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.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
Deeply apologize for asking if already asked, but has there been any news about changes to assault? That to me, seemed to be in dire need of fixing...

From info that's been gathered only thing that has changed is charging through difficult terrain is only -2" as well wounds in challenges spill over to the rest of combat.

 Blacksails wrote:

mercury14 wrote:



So when a D weapon large blast hits a squad of 5 tac marines in a bush, it kills on average two guys. Assuming it doesn't scatter then it kills one or zero.

Awesome.

Maybe people forgot D weapons ever existed in standard 40k games and the game can inch a little closer into the realm of sanity.

Which may seem great except for us poor Eldar players that had their prices go up dramatically due to having access to D-weapons on our vehicles almost exclusively. Having ANY unit be effectively usless in a game is bad for the game, nobody should wish that unless they're simply dolts.

 Blacksails wrote:
The solution for D weapons is to remove them entirely from normal games of 40k.

The solution for deathstars with absurd invulns is to address the source of those invulns, not create a weapon that ignores everything.

The only solution that works. Escalation was a stupid idea, apoc should stay in apoc.

mercury14 wrote:

Davor wrote:
First where has it been PROVEN you can take cover saves against D-Weapons? I just thought it was Invulnerable saves allowed only.

Second, so what if Cover Saves can be take. After all a blade of grass gave a cover save to the old Terror of the Deep rule a cover save and NOBODY except Nid players had any trouble with this.

If cover saves can be taken against D weapons then they're ridiculously weak now.

What game are you playing where a weapon which essentially hits at S14 AP2 (because it still wounds T10 on a 2+) with d3+1 wounds (which is usually instant death bypassing EW unless you're an MC) is weak? Good lord. Considering that titans still get 4 large blasts of the damn things, they're more than powerful enough with cover saves, as in there's actually a reason to take things which aren't titans. Not to mention the C'tan would continue to ignore cover as it's weapon is a hellstorm. I mean, really.

That said, D weapons have always ignored cover saves and other, weaker weapons do as well - I would be surprised to see that change. Getting inv saves is a great buff though - Wraiths and Daemons are fast enough to get into contact with Titans now, where assuming that they'll still be unable to leave combat (likely, the designers don't seem to realise how dumb it is that things larger than infantry can be locked in combat and probably won't start now) they'll be crippled. On the other hand, the T C'tan has gotten even better with its 4++ and super speed boots. Basically, I anticipate that this will help with the OPness of Str D but I still expect it to be wildly broken and almost unplayable, just with less "my army is a titan, inq with divination and meaningless garbage which won't matter" lists.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
D weapons giving cover are pretty much worse than normal str equivalents

I keep seeing people say this.

How? Seriously - how exactly are they "pretty much worse" than a Str10 AP1 weapon? They pen on a 2-5 for any vehicle. They auto-kill on a 6. They throw tons of wounds on multi-wound models.

Str10AP1 blast against Carnifexes in cover? maybe 2 wounds, not even a dead Carnifex.
D blast against Carnifexes in cover? Likely at least one dead Carnifex.

Considering cover saves are more readily available than invuln saves, and are easier to manipulate to get a better save vs invuln saves which are generally static. Unless the calculation for coversaves are changed so that 2+ cover isnt as easy to get anymore.

I'm fine with toning down D for normal play, but this is a bit too much

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:


Which may seem great except for us poor Eldar players that had their prices go up dramatically due to having access to D-weapons on our vehicles almost exclusively. Having ANY unit be effectively usless in a game is bad for the game, nobody should wish that unless they're simply dolts.

My point is exactly that S: D weapons (and their carriers) have no place in a normal battle of 40k. D weapons currently make a lot of things useless, as they're a counter to everything and their platforms are prohibitively difficult to kill.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Honestly a giant titan killing weapon being ignored because a guy hid behind a fence post...srsly

Honestly a giant worm erupting from under ground being ignored because a guy hid behind a fence post... srsly.
Honestly a giant floating brain sucking the soul out of everyone around him being ignored because a guy hid behind a fence post... srsly.

Clearly the fence post needs a nerf

 Blacksails wrote:


My point is exactly that S: D weapons (and their carriers) have no place in a normal battle of 40k. D weapons currently make a lot of things useless, as they're a counter to everything and their platforms are prohibitively difficult to kill.

Have you played against a superheavy? They're not that hard to kill

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
The solution for D weapons is to remove them entirely from normal games of 40k.

The solution for deathstars with absurd invulns is to address the source of those invulns, not create a weapon that ignores everything.

The only solution that works. Escalation was a stupid idea, apoc should stay in apoc.

Exactly. There's no reason for them to be included in normal 40k battles except for GW to cash in.

It was a game-breakingly stupid decision on their part.

 Blacksails wrote:

mercury14 wrote:



If D weapons grant cover saves they'll be apocalyptically stupid.

Again,

Awesome

The game doesn't need D weapons. Nerfing them into oblivion is a step in the direction towards sanity.

No, you should not be hoping for stupid, incoherent rules. D weapons needed to be toned down but if any guardsman in cover can GTG and get a 3+ save against them that's just horrible game design.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
D weapons giving cover are pretty much worse than normal str equivalents

I keep seeing people say this.

How? Seriously - how exactly are they "pretty much worse" than a Str10 AP1 weapon? They pen on a 2-5 for any vehicle. They auto-kill on a 6. They throw tons of wounds on multi-wound models.

Str10AP1 blast against Carnifexes in cover? maybe 2 wounds, not even a dead Carnifex.
D blast against Carnifexes in cover? Likely at least one dead Carnifex.

Considering cover saves are more readily available than invuln saves, and are easier to manipulate to get a better save vs invuln saves which are generally static. Unless the calculation for coversaves are changed so that 2+ cover isnt as easy to get anymore.

I'm fine with toning down D for normal play, but this is a bit too much

The real thing is that they should not be in normal play. They belong in apoc and apoc only.

mercury14 wrote:


D weapons needed to be toned down

No, they need to be removed.

You are right that I shouldn't hope for incoherent rules, but honestly, that's all I expect from GW.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
The solution for D weapons is to remove them entirely from normal games of 40k.

The solution for deathstars with absurd invulns is to address the source of those invulns, not create a weapon that ignores everything.

The only solution that works. Escalation was a stupid idea, apoc should stay in apoc.

Exactly. There's no reason for them to be included in normal 40k battles except for GW to cash in.

It was a game-breakingly stupid decision on their part.

Some people do actually like giant machines of war. Yknow in a sci-fi setting

I dont get how 2++ rerollable, flyer spam and 234098 monsterous creatures are ok, but D weapon is 'crossing the line"

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


Some people do actually like giant machines of war. Yknow in a sci-fi setting

Yeah, in games of Apocalypse, with 3k+ points.

Not in a 1500pts battle with one titan and some dude casting psychic powers.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
The solution for D weapons is to remove them entirely from normal games of 40k.

The solution for deathstars with absurd invulns is to address the source of those invulns, not create a weapon that ignores everything.

The only solution that works. Escalation was a stupid idea, apoc should stay in apoc.

Exactly. There's no reason for them to be included in normal 40k battles except for GW to cash in.

It was a game-breakingly stupid decision on their part.

Some people do actually like giant machines of war. Yknow in a sci-fi setting

Then play apoc. Apoc is great fun, but it is not made for competition. D weapons were never designed for competitive play.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Then play apoc. Apoc is great fun, but it is not made for competition. D weapons were never designed for competitive play.

Considering GW keeps reapeating that 40k wasnt designed for competitive play either, I dont see the problem.

I dont see Knights getting this much crap

 Blacksails wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
The solution for D weapons is to remove them entirely from normal games of 40k.

The solution for deathstars with absurd invulns is to address the source of those invulns, not create a weapon that ignores everything.

The only solution that works. Escalation was a stupid idea, apoc should stay in apoc.

Exactly. There's no reason for them to be included in normal 40k battles except for GW to cash in.

It was a game-breakingly stupid decision on their part.

Same as allowing 2+ re-rollable saves.

 Sigvatr wrote:


Same as allowing 2+ re-rollable saves.

Agreed.

mercury14 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

mercury14 wrote:



So when a D weapon large blast hits a squad of 5 tac marines in a bush, it kills on average two guys. Assuming it doesn't scatter then it kills one or zero.

Awesome.

Maybe people forgot D weapons ever existed in standard 40k games and the game can inch a little closer into the realm of sanity.

If D weapons grant cover saves they'll be apocalyptically stupid.

What was "apocalyptically stupid" was bringing them into normal 40k in the first place.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Then play apoc. Apoc is great fun, but it is not made for competition. D weapons were never designed for competitive play.

Considering GW keeps reapeating that 40k wasnt designed for competitive play either, I dont see the problem.

I dont see Knights getting this much crap

If it makes you feel any better, I think Knights were a poor idea too.

And its not just about competitive play; its awful for casual play too. Different ideas of what fun is only further divides players. If they never existed in standard 40k and were left entirely in Apoc, it'd be one less thing a casual player would need to worry about when looking for an opponent/game.

Broken rules hurt casual players as much as, if not more, than competitive players. Strength D is not good for standard 40k.

Farseer Faenyin wrote:Which may seem great except for us poor Eldar players that had their prices go up dramatically due to having access to D-weapons on our vehicles almost exclusively. Having ANY unit be effectively usless in a game is bad for the game, nobody should wish that unless they're simply dolts.

Wrong type of D-Weapons. Str D, as in destroyer weapons, not D-weapon, as in distortion weapon, types.

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Have you played against a superheavy? They're not that hard to kill

There are varying degrees of SH. On one end, you have Baneblades and so on which, whilst good, are generally agreed to be fine for standard play.

Then there's Warhound Titans on Skyshields with 2 div psykers granting rerolls to scatter and rerolling saves. This category is nearly impossible to reasonably kill. Take out ignoring inv saves and I can instead take a T C'tan which is 1000x worse than a Wraithwing doing more damage both in and out of combat. Evidently you played against the former and not the latter, or you would understand why Str D is ridiculous.

 Blacksails wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Then play apoc. Apoc is great fun, but it is not made for competition. D weapons were never designed for competitive play.

Considering GW keeps reapeating that 40k wasnt designed for competitive play either, I dont see the problem.

I dont see Knights getting this much crap

If it makes you feel any better, I think Knights were a poor idea too.

And its not just about competitive play; its awful for casual play too. Different ideas of what fun is only further divides players. If they never existed in standard 40k and were left entirely in Apoc, it'd be one less thing a casual player would need to worry about when looking for an opponent/game.

Broken rules hurt casual players as much as, if not more, than competitive players. Strength D is not good for standard 40k.

I disagree, and i dont buy superheavies with D are as prevalent as you make them out to be. Casuals are probably not going to meet many people that order Forgeworld superheavies. Or drop the money for the plastic ones, only one of which has a D ranged weapon, the Vault/ctan

The more I hear arguments against D, the more I'm convinced people havent actually played again against it, they're just afraid of the 'boogeyman' at this point

Eyjio wrote:

There are varying degrees of SH. On one end, you have Baneblades and so on which, whilst good, are generally agreed to be fine for standard play.

Then there's Warhound Titans on Skyshields with 2 div psykers granting rerolls to scatter and rerolling saves. This category is nearly impossible to reasonably kill. Take out ignoring inv saves and I can instead take a T C'tan which is 1000x worse than a Wraithwing doing more damage both in and out of combat. Evidently you played against the former and not the latter, or you would understand why Str D is ridiculous.

How often does the later actually happen compared to the former? I doubt you run across all that man TFGs running the later scenario. Heck I own a warhound and I wouldnt do the later, I'm not that big of an ass.

it would seem nobody wants the D.....

 Colpicklejar wrote:
So what the heck is the source for the rumor that overwatch/snap shots are now just a flat -2 to BS? Because there's a LOT of discussion about it in the tactics forum and I haven't seen any proof whatsoever that that is even a thing.

I think it came from 4chan. Somebody posted a litany of stuff that is confirmed, but threw in this tidbit:

"Oh, and apparently snap fire has been changed to a -2BS modifier instead of the flat BS1"

That doesn't sound like he actually saw it. Plus -2 BS doesn't sound plausible. You're telling me I can drive 12" in my Rhino and shoot a multi-melta at a flyer at BS2? Nah.

 optometris wrote:
it would seem nobody wants the D.....

Yeah, you'd think more people would be fans of Jack Black

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Then play apoc. Apoc is great fun, but it is not made for competition. D weapons were never designed for competitive play.

Considering GW keeps reapeating that 40k wasnt designed for competitive play either, I dont see the problem.

I dont see Knights getting this much crap

If it makes you feel any better, I think Knights were a poor idea too.

And its not just about competitive play; its awful for casual play too. Different ideas of what fun is only further divides players. If they never existed in standard 40k and were left entirely in Apoc, it'd be one less thing a casual player would need to worry about when looking for an opponent/game.

Broken rules hurt casual players as much as, if not more, than competitive players. Strength D is not good for standard 40k.

I disagree, and i dont buy superheavies with D are as prevalent as you make them out to be. Casuals are probably not going to meet many people that order Forgeworld superheavies. Or drop the money for the plastic ones, only one of which has a D ranged weapon, the Vault/ctan

The more I hear arguments against D, the more I'm convinced people havent actually played again against it, they're just afraid of the 'boogeyman' at this point

Eyjio wrote:

There are varying degrees of SH. On one end, you have Baneblades and so on which, whilst good, are generally agreed to be fine for standard play.

Then there's Warhound Titans on Skyshields with 2 div psykers granting rerolls to scatter and rerolling saves. This category is nearly impossible to reasonably kill. Take out ignoring inv saves and I can instead take a T C'tan which is 1000x worse than a Wraithwing doing more damage both in and out of combat. Evidently you played against the former and not the latter, or you would understand why Str D is ridiculous.

How often does the later actually happen compared to the former? I doubt you run across all that man TFGs running the later scenario. Heck I own a warhound and I wouldnt do the later, I'm not that big of an ass.

I agree. And while I think they should be toned down especially vs vehicles, allowing full cover saves makes them ridiculously weak.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
D weapons giving cover are pretty much worse than normal str equivalents

I keep seeing people say this.

How? Seriously - how exactly are they "pretty much worse" than a Str10 AP1 weapon? They pen on a 2-5 for any vehicle. They auto-kill on a 6. They throw tons of wounds on multi-wound models.

Str10AP1 blast against Carnifexes in cover? maybe 2 wounds, not even a dead Carnifex.
D blast against Carnifexes in cover? Likely at least one dead Carnifex.

Considering cover saves are more readily available than invuln saves, and are easier to manipulate to get a better save vs invuln saves which are generally static. Unless the calculation for coversaves are changed so that 2+ cover isnt as easy to get anymore.

I'm fine with toning down D for normal play, but this is a bit too much

Did I stutter? StrD is still significantly better than S10AP1. Go ahead - keep screaming "But cover!!11eleven!" as if it matters. Even. With. Cover. It's. Better.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
The solution for D weapons is to remove them entirely from normal games of 40k.

The solution for deathstars with absurd invulns is to address the source of those invulns, not create a weapon that ignores everything.

The only solution that works. Escalation was a stupid idea, apoc should stay in apoc.

Exactly. There's no reason for them to be included in normal 40k battles except for GW to cash in.

It was a game-breakingly stupid decision on their part.

Couldn't agree more. Having super weapons wipe out entire squads in one shot in a 2000 pt game isn't fun.

Actually, GW should release a new giant model called the...Destroyer Destroyer that absorbs the power of D-weapons by nullyfing their effects in a 12'' radius around them.

120$ per model.

Oh, I just got a call. I'm on the GW design team now \0/

/e:...with lots of skulls.

Instant promotion.

rigeld2 wrote:

Did I stutter? StrD is still significantly better than S10AP1. Go ahead - keep screaming "But cover!!11eleven!" as if it matters. Even. With. Cover. It's. Better.

You apparently did stutter, and its not that much better for the cost of a D weapon, anything but a 6 its almost the same against a vehicle, against single would models, its ID either way on a failed save; multi wound models yes its better against those, slightly.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Couldn't agree more. Having super weapons wipe out entire squads in one shot in a 2000 pt game isn't fun.

A riptide already being able to do that to MEQ units in cover is any different than this how?

rigeld2 wrote:

Did I stutter? StrD is still significantly better than S10AP1. Go ahead - keep screaming "But cover!!11eleven!" as if it matters. Even. With. Cover. It's. Better.

It's not that much better because each grants a 5+ cover save or 3+ GTG against things in cover. The probability of killing most things is very similar now.