Switch Theme:

How to fix dreadnought auto-includes?  [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 au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Jidmah wrote:
Thank you so much for this Sherrypie.

I guess some people look like complete fools now.
It still should be lore-based. *shrugs*

But that quote more than proves why GW's rules never evolve. They just get built on top of over and over and over again.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps





United States

bat702 wrote:
I know the problem was actually how do we make tanks worth taking.. but considering how auto-include some of the space-marine dreadnoughts have become, it seems games-workshop has solved this problem by making big-guns that can 1 shot them, making their -1 damage meaningless

The tau are packing heavy heat, but we still have eldar and astra-militarum to be updated in 9th edition rule/stat creep. Imperial guard definitely pack some heavy guns, the baneblade chasis is definitely in need of some sort of buffs, the leman-russ vanquisher cannon could also get a potential super buff, The eldar could possibly pack some extreme damage if games-workshop gives them buffs more in line with their lore. You can bet games-workshop will release 10th edition as soon as they can too, and the necrons if given buffs more in line with their lore could also pack some super damage characteristic weapons, giving them the ability to one-shot dreadnoughts as well.

I think the true horror of these high damage characteristic weapons is instead of buffing tanks, games-workshop would rather put dreadnoughts back on the menu as far as people being able to make them useless. What was making the dreadnoughts so good was definitely their new -1 damage buff being so powerful.

Really curious to see how games-workshop is going to finally start buffing tanks to make them more competitive. The 2+ save on the leman-russes is a good start, I can definitely see giving more tanks 2+ saves could help them alot, giving them a 5+/6+ save vs heavily -ap weapons while in cover is definitely something.


Here is how to do it in two easy steps.

1. Stop playing with your Dreadnoughts.
2. Start playing with your cars and tanks.

It's not that hard. You don't always have to go balls-to-the-wall ultracompetitive using the absolute min/max cheese lists. I've been playing with my Hammerheads in my T'au army for nearly three years now, without the new rules and I've had a great many fun games. My all Tank Tallarn army has been a lot of fun to run in 8th and I've had no troubles running it in 9th so far. I still play Rhinos, Predators and Landraiders with my Salamanders and my Black Legion.

Remember, you choose the type of game you want to play and the types of people you play it with. It is acceptable to talk to your opponent before agreeing to a game and asking if they're okay playing more friendly or casually, toning down lists and not auto-taking whatever the internet says is a must have for this month. In doing this, you might find that your games will become just as enjoyable, even more so than before. But constantly expecting GW to come in and fix every single issue, some of which cannot be fixed unless the basic rules of the game were significantly altered into a new game set isn't going to help. They've proven time and time and time again that they do not really care about balancing the game. The answer to bad government isn't more [bad] government.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/16 04:33:33


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon





 vict0988 wrote:
The Core keyword is used to identify units that form the fighting… well, core, of an army. These are most commonly represented by units of line infantry, though this doesn’t mean it’s exclusive to Troops, nor just Infantry.


The CORE keyword exists only to faciliate certain rules interactions and, as with any other keyword, allows us to tag certain units with certain rules. [...] It is purely a gaming consideration as to whether a unit has CORE or not.


Either it is meant to represent which units form the CORE of an army or it is meant to disallow certain units from benefitting from Auras to make them easier to balance. In any case, the balance failed, which is why we have this thread. The only fools are the game designers who cannot balance their game.


Those are not mutually exclusive. "certain rules interactions.... tag certain units with certain rules" "identify units.... core of an army" - Further we were having this discussion even before/at the same time CORE showed up but few people cared or had the foresight to see the issue applying to them and their armies.

There was a thread back-a-ways about why Land Raiders and Repulsors were bad. Now the symptom hits more than just a couple vehicles. It has more to do with making tanks and monsters functionally the same as really jacked up infantry. Putting the Dreads and corollaries on the Monster template works. Putting the tanks, Knights, airplanes etc does not -at least not in this small space. I'd back track a little.

I'd go back to opposed attributes like they did in the past with Weaponskill. WS4 vs WS4 hits on a 4+, WS4 vs WS3 hits on a 3+ etc. And I'd add an opposing attribute for shooting. Grots are little and hard to hit so they might have this new stat "Agility"(what we call it doesn't matter) 4, while an aircraft flying over head very fast would have a "Agility" 8, and the big lumbering Imperial Knight would have a "Agility" 1 - as a rough idea using current stat ranges (I also think expanding some of the stats to 20 with 11-20 as a Vehicle/Monster range is a good idea) At that point keywords can be used for Anti-aircraft. Something like Keyword "Ack-Ack" halves the target Agility when the target is aircraft/flying. (this is seat of the pants rough outline for a You Get The Idea not final draft stuff flying may go too far) This gives them three ways to play with balance. Hard To Hit(agility), Hard to Hurt(Toughness), And Hard to Make it Stick(Saving Throws). The Stormtalon fighter would be hard to hit, while the flying tank Stormraven would be not AS hard to hit but harder to hurt. The Predator - being slightly smaller than a Land Raider - would be slightly harder to hit and slightly easier to hurt. An Assault Squad would be slightly harder to hit than Tactical Marines, but they'd only have pistols and chainswords. BladeguardTerminators would be easier to hit, but harder to hurt and harder to make it stick. Bike Squads would be harder to hit, harder to hurt, but smaller squad size or more expensive. By adding a third stat contest between the units its far easier to give each unit a different set of strengths and weaknesses to bring/keep down unit costs and encourage variety as well as opening up the distance between a hardened infantry and a main battle tank for optimal weapon selection. A lascannon might knock off 10 wounds, but can't hit anything smaller or faster than the side of a barn. A Heavy Bolter might mow down grots like wheat, but can't even tickle a Knight Paladin without some insane luck (I'd keep the 6 always succeeds thing)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Togusa wrote:

2. Start playing with your cars and tanks.


My cars and tanks kind of sucked (points and performance wise) even before the Dread thing so while simple to do, it is not a solution. The implication everyone is min-max'ing is also not helpful. I love making kitchen sink lists. I want to take one of everything, not min-max. Others on here have said similar. That doesn't make 400 point Turn 2 (if you're lucky) craters any more appealing - even less so because you only have the one of them. Well, had one of them. The way to prevent min-maxing is to make min-max improbable - you can't make it impossible.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/16 07:22:59


My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






Necrons have pretty much always suffered from Core since all our Character buffs were Infantry locked. It certainly wasn't a death sentence for units that did not benefit though. Wraiths, Gauss Pylons, Doomsday Arks, Tesseract Vaults, Doomscythes and Tesseract Arks were all good at times despite that. I had no reason to believe Core wouldn't work out. It has been tried and I think it's fair to say that it failed, it's been added/removed from loads of units through errata and now we are discussing whether it was appropriately assigned for Space Marines.

How does it make sense to play with balance through stat changes? Just change the points. Repulsors were fine in 8th, all you need to change is pts costs, it's not rocket science. 100 pt Repulsors are amazing, 300 pt Repulsors are terrible, balance is somewhere in the middle, it's not in an agility stat or the T or Sv stat. It would be a miracle to buff the stats of a unit such that an underwhelming unit becomes exactly balanced or nerf the stats of a unit such that it becomes exactly balanced. Such changes should be made for thematic and gameplay reasons.

There is nothing appropriate about entire factions being -1 to hit in melee because they are WS 3+. You have to keep in mind that 40k is a game between Gretchin and Imperial Knights, lascannons and chainsaws, the more of these systems you implement the harder it will be to say how good or bad a unit is. Keep in mind how GW has failed to balance the game thus far, no more systems please.

For thematic reasons I am fine with a few units getting -1 to hit in shooting and/or melee, like Flyers or notable duelists or what have you. Knowing that unit X hits on 3+ against Space Marines and Scions means there is less to debate about the value of unit X. I don't want 40k to be a roleplaying game, I want it to be balanced and thematic.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 vict0988 wrote:
I don't want 40k to be a roleplaying game, I want it to be balanced and thematic.


Well, you can have thematic.

As for balanced? {shrugs} We all want something we're not going to get.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon





 vict0988 wrote:
Necrons have pretty much always suffered from Core since all our Character buffs were Infantry locked. It certainly wasn't a death sentence for units that did not benefit though. Wraiths, Gauss Pylons, Doomsday Arks, Tesseract Vaults, Doomscythes and Tesseract Arks were all good at times despite that. I had no reason to believe Core wouldn't work out. It has been tried and I think it's fair to say that it failed, it's been added/removed from loads of units through errata and now we are discussing whether it was appropriately assigned for Space Marines.

How does it make sense to play with balance through stat changes? Just change the points. Repulsors were fine in 8th, all you need to change is pts costs, it's not rocket science. 100 pt Repulsors are amazing, 300 pt Repulsors are terrible, balance is somewhere in the middle, it's not in an agility stat or the T or Sv stat. It would be a miracle to buff the stats of a unit such that an underwhelming unit becomes exactly balanced or nerf the stats of a unit such that it becomes exactly balanced. Such changes should be made for thematic and gameplay reasons.

There is nothing appropriate about entire factions being -1 to hit in melee because they are WS 3+. You have to keep in mind that 40k is a game between Gretchin and Imperial Knights, lascannons and chainsaws, the more of these systems you implement the harder it will be to say how good or bad a unit is. Keep in mind how GW has failed to balance the game thus far, no more systems please.

For thematic reasons I am fine with a few units getting -1 to hit in shooting and/or melee, like Flyers or notable duelists or what have you. Knowing that unit X hits on 3+ against Space Marines and Scions means there is less to debate about the value of unit X. I don't want 40k to be a roleplaying game, I want it to be balanced and thematic.


I also remember this is a game where Grots punch a slow lumbering Necron Warrior and the Universe's Parkour Champion - ShadowSeer InsertNameHere - doing backflips over and around the Grot with superhuman speed - both on a 5+. We're in this mess because of too few opposition avenues. Several units that get an invuln to represent their quickness or camouflage can be shifted to a hard to hit oppositional stat.

We're in this mess because making anti-tank have appropriate damage numbers would turn them into world record sniper rifles as it would be as easy to hit a lictor break dancing at dusk in front of a hedgerow across the table as it would be to hit the Knight Porphyrion in thea stage directed spotlight 10 feet away. The skill of the action should be set by the acting unit, the difficulty should be set by the target unit. It is (relatively speaking) hard to hit the 10 ring on a target. It is hard NOT to hit the backstop. There are three basic steps to any attack in the game (hit, wound, and save), and each unit should have their own strengths and weaknesses at each of those steps. Imagine all those mid-range weapons - for example Cannons: Assault, Grav, Gauss, Plasma, Reaper, Auto and so on can find it easy to hit these Main Battle Tanks. They can find it possible but not easy to hurt them. But that hurt is laughably small because these tanks have 50 wounds and it would take all day for all of them combined to deal 50 wounds. Meanwhile the heavy guns Lascannon, Melta, Gauss Destructors, and so on might do 10D6 wounds but only hit something faster/smaller/both than a Main Battle Tank on a 6+?

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

The concept of balance is also not the same for everyone. A perfectly balanced game is something like chess or poker where everyone plays with the same set of rules and the same set of models/ card deck/etc...

Something like 40k can only be "reasonably" balanced and the concept of reasonable is entirely subjective. To me for example 9th edition of 40k already is reasonably balanced. Not perfect and can definitely be improved but already quite enjoyable while for something this game is a dumpster fire.

 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon





 Blackie wrote:
The concept of balance is also not the same for everyone. A perfectly balanced game is something like chess or poker where everyone plays with the same set of rules and the same set of models/ card deck/etc...

Something like 40k can only be "reasonably" balanced and the concept of reasonable is entirely subjective. To me for example 9th edition of 40k already is reasonably balanced. Not perfect and can definitely be improved but already quite enjoyable while for something this game is a dumpster fire.


Meh, I'd say it won't really be reasonably balanced unless they push all the books out on the same day and fix the unit type issues. Balance is more than can any given army win on any given day. It's also can you field any unit in the list without feeling like your already at a disadvantage.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

I'm curious as to how they'd do 'core' on Tyranids. I mean, think about it: What is a Tyranid, exactly?

To me, a 'Tyranid' has always been a Tyranid Warrior, with everything (big and small) stemming from that one central species, but that's just my interpretation. Some may see Gaunts as the base form, or Rippers, but those could just as easily be seen as specialisations or offshoots.

So what is 'core' to a Tyranid force if we can't even define what a Tyranid is in the first place?

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

I think that the -1 damage abilities are a lot more of an advantage for dreadnoughts over tanks than CORE. Obvious examples being the PBC, which has a -1 damage ability but isn't CORE, but still sees heavy use in Death Guard lists, and the Leviathan, which doesn't have CORE, but is still used over tanks with similar profiles because of its resistance to 2D weapons.

-1 damage should be given to anything that qualifies as "heavy armour". You shouldn't be able to rely on heavy bolters to kill tanks.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




ccs wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
I don't want 40k to be a roleplaying game, I want it to be balanced and thematic.


Well, you can have thematic.

As for balanced? {shrugs} We all want something we're not going to get.


Eh, I think thematics went out the window once GW started pandering to the Astartes power fantasy at the expense of their setting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I think that the -1 damage abilities are a lot more of an advantage for dreadnoughts over tanks than CORE. Obvious examples being the PBC, which has a -1 damage ability but isn't CORE, but still sees heavy use in Death Guard lists, and the Leviathan, which doesn't have CORE, but is still used over tanks with similar profiles because of its resistance to 2D weapons.

-1 damage should be given to anything that qualifies as "heavy armour". You shouldn't be able to rely on heavy bolters to kill tanks.


Yeah, pretty much anything that isn't a "light vehicle," I can vibe with that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/17 04:37:57


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm curious as to how they'd do 'core' on Tyranids. I mean, think about it: What is a Tyranid, exactly?

To me, a 'Tyranid' has always been a Tyranid Warrior, with everything (big and small) stemming from that one central species, but that's just my interpretation. Some may see Gaunts as the base form, or Rippers, but those could just as easily be seen as specialisations or offshoots.

So what is 'core' to a Tyranid force if we can't even define what a Tyranid is in the first place?


They said it's the core of the fighting force. Warriors, Gants and Guants, Pre-GSC, I would have said Genestealers. I still might. Lictors. Guard. Gargoyles. Carnifexes. Biovores. Swarms




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I think that the -1 damage abilities are a lot more of an advantage for dreadnoughts over tanks than CORE. Obvious examples being the PBC, which has a -1 damage ability but isn't CORE, but still sees heavy use in Death Guard lists, and the Leviathan, which doesn't have CORE, but is still used over tanks with similar profiles because of its resistance to 2D weapons.

-1 damage should be given to anything that qualifies as "heavy armour". You shouldn't be able to rely on heavy bolters to kill tanks.


I'd quantify the Predator as medium armor. You shouldn't be able to rely on Heavy Bolters for that either. I still believe the approach is the same they did with aircraft movement. Shared space but minimal interaction. Make the vehicles wound heavy but easier to hit, make the big guns inaccurate but devastating. (I'd even go so far as to stratify that to make the Krak Missile more optimal - yet neither is bad - than a lascannon or vice versa in different situations) So even tho the big guns are less accurate, when aimed at an easier to hit target it swings back to normal, and the big guns work on big targets but not small ones. This works the other way with more accurate anti-personnel guns vs hard to hit infantry, or VERY accurate sniper rifles vs almost impossible to hit characters.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/17 05:31:48


My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





High damage weapons are a threat to everything. Many transports and other main battle tanks can be one shot by the Stormsurge and other ridiculous Tau weapons just like dreadnoughts.

The issue lies in the path that GW have determined in terms of 'rule creep', where one rule beats out another. The way you combat increased damage is more wounds, and then damage increases more, so you add damage reduction, so you add invul saves, so you ignore invul, so you limit the wounds a model can take, etc, etc, etc.

It comes down more to whether you want to keep playing the game as it is, or not.
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm curious as to how they'd do 'core' on Tyranids. I mean, think about it: What is a Tyranid, exactly?

To me, a 'Tyranid' has always been a Tyranid Warrior, with everything (big and small) stemming from that one central species, but that's just my interpretation. Some may see Gaunts as the base form, or Rippers, but those could just as easily be seen as specialisations or offshoots.

So what is 'core' to a Tyranid force if we can't even define what a Tyranid is in the first place?


Its going to be pretty wild, I think.
After Space Marines got 'almost everything that isn't a tank' and Necrons got 'the sane ones' (but then a fix for that being utterly inadequate), their starting point for Tyranids is going to be amazing and extremely silly pretzel logic. Or really boring and basically be 'not monsters.' And probably not rippers, for much the same reason as scarabs. I suspect pretty much everyone will accept 'not spore mines'

If they do cherry pick (like Zoanthropes, but not Lictors & Pyrovores, but not Biovores), its going to be a lot of stupid arguments.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/17 14:26:16


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in ca
Master Sergeant





 Sherrypie wrote:
Yeah, never take anything said in Warhammer Community as gospel on rules, design intent or anything else besides good vibes and advertising. That department is not talking with nor with the voice of the studio on the subject.

As for the CORE keyword by Robin Cruddance in charge of the rules writers, White Dwarf 470:

"
In ninth edition codexes we have introduced a new keyword: CORE. This keyword has caused some confusion in some gaming groups as they try and ascribe what units should and shouldn't have this keyword based on their understanding of the lore for any given faction. The reason such thinking often creates confusion is that it is not a keyword borne from the background at all. The CORE keyword exists only to faciliate certain rules interactions and, as with any other keyword, allows us to tag certain units with certain rules. [...] It is purely a gaming consideration as to whether a unit has CORE or not. While we found many Space Marine Aura abilities were a bit too oppressive when applied to, say, three Repulsor Executioners, we did not find during playtesting that Dreadnoughts felt overbearing if they also benefitted from these rules. As such, we chose not to give CORE to Repulsor Executioners but we did attach it to Dreadnoughts.

Part of the reason we chose CORE as the name of this keyword was exactly because we thought it was a faction-agnostic term that didn't have any descriptive connotations, unlike the 'unit-type' keywords or <Choose Your Own> sub-faction keywords discussed above, which are fairly descriptively tied to the models themselves or the paint schemes given to them. We thought CORE sounded vague enough while still sounding cool, but it really could have been anything and it could have been different from book to book, but we though a simple single word would be best. The keyword is attached to certain datasheets for pure rules-mechanics reasons and considerations.
"

So there. Never trust WarCom when they write words. Pictures are usually trustworthy.


Thanks for dredging that up, I didn't know anyone ever went on record indicating it was always purely a game abstraction.

I think it's fairly obviously it was, but it saves oxygen on debating it.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






Breton wrote:

I'd quantify the Predator as medium armor. You shouldn't be able to rely on Heavy Bolters for that either.


Rhino chassis and bigger = heavy
Land speeder and smaller = light

I've been playing One page rules recently and all their vehicles have a 2+ save, makes it much more interesting to bring them because they don't just die to everything (the lethality being much lower also helps a lot, i've actually used rhinos in most of my games and theyre amazing)
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Breton wrote:

I'd quantify the Predator as medium armor. You shouldn't be able to rely on Heavy Bolters for that either.


Rhino chassis and bigger = heavy
Land speeder and smaller = light

I've been playing One page rules recently and all their vehicles have a 2+ save, makes it much more interesting to bring them because they don't just die to everything (the lethality being much lower also helps a lot, i've actually used rhinos in most of my games and theyre amazing)

Yeah, if dreadnoughts qualify for the -1 damage rule then Rhino chassis vehicles should as well. Same toughness and saves, and they both had similar AV in previous editions.
   
Made in ca
Charing Cold One Knight





 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I think that the -1 damage abilities are a lot more of an advantage for dreadnoughts over tanks than CORE. Obvious examples being the PBC, which has a -1 damage ability but isn't CORE, but still sees heavy use in Death Guard lists, and the Leviathan, which doesn't have CORE, but is still used over tanks with similar profiles because of its resistance to 2D weapons.

-1 damage should be given to anything that qualifies as "heavy armour". You shouldn't be able to rely on heavy bolters to kill tanks.


PBC also has an invuln save which is a vital asset in 9th. I would almost say that 9th is very much "invuln is king" edition.
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Breton wrote:

I'd quantify the Predator as medium armor. You shouldn't be able to rely on Heavy Bolters for that either.


Rhino chassis and bigger = heavy
Land speeder and smaller = light

I've been playing One page rules recently and all their vehicles have a 2+ save, makes it much more interesting to bring them because they don't just die to everything (the lethality being much lower also helps a lot, i've actually used rhinos in most of my games and theyre amazing)

How good it is comes down purely to pts efficiency, it really doesn't matter whether your Rhino can survive a nuke if it takes up half your list and has no damage output.

35 pt Rhinos in 9th would be disgusting. Rhinos were 2 more pts than a Biker in 5th, it's kind of hilarious.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Eldarsif wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I think that the -1 damage abilities are a lot more of an advantage for dreadnoughts over tanks than CORE. Obvious examples being the PBC, which has a -1 damage ability but isn't CORE, but still sees heavy use in Death Guard lists, and the Leviathan, which doesn't have CORE, but is still used over tanks with similar profiles because of its resistance to 2D weapons.

-1 damage should be given to anything that qualifies as "heavy armour". You shouldn't be able to rely on heavy bolters to kill tanks.


PBC also has an invuln save which is a vital asset in 9th. I would almost say that 9th is very much "invuln is king" edition.

Yeah, an invul certainly helps. But everything can't have those. There should definitely be more 2+ saves on tanks though.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 vict0988 wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Breton wrote:

I'd quantify the Predator as medium armor. You shouldn't be able to rely on Heavy Bolters for that either.


Rhino chassis and bigger = heavy
Land speeder and smaller = light

I've been playing One page rules recently and all their vehicles have a 2+ save, makes it much more interesting to bring them because they don't just die to everything (the lethality being much lower also helps a lot, i've actually used rhinos in most of my games and theyre amazing)

How good it is comes down purely to pts efficiency, it really doesn't matter whether your Rhino can survive a nuke if it takes up half your list and has no damage output.

35 pt Rhinos in 9th would be disgusting. Rhinos were 2 more pts than a Biker in 5th, it's kind of hilarious.


Litterally just give Rhino chassis equivalent a 2+ save and leave the points as they are right now, heck, you could even add -1 damage to them and bake it in the Vehicle keyword itself and it would fix the premise of this thread

2+ save forces the use of actual anti-tank to pop tanks
-1 damage makes the Disintegrators/heavy bolters/etc worse at killing tanks (not that those weapons are overpowered right now)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/17 16:36:28


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Mostly by imposing harder limits on how many of a thing you can take.

Usually the main issue with these types of units.

If the rules for Dreadnoughts (or X) are good enough that taking 1 is a great idea, people will double down and take 8 or whatever (plethora of similar datasheets as is often the case, with Marines/factions with large FW-support in particular, circumventing the current limitations like the rule of 3, and possibly even harder limits of just 1 per datasheet, etc..).

Create rules for them so an army spamming them would not be oppressive and reasonable to play against for all (!!) other armies, even those not specialising in opposite-spam of anti-tank weapons, and bringing a single fluffy Dread will probably be a waste.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






Sunny Side Up wrote:
Mostly by imposing harder limits on how many of a thing you can take.

Usually the main issue with these types of units.

If the rules for Dreadnoughts (or X) are good enough that taking 1 is a great idea, people will double down and take 8 or whatever (plethora of similar datasheets as is often the case, with Marines/factions with large FW-support in particular, circumventing the current limitations like the rule of 3, and possibly even harder limits of just 1 per datasheet, etc..).

Create rules for them so an army spamming them would not be oppressive and reasonable to play against for all (!!) other armies, even those not specialising in opposite-spam of anti-tank weapons, and bringing a single fluffy Dread will probably be a waste.


Just make it so theres only one Datasheet with options to build any of the variants?
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
Mostly by imposing harder limits on how many of a thing you can take.

Usually the main issue with these types of units.

If the rules for Dreadnoughts (or X) are good enough that taking 1 is a great idea, people will double down and take 8 or whatever (plethora of similar datasheets as is often the case, with Marines/factions with large FW-support in particular, circumventing the current limitations like the rule of 3, and possibly even harder limits of just 1 per datasheet, etc..).

Create rules for them so an army spamming them would not be oppressive and reasonable to play against for all (!!) other armies, even those not specialising in opposite-spam of anti-tank weapons, and bringing a single fluffy Dread will probably be a waste.


Just make it so theres only one Datasheet with options to build any of the variants?


Probably. Something like this. And you can take only 1. Maybe a second with a Techmarine and a Stratagem. Etc.. Something along those lines.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






Sunny Side Up wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
Mostly by imposing harder limits on how many of a thing you can take.

Usually the main issue with these types of units.

If the rules for Dreadnoughts (or X) are good enough that taking 1 is a great idea, people will double down and take 8 or whatever (plethora of similar datasheets as is often the case, with Marines/factions with large FW-support in particular, circumventing the current limitations like the rule of 3, and possibly even harder limits of just 1 per datasheet, etc..).

Create rules for them so an army spamming them would not be oppressive and reasonable to play against for all (!!) other armies, even those not specialising in opposite-spam of anti-tank weapons, and bringing a single fluffy Dread will probably be a waste.


Just make it so theres only one Datasheet with options to build any of the variants?


Probably. Something like this. And you can take only 1. Maybe a second with a Techmarine and a Stratagem. Etc.. Something along those lines.


I don't see why you'd restrict it to 1 honestly. Buff other vehicles, consolidate all dreads in one datasheet. When is the last time 3 Helbrutes were really scary?
Or GW could add a new stat to the datasheet that says how many copies of a certain model we can take (heck, just replace Leadership since its such a useless stat)
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

One datasheet for all of the box dreads would probably work, but Redemptors and all of the fw dreads too? That would be like having one datasheet for Predators, Vindicators, and Land Raiders combined. They're all too different. The weapon options alone would take up two pages.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 Gadzilla666 wrote:
One datasheet for all of the box dreads would probably work, but Redemptors and all of the fw dreads too? That would be like having one datasheet for Predators, Vindicators, and Land Raiders combined. They're all too different. The weapon options alone would take up two pages.


I mostly meant to consolidate all the boxnaughts. But honestly, yeah, ALL dreads should be consolidated into "Dreadnought" and "Heavy Dreadnought", just like tanks should be consolidated into "Transport tank", "tank" and "heavy tank"
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
One datasheet for all of the box dreads would probably work, but Redemptors and all of the fw dreads too? That would be like having one datasheet for Predators, Vindicators, and Land Raiders combined. They're all too different. The weapon options alone would take up two pages.


I mostly meant to consolidate all the boxnaughts. But honestly, yeah, ALL dreads should be consolidated into "Dreadnought" and "Heavy Dreadnought", just like tanks should be consolidated into "Transport tank", "tank" and "heavy tank"

Right. And we could rename the game "Morbid Dark 40,000". A game that does that already exists.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
One datasheet for all of the box dreads would probably work, but Redemptors and all of the fw dreads too? That would be like having one datasheet for Predators, Vindicators, and Land Raiders combined. They're all too different. The weapon options alone would take up two pages.


I mostly meant to consolidate all the boxnaughts. But honestly, yeah, ALL dreads should be consolidated into "Dreadnought" and "Heavy Dreadnought", just like tanks should be consolidated into "Transport tank", "tank" and "heavy tank"

Right. And we could rename the game "Morbid Dark 40,000". A game that does that already exists.


Sure, but that would also help reduce skew and bloat tbh. But in a perfect world, i'd just have the datasheet themselves restrict how many copies you can take. Tho this whole thread is trying to fight a symptom rather than the source of the problem.

Just buff vehicles and people will play them
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 AnomanderRake wrote:
GW doesn't nerf things when they miss the mark with making things too powerful, or we might have seen plasma get cut back instead of melta getting buffed to compensate in 9th. We'll likely see more damage reduction, more Invulnerable saves, more wounds, and higher Toughness on any new tank kits, and any of the many fifteen-year-old tank kits will remain unplayable.


We saw melta buffed because melta was terrible. Multimeltas had been useless since 5th. Also, plasma was bad at that time too. Only maybe 2 common strategies in the game at that time made significant use of Plasma.

It was bespoke weapons that were crowding Melta out, not plasma.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: