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.

They could always just remove heroic intervention from the game. Problem solved. I never particularly cared for that rule anyway. Free move because... you’re lonely?

Aash wrote:
They could always just remove heroic intervention from the game. Problem solved. I never particularly cared for that rule anyway. Free move because... you’re lonely?

I mean, if HI wasn't there you could have a 10-man squad of marines with a captain standing right in the middle of them, and an enemy charger could just decide to not fight the substantially more threatening sergeant by not declaring him a target.

I get it tbh.

the_scotsman wrote:

Aash wrote:
They could always just remove heroic intervention from the game. Problem solved. I never particularly cared for that rule anyway. Free move because... you’re lonely?

I mean, if HI wasn't there you could have a 10-man squad of marines with a captain standing right in the middle of them, and an enemy charger could just decide to not fight the substantially more threatening sergeant by not declaring him a target.

I get it tbh.

True. Now, in 9th (if they don't change anything*), the charging unit is forced not to fight the substantially more threatening Captain while he chops them all in half. That's way more sensible!

*personally, I think they'll change something.

HI is necessary because they split characters off from units. If you do that, you have to have HI or characters become too easily avoidable in melee.

On the charge thing, all they'd have to do is remove the stupid restriction on only being able to fight stuff you charged in the first place. Allow a charging unit to fight anything they declared a charge against, OR anything they are within 1" of when chosen to activate, just like normal units can fight anything they're within 1" of when chosen to activate. Charging should increase the amount of stuff you are allowed to fight, not limit it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Aash wrote:
They could always just remove heroic intervention from the game. Problem solved. I never particularly cared for that rule anyway. Free move because... you’re lonely?

I mean, if HI wasn't there you could have a 10-man squad of marines with a captain standing right in the middle of them, and an enemy charger could just decide to not fight the substantially more threatening sergeant by not declaring him a target.

I get it tbh.

True. Now, in 9th (if they don't change anything*), the charging unit is forced not to fight the substantially more threatening Captain while he chops them all in half. That's way more sensible!

*personally, I think they'll change something.

...unless they declare him as a target of the charge, obv.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Aash wrote:
They could always just remove heroic intervention from the game. Problem solved. I never particularly cared for that rule anyway. Free move because... you’re lonely?

I mean, if HI wasn't there you could have a 10-man squad of marines with a captain standing right in the middle of them, and an enemy charger could just decide to not fight the substantially more threatening sergeant by not declaring him a target.

I get it tbh.

True. Now, in 9th (if they don't change anything*), the charging unit is forced not to fight the substantially more threatening Captain while he chops them all in half. That's way more sensible!

*personally, I think they'll change something.

...unless they declare him as a target of the charge, obv.

Which will guarantee their charge fails, because unless they have fly, it's probably very easy to position him so that they need more than a 12" charge to get to him, making it impossible to do so. Unless they're starting the charge from literally like 2" out.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Aash wrote:
They could always just remove heroic intervention from the game. Problem solved. I never particularly cared for that rule anyway. Free move because... you’re lonely?

I mean, if HI wasn't there you could have a 10-man squad of marines with a captain standing right in the middle of them, and an enemy charger could just decide to not fight the substantially more threatening sergeant by not declaring him a target.

I get it tbh.

True. Now, in 9th (if they don't change anything*), the charging unit is forced not to fight the substantially more threatening Captain while he chops them all in half. That's way more sensible!

*personally, I think they'll change something.

...unless they declare him as a target of the charge, obv.

You could surround him with the 10 marine squad such that he can squeeze within an inch during Heroic Intervention, but the charging unit cannot get to within 1" of him (remember, he gets to move after they do). This means he cannot be a target of the charge, or the charge automatically fails in 9th edition.

Lammia wrote:

Higher starting CP + the regeneration means that I don't know expect the drain to be enough, but that may depend on other things.

I don't think it will quite that much CP.

Take marines -- their current lists use 3 detachments. Often for CP generation and then allied marines to specialize. Some go mono, but they often carry 4+ HQs.

We still don't know how everything will shape up, but it could look something like this:

-3 CP, Second Battalion
-2 CP, Chapter Master
-1 CP, Extra Trait
-1 CP, Extra Relic
-1 CP, Other Pre-game Strat
-2 CP, Duty Eternal twice (or Tremor Shells & Suppression once)

Most of the meat of a game happens in the first 3 turns. That means 5 CP is left. Are they going to want to O/W a couple times? -2CP. Will they need any damage rerolls? Is Fallback a strat?

Sure you can regen, but that will likely still be one per turn.
Bobby gives 3CP, but he's a super heavy. What will that detachment cost be? Is he the WL, because that means no refund on the Battalion.
Tigurius gives 2CP, but then you're fixing your army to UM. Are successors allies? They seem to be.

Or maybe the list building changes so much that we see singular detachments more. It's hard to say.

Wakshaani wrote:Of course, in older editions, when melee always attacked the rear armor, I hearily enjoyed Orks with choppas plinking harmlessly off my Rhinos while, in other battles, my Marines would pull up on a leman Russ, fire up the saliva glands, and lick the tank to death with their acid tongues.

"Nothing tastier than a defeated enemy, eh Victorius?" *nom nom nom*

That was a terrible and stupid rule for many reasons
1.Jervis came up with it because he is an idiot who said things like "you deserve to hit tanks you get into CC with": you don't deserve **** in a TT wargame. you EARN it by superior tactics
2.it takes away tactical flexibility with the trade off of movement to counter assaults VS more accurate shooting for vehicles that existed in 3rd and 4th with attacks against armor facing and the difficulty of hitting saomething that was not moving VS something that is moving or moving very fast.
3. A MBT designed to stand up against it's opposite number should not be as easy to hurt as a troop carrier.

Ice_can wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
"* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved."\

This is a TERRIBLE change, unless they remove the rule that says you can only fight stuff you declared a charge against.

I doubt they would remove that distinction, because then why would you declare multiple charges? I think it's pretty fair considering O/W is gone and freebie charges would be back on the menu.

I don't see how it's fair at all. Putting a character an inch or two behind a 25mm base screen, such that you need another 4" of movement to go around the screen to get within 1" of him, shouldn't make it impossible to fight him in that fight phase, while he can heroic in and be within 1" just by cozying up to the base of the guy he's using as a shield.

Because you can charge whatever you like now, got something with a 75% or higer charge roll rule, congratulations you can now congaline and charge every unit in the opponents army you can touch with no overwatch bar 1 of your charge targets.
If Fall back has also become a strategum as roumered your going to have won the dang game on turn 1.

Honestly the conga-line was still a problem in 8th in the sense you could charge and consolidate towards any enemy unit(in any direction), not the ones you were currently engaging in CC. the old rules were far better you had to charge the first model in a straight line directly at the enemy unit once in B2B all other models had to charge that same unit to get as close as possible(but not in a straight line). it still allowed for multi-charge but only if both charged units were basically right next to each other.. then consolidation had to be closer to the unit currently in CC with it.

 aphyon wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:Of course, in older editions, when melee always attacked the rear armor, I hearily enjoyed Orks with choppas plinking harmlessly off my Rhinos while, in other battles, my Marines would pull up on a leman Russ, fire up the saliva glands, and lick the tank to death with their acid tongues.

"Nothing tastier than a defeated enemy, eh Victorius?" *nom nom nom*

That was a terrible and stupid rule for many reasons
1.Jervis came up with it because he is an idiot who said things like "you deserve to hit tanks you get into CC with": you don't deserve **** in a TT wargame. you EARN it by superior tactics
2.it takes away tactical flexibility with the trade off of movement to counter assaults VS more accurate shooting for vehicles that existed in 3rd and 4th with attacks against armor facing and the difficulty of hitting saomething that was not moving VS something that is moving or moving very fast.
3. A MBT designed to stand up against it's opposite number should not be as easy to hurt as a troop carrier.

For several editions, all models in a unit used their grenades in CC which made perfect sense, (So Orks could be S4 with Frag Stikkbombs), and hitting the rear armor of a tank just represented planting grenades in weak points, etc. It was great.

It will also allow for major abuse of base sizes. If the charging unit is 32mm bases and your screen is 25mm, for example, you can set them up 30mm from one another and then your 25mm character can heroic between them while being impossible to charge with the 32mm base models, despite being only an inch or so back.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

 aphyon wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:Of course, in older editions, when melee always attacked the rear armor, I hearily enjoyed Orks with choppas plinking harmlessly off my Rhinos while, in other battles, my Marines would pull up on a leman Russ, fire up the saliva glands, and lick the tank to death with their acid tongues.

"Nothing tastier than a defeated enemy, eh Victorius?" *nom nom nom*

That was a terrible and stupid rule for many reasons
1.Jervis came up with it because he is an idiot who said things like "you deserve to hit tanks you get into CC with": you don't deserve **** in a TT wargame. you EARN it by superior tactics
2.it takes away tactical flexibility with the trade off of movement to counter assaults VS more accurate shooting for vehicles that existed in 3rd and 4th with attacks against armor facing and the difficulty of hitting saomething that was not moving VS something that is moving or moving very fast.
3. A MBT designed to stand up against it's opposite number should not be as easy to hurt as a troop carrier.

For several editions, all models in a unit used their grenades in CC which made perfect sense, (So Orks could be S4 with Frag Stikkbombs), and hitting the rear armor of a tank just represented planting grenades in weak points, etc. It was great.

Yes, it was. Hope they bring it back. Don't understand why they removed it in the first place.

Of course if they do bring it back, csm want our melta bombs back.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:Of course, in older editions, when melee always attacked the rear armor, I hearily enjoyed Orks with choppas plinking harmlessly off my Rhinos while, in other battles, my Marines would pull up on a leman Russ, fire up the saliva glands, and lick the tank to death with their acid tongues.

"Nothing tastier than a defeated enemy, eh Victorius?" *nom nom nom*

That was a terrible and stupid rule for many reasons
1.Jervis came up with it because he is an idiot who said things like "you deserve to hit tanks you get into CC with": you don't deserve **** in a TT wargame. you EARN it by superior tactics
2.it takes away tactical flexibility with the trade off of movement to counter assaults VS more accurate shooting for vehicles that existed in 3rd and 4th with attacks against armor facing and the difficulty of hitting saomething that was not moving VS something that is moving or moving very fast.
3. A MBT designed to stand up against it's opposite number should not be as easy to hurt as a troop carrier.

For several editions, all models in a unit used their grenades in CC which made perfect sense, (So Orks could be S4 with Frag Stikkbombs), and hitting the rear armor of a tank just represented planting grenades in weak points, etc. It was great.

I am fine with hitting rear armor is you are actually able to get to it to hit it, that's actually playing the game tactically. hitting rear armor just 'cause is not acceptable

I am also fine with every member in a unit using their grenades. they paid for them in points afterall. in fact in our house rules that rule is still in effect. it gives things like tau firewarriors the chance to be able to deal with armor (EMP grenades) while not being able to carry any heavy weapons for the same purpose.

 aphyon wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:Of course, in older editions, when melee always attacked the rear armor, I hearily enjoyed Orks with choppas plinking harmlessly off my Rhinos while, in other battles, my Marines would pull up on a leman Russ, fire up the saliva glands, and lick the tank to death with their acid tongues.

"Nothing tastier than a defeated enemy, eh Victorius?" *nom nom nom*

That was a terrible and stupid rule for many reasons
1.Jervis came up with it because he is an idiot who said things like "you deserve to hit tanks you get into CC with": you don't deserve **** in a TT wargame. you EARN it by superior tactics
2.it takes away tactical flexibility with the trade off of movement to counter assaults VS more accurate shooting for vehicles that existed in 3rd and 4th with attacks against armor facing and the difficulty of hitting saomething that was not moving VS something that is moving or moving very fast.
3. A MBT designed to stand up against it's opposite number should not be as easy to hurt as a troop carrier.

Re: 3, armor literally does not matter in a universe with power fields as a thing.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Things with unequal access to anti-tank weapons is sensible. You shouldn't say "well, because Space Marines have Krak Grenades, guardsmen should be able to wound tanks with bayonets." Which is how that argument sounds.

For the genestealer example, here's a few assumptions that may help:
1) Tanks are harder to grab onto than terminators to exert force (given that they're somewhat larger and the armor panels are slabs rather than attached to limbs, etc).
2) Tank armor is different in composition to Terminator armor (one gives a 5++ and is based on a system to operate inside a plasma reactor, the other may be any number of different metals and thicknesses).
3) Tank armor is generally thicker than terminator armor, and the weakspots are less present (armpits, elbows, necks - the primary weakspots on a tank are not as weak as those).

Let's be honest - you're likely biased, because you enjoy taking gakloads of big tanks and you'd prefer to benefit from the invulnerability.

We no longer have facings or weak points to exploit. Wounding on 6s rounds off the hard edges and makes it a little more equitable. It wouldn't exactly be fair for your big guns to murderlate blobs of infantry and then let you cackle as they're unable to hurt you anyway.

Yeah, war is fair. Right... ever see the end of Saving Private Ryan? Moreober, this is not a card game where everone has access to the same cards. You choose a faction and get different units to choose from. Not every faction has everything. And not everything should be able to hurt everything else. That is snowflaky... but then again so is screaming that its not fair that your pistol cannot hurt your opponent's tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:Of course, in older editions, when melee always attacked the rear armor, I hearily enjoyed Orks with choppas plinking harmlessly off my Rhinos while, in other battles, my Marines would pull up on a leman Russ, fire up the saliva glands, and lick the tank to death with their acid tongues.

"Nothing tastier than a defeated enemy, eh Victorius?" *nom nom nom*

That was a terrible and stupid rule for many reasons
1.Jervis came up with it because he is an idiot who said things like "you deserve to hit tanks you get into CC with": you don't deserve **** in a TT wargame. you EARN it by superior tactics
2.it takes away tactical flexibility with the trade off of movement to counter assaults VS more accurate shooting for vehicles that existed in 3rd and 4th with attacks against armor facing and the difficulty of hitting saomething that was not moving VS something that is moving or moving very fast.
3. A MBT designed to stand up against it's opposite number should not be as easy to hurt as a troop carrier.

Re: 3, armor literally does not matter in a universe with power fields as a thing.

What should matter then? The viability of your model collection?

 aphyon wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:Of course, in older editions, when melee always attacked the rear armor, I hearily enjoyed Orks with choppas plinking harmlessly off my Rhinos while, in other battles, my Marines would pull up on a leman Russ, fire up the saliva glands, and lick the tank to death with their acid tongues.

"Nothing tastier than a defeated enemy, eh Victorius?" *nom nom nom*

That was a terrible and stupid rule for many reasons
1.Jervis came up with it because he is an idiot who said things like "you deserve to hit tanks you get into CC with": you don't deserve **** in a TT wargame. you EARN it by superior tactics
2.it takes away tactical flexibility with the trade off of movement to counter assaults VS more accurate shooting for vehicles that existed in 3rd and 4th with attacks against armor facing and the difficulty of hitting saomething that was not moving VS something that is moving or moving very fast.
3. A MBT designed to stand up against it's opposite number should not be as easy to hurt as a troop carrier.

For several editions, all models in a unit used their grenades in CC which made perfect sense, (So Orks could be S4 with Frag Stikkbombs), and hitting the rear armor of a tank just represented planting grenades in weak points, etc. It was great.

I am fine with hitting rear armor is you are actually able to get to it to hit it, that's actually playing the game tactically. hitting rear armor just 'cause is not acceptable

It wasn't 'just cause', it was specifically a combination of infantry finding weak points, and the fact that the assault phase meant a whole swirl of action.

And it was good balance. Lots of tanks had ferocious firepower, and were often totally invulnerable to small arms, unlike today. A Plasma Gun couldn't do a thing to a Leman Russ from the front. The flipside was that infantry could wreck a vehicle in cc with some reasonable equipment. And if they couldn't or didn't, the vehicle could just move through them like they weren't even there, and fire at whatever it wanted.

It wasn't 'just cause', it was specifically a combination of infantry finding weak points, and the fact that the assault phase meant a whole swirl of action.

A poor excuse for implementation of a bad rule. back the HBMCs point AT weapons for close quarters combat carried by infantry exist and have existed in the game, creating a rule that REMOVES tactical play because one guy at GW thought it would be cool is a terrible direction to take the game.,

And it was good balance. Lots of tanks had ferocious firepower, and were often totally invulnerable to small arms, unlike today. A Plasma Gun couldn't do a thing to a Leman Russ from the front. The flipside was that infantry could wreck a vehicle in cc with some reasonable equipment. And if they couldn't or didn't, the vehicle could just move through them like they weren't even there, and fire at whatever it wanted.

Illogical balance- small arms should not be able to hurt a tank from the front, nor should infantry without the proper equipment be able to impede a tank in assault....its a FRIGGIN TANK! it is the nature of a working rule set for a tactical war game. you don't send the unit not equipped for AT work after heavy armor.

This is all about tactical play on the table, not about some kind of change to the game mechanic that removes tactical play for unreasonable claims of "balance". when the thing you need is already available in the game.

DUST does a fine job of this and they used a wound system long before 8th ed. however it is also separated by armor classes(not facings). light guns can hurt light vehicles but beyond a certain point the armor is to heavy to hurt with small arms. an exception is made for fire. it hurts everything equally.

I have to jump in on the tanks vs melee argument.

The choice to allow everything to wound everything is a game balance one, to discourage skew lists. Gameplay wise it rarely matters, because situations were you shoot small arms at tanks normally means you have lost. Occasionally you get situations were infantry weapons finish off a mostly dead monster or tank, and it is suitably epic.

This is better than the alternative, because situations where players cannot do anything are bad game design.

In real life, tanks hate getting in close with infantry. Armor doctrine is to avoid close quarters and urban situations unless operating in conjunction with supporting infantry. Tanks are mobile and very killy, but have poor situational awareness and cannot clear and hold the way infantry can.

In real combat, the risk is someone with an rpg/atgm hiding in some rubble and punching a hole in your side as you drive past. Hand grenades/molotovs are less of a threat, but still not fun to get hit with, and anything down to a bowling ball sized rock going in the wrong place can cause a thrown track, which is a mobility kill until you get out of the tank and fix it.

In real combat, people don't attack with chainsaw swords that can saw a hatch open, or alien razor claws that can shred an engine driven by a six foot monstrosity that will happily plunge its arms into your engine block so that your pistons seize on it's shredded flesh.

Point being, I feel that everything can wound everything is a reasonable abstraction for this game to use to represent the vulnerability of armor to close infantry.

Side note, an uparmored 113 is a horrible example to use. 113's are armored personnel carriers, with the armored part mostly being a joke. They have an aluminum skin which is suitable for stopping AK fire and not much else. Even with an uparmor kit and an auto cannon it is not a tank, it is a deathtrap on treads. Source: drove 113's.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Lammia wrote:

Higher starting CP + the regeneration means that I don't know expect the drain to be enough, but that may depend on other things.

I don't think it will quite that much CP.

Take marines -- their current lists use 3 detachments. Often for CP generation and then allied marines to specialize. Some go mono, but they often carry 4+ HQs.

We still don't know how everything will shape up, but it could look something like this:

-3 CP, Second Battalion
-2 CP, Chapter Master
-1 CP, Extra Trait
-1 CP, Extra Relic
-1 CP, Other Pre-game Strat
-2 CP, Duty Eternal twice (or Tremor Shells & Suppression once)

Most of the meat of a game happens in the first 3 turns. That means 5 CP is left. Are they going to want to O/W a couple times? -2CP. Will they need any damage rerolls? Is Fallback a strat?

Sure you can regen, but that will likely still be one per turn.
Bobby gives 3CP, but he's a super heavy. What will that detachment cost be? Is he the WL, because that means no refund on the Battalion.
Tigurius gives 2CP, but then you're fixing your army to UM. Are successors allies? They seem to be.

Or maybe the list building changes so much that we see singular detachments more. It's hard to say.

You're probably never going to take a second battalion. Just throwing that out there.

babelfish wrote:
I have to jump in on the tanks vs melee argument.

The choice to allow everything to wound everything is a game balance one, to discourage skew lists. Gameplay wise it rarely matters, because situations were you shoot small arms at tanks normally means you have lost. Occasionally you get situations were infantry weapons finish off a mostly dead monster or tank, and it is suitably epic.

This is better than the alternative, because situations where players cannot do anything are bad game design.

In real life, tanks hate getting in close with infantry. Armor doctrine is to avoid close quarters and urban situations unless operating in conjunction with supporting infantry. Tanks are mobile and very killy, but have poor situational awareness and cannot clear and hold the way infantry can.

In real combat, the risk is someone with an rpg/atgm hiding in some rubble and punching a hole in your side as you drive past. Hand grenades/molotovs are less of a threat, but still not fun to get hit with, and anything down to a bowling ball sized rock going in the wrong place can cause a thrown track, which is a mobility kill until you get out of the tank and fix it.

In real combat, people don't attack with chainsaw swords that can saw a hatch open, or alien razor claws that can shred an engine driven by a six foot monstrosity that will happily plunge its arms into your engine block so that your pistons seize on it's shredded flesh.

Point being, I feel that everything can wound everything is a reasonable abstraction for this game to use to represent the vulnerability of armor to close infantry.

Side note, an uparmored 113 is a horrible example to use. 113's are armored personnel carriers, with the armored part mostly being a joke. They have an aluminum skin which is suitable for stopping AK fire and not much else. Even with an uparmor kit and an auto cannon it is not a tank, it is a deathtrap on treads. Source: drove 113's.

It being added isnt the issue, it's toughness really doesn't matter as much as they changed the wounding chart but not Toughness values T tops at 10 on a Reaver Titan FFS, most anti infantry shooting heavy wepaons wound anything less than it on a 5+ aka 1/3 of the time add in +1 to wound and thats now 1/2 the time, then their is AP of -1 or more so you're saving at best usually 1/2 the time so your wounded with 1 in 4 hits from a weapon designed to shred light infantry.

Take the punisher Russ. Clearly an anti infantry weapon,

40 shots FFS that's isssue 1
Hitting on 3+, reroll 1's because orders
31 hits
Wounds on 5+
10 wounds
5 failed saves
The anti infantry specialists weapon just did more avarage damge than a dang anti tank weapon
It should be doing it way less effectively than it does, the issue is primarily in the wounding system.

Indeed. The other problem is re-rolls, which cuts the average down further. More shots with more re-rolls is better than most anti-tank options. Aggressors hosing down a Chimera are better than devs with lascannons, I think, if they have rr to hit and it wound buffs and the Aggressors are in tactical doctrine

Please don't bring realism into this. In reality a few dudes could run up to a tank, climb on top of it, and start throwing grenades into every nook and cranny.

Game - wise, if small arms fire didn't have a chance to hurt heavy armor, any time you bring lots of infantry VS a knights list you would just scoop.

The issue was never small arms fire broadly. The issue was always marines. They can stack so many rerolls and bonuses to hitting and wounding and damage that their bolters turn into anti tank weapons.

It feels like most problems with the game often boil down to "marines push this to a broken level".

ThePorcupine wrote:
Please don't bring realism into this. In reality a few dudes could run up to a tank, climb on top of it, and start throwing grenades into every nook and cranny.

Game - wise, if small arms fire didn't have a chance to hurt heavy armor, any time you bring lots of infantry VS a knights list you would just scoop.

The issue was never small arms fire broadly. The issue was always marines. They can stack so many rerolls and bonuses to hitting and wounding and damage that their bolters turn into anti tank weapons.

It feels like most problems with the game often boil down to "marines push this to a broken level".

I wish only -AP weapon could "target" T6+ targets. And also that all strategem/modifiers that turn AP0 into AP-1/-2 (or AP -1/-2 into AP0) just disappeared.

I'm speechless when i see GW basically breaking their own game rules all the time.

ThePorcupine wrote:
Please don't bring realism into this. In reality a few dudes could run up to a tank, climb on top of it, and start throwing grenades into every nook and cranny.

Game - wise, if small arms fire didn't have a chance to hurt heavy armor, any time you bring lots of infantry VS a knights list you would just scoop.

The issue was never small arms fire broadly. The issue was always marines. They can stack so many rerolls and bonuses to hitting and wounding and damage that their bolters turn into anti tank weapons.

It feels like most problems with the game often boil down to "marines push this to a broken level".

Marines take it to a broken level yes but to stick with Guard

A Russ with a Vanquisher Cannon
Does on avarage 3.5 wounds after saves against a T7 3+ save vehical, the maths goes more in the Punishers favour vrs T8 the wounding system is broken before we even go near marines.

ERJAK wrote:


You're probably never going to take a second battalion. Just throwing that out there.

Possibly, but then that's good, too.

Either you're all Battalion, which limits HQs and other toys or in a Brigade which forces more fill-out. And then you can't do things like take Bobby or mix with the 'best of the best' for marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

I'm speechless when i see GW basically breaking their own game rules all the time.

You must be speechless all of the time!

Games aren't simulations, but a bunch of heavy bolters shouldn't be better then a single lascanons in points vs tanks.
The whole D6 or D3 dmg for anti tank weapons was, in my opinion, a huge mistake. Weapons like multi meltas, lascanons should do flat damge. If a MM did 6 dmg and double or 9 at half range it would start being a formidable anti tank weapon. d3 or d6 dmg should be limited to luck or multi shot weapons, to represent a projectile doing a lucky shot . d3 damage on an assault canon or a hvy bolter make sense.

the more jack of all trades weapons like auto cannons or rocket launchers could have flat dmg too only on the lower end of the dmg spectrum. I think that would be much better for the game.

Ice_can wrote:

It being added isnt the issue, it's toughness really doesn't matter as much as they changed the wounding chart but not Toughness values T tops at 10 on a Warlord Titan FFS.

A Warlord titan has T 16, but please carry on

Ice_can wrote:
Vanquisher Cannon

Please lets not look at the vanquisher cannon. it's the laughing stock of every guard fan and everyone acknowledges its godawful and the worst gun in the codex except maybe the deathstrike.

If only the Vanquisher could do what it used to do and be able to swap between different shell types.

ThePorcupine wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Vanquisher Cannon

Please lets not look at the vanquisher cannon. it's the laughing stock of every guard fan and everyone acknowledges its godawful and the worst gun in the codex except maybe the deathstrike.

H.B.M.C. wrote:If only the Vanquisher could do what it used to do and be able to swap between different shell types.

The problem with the Vanquisher is that back in the day of Armor value 14 and being able to 1 shot tanks is was a good viable AT gun (S8+2d6). Being able to change shell types would help some, but I feel it needs some sort of buff to help make it viable (like inflicting x2 wounds vs tanks or always max damage)