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.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
The article specifically says that rhinos are tougher against melta than they were in 9th; that means that even if melta did get buffed, it can't be higher than S9, wounding on a 4+ on rhinos and a 5+ on the actually sturdy vehicles.

Or it has less AP, or less damage or the anti-vehicle part only kicks in at melta range etc. it's not as later as strength vs toughness any more.

Dudeface wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
The article specifically says that rhinos are tougher against melta than they were in 9th; that means that even if melta did get buffed, it can't be higher than S9, wounding on a 4+ on rhinos and a 5+ on the actually sturdy vehicles.

Or it has less AP, or less damage or the anti-vehicle part only kicks in at melta range etc. it's not as later as strength vs toughness any more.

The article pretty directly talks about the interaction of S and T.

Its new Toughness of 9 leaves it significantly less vulnerable to most infantry-portable weapons, even meltagun blasts.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
The article specifically says that rhinos are tougher against melta than they were in 9th; that means that even if melta did get buffed, it can't be higher than S9, wounding on a 4+ on rhinos and a 5+ on the actually sturdy vehicles.

Or it has less AP, or less damage or the anti-vehicle part only kicks in at melta range etc. it's not as later as strength vs toughness any more.

The article pretty directly talks about the interaction of S and T.

Its new Toughness of 9 leaves it significantly less vulnerable to most infantry-portable weapons, even meltagun blasts.

Which also implies that vehicle-mounted weapons might be the only ones to be able to easily pierce trough vehicles/monster armor.

So, what will be the role of infantry-heavy weapons/squads, and at what cost ? They are expansive, and vulnerable when not a Primaris.

Siegfriedfr wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
The article specifically says that rhinos are tougher against melta than they were in 9th; that means that even if melta did get buffed, it can't be higher than S9, wounding on a 4+ on rhinos and a 5+ on the actually sturdy vehicles.

Or it has less AP, or less damage or the anti-vehicle part only kicks in at melta range etc. it's not as later as strength vs toughness any more.

The article pretty directly talks about the interaction of S and T.

Its new Toughness of 9 leaves it significantly less vulnerable to most infantry-portable weapons, even meltagun blasts.

Which also implies that vehicle-mounted weapons might be the only ones to be able to easily pierce trough vehicles/monster armor.

So, what will be the role of infantry-heavy weapons/squads, and at what cost ? They are expansive, and vulnerable when not a Primaris.

Most does not mean all, typical anti-tank weapons like lascannons will surely pack enough of a punch to reliably threaten tanks. At a price, of course.

With a general decrease in lethality, other squad-based. heavy weapons might just be what's needed to get rid of things like heavy (Terminators etc.) and superheavy infantry or smaller monsters and vehicles like e.g. Killa Kans. Armies that are not power-armoured might see intermediate heavy weapons like guard field batteries, ork artillery or eldar weapons platforms in a support role to give you access to reliable anti-tank firepower without bringing tanks yourself.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
The article specifically says that rhinos are tougher against melta than they were in 9th; that means that even if melta did get buffed, it can't be higher than S9, wounding on a 4+ on rhinos and a 5+ on the actually sturdy vehicles.

Or it has less AP, or less damage or the anti-vehicle part only kicks in at melta range etc. it's not as later as strength vs toughness any more.

The article pretty directly talks about the interaction of S and T.

Its new Toughness of 9 leaves it significantly less vulnerable to most infantry-portable weapons, even meltagun blasts.

I understand but I really can't envisage a meltagun suddenly struggling to hurt a rhino. Maybe base S8 at max range then anti-vehicle 3+ under half range?

It is going to be funny, when 20 unbuffed lasguns are better vs a tank then 20 bolters, per point cost. I wonder with the T and W going up, what is GW going to do with factions that don't have high strenght squad weapons, and limited to non heavy weapons on vehicles. Maybe it is going to be melee anti tank and praying for 6s and perfect rolls on Thunder Hammers.

All in all, at worse this could make more vehicles actualy see the tables. Huge buff to smaller vehicles though. being t9 on rhino, is not the same as melta shots suddenly bouncing of skimer tanks. pre any saves rolled.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
The article specifically says that rhinos are tougher against melta than they were in 9th; that means that even if melta did get buffed, it can't be higher than S9, wounding on a 4+ on rhinos and a 5+ on the actually sturdy vehicles.

Or it has less AP, or less damage or the anti-vehicle part only kicks in at melta range etc. it's not as later as strength vs toughness any more.

The article pretty directly talks about the interaction of S and T.

Its new Toughness of 9 leaves it significantly less vulnerable to most infantry-portable weapons, even meltagun blasts.

Which also implies that vehicle-mounted weapons might be the only ones to be able to easily pierce trough vehicles/monster armor.

So, what will be the role of infantry-heavy weapons/squads, and at what cost ? They are expansive, and vulnerable when not a Primaris.

Most does not mean all, typical anti-tank weapons like lascannons will surely pack enough of a punch to reliably threaten tanks. At a price, of course.

With a general decrease in lethality, other squad-based. heavy weapons might just be what's needed to get rid of things like heavy (Terminators etc.) and superheavy infantry or smaller monsters and vehicles like e.g. Killa Kans. Armies that are not power-armoured might see intermediate heavy weapons like guard field batteries, ork artillery or eldar weapons platforms in a support role to give you access to reliable anti-tank firepower without bringing tanks yourself.

I think you've triggered a thought for me. They have to be careful that lascannon (as an example) isn't also default better against infantry than the weapon it replaces or we're no better off than now for weapon variation. Why bother buying a plasma gun when a lascannon can threaten tanks and likely kill a 3+ wound elite infantry just as easily.

I'm expecting lascannons to have poorer BS+ to represent being such heavy and large (and thus harder to aim) weapons.

Dudeface wrote:


I think you've triggered a thought for me. They have to be careful that lascannon (as an example) isn't also default better against infantry than the weapon it replaces or we're no better off than now for weapon variation. Why bother buying a plasma gun when a lascannon can threaten tanks and likely kill a 3+ wound elite infantry just as easily.

Getting that right has been a problem for GW in almost every edition: as long as you have only a handful of stats to play with, that are the same accross the board for all unit types, you have to be pretty careful or the anti-tank gun is also the anti-everything gun. Of course you can still balance that out by restricting its availability and making it expensive to field, but the general problem remains. One possible avenue they could take would be to give dedicated AT a low number of shots with good BS and high damage, so that most of it would be wasted on e.g. superheavy infantry models because the one shot could still kill a maximum of one model, while 'lesser' weapons would have more shots with less damage per shot. Of course, this hinges on them keeping restraint and not giving most tanks invulnerable saves or other things that allowed them to shrug off single, powerful hits.

Karol wrote:
It is going to be funny, when 20 unbuffed lasguns are better vs a tank then 20 bolters, per point cost. I wonder with the T and W going up, what is GW going to do with factions that don't have high strenght squad weapons, and limited to non heavy weapons on vehicles. Maybe it is going to be melee anti tank and praying for 6s and perfect rolls on Thunder Hammers.

All in all, at worse this could make more vehicles actualy see the tables. Huge buff to smaller vehicles though. being t9 on rhino, is not the same as melta shots suddenly bouncing of skimer tanks. pre any saves rolled.

The dedicated psychic factions already have a clear AV weakness, which will certainly be exacerbated if tanks are good enough to be common. Since damage spells go in the shooting phase now I feel like the obvious answer to this is for Thousand Sons/Grey Knights to just have spells that kill tanks but we'll have to see what they do.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


I think you've triggered a thought for me. They have to be careful that lascannon (as an example) isn't also default better against infantry than the weapon it replaces or we're no better off than now for weapon variation. Why bother buying a plasma gun when a lascannon can threaten tanks and likely kill a 3+ wound elite infantry just as easily.

Getting that right has been a problem for GW in almost every edition: as long as you have only a handful of stats to play with, that are the same accross the board for all unit types, you have to be pretty careful or the anti-tank gun is also the anti-everything gun. Of course you can still balance that out by restricting its availability and making it expensive to field, but the general problem remains. One possible avenue they could take would be to give dedicated AT a low number of shots with good BS and high damage, so that most of it would be wasted on e.g. superheavy infantry models because the one shot could still kill a maximum of one model, while 'lesser' weapons would have more shots with less damage per shot. Of course, this hinges on them keeping restraint and not giving most tanks invulnerable saves or other things that allowed them to shrug off single, powerful hits.

With the return of twin-linked a lot of models that were getting two lascannon shots will only get one now.

Dudeface wrote:
I understand but I really can't envisage a meltagun suddenly struggling to hurt a rhino. Maybe base S8 at max range then anti-vehicle 3+ under half range?

Struggling is probably the wrong word, but I doubt it will wound better than a 4+ based on how they worded that. Half range might be as people said - Anti-Vehicle...maybe 2+? Maybe they'll show us the MM tomorrow.

There is the probability that the multimelta has better strenght than the meltagun, because much larger and heavier gun.

Maybe GW will use my idea. And heavy weapons won't be equal on different platforms.

A tactical marines lascanon can be a +5 wounding "pray to Jesus" type of anti tank weapon. While one mounted on a predator will have a (anti vehicle+4) or (+3), making it a much better anti tank platform. Of course the problem with that is that eldar with their warwalkers, skimer tanks, vypers etc would be blowing up tanks left and right, if such a thing were to be real.

Karol wrote:
It is going to be funny, when 20 unbuffed lasguns are better vs a tank then 20 bolters, per point cost. I wonder with the T and W going up, what is GW going to do with factions that don't have high strenght squad weapons, and limited to non heavy weapons on vehicles. Maybe it is going to be melee anti tank and praying for 6s and perfect rolls on Thunder Hammers.

All in all, at worse this could make more vehicles actualy see the tables. Huge buff to smaller vehicles though. being t9 on rhino, is not the same as melta shots suddenly bouncing of skimer tanks. pre any saves rolled.

The efficiency of bolters vs lasguns isn't really important, imo.

One thing this reveals is that GW should probably make First Born upgrades cost points again, because otherwise this system would only reinforce taking squad heavies for free as crucially useful.

That is why I say it would be funny, not powerful. a bucket of grunt IG blowing stuff up more efficiently, then 10 terminator veterans is, to me, comical. Although if Karskin keep the "my +5 are a +6" it could be different.

I wonder how GW is going to entice people to take the new primaris veterans with their combi weapons. If there is a low troop detachment or a detachment that makes veterans better at scoring, marines could stay in the as few as possible troops bracket of armies. In general 10th shapes up to be a very funny, edition. And by funny I don't mean fun or not fun. I mean like comedic , a bit like 8th index armies were. I wonder what is going to be 10th flocks+reapers=infinite number of extra turns, kind of a "we missed it" thing. I hope it is something from GSC or orks.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


I think you've triggered a thought for me. They have to be careful that lascannon (as an example) isn't also default better against infantry than the weapon it replaces or we're no better off than now for weapon variation. Why bother buying a plasma gun when a lascannon can threaten tanks and likely kill a 3+ wound elite infantry just as easily.

Getting that right has been a problem for GW in almost every edition: as long as you have only a handful of stats to play with, that are the same accross the board for all unit types, you have to be pretty careful or the anti-tank gun is also the anti-everything gun. Of course you can still balance that out by restricting its availability and making it expensive to field, but the general problem remains. One possible avenue they could take would be to give dedicated AT a low number of shots with good BS and high damage, so that most of it would be wasted on e.g. superheavy infantry models because the one shot could still kill a maximum of one model, while 'lesser' weapons would have more shots with less damage per shot. Of course, this hinges on them keeping restraint and not giving most tanks invulnerable saves or other things that allowed them to shrug off single, powerful hits.

Even if LC wounds termies on 2s they still have to beat the 4++ and roll enough damage. There are enough barriers there to make it unpalatable. While LC might be useful against other elite infantry without an invuln they are unlikely to be efficient enough as a cure-all weapon, which requires diversity.

Spoletta wrote:
Good for you that you never played against missilesides, inceptors, exocrines, hellblasters, redemptor dreadnaughts, grav pods, hyve guards, burstides, liquefiers, disintegrators, or the other dozens of units which spammed damage 2/3/d3 mid strenght attacks and that forced GW to push the -1 damage rule on everything that was meant to be at least a little bit tanky.

And all of this is not taking into account melee kills. Melee is THE spammer of mid damage mid strenght attacks, and have you seen those profiles? Power fists are still S8, so good luck fisting a tank into debris now!

Yeah.

Bit contrived - but look at say a unit of 5 Terminators, power sword on sergeant, 1 chain fist, 3 power fists.
Current rules would see them expect to do 8.74~ wounds to a Rhino in assault before any other effects. (Assuming +1 attack from first round of combat.)
These rules, they are doing just 4.59~ wounds.

Which is a dramatic shift.

In case it needs stating, bolters do nothing.
Lets say 20 shots from 5 of them. 20*2/3*1/6*1/3=0.74 expected wounds. I guess that rises to almost 2 with Oaths of the Moment in play - but its still not much.

It would seem weird to me to have say meltas wounding vehicles on 5s - but if they want to reduce lethality its one way to go.

Bright Lance . str 8, ap -3 , 3+d3 D, {anti tank +4, anti monster +4). And the dark lance being a clone of it with a different name.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
The dedicated psychic factions already have a clear AV weakness, which will certainly be exacerbated if tanks are good enough to be common. Since damage spells go in the shooting phase now I feel like the obvious answer to this is for Thousand Sons/Grey Knights to just have spells that kill tanks but we'll have to see what they do.

Yea, if anything, this makes mortal wounds more powerful. I imagine spells will produce fewer of those given they'll probably be mind bullets again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Maybe GW will use my idea. And heavy weapons won't be equal on different platforms.

A tactical marines lascanon can be a +5 wounding "pray to Jesus" type of anti tank weapon. While one mounted on a predator will have a (anti vehicle+4) or (+3), making it a much better anti tank platform. Of course the problem with that is that eldar with their warwalkers, skimer tanks, vypers etc would be blowing up tanks left and right, if such a thing were to be real.

It won't be that severe. Perhaps it will be BS4, which is itself a curiosity, because it means it doesn't matter if they move or not -- they hit the same. I imagine Heavy will still be a weapon type for Infantry though and that the greatest difference will just be -1 to hit.

Will CSM keep the super lascannons? Who knows.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
It would seem weird to me to have say meltas wounding vehicles on 5s - but if they want to reduce lethality its one way to go.

They'll definitely wound knights on 5s, which is a boon to the big guys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Bright Lance . str 8, ap -3 , 3+d3 D, {anti tank +4, anti monster +4). And the dark lance being a clone of it with a different name.

That's another avenue to make anti-tank weapons -- low S, but high Anti-Vehicle. It keeps them off elites and focused on vehicles unless they really need to. I doubt GW will have done much of that though.

Multimeltas could have two ranged profiles.

0-12” S14, Ap-6, Dam D6+6

12-14” S19, Ap-4, Dam D6

All speculative of course, but possible.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Multimeltas could have two ranged profiles.

0-12” S14, Ap-6, Dam D6+6

12-14” S19, Ap-4, Dam D6

All speculative of course, but possible.

Easier to use the Anti-Keyword system, which helps keep it pointed away from smaller things. Lots of options in their playbook and it will be very interesting to see what decisions they made.

 kurhanik wrote:
Nice that firing points are back. That might give transports some use again.

I'm now curious what the embark/disembark rules will be for the new edition. Will it be only before the vehicle moves, or will units be allowed ti disembark after their transport has moved? I guess we'll see.

Same, I'm curious about this as well. The disembark before the transport moves has always been an unintuitive rule to explain to new players.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ooh...yea...autocannons. I think those are definitely going into plink category and getting used more on infantry now.

Which doesn't make any sense to me. They're meant to be light anti-tank weaponry. They shouldn't be putting a dent in Land Raiders, but they should reasonably expected to damage Rhinos and Chimeras with a decent volley.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It takes over 26 bolter ( 36 lasgun ) shots to take a wound off a Rhino, which it then heals the next turn. You enjoy shooting them with bolters and lasguns all you want.

It shouldn't be possible in the first place. If Toughness values go up, but you can still wound anything on a 6+, then there's even more incentive to go "fishing for sixes" than there is right now.

It won't be that severe. Perhaps it will be BS4, which is itself a curiosity, because it means it doesn't matter if they move or not -- they hit the same. I imagine Heavy will still be a weapon type for Infantry though and that the greatest difference will just be -1 to hit.

Will CSM keep the super lascannons? Who knows.

I remember what -+4 or worse to hit weapons do in game from 8th. If GW shapes their anti tank weapons that way, then we will have another edition of no lascanons , unless someone has a ton of special and extra rules that make lascanons, not lascanons. And we will get more melta and anti-X weapon spam. And the faction that gets the most undercosted anti-X weapons, which also work great vs marines, will be the first one to dominate. Especialy if it gets good secondaries too, if those are a thing in 10th.

In my fantasy setting I see MM as the shorter range umph anti tank weapon, while the lascanon can switch between an direct pin point anti tank shot and a wide beam that works more like a scatter laser. While stuff like hvy bolters and AC could be anti-infantry, and the rocket/grenade launchers having some utility rules with slow down ammo, debuff ammo etc. Just to make the weapons actual options or make it more feel like there maybe are options, but the chance of that happening is zero, or almost zero. In the end it is all speculations unless someone works in what ever place is/was printing the rules books for 10th.

I'm excited that firing points are coming back!

Now we just need some proper Legends rules for this thing:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Now we just need some proper Legends rules for this thing:

And a new plastic kit.

And an Arbites HQ choice, since they can take Repressors too. I've been wondering what sisters models we'll get in 10th, and this could be one.

Still kinda hoping for a flyer and a drop-church/ shrine. But a Repressor would be nice too.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Now we just need some proper Legends rules for this thing:

Ohhhhhh Yeeeehhh.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
That's another avenue to make anti-tank weapons -- low S, but high Anti-Vehicle. It keeps them off elites and focused on vehicles unless they really need to. I doubt GW will have done much of that though.

A notable problem with this is that it makes these weapons especially terrible against monsters, which I don't think is desirable.

I doubt Anti-Vehicle will be very common. It has the effect of making a weapon equally useful against all vehicles, be they T9 or T14. That is a bad thing unless you are dealing with a very specific type of weapon, like a S8 Chainfist that does 2 Damage an attack.