Switch Theme:

Raise the strength of autocannons to 8  [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
Regular Dakkanaut




Now that heavy bolters are upgraded to damage 2, and 36" range is plenty with smaller board sizes, the autocannon could use some love, making them strength 8 would be ideal to me, not to mention games-workshop seems to be introducing a new rule of -1 damage making them even more useless
   
Made in gb
Wrathful Warlord Titan Commander






London

-1 damage makes Heavy Bolters useless too, so that point is moot.

Don't think it's needed, to be honest. They're cheap enough for what they do.

   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I would agree if you reduced their point cost from 10 to 8 or 7 but ofcourse games-workshop is obsessed with the factor of 5
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






And then you need to make missile launchers S9.
And then you need to make lascannons S10.
And then you need...
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




meh S 9 is perfect for lacannons atm, as far as missle launchers who knows
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 Valkyrie wrote:
-1 damage makes Heavy Bolters useless too, so that point is moot.

Don't think it's needed, to be honest. They're cheap enough for what they do.

Let's check down the toughness chart and see how things actually shake out.

HB v T8: 3 shots, 2 hits, 0.67 wounds, 1.22 damage
AC v T8: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.44 wounds, 0.88 damage

HB v T7: 3 shots, 2 hits, 0.67 wounds, 1.22 damage
AC v T7: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.67 wounds, 1.22 damage

HB v T6: 3 shots, 2 hits, 0.67 wounds, 1.22 damage
AC v T6: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.89 wounds, 1.78 damage

HB v T5: 3 shots, 2 hits, 1 wound, 2 damage
AC v T5: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.89 wounds, 1.78 damage

HB v T4: 3 shots, 2 hits, 1.33 wounds, 2.67 damage
AC v T4: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.89 wounds, 1.78 damage

HB v T3: 3 shots, 2 hits, 1.33 wounds, 2.67 damage
AC v T3: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 1.11 wounds, 2.22 damage

The Autocannon is worse or tied against everything except T6 targets, as -1 damage affects them both equally there's no change if that's included.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Here I tought Canada 5th was destined to antagonize me, but yes I figure we need to boost an autocannon to strength 8 or reduce its points to 8 or 7 compared to a heavy bolter 10, its only advantage is its range, but 36" range is plenty good with current board sizes, also strength 8 would give it that anti-tank fluff its supposed to have
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

bat702 wrote:
Here I tought Canada 5th was destined to antagonize me, but yes I figure we need to boost an autocannon to strength 8 or reduce its points to 8 or 7 compared to a heavy bolter 10, its only advantage is its range, but 36" range is plenty good with current board sizes, also strength 8 would give it that anti-tank fluff its supposed to have

I try to be consistent in what I gak upon.

In this case, I think that the fix is to restore the wounding chart to the old:

>T2+: 2+ to wound
>T: 3+ to wound
=T: 4+ to wound
<T: 5+ to wound
><T2+: 6+ to wound

Weapons that are twice the strength of a model's toughness deal mortal wounds. Weapons can never wound on worse than a 6, rolls of 1 always fail.>
   
Made in gb
Wrathful Warlord Titan Commander






London

I do agree with you that the Autocannon needs a change, but I don't think just upping it to S8 would be worth it. My gut feeling would be to reduce the points or make it Heavy 3.

   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 Valkyrie wrote:
I do agree with you that the Autocannon needs a change, but I don't think just upping it to S8 would be worth it. My gut feeling would be to reduce the points or make it Heavy 3.

At 3 shots it becomes strictly better than a Heavy Bolter, this might be fine but then Autocannons would need a points increase large enough that HBs are still viable which could make the new AC profile too expensive to use. Balance changes are more than just changing an underperforming option.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Making them shoot 3 times would be nice as I would imagine an autocannon being slightly more impressive than a heavy-bolter lore wise, but yes obviously the better gun HAS to cost more points when the difference in power is that obvious
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

bat702 wrote:
Making them shoot 3 times would be nice as I would imagine an autocannon being slightly more impressive than a heavy-bolter lore wise, but yes obviously the better gun HAS to cost more points when the difference in power is that obvious

How many points do you set a 3 shot AC at? How about the Lascannon which now looks even worse? These are questions to ask before just making a change. I wish GW did this type of thing themselves but if we want to fix the game we need to do it ourselves.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Lord Damocles wrote:
And then you need to make missile launchers S9.
And then you need to make lascannons S10.
And then you need...

With how terrible the current wounding chart is.......is this actually a bad thing?

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
Regular Dakkanaut




 Canadian 5th wrote:
bat702 wrote:
Making them shoot 3 times would be nice as I would imagine an autocannon being slightly more impressive than a heavy-bolter lore wise, but yes obviously the better gun HAS to cost more points when the difference in power is that obvious

How many points do you set a 3 shot AC at? How about the Lascannon which now looks even worse? These are questions to ask before just making a change. I wish GW did this type of thing themselves but if we want to fix the game we need to do it ourselves.


The current problem with this is Games-Workshop trying their hardest to make every point value a factor of 5, this makes adjusting the points values extremely difficult, I feel lascannons to be a bit underperforming as well, for instance many "las-cannon like" varieties of weapons are sporting flat 3 or even stuff like 3+d3 damage, which is of course miles ahead of the d6 damage, which can really suck vs the 2-3 wound infantry meta
   
Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander




If you make Autocannons S8 then Leviathan Dreads and Daredeo Dread instantly become broken as all hell, not to mention whatever the Chaos marine unit is that gets that Chain Autocannon with 6-8 shots of Autocannon. I can't remember?

Seriously gak on this idea of making everything More killy.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Im thinking more along the lines of a regular autocannon, not the over-powered space marine dreads, but obviously if they want the extra point of strength they would need a point increase, which they probably need a point increase anyways after that whole -1 to damage gakkk
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





I agree that the autocannon needs some changes based on the breakdown provided by Canadian 5th. The easiest option is probably to drop the points.

That being said, I'd prefer if the rules matched the fluff a bit better, and I think the Heavy bolter is the problem rather than the autocannon.

My understanding is that the autocannon is a solid round, high rate of fire weapon, in many ways similar to the assault cannon, slighlty lower rate of fire, and larger rounds, so more stopping power. It would be comparable to a real-world fixed machine gun.

The Heavy bolter however is firing individual bolts - explosive bolts like a boltgun, just bigger. Similar to a boltgun, it isn't particularly high rate of fire (compared to the autocannon)

It seems to be that the autocannon should have more shots than the Heavy bolter, and should probably have lower strength than the heavy bolter too. If anything it seems that the two weapons profiles should be swapped.

Of course, then the Heavy bolter underperforms, so an adjustment is needed either to the points or the profile.
   
Made in fi
Ye Lord of The End Times (and a good guy)





FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If you make Autocannons S8 then Leviathan Dreads and Daredeo Dread instantly become broken as all hell, not to mention whatever the Chaos marine unit is that gets that Chain Autocannon with 6-8 shots of Autocannon. I can't remember?

Seriously gak on this idea of making everything More killy.


Seeing they have different named weapon the change isn't automatic. You can leave them as is and nothing gets broken.

As is you can even have 2 units with same named equipment with different rules if you want. That's how gw designed 8&9e. Different units with different weapons having differing stats is no biggie in comparison.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/21 08:36:14


2021 painted/bought: 497/417 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Probably a dumb question, but do the heavy bolter and autocannon actually compete for slots on a lot of platforms? I *think* they compete on sentinels and predators, but where else? If they don't compete with each other in many places, then doesn't that sort of render the topic moot?

And if I'm mistaken, then how about...
* Just charging an appropriate amount for each weapon; the divisible by 5s thing is silly.
* Maybe make HB Damage 1 against vehicles and monsters.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Guard infantry is often fielding heavy weapons, and then you also have heavy weapon teams
   
Made in gb
Mighty Chosen Warrior of Chaos





Watch Fortress Excalibris

Wyldhunt wrote:
Probably a dumb question, but do the heavy bolter and autocannon actually compete for slots on a lot of platforms? I *think* they compete on sentinels and predators, but where else?

Umm... Chaos Marines, Chaos Chosen, Chaos Havocs, Fallen Angels. Making autocannons obsolete if you can take a heavy bolter instead effectively reduces CSM heavy weapon options even further relative to their loyalist cousins, when they were already behind. What used to be the handy TAC option that loyalists didn't get is now a stupid trap option.

When you're struck by an eel, whose sharp teeth you can feel... that's a moray!

When your food, if you please, has white sauce with some cheese... that's a Mornay!

When two patterns appear, and their waves interfere... that's a moiré! 
   
Made in gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

Aash wrote:

My understanding is that the autocannon is a solid round, high rate of fire weapon, in many ways similar to the assault cannon, slighlty lower rate of fire, and larger rounds, so more stopping power. It would be comparable to a real-world fixed machine gun.

The autocannon has always been a slow RoF but powerful weapon.

The problem is GW moved to the new wounding chart but kept all the strengths/toughnesses that had been developed for the old chart. Consequently, a lot has been lost and many problems have been created.
I don't think adopting the old chart would be a simple drop-in fix to solve all of life's problems, but I think doing so would require far fewer adjustments and lead to better results than any alternative.
People disliked the old chart due to how it was presented, not the actual function. Was you learnt it was literally just +/- 1 or 2 you never needed to reference the chart again.
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 Duskweaver wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
Probably a dumb question, but do the heavy bolter and autocannon actually compete for slots on a lot of platforms? I *think* they compete on sentinels and predators, but where else?

Umm... Chaos Marines, Chaos Chosen, Chaos Havocs, Fallen Angels. Making autocannons obsolete if you can take a heavy bolter instead effectively reduces CSM heavy weapon options even further relative to their loyalist cousins, when they were already behind. What used to be the handy TAC option that loyalists didn't get is now a stupid trap option.


This, AC's were a staple in many CSM lists, for one being the lore wise oldschool solution and generalist weapon and for two being something SM didn't have and diversified CSM away from them...

Now, though, you just don't need a AC' when the HB is just better, mostly thanks to how completely lopsided the wounding chart is but...

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander




To be honest, just drop all vehicles not "Heavy Armor" to T7, problem solved. The AC was originally designed to hunt light armor vehicles. I think it should still be used for that. Most dreads are now T7 unless they are heavy walkers like Telemons. We need to keep the T7 vehicles a thing. Make repulsors and their entire line, T7. Make most vehicles in the game t7. T8+ should really be for Knights or "Near-knights". I don't think you should be granting everything T8 just because it's a vehicle.
   
Made in gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

Already medium armour is T7.
This isn't exactly satisfactory either, as you can see from the calculations above against T7 the Autocannon and Heavy Bolter are equal.
   
Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander




Are you calling Rhino's and Chimera's medium vehicles? I disagree. Medium armor is a dumb idea anyway. There is no real place for "medium Armor". Heavy Armor is T8, light is T7, Easy. Is there really any reason a Repulsor is considered more armored than a Predator?
   
Made in gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

Predators, Hammerheads, Wave Serpents, etc, are T7.
A Repulsor is closer to a Landraider than a Rhino. The Primaris Rhino is the Impulsor which is... T7
So yeah, medium armour including APCs and MBTs are T7.
It's only really light stuff like Land Speeders which get T6.

Granted the cut off for T8 isn't much higher than the tanks listed above, with Leman Russes and Repulsors coming in at T8 (albeit with 3+ save still),

In really rough terms compared to old edition - AV10 = T6, AV11-13 = T7, AV14 = T8.

But the difference between those toughnesses is marginal at the moment. A lascannon wounds every single one on a 3+, a heavy bolter wounds them all on a 5+, they barely notice the difference between "super light vehicles" and "heavily armoured vehicles", it's just armour that counts and even that's not a big difference.
That's why we need to return to the old wounding system, the current one just doesn't suit the values of strength and toughness they've assigned.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/22 22:42:43


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 kirotheavenger wrote:
Predators, Hammerheads, Wave Serpents, etc, are T7.
A Repulsor is closer to a Landraider than a Rhino. The Primaris Rhino is the Impulsor which is... T7
So yeah, medium armour including APCs and MBTs are T7.
It's only really light stuff like Land Speeders which get T6.

Granted the cut off for T8 isn't much higher than the tanks listed above, with Leman Russes and Repulsors coming in at T8 (albeit with 3+ save still),

In really rough terms compared to old edition - AV10 = T6, AV11-13 = T7, AV14 = T8.

But the difference between those toughnesses is marginal at the moment. A lascannon wounds every single one on a 3+, a heavy bolter wounds them all on a 5+, they barely notice the difference between "super light vehicles" and "heavily armoured vehicles", it's just armour that counts and even that's not a big difference.
That's why we need to return to the old wounding system, the current one just doesn't suit the values of strength and toughness they've assigned.

The new wounding table sucks, period. We need a new one.

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 gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

I say we just use the old one, there was nothing wrong with it.
You could even present it in almost the same table as the current one, just change the values and add an extra box for S more than 3 higher = cannot wound.
Or leave out that last box if you want to keep the autowounding on 6s, I'm not that fussed on that.
   
Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander




Could we possibly expect a radical change to Armor in 9th, or is that more of a Generational shift? Has GW ever revamped a integral system or core mechanic, mid edition, or after the BRB was released?
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: