Switch Theme:

Very simple fixes for Astra Militarum tank lists  [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





Beaverton OR


Greetings,

So I was trying to come up with a few very simple ways that you could make AM tank-heavy lists more competitive with the game as it stands.

I came up with two possibilities:

1) Army Wide Rule:

Advanced Tank Tactics: Astra Militarum vehicles with this rule that did not move during their previous movement phase gain +1 to hit with all ranged weapons this turn. Astra Militarum vehicles with this rule that did move this turn gain +1 to their armor save instead.

Notes:
-Could be just a replacement for custom faction rules
-Could be limited to just specialist detachments (Vanguard, Spearhead, ect)
-Could pay a set point cost to any vehicle to allow for it on certain vehicles (+Xpts)

2) Powerful Stratagems:

Stratagem: "Advanced Armor Tactics": (Xcp) Use at the beginning of your opponents turn. Pick an Astra Militarum vehicle within 1'' of a terrain feature, that vehicle may treat its armor save as an invulnerable armor save until the beginning of your next turn.

Stratagem: "Close Combat Tactics": (Xcp) Use at the start of your fight phase. Pick an Astra Militarum vehicle within engagement range of an enemy unit, that vehicle may fire all eligible ranged weapons in place of fighting normally during this phase.

Stratagem: "Focused Defensive Fire": (Xcp) Use when your opponent declares a charge. The target of that charge may fire overwatch unless it has already done so this turn.

Notes:
-Obviously, you don't get to have both these stratagems and the special rule, that would be crazy.
-This is probably a bit of an easier sell, as it doesn't actually change any real values and simply relies on giving a few powerful stratagems.
-Yes, the "Focused Defensive Fire" is really just a way to be able to fire overwatch with two units a turn.
-An alternative to "Advanced Armor Tactics" that would be significantly less powerful would be to instead simply give enemy ranged weapons -1 to wound.
-The cost of "X" simply represents that I don't have a CP cost in mind yet for these strats.

I'd like to see what the community thinks! Thanks for reading!

   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Makes tanks more powerful.
Doesn’t actually address the issues they have, like lack of scoring.

It’s not a good fix.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Beaverton OR

That's the issue you think tanks have?

I'm totally not trying to be rude, it's just not what I've heard before. Sure, scoring is great and all but from what I've heard (around dakka mostly, so I guess take it with a grain of salt) is that:

1) tanks aren't durable for the points
2) tanks aren't killy for the points

So I figured I would make rules to help that :-)
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 JNAProductions wrote:
Makes tanks more powerful.
Doesn’t actually address the issues they have, like lack of scoring.

It’s not a good fix.


Leman Russ tanks get Obsec when taken in a spearhead. Not sure what you're talking about there.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




1) tanks aren't durable for the points
2) tanks aren't killy for the points

Is that true? And is the issue that IG tanks are internally too weak/squishy for their points, or is it just that they're an 8th edition book that hasn't received its 9th edition power creep yet? It's pretty rare for me to see an IG list that isn't full to the gills with tank commanders and artillery tanks. Regardless, I'll assume that IG tanks are in need of a buff for the sake of discussion.

leerm02 wrote:

1) Army Wide Rule:

Advanced Tank Tactics: Astra Militarum vehicles with this rule that did not move during their previous movement phase gain +1 to hit with all ranged weapons this turn. Astra Militarum vehicles with this rule that did move this turn gain +1 to their armor save instead.

That's interesting. I like the offense/defense trade-off. I'm not entirely sure why my plasma cannons are less likely to hurt a tank in motion, but I assume we're just abstracting it to reflect the idea that a moving target is harder to hit? And didn't want to go so far as to give it a to-hit modifier? Letting tanks hit as well as marines and eldar just for sitting still feels too good to me, but so do a lot of the power creep moves the 9th edition books have received. I feel like +1 to-hit is going to be too attractive to pass up, so I worry that this rule would turn your tanks into a boring, static castle in much the same way Kau'yon has Tau. Also, hell hounds have no drawback to moving.

If we're okay with power creeping tanks for the heck of it, this is proooobably an okay way to do it.


2) Powerful Stratagems:

Stratagem: "Advanced Armor Tactics": (Xcp) Use at the beginning of your opponents turn. Pick an Astra Militarum vehicle within 1'' of a terrain feature, that vehicle may treat its armor save as an invulnerable armor save until the beginning of your next turn.

Oof. So a 3+ invul save on one of your most lethal units. Don't think I like that. Seems very frustrating to play against. Also, would this technically be usable on a tank? And would it stack with the astropath power that gives +1 to saves?


Stratagem: "Close Combat Tactics": (Xcp) Use at the start of your fight phase. Pick an Astra Militarum vehicle within engagement range of an enemy unit, that vehicle may fire all eligible ranged weapons in place of fighting normally during this phase.

I have trouble picturing this one. Like, you shot your guns in the shooting phase. Why does pushing the gas pedal and getting close to the enemy let you increase your guns' rate of fire? I like the "feel" of the mechanic, getting into melee with a tank that doesn't want to be in melee in order to get a burst of offense, but the fluff kind of falls flat for me.


Stratagem: "Focused Defensive Fire": (Xcp) Use when your opponent declares a charge. The target of that charge may fire overwatch unless it has already done so this turn.

Eh. Sure. Nbd. Should maybe just be part of Defensive Gunners?

In general, I'd rather see the game's lethality decreased rather than increased. But if we start with the assumption that we have to buff IG tank lethality, there are worse ways to do it than t his.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




Wyldhunt wrote:
1) tanks aren't durable for the points
2) tanks aren't killy for the points

Is that true? And is the issue that IG tanks are internally too weak/squishy for their points, or is it just that they're an 8th edition book that hasn't received its 9th edition power creep yet? It's pretty rare for me to see an IG list that isn't full to the gills with tank commanders and artillery tanks. Regardless, I'll assume that IG tanks are in need of a buff for the sake of discussion.


I definitely agree with this. All Guard tanks have no survivability. While Tank Commanders in terms of damage are fine, the problem is none of the other tanks can compete with them.

Though I disagree with the OP's suggestions. 9th edition is an objective focused game, and also has much more LoS blocking terrain. You shouldn't be incentivised to stay still, it's bad enough that Russes might as well have a 5 inch move. It leads to bad gameplay they can lose you the mission.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Somehow I totally forgot about the, "shoot twice if you move slowly," rule. The +1 BS for holding still kind of feels like double-dipping now.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




Wyldhunt wrote:
Somehow I totally forgot about the, "shoot twice if you move slowly," rule. The +1 BS for holding still kind of feels like double-dipping now.


Even if it's double dipping, as I said, it's not going to do much. It's not the right way to incentivise tank companies.

They need to make tanks more durable and customisable. Say for example taking only "tank" units gave that detachment jury-rigged repairs for free, letting you use your doctrines towards gunnery exports and spotter details.

Maybe it gave Tank Commanders a second order. To incentivise players to take regular Russes as well. Maybe you could let Tank Commanders order Malcadors and Hellhounds in addition to Russ tanks.

Bring back some of the old vehicle upgrades.
- Extra armour could come back and give vehicles an extra wound or 2.
- Relic armour could come back and give a vehicle a 5+++ against mortal wounds.
- Dozer blade buffed to also ignore difficult ground and vehicle gains breakable.
- Improved comms: Unlimited tank order range.
- Camo net: Benefits from Light Cover if remaining stationary.
- Armoured crew compartment: Basilisk, Hydra, Wyvern go back up to T7.

Bring back the old special ammo types as wargear stratagems, such as:
- Siege Shell: +1 to wound against Buildings. Ignores Dense Cover.
- Infernus Shell: Ignores Light Cover.
- Smoke Shell: Target friendly or enemy unit, receives -1 to Hit and -1 to Ranged attacks.
- Augur Shell: Reroll damage dice against Vehicles.
- Beast Hunter Shell: Reroll damage dice against Monsters.
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






leerm02 wrote:
1) tanks aren't durable for the points
2) tanks aren't killy for the points

1) lowering points makes tanks more durable for their points
2) lowering points makes tanks more killy for their points

The solution to your problems is not more rules bloat, it's to lower their points cost. Rules should be changed to make the game more fun or to better reflect fluff, not to balance units, that's what points are for.

I think tanks die too easily, I'd solve that in two ways, the weakness to AP - and AP -1 guns I would fix by giving most tanks a 2+ Sv and I would fix the insane damage of new anti-tank profiles by reverting the changes, D6 damage dark lances and AdMech lasers, 1-shot S10 multi-meltas, no double-tap for Eradicators, demolishers and doomsday weapons back to D3 shots. Every weapon profile also needs a situation where it is the best, it's okay if it is a niche situation and one weapon is on average better than the others, that imbalance can be fixed with points. Weapons firing nerf gun darts cannot be fixed with points, because even if you are getting your nerf gun launcher for cheap, it'll still be unsatisfying to use.
   
Made in us
Never Forget Isstvan!






IG tanks should be the cheapest wounds per point tanks on the table, with the most limited mobility (no fly, nothing more than 12"mv).

Tank commanders with demolisher cannons are actually too killy for the points and so damage output is not a problem atm for AM tanks. Either that combo of increased range with reroll shots needs to be nerfed, or there needs to be some other way to buff tanks that those models in particular cant benefit from.

Like im honestly fine in 9th edition saying the Lemon Russ hull goes down to 130pts (Commander at 145). Appropriately pointed weapons after that work just fine.

Chimeras should be same points as a rhino even though they are better overall as the cargo they carry is weaker.

Sentinals need a good look though, comparing to admech chicken walkers.

Artillery also needs to be looked at. The basalisk used to be the most feared tank in the game back in the day and now its laughed at.

JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




I think there are several pieces guard problem:

1 - our ability to kill something (to clear an objective) is concentrated in ~2 units: TCs and FP Manticores. But with -1 to hit, even the Manticore only gets ~2 hits a turn.

2 - Our tanks have no durability to anti-tank weapons

3 - Compared to everything that's come out since 9th started, we are waaaayyyy overcosted for durability and output.



I mean take a standard (non-TC) Leman russ with a BC vs a DG PBC. The LR has same armor and Wounds, but a worse BS, less output when moving over 6", no Inv Save, no re-rolls to wound, and worse strats, all for about the same points cost (165 vs. 175).

Our infantry can't kill anything (we have some luck against T3 models) for more points than AM Rangers (with 1/3rd the output), and 5 more points than 10 Poxwalkers.

We're literally about 20% overcosted. Since it's (most likely) GSC and Custodes coming out in December, we could do a few simple changes to get us back in the fight:

1 - reduces costs of most units by ~15-20%. Guard squads go to ~45 points (from 55), normal LRs go to about 130 (from 160-165), hellhounds to 90 points, etc. Drop the costs of heavy weapons by 5 points each across the board.
2 - change smoke launchers to be a Strat
3 - Allow AM to take 1 spearhead detachment at no cost, but it must contain our warlord (so LRs get ObSec)
4 - standardize our output. No more d3/d6 - BCs to to flat 2 damage, Demos to 4 (or d3+3), etc. Manticores/Basilisks to flat 2 (FP does nothing).


optionally (to give other units in the codex a chance):
- give HWTs 'Look our Sir' (this means they have some protection, and not just 6 free wounds)
- hellhounds free outflank + change the flamers to assault weapons (hellhounds can kill stuff with flamers, but are more likely to blow up in our own lines. Now they at least can survive turn 1, and do something with those flamers)
- change Sentinel 'Strike First Strike Hard' to +2BS (from +2 to hit), and make it the 1st turn they are on the board (from a flat turn 1)

The 'free' Spearhead and reduced points means we have reasons to take normal LRs, and points to take chimeras to protect our troops.

Now we can take & hold objectives, have durability and kill things thru volume, to play the game.

We're still giving up a lot points thru grind them down and bring it down (even more so now) which is OK since we don't have any 'free' 15-point secondaries of our own. We won't be OP in tournaments because we won't have time to roll that many dice.





   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




brainpsyk wrote:

1 - reduces costs of most units by ~15-20%. Guard squads go to ~45 points (from 55), normal LRs go to about 130 (from 160-165), hellhounds to 90 points, etc. Drop the costs of heavy weapons by 5 points each across the board.

Given how drukhari have been handled recently, I wouldn't be surprised if they go this route. This would let you leave the standard humans squishy but numerous enough to compete. My only small concern is that they went out of their way to raise the floor on the cheapest units in the game at the start of 9th. They didn't execute on that as well as they could have, but in theory this should have allowed them to establish a baseline price for the weakest individual models in the game (like grots), price them relevant to slightly better models like guardsmen, and then price everything else in the game according to that.

Basically, lowering guardsman prices feels like a half-step backwards, but they didn't really utilize the price increase the way they should have, so maybe that's okay? Ideally, guardsmen would probably stay the same price or even increase in price, but everything else in the game would get a price increase to match.


2 - change smoke launchers to be a Strat

Will be surprised if this doesn't happen in the next 'dex.
3 - Allow AM to take 1 spearhead detachment at no cost, but it must contain our warlord (so LRs get ObSec)

I feel weird on this one. I kind of think battlefield roles (and thus slot scarcity) should be eliminated entirely. But if we're not doing that, it feels kind of weird to let guard basically have infinite heavy support slots just because they want them. It's not necessarily unbalanced, but it does make me ask why we wouldn't let other factions do the same thing with their detachment(s) of choice.


4 - standardize our output. No more d3/d6 - BCs to to flat 2 damage, Demos to 4 (or d3+3), etc. Manticores/Basilisks to flat 2 (FP does nothing).

Seems like this will probably happen. Recent books seem to be moving in this direction.


optionally (to give other units in the codex a chance):
- give HWTs 'Look our Sir' (this means they have some protection, and not just 6 free wounds)
- hellhounds free outflank + change the flamers to assault weapons (hellhounds can kill stuff with flamers, but are more likely to blow up in our own lines. Now they at least can survive turn 1, and do something with those flamers)
- change Sentinel 'Strike First Strike Hard' to +2BS (from +2 to hit), and make it the 1st turn they are on the board (from a flat turn 1)

I like all of these. HWTs aren't killy enough for LoSir protection to seem OP. Hell hounds going back to being scouts helps make them feel unique compared to things like flamer chimeras and immolators, and it solves the turn 1 explosion problem nicely. The sentinel change helps sentinels act like cavalry rather than just being speed bumps.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Wyldhunt wrote:

Basically, lowering guardsman prices feels like a half-step backwards, but they didn't really utilize the price increase the way they should have, so maybe that's okay? Ideally, guardsmen would probably stay the same price or even increase in price, but everything else in the game would get a price increase to match.


Yep. this is a half measure to tide us over. The other choice is to seriously buff their output (like 3-4x for 0 points increase). But I think that is too much of a rules change for now. Just dropping points I think is enough to tide us over


Wyldhunt wrote:


2 - change smoke launchers to be a Strat

Will be surprised if this doesn't happen in the next 'dex.



Totally agree. In this case, this just puts us in line with everything else, and is a passive buff to durability, being able to use smoke launches when we need it rather than having to plan a turn ahead. Not game breaking, nothing special, just bringing stuff in-line

Wyldhunt wrote:

3 - Allow AM to take 1 spearhead detachment at no cost, but it must contain our warlord (so LRs get ObSec)

I feel weird on this one. I kind of think battlefield roles (and thus slot scarcity) should be eliminated entirely. But if we're not doing that, it feels kind of weird to let guard basically have infinite heavy support slots just because they want them. It's not necessarily unbalanced, but it does make me ask why we wouldn't let other factions do the same thing with their detachment(s) of choice.


Agreed, it is weird. It's not infinite HS slots because we only get 1 for free (basically, the WL just means it refunds the CP cost). We don't get more FP manticores, just more slots. We actually lose a TC for the ability to take LRs with ObSec.


Wyldhunt wrote:


4 - standardize our output. No more d3/d6 - BCs to to flat 2 damage, Demos to 4 (or d3+3), etc. Manticores/Basilisks to flat 2 (FP does nothing).

Seems like this will probably happen. Recent books seem to be moving in this direction.

yep. This is just flattening our variability a bit. It just sucks to roll 3 1s with a demo cannon, then go hot and obliterate stuff. We're not even in control of our own army. Like when the SM codex came out, PFs when to a flat 2 damage. They can do the same thing again.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







My suggested fixes are:

Let tanks be tanks (immunity to the universe's small arms at the company scale of 40k, ability to bully enemy units physically via tank shock like the Imperial Guard novels)

Maybe a Tank Shock style stratagem like "Crush Them" was trying so hard to be?

Make them able to score objectives by physically bullying enemy units off of them, rather than just vaporizing them via increased (again) lethality.
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

What about also implementing some sort of Squadron rule; rather than deploying a unit and treating them as separate units, you can choose to squadron them. They must stay within (x)" of each other, but would get the following:

- Orders affect the whole squadron rather than just one tank.
- If all turret weapons shoot the same target, they get +1 to hit.
- Such units get +1 to armour saves while at the maximum number of models, representing the wall of iron making particular vehicles harder to hit (sounds a bit naff, but I'm pretty sure there used to be a similar rule for Guard vehicles, likely as an Apoc formation).

It wouldn't fix all the fundamental issues, but gives a much needed boost to the humble Russ without going a bit overboard.

   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 Valkyrie wrote:
What about also implementing some sort of Squadron rule; rather than deploying a unit and treating them as separate units, you can choose to squadron them. They must stay within (x)" of each other, but would get the following:

- Orders affect the whole squadron rather than just one tank.
- If all turret weapons shoot the same target, they get +1 to hit.
- Such units get +1 to armour saves while at the maximum number of models, representing the wall of iron making particular vehicles harder to hit (sounds a bit naff, but I'm pretty sure there used to be a similar rule for Guard vehicles, likely as an Apoc formation).

It wouldn't fix all the fundamental issues, but gives a much needed boost to the humble Russ without going a bit overboard.
It's interesting for sure.

I would make it +1 to saves against ranged attacks only, though, since (under old rules) Russes were AV 14 out front, the best you could be, but AV 10 in the rear, the weakest you could be.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I think they really need a way to deal with combat.

Right now, CCing a Russ is a damn good way to shut it down. Keep them in squadrons and now you shut down all 3!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/27 16:14:55


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




In my previous post I didn't suggest any kind of datasheet change, but this is what I'd actually do given free reign:

Leman Russ Tanks:
- (all variants) Increase Wounds characteristic to 14.
- (all variants) 2+ Save against shooting attacks (3+ Save in engagement range).
- (all variants) May upgrade heavy bolter to a heavy flamer for free. Plasma cannon or lascannon for 5 points, or multi-melta for 10 points.
- (all variants) Change Grinding Advance to: “If this model remains stationary or moves up to half speed in its Movement phase…”
- Split into 2 seperate datasheets: Leman Russ Cruiser Tanks and Leman Russ Battle Tanks.

Leman Russ Cruiser Tank: 1 - 3 models.
- (all Cruiser Tank variants) Increase Movement characteristic to 12 inches.

- Annihilator: 155 points. Annihilator Lascannon Damage characteristic changed to D3 + 3.

- Conqueror: 160 points. Conqueror Cannon Damage characteristic changed to 2. Comes with a free storm bolter.

- Exterminator: 155 points. Exterminator Autocannon Type changed to Heavy 6.

Leman Russ Battle Tank: 1 - 3 models.

- Battle Tank: 160 points. Battle Cannon Damage characteristic changed to 3.

- Demolisher: 170 points. Demolisher Cannon Damage characteristic changed to 4.

- Eradicator: 160 points. Eradicator Cannon Damage characteristic changed to 2. Blast. Units attacked by this weapon do not gain any bonus to their saving throws for being in cover. If a unit is hit by this weapon, in their following Movement phase they must halve their Move characteristic and cannot Advance.

- Executioner: 155 points. Executioner Cannon Damage characteristic changed to 2 on standard or damage 3 on overcharge.

- Punisher: 170 points.

- Vanquisher: 160 points. Change Type characteristic to Heavy D3, Strength to 12, Damage to D3 + 3. Remove current ability and replace it with Blast.

Tank Commander: 40 Points + Cost of Vehicle.
- Increase number of orders to 2.
- Increase order range to 18 inch.
- Can order any Tank model (Carnodon, Hellhound, Leman Russ, Malcador, or Thunderer).
- Can be taken in any Tank model (Carnodon, Hellhound, Leman Russ, Malcador, or Thunderer). That way you could have a Malcador Tank Commander.

Knight Commander Pask: 60 Points + Cost of Leman Russ.
- Change Knight Commander to: May choose one free Tank Ace.
- Increase number of orders to 2 (to keep in-line with TC change and that Knight Commander is being changed).
- Increase order range to 18 inch.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/10/20 00:13:19


 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Demolisher being 4 while a Battle Cannon is 3 feels a little weak. Maybe d3+3?

And the Executioner seems not very worth it. You gain one AP over the Battle Cannon at the cost of MW to yourself.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think they really need a way to deal with combat.

Right now, CCing a Russ is a damn good way to shut it down. Keep them in squadrons and now you shut down all 3!

Isn't being susceptible to bein tied up in combat just good counterplay though? The threat of that happening adds value to countercharge and screening units. Plus, when guard are good, they tend to be really good. If you can't shut down their offense without outgunning them, I could see that being a pain to play against.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I mean, if you want to make tank companies actually work, and reflect some of them them accurately in the lore (where they drive forwards in a steel phalanx and plow through the enemy ranks), then give them some rules to actually do that.

As it stands, playing a tank company is just playing a bunker company with a line of guardsmen in front.

Actually charging with a Russ (you know. Like the featured apocalypse images from 4th and all the bonuses every iteration of the Emperor's Fist tank company has had since it's inception) makes me think more of the Zamboni scene in Austin Powers rather than a glorious tank charge.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, if you want to make tank companies actually work, and reflect some of them them accurately in the lore (where they drive forwards in a steel phalanx and plow through the enemy ranks), then give them some rules to actually do that.

As it stands, playing a tank company is just playing a bunker company with a line of guardsmen in front.

Actually charging with a Russ (you know. Like the featured apocalypse images from 4th and all the bonuses every iteration of the Emperor's Fist tank company has had since it's inception) makes me think more of the Zamboni scene in Austin Powers rather than a glorious tank charge.


I like the idea of letting vehicles move over non-monster-non-vehicle units while they fall back. That seems to be roughly equivalent to the old tank shock rules (which, based on FAQs, seemed to not really be intended to kill things). Maybe letting them fire "defensive" weapons after doing so. That would give them the ability to push forward through enemy infantry, but your opponent would still get something out of charging them.

It has been proposed from time to time that vehicles be made more deadly in close combat. Which makes a certain amount of sense, but then you're talking about making units that are already generally pretty durable and shooty also good at melee. Which seems like it ought to come with a not-insignificant price increase and arguably removes more counterplay. That said, I do really like how my drukhari vehicles play now that they're moderately stabby, and I don't hate the idea of other factions getting in on the bumper cars action.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 JNAProductions wrote:
Demolisher being 4 while a Battle Cannon is 3 feels a little weak. Maybe d3+3?


Demolisher cannon is still S10 and AP-3. It doesn't need D3+3. It's a giant HE shell.

And the Executioner seems not very worth it. You gain one AP over the Battle Cannon at the cost of MW to yourself.


The Executioner would be a anti-MEQ tool, not a jack of all trades. You overcharge when you need the extra strength and/or damage.
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

Demolisher Cannon didn't change in the new SM or CSM books, won't change here.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







One other thing that would help IG vehicles is making the blast rule stop caring about the administrative organization of the enemy.

Thirty cultists on an objective? BLAST AWAY! Oh wait, they're in 3 squads of 10 as if my high-explosive shell is a discriminating warhead that goes out of its way to avoid putting shrapnel into the other squads.

Fifteen intercessors? Wow, blobbing that much combat power on an objective would be really dangerous; fortunately your enemy can only blast 5 at a time because ~logic~.

You don't even have to bring blast templates back - Chain of Command does AOE explosions without blast templates. Just allow a weapon to inflict hits on any squad within 4" of the target squad, and count up all models within said area to determine how many minimum "hits" said blast should achieve.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 13:46:38


 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Jarms48 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Demolisher being 4 while a Battle Cannon is 3 feels a little weak. Maybe d3+3?


Demolisher cannon is still S10 and AP-3. It doesn't need D3+3. It's a giant HE shell.

And the Executioner seems not very worth it. You gain one AP over the Battle Cannon at the cost of MW to yourself.


The Executioner would be a anti-MEQ tool, not a jack of all trades. You overcharge when you need the extra strength and/or damage.
Executioner does 5/9ths of a dead MEQ per hit., without Overcharging.
Battle Cannon does 5/9ths of a dead MEQ per hit.

It's not any more effective against MEQ unless it Overcharges.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




One of the things we have to address is the number of shots vs. BS vs. damage+AP. Right now, the top tier armies are usually hitting on 2s and 3s (with rerolls), while we're hitting on 4s. This makes their output very consistent (and lethal) vs. our 4s which makes our output very swingy.

D3 on a BC vs D4 on a Demo cannon is fine, if they have a relatively equal damage output of the shots that hit. So (for round maths), if a BC has 4d6 shots while a demo has 3d6 shots, they both have the same output, around 21 wounds after hitting. Then it's a choice of

-do you want the higher AP & damage for terminators & vehicles
-less damage but more shots for MEQ
-even less damage per shot but even more shots for chaff


Right now, 60% of the guard killing power is in the TCs, and we need them to take on everything, so the Demo cannon is our only choice.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

Needs to be sped up a lot.

For example FRFSRF rather than double las shots should be auto hit. Stuff like that to make the army faster to play.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




The_Real_Chris wrote:
Needs to be sped up a lot.

For example FRFSRF rather than double las shots should be auto hit. Stuff like that to make the army faster to play.


I think making FRFSRF auto-hit is a bit much. I agree that we need to speed up play, but there are probably better options.

The big time wasters are
- variablility in the number of shots for everything
- variability in damage for everything
- too much ineffective dice rolling

The three of these means more units have to be staged to kill a single target, which is more units moved, more dice for number of shots and more dice for the damage of each shot, and more time needed to make decisions.

Making most weapons a flat damage solves about half our problems, as those are our big guns which do the most damage, then it's just plink wounds. If regular guard squads do MWs on 6s to hit, that removes dice from the pool and speeds up play as well, as the last couple wounds might get picked up by those mortals.




   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

brainpsyk wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
Needs to be sped up a lot.

For example FRFSRF rather than double las shots should be auto hit. Stuff like that to make the army faster to play.


I think making FRFSRF auto-hit is a bit much. I agree that we need to speed up play, but there are probably better options.
Is it? It has the exact same effect as doubling shots, on average, assuming no buffs or penalties to deal with.

If you have RR1s (Cadians or whatnot) it's worse.
If you're facing a -1 to-hit, it's better.

But if you're just rolling to hit on a 4+? Auto-hitting has the same average as doubling shots.

Moreover, it's STILL not likely to do much. 9 Lasguns do, at 24", 9 hits. Against MEQ, that's 3 wounds, and 1 failed save. You need two squads with FRFSRF at max range, or one in Rapid Fire range, to kill ONE Marine. I don't know about you, but I'd rather roll 18 dice for one dead MEQ than 54.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: