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.

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.

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.

 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.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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.

Points are a different matter, and they have no fluff impact.

A Tau pulse rifle is 100% a more technologically advanced weapon compared to human standards. No issues there.

A splinter rifle is just a weird weapon, not a better one. I fully support giving splinter rifles a -1AP. It gives them a more definite collocation.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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.

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.

 Niiai wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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.

Railguns and Railrifles would like a word

the_scotsman wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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

 Niiai wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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.

My mistake, thank you for the correction!

petrov27 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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:

 Hellebore wrote:

 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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 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:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 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

 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?

 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)

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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.

Ice_can wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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)

Voss wrote:

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.