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.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

If you want to suggest a bonus for shooting at units that remained stationary sure.

The point I was trying to make is no one is actively trying to counter a specific bullet/laser beam/plasma ball/etc. people may try running or driving or flying in erratic patterns to make shooting them harder, but something like that has nothing to do with the ballistic skill otherwise known as BS of the model(s) being targeted.
It’s not a good analogy to melee where the target very much can feasibly react to individual attack (punches, kicks, stabs, slashes) that someone makes towards them.
And saying a guardsman has a 50/50 chance slog bayoneting a space marine is like saying a 5 yr old has the same 50/50 chance of bayoneting and adult as they do another 5yr old.

I feel like we might be talking past one another. BS vs Evasion wouldn't generally represent a single individual or unit looking at a single attacking unit and actively trying to dodge that attacker specifically. It would be a reflection of how difficult the defender is to hit in general. If you acknowledge that some shots are easier to hit than others, then that's what Evasion would be for. Larger, slower units are easier to hit with bullets. Faster, smaller targets are harder to hit with bullets. What part of that do we disagree on?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Conversely, it means that if the Knight player can wipe out everything that's S5+, there's literally no stopping them.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:I think BA Assault Marines with Jump Packs and the like would argue that small arms in the right hands, can be devastating.

That is my point. Make AT Weapons have good use as AT, but not chain swords, Hurricane Bolters, Assault cannons, and general anti horde
weapons. Force the player to pay for Power Axes and Thunder Hammers. Don't just let them have AT and Anti infantry in the base load out, and later via strats or unit abilities.

I am just arguing for a line in the sand here.

The quote from Manfred is the part that concerns me. If you make units fully immune to eachother, then the game just becomes, "Who can kill the other guy's AT first?" It encourages skew lists that are immune half their opponent's codex. This, in turn, encourages a meta where half your codex doesn't exist because what if you play against a skew list today? That's slightly hyperbolic, but only slightly.

There's a big difference between units being inefficient against vehicles and being literally unable to hurt them.

Do you feel like lasguns and chainswords killing vehicles is currently a common phenomenon? Is it a problem that needs addressing?

Often when I ask that of people who want to make vehicles immune to small arms, they answer that it isn't actually a problem, but that they just want vehicles to be immune to small arms on principle.

If you fall into that camp, consider this: the last time vehicles were immune to small arms fire, they could be blown to bits by a single meltagun shot, many units could slap a strength 6 krak grenade onto tanks with every model in the squad, and marines could spank tank butts to death in melee with their bare hands.

Are you recommending we bring back the one-hit-kill meltagun to go with your bolter immunity?

 Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

If you want to suggest a bonus for shooting at units that remained stationary sure.

The point I was trying to make is no one is actively trying to counter a specific bullet/laser beam/plasma ball/etc. people may try running or driving or flying in erratic patterns to make shooting them harder, but something like that has nothing to do with the ballistic skill otherwise known as BS of the model(s) being targeted.
It’s not a good analogy to melee where the target very much can feasibly react to individual attack (punches, kicks, stabs, slashes) that someone makes towards them.
And saying a guardsman has a 50/50 chance slog bayoneting a space marine is like saying a 5 yr old has the same 50/50 chance of bayoneting and adult as they do another 5yr old.

I feel like we might be talking past one another. BS vs Evasion wouldn't generally represent a single individual or unit looking at a single attacking unit and actively trying to dodge that attacker specifically. It would be a reflection of how difficult the defender is to hit in general. If you acknowledge that some shots are easier to hit than others, then that's what Evasion would be for. Larger, slower units are easier to hit with bullets. Faster, smaller targets are harder to hit with bullets. What part of that do we disagree on?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Conversely, it means that if the Knight player can wipe out everything that's S5+, there's literally no stopping them.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:I think BA Assault Marines with Jump Packs and the like would argue that small arms in the right hands, can be devastating.

That is my point. Make AT Weapons have good use as AT, but not chain swords, Hurricane Bolters, Assault cannons, and general anti horde
weapons. Force the player to pay for Power Axes and Thunder Hammers. Don't just let them have AT and Anti infantry in the base load out, and later via strats or unit abilities.

I am just arguing for a line in the sand here.

The quote from Manfred is the part that concerns me. If you make units fully immune to eachother, then the game just becomes, "Who can kill the other guy's AT first?" It encourages skew lists that are immune half their opponent's codex. This, in turn, encourages a meta where half your codex doesn't exist because what if you play against a skew list today? That's slightly hyperbolic, but only slightly.

There's a big difference between units being inefficient against vehicles and being literally unable to hurt them.

Do you feel like lasguns and chainswords killing vehicles is currently a common phenomenon? Is it a problem that needs addressing?

Often when I ask that of people who want to make vehicles immune to small arms, they answer that it isn't actually a problem, but that they just want vehicles to be immune to small arms on principle.

If you fall into that camp, consider this: the last time vehicles were immune to small arms fire, they could be blown to bits by a single meltagun shot, many units could slap a strength 6 krak grenade onto tanks with every model in the squad, and marines could spank tank butts to death in melee with their bare hands.

Are you recommending we bring back the one-hit-kill meltagun to go with your bolter immunity?

There was already 30 years of vehicles being immune to certain weapons and that’s not what happened…but again, the ‘interactions’ between low S low AP low D weapons is already nearly nonexistent, so it doesn’t really matter.

If I bring an armored company supported by 2 baneblade variants, and nuke all your dedicated AT in turn 1 or 2, do you really believe the rest of your army will have any meaningful interactions with my armor?


As I’ve said many times statistically heavy and medium armor might as well be immune to things like bolters and lasguns, but since they’re not it opens things up for a few lucky shots to plink off the last wound or two on a leman Russ or land raider, or a stompa, or a demon prince, which ends up being a big feel bad moment for the controlling player after their armor or monster tanks a few lascannons and a few battle cannons and maybe even some autocannons.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
It seems an easy "mod" to test just by house-ruling that you cannot wound Toughness three times or more higher than your Strenght.

It probably would change nothing.

It would make Knights impervious to bolter fire and chainswords.

As they should be.
Shooting or melee, if you want to go big game hunting, bring the correct weapons....

ccs wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
It seems an easy "mod" to test just by house-ruling that you cannot wound Toughness three times or more higher than your Strenght.

It probably would change nothing.

It would make Knights impervious to bolter fire and chainswords.

As they should be.
Shooting or melee, if you want to go big game hunting, bring the correct weapons....

Which you already need to do.

The only situation I can see that makes no sense is if a big monster or vehicle is taken down SOLELY by small arms fire.

Bolters take off the first one or two wounds?
They're dealing minor damage to ancillary bits-blowing a few claws off a Carnifex or damaging the sensors and viewports of a Rhino.

Bolters take off the last wound or two?
They're firing into the already-lascannoned chunks, which have exposed critical parts.

This doesn't work if Bolters take off all 10 or so wounds, since at no point would a big gun or melee weapon get involved. But... It takes 180 BS3+ AP-1 Bolter shots to kill a Rhino. You COULD do that... But you're not really going to.

Has anyone tracked how often large units have actually been destroyed by small arms in 10th?

Because this looks a lot like latching onto something that is technically true as if it had an actual practical effect.

It's technically possible for Calgar to be killed by 8 lasgun rounds. It's technically possible for a grot to resist 8 lascannon rounds.

Unless the realworld outcome of a technicality appears statistically significant as to warrant change, I don't see why this is an argument.

To go back to the original question: I hope the 11th Core Rules looks like the 10th Core Rules with all the Errata, FAQs, and updates form 2 years of play incorporated into the rules instead of spread out across multiple documents. Sprinkle in a few enhancements and call it an edition. No need to radically change anything. Keep the big changes for the inevitable 11th Edition Codex updates.

 alextroy wrote:
To go back to the original question: I hope the 11th Core Rules looks like the 10th Core Rules with all the Errata, FAQs, and updates form 2 years of play incorporated into the rules instead of spread out across multiple documents. Sprinkle in a few enhancements and call it an edition. No need to radically change anything. Keep the big changes for the inevitable 11th Edition Codex updates.

I hope there will be a Warhammer, and that there are 39,000 others.

For casual play, I have enjoyed 10th, so this seems the most attractive option.

I know this is not CURRENT edition, but in the past Custodes jetbikes with HBs, and the right setup, could take Morty down to almost last bracket. With just bolters, charge, and melee. That's a Daemon Primarch.

All I'm saying is that it should take the player investing in a TANK, to do TANK stuff. You shouldn't be able to take cheaper Not Tanks, to do anything close to a Tanks job.

Forgive me for saying so, but outside of knights, how often do we see literal tank units on tourney lists? Very rare from my perspective. Because it's not worth bringing a tank when it can get disabled or outright destroyed by cheaper non-tank units.

This argument literally comes up every edition. Why have lords of war and super-heavies in the game if they can be made useless, or tied up, by almost no labor. Make it an all Infantry game, or make vehicles somehow able to stay on the table long enough to do actual work.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I know this is not CURRENT edition, but in the past Custodes jetbikes with HBs, and the right setup, could take Morty down to almost last bracket. With just bolters, charge, and melee. That's a Daemon Primarch.

All I'm saying is that it should take the player investing in a TANK, to do TANK stuff. You shouldn't be able to take cheaper Not Tanks, to do anything close to a Tanks job.

Forgive me for saying so, but outside of knights, how often do we see literal tank units on tourney lists? Very rare from my perspective. Because it's not worth bringing a tank when it can get disabled or outright destroyed by cheaper non-tank units.

This argument literally comes up every edition. Why have lords of war and super-heavies in the game if they can be made useless, or tied up, by almost no labor. Make it an all Infantry game, or make vehicles somehow able to stay on the table long enough to do actual work.

Quite often, now that their toughness was buffed? This is a weird argument. Seems rather disconnected from the game as it is now.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
There was already 30 years of vehicles being immune to certain weapons and that’s not what happened…but again, the ‘interactions’ between low S low AP low D weapons is already nearly nonexistent, so it doesn’t really matter.

It kind of did happen in 5h when vehicles were at their most durable (easy to stun, but hard to kill). And again, that was back when a single meltagun could pop a tank on its own, S4 units could shake tanks somewhat reliably (to keep them from shooting), and lots of units had S6 krak grenades they could slap onto a tank in melee. So we've seen editions where tank spam became the norm because tanks were so hard to kill, and my understanding thus far is that people want to make tanks even more durable than they were back then.

If I bring an armored company supported by 2 baneblade variants, and nuke all your dedicated AT in turn 1 or 2, do you really believe the rest of your army will have any meaningful interactions with my armor?

Kind of depends. My bolters and shurikens aren't going to take a baneblade from 100% health to dead. But if all I have to do is shave the last 4 wounds off of you because my lascannons and fire dragons did some work before they died? That means we still have a game after that second turn. And that's the more realistic scenario: small arms being allowed to finish a wounded vehicle off or contribute a couple of wounds early so that the anti-tank can finish the target off later. Small arms still being effective means I can make a game of it by fighting to finish off your wounded tanks, and it also means my small arms have something to do on turns 1 and 2; I can be whittling down your HP instead of just waiting to see whether you kill my relevant guns.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
All I'm saying is that it should take the player investing in a TANK, to do TANK stuff. You shouldn't be able to take cheaper Not Tanks, to do anything close to a Tanks job.

Forgive me for saying so, but outside of knights, how often do we see literal tank units on tourney lists? Very rare from my perspective. Because it's not worth bringing a tank when it can get disabled or outright destroyed by cheaper non-tank units.

Wait. Let's clarify here. Are you saying you only want vehicles to be able to hurt other vehicles? Or that you don't want non-tanks to do "tank things?" If the former, my fire dragons would like to know what the heck you're talking about. If the latter, what are "tank things?" Because my terminators very much exist to "tank" incoming fire.

This argument literally comes up every edition. Why have lords of war and super-heavies in the game if they can be made useless, or tied up, by almost no labor. Make it an all Infantry game, or make vehicles somehow able to stay on the table long enough to do actual work.

I can only speak anecdotally, but my local meta is pretty big on vehicles at the moment. We have multiple Knight players. The guy who plays marines most often has been leaning into a build of lots of gunboats backed up by tech priests. While not vehicles, the 'nid players have been running Crusher Stampede a lot. The Votan guy is bringing a variety of vehicles, and so are the ork players. Night spinners are fantastic and have been so good this edition that their price has nearly doubled from the start of the edition. Falcons are a huge part of the eldar meta. War walkers, vypers, and void weavers are all considered great. Dark eldar plan their games around the new detachment which is all about vehicles and putting infantry in transports.

Is people not taking vehicles actually a problem right now? And if it is, are bolters really the reason?

 Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
There was already 30 years of vehicles being immune to certain weapons and that’s not what happened…but again, the ‘interactions’ between low S low AP low D weapons is already nearly nonexistent, so it doesn’t really matter.

It kind of did happen in 5h when vehicles were at their most durable (easy to stun, but hard to kill). And again, that was back when a single meltagun could pop a tank on its own, S4 units could shake tanks somewhat reliably (to keep them from shooting), and lots of units had S6 krak grenades they could slap onto a tank in melee. So we've seen editions where tank spam became the norm because tanks were so hard to kill, and my understanding thus far is that people want to make tanks even more durable than they were back then.

Which (imho) had more to do with the pricing of vehicles than anything else. A Razorback was 70pts and came only with a twin-linked heavy bolter in 3rd edition, with no way to take any other weapon. While in 5th edition, it power crept to 40 pts, gained inbuilt smoke launchers as well as (mostly useless) searchlights AND could get a twin-linked assault or lascannon at +35 pts. For 90 points you could get 5 Tactical Marines armed with boltguns for comparison. You HAD to take 10 Tacticals to unlock a single lascannon for the squad. (Funnily enough, in 3rd edition you only had to take 5 Marines to get the lascannon..)

So the relation between vehicles and infantry changed alot, while the rules for wounding vehicles stayed nearly the same over the three editions.

Vehicles being immune to small arms under the old vehicle damage chart with armor values does not automatically lead to skew lists and one sided games. Though admittedly back then the Force Organisation Chart would limit the amount of heavy tanks somewhat. Just "not being battleline" would not be enough of a limitation on its own.

Well, it also had to do with the changes to the damage table. A penetrating hit only killing tanks on a 5+ was something 5th introduced and they were considerably more easy to kill in 4th and 3rd.

But yes GW's utter refusal to balance and update codexes even through edition changes was an issue back then.

 alextroy wrote:
To go back to the original question: I hope the 11th Core Rules looks like the 10th Core Rules with all the Errata, FAQs, and updates form 2 years of play incorporated into the rules instead of spread out across multiple documents. Sprinkle in a few enhancements and call it an edition. No need to radically change anything. Keep the big changes for the inevitable 11th Edition Codex updates.

Your vote is seconded sir.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
There was already 30 years of vehicles being immune to certain weapons and that’s not what happened…but again, the ‘interactions’ between low S low AP low D weapons is already nearly nonexistent, so it doesn’t really matter.

It kind of did happen in 5h when vehicles were at their most durable (easy to stun, but hard to kill). And again, that was back when a single meltagun could pop a tank on its own, S4 units could shake tanks somewhat reliably (to keep them from shooting), and lots of units had S6 krak grenades they could slap onto a tank in melee. So we've seen editions where tank spam became the norm because tanks were so hard to kill, and my understanding thus far is that people want to make tanks even more durable than they were back then.

If I bring an armored company supported by 2 baneblade variants, and nuke all your dedicated AT in turn 1 or 2, do you really believe the rest of your army will have any meaningful interactions with my armor?

Kind of depends. My bolters and shurikens aren't going to take a baneblade from 100% health to dead. But if all I have to do is shave the last 4 wounds off of you because my lascannons and fire dragons did some work before they died? That means we still have a game after that second turn. And that's the more realistic scenario: small arms being allowed to finish a wounded vehicle off or contribute a couple of wounds early so that the anti-tank can finish the target off later. Small arms still being effective means I can make a game of it by fighting to finish off your wounded tanks, and it also means my small arms have something to do on turns 1 and 2; I can be whittling down your HP instead of just waiting to see whether you kill my relevant guns.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
All I'm saying is that it should take the player investing in a TANK, to do TANK stuff. You shouldn't be able to take cheaper Not Tanks, to do anything close to a Tanks job.

Forgive me for saying so, but outside of knights, how often do we see literal tank units on tourney lists? Very rare from my perspective. Because it's not worth bringing a tank when it can get disabled or outright destroyed by cheaper non-tank units.

Wait. Let's clarify here. Are you saying you only want vehicles to be able to hurt other vehicles? Or that you don't want non-tanks to do "tank things?" If the former, my fire dragons would like to know what the heck you're talking about. If the latter, what are "tank things?" Because my terminators very much exist to "tank" incoming fire.

This argument literally comes up every edition. Why have lords of war and super-heavies in the game if they can be made useless, or tied up, by almost no labor. Make it an all Infantry game, or make vehicles somehow able to stay on the table long enough to do actual work.

I can only speak anecdotally, but my local meta is pretty big on vehicles at the moment. We have multiple Knight players. The guy who plays marines most often has been leaning into a build of lots of gunboats backed up by tech priests. While not vehicles, the 'nid players have been running Crusher Stampede a lot. The Votan guy is bringing a variety of vehicles, and so are the ork players. Night spinners are fantastic and have been so good this edition that their price has nearly doubled from the start of the edition. Falcons are a huge part of the eldar meta. War walkers, vypers, and void weavers are all considered great. Dark eldar plan their games around the new detachment which is all about vehicles and putting infantry in transports.

Is people not taking vehicles actually a problem right now? And if it is, are bolters really the reason?

So you think you could shave 4 wounds off a baneblade, kill a whole other baneblade, and kill enough russes for the there to be a viable game?
If you can do that without dedicated AT weapons the game really is broken.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
There was already 30 years of vehicles being immune to certain weapons and that’s not what happened…but again, the ‘interactions’ between low S low AP low D weapons is already nearly nonexistent, so it doesn’t really matter.

It kind of did happen in 5h when vehicles were at their most durable (easy to stun, but hard to kill). And again, that was back when a single meltagun could pop a tank on its own, S4 units could shake tanks somewhat reliably (to keep them from shooting), and lots of units had S6 krak grenades they could slap onto a tank in melee. So we've seen editions where tank spam became the norm because tanks were so hard to kill, and my understanding thus far is that people want to make tanks even more durable than they were back then.

If I bring an armored company supported by 2 baneblade variants, and nuke all your dedicated AT in turn 1 or 2, do you really believe the rest of your army will have any meaningful interactions with my armor?

Kind of depends. My bolters and shurikens aren't going to take a baneblade from 100% health to dead. But if all I have to do is shave the last 4 wounds off of you because my lascannons and fire dragons did some work before they died? That means we still have a game after that second turn. And that's the more realistic scenario: small arms being allowed to finish a wounded vehicle off or contribute a couple of wounds early so that the anti-tank can finish the target off later. Small arms still being effective means I can make a game of it by fighting to finish off your wounded tanks, and it also means my small arms have something to do on turns 1 and 2; I can be whittling down your HP instead of just waiting to see whether you kill my relevant guns.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
All I'm saying is that it should take the player investing in a TANK, to do TANK stuff. You shouldn't be able to take cheaper Not Tanks, to do anything close to a Tanks job.

Forgive me for saying so, but outside of knights, how often do we see literal tank units on tourney lists? Very rare from my perspective. Because it's not worth bringing a tank when it can get disabled or outright destroyed by cheaper non-tank units.

Wait. Let's clarify here. Are you saying you only want vehicles to be able to hurt other vehicles? Or that you don't want non-tanks to do "tank things?" If the former, my fire dragons would like to know what the heck you're talking about. If the latter, what are "tank things?" Because my terminators very much exist to "tank" incoming fire.

This argument literally comes up every edition. Why have lords of war and super-heavies in the game if they can be made useless, or tied up, by almost no labor. Make it an all Infantry game, or make vehicles somehow able to stay on the table long enough to do actual work.

I can only speak anecdotally, but my local meta is pretty big on vehicles at the moment. We have multiple Knight players. The guy who plays marines most often has been leaning into a build of lots of gunboats backed up by tech priests. While not vehicles, the 'nid players have been running Crusher Stampede a lot. The Votan guy is bringing a variety of vehicles, and so are the ork players. Night spinners are fantastic and have been so good this edition that their price has nearly doubled from the start of the edition. Falcons are a huge part of the eldar meta. War walkers, vypers, and void weavers are all considered great. Dark eldar plan their games around the new detachment which is all about vehicles and putting infantry in transports.

Is people not taking vehicles actually a problem right now? And if it is, are bolters really the reason?

So you think you could shave 4 wounds off a baneblade, kill a whole other baneblade, and kill enough russes for the there to be a viable game?
If you can do that without dedicated AT weapons the game really is broken.

There are means of winning wars that aren't just killing the most.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

So you think you could shave 4 wounds off a baneblade, kill a whole other baneblade, and kill enough russes for the there to be a viable game?
If you can do that without dedicated AT weapons the game really is broken.

Killing a whole baneblade with S3 and 4 attacks isn't going to happen. But if left a few of your units damaged before you wiped out my anti-tank, I might be able to at least make it a close game. After all, if you're running two baneblades and mostly tanks, you're not going to have a ton of units overall. Maybe I finish off one baneblade to keep your offense down. Maybe I finish off a wounded russ on one flank so that I can stand safely on an objective on the flank while hiding from the majority of your firepower. If you're moving things into no man's land to score, maybe I can nickel and dime another tank to death while keeping control of the objective thanks to having more bodies.

Skew lists are going to suck to play against regardless, especially if they're successfully killing the tools that work against them early, but I'd rather have a chance to keep the ball in the air than not. Otherwise, I'm just going to politely forfeit once you kill all my anti-tank. Because standing around on objectives waiting for you to tell me how many models to pick up isn't a fun time.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

So you think you could shave 4 wounds off a baneblade, kill a whole other baneblade, and kill enough russes for the there to be a viable game?
If you can do that without dedicated AT weapons the game really is broken.

Killing a whole baneblade with S3 and 4 attacks isn't going to happen. But if left a few of your units damaged before you wiped out my anti-tank, I might be able to at least make it a close game. After all, if you're running two baneblades and mostly tanks, you're not going to have a ton of units overall. Maybe I finish off one baneblade to keep your offense down. Maybe I finish off a wounded russ on one flank so that I can stand safely on an objective on the flank while hiding from the majority of your firepower. If you're moving things into no man's land to score, maybe I can nickel and dime another tank to death while keeping control of the objective thanks to having more bodies.

Skew lists are going to suck to play against regardless, especially if they're successfully killing the tools that work against them early, but I'd rather have a chance to keep the ball in the air than not. Otherwise, I'm just going to politely forfeit once you kill all my anti-tank. Because standing around on objectives waiting for you to tell me how many models to pick up isn't a fun time.

Define ‘left a few of your units damaged’ because the only way it could work and the game not be broken is if your AT managed to get every tank down to 1 or 2 wounds, and even then it’s extremely arguable doing 12-24 damage to 6+ tanks with low S low AP weapons in 4-5 turns is broken

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

So you think you could shave 4 wounds off a baneblade, kill a whole other baneblade, and kill enough russes for the there to be a viable game?
If you can do that without dedicated AT weapons the game really is broken.

Killing a whole baneblade with S3 and 4 attacks isn't going to happen. But if left a few of your units damaged before you wiped out my anti-tank, I might be able to at least make it a close game. After all, if you're running two baneblades and mostly tanks, you're not going to have a ton of units overall. Maybe I finish off one baneblade to keep your offense down. Maybe I finish off a wounded russ on one flank so that I can stand safely on an objective on the flank while hiding from the majority of your firepower. If you're moving things into no man's land to score, maybe I can nickel and dime another tank to death while keeping control of the objective thanks to having more bodies.

Skew lists are going to suck to play against regardless, especially if they're successfully killing the tools that work against them early, but I'd rather have a chance to keep the ball in the air than not. Otherwise, I'm just going to politely forfeit once you kill all my anti-tank. Because standing around on objectives waiting for you to tell me how many models to pick up isn't a fun time.

Define ‘left a few of your units damaged’ because the only way it could work and the game not be broken is if your AT managed to get every tank down to 1 or 2 wounds, and even then it’s extremely arguable doing 12-24 damage to 6+ tanks with low S low AP weapons in 4-5 turns is broken

We're taking this hypothetical for a long walk, but I don't have to table you. I just have to kill enough of your remaining tanks to survive long enough to outscore you. I don't know how many tanks an armored company containing two bane blades would have, but I'm assuming it's not a *ton* given that you have two bane blades. And the lists I plan tend to either have relatively durable units that can take a punch, or else the ability to reposition units to hide from incoming fire.

Alternating unit activation for shooting phase

I think the larger issue with tanks/vehicles in general is that they're effectively no different than monsters.

I realize that it simplifies the game a bit, but it does seem "bland".

Not sure what should be the "fix" for that, or if it should be changed.

 whembly wrote:
I think the larger issue with tanks/vehicles in general is that they're effectively no different than monsters.

I realize that it simplifies the game a bit, but it does seem "bland".

Not sure what should be the "fix" for that, or if it should be changed.

A simple fix T 3x S cannot be wounded by that low S weapon.
Means things like heavy bolters and big shootas can still damage almost everything in the game, but bolters and lasgun, etc cannot damage certain things.
Bolters can still damage vehicles up to T11 and lasguns up to T8.

Realistically, this is the best we can hope for

Jesus, you're still on about this?

Here's the fix for it:

Three simple new keywords/USRs, since you all loooooooooove USRs and keywords.

Small Arms: Weapons with this rule receive a -1 to their Wound rolls versus models with the Tank or Behemoth keywords.

Tank: Models with this rule receive a +1 to their saves versus attacks made with the Small Arms keyword.

Behemoth: Models with this rule receive a +1 to their saves versus attacks made with the Small Arms keyword.

Behemoth can be the walker/monstrous creature version while Tank is the vehicle version.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Jesus, you're still on about this?

Here's the fix for it:

Three simple new keywords/USRs, since you all loooooooooove USRs and keywords.

Small Arms: Weapons with this rule receive a -1 to their Wound rolls versus models with the Tank or Behemoth keywords.

Tank: Models with this rule receive a +1 to their saves versus attacks made with the Small Arms keyword.

Behemoth: Models with this rule receive a +1 to their saves versus attacks made with the Small Arms keyword.

Behemoth can be the walker/monstrous creature version while Tank is the vehicle version.

I actually like this a lot.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Jesus, you're still on about this?

Here's the fix for it:

Three simple new keywords/USRs, since you all loooooooooove USRs and keywords.

Small Arms: Weapons with this rule receive a -1 to their Wound rolls versus models with the Tank or Behemoth keywords.

Tank: Models with this rule receive a +1 to their saves versus attacks made with the Small Arms keyword.

Behemoth: Models with this rule receive a +1 to their saves versus attacks made with the Small Arms keyword.

Behemoth can be the walker/monstrous creature version while Tank is the vehicle version.

So, a Bolter into a Carnifex goes from being wounded on a 6 and saving on a 2+... To being wounded on a 6 and saving on a 2+.
Brilliant.

Or if T is more than 2x S there’s a -1 to wound penalty. This would mean you’d have to use a strat or some other +1 to wound buff to have an opportunity to wound something T9 with a bolter, so the interactions could still occur, just much less often, meaning a lasgun wounding a repulsor would be an extremely lucky Hail Mary type situation

Just saw that this was already previously proposed lol.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, a Bolter into a Carnifex goes from being wounded on a 6 and saving on a 2+... To being wounded on a 6 and saving on a 2+.
Brilliant.

lol, ok and?

It's still better than the old system of "Strength X can't wound Toughness Y, ever".

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, a Bolter into a Carnifex goes from being wounded on a 6 and saving on a 2+... To being wounded on a 6 and saving on a 2+.
Brilliant.

lol, ok and?

It's still better than the old system of "Strength X can't wound Toughness Y, ever".

it literally isn’t better than that.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, a Bolter into a Carnifex goes from being wounded on a 6 and saving on a 2+... To being wounded on a 6 and saving on a 2+.
Brilliant.

lol, ok and?

It's still better than the old system of "Strength X can't wound Toughness Y, ever".

it literally isn’t better than that.

As someone who played Skitarii as a dedicated army?

Yeah. It is. Trash like Wraithknights, Riptides and other "vehicles but not" being able to just shrug off or ignore by virtue of unit classification things that SHOULD have been their counter shows just how much of a joke the old system was.


The match should never, ever be decided at the listbuilding stage.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Jesus, you're still on about this?

Here's the fix for it:

Three simple new keywords/USRs, since you all loooooooooove USRs and keywords.

Small Arms: Weapons with this rule receive a -1 to their Wound rolls versus models with the Tank or Behemoth keywords.

Tank: Models with this rule receive a +1 to their saves versus attacks made with the Small Arms keyword.

Behemoth: Models with this rule receive a +1 to their saves versus attacks made with the Small Arms keyword.

Behemoth can be the walker/monstrous creature version while Tank is the vehicle version.

I don’t see how giving attacks that mostly only wound on a 6 a -1 to wound changes anything. They still Critical Hit on a 6!