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 updated my Armiger datasheet as to include the new autocannon knights and some conversation options, working on the dominus class next

Except the Helverin autocannons fire explosive shells, hence their number of shots and increased damage value. Those aren’t standard autocannons.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Except the Helverin autocannons fire explosive shells, hence their number of shots and increased damage value. Those aren’t standard autocannons.

SJ

Thank you for the input however, this is designed for heresy and things change over the years so I chose to go with standard auto cannons.

TeAXIIIT13 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Except the Helverin autocannons fire explosive shells, hence their number of shots and increased damage value. Those aren’t standard autocannons.

SJ

Thank you for the input however, this is designed for heresy and things change over the years so I chose to go with standard auto cannons.

Too bad you chose wrong.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

TeAXIIIT13 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Except the Helverin autocannons fire explosive shells, hence their number of shots and increased damage value. Those aren’t standard autocannons.

SJ

Thank you for the input however, this is designed for heresy and things change over the years so I chose to go with standard auto cannons.

Too bad you chose wrong.

SJ

YOUR MADE UP PROFILE DOESN"T MATCH HOW I THINK THE MADE UP PROFILE SHOULD LOOK!!!!!

LOL

Use whatever profile you want dude. No need to get all angry about how someone else plays with their house rules.

I’m not the one typing in caps.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I’m not the one typing in caps.

SJ

Nope you are just the person telling another person that his own personal house rules are wrong because of reasons apparently. I've seen some amazing posts on these forums over the years man but this one is up here. You keep doing you man it is tidbits like these that make these forums a gold mine of entertainment.

Why did you make the thermal spear only 18" range? It has a range of 30" in 8th.

Is it a balance thing? I feel the heavy profile and single shot would do enough to help reign it in. After all IG have a tank called a devil dog with a 30" range melta cannon that was basically identical to how the warglaives worked, and I can't remember anyone ever accusing it of being broken.

The Thermal Lance is obviously a 30” range small blast, just like the Helverin Autocannons are two 60” range small blasts.

8e converts the small blast marker into 1d3 shots, large blast markers to 1d6 shots, which makes reverse engineering 8e to 7e Weapon profiles pretty much a no-brainer.

People have a right to their own opinions, they just don’t have a right to their own facts.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The Thermal Lance is obviously a 30” range small blast, just like the Helverin Autocannons are two 60” range small blasts.

8e converts the small blast marker into 1d3 shots, large blast markers to 1d6 shots, which makes reverse engineering 8e to 7e Weapon profiles pretty much a no-brainer.

People have a right to their own opinions, they just don’t have a right to their own facts.

SJ

Except for the fact that there are numerous weapons that don't follow that conversion. Take the predator autocannon for example is 2d3 shots 48 in str 7 ap -1 range 3 damage almost the exact same weapon. However, it was just an autocannon last addition. Also, the vindicator was a large blast template last addition that is only 1d3 shots now. Those are just two weapons off the top of my head that ignore that conversion. If I actually wanted to dig around I could probably find many more that don't follow that example.

For the most part, I would transcribe 2d3 to mean 2x small blasts. Outside of a couple instances, most the rest of the weapons followed that profile change. Just my humble opinion.

Another way to go about it... Each gun will on average get 4 shots right? So a standard Auto cannon profile firing twice could work too.

My two cp.

The Salt Mine wrote:

Except for the fact that there are numerous weapons that don't follow that conversion. Take the predator autocannon for example is 2d3 shots 48 in str 7 ap -1 range 3 damage almost the exact same weapon. However, it was just an autocannon last addition. Also, the vindicator was a large blast template last addition that is only 1d3 shots now. Those are just two weapons off the top of my head that ignore that conversion. If I actually wanted to dig around I could probably find many more that don't follow that example.

To be fair you are cherry picking two examples amongst a plethora of counterexamples. Even then, the Demolisher Cannon is D6 shots given 5 or more target models, which is probably how all blasts should have worked.

I think you’d struggle to come up with many examples of weapons that don’t follow blast = D3, large blast = D6. Even then, I doubt you they’d add up to even 5% of blast weapons, while the remaining 95% do follow that convention.

kombatwombat wrote:

The Salt Mine wrote:

Except for the fact that there are numerous weapons that don't follow that conversion. Take the predator autocannon for example is 2d3 shots 48 in str 7 ap -1 range 3 damage almost the exact same weapon. However, it was just an autocannon last addition. Also, the vindicator was a large blast template last addition that is only 1d3 shots now. Those are just two weapons off the top of my head that ignore that conversion. If I actually wanted to dig around I could probably find many more that don't follow that example.

To be fair you are cherry picking two examples amongst a plethora of counterexamples. Even then, the Demolisher Cannon is D6 shots given 5 or more target models, which is probably how all blasts should have worked.

I think you’d struggle to come up with many examples of weapons that don’t follow blast = D3, large blast = D6. Even then, I doubt you they’d add up to even 5% of blast weapons, while the remaining 95% do follow that convention.

Unfortunately the only 7th codex and 8th codex that I have for the same army is CSM. I have the 7th DE army but never picked up the 8th codex. However on to the "Cherry picking"!

Those that follow the rule you proposed.

Battle Cannon Large blast-D6 shots
Blast Master single frequency blast-d3 shots
Ectoplasma Cannon blast- d3 shots
Plasma Cannon blast-d3 shots.

Those that don't
Demolisher Cannon Large blast-d3 shots (it is d6 against larger targets but then again that's not what the original rule of thumb that was purposed states)
Bllght grenade blast- d6 shots
Frag grenade blast- d6 shots
Havoc launcher blast- d6 shots
Frag missile blast- d6 shots
Predator autocannon no blast or large blast - 2d3 shots

Now my math may be a bit fuzzy but I think 6 out of 10 weapons in a codex that doesn't follow that rule is a bit more than 5%. Even if we add the demo cannon to the other side and take away the predator autocannon it becomes a 50/50 split. Now to be fair this is an older 8th ed codex and like I said I can't find my daemons 7th codex to check and I have not picked up the 8th DE codex so the newer ones could follow the rule a lot better.

This thread has derailed......

Just make it a twinlinked Auto cannon. Each arm will on avg shoot 4 times at a near Auto cannon profile. That would most directly be represented in 7th as a twin linked autocannon

 Smotejob wrote:
Just make it a twinlinked Auto cannon. Each arm will on avg shoot 4 times at a near Auto cannon profile. That would most directly be represented in 7th as a twin linked autocannon

It would be much weaker then in 8th, only netting a max of 4 hits versus a minimum of 4 hits in 8th.

SJ

Sure, but a lot of weapons became better in 8th, so if you try to build the Armiger as deadly in 8th as in 7th, it'll have to be more expensive.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Smotejob wrote:
Just make it a twinlinked Auto cannon. Each arm will on avg shoot 4 times at a near Auto cannon profile. That would most directly be represented in 7th as a twin linked autocannon

It would be much weaker then in 8th, only netting a max of 4 hits versus a minimum of 4 hits in 8th.

SJ

I designed these rules for heresy (things can change a little in 10000 years) also in order to make the rules closer to 8th edition would 1: be pointless and I might as well play 8th edition and 2: would require me to look at 8th edition rules for the knights and there weapons which I won’t do because 8th is an abomination. (Your perfectly entitled to enjoy whatever you want)

Hard to rework a backwards compatible weapon profiles from 8th to 7th if you don’t bother to read the 8th ed weapon description.

SJ

tneva82 wrote:
As long as players have right attitude 7th>8th. Problem is abuses in codex as vastly superior 30k shows. If players avoid that abuse 7th ed beats crap out 8th

This is not even remotely true.

Tryanids, Orks, really blew chunks in 7th.

If i'm taking out my models and someone starts a question with "Want to play 7th..." My answer is no, regardless of whatever promises they make. That edition needed to die.

 Marmatag wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
As long as players have right attitude 7th>8th. Problem is abuses in codex as vastly superior 30k shows. If players avoid that abuse 7th ed beats crap out 8th

This is not even remotely true.

Tryanids, Orks, really blew chunks in 7th.

Sure they did, but the problems with 7th Ed were never with the ruleset, they were with the Codexes. The 7th ruleset isn’t perfect - the psychic phase makes that abundantly clear - but if you can wrangle the Codexes to get two balanced armies lined up against each other the game was great fun. That might have been a challenge to do with say Orks vs Eldar, but again, Codex problem, not ruleset. A 7th Ed ruleset with the balance of 8th Ed’s Index-only era would be a great game. Except that sort of exists already - 30k.

Oh god...
*flashbacks to the atrocious 7th edition vehicle rules*

why...

I pity the armiger, being so horribly downgraded simply for having Unit Type: Vehicle.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Oh god...
*flashbacks to the atrocious 7th edition vehicle rules*

why...

I pity the armiger, being so horribly downgraded simply for having Unit Type: Vehicle.

Quite a lot of groups have stat’d Armigers as Monstrous Creatures for 7th, in the 140pt range. This allows Armigers many of the same effects of a Superheavy Walker without being a Superheavy Walker, such as ignoring weapon damage but also not having Stomp. And by treating the Helverin Autocannons as a single weapon, you don’t have to make up a rule for it to fire three weapons instead of two.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Oh god...
*flashbacks to the atrocious 7th edition vehicle rules*

why...

I pity the armiger, being so horribly downgraded simply for having Unit Type: Vehicle.

Quite a lot of groups have stat’d Armigers as Monstrous Creatures for 7th, in the 140pt range. This allows Armigers many of the same effects of a Superheavy Walker without being a Superheavy Walker, such as ignoring weapon damage but also not having Stomp. And by treating the Helverin Autocannons as a single weapon, you don’t have to make up a rule for it to fire three weapons instead of two.

SJ

So it is immune to the extra D6 armour pen from half range melta, making it more resistant to a single melta shot than a full Knight?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Oh god...
*flashbacks to the atrocious 7th edition vehicle rules*

why...

I pity the armiger, being so horribly downgraded simply for having Unit Type: Vehicle.

Quite a lot of groups have stat’d Armigers as Monstrous Creatures for 7th, in the 140pt range. This allows Armigers many of the same effects of a Superheavy Walker without being a Superheavy Walker, such as ignoring weapon damage but also not having Stomp. And by treating the Helverin Autocannons as a single weapon, you don’t have to make up a rule for it to fire three weapons instead of two.

SJ

So it is immune to the extra D6 armour pen from half range melta, making it more resistant to a single melta shot than a full Knight?

A single Melta isn’t killing a full size Knight, either.

SJ

5+s with Melta (4+s on Fire Dragons, due to Eldar specialness) does the extra D3 of damage however.

Personally, I feel like Armigers themselves would be better as non-Superheavies, perhaps with a "roll 2 drop lowest" for the vehicle damage chart, and mayyybe POTMS. The only issue then becomes dealing with 40k not having move as a stat, but ah well.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Oh god...
*flashbacks to the atrocious 7th edition vehicle rules*

why...

I pity the armiger, being so horribly downgraded simply for having Unit Type: Vehicle.

Quite a lot of groups have stat’d Armigers as Monstrous Creatures for 7th, in the 140pt range. This allows Armigers many of the same effects of a Superheavy Walker without being a Superheavy Walker, such as ignoring weapon damage but also not having Stomp. And by treating the Helverin Autocannons as a single weapon, you don’t have to make up a rule for it to fire three weapons instead of two.

SJ

So it is immune to the extra D6 armour pen from half range melta, making it more resistant to a single melta shot than a full Knight?

A single Melta isn’t killing a full size Knight, either.

SJ

No but two will.

A monstrous creature Armiger probably will have more than 2 wounds.

Nor will 2 meltas realistically.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Oh god...
*flashbacks to the atrocious 7th edition vehicle rules*

why...

I pity the armiger, being so horribly downgraded simply for having Unit Type: Vehicle.

Quite a lot of groups have stat’d Armigers as Monstrous Creatures for 7th, in the 140pt range. This allows Armigers many of the same effects of a Superheavy Walker without being a Superheavy Walker, such as ignoring weapon damage but also not having Stomp. And by treating the Helverin Autocannons as a single weapon, you don’t have to make up a rule for it to fire three weapons instead of two.

SJ

"7th is a perfectly good ruleset... As long as you ignore the vehicle rules and just run them as monstrous creatures."

"Wtf why do all the vehicles have wounds and armor saves in 8th now? Where are my vehicle rules?"

And people wonder why vehicles changed to regular statlines in 8th It didn't help that gw couldn't make up their minds on what was actually a vehicle (cough* Tau battlesuits bs *cough)

yeah vehicles sucked without superheavy keyword, I forgot about that. Wasnt there also a rule where a vehicle moving more than 6" only got to fire one weapon at full BS, the rest had to be snap shot as well? That'd be painful for both but doubly so for the helliger.

I don't think anyone is arguing that 7th is a perfectly good ruleset, so much as that 8th improved a good few things while destroying things that didn't need fixing.

Move values instead of Dunestrider, fleet, etc? All nice and good.

Removing USRs? 50-50.

Decategorizing Psychic Powers? Ehhhh...

Etc.