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.

 Blacksails wrote:

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.

The Eldar Lynx at 420 points can take a Pulsar: D, AP2, large blast

 Blacksails wrote:

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.

Not sure why the argument is 1500 point escalation games, most tourneys are at least 1750-1850 if not 2k these days

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 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.

Ah, I understand your argument now.
With riptide weapons, the opposing player at least has a chance of survival. D weapons ignore cover, every kind of saves and cause instant death. Riptide weapons don't do it to the degree that D weapons do. Yes, Riptides are OP and are one of the game breaking things I dislike about 40k. If it was me I'd nerf them as well as the other obviously OP (and boost the useless units) to gain something approaching balance. But 7th seems to be going the opposite way I'd like.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
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.

No, there aren't.
You're, again, only looking at single wound models. A single Riptide's shooting won't ever (unless I roll very very poorly) kill an entire unit of Carnifexes. A single D weapon? Not unlikely at all.
D is worse because it can not only eliminate single wound units but also nukes the crap out of multi wound units and vehicles, much more reliably than anything else in the game.

 Blacksails wrote:

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.

I would normally agree with you. Normally. If this were a better designed game.

But 40k has a serious problem with saves in general, compared to fantasy. Ever heard of a screamer star? That alone is justification for a S: D weapon, never mind all the other ways that it's possible to abuse the invulnerable save system. The ability to have a weapon that ignored all saves became a downright necessity when you considered the ability to get 2++ re-rollable or nearest equivalent. Or similar issued with 2+ save models hanging around in cover. The point when models are able to get saves so obscene that the firepower required to remove them is orders of magnitude greater in cost than the models themselves, we have a problem.

S: D was the previous response. It allowed us the option to look a save gimping arsehole dead in the eyes and tell him to stop that gak right now. Now, S: D is a waste of time and space, if only one in 6 hits is going to do the thing we brought the S: D for in the first place.

If there is a problem a given level of firepower cannot remove, then scale up until it does go away. Basic sense, right? Only now save gimping models have no reliable counter and the balance wobbles ever further off tilt.

mercury14 wrote:

They're not even titan killers for their points. D3+1 hull points again most likely unless they roll a 6. Or a 1 (one HP probably). An average titan needs to be shot three times by a D weapon.

Compare that to the titan-killing power of a bunch of melta, lances, haywire, etc and D weapons are poor choices.

Sure, let's do this then. Let's compare best to best - AP1 melta vs Str D. We can safely ignore all cover/inv saves if these rumours are to be believed, as that is a static scalar. Now, let's look at the expectations:

Let's assume D weapons can't miss - this is not unreasonable.
E[D3+1] = (2+3+4)/3 = 3
E[D6+6] = (7+8+9+10+11+12)/6 = 9.5

E[D weapon HP/wounds per hit] = 0+(2/3)(3)+(1/6)(9.5) = 43/12 = 3+7/12 ~= 3.583

Explodes do D3 HP, +1 for the pen, so D3+1 also.
E[BS4 melta HP vs AV14] = (2/3)((5/35)+(5/6)(21/36)+3(1/6)(21/36)) = 116/189 ~=0.614

A Str D weapon is roughly 5.8 times more effective than a melta. That means that a Warhound is roughly as good at 24 meltaguns. It does this from a huge range with almost unrestricted view. It's also substantially better against literally everything else as well. This is if they do allow cover as well - if they don't and the average save is 4+ then this goes up to 48 meltaguns. There is no way you can seriously look me in the eye and say that 24 meltaguns firing across the board is in any way bad. The entire argument is complete nonsense; this is a weapon which can kill hordes, MCs and Titans with ridiculous ease. To claim it's somehow underpowered because it no longer has the capacity to just delete units all of the time shows a great lack of common sense.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
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.

No, there aren't.
You're, again, only looking at single wound models. A single Riptide's shooting won't ever (unless I roll very very poorly) kill an entire unit of Carnifexes. A single D weapon? Not unlikely at all.
D is worse because it can not only eliminate single wound units but also nukes the crap out of multi wound units and vehicles, much more reliably than anything else in the game.

For the point cost of their platforms, I dont see how this is unreasonable, especially with the changes now that they dont ignore invuln saves on anything but a 6.

mercury14 wrote:



The Eldar Lynx at 420 points can take a Pulsar: D, AP2, large blast

I stand corrected.

Still, you'd need to be playing an 1850pts for that vehicle.

20%, deal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


Not sure why the argument is 1500 point escalation games, most tourneys are at least 1750-1850 if not 2k these days

Does it matter? Does my point still stand? Is it relevant?

Eyjio wrote:
Sure, let's do this then. Let's compare best to best - AP1 melta vs Str D. We can safely ignore all cover/inv saves if these rumours are to be believed, as that is a static scalar. Now, let's look at the expectations:

Let's assume D weapons can't miss - this is not unreasonable.
E[D3+1] = (2+3+4)/3 = 3
E[D6+6] = (7+8+9+10+11+12)/6 = 9.5

E[D weapon HP/wounds per hit] = 0+(2/3)(3)+(1/6)(9.5) = 43/12 = 3+7/12 ~= 3.583

Explodes do D3 HP, +1 for the pen, so D3+1 also.
E[BS4 melta HP vs AV14] = (2/3)((5/35)+(5/6)(21/36)+3(1/6)(21/36)) = 116/189 ~=0.614

A Str D weapon is roughly 5.8 times more effective than a melta. That means that a Warhound is roughly as good at 24 meltaguns. It does this from a huge range with almost unrestricted view. It's also substantially better against literally everything else as well. This is if they do allow cover as well - if they don't and the average save is 4+ then this goes up to 48 meltaguns. There is no way you can seriously look me in the eye and say that 24 meltaguns firing across the board is in any way bad. The entire argument is complete nonsense; this is a weapon which can kill hordes, MCs and Titans with ridiculous ease. To claim it's somehow underpowered because it no longer has the capacity to just delete units all of the time shows a great lack of common sense.[/size]

Their ability to output wounds was never in question.

Their being one of two things 40k provided us with that reliably removed saves was what they were important for. Only Grey Knights now retain that joy, and only sometimes.

Congratulations, 40k, invulnerable saves just got sillier and more broken.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
For the point cost of their platforms, I dont see how this is unreasonable, especially with the changes now that they dont ignore invuln saves on anything but a 6.

You're right - it's not unreasonable.
The current rumors are perfectly reasonable. Thanks for agreeing!

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

I would normally agree with you. Normally. If this were a better designed game.

All you've made an argument for is for nerfing other overpowered elements, like re-roll 2++ of the prevalence of easy to get cover.

D weapons are not the answer you're looking for. Find the issue and address it, don't just add another band aid to the layers.

Guys,... Jarvis said the cinematic is back in force.

You know what this means?

Genestealers will be great again!

Yayyayayay!

 Blacksails wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


Not sure why the argument is 1500 point escalation games, most tourneys are at least 1750-1850 if not 2k these days

Does it matter? Does my point still stand? Is it relevant?

Yes it does matter, if you're arguing that they're bad at X point cost, at least use a point cost most play is at. If you're going to make comparisons, make relevant ones, not ones that skew your argument to your favor irrationally.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
For the point cost of their platforms, I dont see how this is unreasonable, especially with the changes now that they dont ignore invuln saves on anything but a 6.

You're right - it's not unreasonable.
The current rumors are perfectly reasonable. Thanks for agreeing!

Yes I agree with Invulns being taken.

And I still ask for proof of cover being allowed as well.

Thats all I asked originally.

Another question though, how many points does 24 meltaguns cost?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


Yes it does matter, if you're arguing that they're bad at X point cost, at least use a point cost most play is at. If you're going to make comparisons, make relevant ones, not ones that skew your argument to your favor irrationally.

Again, if I said an 1850pts tournament...would it change the point I'm making?

No, no it wouldn't. Its still ridiculous you can bring a titan at 1850pts.

 Blacksails wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


Yes it does matter, if you're arguing that they're bad at X point cost, at least use a point cost most play is at. If you're going to make comparisons, make relevant ones, not ones that skew your argument to your favor irrationally.

Again, if I said an 1850pts tournament...would it change the point I'm making?

No, no it wouldn't. Its still ridiculous you can bring a titan at 1850pts.

I disagree, there are plenty of answers in a tournament standard 1850 point list for a superheavy with D.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
Sure, let's do this then. Let's compare best to best - AP1 melta vs Str D. We can safely ignore all cover/inv saves if these rumours are to be believed, as that is a static scalar. Now, let's look at the expectations:

Let's assume D weapons can't miss - this is not unreasonable.
E[D3+1] = (2+3+4)/3 = 3
E[D6+6] = (7+8+9+10+11+12)/6 = 9.5

E[D weapon HP/wounds per hit] = 0+(2/3)(3)+(1/6)(9.5) = 43/12 = 3+7/12 ~= 3.583

Explodes do D3 HP, +1 for the pen, so D3+1 also.
E[BS4 melta HP vs AV14] = (2/3)((5/35)+(5/6)(21/36)+3(1/6)(21/36)) = 116/189 ~=0.614

A Str D weapon is roughly 5.8 times more effective than a melta. That means that a Warhound is roughly as good at 24 meltaguns. It does this from a huge range with almost unrestricted view. It's also substantially better against literally everything else as well. This is if they do allow cover as well - if they don't and the average save is 4+ then this goes up to 48 meltaguns. There is no way you can seriously look me in the eye and say that 24 meltaguns firing across the board is in any way bad. The entire argument is complete nonsense; this is a weapon which can kill hordes, MCs and Titans with ridiculous ease. To claim it's somehow underpowered because it no longer has the capacity to just delete units all of the time shows a great lack of common sense.[/size]

Their ability to output wounds was never in question.

Their being one of two things 40k provided us with that reliably removed saves was what they were important for. Only Grey Knights now retain that joy, and only sometimes.

Congratulations, 40k, invulnerable saves just got sillier and more broken.

I think the argument is being made that instead of using D weapons to kill screamerstars or whatever, the better solution would be to solve the brokenness of said screamerstars and not use D weapons as a crutch for poor game design.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Their being one of two things 40k provided us with that reliably removed saves was what they were important for. Only Grey Knights now retain that joy, and only sometimes.

Congratulations, 40k, invulnerable saves just got sillier and more broken.

Serious question - do you think it's right to introduce a gun where there is absolutely no possible defence against it, put it on platforms which can fire with impunity at anything and then make it into large blasts so it affects multiple units? Do you think that the solution to a punctured tire is to slash the edges? Come on.

 bubber wrote:
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??

That's a good point, we've been expecting those to drop for awhile now and this would be the perfect time for them.

 bubber wrote:
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??

No official word as yet, but I'd be amazed if they didn't. especially now that the existing resin models are online exclusives.

I just hope they don't go too crazy with the scale, though given GW's current bigger-is-better mentality I'd not be surprised if new GDs end up the size of Knights.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


Yes it does matter, if you're arguing that they're bad at X point cost, at least use a point cost most play is at. If you're going to make comparisons, make relevant ones, not ones that skew your argument to your favor irrationally.

Again, if I said an 1850pts tournament...would it change the point I'm making?

No, no it wouldn't. Its still ridiculous you can bring a titan at 1850pts.

I disagree, there are plenty of answers in a tournament standard 1850 point list for a superheavy with D.

And there are plenty of extra layers of resilience you can add to that titan at 1850pts.

We can do this forever. The point is, D weapons have no place in standard 40k game because they're the worst example of balance currently. Changing the points value in an example from 1500 to 1850 doesn't invalidate my point.

Nah, it's going to be reaver titian sized.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I think the argument is being made that instead of using D weapons to kill screamerstars or whatever, the better solution would be to solve the brokenness of said screamerstars and not use D weapons as a crutch for poor game design.

I would love for that to happen, believe me. I'd love for a lot of surrently S: D weapons to get relegated to a D: D lite, much like what the new edition seems to be giving us.

But unless invun saves have changed (no rumors thus far), we've just ripped a crutch from the arms of a game with a broken leg. You have so solve the problem before you remove the temporary fix, not the other way around...

Eyjio wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Their being one of two things 40k provided us with that reliably removed saves was what they were important for. Only Grey Knights now retain that joy, and only sometimes.

Congratulations, 40k, invulnerable saves just got sillier and more broken.

Serious question - do you think it's right to introduce a gun where there is absolutely no possible defence against it, put it on platforms which can fire with impunity at anything and then make it into large blasts so it affects multiple units?

So long as that model is aptly priced and not gimpy as feth in its defense, yes. I don't care how ballsy you think your guy is, a shell the size of your body exploding on your face is fatal, end of. Knights are cheese because invun saves, as we know, but that's a different matter.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Ever heard of a screamer star? That alone is justification for a S: D weapon

No, it isn't.

Why do you think replacing one broken piece of gak mechanic with another broken piece of gak mechanic is a good thing? If D-Weapons with the 7E ruleset (i.E., Invulns can be taken against it) were introduced into standard 40K before the Screamerstar, you could make this exact same argument but in reverse.

"Ever heard of D-Weapons? That alone is justification for Screamerstar."

Stop.

 Blacksails wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


Yes it does matter, if you're arguing that they're bad at X point cost, at least use a point cost most play is at. If you're going to make comparisons, make relevant ones, not ones that skew your argument to your favor irrationally.

Again, if I said an 1850pts tournament...would it change the point I'm making?

No, no it wouldn't. Its still ridiculous you can bring a titan at 1850pts.

I disagree, there are plenty of answers in a tournament standard 1850 point list for a superheavy with D.

And there are plenty of extra layers of resilience you can add to that titan at 1850pts.

We can do this forever. The point is, D weapons have no place in standard 40k game because they're the worst example of balance currently. Changing the points value in an example from 1500 to 1850 doesn't invalidate my point.

My disagreement invalidates your opinion. Well not really invalidates it but doesnt agree with.

But i would agree with the sentiment to fix rerollable bullcrap and have D removed in that instance. But if rerollable bullcrap stays, then so must D

^ What does that even mean?

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I think the argument is being made that instead of using D weapons to kill screamerstars or whatever, the better solution would be to solve the brokenness of said screamerstars and not use D weapons as a crutch for poor game design.

I would love for that to happen, believe me. I'd love for a lot of surrently S: D weapons to get relegated to a D: D lite, much like what the new edition seems to be giving us.

But unless invun saves have changed (no rumors thus far), we've just ripped a crutch from the arms of a game with a broken leg. You have so solve the problem before you remove the temporary fix, not the other way around...

What problems? 2++ Screamers? They rely on psychic powers now. Powers that are now harder to rely on. You're saying we still need broken D weapons because it might not have been fixed enough? Really?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
^ What does that even mean?

It means I disagree with him?

rigeld2 wrote:

What problems? 2++ Screamers? They rely on psychic powers now. Powers that are now harder to rely on. You're saying we still need broken D weapons because it might not have been fixed enough? Really?

Didnt you just admit that D was fine if you could take invuln against it?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


My disagreement invalidates your opinion. Well not really invalidates it but doesnt agree with.

That's nice. Do you have anything of substance of add, or are we done here?

 Blacksails wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


Yes it does matter, if you're arguing that they're bad at X point cost, at least use a point cost most play is at. If you're going to make comparisons, make relevant ones, not ones that skew your argument to your favor irrationally.

Again, if I said an 1850pts tournament...would it change the point I'm making?

No, no it wouldn't. Its still ridiculous you can bring a titan at 1850pts.

An Eldar Lynx has 11/11/11 armor, 6 hull points, and a 4+++ titan holofield save. It dies to medium-strength weaponry quite easily. Not sure how it's ridiculous in an 1850.

mercury14 wrote:



An Eldar Lynx has 11/11/11 armor, 6 hull points, and a 4+++ titan holofield save. It dies to medium-strength weaponry quite easily. Not sure how it's ridiculous in an 1850.

To be honest, I know very little of non-titan Eldar super heavies. Never really considered them for much.

It isn't ridiculous, I'll give you that. Still, doesn't make D weapons any less terrifying.