Switch Theme:

On the use of anti-tank/monster weaponry in 9th  [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 be
Mysterious Techpriest





Belgium

Hey all,

I've only played two games so far, so my experience is limited. But from talking with players and from reading battle reports, it seems the focus of the game has heavily shifted on board control and objective holding, while of course denying the opponent's objectives. The fact that primaries and secondaries have a hardcap would discourage skew lists and reward the player who takes control of the board early, marking his advance in points and trying to out-tempo the opponent so that he cannot egalise. Which leads to my question: does anti-tank have a use, in an edition where Vehicles can hardly secure objectives ?

I know of no vehicle having ObSec, so it's easy to contest them, so their existence should be reduced to being able to destroy the opponent's infantry. From my opinion, it should be better to invest the points in more board presence than in vehicles, as they can actually contest and assault objectives better. The exception being transports of course, which help your tropps and can be used to bother the opponent by charging empty transports in something or blocking movement. Therefore a vehicle filling an anti-tank role feels redundant, as opposed to having a good anti-infantry weaponry, the objective, in the end, being to destroy the most capping units while keeping yours alive. Why should I invest firepower in dealing with something that doesn't interfere with that ?

Also, having no vehicles or high Toughness monster means more numbers to capture, and no good target for the opponent's anti-tank. Which helps a lot.

That is all my opinion of course but I'm wondering if your own experience is telling you otherwise, I'd be happy to read your opinion on that subject.

40K: Mechanicus
AoS: Nighthaunts

My Stygies VIII army in pictures !
My Eversor and Culexus assassins !

 Rolsheen wrote:
Ah yes the mythical world of Cyraxus
Where GW hold an annual bonfire festival to burn the hopes and dreams of all Ad Mech players
 
   
Made in gb
Chalice-Wielding Sanguinary High Priest





Stevenage, UK

There's a big problem with going the all-infantry approach... that there is a lot of anti-infantry firepower out there at the moment.
Right now, Marines have got bolters with rerolls coming out of the wazoo, and although it looks like they stand to lose some of the rerolls, they'll gain that killing power back in the boosts to Imperial weapon profiles. Same goes for Sisters who carry pretty much nothing but bolters and flamers for that job. Add to that Blast weapons that just got a boost, and the fact that seemingly every other new weapon looks to have D3 or D6 shots, or if not, is on a model carrying multiple guns anyway (hello, Newcrons).

It's also fair to say that any vehicle acts nicely as cover and line-of-sight blocking - not just transports. Lastly, vehicles do get a boost in being able to fire in combat where most infantry can't (excluding pistols) so they're a very good shout as a defensive option against melee-focused armies like Khorne, or certain builds of Orks or Daemons.

As ever with this kind of thing, though, a lot of it depends on the people you're playing against. If it's a tank-heavy meta and players are bringing loads of anti-tank to suit, then your point about not giving them good targets might just tip battles your way.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/24 12:52:16


"Hard pressed on my right. My centre is yielding. Impossible to manoeuvre. Situation excellent. I am attacking." - General Ferdinand Foch  
   
Made in de
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot






Regarding vehicles with ObSec: IG Leman Russ Tanks in a spearhead all have objective secured. Just for the sake of the argument, I don't know if this is viable.

~3700 build and painted 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

1st, I'm not going to radically change how I've built my armies.

2nd, I dont believe in showing up unprepared. That results in games where tanks etc run roughshod over things. Especially when someone realizes "hey, x doesn't use much AT". Sure, now days anything can hurt anything, but I'm not going to rely upon that....
So I bring a good mix of both AP & AT. Always have, always will.

3rd. On "No good targets". Thats fine. I have no problem overkilling softer targets. So go ahead & congratulate yourself on making me waste firepower/pts/whatever - as you pull models off the board.
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Aaranis wrote:
Hey all,

I've only played two games so far, so my experience is limited. But from talking with players and from reading battle reports, it seems the focus of the game has heavily shifted on board control and objective holding, while of course denying the opponent's objectives. The fact that primaries and secondaries have a hardcap would discourage skew lists and reward the player who takes control of the board early, marking his advance in points and trying to out-tempo the opponent so that he cannot egalise. Which leads to my question: does anti-tank have a use, in an edition where Vehicles can hardly secure objectives ?

I know of no vehicle having ObSec, so it's easy to contest them, so their existence should be reduced to being able to destroy the opponent's infantry. From my opinion, it should be better to invest the points in more board presence than in vehicles, as they can actually contest and assault objectives better. The exception being transports of course, which help your tropps and can be used to bother the opponent by charging empty transports in something or blocking movement. Therefore a vehicle filling an anti-tank role feels redundant, as opposed to having a good anti-infantry weaponry, the objective, in the end, being to destroy the most capping units while keeping yours alive. Why should I invest firepower in dealing with something that doesn't interfere with that ?

Also, having no vehicles or high Toughness monster means more numbers to capture, and no good target for the opponent's anti-tank. Which helps a lot.

That is all my opinion of course but I'm wondering if your own experience is telling you otherwise, I'd be happy to read your opinion on that subject.
Outside of a few select horde lists most lists cannot survive if the enemy gets to simply shoot as much as they want into your army.
To make your units on objectives survive you need to reduce your opponents ability to kill you.

If that killing power is a vehicle you want to be able to kill that vehicle and you likely want some anti vehicle weapons to do so.
Ofcourse if you play a nurgle plaguebearer swarm your going to laugh if your opponent brings quad lascannon dreadnoughts.
But there are still plenty of dangerous vehicles around, be it a pair of Eldar fireprisms, leviathan dreads or plague burst crawlers.

Also what is even an anti tank weapon? Sure the Lascannon and equivalents come to mind but with the increasing stats of Primaris marines you actually want decent strength (6+) weapons with good ap and multiple damage to kill infantry.
The real dedicated anti-tank weapons like the Lascannon or Tau heavy railgun haven't actually been good as anti-tank weapons in 8th/9th because their damage is to unreliable and random. I'd often rather shoot a bunch of autocannons at a tank that give me a good chance of doing some damage then a lascannon that will either miss, not wound or low roll on damage and we see this in list building.

The issue with anti-tank weapons isn't so much that tanks are less usefull to winning a game, but that they simply haven't been good for a while at killing tanks and the weapons that are often double up as anti-elite infantry weapons.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/24 15:35:44


 
   
Made in us
Rampaging Reaver Titan Princeps




The issue with anti-tank weapons isn't so much that tanks are less usefull to winning a game, but that they simply haven't been good for a while at killing tanks and the weapons that are often double up as anti-elite infantry weapons.


Yeah, 8th & 9th remind me a lot of the local 'garage meta' of RT & 2nd. Lascannons and missile launchers were more for killing characters than tanks. Sneak one in past the displacer field, and you made a lot of headway.

Extrapolate that out for modern heavy infantry, and you have perfect targets for the big guns.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





Voss wrote:
The issue with anti-tank weapons isn't so much that tanks are less usefull to winning a game, but that they simply haven't been good for a while at killing tanks and the weapons that are often double up as anti-elite infantry weapons.


Yeah, 8th & 9th remind me a lot of the local 'garage meta' of RT & 2nd. Lascannons and missile launchers were more for killing characters than tanks. Sneak one in past the displacer field, and you made a lot of headway.

Extrapolate that out for modern heavy infantry, and you have perfect targets for the big guns.


I miss 2nd Ed. Not so much the Hero Hammer part of it, but the Psychology rules, the Shaken/Broken mechanic, Leadership stat actually mattering...

Edit to add: The on topic part I hit submit too soon on - One of the problems is Grav Cannon can out perform most of the time, and tanks - especially transport tanks - are just too costly on multiple levels. They're not especially more durable than elite infantry. An LRC is about 275-300 points. It'll put out shots roughly equal to 6 Storm Bolter Terminators, and two AC Terminators. 8 Terminators have roughly 16 T4 wounds with a 2+/5++ the LRC has 16 T8 2+ NA++ both for about the same ball park points price. The Drop Pod Of Death does ~4.8 wounds/9.6 damage to Terminators, 3.5 wounds/7 damage to a Land Raider

Even with that, Tanks - Transport Tanks - are getting hammered. The game is usually at least one turn shorter so every turn of lost opportunity is even bigger. You put those Terminators in a LRC, and they can't shoot. They get out, and they can't charge. Since the last time you could assault out of at least some transports the board got smaller. All of these factors hit transport tanks indirectly while they've been going up in price. You take that 300 point land raider, put three hundred points of Terminators in it, and even if the transport isn't destroyed before it gets where it's going and some of those 300 points of terminators don't blow up when the Land Raider explodes, you're still "paying" somewhere around another 60 points for the transport because your 300 points of Terminators lost 1/5th of their opportunity to act in the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/25 05:15:34


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




 Aaranis wrote:
Hey all,

I've only played two games so far, so my experience is limited. But from talking with players and from reading battle reports, it seems the focus of the game has heavily shifted on board control and objective holding, while of course denying the opponent's objectives. The fact that primaries and secondaries have a hardcap would discourage skew lists and reward the player who takes control of the board early, marking his advance in points and trying to out-tempo the opponent so that he cannot egalise. Which leads to my question: does anti-tank have a use, in an edition where Vehicles can hardly secure objectives ?


Vehicles and monsters can be a huge part of an army's offense. Tau have a lot of big suits that they can build an entire army's offense around, for instance. Tyranids have hive tyrants and exocrines that are very points efficient. Craftworld tanks/flyers are very solid, as are drukhari flyers, ravagers, and reapers, repulsors (more of a tank than a transport), etc. While there can be some merit to skewing your list hard towards non-vehicles to deny your opponent a good target for their anti-tank guns, many armies don't want to spend the entire game getting shot at by the big guns that are generally mounted on monsters and vehicles.

My drukhari, for instance, would really struggle if I had to assume that a bunch of guard tanks would be tearing them up all game. The paper thin space elves simply don't have the durability to endure that all game, and they're not really cheap enough for me to crowd objectives and sacrifice squad after squad to the primary. So I take enough anti tank to kill at least some of my opponent's big guns. If I can permanently reduce my opponent's fire power a bit, then the rest of my army can (hopefully) tie up and lock down the rest of the enemy force while I focus on scoring.
   
Made in de
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian






Germany

With the new core rule mechanic vehicles will become even less useful, because some of them wont benefit from rerolls.
   
Made in au
Bonkers Buggy Driver with Rockets





Unless your faction doesn't rely on re-rolls from auras. Imperial guard will unlikely face many changes, orks will have very, very few. Those are the ones that pop to mind, others may know more.
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





 p5freak wrote:
With the new core rule mechanic vehicles will become even less useful, because some of them wont benefit from rerolls.


I think that will affect "competitive" play more than it would "casual" games (In air quotes because I realize some clubs are competitive than some tournaments but you have to call it something) I also think some vehicles were taken on the assumption they wouldn't be getting rerolls anyway. Its a lot of work to get rerolls onto Speeders for Marines for example if you're using the Speeders for their movement rate and the Hailstrike and Hammerstrike don't look bad. They don't look especially good either, but for 180 points in the FA slot for some speedy anti tank/elite... Maybe.

The Gladiator Reaper and Valiant look better than OK. the Lancer better have some great bells and whistles. I mean even if you ballpark the Reaper at ~160 points for ~100 per impulsor Hull and ~60 for the turret and sponson guns with almost no discout for the transport capacity lost that's a decent offering. It'll pump out 40 anti-infantry shots to soften up an ObSec horde for 160 points (but I think it'll be closer to 180 than 160) even at T7 11W for 160/180 points it's not horrible. Give it a boost similar to the Predator to T7 12/13W and it just gets a little better.

5 Dakka Inceptors are about 200 for 30 FA FOC Slot shots on 15 T5 Wounds. If (BIG IF) all the Speeders are 9PL, and 1PL = 20 points the dakka (Hailstrike) speeder is going to be 180ish points for 20ish shots. If the Hailstrike jumps up to a Heavy Gatling (Or Heavy was just missing based on a typo/revision error/oversight - and it looks like a Heavy on the model(s) Look at a Redemptor fist, which has a non-heavy, the Speeder, and the Tank with Twin Heavy) and the speeder starts fitting in the paradigm at 26 shots.

3 Dakka (HB/AC) FirstBorn speeders are about 220-225 points for 27 shots on 18 T5 wounds.

One of the issues might be missing Deep Strike from the Speeders (New and Old). Neither unit is ObSec (Precluding any pipe dreams of Ravenwing ObSec) but the Jump Packers can deep strike, if the speeders can't...

If the Gladiator Tanks can't squadron like Leman Russ that'll be an issue for them as well.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Predators and Vindicators can't squadron, so I doubt the extra special primaris floaty not a predators will be able to either.
   
Made in it
Stormin' Stompa




Italy

 Aaranis wrote:
Hey all,

I've only played two games so far, so my experience is limited. But from talking with players and from reading battle reports, it seems the focus of the game has heavily shifted on board control and objective holding, while of course denying the opponent's objectives. The fact that primaries and secondaries have a hardcap would discourage skew lists and reward the player who takes control of the board early, marking his advance in points and trying to out-tempo the opponent so that he cannot egalise. Which leads to my question: does anti-tank have a use, in an edition where Vehicles can hardly secure objectives ?

I know of no vehicle having ObSec, so it's easy to contest them, so their existence should be reduced to being able to destroy the opponent's infantry. From my opinion, it should be better to invest the points in more board presence than in vehicles, as they can actually contest and assault objectives better. The exception being transports of course, which help your tropps and can be used to bother the opponent by charging empty transports in something or blocking movement. Therefore a vehicle filling an anti-tank role feels redundant, as opposed to having a good anti-infantry weaponry, the objective, in the end, being to destroy the most capping units while keeping yours alive. Why should I invest firepower in dealing with something that doesn't interfere with that ?

Also, having no vehicles or high Toughness monster means more numbers to capture, and no good target for the opponent's anti-tank. Which helps a lot.

That is all my opinion of course but I'm wondering if your own experience is telling you otherwise, I'd be happy to read your opinion on that subject.


It entirely depends on your meta, I play orks and here is way easier to lose 30 boyz (31W T4 6+, 250 points) than a battlewagon (16W T8 4+ or 5++, 155 points). So I'm always going with lots of armored units like battlewagons of any flavor, flyers, mek gunz, trukks, buggies, dreads, koptas rather than fielding 90+ boyz; redundancy with multiple T5-8 units really helps to survive the incoming firepower and it's also my favorite style of playing since 3rd edition going with fast units, heavy melee hitters and several vehicles rather than horde lists or gunlines.

Orks 7000
Space Wolves 4000
 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Predators and Vindicators can't squadron, so I doubt the extra special primaris floaty not a predators will be able to either.


They could for a little while, and that saw them get some use. I too doubt they'll squadron, but without it, you might not see as many of them as you might otherwise. Even with a decent point to performance ratio, chances are at least 2 of 3 slots are already spoken for between Devs, Hellblasters, Eradicators and Eliminators.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






Something that's also underestimated is the space that vehicles can take up. If I park 2 PBC in front of an objective it doesn't really matter whether your infantry has objective secured or outnumbers me when you can't get within 3" of the objective marker by moving&charging.

Vehicles holding objectives through sheer bulk also feels a lot more "right" than when a DAVU could capture an objective from inside a hovertank.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Breton wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Predators and Vindicators can't squadron, so I doubt the extra special primaris floaty not a predators will be able to either.


They could for a little while, and that saw them get some use. I too doubt they'll squadron, but without it, you might not see as many of them as you might otherwise. Even with a decent point to performance ratio, chances are at least 2 of 3 slots are already spoken for between Devs, Hellblasters, Eradicators and Eliminators.

Gw doesn't think loyalists should be running massed armour, so I don't see it happening. Guess you'll just have to bite the bullet and take another detachment if you want multiples of them and all those other HS goodies.

Jidmah wrote:Something that's also underestimated is the space that vehicles can take up. If I park 2 PBC in front of an objective it doesn't really matter whether your infantry has objective secured or outnumbers me when you can't get within 3" of the objective marker by moving&charging.

Vehicles holding objectives through sheer bulk also feels a lot more "right" than when a DAVU could capture an objective from inside a hovertank.

Yeah, nothing like parking a super heavy tank in front of an objective. You want that objective buddy? All you need to do is get through 26 T9 2+ wounds to get it. And that Dark Apostle says it's -1 to hit too....
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Breton wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Predators and Vindicators can't squadron, so I doubt the extra special primaris floaty not a predators will be able to either.


They could for a little while, and that saw them get some use. I too doubt they'll squadron, but without it, you might not see as many of them as you might otherwise. Even with a decent point to performance ratio, chances are at least 2 of 3 slots are already spoken for between Devs, Hellblasters, Eradicators and Eliminators.

Gw doesn't think loyalists should be running massed armour, so I don't see it happening. Guess you'll just have to bite the bullet and take another detachment if you want multiples of them and all those other HS goodies.



And that one tank on it's lonesome isn't going to tag along most of the time. Without diluting the target pool, one tank on it's own will prompt many players to just take more infantry at leave the tank in the Foam, sadly. That's why you don't see the Preds a whole lot either. They're super cheap, but too hard to surround with enough other targets to not stand out.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Breton wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Breton wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Predators and Vindicators can't squadron, so I doubt the extra special primaris floaty not a predators will be able to either.


They could for a little while, and that saw them get some use. I too doubt they'll squadron, but without it, you might not see as many of them as you might otherwise. Even with a decent point to performance ratio, chances are at least 2 of 3 slots are already spoken for between Devs, Hellblasters, Eradicators and Eliminators.

Gw doesn't think loyalists should be running massed armour, so I don't see it happening. Guess you'll just have to bite the bullet and take another detachment if you want multiples of them and all those other HS goodies.



And that one tank on it's lonesome isn't going to tag along most of the time. Without diluting the target pool, one tank on it's own will prompt many players to just take more infantry at leave the tank in the Foam, sadly. That's why you don't see the Preds a whole lot either. They're super cheap, but too hard to surround with enough other targets to not stand out.

So take a Spearhead in addition to your other detachment if you want more of them in addition to those other heavy support units. It's called making decisions. You don't get everything for free.
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





 Gadzilla666 wrote:

So take a Spearhead in addition to your other detachment if you want more of them in addition to those other heavy support units. It's called making decisions. You don't get everything for free.


Did I say I wanted them, or did I say you wouldn't see them (as often)?

but without it, you might not see as many of them as you might otherwise

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in be
Mysterious Techpriest





Belgium

You all make very good arguments. I guess it's meta-dependent, and army-dependent too. Playing AdMech, our force is in our Vehicles more than our infantry, especially for anti-infantry duties, so I wouldn't consider playing with any. However I noted that even with 5x5 Skitarii I feel like all my scoring capabilities are in their hands, and they're not the most resilient troops out there (neither are they weak). It often requires assault to capture an objective and so I need a dedicated support CC unit to charge along them, as they have few chances making it alive charging MEQ on their own. Of course it would help if Marines didn't get +1A when they GET charged (it makes no sense and discourage a more active gameplay from the Marines player).

Blocking the way with vehicles is a nice tactic, I use 4 Kastelan with Fists and Flamers for that reason, they're reasonably fast and tough so having them holding a chokepoint is doable. That's what empty transports are good for, too. Rhinos, Devilfish, Raiders... Empty them and throw them in the face of your opponent so that they waste shots on it to be able to pass through.

40K: Mechanicus
AoS: Nighthaunts

My Stygies VIII army in pictures !
My Eversor and Culexus assassins !

 Rolsheen wrote:
Ah yes the mythical world of Cyraxus
Where GW hold an annual bonfire festival to burn the hopes and dreams of all Ad Mech players
 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





 Aaranis wrote:
Of course it would help if Marines didn't get +1A when they GET charged (it makes no sense and discourage a more active gameplay from the Marines player).



This was a mid-edition bandaid they tried to patch on after over-nerf'ing Close Combat. CC used to have a number of ways to get +1A or more and stacking. They got rid of almost all of them, then had to patch some back in, unfortunately on an army by army, unit by unit, weapon by weapon basis so too many armies got screwed. With any luck we'll see what they learned from this and others expanded out to the other armies as their codex release. With any luck we'll see more Xenos Chainsword equivalents, various Fight Oriented units just plain get more attacks on their base profile, that sort of thing.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in be
Mysterious Techpriest





Belgium

Breton wrote:
 Aaranis wrote:
Of course it would help if Marines didn't get +1A when they GET charged (it makes no sense and discourage a more active gameplay from the Marines player).



This was a mid-edition bandaid they tried to patch on after over-nerf'ing Close Combat. CC used to have a number of ways to get +1A or more and stacking. They got rid of almost all of them, then had to patch some back in, unfortunately on an army by army, unit by unit, weapon by weapon basis so too many armies got screwed. With any luck we'll see what they learned from this and others expanded out to the other armies as their codex release. With any luck we'll see more Xenos Chainsword equivalents, various Fight Oriented units just plain get more attacks on their base profile, that sort of thing.


Yeah I remember the times where we played Marines vs Marines back at my FLGS because they were so bad it was more fun this way.

I don't mind them keeping +1A on the charge or when intervening, it encourages a more aggressive playstyle, but +1A when you get charged ? Where's the logic in that ? Your reward for charging Marines is to get trounced harder. Really hope they'll change it.

40K: Mechanicus
AoS: Nighthaunts

My Stygies VIII army in pictures !
My Eversor and Culexus assassins !

 Rolsheen wrote:
Ah yes the mythical world of Cyraxus
Where GW hold an annual bonfire festival to burn the hopes and dreams of all Ad Mech players
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




The issue with many of the supposed antitank weapons is you're for high damage but only some of the time: random damage make them not effective.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




There's a reason the top lists at the moment take a lot of 2-4 wound infantry/beasts/swarms and few vehicles or monsters, except stuff that's unreasonably durable (i.e. the LoC with the 3++/6+++ that heals wounds).

On the specific topic of anti-tank as opposed to vehicles generally, the main problem is that anti-tank weapons mostly suck at actually being anti-tank. Mid-strength, multi-shot weapons tend to be almost as good against tanks and much better against other stuff, so from a competitive point of view there's often not a good reason to take the dedicated anti-tank weapon. Anything that does 1d6 damage is pretty much crap, for example, because it's so unreliable. GW finally seems to be figuring this out a bit, though its solution (as usual) seems to be to up the lethality of everything instead of reducing it, so it's likely to actually push vehicles out of the meta even more.
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





 Aaranis wrote:


I don't mind them keeping +1A on the charge or when intervening, it encourages a more aggressive playstyle, but +1A when you get charged ? Where's the logic in that ? Your reward for charging Marines is to get trounced harder. Really hope they'll change it.


I'm hoping, but not hopeful, that was GW figuring out assault is key to Objectives. I'm pretty sure we've had +1A when charged in the past so it's probably not new. And we had that stupid era of Frag/Assault Grenades to fight at initiative when charging through cover. This could just be as simple as getting +1A because you're set to Receive a charge. I'd also say it should be near but not quite universal and not army specific.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/26 06:16:12


My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in gb
Chalice-Wielding Sanguinary High Priest





Stevenage, UK

Breton wrote:
I'm pretty sure we've had +1A when charged in the past so it's probably not new.

If my memory serves correctly - 5th ed, Space Wolves had it as a "Counter Attack" USR, but along with "Acute Senses" (which was next-to-useless) it was their Chapter Tactic, meaning they didn't get any other goodies that other Chapters did. They were also the only ones to get it out of all the Marine Chapters.

"Hard pressed on my right. My centre is yielding. Impossible to manoeuvre. Situation excellent. I am attacking." - General Ferdinand Foch  
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





 Super Ready wrote:
Breton wrote:
I'm pretty sure we've had +1A when charged in the past so it's probably not new.

If my memory serves correctly - 5th ed, Space Wolves had it as a "Counter Attack" USR, but along with "Acute Senses" (which was next-to-useless) it was their Chapter Tactic, meaning they didn't get any other goodies that other Chapters did. They were also the only ones to get it out of all the Marine Chapters.


And Ultramarines started out with Doctrines while now everyone has them so things expand after a trial in one chapter, plus it was a USR so not Wolves only giving even more precedence to a near universal application coming soon. Hopefully. Not that that is or isn't the answer - but it should repair some of the damage they did to Fight - but there is some precedence for the rule.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: