Switch Theme:

Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




But you are still way overpaying for those lascannons vs 4++ targets. Autocannon-esque weapons don't care. The Storm cannon is just an extreme autocannon.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/23 15:03:19


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Martel732 wrote:
But you are still way overpaying for those lascannons vs 4++ targets. Autocannon-esque weapons don't care. The Storm cannon is just an extreme autocannon.


Yea, but autocannons do that much less. Only the Storm Cannon with its absurd shots and mega-durability for the cost gets away with it. Regular AC are still fine in the generalist role, but you need a mountain of them to make a dent.

Essentially you're mentally assigning a points value to the AP of the weapon and getting upset that you didn't use the full value of that weapon.

   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




That's exactly what I'm doing because GW charges an assload for high AP. The FIRST point of AP is the most valuable, not the third or fourth. But that's not how GW charges.

Autocannons do less, but they cost less. And do better vs say primaris marines. And they don't lose value if I draw a demon or drukhari opponent.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/23 15:17:53


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Pretty sure you are paying for the S9 on a lascannon. As said, the problem is that this doesn't do much unless the target is T8.

Since this is relatively rare, its easier to have the upside of lower S/higher ROF weapons and just brute force it (via stratagems, rerolls etc) when you need to.

Its weapon dependent though - because its about points. Dissie spam is still the main thing DE really have going for them. I don't think autocannon spam has ever really been a thing outside of forum theorising. There are no great platforms for it.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




I'm not saying to spam it. I'm just using it as an example weapon.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Martel732 wrote:
That's exactly what I'm doing because GW charges an assload for high AP. The FIRST point of AP is the most valuable, not the third or fourth. But that's not how GW charges.

Autocannons do less, but they cost less. And do better vs say primaris marines. And they don't lose value if I draw a demon or drukhari opponent.


Yea, but you're determining that extra cost to be all AP when there's 2 pips of strength and nearly double damage there as well. Of the point difference the AP is maybe...5 points? So the QLP overspends 20 points when shooting a 4++, but is still more effective overall.

Daemons with PA and 9th will be rolling more greater daemons and soul grinders shooting into combat. DE always have some damn flying crap that needs a good shooting.

   
Made in us
Battle-tested Knight Castellan Pilot





Tyel wrote:
I don't think autocannon spam has ever really been a thing outside of forum theorising. There are no great platforms for it.

Are Havocs not a good platform for them? 4 to a unit, 110points, T5 and no -1 to hit for moving.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Rihgu wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I don't think autocannon spam has ever really been a thing outside of forum theorising. There are no great platforms for it.

Are Havocs not a good platform for them? 4 to a unit, 110points, T5 and no -1 to hit for moving.
But CSM don't gunline nearly as well as Imperial Marines.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I mean, the problem is that the Quadlas Pred does about double the wounds to tanks than its anti-infantry counterpart (the two TFCs in this math)...

... but the anti-infantry counterpart does WAY MORE THAN DOUBLE the Quadlas Pred will against infantry. So if I am looking for a TAC weapon, the one that's 100% against infantry and 50% against tanks is way better than the one that's 100% against tanks and 2% against infantry.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/23 16:49:18


 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Isnt the non las version also a lot cheaper?

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 JNAProductions wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I don't think autocannon spam has ever really been a thing outside of forum theorising. There are no great platforms for it.

Are Havocs not a good platform for them? 4 to a unit, 110points, T5 and no -1 to hit for moving.
But CSM don't gunline nearly as well as Imperial Marines.


I think the issue with Havocs is more that its hard for them not to die to a stiff breeze when running at 22 points average per wound.
Admittedly you might be tempted to just ignore 4 autocannons plinking at you when there are other priorities - but its a relatively easy grab for anything that can reach out and get them.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, the problem is that the Quadlas Pred does about double the wounds to tanks than its anti-infantry counterpart (the two TFCs in this math)...

... but the anti-infantry counterpart does WAY MORE THAN DOUBLE the Quadlas Pred will against infantry. So if I am looking for a TAC weapon, the one that's 100% against infantry and 50% against tanks is way better than the one that's 100% against tanks and 2% against infantry.


Yes - there is infantry to shoot almost always. That's the purpose for taking TFCs. Not to shoot tanks. If your TFC has to pull duty shooting tanks it will do fine, but it won't do as much as anti-tank despite perceived "invuln advantage". No one takes just TFCs and other anti-infantry to handle both infantry and tanks - the vast majority of winning lists all have some form of direct anti-tank.

   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




I don't know about that. The ones I'm most familiar with don't even shoot; they just exploit tripoint.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
That's exactly what I'm doing because GW charges an assload for high AP. The FIRST point of AP is the most valuable, not the third or fourth. But that's not how GW charges.

Autocannons do less, but they cost less. And do better vs say primaris marines. And they don't lose value if I draw a demon or drukhari opponent.


Yea, but you're determining that extra cost to be all AP when there's 2 pips of strength and nearly double damage there as well. Of the point difference the AP is maybe...5 points? So the QLP overspends 20 points when shooting a 4++, but is still more effective overall.

Daemons with PA and 9th will be rolling more greater daemons and soul grinders shooting into combat. DE always have some damn flying crap that needs a good shooting.


I'm also losing a shot. Lascannons are obviously better than the gak show that is melta, but I'm still hesitant to pay 25 pts for a single shot that needs babysitters to be remotely effective. It's all about GW's pricing on single shot high AP weapons.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/23 17:12:53


 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 catbarf wrote:


I have a friend who runs the SSAG in Deathskulls, and I was curious about the averages, so I wrote up a simulator in Java to simulate firing under Deathskulls (one free hit, wound, and damage roll reroll). I also threw in some code to simulate having a CP to spend.

I achieved optimal results by CP re-rolling a # of shots roll of 1, CP re-rolling a Strength roll of < 4 (if not already blown on # of shots), and using the Deathskulls damage re-roll on a roll of 1-2.

Average damage:
vs T7- 8.9 wounds
vs T8- 8.0 wounds

Without CP:
vs T7- 7.4 wounds
vs T8- 6.5 wounds

Without Deathskulls, with CP:
vs T7- 5.8 wounds
vs T8- 5.1 wounds

Without Deathskulls or CP:
vs T7- 4.6 wounds
vs T8- 4.0 wounds

So basically, playing as Deathskulls and having a CP to burn on it dramatically increases its damage output. You need six Marines with lascannons to beat it on damage output against either T7 or T8 if the Ork player is spending a CP, or five lascannons to beat it without the CP reroll.

That's some strong shooting.


I think your math overestimates the damage output, and you're also forgetting that those SM lascannons would likely have free re-rolls.

I play deathskulls SSAG everytime since Vigilus release, sometimes even SSAG + 2SAG. Thing is the SSAG has the potential to one-shot a knight but rolling average results it'll likely scratch a rhino stripping 3-4 of its wounds. If it's a normale SAG it has 50% of possibilities of achieving the same result and 50% to do nothing at all. The opponent will definitely remember the extremely lucky roll and forgetting all the rounds in which massed big mek shooting (like 3 of them) fails to destroy something valuable.

That weapon, even the enhanced one, is extremely unreliable but in a system in which orks players are encouraged to field 6 HQs and an horde of cheap bodies they are an excellent option. With the 9th system standard SAG will disappear completely, probably even non deathskulls or freebooterz SSAG, while the deathskull/freebooterz SSAG will still be one of the viable options among all HQ datasheets, but not the auto take that currently is. This assuming that points costs in the codex will stay the same, of course.

My point is the SAG or even the SSAG are unreliable weapons but useful or even auto-take because the mechanics in list building favor them. With other mechanics their effectiveness could drop dramatically.

Take melta weapons, SM players don't see them as viable options but they are very common in sisters' lists, and the weapons are exactly the same ones. What I wanted to say is that meltas aren't bad at all, they just suffer from having too much competition in SM armies, including very powerful anti tank options. At the same time SAG aren't spectacular weapons but due to how competitive orks lists work in 8th they are almost auto-taken by every player.

Orks 7000
Space Wolves 4000
 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Meltas are terrible. I wouldn't use them even if they had no competition at all. I wouldn't use them in sisters lists either, as they are a waste of points. They can't do their job.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Halifax

Regarding the structural issue of stuff like Lascannons and Melta Guns rolling 1 dice and other stuff like Assault Cannons rolling 6 dice so that the supposedly non-AT stuff is more reliable anti-tank than the AT stuff, maybe it should be like Blast weapons were they roll more damage against targets with more wounds?

It seems like having AT weapons roll lots of dice and apply them to a single model would be the way to go about it. Like a Melta would be Assault 6 but can only affect 1 model per unit.

   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Yeah, maybe. I'm open to a broad range of fixes at this point. But Rof 1 Str 8 -4 AP d6 damage 12" range is a joke. A large part is that a huge chunk of melta targets are T8. Melta should double strength in melta range at a minimum. It would still be sketchy as hell, though.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/23 18:43:04


 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Sniper Drone




I mean, I like single-shot weapons as a concept. The big feth-off railgun that ruins something on a hit, but it's hard to get the hit, is fun to me so I'd rather make them more viable than basically decide to give up on that weapon type.

Things I might do do:
Expand the strength range on the guns, maybe also the vehicles - The really heavy guns should get nearly everything but current t8 on a 2+. Man-portable melta should probably get 3+ on the big stuff, but 2+ on light vehicles is probably a bit much. Your current S6/7 guns would move to a lower bracket, wounding on 6+ on current t8 and 5+ on most tanks.
Increase the damage characteristics and have damage-floors on most stuff - Melta might be 3+d6, with the melta rule being 3+ the best of two d6.
Many invulns on high-toughness vehicles turning into damage-reduction, and probably better armor saves on several vehicles. Combined with the one immediately above massed D2 Stalker Rifles will do half damage where a melta is still going 80%+

That would really differentiate med-weight fire from the big stuff.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/23 19:25:21


 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Rather than buffing other shooting weapons I'd rather tone down mid strenght high rate of fire combos and limit invulns.

Invulns in general should be very limited, 2pts for 3++ is wrong in any possible level and T7-8 W10+ vehicles should have a 5++ at most, and not as a free ability.

Orks 7000
Space Wolves 4000
 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 Blackie wrote:
Invulns in general should be very limited, 2pts for 3++ is wrong in any possible level and T7-8 W10+ vehicles should have a 5++ at most, and not as a free ability.


Agreed.

Honestly, I don't think high-toughness targets with good armour saves (generally vehicles and monsters - including Super-Heavies) should ever have invulnerable saves, as it completely screws the weapons like Meltas which are supposed to be effective against precisely those targets. Give them more wounds instead.

Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"



 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 vipoid wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Invulns in general should be very limited, 2pts for 3++ is wrong in any possible level and T7-8 W10+ vehicles should have a 5++ at most, and not as a free ability.


Agreed.

Honestly, I don't think high-toughness targets with good armour saves (generally vehicles and monsters - including Super-Heavies) should ever have invulnerable saves, as it completely screws the weapons like Meltas which are supposed to be effective against precisely those targets. Give them more wounds instead.


Absolutely. GW have this weird attitude where they have a system that already has 3 variables for how resilient something is (T, W, Sv) but they then feel the need to add an Invulnerable as well. One of the biggest mistakes of 8th was not taking the opportunity to properly evaluate the stats on various weapons, so Melta and Lascannons, for example, just kept their stats, effectively from 3rd edition, with a simple conversion of the old AP value to the new one. If GW had modified the Toighness and Strength values a bit more for vehicles we likely wouldn't have a s big a problem as we do now with mid-strength relatively high-RoF weapons.

Going back to the maths on the previous page comparing high-ROF weapons to one-shot AT guns, I think it somewhat misses the point. Yes, technically the dedicated AT gun is better at killing tanks but the problem is it's not better by anywhere near enough to matter. The problem with the high-RoF weapons like Autocannons (or the souped-up versions FW keeps pumping out) is they're too good at everything. Not the best, but good enough in every role that you can comfortably forget about taking "proper" AT if you have enough of these types of weapons. That's mainly down to stat inflation and GW's continued inability to write a coherent design bible at the start of an edition and stick to it. The multiple points of failure are also a problem. Yes, statistically you can look at it and say "well, it's generally superior to take a Lascannon" but the big advantage of fixed-damage high-RoF guns is consistency and reliability. That's exacerbated by the stat inflation too, as we see heavy weapons happily kicking out 10+ shots per model, sometimes double that or more. It's also the case that firing a single-shot AT weapon at anything with a 4+ Invulnerable save gives your opponent much more agency in avoiding it as well. Regardless of how well you roll, they still ultimately end up with a 75% chance to avoid the incoming damage if they have a CP to spend.
   
Made in us
Dangerous Skeleton Captain




Martel732 wrote:
So reality is not valid? Okay, there's no real comeback to that.

Just because the Germans had 88s, that didn't discourage allied vehicle production.


I mean, not really, not in a universe of space wizards, superhuman soldiers, and demons.

Oddly enough, the widespread use of effective anti-tank guns by the Axis powers did influence the design of American armor. It's one of the reasons why the M4 Sherman was made as cheaply as it was, and why it wasn't built to kill other tanks. It's also why we used a lot of lightly armored tank destroyers and very few Shermans actually carried real anti-tank weapons.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/24 11:15:16


 
   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 vipoid wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Invulns in general should be very limited, 2pts for 3++ is wrong in any possible level and T7-8 W10+ vehicles should have a 5++ at most, and not as a free ability.


Agreed.

Honestly, I don't think high-toughness targets with good armour saves (generally vehicles and monsters - including Super-Heavies) should ever have invulnerable saves, as it completely screws the weapons like Meltas which are supposed to be effective against precisely those targets. Give them more wounds instead.

Agreed as well. Giving them higher toughness and better armour saves would work as well. Marine super heavys are surprisingly tough at T9, 2+ without invuls. And anti-tank weapons actually work the way they should against them.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Blackie wrote:
Rather than buffing other shooting weapons I'd rather tone down mid strenght high rate of fire combos and limit invulns.

Invulns in general should be very limited, 2pts for 3++ is wrong in any possible level and T7-8 W10+ vehicles should have a 5++ at most, and not as a free ability.


Not sure I agree about the storm shield. If you charge too much weight of fire takes them down and it will never be a worthwhile investment. For all the panicking we still don't see storm shields much.

   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




"I mean, not really, not in a universe of space wizards, superhuman soldiers, and demons."

Agree to disagree. Fantastical elements don't render logic and physics irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Rather than buffing other shooting weapons I'd rather tone down mid strenght high rate of fire combos and limit invulns.

Invulns in general should be very limited, 2pts for 3++ is wrong in any possible level and T7-8 W10+ vehicles should have a 5++ at most, and not as a free ability.


Not sure I agree about the storm shield. If you charge too much weight of fire takes them down and it will never be a worthwhile investment. For all the panicking we still don't see storm shields much.


Really? No SW players in your group?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/24 13:35:58


 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




It took me some time to realise that there is a difference between a battle simulation and table top game. Would have never understood it if my dad, didn't show me how old military "war games" worked.

But what I think is important, even for a non simulation game, is to be at least a bit true to the setting it is in. the fact that a ranges are odd for games of w40k, wasn't something I noticed till my dad showed me a the table for military "war games" which was the size of 5-6 our shops, had whole villages, towns etc on it. But I can live with that. Stat squish, so we somehow end up with catachan as strong as ogryns, who are as strong as power armored primaris, is a mechanic thing.

But an anti tank gun should do anti tank, it should be a scary thing for tanks to be shot with it. And light or medium multi shot suddenly become the bane of tanks and infantry.

It is as if in WWII the deadliest anti tank weapon was the flak wirbel. Same with melee units being bad at melee. And anti personal stuff, like flamers being good at AA, but bad vs horde control.

And no explanation that there is magic in the setting explains those things. Other stuff is mechanical or GW choice to make the game in specific way. The other is just bad design. If a tank gets shot at close range by 4 MM, the avarge result shouldn't be a change to the paint job.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Karol wrote:

It is as if in WWII the deadliest anti tank weapon was the flak wirbel.


I don't recall the Wirbelwind or Ostwind ever squaring up against something like a Churchill, Pershing, T-34 or even M4. That gun was dangerous, but more for light vehicles.

   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Rather than buffing other shooting weapons I'd rather tone down mid strenght high rate of fire combos and limit invulns.

Invulns in general should be very limited, 2pts for 3++ is wrong in any possible level and T7-8 W10+ vehicles should have a 5++ at most, and not as a free ability.


Not sure I agree about the storm shield. If you charge too much weight of fire takes them down and it will never be a worthwhile investment. For all the panicking we still don't see storm shields much.


2pts shields are too undercosted for units like Wulfen, Wolf Guard Bikers or Wolf Guard Terminators, at the point that are auto-takes for them. TWC and characters are ok because their shields are way more expensive, in fact it's perfectly fine not to give the shield to all the thunderwolf dudes in their unit but also the Wolf Lord can skip it. We don't see storm shields that much because not many units can have them, it doesn't mean that at 2pts they are broken for 2W models.

Orks 7000
Space Wolves 4000
 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




2W models with 5+++ FNP.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





T'au players get to rejoice - they don't need the strat at all.


   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: