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.

Brother Paen wrote:
Didn't turbolasers and such remove D3 structure points in Imperial Armor? ...way before Apoc?

Vortex grenades did. Not sure about d-weapons Pre-Apocalypse, though. They certainly didn't with the 4th ed and 5th ed Apocalypse books.

 CaptKaruthors wrote:
D-Weapons aren't really that different than before other than the fact that gargantuan creatures can be hurt more effectively by them now.

The problem with that is Gargantuan Creatures were already hilariously vulnerable to D strength weapons. The only way Heirophants, one of the toughest Gargantuans in the game, lasted longer than a turn or two was by houseruling them to have the 5th edition 3++ from Warp Field. Making them easier to kill them with D strength weapons is just stupid.

Gargantuan Creatures only took 1 wound from Strength D, they were the most survivable models against it.

I don't have my Apocalypse book at work, but I'm fairly sure they took D6, and some people houseruled it to D3 to make them more survivable.

The problem with that is Gargantuan Creatures were already hilariously vulnerable to D strength weapons. The only way Heirophants, one of the toughest Gargantuans in the game, lasted longer than a turn or two was by houseruling them to have the 5th edition 3++ from Warp Field. Making them easier to kill them with D strength weapons is just stupid.

Uh...no they weren't. D-Weapons did 1 wound per shot. Hierophants would be in your lines by the time you'd be able to do enough damage. Most killy GMCs had an invulnerable save which they could use before. Now they can't. GMCs were far superior to their titan counter parts in the previous version of APOC. Tyranids had some of the best formations, etc as well. D-Weapons look to be the means of speeding up the APOC games some what. I can get behind that.

 -Loki- wrote:
I don't have my Apocalypse book at work, but I'm fairly sure they took D6, and some people houseruled it to D3 to make them more survivable.

Incorrect. From the apocalypse book that looks like this:

Page 96: Destroyer weapons: "If the target fails to save the wound, the weapon always inflicts instant Death, regardless of the target's toughness. If the target is immune to Instant Death, then the destroyer will cause one wound as normal."

Page 91: Under Gargantuan Creatures: "All Gargantuan creatures are immune to the Instant Death rule.


However, on that same page, it says that "any attack that would normally kill a model automatically (like a Force Weapon or an attack that kills on a failed characteristic test)" they take 1d3 instead.

Maybe that's what you're thinking of?

Correct. I apparently misread the rule that applied multiple wounds to Gargantuan Creatures.

So any sightings of the fabled "terrain large enough to hide a wraithknight behind?

 mjl7atlas wrote:
So any sightings of the fabled "terrain large enough to hide a wraithknight behind?

It's probably the Aquila Strongpoint

Brother Paen wrote:
Didn't turbolasers and such remove D3 structure points in Imperial Armor? ...way before Apoc?

They used to, but they were also just STR 8-10 ordnance weapons and only removed D3 SP if you rolled a "lose a SP" result on the damage table. They were much, much weaker than the Apocalypse version.

 CaptKaruthors wrote:
D-Weapons aren't really that different than before other than the fact that gargantuan creatures can be hurt more effectively by them now.

No, D-weapons are significantly different, and much more overpowered.

1) They hurt superheavies a lot more. Now it's an automatic D3+1 (or much more if you roll a 6) instead of just a penetrating hit and having to roll well on the damage table to do it.

2) They auto-kill non-superheavy vehicles on a 2+ instead of just getting a penetrating hit and having to roll well on the damage table. This makes them much more effective at killing multiple "normal" vehicles, effectively turning D-weapons into vortex weapons.

3) They ignore invulnerable saves (and all other defenses). Now your expensive TH/SS terminators die just as fast as anything else even though you paid a lot to get an invulnerable save.

End result is that the "everything that can take D-weapons does take D-weapons" rule becomes even stronger and you absolutely need a house rule to prevent the game becoming nothing more than a question of who can scratchbuild the most D-weapons. They're the best possible weapon against every type of target and there's no reason to ever take anything that doesn't have a D-weapon.

It's why "Destroyer" should be a weapon quality no different to "Rending" or "Fleshbane" or whatever, so that the weapon maintains its regular Strength Value and then gets rules on top of that rather than "Everything under the tempalte just dies" which is, quite frankly, really rather childish.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's why "Destroyer" should be a weapon quality no different to "Rending" or "Fleshbane" or whatever, so that the weapon maintains its regular Strength Value and then gets rules on top of that rather than "Everything under the tempalte just dies" which is, quite frankly, really rather childish.

This. So much this!

I have a gun that basically shoots a sun at you. No rocks will save you from that, nor will laying on the ground or throwing your buddy in front of you. Similarly tank armor might survive but the heat or radiation would kill the operators inside.

I see why they made the rules like that, but it should be balanced out by only a few weapons have access to 'D' profiles.

I really don't like the sound of the new D Weapons ignoring invulnerable saves. That makes no sense fluff wise.

Invulnerable saves are often caused by sorcery & psychic powers, which would have the capability to shield from those attacks.

It will speed up the game, but will also take a lot of strategy out of the game. There will be little reason to spend big points on invulnerable save armed models, with lot's of D Weapons on the table.

I hope there is more to this than what I am reading here. Hopefully, only a very few models will have D Weapons with these rules.

 MikeFox wrote:
I see why they made the rules like that, but it should be balanced out by only a few weapons have access to 'D' profiles.

This is what I'm hoping for, HBMCs solution. If they make them this much better, make them much more restricted. Things like Volcano Cannons, Macro Cannons (which, IIRC, are ship based weapons for fleet warfare, mostly), Plasma Annihilators, etc. Guns that actually deserve to be D strength, rather than every Warhound spitting out 4 D strength shots a turn because why the hell wouldn't you give one a pair of turbo lasers?

 -Loki- wrote:

 MikeFox wrote:
I see why they made the rules like that, but it should be balanced out by only a few weapons have access to 'D' profiles.

This is what I'm hoping for, HBMCs solution. If they make them this much better, make them much more restricted. Things like Volcano Cannons, Macro Cannons (which, IIRC, are ship based weapons for fleet warfare, mostly), Plasma Annihilators, etc. Guns that actually deserve to be D strength, rather than every Warhound spitting out 4 D strength shots a turn because why the hell wouldn't you give one a pair of turbo lasers?

I hope the Shadowsword doesn't have a 7" D weapon like it does in the current rules... Take 3 of them, and you would probably win if you go first in any game around the 10K range.

Sounds boring. The game would come down to who goes first, and the only real strategy would be to play reserve games with your opponent. No cover, No invuln, everything dies under a 7" pizza plate.

BTW, the pizza plate goes up to 15" now (used to be 10"). So there are going to be 15" wide D weapons....... Sounds kinda lame honestly.

Honestly, my biggest issue with the rumored D rules (at least going by the BoLS rumors) is that they seem disproportionally effective against tanks. A grot will survive against a D weapon more often than a Land Raider will, and most MC's have a decent, if not better than even chance of walking away from a hit (something like a Wraithlord or Riptide would need a 6 to be rolled to die to one) while non-superheavy vehicles, be it puny Land Speeder or mighty Spartan Assault Tank or Leman Russ, explode on better than a 2+.

dlight wrote:
I really don't like the sound of the new D Weapons ignoring invulnerable saves. That makes no sense fluff wise.

Invulnerable saves are often caused by sorcery & psychic powers, which would have the capability to shield from those attacks.

There's a difference between shielding from a power sword or man portable lascannon, and a particle cannon that's 18m long or a macrocannon firing shells the size of sentinels. There's a limit to what a field mountable on most models can take.

It will speed up the game, but will also take a lot of strategy out of the game. There will be little reason to spend big points on invulnerable save armed models, with lot's of D Weapons on the table.

To be fair, this is already the case, it's very rare that spending lots of points on invul saves on more than one or two models is worth it. Fortunately, even with ignoring invul saves, they actually end up ahead in many cases if they only had like a 5+ invul.

dlight wrote:
BTW, the pizza plate goes up to 15" now (used to be 10"). So there are going to be 15" wide D weapons....... Sounds kinda lame honestly.

Well, one possibility is that they use more of those variable strength on the 15"/10"/7" blast weapons, such as only D Strength on the inner circle and lower Strength and AP in the outer ring(s). So if you scatter the D section of the blast marker might miss the intended target even if you still hit it with the marker.

Am i the only one that thinks the new way the 15"/10"/7" template works will seriously slow the game down?

Personally I think STR D should have always ignored invul save since it a insane powerful blast that nothing can escape from. However I can understand others opinion why the new rule seem OP, but it is a new edition and new rules. People will adapt. Fortunately I just spam a Imperial Navy, Cron Air, and all the stormravens/talons,heldrakes, and now hemlocks all in my list. To be fair, I been using flyers in APOC ever since APOC rules allowing a 4+ cover save, and a 12 inch weapon range reduction for enemies firing at them. Those were the days!

legions_no_more wrote:
Personally I think STR D should have always ignored invul save since it a insane powerful blast that nothing can escape from. However I can understand others opinion why the new rule seem OP, but it is a new edition and new rules. People will adapt. Fortunately I just spam a Imperial Navy, Cron Air, and all the stormravens/talons,heldrakes, and now hemlocks all in my list. To be fair, I been using flyers in APOC ever since APOC rules allowing a 4+ cover save, and a 12 inch weapon range reduction for enemies firing at them. Those were the days!

Spamming flyers in the Apoc environment I play in is a very bad idea. There is so much AA on the table, they pretty much blow up as soon as they come in.
I rarely take them anymore. I may take the 3x Heldrake formation (because it starts on the table). But I don't expect it to last more than 1-2 turns.

dlight wrote:

legions_no_more wrote:
Personally I think STR D should have always ignored invul save since it a insane powerful blast that nothing can escape from. However I can understand others opinion why the new rule seem OP, but it is a new edition and new rules. People will adapt. Fortunately I just spam a Imperial Navy, Cron Air, and all the stormravens/talons,heldrakes, and now hemlocks all in my list. To be fair, I been using flyers in APOC ever since APOC rules allowing a 4+ cover save, and a 12 inch weapon range reduction for enemies firing at them. Those were the days!

Spamming flyers in the Apoc environment I play in is a very bad idea. There is so much AA on the table, they pretty much blow up as soon as they come in.
I rarely take them anymore. I may take the 3x Heldrake formation (because it starts on the table). But I don't expect it to last more than 1-2 turns.

Totally agree with AA, but with careful planning and my assassin formation, there literally no AA on the field when my flyers arrives. Plus my teammates makes it an all out effort to take out AA so my fliers can do all the damage. Also adding 9 FMC to the apoc airspace

Seems the rules are designed for people to buy loads of models...So when theyre all destroyed, there will still be something left?
Don't like the sound of this at all.

blood lance wrote:
Seems the rules are designed for people to buy loads of models...

Did you ever think it was going to be something else?

dlight wrote:

legions_no_more wrote:
Personally I think STR D should have always ignored invul save since it a insane powerful blast that nothing can escape from. However I can understand others opinion why the new rule seem OP, but it is a new edition and new rules. People will adapt. Fortunately I just spam a Imperial Navy, Cron Air, and all the stormravens/talons,heldrakes, and now hemlocks all in my list. To be fair, I been using flyers in APOC ever since APOC rules allowing a 4+ cover save, and a 12 inch weapon range reduction for enemies firing at them. Those were the days!

Spamming flyers in the Apoc environment I play in is a very bad idea. There is so much AA on the table, they pretty much blow up as soon as they come in.
I rarely take them anymore. I may take the 3x Heldrake formation (because it starts on the table). But I don't expect it to last more than 1-2 turns.

This. In normal games AA isn't always there. in Apoc it's usually there in a big way.

Though, the last couple Apoc games I played, my opponents decided the best place to put their dozen+ flyers, mostly AV10 Eldar and Ork flyers, was on the side with 9 Hydra Flakk tanks, and then they didn't bother to shoot at the Hydra Flakk Tanks. It ended as expected.

dlight wrote:
Spamming flyers in the Apoc environment I play in is a very bad idea. There is so much AA on the table, they pretty much blow up as soon as they come in.
I rarely take them anymore. I may take the 3x Heldrake formation (because it starts on the table). But I don't expect it to last more than 1-2 turns.

Unless of course you bring an Apocalypse-specific army with 999999999999 Basilisks, in which case all AA is dead by the end of the first shooting phase.

Which really highlights the problem with GW's idiotic design for Apocalypse (only made worse by the new interceptor quad lascannon spam): if you bring a "fluff" army you get tabled even more effortlessly than in in normal 40k. If you design an army for Apocalypse you win. So whoever has the most money to spend on stuff they'll never use in a normal game wins, and everyone else just brings the targets.

That many Basilisks would be quite fluffy, though!

And when you think about it, it does give models without invul saves a shred of hope as now a 1 counts as evaded. They didnt have that before!

Engrimm wrote:

Hierophant is 250 points cheaper. Bio-cannon is assault 6, and he also has a 6+ inv save.

Does anyone have more details on the Nid GC's?

Is the Hierophant really 1000pts when it can be insta-killed by D-weapons now? Does it get any change/bonus to wound regen instead?

What happened to Hierodules and Harridans?

Hi,

the Hierrofant cant be easily instantkilled, you need to roll a 6 followed by a 5 on the D-Table IF IT HAS 10 Wounds - we dont know yet! If hit by a D weapon you roll on this table:

1 No wound
2-5 D3+1 Wound
6 D6+6 Wounds