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.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

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

The prevalence of super heavies that are underpowered/balanced has no relevance to a discussion on the power of strength D weapons. No one is saying a Vulcan Macharius is terrifying.

My point is, and has always been, that Strength D is a poorly thought out, and implemented rule for standard games of 40k.

I've read enough bat reps to understand that tourneys that have run LoW/Escalation are exceedingly one sided when D weapons are used.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

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.

Okay, so you've moved from "pretty much worse" to "not much better for the cost". That's something.
Against a Land Raider it's a Pen +2 on the die as long as you don't roll a 1. vs S10 which does nothing 1/2 of the time, glances 1/6 of the time, and pens 1/3 of the time. So it's not almost the same at all - it's significantly better.
In fact, it's better in every scenario except single wound models. Oh damn. Titan killers aren't perfect at wiping out something that is nothing like a Titan? Darn. What a shame.

WrentheFaceless wrote:
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.

Rarely, but so what? The fact it can and does happen at all is indicative enough. I, and many others, believe that the game would be better if it couldn't be cheesed at all, rather than relying on players (especially newbies who're already flooded with a huge amount of information) to self-moderate. One is unbreakable and great design, the other is down to laziness and apathy.

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

He did say they weren't fun to face though. Unless you're arguing that it IS fun to face a Riptide ignoring cover, it sounds to me like you're agreeing with him.

mercury14 wrote:

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.

Only because you're looking at single wound models. Since the weapon was designed to destroy Titans, the fact that it has a weakness against single wound models (and not really a weakness - it just isn't significantly more effective against them) isn't surprising. In fact, it *gasp* makes sense.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

Rugrud wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

cover is ridiculously stupid easy to get these days.

As is getting ignore cover.

Not everyone plays tau

Just off the top of my head, besides tau there is wave serpent shields, Astra mitarum orders, heldrake from CSM , abyssal staff from necrons, every other template weapon, and a psychic power in divination which is already the most popular psychic discipline... You don't think ignores cover is easy to get?

 Sigvatr wrote:
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.

You must be talking about this void shield generator, right ?

Instant stock depletion.

120 £ mean selling price on ebay.

See, you are not far from the truth.

Considering few use escalation in normal play because of the craziness of the current str.D, it's hardly surprising GW toned it down in an attempt to make lords of war more popular. If you really want super str.D just play apoc and use those rules. The change is really aimed at the 90% of casual and tournament players who won't use the rules in their current form.

 Sigvatr wrote:

The main point, to me, isn't that it's a nerf to D-weapons as a whole - they definitely were too strong on an overall scale. The big problem is that they were the hard counter to fethed up stuff like high invul saves. The problem is not the nerf to D-weapons. It's the resulting big buff for certain invul saves.

More like a buff to cover saves, relatively speaking. A guardsman going to ground in cover against them has just as much D weapon defense as a Terminator with a storm shield. And that's dumb.

 Sigvatr wrote:


The main point, to me, isn't that it's a nerf to D-weapons as a whole - they definitely were too strong on an overall scale. The big problem is that they were the hard counter to fethed up stuff like high invul saves. The problem is not the nerf to D-weapons. It's the resulting big buff for certain invul saves.

Good, there should never be anything which entirely negates the distinction between elite units and weaker ones. It's bad enough that they ignore toughness and AV IMO. The problem with these stupid invul saves is that they exist at all. The solution to game designers making the once rare and valuable save which protected from everything instead be quite commonplace is not to make another, even stronger thing which ignores even that. All that leads to is getting layers upon layers of saves, slowing down the game and always ramping up the power indefinitely. They should errata out the 2++ rerollables (or realistically any save rerolls/2++s, I have no idea who thought either would ever be a good idea) rather than introduce a gun which has no counter.

 Blacksails wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

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

The prevalence of super heavies that are underpowered/balanced has no relevance to a discussion on the power of strength D weapons. No one is saying a Vulcan Macharius is terrifying.

My point is, and has always been, that Strength D is a poorly thought out, and implemented rule for standard games of 40k.

I've read enough bat reps to understand that tourneys that have run LoW/Escalation are exceedingly one sided when D weapons are used.

The prevalance of them have complete relevance when you're trying to compare the fact that they ruin casual games due to their prevalance.

mercury14 wrote:


The main point, to me, isn't that it's a nerf to D-weapons as a whole - they definitely were too strong on an overall scale. The big problem is that they were the hard counter to fethed up stuff like high invul saves. The problem is not the nerf to D-weapons. It's the resulting big buff for certain invul saves.

More like a buff to cover saves, relatively speaking. A guardsman going to ground in cover against them has just as much D weapon defense as a Terminator with a storm shield. And that's dumb.

 Sigvatr wrote:


The main point, to me, isn't that it's a nerf to D-weapons as a whole - they definitely were too strong on an overall scale. The big problem is that they were the hard counter to fethed up stuff like high invul saves. The problem is not the nerf to D-weapons. It's the resulting big buff for certain invul saves.

High invul saves aren't the problem. Rerollable 2+ saves in general are the problem. The two builds that use them should see a decline due to the Psychic changes.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


The prevalance of them have complete relevance when you're trying to compare the fact that they ruin casual games due to their prevalance.

I'm talking about D-weapons.

I'm talking about how they are an awful rule that hurts everyone, including casual gamers.

I'm not talking about any and all super heavies. I'm talking about Strength D weapons, and by extension, the carriers on which they sit. Those are the only super heavies I care about in this exchange, and they only matter because of the Strength D weapon they tote, which is what I'm discussing.

I hope I've made that clear to you.

Are you going to make a point?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

I'm talking about D-weapons.

I'm talking about how they are an awful rule that hurts everyone, including casual gamers.

I'm not talking about any and all super heavies. I'm talking about Strength D weapons, and by extension, the carriers on which they sit. Those are the only super heavies I care about in this exchange, and they only matter because of the Strength D weapon they tote, which is what I'm discussing.

I hope I've made that clear to you.

Are you going to make a point?

My only superheavy is an Eldar Lynx. Now it's a complete turd.

And it was not very good to begin with.

 Blacksails wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


The prevalance of them have complete relevance when you're trying to compare the fact that they ruin casual games due to their prevalance.

I'm talking about D-weapons.

I'm talking about how they are an awful rule that hurts everyone, including casual gamers.

I'm not talking about any and all super heavies. I'm talking about Strength D weapons, and by extension, the carriers on which they sit. Those are the only super heavies I care about in this exchange, and they only matter because of the Strength D weapon they tote, which is what I'm discussing.

I hope I've made that clear to you.

Are you going to make a point?

My point is there are many awful rules that make the game not fun and hurt everyone. I dont see why D 'crosses' the line where there is other more prevalent things ruining the game like deathstars, flyers, flying deathstars, psychic shenanigans.

Thats the point I'm making, why this gets whined about more than anything when there are more prevalent things ruining the game. how is this the straw that breaks the camel's back when tournaments are already pretty much deathstars vs deathstars, and superheavies are hardly used even without D.

All I'm seeing is complaints about a hypothetical boogeyman that could ruin the game if its used, rather complaining about the actual boogeyman that is 'ruining' the game thats used in every tournament.

I'm thinking a Jetseer with reavers is going to get me punched.

The cards are sounding pretty bad so far.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/05/objective-secured-sample-40k-objectives.html (I've fixed bols screw up)

SECURE OBJECTIVE 3:
Score 1 Victory Point is you control Objective Marker 3 at the end of your turn.

SUPREMACY:
Score D3 Victory Points if you control at least two Objective Markers and at least twice as many Objective Markers as your opponent controls at the end of your turn.

HUNGRY FOR GLORY:
Score 1 Victory Point if you issued a challenge during your turn. If you issued 3 or more challenges during your turn, score D3 Victory Points instead.

OVERWHELMING FIREPOWER:
Score 1 Victory Point if an enemy unit was completely destroyed during the Shooting Phase of your turn. If you completely destroyed 3 or more enemy units during the Shooting phase of your turn score D3 Victory Points instead.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before I start, a brief review of 6th ed missions from my perspective.

The Relic - stupid, it gave a massive advantage to tau and eldar who got extra movement they likely did not intend on them getting. It often served to highlight the issue of tables without adequate terrain and the issues with first blood. I never enjoyed it and it made using a center los blocking piece of a terrain a nightmare to balance game wise.

Emperor's Will - stupid, it suffered for similar reasons to relic. First blood was huge like with relic and in all honesety the mission either ended in a tie most of the time or a very small margin victory (first blood). It encouraged gunline and sitting on your butt and did not make for a good scenario in my experience.

The Scouring - Stupid, I've played it twice and both times the division in objectives decided the game before it even started. The LVO managed to fix it by ensuring both sides had the same levels of objectives and dictated where certain objectives went. I think we all liked fast scoring in this, but it's the possibility for terrible unfair division in objective value that ruins it. If it was just like big guns except fast instead of heavy it'd be fine.

Big Guns Never Tire - Ok, it's basically crusade but heavy scores. I can dig it.

Purge the Alien - Terrible, likely the worst mission. Kill point missions are a drag, I've never enjoyed them. For starters, there's the obvious imbalance in rewarding armies with smaller unit counts. Flying circus's and fmc spam lists and knights (puke) don't need a reward for not playing the game. Even in matchups with fairly similar sized forces in terms of unit count, it's still not engaging, often both sides in my experience just play conservatively and never really take risks. Boring,

Crusade - Good, it's pretty much baseline 40k mission. If done right it with ample los blocking terrain it incentivizes armies to move and not just gunline and with higher objectives and decent spread it can really help spread both armies out across the whole board and make for smaller clashes that are more engaging. It still has issues, like all the missions. It's main problem has been the introduction of fortifications, which nessesitated both opponents knowing what side of the board will belong to them. Which leads to cynical objective placement (think both players just tossing their objectives 6 inches from their board edge). In 5th, neither side knew where they would start and that worked a lot better. Fortifications really messed things up.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The gist of how it works: "Apparently you draw a set of these pre-game, and trade them in for new ones once completed, or can discard one and re-draw once per turn, if you don't like your current hand." . Like all rumours, going with what we know, it seems we may have to number our objectives for the cards to work, no big deal there, grab a sharpie. So the first card gives you a vp for holding a specific objective at the end of your turn, that in and of itself isn't bad. However, if objective 3 isn't tied to a specific location on the board and is just the 3rd objective that was placed, what if it's one of the objectives in your zone, great you just got a free vp for picking up a card. Yeah.. to me this is a bit like why a lot of us have our issues with first blood, it often seems rewarded simply to whoever goes first.

Supremecy is also arbitrary. You possibly just rewarded the guy sitting on his butt while the other player is going on the attack. We already don't find gunline terribly fun and now the guy sitting in his deployment holding his 2 objectives to your none just got a vp lead that you may not be able to beat. Awesome. Or if you've got two and he's got one, you still have twice as many. 3 objective missions can but tough enough without rewarding the guy who was already rewarded with 2 objectives to your 1 from t he get go. At least its possible that scenario I described doesn’t occur and the only upside is at least it has some interaction with the mission/scenario at hand, which is more than I can say for the other cards we’ve been shown.

Hungry for glory seems more about adding legitimacy to terrible mechanic than anything else. Close combat is less common than shooting during the course of a game. You don't really need to incentivize cc oriented units to assault. At the same time there are plenty of situation where a challenge may be a no brainer (think guard sgt. vs daemon prince). Challenges are terrible and I really don't understand giving vp's for them, it's the same issue as kill points, you're not taking anything into account, killing 1 model can be the same as killing a 30 man unit which is apparently the same as a guard sgt, doing the most obvious thing when charged by an fmc character.

Overwhelming firepower, or basically kill points popping up randomly. Kill points are pretty terrible, and here you are thinking that now you've rolled crusade you won't have to deal with them other than secondary’s. At least with the secondary’s there's some context. I would think killing the enemy leader to be a valuable accomplishment. I don't know why first blood is important but we'll leave it there. I actually wished line breaker stacked, might reward aggressive play. This however is just more and it's random, it's not even tied to a type of unit so congrats for picking up this card.


The cards for me are a non-starter for organized play (tournaments). I've never felt particularly good having won a game because of first blood, I would have rather tied it. With that said, there have been some games where my opponent having gone first failed to get first blood,

In any case, I value being able to know where the score is turn by turn, I would rather win based on my decisions and actions, tactics, strategy. Random providence will always be a factor, we play with dice. Knowing the averages is still very important. Luck has won and lost me games, however it was always combined with some level of sound judgment, some involvement on the players part. If lucking out on getting cards just winds me the game, it doesn't seem enjoyable to me. Fun is subjective; this doesn't sound fun to me.

Crusade is my favorite mission and I would argue is the baseline 40k mission, the one that plays the best and makes the most sense. What I really like about it is both players know the score throughout the game, they can read each other’s actions and gauge what they’re doing or are about to do.

Some of the cards you might really have to work for it, you’ll likely discard those, others, you may literally have been given free vp’s because… narrative. The whole thing is the opposite of organic or player driven, it’s arbitrary as hell. The better you’re doing, the more cards you pickup which just pulls further and further away from the scenario you’re supposed to be playing.

Think of the stupidity even in a narrative game. Say there’s 3 bridges, each one with an objective marker but over the course of the game, more vps have been handed out for random stuff like declaring challenges. “we haven’t secured the bridges yet sir but our southern colonel’s honour remains solid”. Or kill points out the butt. Based on what we’ve been told, you’re not drawing 3 cards for the game, you’re drawing them every turn if you've made use of ones you held previously, that seems like way too much. There’s no guarantee you’ll be able to make use of a card the turn you draw it, but there is also a chance it’s auto rewarded the second you draw it (you’re on the objective in question, it’s your turn so you get to challenge ect).


There may be some potential for home brew scenarios that utilize the cards differently. As it stands now based on what we’ve been told, it doesn’t sound good.

From the sounds of it you can draw new cards every turn regardless of whether you used the cards you had. So from a 5-7 turn game you could both be whipping through like 15-21 cards each… scenario? What scenario? Yeah…

 Juicifer wrote:
I'm thinking a Jetseer with reavers is going to get me punched.

I think Dark Eldar in general are going to get much better.

And for kicks you can have like Jain Zar jumping out of a Raider and wrecking face.

mercury14 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
"Borderline useless"?

Are you serious? Them no longer ignoring invulnerable saves makes them "borderline useless"?

Come on.

So D-Weapons allow cover saves now? Everything is going to GTG in cover an get a 3+ save from D death. That's a colossal nerf.

And what about Imperial Knights, they fail in CC to a whole lot of things now.

There is nothing in the leaked GW rules that says that units get cover saves from D-Weapons. Only invulns.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

mercury14 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
"Borderline useless"?

Are you serious? Them no longer ignoring invulnerable saves makes them "borderline useless"?

Come on.

So D-Weapons allow cover saves now? Everything is going to GTG in cover an get a 3+ save from D death. That's a colossal nerf.

And what about Imperial Knights, they fail in CC to a whole lot of things now.

There is nothing in the leaked GW rules that says that units get cover saves from D-Weapons. Only invulns.

Rumors are up on Faeit specifying that cover saves are taken. However you're right, we haven't seen a pic or anything.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 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?

Umm...I don't recall mentioning riptides at all. Are you projecting a completely different argument onto what's being talked about? I thought the topic was D weapons and how they're entirely too strong for games of a certain scale.

If you must know, I do think Riptides are too powerful for what they cost, but not D level insane.

 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

They get it from me. I will flatly refuse to play against them.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
My point is there are many awful rules that make the game not fun and hurt everyone. I dont see why D 'crosses' the line where there is other more prevalent things ruining the game like deathstars, flyers, flying deathstars, psychic shenanigans.

Deathstars use psychic powers (currently) to be supremely effective. I'll address that under psychic shenanigans as normal deathstars aren't that bad.
Flyers? Not that bad, and being addressed by the rumored snap shot buff.
Flying Deathstars? Um... there aren't any?
Psychic Shenanigans are being addressed by a whole new psychic phase, with rumors like "Fail to cast a power, you can't cast it again" so if I really don't want you to cast Fortune, you aren't casting it.

Thats the point I'm making, why this gets whined about more than anything when there are more prevalent things ruining the game. how is this the straw that breaks the camel's back when tournaments are already pretty much deathstars vs deathstars, and superheavies are hardly used even without D.

Because tournaments currently aren't deathstar vs deathstar.

All I'm seeing is complaints about a hypothetical boogeyman that could ruin the game if its used, rather complaining about the actual boogeyman that is 'ruining' the game thats used in every tournament.

Then you're ignoring a gakload of complaints to make your argument look good. Even in this thread there's people talking about how annoying the psychic deathstars are and what the psychic phase is going to do to them.

Seriously, you're tilting at windmills.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


My point is there are many awful rules that make the game not fun and hurt everyone. I dont see why D 'crosses' the line where there is other more prevalent things ruining the game like deathstars, flyers, flying deathstars, psychic shenanigans.

Thats the point I'm making, why this gets whined about more than anything when there are more prevalent things ruining the game. how is this the straw that breaks the camel's back when tournaments are already pretty much deathstars vs deathstars, and superheavies are hardly used even without D.

Well, I dislike all of those rules, and I wish they were fixed too.

However, with D weapons, they fundamentally ignore everything (currently) and are effective against everything bar flyers. The only effective counter to a strength D weapon is to bring another one, in which case the game turns into 'who brought the most efficient D platform', which isn't enjoyable for anyone. Flyers and psychic shenanigans have their counters, though some armies are typically worse off. Deathstars are a little more of an issue, as most can be split up to do some late game shenanigans.

I agree that those things are all bad aspects of the games rules.

D weapons however, were introduced to the standard game of 40k with no real thought as to their balance or inclusion. FW has a 25% cap on LoW, which rules out D weapons until 2k pts (and only a Shadowsword at that). While deathstars and their ilk are broken too, D weapons are the worst case of this. They kill everything, are incredibly resilient, especially when combined with easy and cheap force multipliers through psykers and fortifications, and are only afraid of someone doing the exact same setup in return.

Basically, D weapons and their associated LoW are the best example of the most lop-sided aspects of game balance in the rule set.

But yes, deathstars and such need fixing, and flyers don't belong in a 28mm game.

Don't know if this has been bought up at all (190 pages!!) but with the daemon summoning in the new edition, does anyone think that GW will finally release the plastic Greater Daemon kits soon??

 MWHistorian wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

rigeld2 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?

Umm...I don't recall mentioning riptides at all. Are you projecting a completely different argument onto what's being talked about? I thought the topic was D weapons and how they're entirely too strong for games of a certain scale.

If you must know, I do think Riptides are too powerful for what they cost, but not D level insane.

Yes the talk is about D weapons, but there are already Units that exist that can essentially do the same thing to units. I'm still trying to see how D is worse than this, considering I see riptides every tournament, but narry a superheavy.

Black, I agree with what you're saying. That's why D weapons should be fixed to work in the game.

mercury14 wrote:
Black, I agree with what you're saying. That's why D weapons should be fixed to work in the game.

No, they should be removed.

There fundamental nature is that of a titan killing weapon. If they're too weak, they won't be used; if they're too strong, everyone will spam them. They just don't simply belong within the realms of a standard battle in the sub 2k pts value. Anything above that, whatever, keep them as is.

There's no sensible reason why a 1500pts list can include a titan with S: D weapons.

Honestly, just make LoW choices a 25% cap of your points. That rules out all strength D until 2000pts where you can take a Shadowsword.

All this talk about D weapons no longer ignoring cover is making me think of Southpark now.

"Oh no! The volcano is erupting! Duck and cover!"

Until GW sees they can make money by giving normal 40k units access to D weapons, that is.