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.

The "Lance" rule has never really made entire sense. It's supposed to reflect that it can "bore through any armor," yet doesn't confer any bonus for AV12 or less. My rule change is simple:

"Lance" weapons, like existing, reduce any AV above 12 to 12
Against AV12 or less, the weapon becomes AP:1

A simple change, easy to remember, and reflects the armor penetration aspects of the Lance. The results create a nice spread of results that make the weapons more reliable:

Chances to destroy (per hit)

Current Lance Rule
AV10 22.2%
AV11 16.7%
AV12 11.1%
AV13/14 11.1%

Revised Lance Rule
AV10 36.1%
AV11 27.8%
AV12 19.4%
AV13/14 11.1%

As you can see, not a huge increase overall, but creates a nice gradation of results as you step up AVs. The result is not an overpowered super weapon like Melta weapons, but rather one that shows a steady, consistent bell curve against normal AVs, giving it more consistent damage results. Against high end armor (13/14), the lance does its current job of punching through the armor, but against lower AVs, that penetration power turns into "kills" as the hits cut deeper into the vehicle.

Thoughts?

What happens to the lance thingamajig in the DE Codex that is already AP1?

Then it's already got the bonus against AV13/14.

Meh, any failure to blow up the lighter vehicles is the dice gods IMO....
But I llike the rule very much.

Warp Lance would still not change. it already has AP 1, and doesn't get an extra bonus vs AV 10-12.


I say that Lance weapons should just redfuce your opponent's AV by 2 when firing. AV 13 becomes 11. This stops the penalty being too harsh on AV 14, less so on AV 13, an non-existent on AV 10-12.

Deadshot, what did Land Speeders ever do to you? Your proposed change would knock them down to Av 8!

Teln wrote:Deadshot, what did Land Speeders ever do to you? Your proposed change would knock them down to Av 8!

You sir have never played against 3 full squads all with Heavy Bolters and Assault Cannons.

jbunny wrote:

Teln wrote:Deadshot, what did Land Speeders ever do to you? Your proposed change would knock them down to Av 8!

You sir have never played against 3 full squads all with Heavy Bolters and Assault Cannons.

Thats a horrible set up. totally unoptimized because the speeder has to stay still to fire both weapons.




Lance is perfectly fine like it is. its really good against high armor, but its effectivness against light armor drops off.

Just like you wouldn't find it very efficient to fire a shaped charge meant for a battle tank at a jeep or something. too much for the job.


besides, the Str8 that most lance weapons are packing is more then sufficient for AV12, 11, and 10.

It would make lances extremely overpowered.

Grey Templar wrote:extremely overpowered

Said the Grey Knight player. Go ahead, play against DE or Eldar with lances and report back how sufficient S8 is against GK vehicles. Or use a Chimera wall. Or Razorspam.

If they're going to charge a premium for Lance weaponry (not everyone gets +1 S for only 5 pts) when it's shorter ranged than missile launchers/lascannons and lacks any duality (like the ML's frag missiles), then it stands to reason the rule needs to be appropriate to the points paid. Further, the point was that the fluff behind the technology doesn't make sense that it's an armor penetrator... but only against thick armor.

The rule adjustment is merited based on the presentation of the technology, the need in the respective armies, and the excessive cost they charge for the weapons relative to damage output. If missile launchers and meltaguns run 10 pts, then a dark/bright lance should not run 25. In virtually all ways, I'd rather have lascannons for what I pay for lances. To me, that means the rule needs adjusting.

Skarboy wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:extremely overpowered

Said the Grey Knight player. Go ahead, play against DE or Eldar with lances and report back how sufficient S8 is against GK vehicles. Or use a Chimera wall. Or Razorspam.

If they're going to charge a premium for Lance weaponry (not everyone gets +1 S for only 5 pts) when it's shorter ranged than missile launchers/lascannons and lacks any duality (like the ML's frag missiles), then it stands to reason the rule needs to be appropriate to the points paid. Further, the point was that the fluff behind the technology doesn't make sense that it's an armor penetrator... but only against thick armor.

The rule adjustment is merited based on the presentation of the technology, the need in the respective armies, and the excessive cost they charge for the weapons relative to damage output. If missile launchers and meltaguns run 10 pts, then a dark/bright lance should not run 25. In virtually all ways, I'd rather have lascannons for what I pay for lances. To me, that means the rule needs adjusting.

Before calling Grey Templar a cheasy gk player you may want to read his sig...

I has a 1+ Codex: Daemonhunter save

Grey Templar wrote:I has a 1+ Codex: Daemonhunter save

Lol yep

I have sigs and avatars blocked, but I believe you. It was also more of a joke, that a GK player (and the vast majority are bandwagoners) would call something else "overpowered" with all the heat they're taking right now.

My point remains. Lances do underperform, particularly relative to cost, against similar weapons and thus need a tweak. The fluff aspect... well, according that, you should field one space marine and win 2000 point games with him, so I don't put as much stock in that aspect.

if anything you can blame it on GW overcompensating for the fact the old DE codex could spam Dark lances like it was going out of style.

I saw a 1500 list that had 43, yes 43, Dark lances!

DE dark light spam under performs? Have I been playing a different game?
The problem has more to do with Eldar Bright Lances being way too expensive, DE lances do just fine today.
Of course, coming up with variants of lance weapons (Heat Lance, Void Lance) helps.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And GT, how are those Blood Angels doing?