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 always been a odd one to me. In theory, it represents a high-powered beam of energy that punctures tough amour. Yet for some reason, it gets no bonus to AV10-12, a minimal bonus to AV13 and that's it. AV14 is almost none existent in most metas, thereby rubbing more salt in the Lance rule.

So how about this: "When rolling armour penetration against a vehicle, a weapon with the Lance rule considers the facing of the AV it is rolling against to be -1 to its value"
Or a simpler version: "you can add +1 to all armour penetration rolls" Both would have the same affect.

This would give weapons with the Lance rule a bonus to any vehicle from Rhinos to Imperial Knights. And Land Raiders would actually get a side bonus from this rule as Dark/Bright Lances would now need a 5+ for damage instead of 4+
Thoughts?

-

-1 AV would make Vehicles with Quantum Shielding be able to ignore Lance, with or without the GW FAQ.

+1 to the AP roll would work against Quantum Shielding, but, would still be less effective against Monoliths and Land Raiders.

 Charistoph wrote:
It would make Vehicles with Quantum Shielding be able to ignore Lance, with or without the GW FAQ.

Than you make it a flat +1 to the armour Pen roll instead of -1AV. The affect is exactly the same against every other vehicle and interacts well with QS.
Example, a Raider shoots its Dark Lance at a Ghost Ark. The Ghost Ark is considered AV13, with +1 to the roll the Str8 lance needs a 4 to Glance, 5 to Pen.
Simples, no FAQ needed

Monoliths and LRs need to be better, so I can life with Lances being less effective against them

-

 Galef wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
It would make Vehicles with Quantum Shielding be able to ignore Lance, with or without the GW FAQ.

Than you make it a flat +1 to the armour Pen roll instead of -1AV. The affect is exactly the same against every other vehicle and interacts well with QS.
Example, a Raider shoots its Dark Lance at a Ghost Ark. The Ghost Ark is considered AV13, with +1 to the roll the Str8 lance needs a 4 to Glance, 5 to Pen.
Simples, no FAQ needed

Monoliths and LRs need to be better, so I can life with Lances being less effective against them

-

+1 to the Armor Penetration roll.....Or you could just make it S9 which is the same bloody thing but whatever.

SemperMortis wrote:

+1 to the Armor Penetration roll.....Or you could just make it S9 which is the same bloody thing but whatever.

Almost the same thing, S8 lance would still be S8 versus models with Toughness instead of AV.

That said I think the original Lance rule is fine as it is.

I think maybe it should be autopen vs any target in exchange for a points in increase. Give it some teeth. And causes 2 wounds vs MCs. Low ROF weapons need some serious buffs, not trivial buffs.

Martel732 wrote:
I think maybe it should be autopen vs any target in exchange for a points in increase. Give it some teeth. And causes 2 wounds vs MCs. Low ROF weapons need some serious buffs, not trivial buffs.

Actually, I like where you are going with this.
I would still keep it as +1 to the Pen roll at it's current points and stat. Remember, Bright/Dark lances are not the only Lances in 40K, the Heat Lance for example has Melta, which would be irrelevant if you made Lance auto-pen. It would also make the Str6 Heat lance and auto-take weapon for the units that can take it
This is change is intended to be a flat change to the "Lance" rule for 8th edition that doesn't require 4+ codices to be Errata'd.

You could then add that if a model (any model) suffers an unsaved wound, it takes 2 wounds instead (exactly like Swarms vs Blasts)/ The logic being that it blasts a hole right through the target
This would make it more potent against all targets (except 1 wound models, and AV14)

-

Go watch Bablyon 5 fight with beam weapons to see how lances would work. Continuous beams are devastating to single targets.

Martel732 wrote:
Go watch Bablyon 5 fight with beam weapons to see how lances would work. Continuous beams are devastating to single targets.

So are you saying that weapons with the Lance rule should inflict D3 wounds/HPs to any target that fails a save against it?
That would be interesting

I still do not think auto-pen is the answer, but +1 to the roll, or even +2 to the Pen roll would be amazing. It would definitely help Dark Eldar

-

Nah, I think flat 2 wounds. Leave it at one hp since it's getting an auto pen already.

Why not just make it AVs poison.

A weapon with this rule always glances on a x and always penetrates on y+.

Since right now a Lance treats everything as AV 12 and are often a str 10 that means glances are 2 and pen are 3+.

Oh wait... that's haywire. Why the feth does GW have 2 rules that do the same thing.

I like the autopen thing because it gets rid of a die roll. I like flat 2 wounds because it.... gets rid of a die roll.

I agree that changes are needed here for the weapons of this type. I like something like this. Penetrating hits for weapons with the lance type roll two dice on the damage table for each penetration and keep both results.

It's too hard to get pens with Str 8, though. It takes 3 hits on average to get a single pen vs AV 12. By the time you get a single pen, you could have hull pointed it out with other weapons.

I think it also makes sense for armor to be relatively useless vs the anti-armor weapons of an elder race. They have already seen all possible armors in the universe. Your petty Terran defenses mean nothing.

Martel732 wrote:
It's too hard to get pens with Str 8, though. It takes 3 hits on average to get a single pen vs AV 12. By the time you get a single pen, you could have hull pointed it out with other weapons.

I think it also makes sense for armor to be relatively useless vs the anti-armor weapons of an elder race. They have already seen all possible armors in the universe. Your petty Terran defenses mean nothing.

But again, not all Lances in 40K are Str8. Heat lances are 6 as are Shining Spears, the single shot Prismatic cannon is 7, Fire Prism single shot is 9, Nid Warp Lance is 10. I am sure there are others
Making all 'Lance' Weapons auto-pen would almost completely invalidate these varying strengths (aside from wounding models with T).

How about this?
Lance weapons add +2 to their Armour Pen rolls. Any model that takes an unsaved wound or HP instead suffers 2. Only 1 Vehicle damage roll is made per shot, though

-

Well, it's much better than they currently stand.

Martel732 wrote:
It's too hard to get pens with Str 8, though. It takes 3 hits on average to get a single pen vs AV 12. By the time you get a single pen, you could have hull pointed it out with other weapons.

I think it also makes sense for armor to be relatively useless vs the anti-armor weapons of an elder race. They have already seen all possible armors in the universe. Your petty Terran defenses mean nothing.

\
Well it would be better vs heavy targets (I still think it should count high armors as max armor 12). Vs lighter targets a little less finesse and a little more power does the trick a little bit better. Still though. Getting two damage results is two chances to 1 shot or get multiple weapons destroyed (to represent the raking effect).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's too hard to get pens with Str 8, though. It takes 3 hits on average to get a single pen vs AV 12. By the time you get a single pen, you could have hull pointed it out with other weapons.

I think it also makes sense for armor to be relatively useless vs the anti-armor weapons of an elder race. They have already seen all possible armors in the universe. Your petty Terran defenses mean nothing.

But again, not all Lances in 40K are Str8. Heat lances are 6 as are Shining Spears, the single shot Prismatic cannon is 7, Fire Prism single shot is 9, Nid Warp Lance is 10. I am sure there are others
Making all 'Lance' Weapons auto-pen would almost completely invalidate these varying strengths (aside from wounding models with T).

How about this?
Lance weapons add +2 to their Armour Pen rolls. Any model that takes an unsaved wound or HP instead suffers 2. Only 1 Vehicle damage roll is made per shot, though

-

This would have a similar effect to rolling 2 dice on the pen table. However an ap1 lance would notw be +4 on the pen chart? Wouldn't that be a little crazy?

Not really. Burning a hole straight through your vehicle is bound to hit something vital. Especial if it strike you length-wise.

I'm a proponent of things that should be nasty need to be nasty, not a joke.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

How about this?
Lance weapons add +2 to their Armour Pen rolls. Any model that takes an unsaved wound or HP instead suffers 2. Only 1 Vehicle damage roll is made per shot, though

-

This would have a similar effect to rolling 2 dice on the pen table. However an ap1 lance would notw be +4 on the pen chart? Wouldn't that be a little crazy?

I don't see how you get +4? I am saying a Str8 Dark lance does the following:
rolls 1 dice to hit,
1 dice to Pen with +2 bonus,
then rolls 1 dice on the damage chart (+1 for AP2)
If the vehicle took 1 HP from this, it counts as 2

Against a model with T:
1 roll to hit, 1 roll to wound, 1 roll to save and if failed (and not insta-killed) the model takes 2 wounds

-

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

How about this?
Lance weapons add +2 to their Armour Pen rolls. Any model that takes an unsaved wound or HP instead suffers 2. Only 1 Vehicle damage roll is made per shot, though

-

This would have a similar effect to rolling 2 dice on the pen table. However an ap1 lance would notw be +4 on the pen chart? Wouldn't that be a little crazy?

I don't see how you get +4? I am saying a Str8 Dark lance does the following:
rolls 1 dice to hit,
1 dice to Pen with +2 bonus,
then rolls 1 dice on the damage chart (+1 for AP2)
If the vehicle took 1 HP from this, it counts as 2

Against a model with T:
1 roll to hit, 1 roll to wound, 1 roll to save and if failed (and not insta-killed) the model takes 2 wounds

-

I misunderstood you. I though you were saying +2 to the damage chart. So essentially with your version a bright-lance would be str10 vs vehicals. It would be better than what we have currently. 2 wounds per hit would be nice too.

Maybe just make str 8 + weapons cause 2 wounds to toughness value straight up - not a lance rule. This would help out weapons like rockets and las cannons too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Not really. Burning a hole straight through your vehicle is bound to hit something vital. Especial if it strike you length-wise.

I'm a proponent of things that should be nasty need to be nasty, not a joke.

Well what do you think about rail-guns? Should these not just skip right to an explosion result when they pen?

Making str8+ weapons cause 2 wounds naturally would be a big step in the right direction, yes. If that was standard, then Lance can just be +2 to Armour Pen rolls. Done

With this cluster of changes though, I would also like AP2 to no longer add +1 to the damage charge and AP1 only add +1. It was like this a few editions ago. AP6-2 ignored their matching Armour save and AP1 gave bonus against AV. It should be simple like this again, especially if 8th ed hands out Armour saves for vehicles. AP2 would still get the bonus of ignoring that Armour.

"Should these not just skip right to an explosion result when they pen?"

Under the current system, almost yes.

This is why under my personal rebuild the Hammerhead railgun inflcits 4 HP/Wounds per shot, with a -3 to invulns. But there is no damage table in my system, so a 5 HP vehicle would survive. Barely.

Martel732 wrote:
"Should these not just skip right to an explosion result when they pen?"

Under the current system, almost yes.

This is why under my personal rebuild the Hammerhead railgun inflcits 4 HP/Wounds per shot, with a -3 to invulns. But there is no damage table in my system, so a 5 HP vehicle would survive. Barely.

I like that system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
Making str8+ weapons cause 2 wounds naturally would be a big step in the right direction, yes. If that was standard, then Lance can just be +2 to Armour Pen rolls. Done

With this cluster of changes though, I would also like AP2 to no longer add +1 to the damage charge and AP1 only add +1. It was like this a few editions ago. AP6-2 ignored their matching Armour save and AP1 gave bonus against AV. It should be simple like this again, especially if 8th ed hands out Armour saves for vehicles. AP2 would still get the bonus of ignoring that Armour.

Can you explain how AP works on vehicles in that system? I'm not getting it.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Can you explain how AP works on vehicles in that system? I'm not getting it.

Sorry, I am crossing the streams with that reference. In another thread we discuss giving vehicle Armour saves.
If we do that, than AP2 gets the bonus of ignoring that save, but does not add any bonus to the damage chart roll.
AP1 should be the only AP that adds to that chart, as it is the only AP that is "redundant" otherwise.

I have always hated the AP2 = +1, AP1 = +2. It messed with my OCD.

I don't like the Lance special rule. It rarely comes into play, and is yet another thing to remember when playing.
I would just get rid of it, and add +1 Str to all the Str 8 Lance weapons. It just makes things simpler.

I'm all in favor of buffing high Str low RoF weapons, especially by making them cause multiple wounds (to a single model). But it would be a major change to 40K, and is slightly off topic.

fresus wrote:
I would just get rid of it, and add +1 Str to all the Str 8 Lance weapons. It just makes things simpler.

If you consider it simple to replacing 5+ codices just to "get rid of" Lance and adjust the strengths of existing weapons, you have a very interesting way of looking at things.
It is far simpler to just change they way the rule functions in the main rulebook. Only 1 book needs to be updated.

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Can you explain how AP works on vehicles in that system? I'm not getting it.

Sorry, I am crossing the streams with that reference. In another thread we discuss giving vehicle Armour saves.
If we do that, than AP2 gets the bonus of ignoring that save, but does not add any bonus to the damage chart roll.
AP1 should be the only AP that adds to that chart, as it is the only AP that is "redundant" otherwise.

I have always hated the AP2 = +1, AP1 = +2. It messed with my OCD.

I see now. Well - if vehicles had armor saves it would introduce a whole new dynamic to vehicles. It's part of the reason vehicles are so weak now. I don't think just throwing arbitrary armor saves on vehicles will help them much though as a most high str weapons come with a low AP anyways. It would have to be invulnerable to be any good between 4+ and 5+.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I see now. Well - if vehicles had armor saves it would introduce a whole new dynamic to vehicles. It's part of the reason vehicles are so weak now. I don't think just throwing arbitrary armor saves on vehicles will help them much though as a most high str weapons come with a low AP anyways. It would have to be invulnerable to be any good between 4+ and 5+.

But that is the best part of giving Vehicles armour saves, it buffs them AND single shot high str weapons, because you would need those weapons more now, instead of using weight of fire like so many armies.
Lascannons. missile launchers, Lances, all the single shot weapons that get over looked would suddenly have new life as they would again be the best way to deal with tanks.
Givng vehicles Armour saves "debuffs" weapons like Scatter lasers yet has little to no change for the low AV high str weapons, which should be use for killing vehicles
Adding little buffs like +2 to Pen for Lance helps this too.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I see now. Well - if vehicles had armor saves it would introduce a whole new dynamic to vehicles. It's part of the reason vehicles are so weak now. I don't think just throwing arbitrary armor saves on vehicles will help them much though as a most high str weapons come with a low AP anyways. It would have to be invulnerable to be any good between 4+ and 5+.

But that is the best part of giving Vehicles armour saves, it buffs them AND single shot high str weapons, because you would need those weapons more now, instead of using weight of fire like so many armies.
Lascannons. missile launchers, Lances, all the single shot weapons that get over looked would suddenly have new life as they would again be the best way to deal with tanks.
Givng vehicles Armour saves "debuffs" weapons like Scatter lasers yet has little to no change for the low AV high str weapons, which should be use for killing vehicles
Adding little buffs like +2 to Pen for Lance helps this too.

-

Yeah that is a good point. So would a standard save be something like a 3+? ap4 is pretty common on high rate of fire weapons too. Scatter lasers being ap - is kind of rare for a high str weapon.

You know, I wonder if Warhammer fantasy's 1+ armor saves might be good here (do note that they still fail on ones, in WHFB it just means extra insurance against armor modifiers, so in 40k it'd mean that only AP1 weapons could pierce the armor saves but would otherwise function as a 2+ save; which would require readjusting melee weapons in particular but ranged wepaons are mostly fine) if we're discussing vehicular armor saves and ways to improve units that rely on high armor saves as their primary means of durability.

Like the Monolith and Land Raider strike me as vehicles that could have a 1+ armor save.