Switch Theme:

Lance = +2 to Armour Penetration rolls  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Lance has the same problem with Lascannon. Single shot and over costed.

Just make it Cheaper, 20pts is to much. It should be 10-15pts.

Otherwise the rules for it are fine.

14k+
10k+
6k
5k
:Harlequin: 3k
:Corsair: 3k 
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







 Amishprn86 wrote:
Lance has the same problem with Lascannon. Single shot and over costed.

Just make it Cheaper, 20pts is to much. It should be 10-15pts.

Otherwise the rules for it are fine.


You know it's a 5pt upgrade over a shuriken cannon on most of the vehicles these days, right?

Victoria est autem vita.  
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
Lance has the same problem with Lascannon. Single shot and over costed.

Just make it Cheaper, 20pts is to much. It should be 10-15pts.

Otherwise the rules for it are fine.


You know it's a 5pt upgrade over a shuriken cannon on most of the vehicles these days, right?


And for DE vehicles its 5pts.

I was talking more about infantry, its 20pts on dudes. Where you can take a ML its 8/3 instead of 8/2 lance, but its 48" over 36" and can be a 4/4 blast.

14k+
10k+
6k
5k
:Harlequin: 3k
:Corsair: 3k 
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan





Dallas area, TX

But changing points costs means changing multiple codices, which would only happen if GW scrapped all the current ones a started fresh. Which is not only a terrifying prospect, but makes any proposed changes to the current system irrelevant. If they change everything, than making simple elegant changes (like Lance being +2 to Armour Pen) are pointless because stuff like Armour Pen might not even exist.

And changing the cost of the weapons purchased by infantry does not help Raiders/Ravagers, Void Weavers or Fire Prisms. A Flat +2 to the Armour Pen roll for all Lance Weapons makes all of these choices appealing and they get a bonus no matter what AV they shoot at.

-

   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







 Galef wrote:
But changing points costs means changing multiple codices, which would only happen if GW scrapped all the current ones a started fresh. Which is not only a terrifying prospect, but makes any proposed changes to the current system irrelevant. If they change everything, than making simple elegant changes (like Lance being +2 to Armour Pen) are pointless because stuff like Armour Pen might not even exist.

And changing the cost of the weapons purchased by infantry does not help Raiders/Ravagers, Void Weavers or Fire Prisms. A Flat +2 to the Armour Pen roll for all Lance Weapons makes all of these choices appealing and they get a bonus no matter what AV they shoot at.

-


I don't know. They managed to get their heads out of their a**es on Terminator pricing and VV upgrade weapon pricing in the base Space Marine book and haven't finished carrying that over to derivative books.

If things that existed in multiple books could never change we'd still have 50pt Rhinos and 15pt Tactical Marines that had to pay 3ppm for grenades.

Victoria est autem vita.  
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan





Dallas area, TX

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Spoiler:
 Galef wrote:
But changing points costs means changing multiple codices, which would only happen if GW scrapped all the current ones a started fresh. Which is not only a terrifying prospect, but makes any proposed changes to the current system irrelevant. If they change everything, than making simple elegant changes (like Lance being +2 to Armour Pen) are pointless because stuff like Armour Pen might not even exist.

And changing the cost of the weapons purchased by infantry does not help Raiders/Ravagers, Void Weavers or Fire Prisms. A Flat +2 to the Armour Pen roll for all Lance Weapons makes all of these choices appealing and they get a bonus no matter what AV they shoot at.

-


I don't know. They managed to get their heads out of their a**es on Terminator pricing and VV upgrade weapon pricing in the base Space Marine book and haven't finished carrying that over to derivative books.

If things that existed in multiple books could never change we'd still have 50pt Rhinos and 15pt Tactical Marines that had to pay 3ppm for grenades
.

I am not saying it couldn't happen, it just wouldn't happen as fast, nor be as effective. And you'd have a weird situation were one army has something priced at Xpts, and another has the same thing priced at Ypts. We all know how undesirable this can be (ask a Blood Angels player)
Making 1 change to the BRB affects multiple books. We basically know that 8th ed is around the corner. I highly doubt Eldar, Dark Eldar or Harlequins will get updates within the next 2 years (unless 8th ed goes AoS, then this proposed change won't matter)

-

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/03/21 15:18:17


   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot





Martel732 wrote:
I think maybe it should be autopen vs any target in exchange for a points in increase.

Because what this game needs is yet another way to disable/destroy a tank in a single turn, as it stands leman russes are far too durable and top tier cheese. Let's just make melta weapons guaranteed to make them explode, D weapons don't even have to roll, and everything else above S3 able to glance AV14 on a 6.

~3000 painted
2000 w/ 1200 painted, and 300 scions painted
~2500 painted (not by me) 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 Galef wrote:
But changing points costs means changing multiple codices, which would only happen if GW scrapped all the current ones a started fresh. Which is not only a terrifying prospect, but makes any proposed changes to the current system irrelevant. If they change everything, than making simple elegant changes (like Lance being +2 to Armour Pen) are pointless because stuff like Armour Pen might not even exist.

And changing the cost of the weapons purchased by infantry does not help Raiders/Ravagers, Void Weavers or Fire Prisms. A Flat +2 to the Armour Pen roll for all Lance Weapons makes all of these choices appealing and they get a bonus no matter what AV they shoot at.

-


Who says codexs are going to be around when 8th drops? We dont know


 kingbobbito wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I think maybe it should be autopen vs any target in exchange for a points in increase.

Because what this game needs is yet another way to disable/destroy a tank in a single turn, as it stands leman russes are far too durable and top tier cheese. Let's just make melta weapons guaranteed to make them explode, D weapons don't even have to roll, and everything else above S3 able to glance AV14 on a 6.


I feel Lances are fine the say they are, they are there, I was just saying lessen them by 5pts would be nice. Its not going to kill tanks any faster.

They just need to make it so only AP 1 can explode a Vehicle, AP2 or Open top is what is killing it and so is Grav. Grav shouldnt Immob+1 Hull, 2 grav hits and most things are dead.

Weaken Grav and only A1 can explode. thats how I would change it.

14k+
10k+
6k
5k
:Harlequin: 3k
:Corsair: 3k 
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







 Galef wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Spoiler:
 Galef wrote:
But changing points costs means changing multiple codices, which would only happen if GW scrapped all the current ones a started fresh. Which is not only a terrifying prospect, but makes any proposed changes to the current system irrelevant. If they change everything, than making simple elegant changes (like Lance being +2 to Armour Pen) are pointless because stuff like Armour Pen might not even exist.

And changing the cost of the weapons purchased by infantry does not help Raiders/Ravagers, Void Weavers or Fire Prisms. A Flat +2 to the Armour Pen roll for all Lance Weapons makes all of these choices appealing and they get a bonus no matter what AV they shoot at.

-


I don't know. They managed to get their heads out of their a**es on Terminator pricing and VV upgrade weapon pricing in the base Space Marine book and haven't finished carrying that over to derivative books.

If things that existed in multiple books could never change we'd still have 50pt Rhinos and 15pt Tactical Marines that had to pay 3ppm for grenades
.

I am not saying it couldn't happen, it just wouldn't happen as fast, nor be as effective. And you'd have a weird situation were one army has something priced at Xpts, and another has the same thing priced at Ypts. We all know how undesirable this can be (ask a Blood Angels player)
Making 1 change to the BRB affects multiple books. We basically know that 8th ed is around the corner. I highly doubt Eldar, Dark Eldar or Harlequins will get updates within the next 2 years (unless 8th ed goes AoS, then this proposed change won't matter)

-


...For the record: this attitude is what's making 40k perpetually more complicated. Assuming that every problem absolutely must be addressed in one release is why we have grav-weapons and the S6/7-spam anti-tank meta.

Victoria est autem vita.  
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan





Dallas area, TX

 AnomanderRake wrote:

...For the record: this attitude is what's making 40k perpetually more complicated. Assuming that every problem absolutely must be addressed in one release is why we have grav-weapons and the S6/7-spam anti-tank meta.

What attitude? Realism? GW is not going to release 5+ codices at once just to make a few changes. It will either be 1 book at a time like now, or they kill 40K and create a whole new game.
Making changes to the BRB is a much more effective way to introduce balance and sweeping change.

If GW hits the reset button, then proposing rules for a game system that no one knows anything about or even knows exists yet, would be kinda silly at this point.

   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 Galef wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

...For the record: this attitude is what's making 40k perpetually more complicated. Assuming that every problem absolutely must be addressed in one release is why we have grav-weapons and the S6/7-spam anti-tank meta.

What attitude? Realism? GW is not going to release 5+ codices at once just to make a few changes. It will either be 1 book at a time like now, or they kill 40K and create a whole new game.
Making changes to the BRB is a much more effective way to introduce balance and sweeping change.

If GW hits the reset button, then proposing rules for a game system that no one knows anything about or even knows exists yet, would be kinda silly at this point.


No but they could do away with codex's and have data-slates like they did with AoS and yes they did do that with 5 armies... well ALL of them lol.

So the possibility of changing multi armies at once is now an option.

14k+
10k+
6k
5k
:Harlequin: 3k
:Corsair: 3k 
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan





Dallas area, TX

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Galef wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

...For the record: this attitude is what's making 40k perpetually more complicated. Assuming that every problem absolutely must be addressed in one release is why we have grav-weapons and the S6/7-spam anti-tank meta.

What attitude? Realism? GW is not going to release 5+ codices at once just to make a few changes. It will either be 1 book at a time like now, or they kill 40K and create a whole new game.
Making changes to the BRB is a much more effective way to introduce balance and sweeping change.

If GW hits the reset button, then proposing rules for a game system that no one knows anything about or even knows exists yet, would be kinda silly at this point.


No but they could do away with codex's and have data-slates like they did with AoS and yes they did do that with 5 armies... well ALL of them lol.

So the possibility of changing multi armies at once is now an option.

That's part of the point I was trying to make. If GW does sweeping changes to multiple books at once, it will not be just 4-5 of them, it will be ALL of them at once. Re-adjusting points costs at that stage would be pointless (pun?), since EVERYTHING is likely to be completely different.

This is a possibility, yes. However my suggestions in this thread, and in fact 90% of the Proposed Rules threads are dealing with changes to either a single Codex or to the BRB, with the assumption that all other rules/armies are exactly the same (as the attempt is to bring balance toward those other publications)

-

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/22 12:28:00


   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 kingbobbito wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I think maybe it should be autopen vs any target in exchange for a points in increase.

Because what this game needs is yet another way to disable/destroy a tank in a single turn, as it stands leman russes are far too durable and top tier cheese. Let's just make melta weapons guaranteed to make them explode, D weapons don't even have to roll, and everything else above S3 able to glance AV14 on a 6.


Just trying to give lance a functional niche.
   
Made in us
Discriminating Warrior




Morningside Table of Heck

Martel732 wrote:
Just trying to give lance a functional niche.

Well, it HAS a niche, it has just been overcosted and downplayed for just going for the Glance rather than the Pen. Why worry about dropping AV when you can just Glance it to death?

Oddly enough, relying on Glancing to kill a Vehicle is rather stupid. At best and worst, you only have 1 spot on a die roll to Glance a Vehicle for anything but Haywire. The most common Eldar lances in history have 2 spots, at least, to Penetrate any Vehicle (aside from Necron 3rd Edition Monolith). Melta and Armour Bane usually have more.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Rules assessments I present do not reflect a consideration of any specific group, but only on the written word which we all share. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 Charistoph wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Just trying to give lance a functional niche.

Well, it HAS a niche, it has just been overcosted and downplayed for just going for the Glance rather than the Pen. Why worry about dropping AV when you can just Glance it to death?

Oddly enough, relying on Glancing to kill a Vehicle is rather stupid. At best and worst, you only have 1 spot on a die roll to Glance a Vehicle for anything but Haywire. The most common Eldar lances in history have 2 spots, at least, to Penetrate any Vehicle (aside from Necron 3rd Edition Monolith). Melta and Armour Bane usually have more.


Relaying on Glances is the only way for some armies to deal with 12 vehicles on the table tho.

14k+
10k+
6k
5k
:Harlequin: 3k
:Corsair: 3k 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




But it makes highest cost vehicles worthless.
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







 Galef wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

...For the record: this attitude is what's making 40k perpetually more complicated. Assuming that every problem absolutely must be addressed in one release is why we have grav-weapons and the S6/7-spam anti-tank meta.

What attitude? Realism? GW is not going to release 5+ codices at once just to make a few changes. It will either be 1 book at a time like now, or they kill 40K and create a whole new game.
Making changes to the BRB is a much more effective way to introduce balance and sweeping change.

If GW hits the reset button, then proposing rules for a game system that no one knows anything about or even knows exists yet, would be kinda silly at this point.


No, the "every issue must be fixed in one single release" attitude. There are problems that can't be addressed using the main rulebook and fixing things with the main rulebook often causes more headaches (vehicles are where they are right now because GW tried to make broad sweeping changes to correct people not using transports in 4e, overcorrecting to the Rhino-spam meta of 5e, then overcorrected by introducing hull-points and leading us into this S6/7-spam wasteland of ineffective vehicles).

The game would work a lot better if GW settled one one core rulebook and stopped changing it long enough to iterate through multiple Codexes per faction instead of upending the whole thing and needing to start balance/planning from scratch every couple of years.

Victoria est autem vita.  
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Galef wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

...For the record: this attitude is what's making 40k perpetually more complicated. Assuming that every problem absolutely must be addressed in one release is why we have grav-weapons and the S6/7-spam anti-tank meta.

What attitude? Realism? GW is not going to release 5+ codices at once just to make a few changes. It will either be 1 book at a time like now, or they kill 40K and create a whole new game.
Making changes to the BRB is a much more effective way to introduce balance and sweeping change.

If GW hits the reset button, then proposing rules for a game system that no one knows anything about or even knows exists yet, would be kinda silly at this point.


No, the "every issue must be fixed in one single release" attitude. There are problems that can't be addressed using the main rulebook and fixing things with the main rulebook often causes more headaches (vehicles are where they are right now because GW tried to make broad sweeping changes to correct people not using transports in 4e, overcorrecting to the Rhino-spam meta of 5e, then overcorrected by introducing hull-points and leading us into this S6/7-spam wasteland of ineffective vehicles).

The game would work a lot better if GW settled one one core rulebook and stopped changing it long enough to iterate through multiple Codexes per faction instead of upending the whole thing and needing to start balance/planning from scratch every couple of years.


This. 100%

14k+
10k+
6k
5k
:Harlequin: 3k
:Corsair: 3k 
   
Made in nz
Dakka Veteran




Auckland, NZ

Could try taking it in a different direction.
Rather than being an anti-tank weapon type, merge Lance with Beam psychic powers, making it hit every model under a line.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/23 19:08:39


 
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan





Dallas area, TX

Arson Fire wrote:
Could try taking it in a different direction.
Rather than being an anti-tank weapon type, merge Lance with Beam psychic powers, making it hit every model under a line.

Mind... Blown!
Yes, lets make this happen instead!

   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







 Galef wrote:
Arson Fire wrote:
Could try taking it in a different direction.
Rather than being an anti-tank weapon type, merge Lance with Beam psychic powers, making it hit every model under a line.

Mind... Blown!
Yes, lets make this happen instead!


For visuals go play CSM in the DoWII:Retribution campaign. The Havoc character's special ability when using a lascannon is to just turn it on.

Victoria est autem vita.  
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: