo. I also don't understand the cap at T8. Does not make much sense with the prevalence of >S10 weapons as many have already pointed out.

What I am asking myself is if the landraider were to be T9, would it finally be viable?

It would make them a bit tougher against S9, and a lot tougher against all of the S8 melta and "not melta" AT weapons currently running around. Which is what I think fw was trying to do with the Legion LoWs. Basically "baking in" the old Armoured Ceramite option from 6th/7th, which made anything with the MELTA rule only roll one dice for penetration tests regardless of how close they were. But it had the knock on effect of making them tougher against non-melta weapons too, which is what might have been gw's problem with it. Whether or not that would fix Land Raiders, don't know. Personally, I think getting their Assault Ramps back would be better.

The Monolith should be higher than T8, I'd say T10.

I think the Monolith should be top of the toughness pile, T14 would be nice. Land Raiders not far behind with something in the T12-13 range.

I actually think Knights and Titans should be lower toughness than tanks, more like 9-10, but have more of their durability put into a large wounds count. The likes of a predator or raider with their completely armored hulls would be harder to wound, but if something does get through the interior can't weather as much damage.

Its basically an arbitrary decision by GW to avoid high toughness.

I've mentioned before, but if your average vehicle was toughness rating 10+, it would really add something to the design dynamic. Like a light vehicle being T12, a Russ T16, Baneblade and Land Raider at say T18, then rejigger anti tank weapons to be S16, 18, etc depending on how strong they are supposed to be. A Lascannon already wounds most infantry on a 2+, so what does it matter if it is S18 instead of S9? The only infantry that gets negatively effected by it is T5. Also this way spamming Autocannons and Heavy Bolters to chip vehicles is still possible, but far less useful (Autocannons would still be wounding light vehicles on a 5+, while Heavy Bolters would be 6+ all around).

Plus, moving above the T8 cap gives a lot more freedom for stats - maybe a Tyranid beast has lower toughness and a worse save than a Russ tank, but has more wounds and a higher strength.

While we are at it, might as well ask for literal tanks to have better than a 3+ save, for vehicles and monsters to gain more wounds, and to remove invulnerable saves (replacing them with more wounds).

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

I actually think Knights and Titans should be lower toughness than tanks, more like 9-10, but have more of their durability put into a large wounds count. The likes of a predator or raider with their completely armored hulls would be harder to wound, but if something does get through the interior can't weather as much damage.

As a Knight player, I'd agree.

This won't be a popular opinion, but I miss the old way Ion shields worked. A strong invuln save on *one* facing, and nothing at all elsewhere. It made me as a Knight player have to think far more tactically, and it provided a lot more counter play for an opponent - they could out manoeuvre me and get at the 'soft bits'.

Didn't really slow the game down any either as a Knight army only has a few moving pieces anyway.

I'd love to see the old AV and facing rules put back in place. It doesn't feel right that a tank is just as tough/weak from the front as from the back.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'd love to see the old AV and facing rules put back in place. It doesn't feel right that a tank is just as tough/weak from the front as from the back.

Tanks are just meat boxes at this point. Old vehicle rules might of been underpowered compared to MCs but at least a tank felt like a tank when bolter fire just plinks off it for zero damage.

This is less an issue with vehicles (which in a lot of ways don't actually exist in 40k anymore) and more an issue with the To Wound charge.

If you need a 6+ to wound things that had 2 or more points of Toughness higher than your Strength (so S5 vs T7/T8/T9 would be 6+, not 5+ as it is now) and were unable to wound things that had double (or higher) Toughness vs your Strength, then things would be different.

GW is always slow to modify things.

They increased their design space in 8th due to the new damage, wound and SvsT rules, but didn't really capitalize on it as much as one would have expected.

In 9th they are finally using some of that. We are seeing the damage and wound stats becoming more bold in the new dexes. T5 orks is also clearly a product of this new S and T design.

We will probably see non titan T9 models, or even T10 before the end of this edition.
The obvious bet is on the chaos demon dex, but the tyranid one is also a strong candidate.

The main problem is they kept the strength/toughness values from the previous editions, but changed the wound chart.

That means those strength/toughness values don't mean what they used to. A lascannon used to wounde everything up to toughness 7 on a 2+, now it can only wound up to toughness 4 on a 2+. Strength 9 isn't as good as it used to be, but GW's kept it seemingly for no reason other than "they were always S9".

Returning to the old system would immediately return a lot of what was lost.

That is a really good point.

Also count me among those who feel like not having vehicle facing is strange. I can handle it with monsters in AoS but I think the likes of proper vehicles calls for some additional complexity in 40k's rules.

Would certainly beat 50 shades of bolter.

T capped at 8 actually doesn't make any sense when S doesn't get a cap anymore and there are ways to bypass both T and saves (mortal wounds).

Ranged weapons are mostly still S10 at most, but there are LoW's weapons at S14-16 and several basic stuff (Warboss, nauts, ecc...) can strike at S12-16 in combat now.

Spoletta wrote:
GW is always slow to modify things.

They increased their design space in 8th due to the new damage, wound and SvsT rules, but didn't really capitalize on it as much as one would have expected.

In 9th they are finally using some of that. We are seeing the damage and wound stats becoming more bold in the new dexes. T5 orks is also clearly a product of this new S and T design.

We will probably see non titan T9 models, or even T10 before the end of this edition.
The obvious bet is on the chaos demon dex, but the tyranid one is also a strong candidate.

Seeing they have been REMOVING T9 models in 9e...I doubt it.