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.

Martel732 wrote:
Not by much. Single shot anti-tank is bad in 7th.

Not any worse than it was in 4th or 5th An AP1 weapon is exactly as likely to kill a tank as it was in 6th edition, and is as effective as every other weapon was in 5th edition.

Besides, Leman Russes don't like being made to snapfire or losing a weapon/being immobilized either, something the carnifex need not fear.

Well, the vehicle table got moved up one notch, so AP 1 explodes on a 5+ instead of 4+.

The railgun needs a 5+ to pen as well. It's more dangerous vs the Russ, but it's not even as scary as melta.

Martel732 wrote:
Well, the vehicle table got moved up one notch, so AP 1 explodes on a 5+ instead of 4+.

The railgun needs a 5+ to pen as well. It's more dangerous vs the Russ, but it's not even as scary as melta.

These are both true, and yet I would rather have an army of carnifexes than an army of russes against hammerheads. I'd just give the 'fexes twin devouerers and put them in pods. (or mycetic spores, whatever).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Well, the vehicle table got moved up one notch, so AP 1 explodes on a 5+ instead of 4+.

The railgun needs a 5+ to pen as well. It's more dangerous vs the Russ, but it's not even as scary as melta.

These are both true, and yet I would rather have an army of carnifexes than an army of russes against hammerheads. I'd just give the 'fexes twin devouerers and put them in pods. (or mycetic spores, whatever).

Yeah, that's true. Of course, the hammerhead's status as a vehicle and having a single shot weapon means that we never see them. MCs fighting at full strength until they are out of wounds is a crazy good advantage.

Dantes_Baals wrote:
If the model is being piloted/controlled it gets walker rules. Simple as that.

Not really that simple, though. Crisis suits and broadsides are both technically piloted but I would argue are fairly well-represented with the rules and stat lines they currently have. A crisis suit is basically a larger suit of power armor, like what Space Marines wear, and if you compare their stat lines they're pretty similar, too, with the crisis suit having one extra wound being the biggest difference. The way I see it, if you can justify giving a crisis suit walker stats then I see no reason why lowly Tactical Marines shouldn't be made into walkers, too. Broadsides used to be pretty much the same, although the new model made them almost comparable in size to dreadnoughts, so I could probably see an argument being made for that now. Then again, Eldar wraithlords are also comparable in size and were even called dreadnoughts at one point, but still don't have walker rules. In any case broadsides wouldn't be that scary if it weren't for the HYMP, which is something new they came up with in order to try and push sales of the new kit, since every Tau player already had a bunch of broadsides with twin-linked railguns.

The real problem are the newer, larger models that GW have put out, like the ghostkeel, riptide, and the stormsurge: the "gunboats" as you said. The ghostkeel is big enough that it really makes more sense for it to be a walker in my opinion (even though you hardly see people complaining about it as it is), but the riptide/stormsurge especially are basically just walking vehicles, so it really doesn't make sense for them not to have walker rules. And it's not like they wouldn't still be worth taking if they were walkers, either, just not as insanely durable...and they really shouldn't be anyway. A riptide shouldn't be able to tank hits that can cripple or destroy a hammerhead, and a stormsurge with an open cockpit shouldn't be able to tank even more than THAT.

One way you could try to balance MCs out is introducing a mechanic where, like vehicles, MCs start to lose effectiveness after taking damage. The fact that a riptide or a stormsurge is at 100% effectiveness up until it's lost its very last wound is kinda bullgak. But like it was said, making changes to one area of the game often has consequences in others, and if you introduce changes to nerf them mainly because Tau gunboats are too good, then you end up making an army like Tyranids even weaker, who do not benefit nearly as much from the rules that Tau do. In trying to nerf one army you make another one nearly unplayable.

Although yes, it doesn't make much sense that a carnifex can take a railgun slug to the face and still keep going like nothing happened, the carnifex isn't really causing anyone problems right now.

pm713 wrote:
I think GMC's are ok just in Apocalypse. Where they belong.

40k is Apocalypse now, don't know if you noticed or not. Happened a couple years ago when they realized people liked big models but no one bought them because no one played Apocalypse, and people naturally don't drop major bucks on glorified paperweights. Probably only gonna get worse, since that's how GW do.

Either the game gets more and more bloated to the point where you can't fit your army in your deployment zone, and models just keep getting bigger and more powerful, or GW does a massive "Age of Sigmar"-style reboot of 40k and the game becomes so simplified and the fluff so stupid that no one even wants to play anymore.

Unit1126PLL: Why should a weapon be as equally viable against multiple targets rather than requiring different equipment to be dealt with? to me it certainly seems like the want to add rules to current anti-tank to make them just as strong (or even stronger. When you think about something like the system Grand.Master.Raziel suggested it would actually make it FAR easier for those weapons to one shot a MC than a vehicle) seems like a wanting your cake and eat it too.

And on top of it, I wonder if the want to nerf MC is actually due to wanting balance or a return to the 5th edition paradigm

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Unit1126PLL: Why should a weapon be as equally viable against multiple targets rather than requiring different equipment to be dealt with? to me it certainly seems like the want to add rules to current anti-tank to make them just as strong (or even stronger. When you think about something like the system Grand.Master.Raziel suggested it would actually make it FAR easier for those weapons to one shot a MC than a vehicle) seems like a wanting your cake and eat it too.

Because putting huge holes in things is a pretty universal solution.

 Sidstyler wrote:

Dantes_Baals wrote:
If the model is being piloted/controlled it gets walker rules. Simple as that.

Not really that simple, though. Crisis suits and broadsides are both technically piloted but I would argue are fairly well-represented with the rules and stat lines they currently have. A crisis suit is basically a larger suit of power armor, like what Space Marines wear, and if you compare their stat lines they're pretty similar, too, with the crisis suit having one extra wound being the biggest difference. The way I see it, if you can justify giving a crisis suit walker stats then I see no reason why lowly Tactical Marines shouldn't be made into walkers, too. Broadsides used to be pretty much the same, although the new model made them almost comparable in size to dreadnoughts, so I could probably see an argument being made for that now. Then again, Eldar wraithlords are also comparable in size and were even called dreadnoughts at one point, but still don't have walker rules. In any case broadsides wouldn't be that scary if it weren't for the HYMP, which is something new they came up with in order to try and push sales of the new kit, since every Tau player already had a bunch of broadsides with twin-linked railguns.

The real problem are the newer, larger models that GW have put out, like the ghostkeel, riptide, and the stormsurge: the "gunboats" as you said. The ghostkeel is big enough that it really makes more sense for it to be a walker in my opinion (even though you hardly see people complaining about it as it is), but the riptide/stormsurge especially are basically just walking vehicles, so it really doesn't make sense for them not to have walker rules. And it's not like they wouldn't still be worth taking if they were walkers, either, just not as insanely durable...and they really shouldn't be anyway. A riptide shouldn't be able to tank hits that can cripple or destroy a hammerhead, and a stormsurge with an open cockpit shouldn't be able to tank even more than THAT.

One way you could try to balance MCs out is introducing a mechanic where, like vehicles, MCs start to lose effectiveness after taking damage. The fact that a riptide or a stormsurge is at 100% effectiveness up until it's lost its very last wound is kinda bullgak. But like it was said, making changes to one area of the game often has consequences in others, and if you introduce changes to nerf them mainly because Tau gunboats are too good, then you end up making an army like Tyranids even weaker, who do not benefit nearly as much from the rules that Tau do. In trying to nerf one army you make another one nearly unplayable.

Although yes, it doesn't make much sense that a carnifex can take a railgun slug to the face and still keep going like nothing happened, the carnifex isn't really causing anyone problems right now.

pm713 wrote:
I think GMC's are ok just in Apocalypse. Where they belong.

40k is Apocalypse now, don't know if you noticed or not. Happened a couple years ago when they realized people liked big models but no one bought them because no one played Apocalypse, and people naturally don't drop major bucks on glorified paperweights. Probably only gonna get worse, since that's how GW do.

Either the game gets more and more bloated to the point where you can't fit your army in your deployment zone, and models just keep getting bigger and more powerful, or GW does a massive "Age of Sigmar"-style reboot of 40k and the game becomes so simplified and the fluff so stupid that no one even wants to play anymore.

You and I are pretty much on the same page. I have no problem with crisis suits, but then again they aren't MCs. I think the simplest fix would be to address the problem on a unit by unit basis. Ghostkeel, stormsurge and riptide should be given walker stats. The first two would obviously be superheavy walkers and I wouldn't mind if the bigger suit walkers like tides got a 4th hullpoint.

The SS and GK can be 14/13/11 with 6HP and IWND. The Tide can be 13/13/11 with 4 HP. Wraith lords would get the same stats as a dreadnought (maybe FA 13 and maybe a 5+ invul for being a wraith bone construct). Same for WKs . They could be 14/14/12 6 or 7 HP, Superheavy Walker (controlled by spiritseers no?). Give it a 5+ invul as well for being a wraith bone construct.

The stats above don't need to stick they're just a suggestion. An example of how GW COULD remove stupidness from the game on a unit by unit basis via errata if they wanted to without impacting other Armies/units.

Personally I don't think MCs are inherently broken but the issue is the divide between MCs and Walkers being so massive that it seems like MCs are op as gak. The walker rules are such hot garbage that they inherited the worst of both infantry (movement) and vehicles (lack of saves, damage table) for the only benefit of being able to melee as a vehicle and AV (if you even consider AV to be a benefit over toughness). Personally I would much rather see Walkers improved to a working level before we start gutting MCs. Also fixing silly things like toe in cover for MCs would help as well. After that adjusting the individual points cost for the worst offenders would go a long way to improving unity diversity. Worst thing that can be done is to completely ruin them and nobody uses the things anymore or it shifts the meta to even more super heavies.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Unit1126PLL: Why should a weapon be as equally viable against multiple targets rather than requiring different equipment to be dealt with? to me it certainly seems like the want to add rules to current anti-tank to make them just as strong (or even stronger. When you think about something like the system Grand.Master.Raziel suggested it would actually make it FAR easier for those weapons to one shot a MC than a vehicle) seems like a wanting your cake and eat it too.

And on top of it, I wonder if the want to nerf MC is actually due to wanting balance or a return to the 5th edition paradigm

Because if I shoot an elephant with a howitzer and blow off a leg / it's head, it ought to be immobilized or dead, not completely fine and 100% alive until I shoot it again with the howitzer an arbitrary number of times.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Because if I shoot an elephant with a howitzer and blow off a leg / it's head, it ought to be immobilized or dead, not completely fine and 100% alive until I shoot it again with the howitzer an arbitrary number of times.

AoS covers this (but doesn't cover how many Elephants a Howitzer is worth)!

I dont think MC are OP. At least the classic ones. I mean, no one thinks that a demon prince or a carnifex are op!

The probem ws give the MC rule to units already to powerful for their own rules and stats. The funny is that all those are units that should be walkers because the look!
I am talking about TAU MC, the eldar WK and even the grey knight one.

Those are units with a great armor save, great mobility, amazing shot weapons...giving the MC rule make them harder to kill and make them very good at melee.

No mention the antilore....
"oh, a huge tau robot" no no, is a MC.
"oh, a huge human robot with the pilot being visible on the middle!" no no, that is also a MC.
"oh, a huuuge tau robot of 20 meters tall with a cabin for the pilots and lot of missile launchers and big guns!" well, this is funny, but also a MC........

"Oh, a huge demon with mechanic legs!, well, that one is mainly organic, just have some artificial members, like Yarric, a lot of space marines with artificial arms or eyes or like Will Smith on "I robot", for sure is a MC" .......no no, that one is clearly a vehicle..................

nareik wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Because if I shoot an elephant with a howitzer and blow off a leg / it's head, it ought to be immobilized or dead, not completely fine and 100% alive until I shoot it again with the howitzer an arbitrary number of times.

AoS covers this (but doesn't cover how many Elephants a Howitzer is worth)!

Yeah, probably where 40k is going, too. They'll balance out MCs by reducing their effectiveness as they take wounds, but then do away with points and structure altogether so you can just take an entire army of elephants or howitzers anyway and completely destroy any semblance of balance.

Then before you know it the local store stops ordering new Warhammer 50k: Age of the Emperor product entirely, and the existing stuff sits on the shelves gathering dust even at 50-60% off, because everyone stopped giving a gak.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Unit1126PLL: Why should a weapon be as equally viable against multiple targets rather than requiring different equipment to be dealt with? to me it certainly seems like the want to add rules to current anti-tank to make them just as strong (or even stronger. When you think about something like the system Grand.Master.Raziel suggested it would actually make it FAR easier for those weapons to one shot a MC than a vehicle) seems like a wanting your cake and eat it too.

And on top of it, I wonder if the want to nerf MC is actually due to wanting balance or a return to the 5th edition paradigm

Because if I shoot an elephant with a howitzer and blow off a leg / it's head, it ought to be immobilized or dead, not completely fine and 100% alive until I shoot it again with the howitzer an arbitrary number of times.

Well clearly the howitzer doubled out the Elephant or at least rolled instant death on that hit. Clearly riptides are tougher than the average elephant

Franarok wrote:
Those are units with a great armor save, great mobility, amazing shot weapons...giving the MC rule make them harder to kill and make them very good at melee.

No mention the antilore....
"oh, a huge tau robot" no no, is a MC.
"oh, a huge human robot with the pilot being visible on the middle!" no no, that is also a MC.
"oh, a huuuge tau robot of 20 meters tall with a cabin for the pilots and lot of missile launchers and big guns!" well, this is funny, but also a MC........

"Oh, a huge demon with mechanic legs!, well, that one is mainly organic, just have some artificial members, like Yarric, a lot of space marines with artificial arms or eyes or like Will Smith on "I robot", for sure is a MC" .......no no, that one is clearly a vehicle..................

Yeah, MC status really puts them over the top. They have great shooting, great mobility, insane durability with MC status combined with FNP and invulnerable saves from wargear, and then on top of that they're actually decent in melee because of Smash, which for the Tau units in particular is really nuts because that's supposed to be our one weakness. The stormsurge is hilarious, it actually ends up being more effective when you charge it straight up the table and actually try to get it into close combat, instead of sitting at the back and trying to anchor with it, which I imagine is not something GW intended.

And like you pointed out, there's no rhyme or reason to any of it. Units are labeled MCs that are clearly vehicles, and others that you would think would make sense as MCs are actually vehicles.

+1

Just giving the stormsurge and riptide the walker status will make them a bit less op and will result on an improvement for the game.
Same for eldar WK.


Just that will make the game a bit more balanced. And if we use the logic and common sense, hell, they are clearly vehicles/robots! xDDDD

Because why a riptide is a MC and a dinobot or a soul grinder are vehicles when on the description they said are half organic? Specially on the soulgrinder case, where all the up part is not metalic xDD

This sounds like a very faction specific problem (specifically xeno). It seems like most factions, or their brothers, have plenty of tools to deal with MCs or GMCs or have their own equally annoying MCs. Unless this is one of those 'I dont want to play those models or take allies' things. Off the top of my head, Orks would seem to be in a bad way fighting GMCs.

Dont get me wrong. Playing against a pile of WKs or Storm Surges wouldn't be too thrilling lol.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Unit1126PLL: Why should a weapon be as equally viable against multiple targets rather than requiring different equipment to be dealt with? to me it certainly seems like the want to add rules to current anti-tank to make them just as strong (or even stronger. When you think about something like the system Grand.Master.Raziel suggested it would actually make it FAR easier for those weapons to one shot a MC than a vehicle) seems like a wanting your cake and eat it too.

And on top of it, I wonder if the want to nerf MC is actually due to wanting balance or a return to the 5th edition paradigm

Because if I shoot an elephant with a howitzer and blow off a leg / it's head, it ought to be immobilized or dead, not completely fine and 100% alive until I shoot it again with the howitzer an arbitrary number of times.

And how exactly does this make the game better, other than for those who have a lot of howitzers :V
You're talking to a guy who want to get rid of ID via double str, the argument of "realism" means nothing to me

If I am paying 770pts for a AV13 superheavy (stompa) and a ghostkeel or any other Tau cheese/Eldar Cheese GMC or just MC can completely annihilate my superheavy in 1 turn of shooting, then something is wrong.

Someone a few posts ago said make all Tau/Eldar MC/GMC shenanigans into Walkers and Super Heavies, that is a good idea and I agree with it 100%, but because Eldar and Tau are considered OP Cheese he then went ahead and gave them all AV14 or at the very least AV13 and a bunch of other bonuses that are extremely rare for most armies IE IWND and invulnerable saves.

Honestly at this point I am so jaded by GW's rules that I wouldn't be surprised if they finally did this but they gave Tau or Eldar or both special rules that specifically stated that they aren't affected by crew stunned/shaken results, can self repair (IWND), and are -2 on the Damage charts, (IE It will never explode).

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Unit1126PLL: Why should a weapon be as equally viable against multiple targets rather than requiring different equipment to be dealt with? to me it certainly seems like the want to add rules to current anti-tank to make them just as strong (or even stronger. When you think about something like the system Grand.Master.Raziel suggested it would actually make it FAR easier for those weapons to one shot a MC than a vehicle) seems like a wanting your cake and eat it too.

And on top of it, I wonder if the want to nerf MC is actually due to wanting balance or a return to the 5th edition paradigm

Because if I shoot an elephant with a howitzer and blow off a leg / it's head, it ought to be immobilized or dead, not completely fine and 100% alive until I shoot it again with the howitzer an arbitrary number of times.

And how exactly does this make the game better, other than for those who have a lot of howitzers :V
You're talking to a guy who want to get rid of ID via double str, the argument of "realism" means nothing to me

Wait what?

You're saying lots of howitzers isn't how you win a war? Warfare in the 20th century has been artillery, mobile artillery, direct-fire field artillery, direct-fire field artillery on armoured platforms, heavy artillery, light artillery, air defense artillery, small arms, and airplanes. It isn't my fault you want Hannibal's elephants to be viable against Soviet tank formations...

EDIT: I forgot missile artillery, rocket artillery, naval artillery, and naval missile artillery.

I find this kind of thing to be rather hilarious. Every time that I see these things, I suggest that GMCs actually be used RaW but I get stomped on anyway.
GMCs have 2 firing modes -
1. 2 weapons fired at a single target
or
2. Each weapon fired at a different target.
Problem is that everyone has the idea that a GMC should be able to direct its fire like a superheavy walker, which ISN'T RAW!!!!
It is like no one uses gatling psilencers (ranged force weapons) to kill MCs. (Okay I don't, and didn't when I played GKs).
Maybe in 8th they (GW) will strip Hull Points from vehicles and maybe allow a reroll on the damage table for things other than ven dreads or the like.

The problem is that you have many units that are marginalized (dreadnoughts and other walkers) with rules that nerf vehicles, while essentially identical vehicles count as Monstrous Creatures and get a whole host of advantages.

The way the rules are is ridiculously stupid. All the giant Tau and Eldar walkers being Monstrous Creatures is stupid. Either that or having all of the Walkers as Walkers is stupid.

Either way, those rules are counterintuitive, and completely unbalanced.

 Sidstyler wrote:

Dantes_Baals wrote:
If the model is being piloted/controlled it gets walker rules. Simple as that.

Not really that simple, though. Crisis suits and broadsides are both technically piloted but I would argue are fairly well-represented with the rules and stat lines they currently have. A crisis suit is basically a larger suit of power armor, like what Space Marines wear, and if you compare their stat lines they're pretty similar, too, with the crisis suit having one extra wound being the biggest difference. The way I see it, if you can justify giving a crisis suit walker stats then I see no reason why lowly Tactical Marines shouldn't be made into walkers, too. Broadsides used to be pretty much the same, although the new model made them almost comparable in size to dreadnoughts, so I could probably see an argument being made for that now. Then again, Eldar wraithlords are also comparable in size and were even called dreadnoughts at one point, but still don't have walker rules. In any case broadsides wouldn't be that scary if it weren't for the HYMP, which is something new they came up with in order to try and push sales of the new kit, since every Tau player already had a bunch of broadsides with twin-linked railguns.

And even then, HYMP wouldn't be scary if it weren't for the stupid number of shots at S7 AP4 and the fact that you can exchange the lackluster HRR for HYMPs at no points cost. Give HYMPs the same points cost that Guard pay for Autocannons or Missile Launchers and buff HRRs up with Rapid Fire or adding in a Submunitions profile while also making HYMPs a Blast weapon and it makes that no longer such an "OMG YES!" option.

Maybe remove the EWO from HYMP Broadsides as well and see what happens.

The real problem are the newer, larger models that GW have put out, like the ghostkeel, riptide, and the stormsurge: the "gunboats" as you said. The ghostkeel is big enough that it really makes more sense for it to be a walker in my opinion (even though you hardly see people complaining about it as it is), but the riptide/stormsurge especially are basically just walking vehicles, so it really doesn't make sense for them not to have walker rules. And it's not like they wouldn't still be worth taking if they were walkers, either, just not as insanely durable...and they really shouldn't be anyway. A riptide shouldn't be able to tank hits that can cripple or destroy a hammerhead, and a stormsurge with an open cockpit shouldn't be able to tank even more than THAT.

I'm actually okay with Riptides being MCs. I really am. It's the fact that their points cost is so low and that their downside(Nova Reactors) are so easily negated by wargear options and, again, they have access to a better weapon option at such a flabbergastingly low price.

One way you could try to balance MCs out is introducing a mechanic where, like vehicles, MCs start to lose effectiveness after taking damage. The fact that a riptide or a stormsurge is at 100% effectiveness up until it's lost its very last wound is kinda bullgak. But like it was said, making changes to one area of the game often has consequences in others, and if you introduce changes to nerf them mainly because Tau gunboats are too good, then you end up making an army like Tyranids even weaker, who do not benefit nearly as much from the rules that Tau do. In trying to nerf one army you make another one nearly unplayable.

Fun fact: the Tau megasuit from FW was intended to be a SHW per FW themselves prior to the release of the Stormsurge. It got shifted to a GMC instead.

The Stormsurge and Supremacy are the only ones I would argue belong as vehicles, but I'm genuinely less afraid of the Stormsurge than I am of the Supremacy Armour. Stormsurge takes a bit more to kill it, but it's no Wraithknight.

The Riptide just needs a good long look at points costs and availability of Support Systems. Hell, maybe even making the Shielded Missile Drones mandatory and a key part as to how the Riptide Shield Generator works.

But to an extent that's kinda how I feel about the Tau codex as a whole. It's a book which needs to be given a complete overhaul in many regards.

Martel732 wrote:
Not by much. Single shot anti-tank is bad in 7th.

Not when it's BS5 with PE against that Leman Russ, with Tank Hunters, and can be given Ignores Cover.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Not by much. Single shot anti-tank is bad in 7th.

Not when it's BS5 with PE against that Leman Russ, with Tank Hunters, and can be given Ignores Cover.

It's still not that good. Arc rifle drop pod is way scarier.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Unit1126PLL: Why should a weapon be as equally viable against multiple targets rather than requiring different equipment to be dealt with? to me it certainly seems like the want to add rules to current anti-tank to make them just as strong (or even stronger. When you think about something like the system Grand.Master.Raziel suggested it would actually make it FAR easier for those weapons to one shot a MC than a vehicle) seems like a wanting your cake and eat it too.

And on top of it, I wonder if the want to nerf MC is actually due to wanting balance or a return to the 5th edition paradigm

Because if I shoot an elephant with a howitzer and blow off a leg / it's head, it ought to be immobilized or dead, not completely fine and 100% alive until I shoot it again with the howitzer an arbitrary number of times.

And how exactly does this make the game better, other than for those who have a lot of howitzers :V
You're talking to a guy who want to get rid of ID via double str, the argument of "realism" means nothing to me

Wait what?

You're saying lots of howitzers isn't how you win a war? Warfare in the 20th century has been artillery, mobile artillery, direct-fire field artillery, direct-fire field artillery on armoured platforms, heavy artillery, light artillery, air defense artillery, small arms, and airplanes. It isn't my fault you want Hannibal's elephants to be viable against Soviet tank formations...

EDIT: I forgot missile artillery, rocket artillery, naval artillery, and naval missile artillery.

When there are armies that HAVE to use those elephants as the hard hitters of their armies, then yeah I do. All choices that a game gives should be viable, not traps to punish players for picking the wrong one. Unless you seriously want to tell Tyranid and Chaos Daemon players to go feth themselves for not playing a different army.

Both daemons and Tyranids have artillery, and can utilize it effectively.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Unit1126PLL: Why should a weapon be as equally viable against multiple targets rather than requiring different equipment to be dealt with? to me it certainly seems like the want to add rules to current anti-tank to make them just as strong (or even stronger. When you think about something like the system Grand.Master.Raziel suggested it would actually make it FAR easier for those weapons to one shot a MC than a vehicle) seems like a wanting your cake and eat it too.

And on top of it, I wonder if the want to nerf MC is actually due to wanting balance or a return to the 5th edition paradigm

Because if I shoot an elephant with a howitzer and blow off a leg / it's head, it ought to be immobilized or dead, not completely fine and 100% alive until I shoot it again with the howitzer an arbitrary number of times.

And how exactly does this make the game better, other than for those who have a lot of howitzers :V
You're talking to a guy who want to get rid of ID via double str, the argument of "realism" means nothing to me

Wait what?

You're saying lots of howitzers isn't how you win a war? Warfare in the 20th century has been artillery, mobile artillery, direct-fire field artillery, direct-fire field artillery on armoured platforms, heavy artillery, light artillery, air defense artillery, small arms, and airplanes. It isn't my fault you want Hannibal's elephants to be viable against Soviet tank formations...

EDIT: I forgot missile artillery, rocket artillery, naval artillery, and naval missile artillery.

When there are armies that HAVE to use those elephants as the hard hitters of their armies, then yeah I do. All choices that a game gives should be viable, not traps to punish players for picking the wrong one. Unless you seriously want to tell Tyranid and Chaos Daemon players to go feth themselves for not playing a different army.

No, I think that things need to appropriately costed for what they do. As it stands, single shot non-D weapons are horrifically overcosted and not worth the army slot frankly. Even melta is roughly as likely to HP out a 3 hull point vehicle as it is to explode it. And melta is damn useless vs MCs of any type due to low ROF. As are railguns, lascannons, etc. Which makes no sense to me.

 Swampmist wrote:
Both daemons and Tyranids have artillery, and can utilize it effectively.

Erm, what? Nids sure, they have some long range guys like Biovores, the hell that is Flyrants, Dakkafexes, and the Zoanthropes because of Warp Lance.

What do Daemons have? The FMCs that can throw Psychic powers most notably Kairos, the unreliable Lash of Despair on a winged DP, the Skullcannon, and the unreliable Soul Grinders. Oh, and lots of S5 flicker fire with a chance to give people FNP.

Where is this artillery you speak of? Sure, I have some shooty psychic powers, but guess what? Most Daemons are BS3. I'd rather spend my turn Summoning/Casting Cursed Earth and just run up and punch you than bother to shoot you.

Even Orks are better at shooting than Daemons.

Does anyone even read the lore for the Wraithknight? Yes there is a pilot but the entire structure is also the same as a Wraitlord just on a much larger scale. The added pilot is to give the wraith construct improved agility. Its not mechanical. Its a semi living being.