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.

I don't want squads of 60p Infantry blobs launching hordes of AT Krak rounds at my 400 point Repulsor. That's not exactly fair. No, AT should be limited to actual AT weapons. LasCannons, Meltas, other tank shooting, etc. If we start giving AT to everything, than where does it stop? A Custodes can literally punch a hole through the armor of a "tank" does that mean a Custodes is naturally a AT weapon? What about a Assault Marine with a Thunder Hammer? Stalker bolt rifles in the right hands has better AP than a LR Tank shot. Do we make bolter rifles AT?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:I don't want squads of 60p Infantry blobs launching hordes of AT Krak rounds at my 400 point Repulsor. That's not exactly fair. No, AT should be limited to actual AT weapons. LasCannons, Meltas, other tank shooting, etc. If we start giving AT to everything, than where does it stop? A Custodes can literally punch a hole through the armor of a "tank" does that mean a Custodes is naturally a AT weapon? What about a Assault Marine with a Thunder Hammer? Stalker bolt rifles in the right hands has better AP than a LR Tank shot. Do we make bolter rifles AT?

Hi, Fezz. Was that in response to someone in particular or just a general sentiment? Also, I seem to be missing something because I can't find a way to make a repulsor more than 300 points in Battlescribe. And are you referring to guard infantry squads here?

At 60 points apiece, you'd get 5 squads of 10 guardsmen with a total of 5 krak missiles per turn. So 2 normal hits and one to-hit roll of 6 that automatically wounds. A repulsor is T8, so those 2 normal hits become 1 normal wound plus the auto wound. At AP-2 (AoC makes it functionally AP-1), the repulsor will pass half of its saves meaning that a single wound gets through. That single unsaved wound would do 3.5 damage with the current rules. 300 points of units doing 3.5 damage to a tank with anti-tank weapons doesn't seem all that impressive. Make krak missiles a flat 3 damage like Hecaton suggested, and that damage actually goes down to just 3.

If you incorporate one of the suggestions that gives them +1 to-hit against tanks, you're looking at 3.333 hits, one of which probably auto-wounds, so we'll be generous and say 2.333 normal hits and 1 auto-wounding hit. Those 2.333 normal hits turn into 1.1665 wounds +1 from the autowound. Which the repulsor will save half of, so 2.1665/2 = 1.08325 unsaved wounds. Which at Damage d6 would be about 3.791375 damage. So less than a quarter of your repulsor's 16 Wounds meaning that it would take these buffed krak missiles 5 turns of average shooting to kill the repulsor you're worried about. Take it a step farther and make the kraks Damage d3+3 (average 4.5), and those buffed, sometimes auto-wounding krak missiles do 4.874625 damage.

So to reiterate, even if guard infantry squads keep their auto-wounding rule and their free wargear rule, and if we give krak missiles +1 to-hit if they hold still or target vehicles or whatever, AND if we up their damage to 3+d3, you'd still be looking at taking less than 1/3rd of your repulsor's health in damage from 300 points worth of guard infantry squad krak missiles. Which doesn't sound very scary to me. Maybe I misunderstood you? What is it exactly that you're concerned about?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Hate to keep harping on this, but not Every weapon needs to be able to be the best thing ever. Please stop with the ever increasing power creep.

Agreed. But also you can make the missile launcher a bit better against guardsmen without ousting the heavy bolter, and you can make it a bit better against tanks without overshadowing the lascannon. And you could even make it roughly as good as both of those weapons against both of those targets if you really wanted to; you'd just have to make it more expensive than those weapons as well. (Plus a little extra for the flexibility.)

Quick note-d3+3 averages to 5 damage, not 4.5.

Also, a guard squad can have a Grenade launcher AND a ML. That's two krak profiles. Which is what I was getting at. Not everything needs to be AT. Some things have to just be not as good. Those things can be reduced cost. However seeing as how all guard options are free right now, it makes zero sense to actually "reduce the cost" of one over the other.

Here is an actual suggestion:

Delete the ML from the codex, and roll it into the Mortar. Give the mortar the ability to fire Krak rounds, or Frag rounds. If it fires Krak, it gets 1 S8 shot at AP2 D3+1. If it fires Frag, it gets D6 shots at S4 AP0 D1.

Done. We've removed bloat from useless weapons, and made the Mortar now significantly more useful.

JNAProductions wrote:Quick note-d3+3 averages to 5 damage, not 4.5.

Good catch. My bad. My brain reached for 3.5 being the average on d6 and got confused.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:Also, a guard squad can have a Grenade launcher AND a ML. That's two krak profiles. Which is what I was getting at. Not everything needs to be AT.

Apologies. I'm really not trying to be dense here. A krak grenade would still be missing half the time, would wound our hypothetical repulsor on 5's, only get through the repulsor's saves 1/3rd of the time, and would then do 2 damage. So while the krak grenade is trying to be the "anti tank grenade", it's not actually very good anti-tank at the moment despite having "krak" in the name. You could rename lasguns "krakblasters," but it wouldn't make them into effective anti-tank weapons.

Your position as I understand it is:
* You don't want to make MLs better at anti tank.
* ^The reason for this is that guard infantry squads can also take grenade launchers which have an "anti-tank" profile. (But not really because krak grenades are bad at anti-tank.)
* ^The reason you're worried about the krak grenade launcher contributing to anti-tank is that the krak profile has "krak" in the name despite not being mechanically similar to krak missiles?

Which obviously doesn't make sense, so I assume I have to be misunderstanding something.

Some things have to just be not as good.

Right. For instance, a krak missile can be less good at anti-tank than a lascannon. However, that can still be true even if we make the krak missile better than it currently is. There's room between where the krak missile is now and where the lascannon is now.

Those things can be reduced cost. However seeing as how all guard options are free right now, it makes zero sense to actually "reduce the cost" of one over the other.

That's a fair point. Free wargear makes things weird. Although the missile launcher is available on a lot of platforms, and I'd rather not base balance decisions for the entire game on this one unit's bandaid patch rule.

Here is an actual suggestion:

Delete the ML from the codex, and roll it into the Mortar. Give the mortar the ability to fire Krak rounds, or Frag rounds. If it fires Krak, it gets 1 S8 shot at AP2 D3+1. If it fires Frag, it gets D6 shots at S4 AP0 D1.

Done. We've removed bloat from useless weapons, and made the Mortar now significantly more useful.

So your pitch has two main parts here:
A. You're proposing a buff to the krak missile here which I'm all for but seems contrary to your own concerns about having MLs going after your repulsor.
B. You're proposing combining it wiht the mortar. Would the mortar retain its indirect fire? If not, then I worry about losing an interesting option from the game. If it does retain its indirect fire, then you're making the krak profile even stronger, which again seems contrary to the concerns you were expressing before.

I'm just having trouble figuring out what it is you're trying to say. Are you fine with improving krak missiles but (separately) just want there to be fewer weapon profiles in general? Is the use of the word "krak" in "krak grenade" bugging you?

Fluff police here, wee woo wee woo!

Missile launchers make sense as an anti-tank weapon, it's grenade launchers that don't. GL's are anti-personnel weapons and I don't think loading one with high-explosive grenades would make it anti-tank. They'd be effective against LAV's but wouldn't be able to hit a tank's weak spot reliably.

IMO, grenade launchers should replace their krak grenades with smoke grenades or something.
Infantry could use krak handgrenades (do they have those?) as the sticky HE grenades you would place by hand on a tank's weak point.

So for krak missiles, I think they should be +1 to-hit vehicles (and monsters?) since they are guided, -1 to-hit infantry and characters, and keep its AP because handheld anti-tank launchers are armor-penetrating high explosive by design. Would like to see the damage flattened to 2d3 as well.

And mortars, I suppose they should be effective anti-tank weapons even though I got no such thing in Battlefield 4.
But IMO mortars should also be -1 to hit since they are indirect...

 kingpbjames wrote:

IMO, grenade launchers should replace their krak grenades with smoke grenades or something.

Yeah. There was a discussion not so long ago in the General section about what to do with grenades/grenade launchers. Some of the more interesting ideas involved using them to put down smoke clouds or some other effect. It's probably more complicated than it needs to be, but it's interesting.

Infantry could use krak handgrenades (do they have those?) as the sticky HE grenades you would place by hand on a tank's weak point.

They definitely exist in-universe. Krak grenades are often described as being "clamped" into position. I'm not sure if that refers to an actual clamp or just a magnetic clamp, but they certain exist. In previous editions, it was harder to stick a krak grenade on a walker than on a tank because the walker was assumed to be trying to fight you while you attempted to clamp the grenade on.

So for krak missiles, I think they should be +1 to-hit vehicles (and monsters?) since they are guided, -1 to-hit infantry and characters, and keep its AP because handheld anti-tank launchers are armor-penetrating high explosive by design. Would like to see the damage flattened to 2d3 as well.

Not opposed to some sort of +1 to hit, but are 40k missile launchers guided? I'm not sure I've ever seen confirmation one way or the other. I guess they do have those little targeter bits on them. -1 to hit infantry/characters seems unnecessary. Going after small infantry is a waste of a krak missile (usually). Going after chonky infantry is a pretty decent use for a weapon that we're talking about needing a buff, so nerfing it against one of its better targets is counter-productive. "Character" is a keyword that could go on any sort of unit. I'm not sure a hive tyrant needs to ignore the +1 to hit vs monsters.

And mortars, I suppose they should be effective anti-tank weapons even though I got no such thing in Battlefield 4.
But IMO mortars should also be -1 to hit since they are indirect...

Easiest way to do that is to just delete the sentence saying guard get to ignore the BS penalty when firing indirectly.

I always figured that the krak grenades from GL's/Mk 1 Terran-pattern Shoulder-mounted Rotary Projectile Launchers were more akin to World-War-era anti-tank grenades or rifle grenades - something you would, yes, only really use against light vehicles or monstrous creatures (barring desperation or ambushes or something), but which would be more effective than a frag grenade at actually damaging them.

I think some units do still get access to krak grenades as actual grenades (at least, Waha mentions them in a few datasheets that don't have GLs of some kind).

I don't think that MLs are explicitly guided. Hunter-Killers are, but I think regular krak missiles are either dumbfire or of limited guidance (or perhaps just handwaved as "guided, yes, but your opponent also has countermeasures or something").

Mortars, though...it made some sense to have them be light AT back when AV was a thing, since indirect sometimes got "roll to hit against side armor to represent hitting top armor", but I'm not sure it would make sense to give them any special AT bonus now.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

There was a discussion not so long ago in the General section about what to do with grenades/grenade launchers ... ideas involved using them to put down smoke clouds or some other effect.

Smoke grenades for cover/concealment or to blind your enemy. Could use a blast template as temporary terrain or just copy the pop smoke rule. I'll try it next time I play.

-1 to hit infantry/characters (with a krak missile) seems unnecessary. Going after small infantry is a waste of a krak missile (usually). Going after chonky infantry is a pretty decent use for a weapon that we're talking about needing a buff, so nerfing it against one of its better targets is counter-productive. "Character" is a keyword that could go on any sort of unit. I'm not sure a hive tyrant needs to ignore the +1 to hit vs monsters.

You're right, I just didn't really want to give krak missiles +1 to-hit vehicles without giving it to other faction's AT missiles, and then we get back to pondering if all vehicles should just be +1 to-hit but not skimmers or bikes...

But IMO mortars should also be -1 to hit since they are indirect...

Easiest way to do that is to just delete the sentence saying guard get to ignore the BS penalty when firing indirectly.

I'm in favor. Stuff like that should be reserved for elites or strategems or something, not standard mortar teams.

 waefre_1 wrote:

I don't think that MLs are explicitly guided. Hunter-Killers are, but I think regular krak missiles are either dumbfire or of limited guidance...

I thought I remember someone bringing up a quote about krak missiles being guided by their machine spirit, but maybe it was the HK missile. I suppose it makes sense that krak missiles are standard issue unguided launchers.

So as for the topic, I think the missile launcher could use a small buff like changing damage from 1d6 to 2d3 but would benefit most by giving it space to fill its role. Grenade Launcher could trade krak grenades for smokes to make it a utility weapon, mortars are already indirect making them mobile/light artillery, and that leaves the lascannon. Is the ML a budget LC that can shoot frag rockets in a pinch? Should the LC be changed or is that fine?

I feel like the ML just needs a flat damage profile and not random. Then again, I'm tired of random damage for weapons ANYWAY but that's a debate for another day.

I feel like ML should be more consistent damage due to the fact it's an explosive. The Lascannon should have higher potential damage output because it's a frickin' laser beam. More 'direct/concentrated' beam that can rip right through the target it's aimed at upon direct hit but is also 'easier' to dodge due to it being, well, a straight laser and not a kaboom ('Simulated' by low damage roll that gives the illusion of a glancing hit as opposed to a 6 which would be a direct hit).

I dunno. I like the fact the ML can fire a frag to have multi purpose but I don't feel like the main reason you take it should be 'lascannon's little brother' stat profile. I really think a static damage value alone would help set it apart. It's already lower S and Ap than the Las so why not give it the flat damage to make it worth using. Las will still be more consistent at getting damage through with superior S and AP but you gamble on getting big damage or lower damage due to the randomness of a D6 toss?

Melevolence wrote:

I feel like ML should be more consistent damage due to the fact it's an explosive. The Lascannon should have higher potential damage output because it's a frickin' laser beam. More 'direct/concentrated' beam that can rip right through the target it's aimed at upon direct hit but is also 'easier' to dodge due to it being, well, a straight laser and not a kaboom ('Simulated' by low damage roll that gives the illusion of a glancing hit as opposed to a 6 which would be a direct hit).
Las will still be more consistent at getting damage through with superior S and AP but you gamble on getting big damage or lower damage due to the randomness of a D6 toss?

Makes sense to me. All in favor say "aye."
AYE

Not sure what the the random damage on explosives is supposed to represent. Explosions are great big balls of fire and force. If you're in it you're in it.

Well, explosions are pretty chaotic - the explosive doesn't burn instantly (which can change how the blast propagates), shrapnel doesn't always go exactly where its intended, there might be impurities or structural weaknesses in the casing that cause the blast to vent harmlessly away from the target, the charge might fail entirely, even if the thing goes off exactly to spec the shrapnel might just ding your leg or knock the radio off the wall rather than putting a hole in your chest/the gunner's chest/the gun...basically, you're right that you're in the blast radius if you're in the blast radius, but that doesn't mean your're getting the exact same effect as the poor schlub standing next to you, and I'd assume random damage was chosen as a means to represent that.

(Full disclosure - I have no expertise in the above, I just learnt things through book readin' and whatnot)

 waefre_1 wrote:
Well, explosions are pretty chaotic - the explosive doesn't burn instantly (which can change how the blast propagates), shrapnel doesn't always go exactly where its intended, there might be impurities or structural weaknesses in the casing that cause the blast to vent harmlessly away from the target, the charge might fail entirely, even if the thing goes off exactly to spec the shrapnel might just ding your leg or knock the radio off the wall...)

The krak grenade is a high explosive like TNT or C4, although it's described as having a highly dense but small blast radius. You're thinking of a frag grenade which is a shrapnel bomb. That's why frags in 40k have a random chance to hit, representing the shrapnel. Da krak has only one chance to hit, representing the small blast radius, but whatever's in it would suffer tremendous damage.
I'd be fine with 2d3 damage but I'd understand making it a flat 4 to cut down on rolling. Seems high though...

Well Lascannons should be D3+3 to begin with. Krak getting a straight D3 and then some other buff to Frag would be reasonable.

D3 for Krak missiles would be a downgrade. Krak missiles have always been a step under Lascannons. With D3+3 Lascannons; Krak missiles should be D6.

Tygre wrote:
D3 for Krak missiles would be a downgrade. Krak missiles have always been a step under Lascannons. With D3+3 Lascannons; Krak missiles should be D6.

100% not. Consistent D3 means you'll have a preferable target compared to Dd6 being wasted due to bad rolls. I'd rather take a weapon doing the same damage than randumb.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Tygre wrote:
D3 for Krak missiles would be a downgrade. Krak missiles have always been a step under Lascannons. With D3+3 Lascannons; Krak missiles should be D6.

100% not. Consistent D3 means you'll have a preferable target compared to Dd6 being wasted due to bad rolls. I'd rather take a weapon doing the same damage than randumb.

Getting rid of random damage is one thing but Damage3 is too low. The average of a D6 is 3.5, so a straight downgrade there. It will guarantee that low level Marine characters need at lest 2 hits through there armour. Marines are not supposed to be that tough. Krak is a shaped charge warhead. It is basically a 40k bazooka. At least make it Damage 4. That would make it one step below Lascannons in Damage (D3+3 average 5), Strength, and AP.

Speaking as someone who uses both reaper launchers (D3) and aeldari missile launchers (Dd6), both are fine, but the chance for a damage spike is a big deal. If I manage to roll box cars on my damage, I might kill my main target sooner than expected and thus free up my remaining missile launcher units to go after my next target.

I like the idea of Dd6 minimum 3 (so treat rolls of 1 and 2 as 3) so that you'll never do a frustratingly low amount of damage, but you also aren't denying yourself the chance to spike your damage. Though I'm not sure how the math on Dd6 min 3 compares to D3+d3 (the new lascannon stats.)

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Speaking as someone who uses both reaper launchers (D3) and aeldari missile launchers (Dd6), both are fine, but the chance for a damage spike is a big deal. If I manage to roll box cars on my damage, I might kill my main target sooner than expected and thus free up my remaining missile launcher units to go after my next target.

I like the idea of Dd6 minimum 3 (so treat rolls of 1 and 2 as 3) so that you'll never do a frustratingly low amount of damage, but you also aren't denying yourself the chance to spike your damage. Though I'm not sure how the math on Dd6 min 3 compares to D3+d3 (the new lascannon stats.)

Average of 4 versus 5.
But a much higher chance of minimum damage, since it happens half the time.

Here's a simple Anydice link.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Speaking as someone who uses both reaper launchers (D3) and aeldari missile launchers (Dd6), both are fine, but the chance for a damage spike is a big deal. If I manage to roll box cars on my damage, I might kill my main target sooner than expected and thus free up my remaining missile launcher units to go after my next target.

I like the idea of Dd6 minimum 3 (so treat rolls of 1 and 2 as 3) so that you'll never do a frustratingly low amount of damage, but you also aren't denying yourself the chance to spike your damage. Though I'm not sure how the math on Dd6 min 3 compares to D3+d3 (the new lascannon stats.)

Average of 4 versus 5.
But a much higher chance of minimum damage, since it happens half the time.

Here's a simple Anydice link.

Cheers! So hypothetically, an ML whose krak profile is Dd6 min 3 would wound and get through armor less reliably than a lascannon, would have a slightly lower average damage, and would spike high on damage less often than lascannon, but it would also have a frag profile that would be relatively effective against squishy targets. I feel like this hypothetical ML and updated LC could both be priced competitively against each other without rendering each other irrelevant.

 kingpbjames wrote:
Fluff police here, wee woo wee woo!

Missile launchers make sense as an anti-tank weapon, it's grenade launchers that don't. GL's are anti-personnel weapons and I don't think loading one with high-explosive grenades would make it anti-tank. They'd be effective against LAV's but wouldn't be able to hit a tank's weak spot reliably.

IMO, grenade launchers should replace their krak grenades with smoke grenades or something.
Infantry could use krak handgrenades (do they have those?) as the sticky HE grenades you would place by hand on a tank's weak point.

So for krak missiles, I think they should be +1 to-hit vehicles (and monsters?) since they are guided, -1 to-hit infantry and characters, and keep its AP because handheld anti-tank launchers are armor-penetrating high explosive by design. Would like to see the damage flattened to 2d3 as well.

And mortars, I suppose they should be effective anti-tank weapons even though I got no such thing in Battlefield 4.
But IMO mortars should also be -1 to hit since they are indirect...

Tell that to my M433 HiEx Dual Purpose munitions! Can penetrate and kill the occupants of a Bradly or even a light tank at 150m with reliability. It uses one explosion to literally melt a hole in the armor, and once inside, detonates the hi-ex charge. Used to great effect both by, and against the US forces in Iraq. Although, when they used it, the device was called an EFP, or Explosively Formed Penetrator. Took out even our heaviest tanks. Not a hard concept to even make one.

But yeah, Grenades have long been used as anti-tank weapons. Look at the White Phosporous Grenade. That will kill a tank within 1 minute if properly aimed. Or hell, even the basic frag round can disable the tracks on a heavy vehicle, making it essentially useless.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Speaking as someone who uses both reaper launchers (D3) and aeldari missile launchers (Dd6), both are fine, but the chance for a damage spike is a big deal. If I manage to roll box cars on my damage, I might kill my main target sooner than expected and thus free up my remaining missile launcher units to go after my next target.

I like the idea of Dd6 minimum 3 (so treat rolls of 1 and 2 as 3) so that you'll never do a frustratingly low amount of damage, but you also aren't denying yourself the chance to spike your damage. Though I'm not sure how the math on Dd6 min 3 compares to D3+d3 (the new lascannon stats.)

Average of 4 versus 5.
But a much higher chance of minimum damage, since it happens half the time.

Here's a simple Anydice link.

Cheers! So hypothetically, an ML whose krak profile is Dd6 min 3 would wound and get through armor less reliably than a lascannon, would have a slightly lower average damage, and would spike high on damage less often than lascannon, but it would also have a frag profile that would be relatively effective against squishy targets. I feel like this hypothetical ML and updated LC could both be priced competitively against each other without rendering each other irrelevant.

I mean I'd be fine with compromising on Dd6min3 but goddamn I don't want there to be more rolling.

Just make it 2d3 so it isn’t a 1. Lol

warpedpig wrote:
Just make it 2d3 so it isn’t a 1. Lol

But bellcurves though! My tasty, tasty damage spikes!

Why not just make AT weapons do a flat damage amount to Vehicles (D6 with a min of 3 damage to anything T7+) Then Bikes get to do their thing without worrying about being shot out of the sky by a 30ish point model, and Dreadnoughts actually crap ceramite bricks again. Then the AC is great for anti-biker fire, LCs will likely get the D6+3 treatment making them the go-to for heavy AT shooting, Tank Turrets already mostly have flat damage profiles.

The AT Lehman Russ variant (The Extinctinator or something stupid) needs the axe.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Why not just make AT weapons do a flat damage amount to Vehicles (D6 with a min of 3 damage to anything T7+) Then Bikes get to do their thing without worrying about being shot out of the sky by a 30ish point model, and Dreadnoughts actually crap ceramite bricks again. Then the AC is great for anti-biker fire, LCs will likely get the D6+3 treatment making them the go-to for heavy AT shooting, Tank Turrets already mostly have flat damage profiles.

The AT Lehman Russ variant (The Extinctinator or something stupid) needs the axe.

I'd be fine with special rules that change the Damage vs vehicles. At least, I'd be okay with that sort of thing being handed out selectively. But I think it's intuitive that an anti-tank weapon generally be pretty scary to non-tanks as well. I'd expect a lascannon to take out a gravis marine pretty reliably, for instance.

Maybe vehicles and some monsters need more wounds to leave some design space for infantry. Combined with an increased damage for AT weapons. Maybe double vehicles wounds and increase AT weapons (like krak missiles and lascannons) by 6. Take that as a starting position and adjust it for better balance. Any man sized target that has their armour penetrated by an AT weapon should be toast.

Tygre wrote:
Maybe vehicles and some monsters need more wounds to leave some design space for infantry. Combined with an increased damage for AT weapons. Maybe double vehicles wounds and increase AT weapons (like krak missiles and lascannons) by 6. Take that as a starting position and adjust it for better balance.

I don't think you have to go that extreme. I'd try giving vehicles/monsters like, 20% more wounds. Just enough to take the edge off of incoming fire, but not literally doubling the amount of shots it takes to kill a tank. Although this kind of gets into the issue of just how durable you really want a rhino to be against bolters and against lascannons. Should a lascannon be capable of one-shotting a rhino? Or should it just take away a chunk of the rhino's hitpoints? If you double the number of hitpoints a rhino has, you may as well officially make them immune to S4 shooting again because bolters wouldn't do enough damage to be worth the time it takes to roll them. If you want it to take at least a couple lascannon hits to kill a rhino (like now), then making a rhino go from W10 to W12 accomplishes that (you need to get two lascannon wounds through and then roll box cars to kill the rhino) while still leaving the bolters relevant enough to be worth rolling for.

Any man sized target that has their armour penetrated by an AT weapon should be toast.

Ehhhh. I mean, probably. If we bring physics into it. But also I'm pretty sure I've read more than one BL story where a marine loses some armor and/or a limb to a plasma/las shot and keeps going. Rolling a 1 on your Dd6 means that your energy beam got close enough to burn the guy but not close enough to vaporize his insides, etc. I'm willing to handwaive that the 41st millenium is a setting where energy weapons somehow destroy chunks of armor without quite managing to incapacitate the guy inside of that armor.

I agree that "non-character" man sized targets should be toast. And you can say that any single model out of a squad of infantry, poof, who cares? But when you start deleting characters with AT weapons, we have a problem. No, AT weapons should only have their AT profile against that specific target. Otherwise, what's the point of making the distinction in the first place?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I agree that "non-character" man sized targets should be toast. And you can say that any single model out of a squad of infantry, poof, who cares? But when you start deleting characters with AT weapons, we have a problem. No, AT weapons should only have their AT profile against that specific target. Otherwise, what's the point of making the distinction in the first place?

Why should a Commissar be able to survive a direct hit from a Missile Launcher?
Plus, even with Dd6 (Min 3) a full four wound Commissar will survive it half the time anyway.