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.

 catbarf wrote:

Lascannons are 20 for Marines.

They're 20 for Marine vehicles. They're 15 for Marine infantry units.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Honest question: Has GW ever put recommended board sizes in the 40K rulebooks in the past? Did 8th have it? 7th? 6th was replaced before the ink was dry so forget that. 5th?

Honest answer(s): Yes, yes, maybe? but ok fine skip it, yes

I'll post more in a separate thread because I imagine this is verging off topic.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I wonder if we'll see a return of the armoured ceramite rule for some vehicles to mitigate the new melta rules. It was always an auto-take for me in 7th for my Fellblade and Sicaran. That said even without that I'm hoping even more that the Legion super heavys get fair prices in the Imperial Armour Compendium, T9 2+ is one of the best defensive stat lines against things like eradicators right now, along with the Achilles T8 2+ 4++. Most other vehicles are in trouble.

what did armored ceramite do?

Countered the melta bonus, instead of having 2D6 AP in half range they only got D6.
The equivalent qould be you only get D6 damage per wound regardless. (Though at this point I'm not sure just making it turn it from D6 to D3 might not be better served if your trying to keep vehicals viable).

that would be a nice buff, but it would be pretty hard to word and future-proof unless GW finally gives weapons keywords.

RIght now it would be "when targeted by a melta/fusion/heatlande/etc, weapon from within half its range ....".

"Any time this unit is successfully wounded treat all damage as if that weapon was fired at its maximum range ". Something like that, though it would make conversion beamers great against them. I really hate that we don't have USRs anymore.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I wonder if we'll see a return of the armoured ceramite rule for some vehicles to mitigate the new melta rules. It was always an auto-take for me in 7th for my Fellblade and Sicaran. That said even without that I'm hoping even more that the Legion super heavys get fair prices in the Imperial Armour Compendium, T9 2+ is one of the best defensive stat lines against things like eradicators right now, along with the Achilles T8 2+ 4++. Most other vehicles are in trouble.

what did armored ceramite do?

Countered the melta bonus, instead of having 2D6 AP in half range they only got D6.
The equivalent qould be you only get D6 damage per wound regardless. (Though at this point I'm not sure just making it turn it from D6 to D3 might not be better served if your trying to keep vehicals viable).

that would be a nice buff, but it would be pretty hard to word and future-proof unless GW finally gives weapons keywords.

RIght now it would be "when targeted by a melta/fusion/heatlande/etc, weapon from within half its range ....".

"Any time this unit is successfully wounded treat all damage as if that weapon was fired at its maximum range ". Something like that, though it would make conversion beamers great against them. I really hate that we don't have USRs anymore.

Eh, i'd take a buff on them considering how bad they are with 9th edition's ruleset.

Tons of valid arguments and points. And I actualy enjoy seeing the debate and theories. Just adding what I haven't seen that applies to most of these threads, from the cynical viewpoint I have for GW.

GW wants the game over by turn 2-3 at most. They want tanks deleted. They want the game sped up to draw in the CCG and video game crowd that is used to half hour games over and over and over.

They may say differently, but they have constantly upgraded lethality in the game, thus adding model count (and the buy the latest because has the best rules thing) and speeding the game up. Any form of appear and destroy falls under this category. As many many have pointed out, it is not simple to design a balanced game with this many variables...but they aren't even trying.

Now, to some extent, you can even this out, as going 2nd may be the thing with this, since it lets your auto-delete units appear after the opponent's. How this influences VP's is more complex, but the rules letting you take your turns after eliminating the opponent seem to have put "table as fast as you can" back into the game.

Do I agree with this? No. Does that change anything GW seems to be doing? No.

Sterling191 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Lascannons are 20 for Marines.

They're 20 for Marine vehicles. They're 15 for Marine infantry units.

My bad. Forgot that distinction.

Still, 5pts to get twice the shots, losing a point of S but gaining a point of AP, losing some max range but getting bonus damage up close, seems like a no-brainer. And it makes removing big expensive vehicles very doable for comparatively much cheaper, potentially sacrificial anti-tank units.

If they're actually going to 25/30 compared to lascannons at 15/20, then that might at least be a bit more of a decision; but I don't think that's very likely.

The MM points cost only makes sense if it's the new points cost for the new stats. It's undercosted at the new points cost by ~5ish points, but the alternative is GW is literally crazy to have priced them higher than a lascannon at their current stats.

Again, the basic problem is the 24" range - what is supposed to be the weakness of the weapon - is not much of a minus any more on the new board sizes with universal outflank. If you couldn't outflank into guaranteed range of anything anywhere on the table, that range would actually be a relevant factor and explain the pointing.

I think GW thinks MMs really are worth 20/25 points at the new stats because they haven't realized they've made the range statistic obsolete.

 catbarf wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
A lascannon is 15 and nobody says it's overpowered/undercosted. Aren't two lascannons comparable if not better than a single multi-melta? +1S, twice the range, split fire but +1AP and no melta bonus. Sounds like there is no competition to me.

I'd price a new multimelta 20 points for infantry and 25 for vehicles.

Lascannons are 20 for Marines.

Doing a comparison between one multi-melta to two lascannons, deciding that they're pretty comparable, and concluding that a multi-melta should cost the same as one lascannon is a really bizarre take. Even for armies like Guard where lascannons are 15, getting roughly double the firepower, at lower range but even more powerful if you can get in close, all for just a 33% premium, seems like a steal.

15 for infantries. I was comparing 2 lascannons vs a multimelta because another poster suggested that multimeltas should be 35, which means more than two lascannons. And I argued that IMHO it'd be too much because two lascannons for 30 points (which no-one considers OP) are better than a new improved multimelta at 35.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:


If they're actually going to 25/30 compared to lascannons at 15/20, then that might at least be a bit more of a decision; but I don't think that's very likely.

It depends on the platform actually. I'd give lascannons over multimeltas anytime to devastators for example. Melta units are suicide squads typically, sometimes firing 2-3 turns is better than having an improved damage output for a turn and then vanish.

If anything it's the ability to deepstrike and outflank everything that should be nerfed badly.

P.S. A 150 point retributor squad actually gets 12 melta shots on the turn it comes in from reserves - 8 from the 4 guys, plus another 4 from the armorium cherubs, which allow you to fire a gun a second time. Since the MM will have 2 shots, that's an extra 2 shots per cherub.

8 on each turn after that, but they're going to be dead by then anyway, so it probably doesn't matter. And those last 4 shots can be declared after you resolve the first 8, which is actually super powerful and makes splitting fire much safer.

And you can split those 12 shots at up to 6 different targets if you want, and you can boost the range to 36" and add 1 damage (meaning D6+3 damage at under 18") for 2CP if you need to. And you can use a miracle dice on the damage roll (two if you pay for another sister, but I don't think that's worth it) to get an almost guaranteed 6+ damage hit if you need it.

They're like eradicators turned up to 13 - ~twice the damage potential, but with absurd squishiness.

edwardmyst wrote:
Tons of valid arguments and points. And I actualy enjoy seeing the debate and theories. Just adding what I haven't seen that applies to most of these threads, from the cynical viewpoint I have for GW.

GW wants the game over by turn 2-3 at most. They want tanks deleted. They want the game sped up to draw in the CCG and video game crowd that is used to half hour games over and over and over.

They may say differently, but they have constantly upgraded lethality in the game, thus adding model count (and the buy the latest because has the best rules thing) and speeding the game up. Any form of appear and destroy falls under this category. As many many have pointed out, it is not simple to design a balanced game with this many variables...but they aren't even trying.

Now, to some extent, you can even this out, as going 2nd may be the thing with this, since it lets your auto-delete units appear after the opponent's. How this influences VP's is more complex, but the rules letting you take your turns after eliminating the opponent seem to have put "table as fast as you can" back into the game.

Do I agree with this? No. Does that change anything GW seems to be doing? No.

That makes a certain amount of sense, but at the same time rerolls and the consistent increase in army sizes suggests the opposite. Even with Aggressors just hosing them off the table setting up and packing away 120+ Daemonettes is going to take a while.

yukishiro1 wrote:
P.S. A 150 point retributor squad actually gets 12 melta shots on the turn it comes in from reserves - 8 from the 4 guys, plus another 4 from the armorium cherubs, which allow you to fire a gun a second time. Since the MM will have 2 shots, that's an extra 2 shots per cherub.

8 on each turn after that, but they're going to be dead by then anyway, so it probably doesn't matter. And those last 4 shots can be declared after you resolve the first 8, which is actually super powerful and makes splitting fire much safer.

And you can split those 12 shots at up to 6 different targets if you want, and you can boost the range to 36" and add 1 damage (meaning D6+3 damage at under 18") for 2CP if you need to. And you can use a miracle dice on the damage roll (two if you pay for another sister, but I don't think that's worth it) to get an almost guaranteed 6+ damage hit if you need it.

They're like eradicators turned up to 13 - ~twice the damage potential, but with absurd squishiness.

They are definitely going to get killed fast and easy for sure because at that point level im often thinking an exorcist in cover might be a better investment. I guess they could really be paired will with Immolators now that I think about it! Likelihood though is they will never get in half range of anything


For all those asking for a points hike......its still a meltagun at the end of the day. Last time I checked melta guns and MM weren't exactly lighting up the anti-tank spots in most lists outside of sisters (who have no choice). I think the short range will make a huge difference even when considering the smaller tables. In my opinion anti tank is still going to come down to melee, weight of fire, and versatile guns like plasma.

 generalchaos34 wrote:
Likelihood though is they will never get in half range of anything

I think you're neglecting the general utility of strategic reserves. If you want to guarantee that a unit will get to shoot, now you can do so.

So maybe your opponent screens well and you don't get within half range- oh well. 12 melta shots at BS3+ does an average of 14 wounds to a Leman Russ, overkilling it. Split up that fire and you're looking at an expected 200-240pts of damage.

That unit is making back 150% of its points cost in one volley under suboptimal conditions and there's basically nothing you can do to stop it. You can then wipe out the rest of the unit in your turn and too bad, they've already done their job.

In 8th you could make the argument that a glass hammer unit might get smashed before it can fight, but in 9th you have numerous ways to bring units onto the field and fire before the enemy can retaliate. If they can make back their cost in a single volley- and if such capabilities are available to a variety of armies- the game's going to start breaking down.

 generalchaos34 wrote:
Last time I checked melta guns and MM weren't exactly lighting up the anti-tank spots in most lists outside of sisters (who have no choice).

Doubled effectiveness, though.

I really don't understand the posts that essentially amount to saying they weren't that great before so surely they're not great now. I can think of plenty of currently-underperforming weapons and units that would swing right into 'broken' with double the shots.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

They are definitely going to get killed fast and easy for sure because at that point level im often thinking an exorcist in cover might be a better investment. I guess they could really be paired will with Immolators now that I think about it! Likelihood though is they will never get in half range of anything

The whole point of my post was that they are guaranteed to get one round of shooting off thanks to strategic reserves, for the princely sum of 1CP. You can hit literally any point on the new board size from strategic reserves with a 24" range weapon, subject only to screening. That's the crux of the entire thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:


So maybe your opponent screens well and you don't get within half range- oh well. 12 melta shots at BS3+ does an average of 14 wounds to a Leman Russ, overkilling it. Split up that fire and you're looking at an expected 200-240pts of damage.

Yep, and then there's strat use, and miracle dice use. If you pop the strat and can get within 18" you're looking at average 26 damage to T8 3+ or 34 to T7 3+, with full ability to split and ability to fire 4 of those shots after the first 8, and the ability to boost one up to a likely 8 or 9 damage hit with a miracle dice. Up to 30 against T8 or 40 against T7 with a reroll 1s aura.

You can basically kill as many tanks as you can manage to get within 18" of.

yukishiro1 wrote:
P.S. A 150 point retributor squad actually gets 12 melta shots on the turn it comes in from reserves - 8 from the 4 guys, plus another 4 from the armorium cherubs, which allow you to fire a gun a second time. Since the MM will have 2 shots, that's an extra 2 shots per cherub.

8 on each turn after that, but they're going to be dead by then anyway, so it probably doesn't matter. And those last 4 shots can be declared after you resolve the first 8, which is actually super powerful and makes splitting fire much safer.

And you can split those 12 shots at up to 6 different targets if you want, and you can boost the range to 36" and add 1 damage (meaning D6+3 damage at under 18") for 2CP if you need to. And you can use a miracle dice on the damage roll (two if you pay for another sister, but I don't think that's worth it) to get an almost guaranteed 6+ damage hit if you need it.

True, but at the moment those retributors are trash, they needed a significant boost. So does the Immolator.

It's a single suicide unit, that can't deepstrike but only outflank, for an army that doesn't have super efficient anti tank.

Avoiding the 12'' melta range for the most appropriate target(s) should be easy for the opponent. Getting retributors within melta range is not gonna happen typically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:


That unit is making back 150% of its points cost in one volley under suboptimal conditions and there's basically nothing you can do to stop it. You can then wipe out the rest of the unit in your turn and too bad, they've already done their job.

True, but you need to look at the army as a whole, not only a single unit. Are Adepta Sororitas going to be overpowered because melta retributors became double killy? Anything else is irrelevant, every army has one or more units that typically get their points back every game.

the_scotsman wrote:


It seems like the best solution is to solve the problem at the listbuilding level by making sure I don't concentrate >160pts in any one model. If anyone else has any ideas for dealing with a threat that reliable, I'm pretty dang interested in hearing it.

Also if you've got thoughts on how to take out models that can only take a certain number of wounds per phase with an army that doesn't have psykers and primarily does damage in either shooting or fighting, I'd love to hear that too.

Well does 160 points in one model matter against most of that compared to 160 points in 4 models? You're not talking about 1 shot 16 damage weapons, but 6 or so 2+ shot 2-3-4ish damage weapons. 12 shots/attacks doing 2-4 damage is going to do pretty much the same thing to 4x4 wounds as it will 1x16 wounds. Figure an Impulsor is 6x3 inches or so 18 square inch foot print. 5 30mm base Intercessors are about 20" of footprint plus coherence distance. For just a minute, imagine your get to put down one book with 16 wounds, or one slinky that can change shape with 16 wounds. A unit is a unit, doesn't matter THAT much if it's one book, or a slinky made up of 5 parts.

By the same token, I'd ask if there was a point before these changes either. The "trick" to taking vehicles is target saturation. Get yourself several so one or more will live. Except taking three Land Raiders is roughly half your army. Taking three Repulsor Executioners is more than half closer to . A lot of armies had trouble justifying a large tank or monster as it was before hand. Vehicles have been on life support ever since they got rid of Armor Value.

Breton wrote:

Vehicles have been on life support ever since they got rid of Armor Value.

Maybe it's true for Land Raiders. All my ork vehicles have been 200% to 500% tougher since 8th edition compared to the times when they had AV.

Rhinos and razorbacks have also gained a lot by jumping to T7 10W 3+ save.

 Blackie wrote:

Breton wrote:

Vehicles have been on life support ever since they got rid of Armor Value.

Maybe it's true for Land Raiders. All my ork vehicles have been 200% to 500% tougher since 8th edition compared to the times when they had AV.

Rhinos and razorbacks have also gained a lot by jumping to T7 10W 3+ save.

Land Speeders went from AV 10 only glanced by bolters on a 6 to T5, wounded on 5+ Heavy Bolters wound on a 4+ vs Glancing on a 5, Penetrating on a 6.

Predators were what, AV 13 (front Armor)? Couldn't be touched by anything S6 or lower

Dreads were AV 12 S6 only scratched them on a 6, Now they're T7 and its 5+

Very few Vehicles are "tougher" now than they were with AV. Not only are the same guns more likely to hurt them, guns that couldn't even touch them before now can. Even if Whatever X number of wounds they have now approximates their hull point durability from way back when, they have far more guns chipping those wounds off than before.

Many vehicles were AV10 in the back, which means that a crappy unit of 10 trukk boyz could easily get those 3 glancings with their 36 attacks at S4 with choppas, before even getting to roll the power klaw attacks. Now the same squad can barely scratch the same tanks, even after rolling the power klaw attacks.

Those predators, speeders or dreads could get instant killed by a single anti tank shot. And there were less re-rolls, stratagems to buff damage, etc...

Killing a single vehicle with ork shooting is not guaranteed in 9th, let alone two or even more, while I always managed to do it in 7th despite the army was close to trash compared to the current state of orks.

In 7th edition litterally everyone could blow up 3 battlewagons in turn 1, now killing 2 is really hard to achieve. Same with SW, in 7th my 3 rhinos and the flyer died too easily, to the point that after a while I was bringing nothing but pods as the only vehicles in my lists, now it's usually one or two vehicles that go down in turn 1, sometimes even none!

Weapons that couldn't touch vehicles before are going to achieve very little damage now, while weapons that used to wreck vehicles like the were paper things need way more shots now.

Öhm, before 8th edition my and my opponents' vehicles used to die to plasma guns and power fists. These can hardly scratch the paint now. Problem is, vehicles also got much more expensive. In 6th and 7th a Rhino was 30points, just a little more expensive than a single marine - against many weapons it also died faster than a marine because it had no save at all. Now a Rhino is 80 points, actually pretty durable, but everybody runs as fast as a vehicle so you don't really need transports anymore
Vehicles overall are in a much better position than in 6th and 7th, though, because they now have 8+ HP instead of 3 and they have an armor save instead of being auto-wounded.

Edit: The only vehicles that survived turn 1 in 6th and 7th edition were vehicles that ignored most vehicle rules

Breton wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Breton wrote:

Vehicles have been on life support ever since they got rid of Armor Value.

Maybe it's true for Land Raiders. All my ork vehicles have been 200% to 500% tougher since 8th edition compared to the times when they had AV.

Rhinos and razorbacks have also gained a lot by jumping to T7 10W 3+ save.

Land Speeders went from AV 10 only glanced by bolters on a 6 to T5, wounded on 5+ Heavy Bolters wound on a 4+ vs Glancing on a 5, Penetrating on a 6.

Predators were what, AV 13 (front Armor)? Couldn't be touched by anything S6 or lower

Dreads were AV 12 S6 only scratched them on a 6, Now they're T7 and its 5+

Very few Vehicles are "tougher" now than they were with AV. Not only are the same guns more likely to hurt them, guns that couldn't even touch them before now can. Even if Whatever X number of wounds they have now approximates their hull point durability from way back when, they have far more guns chipping those wounds off than before.

7th edition Trukk Vs Bolters. AV10 and 3 HPs meant to kill a Trukk Space Marines needed 3 6s, which meant they needed 18 hits which is 27 shots.
8th Edition Trukk Vs Bolters. T6, 4+ save and 10 wounds. To get 10 damage the SM's need 20 wounds, to get 20 wounds they need 60 hits, to get 60 hits they need 90 shots.

Price for a trukk in 7th was 30pts but was usually taken with a ram so 35pts, cost SM's was 14pts I believe so in 7th to kill a Trukk a SM player needed 27 shots or equivalent to 27 Marines at 24' range or 14 at 12' range. 14 Marines at 14pts a model = 196pts to kill a Trukk. 1pt of Tactical Marines kills 0.178pts of a trukk

Price for a trukk in 8th was 65pts and in order to kill it tactical marines needed 90 shots which is equivalent to 35 Marines in Rapid fire or 70 not in rapid fire mode. 35 Marines = 420pts. So marines actually got cheaper in 8th but still took MORE points to kill a trukk even pt for pt, which is weird because the trukk actually doubled in price. 1Pt of tactical Marines kills 0.154pts o a trukk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you want to add in the real ork killer for vehicles the math is significantly worse. in every edition prior to 8th I used Nobz with Powerklaws to kill vehicles. A single Nob with a PK was likely able to kill most vehicles due to the rules at the time which let him penetrate most vehicles on a 3. and with 2AP he was getting +1 to explode so it had a good chance of making a vehicle explode. Now? I don't usually add in the PK because its just a waste of points. 4s to hit and against most vehicles its 3s to wound, they get an armor save of 5+ usually and then it does D3 damage, since most vehicles have 8-12 wounds the likelyhood of killing a vehicle is slim to none.

Take Lootas, the typical ork units that was the answer to light/medium AV: 10 lootas before 8th were able to kill a rhino rolling averages, now they take 6-8W off of it.

A Manz missile with 3 dudes wrecked everything that was AV12 or 13 and was able to cause serious damage to AV4. Now they strip 25-50% of the wounds against the same targets at most.

A single lucky heavy bolter shot could blow up a trukk, now it takes 10 lucky shots from the same weapon to achieve the same result. With the new SM codex just 5 to be honest, but it's still a huge improvement from the old AV system.

Really it's just the land raider and a few other exceptions that were harder to kill before and some armies didn't have any problem against those AV14 boxes anyway. Armies that couldn't one shot a land raider before 8th still can't do it now.

The real problem with the lethality of 8th and vehicles is not the changes to vehicle stats but the ammount of bonus to wound and rerolls availible right now.

As people has shown, with the base stat changes vehicles have become much more resilient.

 Galas wrote:
The real problem with the lethality of 8th and vehicles is not the changes to vehicle stats but the ammount of bonus to wound and rerolls availible right now.

As people has shown, with the base stat changes vehicles have become much more resilient.

in fairness it wasn't hard to be more resliant then vehicles where in 6th and 7th edition.

So now that we know eradicators are even better than we thought they were, seems like it's only even more clear that vehicles aren't going to see much play. Hard to see why you'd ever take one of those gladiators when you could take 6 eradicators for the same price.

All dreadnoughts in the loyalists codex have Duty Eternal on all the time. So -1 to all incoming damage to a minimum of 1. Assuming equivalent units in other codexes (hellbrutes, wraithguard carnifexes, etc) get a similar rule, what does everyone think that does for their survivability?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
All dreadnoughts in the loyalists codex have Duty Eternal on all the time. So -1 to all incoming damage to a minimum of 1. Assuming equivalent units in other codexes (hellbrutes, wraithguard carnifexes, etc) get a similar rule, what does everyone think that does for their survivability?

That only helps those codex's with a dreadnaught analog and only if GW don't avout face mid edition and we know that best case of 1 codex per month someone is going to be waiting untill november of next year for a codex.

The scope of changes has really rendered the game an unbalanced show.

Ice_can wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
All dreadnoughts in the loyalists codex have Duty Eternal on all the time. So -1 to all incoming damage to a minimum of 1. Assuming equivalent units in other codexes (hellbrutes, wraithguard carnifexes, etc) get a similar rule, what does everyone think that does for their survivability?

That only helps those codex's with a dreadnaught analog and only if GW don't avout face mid edition and we know that best case of 1 codex per month someone is going to be waiting untill november of next year for a codex.

The scope of changes has really rendered the game an unbalanced show.

Like i said, most balance issues and "arms race" feelings are owed to that.
And or when gw indeed decides to feth established edition rules design in favour of lololololololololol.

 Blackie wrote:
Really it's just the land raider and a few other exceptions that were harder to kill before and some armies didn't have any problem against those AV14 boxes anyway. Armies that couldn't one shot a land raider before 8th still can't do it now.

I can certainly believe that light armor has gotten a lot tougher. But heavy armor now gets hurt by a whole range of mid-strength weapons that AV13/14 used to be able to ignore or at worst be glanced on a 6.

My Leman Russes are threatened by massed Heavy Bolters, Autocannons, Disintegrators, Cyclic Ion Blasters, Plasma Guns (and Cannons), and even infantry weapons like Stalker Bolt Rifles.
Used to be that AV14 on my front arc meant that turn 1 I only needed to worry about big anti-tank weapons.

Even with those anti-tank weapons, used to be that you needed 9 lascannon hits to take out a Russ on hull points against front armor. Now it's just over 5.

You combine nearly halved resistance to dedicated AT with new vulnerability to a whole ton of common weapons, and tanks don't stick around nearly as long.

The real winners are light vehicles; heavies are only marginally tougher despite much higher cost.

Even with those anti-tank weapons, used to be that you needed 9 lascannon hits to take out a Russ on hull points against front armor. Now it's just over 5.

Or a single shot killed you with no save.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Even with those anti-tank weapons, used to be that you needed 9 lascannon hits to take out a Russ on hull points against front armor. Now it's just over 5.

Or a single shot killed you with no save.

8.3% chance it happens on the first damaging hit. 16% chance it happens in the first or second. 84% chance the vehicle dies from lost hull points, not premature explosion.

It can happen and I'm sure left a lasting impression when it did. But it's not very relevant to the averages; making the vehicle 92% as durable as if that possibility didn't exist.

So call it 8 lascannon hits, then. Still a lot tougher than under the current system.