How many Doomsday weapons in the game?

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.

**DarknessEternal**

Play fewer points, these things matter less.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

BrianDavion wrote:

well keep ion mind not all infantry IS Chaff, and that people who wanted more infantry generally where not talking about chaff (which everuyone took anyway because with the troop tax people just loaded up on the cheapest troops they could take) When people talk about making infantry useful what they mean is "I wanna take a chaos marine squad and have it contribute" not "I wanna take cultists"

The problem with that is that, as long as CSM and Cultists are expected to do the same thing on the battlefield, one will generally be useless.

One thing that I think is nice about this edition is that line infantry does have a unique task on the field and it's not just bringing infantry because the game says you have to have some. Line infantry is generally very good at occupying positions and at protecting more valuable units, while tanks and specialized gun teams do the majority of the destruction of enemy units.

**Puganaut**

If we're doing strats etc, triple prism cannons for sure.

6d3 shots rerolling hits and wounds, at -4 with d3 damage a piece. With average rolling I think thats at least 12 or so wounds? Less efficient than Capn Slam but should last longer.

**drbored**

I'm definitely falling into the camp of 'enough of the doomsday weapons'.

I'm fleeing 40k for Kill Team because it doesn't have any of that ridiculousness.

Oh, and also because it doesn't have slamguinius. Which is getting really boring.

**Racerguy180**

Gitdakka wrote:I think the forge world rapier laser destroyers qualifies. A friend brought 3 to a 40k game. It costed about 100-150 pts and could do 3d6 dmg on a 5+ (enough to oneshot a land raider)

I love mine but I really only bring it to a game when I know I'm playing a waac player. I've thought about getting another one but I'm not a power gamer and i only got the original one cuz I liked how it looked.

it is a lil OP and shouldn't be brought to a friendly game, but if all o faced was spam, held yea I'd run a bunch of them.

but it only does 3d6 on 6's, according to my copy of FW index: astartes.

**Arachnofiend**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

well keep ion mind not all infantry IS Chaff, and that people who wanted more infantry generally where not talking about chaff (which everuyone took anyway because with the troop tax people just loaded up on the cheapest troops they could take) When people talk about making infantry useful what they mean is "I wanna take a chaos marine squad and have it contribute" not "I wanna take cultists"

The problem with that is that, as long as CSM and Cultists are expected to do the same thing on the battlefield, one will generally be useless.

One thing that I think is nice about this edition is that line infantry does have a unique task on the field and it's not just bringing infantry because the game says you have to have some. Line infantry is generally very good at occupying positions and at protecting more valuable units, while tanks and specialized gun teams do the majority of the destruction of enemy units.

CSM and Cultists... aren't supposed to do the same thing on the battlefield though? CSM have far better equipment, they're expected to do real damage to the enemy while cultists just die. Cultists do a great job of dying, but we're in a scenario where Cultists also do more damage than CSM because they synergize so well with all the Chaos buffs.

Not to say that CSM would see play if Cultists were weak offensively, just that an idea of a separate niche is definitely there.

**torblind**

lolman1c wrote:
This is a problem I have been told a few people have with the game and it's the amount of doomsday weapons.

What I mean with doomsday weapons are the guns and units in the game that have either

1. Ridiculous damage output (I'm talking taking down your knights and stompas on turn 1).
2. Stupid high S high D and high AP weapons that there is zero defence against them unless you have an invulnerable save.
3. Crazy mortal wound givers where there is little you can do to protect expensive troops.

I personally see them ones in a while but tend to have more of a spam meta in my area than a doomsday weapon meta so i was wondering how true this is? And how many of these weapons and units are in the game?

List of suggested units weapons:
Necron Doomsday Cannon
Rapier laser destroyer
volcano cannon

The Doomsday Cannon deals 5-6 DMG on average and does not belong there (except in name)

The Gauss Annihilator of the Gauss Pylon could perhaps go there though.

At 550 points it is a MacroD6 S16 -4 DMG 6+D3 weapon that will one-shot a knight.

**tneva82**

lolman1c wrote:
p5freak wrote:
So, captn slamguinius is a doomsday weapon, because he can take down a knight in one turn ?

Slamguinius is not a doomsday weapon. He's a universe ending "why isn't every blood Angel got this load out, we would have defeated choas years ago" weapon.

Because only one at a time can benefit from strategems. He's much less impressive without those.

**SHUPPET**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Earth127 wrote:
Wich highlights a "problem" with 8th edition. I say "problem" because it's really hard to quantify.

There are no guns/abilities really good at clearing chaff.

Well, more chaff is always good. My Daemonettes are fantastic at it, but as 7pt units with a 5++, they probably count as chaff themselves. Plus? My Daemonettes themselves die in droves to chaff, while things like Volcano Cannons and Knights aren't scary at all.

I think this is what you get when you ask for the game to be "more about infantry" which is a cry I've heard since ~5th edition or so.

well keep ion mind not all infantry IS Chaff, and that people who wanted more infantry generally where not talking about chaff (which everuyone took anyway because with the troop tax people just loaded up on the cheapest troops they could take) When people talk about making infantry useful what they mean is "I wanna take a chaos marine squad and have it contribute" not "I wanna take cultists"

Right, but the only way infantry are useful in 40k with it's simplified rules-set is as bullet soaks. In other rules-sets, typically infantry can:
1) Dig into terrain and become almost impossible to kill.
2) Go into any terrain, even terrain that other units cannot pass through.
3) Close with and assault the enemy in situations where other unit types are unable or unwilling to go.
4) Have better durability in aggregate (a team of 6 guys is harder to wipe completely out than 1 tank, for example).
These things are what makes them better than, say, tanks.

In 40k, this means:
1) Meh, doesn't really exist, except as stratagems. Cover giving +1 to saves works on everyone, not just Infantry, and helps bullet-soaks as much as or more than elite infantry.
2) Units easily ignore terrain in 40k's movement phase. Fly units take this role from infantry and do so better to boot.
3) Elite Infantry are good at this (e.g. Khorne Berzerkers) but so are vehicles/monsters/non-infantry units (Custodes Jetbikes, Defilers, Hive Tyrants).
4) This is only true for bullet-soak guys, and is what makes them bullet soaks.

So in other words, 40k doesn't really have anything that sets infantry apart and gives them their own role that isn't overlapped by something else, except being bullet soaks. Asking for infantry to be relevant in 40k means removing the things that games with "relevant" infantry don't have:
1) If you added a mechanic to dig in and otherwise be tough on objectives, infantry will be relevant for this again, but bullet-soaks will still be better.
2) If you removed units that Fly and reduced the ability for other speedy units to go "around" terrain, than infantry marching on foot through terrain might become relevant again, though this, again, also helps bullet-soaks.
3) If you remove assaulty monsters and vehicles and whatnot, assault will be only open to Infantry, forcing elite infantry into the assault role. You lose a lot of flavour from 40k though (e.g. the iconic Space Marine Dreadnought, Imperial Knights).
4) Elite infantry will always be worse than bullet-soaks at soaking bullets, and rightfully so.

I like 8th and dislike your suggestions, but this is a pretty good post and highlights the difference of rulesets in an informative way.

However, elite infantry has historically been a much better bullet soak than chaff, need I remind us of things like ScreamerStar etc?

**Unit1126PLL**

SHUPPET wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Earth127 wrote:
Wich highlights a "problem" with 8th edition. I say "problem" because it's really hard to quantify.

There are no guns/abilities really good at clearing chaff.

Well, more chaff is always good. My Daemonettes are fantastic at it, but as 7pt units with a 5++, they probably count as chaff themselves. Plus? My Daemonettes themselves die in droves to chaff, while things like Volcano Cannons and Knights aren't scary at all.

I think this is what you get when you ask for the game to be "more about infantry" which is a cry I've heard since ~5th edition or so.

well keep ion mind not all infantry IS Chaff, and that people who wanted more infantry generally where not talking about chaff (which everuyone took anyway because with the troop tax people just loaded up on the cheapest troops they could take) When people talk about making infantry useful what they mean is "I wanna take a chaos marine squad and have it contribute" not "I wanna take cultists"

Right, but the only way infantry are useful in 40k with it's simplified rules-set is as bullet soaks. In other rules-sets, typically infantry can:
1) Dig into terrain and become almost impossible to kill.
2) Go into any terrain, even terrain that other units cannot pass through.
3) Close with and assault the enemy in situations where other unit types are unable or unwilling to go.
4) Have better durability in aggregate (a team of 6 guys is harder to wipe completely out than 1 tank, for example).
These things are what makes them better than, say, tanks.

In 40k, this means:
1) Meh, doesn't really exist, except as stratagems. Cover giving +1 to saves works on everyone, not just Infantry, and helps bullet-soaks as much as or more than elite infantry.
2) Units easily ignore terrain in 40k's movement phase. Fly units take this role from infantry and do so better to boot.
3) Elite Infantry are good at this (e.g. Khorne Berzerkers) but so are vehicles/monsters/non-infantry units (Custodes Jetbikes, Defilers, Hive Tyrants).
4) This is only true for bullet-soak guys, and is what makes them bullet soaks.

So in other words, 40k doesn't really have anything that sets infantry apart and gives them their own role that isn't overlapped by something else, except being bullet soaks. Asking for infantry to be relevant in 40k means removing the things that games with "relevant" infantry don't have:
1) If you added a mechanic to dig in and otherwise be tough on objectives, infantry will be relevant for this again, but bullet-soaks will still be better.
2) If you removed units that Fly and reduced the ability for other speedy units to go "around" terrain, than infantry marching on foot through terrain might become relevant again, though this, again, also helps bullet-soaks.
3) If you remove assaulty monsters and vehicles and whatnot, assault will be only open to Infantry, forcing elite infantry into the assault role. You lose a lot of flavour from 40k though (e.g. the iconic Space Marine Dreadnought, Imperial Knights).
4) Elite infantry will always be worse than bullet-soaks at soaking bullets, and rightfully so.

I like 8th and dislike your suggestions, but this is a pretty good post and highlights the difference of rulesets in an informative way.

However, elite infantry has historically been a much better bullet soak than chaff, need I remind us of things like ScreamerStar etc?

Screamers weren't infantry though. And neither were Thunderwolf Cavalry. The problem with elite infantry being bullet-soaks is expense. If you are merely there to soak bullets, then you should be cheap, because the function you are performing is of little value. This means there is a "race to the bottom" for 40k infantry where the best bullet soaks are the cheapest units, and this will always be the case.

Elite infantry doing the job of chaff at chaff-like prices are just chaff.

And I agree. I like 8th edition. My analysis was mainly to demonstrate the problem with "making infantry relevant again in 40k" doing anything other than making chaff relevant.

**Earth127**

I need to amend my statement of there are no guns good at clearing chaff.

It's there are no guns good at clearing chaff that aren't also good at clearing other targets.

Give us strength 2 guns GW, it's that mystical place where guardsman are less points efficient then space marines.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Arachnofiend wrote:

CSM and Cultists... aren't supposed to do the same thing on the battlefield though? CSM have far better equipment, they're expected to do real damage to the enemy while cultists just die. Cultists do a great job of dying, but we're in a scenario where Cultists also do more damage than CSM because they synergize so well with all the Chaos buffs.

Not to say that CSM would see play if Cultists were weak offensively, just that an idea of a separate niche is definitely there.

Well, if CSM brings the damage, what do Predators, Havocs, Berzerkers, Rubrics, etc. do?

In the case of CSM vs. Cultists, they're both directly competing for the task of "line infantry", that lacks in firepower compared to specialist guns teams, but mostly focuses on being able to secure objectives and then be difficult to dislodge, and protect the supporting units that do bring the firepower.

Tactical Marines can be tooled to do real damage, but they're not as good at it as supporting units, so they're just not that great.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Earth127 wrote:
I need to amend my statement of there are no guns good at clearing chaff.

It's there are no guns good at clearing chaff that aren't also good at clearing other targets.

Give us strength 2 guns GW, it's that mystical place where guardsman are less points efficient then space marines.

Pretty much anything S5 or S6 is effective against infantry and not against vehicles.

The thing is, Tactical Marines ARE chaff. The elite super-soldier may not be chaff in the fluff, but on the table he's very much chaff. He's just not very good chaff.

**Earth127**

I wasn't talking about vehicles mainly (tough it's kinda true for them as well).

But if you compare str 2 hits vs str 3 and str 4 (at ap -).
10 hits at str 2 will kil on average 11 points worth of GEQ at 4 ppm but only 7 of MEQat 13. It's the bigest difference in favour of MEQ
At str 3 that difference is down to 2 in favour of MEQ but getting nearly equal.
Str4 and Str 5 heavily favour GEQ. at Str 6 it come close together again but still slighlty in favour of GEQ.

Any AP swings it in the favour of GEQ BTW.

Hence we need str 2 shots in the game. If those are relatively common guardsmen get their "survivability" nerf without needing a points cost adjustment.

**SHUPPET**

it might be a good idea actually

**Martel732**

Or just adjust costs to the reality of how the game plays.