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 just find it deliciously ironic that the consensus now seems to be that GW streamlining the stats with the release of 8th wasn't a good idea regarding vehicles and things like the fight phase now that everyone and their grandma gets fight last rules for example, complicating things further.

Where is this proclaimed streamlining? It seems to me that they just complicated the game in other ways and the removal of certain stats like initiative for example was rather arbitrary and ultimately didn't amount to simplify the game when considering what state 40k is in right now.

Though I'm not saying the old AV for vehicles was handled well compared to monstrous creatures for example.

That's basically what they've done.
They've streamlined the core rules are then piled on a great weight of exceptions and special rules to add so much bloat it's unbelievable.

In my experience though, most casual players see this as a good thing. They like special rules, it makes them feel cool and special that they +1 to wound if the wind is blowing westwards that day.

I agree but I think it heavily impairs long term engagement (not that this was ever one of GW main goals, but I'm less and less willing to have a 40k game with any new release).

Also, as a Knight player, I agree on giving tanks higher Toughness

It's worth noting that not every army has S9+ weapons readily available.

Yeah, but when they are on inefficient platforms, then the options are only theoretical.

 Jidmah wrote:
It's worth noting that not every army has S9+ weapons readily available.

Yeah, this isn't a tough case. For many armies, S8 is their go-to anti tank. having all of it wound on 5s (especialy with an invulnerable) would be really tough for armies like Eldar to deal with.

Part of it is that GW has boxed itself into this corner where Grots are expected to interact meaningfully with Knights, so that the rules need to assume one army can bring a superheavy or landraider at a small point game.

 Jidmah wrote:
It's worth noting that not every army has S9+ weapons readily available.

True, but there are a lot of 9th ed codices still missing. Considering the rate of powercreep, I don't think strong antitank is going to be the issue in the forseeable future. I can be wrong of course and there will be one particularly weak dud among the new codices, but so far the power level seems to increase rather than stagnate or even (god forbid) decrease. And extreme lethality has loong been a problem anyway.

Tiberias wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's worth noting that not every army has S9+ weapons readily available.

True, but there are a lot of 9th ed codices still missing. Considering the rate of powercreep, I don't think strong antitank is going to be the issue in the forseeable future. I can be wrong of course and there will be one particularly weak dud among the new codices, but so far the power level seems to increase rather than stagnate or even (god forbid) decrease. And extreme lethality has loong been a problem anyway.

This has nothing to do with strong or weak or 9th edition codices. Some armies simply have S8 on all their anti-tank weapons by design because they rely on missiles, meltas, lances or plasma to do the job. S9+ usually is reserved for high-tech weaponry and heavy ordnance, which is more common in some armies and less common in others.

 Jidmah wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's worth noting that not every army has S9+ weapons readily available.

True, but there are a lot of 9th ed codices still missing. Considering the rate of powercreep, I don't think strong antitank is going to be the issue in the forseeable future. I can be wrong of course and there will be one particularly weak dud among the new codices, but so far the power level seems to increase rather than stagnate or even (god forbid) decrease. And extreme lethality has loong been a problem anyway.

This has nothing to do with strong or weak or 9th edition codices. Some armies simply have S8 on all their anti-tank weapons by design because they rely on missiles, meltas, lances or plasma to do the job. S9+ usually is reserved for high-tech weaponry and heavy ordnance, which is more common in some armies and less common in others.

It has everything to do with that. You simply don't know the content of future codices and with rules like autowound on hit getting more widespread and GWs general focus on more and more special rules, the strength of antitank weapons might not even be the issue. Simply too early to say.

As a related note, due to the new Wounding table I expected GW to convert S/T values to expand them.
Something like (X-1)X2. That would have differenciated more between troops and profiles (Guardsman would have been 4/4, while Marine 6/6) without entirely messing up the math.

Bit they preferred to stack bloat over bloat of rules. And I wonder why I had been surprised

Tiberias wrote:
It has everything to do with that. You simply don't know the content of future codices and with rules like autowound on hit getting more widespread and GWs general focus on more and more special rules, the strength of antitank weapons might not even be the issue. Simply too early to say.

So, you're saying that it's too early to know whether Death Guard or Drukhari will be getting S9 anti-tank weapons in their 9th edition codex?

 Jidmah wrote:
It's worth noting that not every army has S9+ weapons readily available.

With the way the To Wound chart, armies don't need S9+ weapons.

But they should.

 Jidmah wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
It has everything to do with that. You simply don't know the content of future codices and with rules like autowound on hit getting more widespread and GWs general focus on more and more special rules, the strength of antitank weapons might not even be the issue. Simply too early to say.

So, you're saying that it's too early to know whether Death Guard or Drukhari will be getting S9 anti-tank weapons in their 9th edition codex?

Yes, I was clearly talking about the handfull of codices already released. Are you always this condescending and unpleasent in a conversation? Just as an example, let's say the landraider went to T9 for a second, do you seriously think that would be so overpowered that death guard and drukhari especially wouldn't be able to do compete or deal with it? Also, who would seriously give two gaks from a balance perspective if titans were to be T10 or more. In the 1% of games where a 5000p warlord titan is actually fielded, them being >T8 wouldn't be the main concern anyway.

Additionally, I had the impression that many of us advocating for higher toughness levels on units like Land Raiders, were also discussing this would be a more elegant system without the glut of special rules on top - hit penalties, invulns etc.

It shouldn't matter greatly in that scenario if an army 'only' has access to S8 weaponry - you can still wound. Appropriately point values for such weaponry without the additional defensive rules which can so often invalidate a shot, means simple volume of fire gets the job done.

On the other hand, with things as they are, the Str 9 lascannon wounds my Knights on a 3+. But ask an opponent how they feel about that single shot being made completely worthless by a 4+ invuln - this after the initial two points of potential failure (hit roll, wound roll). It isn't simply the terribly swingy damage that makes Lascannons unreliable.

I want to be afraid of such weapons. I'm not.

I'm getting "condescending and unpleasant" when people try to handwave perfectly valid arguments with BS like "we know nothing for sure".

Death Guard and Drukahari don't have S9. We already know most of the weapon profiles for chaos marines. Orks most likely won't be getting S9 rokkits or "Kustom"-weapons, craftworld eldar won't be having S8 outside of wraith weapons, because lances, fusion weapons and eldar missile launchers will not go to S9+ either.

And yes, I do think T9 on durable tanks will be problem - just not for the harmless casual LoW or the transport that forgot how to use its assault ramp that you are trying to push. How about knights? Daemon primarchs? Repulsors? Baneblades? Morkanauts? Surely all worthy of T9 if the landraider is. There are bunch of actually dangerous heavy tanks out there that are mostly held back by costing too much.

I still clearly remember threads here on dakka about how tripple landraiders were the worst thing ever because entire armies simply had no weapons that could penetrate AV14. Meanwhile, any one with a lance or melta would just laugh them off the table.

T9 outside of rare unique units has no place in a game where entire armies max out their weapon strength at 8. Update all weapons to a broader spread of strength and toughness? Yes, great - but for 9th the ship has sailed.

 Jidmah wrote:
I'm getting "condescending and unpleasant" when people try to handwave perfectly valid arguments with BS like "we know nothing for sure".

Death Guard and Drukahari don't have S9. We already know most of the weapon profiles for chaos marines. Orks most likely won't be getting S9 rokkits or "Kustom"-weapons, craftworld eldar won't be having S8 outside of wraith weapons, because lances, fusion weapons and eldar missile launchers will not go to S9+ either.

And yes, I do think T9 on durable tanks will be problem - just not for the harmless casual LoW or the transport that forgot how to use its assault ramp that you are trying to push. How about knights? Daemon primarchs? Repulsors? Baneblades? Morkanauts? Surely all worthy of T9 if the landraider is. There are bunch of actually dangerous heavy tanks out there that are mostly held back by costing too much.

I still clearly remember threads here on dakka about how tripple landraiders were the worst thing ever because entire armies simply had no weapons that could penetrate AV14. Meanwhile, any one with a lance or melta would just laugh them off the table.

T9 outside of rare unique units has no place in a game where entire armies max out their weapon strength at 8. Update all weapons to a broader spread of strength and toughness? Yes, great - but for 9th the ship has sailed.

With respect, I don't think you've taken the time to read this whole thread. Again, we were mostly in agreement (two of us as primary Knight players) that Knights probably shouldn't have a Toughness increase. They aren't tanks, they utilise Ion shields as a primary defence - not armour.

The discussion here was almost completely around increases to units like Land Raiders. Not Knights, not Daemons, nor any of the other units you've mentioned.

Nor was anyone stating this should happen now, or even in 9th. We were chewing the fat over how an element of the basic rules system is under utilised, could raise the value of certain units on the table, and could actually streamline play by doing away with a chunk of rules bloat. No one here is simple, nor is anyone any less aware than you of how impractical it would be to implement such a change in isolation, right now, in the existing system.

 StrayIight wrote:
Additionally, I had the impression that many of us advocating for higher toughness levels on units like Land Raiders, were also discussing this would be a more elegant system without the glut of special rules on top - hit penalties, invulns etc.

It shouldn't matter greatly in that scenario if an army 'only' has access to S8 weaponry - you can still wound. Appropriately point values for such weaponry without the additional defensive rules which can so often invalidate a shot, means simple volume of fire gets the job done.

On the other hand, with things as they are, the Str 9 lascannon wounds my Knights on a 3+. But ask an opponent how they feel about that single shot being made completely worthless by a 4+ invuln - this after the initial two points of potential failure (hit roll, wound roll). It isn't simply the terribly swingy damage that makes Lascannons unreliable.

I want to be afraid of such weapons. I'm not.

Nothing about that is elegant though. You are just reducing the number of defensive profiles making nothing but strength matter.
And "you can still wound" is great and all, but some armies are already struggling to kill vehicles by bringing every decent anti-tank gun they have or simply can't bring more RoF because they are an elite army or only have access to anti-tank in one or two battlefield roles. If you bring 3 T9 models, chances are the army is simply not able to handle it, while other armies with haywire, S10 weapons and other ways to circumvent T9 will just walk all over you.

More toughness also won't fix the lascannon's issues. Playing a lot of lascannons myself, being more reliable to hit or wound won't change the fact that it's simply not dangerous to the targets it's supposed to take out. Maybe have it deal 2d6 damage or double damage on a hit roll of 6? I don't know, but there should at least be a chance of it stopping a rhino or trukk in one shot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StrayIight wrote:
With respect, I don't think you've taken the time to read this whole thread.

With respect, I have. Seriously, this is just page 2. There are plenty of posters talking about all sorts of things going up to T9. I also was specifically replying to the guy claiming that everyone was going to have S9+ anti-tank weapons because powercreep.

Just so I don't come across as "condencending" again, I will refrain from quoting every single unit that was mentioned

Sorry, I added to my post after you submitted yours. The extra paragraph might explain what we're getting at and why you're finding resistance to your counter arguement.

TLR - Yes, you're probably right and this wouldn't be practical in the current system in place 9th - not alone at least. But we're not advocating for any immediate change in this particular system, rather we're spit-balling about what could be done.

 Jidmah wrote:


More toughness also won't fix the lascannon's issues. Playing a lot of lascannons myself, being more reliable to hit or wound won't change the fact that it's simply not dangerous to the targets it's supposed to take out. Maybe have it deal 2d6 damage or double damage on a hit roll of 6? I don't know, but there should at least be a chance of it stopping a rhino or trukk in one shot.

I don't agree with your last point, not entirely. I don't see why a (approximate points values here) a 20-25pt, portable weapon, should necessarily have a chance to take out a 100 pt armoured vehicle. I see no issue at all with this requiring multiple volleys to achieve, and in fact, think this makes a lot more sense in practical balance terms.

200 point tank vs 100 point vehicle, sure. Lascannon carried on the shoulder? No. It should sting if the hit was solid, it shouldn't be a one-shot solution. (I'm not cool with it having a chance of doing mere lasgun damage as it is now though. That D6 has to go)

40K is more than lethal enough as it is.

Yeah, we're having the same problem as in our last conversation jidmah. You don't even take the time to properly read others posts. I'd didn't claim everyone is getting S9 anti tank, I said we don't know how everything will change when all 9th ed codices are around especially considering alle the extra rules GW likes to tack on units nowadays, so not having S9 antitank MIGHT not be an issue for "insert army that doesn't have a 9th Ed codex yet". Also, as has been pointed out already: nobody said everything should be T9, the main topic was that the cap at T8 was a bit arbitrary considering S can go past 10 now. Stop shifting goalposts.

That's what the gun is doing in the fluff though. Some guardsmen/tactical marines hiding behind a barricade/on a hill, waiting for an APC or a light tank, one shot and it goes boom.

Sure, points need to be adjusted, but that's the smallest of concerns.

The game is also not getting more lethal if such a change won't make it more powerful than stuff that's already there.
It's still unreliable and a joke compared to a multimelta dealing 2d6+4 damage at 12", but at least tanks will now hide from it instead of driving straight at it.

Isn't the real problem with T9 more that it makes S5-7 just as good as S8? Which has connotations for how you balance S8 with points (some factions having no choice, others having plenty etc).

The way the wounding works, T3/T4/T5 has a good sort of interaction with S3/S4/S5/S6. T6/T7/T8 then has reasonable interaction with S6/S7/S8/S9+.

Saying "we can have T9" and then "we can have S10" seems like a solution looking for a problem.

Tiberias wrote:
Yeah, we're having the same problem as in our last conversation jidmah. You don't even take the time to properly read others posts. I'd didn't claim everyone is getting S9 anti tank, I said we don't know how everything will change when all 9th ed codices are around especially considering alle the extra rules GW likes to tack on units nowadays, so not having S9 antitank MIGHT not be an issue for "insert army that doesn't have a 9th Ed codex yet". Also, as has been pointed out already: nobody said everything should be S9, the main topic was that the cap at T8 was a bit arbitrary considering S can go past 10 now. Stop shifting goalposts.

How about you stop the ad hominem attacks first? You haven't addressed my point even once, only attacked me personally or tried to handwave the argument.

Do you think it's ok for units to be T9 or higher when entire armies will definitely not have tools to handle them?

 Jidmah wrote:
That's what the gun is doing in the fluff though. Some guardsmen/tactical marines hiding behind a barricade/on a hill, waiting for an APC or a light tank, one shot and it goes boom.

I don't disagree with you here, but you're aware just as I am, that there has to be a fluff/crunch divide for the sake of sanity. Heroic literature as a rules basis doesn't help us have a balanced game experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:


Do you think it's ok for units to be T9 or higher when entire armies will definitely not have tools to handle them?

Personally? No. But:

1) I'm not yet convinced any army acks the tools to deal with a T9 unit. (My Chaos Knights can be T9 across the board, any turn I choose - they die just fine, trust me).

2) We're still not advocating for this change in the system you're describing, sans other changes.

 Jidmah wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
Yeah, we're having the same problem as in our last conversation jidmah. You don't even take the time to properly read others posts. I'd didn't claim everyone is getting S9 anti tank, I said we don't know how everything will change when all 9th ed codices are around especially considering alle the extra rules GW likes to tack on units nowadays, so not having S9 antitank MIGHT not be an issue for "insert army that doesn't have a 9th Ed codex yet". Also, as has been pointed out already: nobody said everything should be S9, the main topic was that the cap at T8 was a bit arbitrary considering S can go past 10 now. Stop shifting goalposts.

How about you stop the ad hominem attacks first? You haven't addressed my point even once, only attacked me personally or tried to handwave the argument.

Do you think it's ok for units to be T9 or higher when entire armies will definitely not have tools to handle them?

Don't start crying ad hominem when I call you out on being unpleasent and condescending when you actually are unpleasent and condescending. I did adress your point, but will gladly reiterate: yes, I think it is perfectly fine for certain units (not every big unit like greater demons, mortarion what have you like you insinuated) to have T9 even when some armies do not have S9 anti tank ranged weapons since, with the prevalence of tacking on lots of additional special rules on units, not having S9 ranged anti tank MIGHT not be an issue for faction XY depending on the context of their codex. Maybe one faction who does not have or get S9 ranged anti tank, gets a unit or a stratagem that lets them better wound vehicles, or autowound them on 5+ to hit. This is why I said it greatly depends on how the rest of the 9th ed codices shape up to be.

Does that adequatly answer your question?

Edit: also what does "not having the tools to handle them" even mean exactly? Is the only metric that measures this how S9 ranged anti tank is distributed? What about stratagems or god forbid, melee?

-snip-

Tiberias wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
Yeah, we're having the same problem as in our last conversation jidmah. You don't even take the time to properly read others posts. I'd didn't claim everyone is getting S9 anti tank, I said we don't know how everything will change when all 9th ed codices are around especially considering alle the extra rules GW likes to tack on units nowadays, so not having S9 antitank MIGHT not be an issue for "insert army that doesn't have a 9th Ed codex yet". Also, as has been pointed out already: nobody said everything should be S9, the main topic was that the cap at T8 was a bit arbitrary considering S can go past 10 now. Stop shifting goalposts.

How about you stop the ad hominem attacks first? You haven't addressed my point even once, only attacked me personally or tried to handwave the argument.

Do you think it's ok for units to be T9 or higher when entire armies will definitely not have tools to handle them?

Don't start crying ad hominem when I call you out on being unpleasent and condescending when you actually are unpleasent and condescending. I did adress your point, but will gladly reiterate: yes, I think it is perfectly fine for certain units (not every big unit like greater demons, mortarion what have you like you insinuated) to have T9 even when some armies do not have S9 anti tank ranged weapons since, with the prevalence of tacking on lots of additional special rules on units, not having S9 ranged anti tank MIGHT not be an issue for faction XY depending on the context of their codex. Maybe one faction who does not have or get S9 ranged anti tank, gets a unit or a stratagem that lets them better wound vehicles, or autowound them on 5+ to hit. This is why I said it greatly depends on how the rest of the 9th ed codices shape up to be.

Does that adequatly answer your question?

Edit: also what does "not having the tools to handle them" even mean exactly? Is the only metric that measures this how S9 ranged anti tank is distributed? What about stratagems or god forbid, melee?

Nurgle Daemons have one unit with native access to S9+, and that's the Soul Grinder with Warpclaw.

Otherwise, you have two options:

Daemon Prince with Axe supported by a Poxbringer
GUO with Bilesword or Doomsday Bell on top bracket supported by a Poxbringer

That's a lot of if and maybe's when we already know for sure DG won't have the answers for T9 vehicles.
I'm not against T9 or even higher T vehicles but Jidmah is right when he says that ship has sailed for this edition. What am I supposed to do with my codex, DS Deathshroud and pray they make their 9" charge?

If t9 was a big thing, i think orks would be back to relying on klaws and bonebreakas to deal with armor lol.

 Castozor wrote:
That's a lot of if and maybe's when we already know for sure DG won't have the answers for T9 vehicles.
I'm not against T9 or even higher T vehicles but Jidmah is right when he says that ship has sailed for this edition. What am I supposed to do with my codex, DS Deathshroud and pray they make their 9" charge?

Yeah, Jidmah is right. In 8th I always had to have a conversation with my opponent if I wanted to field my Fellblade: "Ok, this thing is T9. Your lascannons will be wounding on 4s, if the best you have is S8, it'll be 5s. It does take up half my points though. Want me to leave it at home?". T9 is a big breakpoint for some armies right now. Probably best, as some have said, to leave this for the next edition.

Tiberias wrote:
yes, I think it is perfectly fine for certain units (not every big unit like greater demons, mortarion what have you like you insinuated) to have T9 even when some armies do not have S9 anti tank ranged weapons since, with the prevalence of tacking on lots of additional special rules on units, not having S9 ranged anti tank MIGHT not be an issue for faction XY depending on the context of their codex. Maybe one faction who does not have or get S9 ranged anti tank, gets a unit or a stratagem that lets them better wound vehicles, or autowound them on 5+ to hit. This is why I said it greatly depends on how the rest of the 9th ed codices shape up to be.

Does that adequatly answer your question?

See, that wasn't too hard. Now we can continue the discussion like proper grown-ups.
I think that we already know a lot about how certain things in future codices will look just from extrapolating from the things we have seen. We can tell that some things are very likely while other things are unlikely or even impossible to happen. For example, there is no reason to assume that a guardsmen is going to move to T5 or that guard tanks will be getting 2+ armor across the board. They also haven't touched any of the dedicated anti-tank weapon's strength or AP values, so I won't be holding my breath for this to happen to orks or craftworlds - if anything, they will be getting more reliable damage, for bright lances this is pretty much guaranteed.

Edit: also what does "not having the tools to handle them" even mean exactly? Is the only metric that measures this how S9 ranged anti tank is distributed? What about stratagems or god forbid, melee?

I'd say if an army can bring enough S8 weapons to not just fold to, say, tripple landraiders, that would count as being able to handle them. Stratagems obviously work as well, though I doubt that there will be many left by the end of 9th that would cause massive damage boosts. GW is taking those out or increasing their CP costs.
Melee is tricky. Having played orks for a decade, I absolutely know that melee cannot be your only solution to armored targets. You simply cannot kill some things in melee because they are screened, they fight back or because they are carrying a murder-squad of terminators. And you totally don't want to charge something capable of flipping a landraider into the overwatch of a redeemer.
If you think of something like the Repulsor, the landraider's ugly floaty cousin, your army might fall apart and/or lose its anti-tank when it has to weather two such tanks' shooting for two turns while you make your way across the board.
So yes, melee is a factor for being able to handle T9 units, but it definitely cannot do it by itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Castozor wrote:
That's a lot of if and maybe's when we already know for sure DG won't have the answers for T9 vehicles.
I'm not against T9 or even higher T vehicles but Jidmah is right when he says that ship has sailed for this edition. What am I supposed to do with my codex, DS Deathshroud and pray they make their 9" charge?

Yep, DG is definitely a 9th edition codex that won't be able to handle T9 models - despite having access to lascannons and a -1T aura. Essentially their entire shooting is based around reducing stuff to T7/T3.