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:

 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?

And your hypothetical scenarios are substance now?

We're done.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 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.

It doesn't work the other way around. Weapons for which their are no saves are both reasonable and expected, and screamer stars wouldn't affect that in the least. They'd still die. The pre-existence of S: D would have made less people want screamer stars at all, not have justified them.

Why don't you explain to me why you think it's reasonable for a model with a swanky shield to be able to survive a missile ten times the size of him to the face because his stat line has eternal warrior and a 3+ invun slapped on? Invun saves are a blight upon 40k, and whilst I begrudgingly accept they exist they still make no sense.

They make sense against small arms, even some larger arms. But eventually the guns get too big.

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?

Screamers are the extreme example. Invulns and other saves in general are the easily abused problem.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

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?

... Yes? Which is what I said there?
And actually, it's fine if you can take cover saves against them too. Perhaps you're not following the argument?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

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

Cheapest BS4 unit I can think of which gets them is Fire Dragons. That's 528 points for 24 with no transport on T3 infantry models. Including any transport capable of moving all 22, even at min points exceeds the cost of any comparable Titan.

In summary:
-More expensive
-Worse against anything but vehicles
-Far, far easier to kill
-Crippling range VS the entire board
-No true line of sight advantage
-Much harder to buff all 24 unlike a single model titan
-Only available to one codex

So in the best possible case, with that Titan nerf AND in the best possible codex tailoring specifically... it's still way better to take Str D titans.

Potentially there are midnight releases happening; my own GW is doing such.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Weapons for which their are no saves are both reasonable and expected

No, they aren't. There's nothing reasonable about a weapon that ignores every save in the game and insta-kills almost everything in the game, in standard 40K. Why do you think that's reasonable?

Whether you like saves nor not, by your own admission they exist, and not only do they exist, but they're an integral part of the games balance by design. Weapons that invalidate all of those saves therefore break the game. If you want to argue about whether saves should be a thing in 40K, be my guest. But you're no longer discussing game balance, you're wish-listing.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 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?

And your hypothetical scenarios are substance now?

We're done.

No, my point has always been based on game design, and how D weapons invalidate everything (except flyers) it points at.

I used a theoretical 1500pts game to illustrate how its poor game design. You countered by saying that's a poor example because some tournaments operate at a different point level. I said, fine, make it 1850, and my point still stands.

My substance has never been based on anything other than how D weapons simply remove whatever it touches, and the only effective counter is other D weapons. So are you actually going to counter that, or pick at a tiny detail in an example that was used to quickly illustrate the absurdity that is theoretically possible within the game rules?

Eyjio wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

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

Cheapest BS4 unit I can think of which gets them is Fire Dragons. That's 528 points for 24 with no transport on T3 infantry models. Including any transport capable of moving all 22, even at min points exceeds the cost of any comparable Titan.

In summary:
-More expensive
-Worse against anything but vehicles
-Far, far easier to kill
-Crippling range VS the entire board
-No true line of sight advantage
-Much harder to buff all 24 unlike a single model titan
-Only available to one codex

So in the best possible case, with that Titan nerf AND in the best possible codex tailoring specifically... it's still way better to take Str D titans.

Alright, those numbers make sense.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Weapons for which their are no saves are both reasonable and expected

No, they aren't. There's nothing reasonable about a weapon that ignores every save in the game and insta-kills almost everything in the game, in standard 40K. Why do you think that's reasonable?

RANDOM Victory Points.

What the living hell is this. RANDOM. VICTORY. POINTS. Like...holy hell, what are those guys thinking? So you may greatly outplay an enemy and outmaneuver him and he can still prove superior by a mere luckier d3 roll? We're talking about a possible difference of 2 VP here.

Also: 3 challenges in one turn...what.

The ball GW dropped just passed through the earth's center.

 Sigvatr wrote:
RANDOM Victory Points.

What the living hell is this. RANDOM. VICTORY. POINTS. Like...holy hell, what are those guys thinking? So you may greatly outplay an enemy and outmaneuver him and he can still prove superior by a mere luckier d3 roll? We're talking about a possible difference of 2 VP here.

Also: 3 challenges in one turn...what.

The ball GW dropped just passed through the earth's center.

Quit your whining and FORGE THE NARRATIVE HARDER!!!.

Srsly though i hope these cards are optional.

Well, they can be made optional....

 Blacksails wrote:


No, my point has always been based on game design, and how D weapons invalidate everything (except flyers) it points at.

I used a theoretical 1500pts game to illustrate how its poor game design. You countered by saying that's a poor example because some tournaments operate at a different point level. I said, fine, make it 1850, and my point still stands.

My substance has never been based on anything other than how D weapons simply remove whatever it touches, and the only effective counter is other D weapons. So are you actually going to counter that, or pick at a tiny detail in an example that was used to quickly illustrate the absurdity that is theoretically possible within the game rules?

And taking the 7th ed confirmed invuln saves and rumor cover saves, does D still invalidate most units? 7th edition D still over the line?

Currently, yes D is strong, thats not what the argument was about. It was about D in 7th, and if cover and invuln saves would make them worth the points cost for the platforms they have to be on.

I'm fine with you not liking D as it currently is, itll be as it is for about another week or so.

So tell me, do you still feel the same about D in its 7th ed incarnation that you can possibly take cover, but certainly invuln against any D table roll that isnt a 6?

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Why is reasonable than a model can survive taking a deathstrike to the face with no qualms?

Because the game is balanced around certain units being able to survive a deathstike, and they're priced accordingly for that invulnerable saves.

I see your strawman here, and I don't know why you're still trying to use Screamerstar's 2++ to justify the existence of D-Weapons. Screamerstar as a mechanic is broken and shouldn't be in the game- but that doesn't justify D-Weapons because what you don't seem to understand is that D-Weapons don't just murder "broken deathstars".

They murder everything in the game. Units with D-Weapons are in fact death stars unto themselves. So you're replacing an evil game mechanic with an evil game mechanic. What are you actually achieving then?

Our group simply ruled that a 2++ re rollable was not possible to achieve. Much like a 1+ armor save.

Solved all the issues we had. Easy.

Hopefully GW does the same.

D Weapon.s are a horrible idea. Always have been. Keep it to apocalypse where silliness belongs

 xttz wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:

Read the sidebox about Formations:
"Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of unbound Armies." Allies, Lords of War and Fortifications are Detachments, and this line tells us we cannot use them with an Unbound army.

Lords of War and Fortifications aren't detachments anymore, they're part of the regular 'Combined Arms' FOC.

Also there was a White Dwarf scan a few pages ago that specifically says you can mix & match units across different codexes in the same unbound army.

So my 10 Ravagers, Full Beastpack, Baron, 2 Farseer and Autarch list is a go then at 1750?

So far, 7th doesn't look like "Forge your narrative!" but rather "Forge your own rules to make this work!". The amount of house-ruling this may need is too damn high!

WrentheFaceless wrote:
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

So you follow the theory of two wrongs make a right? Fixing both is the ideal but I'll take one over none any day.

WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
LOL at the butthurt power gamers crying about the D weapons nerf.

I'm a power gamer now because I like using my neat looking model?

Nothing is stopping you from using your neat looking model under the rumored rules. Now, if you only GAME with them specifically because of their POWER, well...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shingen wrote:


So my 10 Ravagers, Full Beastpack, Baron, 2 Farseer and Autarch list is a go then at 1750?

Absolutely.. just not at any table that I've already set up my army first at. I'll pass on unbound games unless they're organized ahead of time.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Weapons for which their are no saves are both reasonable and expected

No, they aren't. There's nothing reasonable about a weapon that ignores every save in the game and insta-kills almost everything in the game, in standard 40K. Why do you think that's reasonable?

Whether you like saves nor not, by your own admission they exist, and not only do they exist, but they're an integral part of the games balance by design. Weapons that invalidate all of those saves therefore break the game. If you want to argue about whether saves should be a thing in 40K, be my guest. But you're no longer discussing game balance, you're wish-listing.

I think me and Brachiaraidos are playing totally different games. In the games I play, a D weapon would be so over powered that there'd be little point in actually playing it out. Turn 1. He shoots his D cannon. (Kills me leader and whole command squad.)
My turn. Okay, I move up. Fire missiles. Miss.
His turn. I shoot my D cannon. Blows up my exorcist.
And so on and so on. Every turn he wipes a unit of mine off the board. If you think that's fun, power to you. But I don't and refuse to play with or against D weapons.

Zothos wrote:
Our group simply ruled that a 2++ re rollable was not possible to achieve. Much like a 1+ armor save.

Solved all the issues we had. Easy.

Hopefully GW does the same.

D Weapon.s are a horrible idea. Always have been. Keep it to apocalypse where silliness belongs

It should just be a universal rule of the game's mechanics that no invulnerable save may ever go lower than a 3+ unless explicitly stated in the rule of save (.E. Gazzy's Waaaagh which explicitly states that he has a 2++).

 MWHistorian wrote:
I think me and Brachiaraidos are playing totally different games. In the games I play, a D weapon would be so over powered that there'd be little point in actually playing it out. Turn 1. He shoots his D cannon. (Kills me leader and whole command squad.)
My turn. Okay, I move up. Fire missiles. Miss.
His turn. I shoot my D cannon. Blows up my exorcist.
And so on and so on. Every turn he wipes a unit of mine off the board. If you think that's fun, power to you. But I don't and refuse to play with or against D weapons.

I don't think he's even considering the effects of D-Weapons on normal gameplay at general points value games. All he sees is that it can kill deathstars.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Why is reasonable than a model can survive taking a deathstrike to the face with no qualms?

Because the game is balanced around certain units being able to survive a deathstike, and they're priced accordingly for that invulnerable saves.

Which is, in my humble opinion, a design flaw. Your mileage may vary.

What is the point of allowing investment in expensive and limited scope weapons of such magnitude if they are no different in mechanics to a lasgun?

Hyperbole weakens your argument. If a death strike actually hits its target it will wipe out 90% of the non-MC/Vehicle units in the game.

Stop dodging the question. Why do you think that something that insta-kills everything in the game is a good mechanic, in a game that's built around expensive units having high durability?

Because any game that allows a build that focuses on high durability needs an appropriate response. Anything, no matter what it is, should have a counter. And a hard counter, at that. That's how warfare works and that's what I feel the game should offer- and in many ways currently does in every way but invun saves.

If my opponent has invested all of his points into one unit, that should be a punishable and poor decision. Promoting tactical inflexibility in lieu of invun saves is nothing short of lazy, and, to pay homage to GW, forging a shoddy narrative.

Anything else in the game has its counter. A flier spamming army meets one with interceptor out the arse, it pays for its inflexibility. Human waves wither to templates. A gimped ward save unit currently has, or had, one answer. Which was the investment of a huge amount of points into one consolidated shot.

And that's a perfectly reasonable way to invest points, as far as I'm concerned. I lose a lot tactical adaptability by spending all those points onto one big ass gun to deal with a problem. Because if my big ass gun does not deal with the problem (hello 7th ed), there is now no way to deal with that problem with investing multiple times the points cost my opponent has. The prevalence of invun saves you cannot remove or circumvent is now a way to be able to field a unit you can say with nigh on 100% certainty will make a net profit in its battlefield life; even if it dies without killing anything, the firepower invested into killing it will have cost so much more than the unit that it operates as a profit for your army.

Any any decision you can make pre-battle than you can make with certainty knowing your opponent cannot have a hard counter to is a gakky design choice within the game.

 warboss wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:
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

So you follow the theory of two wrongs make a right? Fixing both is the ideal but I'll take one over none any day.

Rarely I do, but in a game where people want competition, everything should have a counter. But would prefer for the main problem to get fixed before a band-aid is slapped on it.

Something you cant kill is just as annoying as something you cant live against.

- Is there any confirmation that ignores cover is -2 to cover?

- Is there any confirmation that D weapons don't allow cover saves?

Deathstrikes are very powerful, but they only fire once per game and not on the first turn. I don't think that's a good comparison to a D weapon that can fire every turn.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Deathstrikes are very powerful, but they only fire once per game and not on the first turn. I don't think that's a good comparison to a D weapon that can fire every turn.

I brought it up just as example of a D weapon (when given a vortex head) that illustrates the absurdity of Invun and eternal warrior if D allows them. A model takes a missile he's a tenth of the size of and can shrug it off because he has a swanky shield. Sensible, right?

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Deathstrikes are very powerful, but they only fire once per game and not on the first turn. I don't think that's a good comparison to a D weapon that can fire every turn.

I brought it up just as example of a D weapon (when given a vortex head) that illustrates the absurdity of Invun and eternal warrior if D allows them. A model takes a missile he's a tenth of the size of and can shrug it off because he has a swanky shield. Sensible, right?

Most invul saves come from a force field of some kind. You've never seen Akira, have you.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Deathstrikes are very powerful, but they only fire once per game and not on the first turn. I don't think that's a good comparison to a D weapon that can fire every turn.

I brought it up just as example of a D weapon (when given a vortex head) that illustrates the absurdity of Invun and eternal warrior if D allows them. A model takes a missile he's a tenth of the size of and can shrug it off because he has a swanky shield. Sensible, right?

A model can fly around like a bird because he has a swanky brain. Totes sensabibble.

Christ.

ashcroft wrote:

 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.

Some of the resin models that had recently been out of stock have come back - Fateweaver was back in stock this morning on the U.S. site for one, but you can't really be sure if they made more models or just had some shipped from the U.K. (where I believe Space Chikin has been in stock the whole time). Coteaz was gone for a while and is now available too. I figured they would be gone until GDs got a plastic update if that was really going to happen, but this isn't much more than a wild guess...

D weapons will, most likely, not allow cover saves. Anything else would be completely stupid.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Most invul saves come from a force field of some kind. You've never seen Akira, have you.

Sadly, I have. Didn't much enjoy it. But even with a force field- it has to be a force field that is projected from an object small enough to be carried by the individual in question.

Small arms? Sure. But the battery in that shield ain't gonna hold if a macro cannon hits you in the face. You just die.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I think me and Brachiaraidos are playing totally different games. In the games I play, a D weapon would be so over powered that there'd be little point in actually playing it out. Turn 1. He shoots his D cannon. (Kills me leader and whole command squad.)
My turn. Okay, I move up. Fire missiles. Miss.
His turn. I shoot my D cannon. Blows up my exorcist.
And so on and so on. Every turn he wipes a unit of mine off the board. If you think that's fun, power to you. But I don't and refuse to play with or against D weapons.

I don't think he's even considering the effects of D-Weapons on normal gameplay at general points value games. All he sees is that it can kill deathstars.

For what it's worth, my over arching opinion on 40k would see D weapons less common, to bring it into a wider context. I'm still an advocate of Fantasy style percentage allocations. Whilst it didn't make Fantasy free of broken things, it has gone a long way to avoiding the problem. A 10-20% allocation for Lords of War, and keeping D only in said category, would work fine by me.

I play an awful lot of different wargames. And yes, I'd cry foul if all my opponent brought in a WWII game was ISU-152's. Because one is fine- it's a battlefield presence, and it will wipe squads and ruin even the biggest vehicles. But it's still just one gun, in just one box. You suffer the knocks and find a way to resolve the problem. Having them everywhere, or in a tiny game, would obviously be too much. And so it holds true for S: D in 40k.

Neither invun or D are currently in a particularly good state. Nor is the FoC, as far as I'm concerned. But more than just a decision on artistic direction for the game, the gimping of D has brought with it a worsening of the problem of deathstars.