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.

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:Considering that we have Lascannons that are AP2, I think it kinda follows that they should. Lasguns and Lascannons definitely should not have the same Strength or AP value, but it's definitely not a stretch to say that a Lasgun should have a half-decent value for both of those characteristics.

This is a non-sequitur. I can only assume that a musket ball and a cannon ball are both basically fired according to the same principles. I wouldn't use a musket to knock down walls.

At any rate:

5+ and 6+ armor saves exist.

Those armor saves should actually mean something.

The way to make them mean something is to assume that the most common infantry weapons can't simply ignore them.

Boltguns should ignore the most common forms of armor because they are taken by the most elite forces of the imperium, and they are a suitably elite weapon for a highly elite force.

Again, boltguns are AP 5. This is an elite weapon. Lasguns should be nowhere near as good as boltguns.

Therefore, S 3, AP null.

And so in the quest to make 5+ and 6+ Armour Saves useful, Lasguns get singled out? You have to look at the whole myriad of weapons and then give us reason why you're singling out the Lasgun. Singling out the Lasgun as the gun that has to be the gun that can't ignore any Armour Saves without any apparent consideration for what other weapons can and/or should ignore any type of Armour Save is not exactly the right way to go. Take, for example, the Plasma-Cannon, -Gun and -Pistol: They all have the same S and AP values but I don't hear you whinging about the Plasma-Gun still having the same S and AP values as the -Cannon.

Bear in mind I'm not saying that the Lasgun should be S9 AP2, but something a bit better than S3 AP- would be good (even if it was just S3 AP5 or S4 AP6 or something). A better S and AP value for Lasguns would also go a long way in representing the fact that the Lascannon and the Lasgun are the same type of weapon.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Boltguns should ignore the most common forms of armor "

Boltguns have never been good. Ever. Not in 2nd, not in 3rd, not in 5th. Never.

But at the same time, since I've been playing (tail end of 4th, early 5th) they haven't been bad.

They were terrible in 5th. 12" range on the move? Really?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think lasguns should certainly hurt more than a guardsman punching. This is yet another reason I'd put the game on a D10.

 IllumiNini wrote:

And so in the quest to make 5+ and 6+ Armour Saves useful, Lasguns get singled out? You have to look at the whole myriad of weapons and then give us reason why you're singling out the Lasgun. Singling out the Lasgun as the gun that has to be the gun that can't ignore any Armour Saves without any apparent consideration for what other weapons can and/or should ignore any type of Armour Save is not exactly the right way to go. Take, for example, the Plasma-Cannon, -Gun and -Pistol: They all have the same S and AP values but I don't hear you whinging about the Plasma-Gun still having the same S and AP values as the -Cannon.

Bear in mind I'm not saying that the Lasgun should be S9 AP2, but something a bit better than S3 AP- would be good (even if it was just S3 AP5 or S4 AP6 or something). A better S and AP value for Lasguns would also go a long way in representing the fact that the Lascannon and the Lasgun are the same type of weapon.

That's because las- weaponry runs, essentially off of battery power. Would you agree with me that a AA battery has less power available to it than say, a car battery? That's the difference between a lasgun and a lascannon.

I get your argument regarding plasma... but in 40k plasma has "archeo-tech" and Handwavium to explain why they are all the same strength and AP.....


I mean, one of my favorite guns in existence, the Leman Russ Punisher Cannon has an AP-, but at least it has Rend, so it can potentially ignore some armor. Fluff wise, I don't see how a cannon like that shouldn't have some kind of AP value, but it doesn't.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

And so in the quest to make 5+ and 6+ Armour Saves useful, Lasguns get singled out? You have to look at the whole myriad of weapons and then give us reason why you're singling out the Lasgun. Singling out the Lasgun as the gun that has to be the gun that can't ignore any Armour Saves without any apparent consideration for what other weapons can and/or should ignore any type of Armour Save is not exactly the right way to go. Take, for example, the Plasma-Cannon, -Gun and -Pistol: They all have the same S and AP values but I don't hear you whinging about the Plasma-Gun still having the same S and AP values as the -Cannon.

Bear in mind I'm not saying that the Lasgun should be S9 AP2, but something a bit better than S3 AP- would be good (even if it was just S3 AP5 or S4 AP6 or something). A better S and AP value for Lasguns would also go a long way in representing the fact that the Lascannon and the Lasgun are the same type of weapon.

That's because las- weaponry runs, essentially off of battery power. Would you agree with me that a AA battery has less power available to it than say, a car battery? That's the difference between a lasgun and a lascannon.

I know the whole battery powered thing, which is why it makes no sense of them to be any higher than S4, but my primary concern here is that, according to Traditio, AP- is just fine. To me, this is not the case. Why can't a Lasgun have AP6? It is a laser weapon after all, meaning that it should be able to punch through some level of armour (even if it's only the relatively basic armour). And consider the fluff (I know, translating fluff to rules can be bad, but bear with me): In a number of novels that I've read, the lasguns/lasrifles that the IG carry tend to punch through the armour of a cultist (which, IIRC, is a 6+ on the tabletop), so why can't they punch through that on the tabletop by way of AP6?

In a reworked armor system going from 2+ to 10+, I'd make lasguns AP 8 or 9.

Martel732 wrote:
In a reworked armor system going from 2+ to 10+, I'd make lasguns AP 8 or 9.

And that's all well and good, but what about the current systems?

 IllumiNini wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
In a reworked armor system going from 2+ to 10+, I'd make lasguns AP 8 or 9.

And that's all well and good, but what about the current systems?

I don't know. Squeezing all infantry into the T3, T4, S3, S4 paradigm makes it hard to establish granularity. I see no reason a lasgun couldn't be AP 6, though or even AP 5.

Martel732 wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
In a reworked armor system going from 2+ to 10+, I'd make lasguns AP 8 or 9.

And that's all well and good, but what about the current systems?

I don't know. Squeezing all infantry into the T3, T4, S3, S4 paradigm makes it hard to establish granularity. I see no reason a lasgun couldn't be AP 6, though or even AP 5.

That's fair. I've often thought that the system could benefit from being extended to a 1 - 15 scale or 1 - 20 from a 1 - 10 scale to allow for greater differentiation between units and weapons (I actually had a conversation based on this idea the other day when my mate and I were discussing Orks and SM's both being S4 and T4).

And as much as I agree with AP6, AP5 may be a bit much given that weapons such as Bolters are AP5 and Lasguns probably should be on par with them haha

 IllumiNini wrote:

I know the whole battery powered thing, which is why it makes no sense of them to be any higher than S4, but my primary concern here is that, according to Traditio, AP- is just fine. To me, this is not the case. Why can't a Lasgun have AP6? It is a laser weapon after all, meaning that it should be able to punch through some level of armour (even if it's only the relatively basic armour). And consider the fluff (I know, translating fluff to rules can be bad, but bear with me): In a number of novels that I've read, the lasguns/lasrifles that the IG carry tend to punch through the armour of a cultist (which, IIRC, is a 6+ on the tabletop), so why can't they punch through that on the tabletop by way of AP6?

IMO, I think that, the weakest "base" firearm in the game (even quins basic Shuriken has AP5) being AP- somewhat prevents guard shooting from becoming an exercise in removing models. Having AP6 even, which negates Ork T-shirt saves would create just such a situation.


That said, I do think that having another fluff action in the guard shooting phase wouldn't go over horribly bad. IIRC, there's a number of novels and such where guardsmen turn up the power on their gun, thus lowering the number of shots they have, but increasing the punch each shot has. I would think that either an order, or a simple "Once Per Game" type mechanic to make the STR and AP values go up for that round of shooting could do well to aid guard armies in those tense moments where better weapons are needed.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

I know the whole battery powered thing, which is why it makes no sense of them to be any higher than S4, but my primary concern here is that, according to Traditio, AP- is just fine. To me, this is not the case. Why can't a Lasgun have AP6? It is a laser weapon after all, meaning that it should be able to punch through some level of armour (even if it's only the relatively basic armour). And consider the fluff (I know, translating fluff to rules can be bad, but bear with me): In a number of novels that I've read, the lasguns/lasrifles that the IG carry tend to punch through the armour of a cultist (which, IIRC, is a 6+ on the tabletop), so why can't they punch through that on the tabletop by way of AP6?

IMO, I think that, the weakest "base" firearm in the game (even quins basic Shuriken has AP5) being AP- somewhat prevents guard shooting from becoming an exercise in removing models. Having AP6 even, which negates Ork T-shirt saves would create just such a situation.


That said, I do think that having another fluff action in the guard shooting phase wouldn't go over horribly bad. IIRC, there's a number of novels and such where guardsmen turn up the power on their gun, thus lowering the number of shots they have, but increasing the punch each shot has. I would think that either an order, or a simple "Once Per Game" type mechanic to make the STR and AP values go up for that round of shooting could do well to aid guard armies in those tense moments where better weapons are needed.

Fair enough, but I've always thought Orks to be a bad comparison simply because they're significantly under-powered and/or over-costed (depending on the unit). The Ork's 6+ Armour Save is one of those things which is broken, where a 6+ FNP instead of their Armour Save not only making more sense but actually making them something other than a throwaway model. This also ties in with what Martel732 said about expanding the numerical scale so that we can solve issues like the Lasgun having no AP value a bit more easily that we otherwise could.

Isn't having armor that only saves on a 5 or 6 anyways bad enough? Why has the game got to make it worse by getting rid of that save altogether?

A marine's armor stops shots over 50% of the time; A guard gets saved from dying about 33% of the time; an Orc, 12%. If you removed most AP and only worried about the AP 1 and AP 2 weapons (say, appying a -4 and -2 respectively to armor saves), wouldn't this be enough?

I would just like to see an improvement in the vehicle/walker rules if 8th edition were a thing. I play a Mechanized Guard army primarily, and the addition of hull points and glancing hits kicked my army in the teeth.

Either the removal of the HP system, or making it so that glances don't remove HP's (maybe they can roll on the damage chart with some minuses to compensate) would go a decent way towards enhancing vehicle survivability imo

 War Kitten wrote:
I would just like to see an improvement in the vehicle/walker rules if 8th edition were a thing. I play a Mechanized Guard army primarily, and the addition of hull points and glancing hits kicked my army in the teeth.

Either the removal of the HP system, or making it so that glances don't remove HP's (maybe they can roll on the damage chart with some minuses to compensate) would go a decent way towards enhancing vehicle survivability imo

Your mechanized guard doesn't need more durable vehicles. My marines with lascannons and missile launchers have a hard enough time blasting your leeman russes as is. Thanks.

Traditio wrote:

 War Kitten wrote:
I would just like to see an improvement in the vehicle/walker rules if 8th edition were a thing. I play a Mechanized Guard army primarily, and the addition of hull points and glancing hits kicked my army in the teeth.

Either the removal of the HP system, or making it so that glances don't remove HP's (maybe they can roll on the damage chart with some minuses to compensate) would go a decent way towards enhancing vehicle survivability imo

Your mechanized guard doesn't need more durable vehicles. My marines with lascannons and missile launchers have a hard enough time blasting your leeman russes as is. Thanks.

Then get something that's genuinely better at anti-tank? A Predator Tank is 140 points when it's kitted qith a TL Lascannon and two Lascannon sponsons. Go biy yourself some of those.

Traditio wrote:

 War Kitten wrote:
I would just like to see an improvement in the vehicle/walker rules if 8th edition were a thing. I play a Mechanized Guard army primarily, and the addition of hull points and glancing hits kicked my army in the teeth.

Either the removal of the HP system, or making it so that glances don't remove HP's (maybe they can roll on the damage chart with some minuses to compensate) would go a decent way towards enhancing vehicle survivability imo

Your mechanized guard doesn't need more durable vehicles. My marines with lascannons and missile launchers have a hard enough time blasting your leeman russes as is. Thanks.

I agree that vehicles shouldn't be as durable as they were during times like 5th edition, where even a humble Rhino could take an immense amount of firepower to bring down. I would just like it so that taking glancing hits from a bunch of scatbikes doesn't instantly kill a Chimera. I would be perfectly fine with the whole system being re-worked so that penetrating hits, and AT weapons (such as missiles and lascannons) could do a lot more work against armor.

IllumiNini wrote:Then get something that's genuinely better at anti-tank? A Predator Tank is 140 points when it's kitted qith a TL Lascannon and two Lascannon sponsons. Go biy yourself some of those.

Missile launchers and lascannons are AT weapons. They shouldn't be nerfed in their AT capacity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

War Kitten 692437 wrote:I agree that vehicles shouldn't be as durable as they were during times like 5th edition, where even a humble Rhino could take an immense amount of firepower to bring down. I would just like it so that taking glancing hits from a bunch of scatbikes doesn't instantly kill a Chimera. I would be perfectly fine with the whole system being re-worked so that penetrating hits, and AT weapons (such as missiles and lascannons) could do a lot more work against armor.

I completely agree that Leeman Russes shouldn't be able to be reliably and easily glanced to death by scatbikes.

But the answer to this shouldn't be to make Leeman Russes more durable.

Nerf scat-bikes into oblivion.

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:Then get something that's genuinely better at anti-tank? A Predator Tank is 140 points when it's kitted qith a TL Lascannon and two Lascannon sponsons. Go biy yourself some of those.

Missile launchers and lascannons are AT weapons. They shouldn't be nerfed in their AT capacity.

There's nothing wrong with the weapons themselves, but when equipped to Tactical Squads, they (more often than not) become incredibly inefficient because moving means snap shooting and staying still means they can relatively easily be "avoided".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS Nerfing something into oblivion isn't a solution to anything.

Traditio wrote:
I completely agree that Leeman Russes shouldn't be able to be reliably and easily glanced to death by scatbikes.

But the answer to this shouldn't be to make Leeman Russes more durable.

Yes it should be, because if you just nerf scatbikes you still leave the problem of heavy tanks being shut down and glanced to death by spamming mass mid-strength weapons. A LRBT should be a terrifying mountain of armor plates, lascannons should be a desperation shot and melta should be the only thing it really fears.

Peregrine wrote:lascannons should be a desperation shot

No.

I'm just going to leave my answer at that.

Just...

No.

This bit is just obviously wrong.

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:Then get something that's genuinely better at anti-tank? A Predator Tank is 140 points when it's kitted qith a TL Lascannon and two Lascannon sponsons. Go biy yourself some of those.

Missile launchers and lascannons are AT weapons. They shouldn't be nerfed in their AT capacity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

War Kitten 692437 wrote:I agree that vehicles shouldn't be as durable as they were during times like 5th edition, where even a humble Rhino could take an immense amount of firepower to bring down. I would just like it so that taking glancing hits from a bunch of scatbikes doesn't instantly kill a Chimera. I would be perfectly fine with the whole system being re-worked so that penetrating hits, and AT weapons (such as missiles and lascannons) could do a lot more work against armor.

I completely agree that Leeman Russes shouldn't be able to be reliably and easily glanced to death by scatbikes.

But the answer to this shouldn't be to make Leeman Russes more durable.

Nerf scat-bikes into oblivion.

Honestly, I think there could/should be a middle ground here.... Personally, I think D-weapons are fething ridiculous. In the year + that I've been back in 40k, I cannot count the number of times that I've had a vehicle with some form of save (be it Ion Shields, camo nets, building/terrain cover, intervening model cover, etc.) be insta-gibbed by D-weapons.

I agree that things like Lascannons, plasma cannons, vanquisher cannon rounds, etc.... Rounds/guns designed to hunt tanks should be buffed to do so... Alternatively, they could just adopt a more AoS style system that says Lascannons penetrate armor (and monstrous creatures "hides".... fething wraithknights) on a 3+

But I also happen to agree that transports swung a bit too far the other way from 5th ed. here. Perhaps turns of shooting could be resolved in some different way.... Perhaps, say, a single unit with 4 AT weapons fires at a single target. They hit 3 times, managing 2 glances and 1 pen.... Perhaps one solution would be to say that the 2 glances = 1 pen, and then you simply roll 2 die for damage. Or, you could go 1 glance automatically causes a crew shaken result, a second glance automatically bumps this up to a crew stunned result.... This would mean that in the following turn, that vehicle is almost dead in the water, it will be largely unable to do much of anything, making it easier in the following round of shooting to get more shots and penetrating hits on it.


Ultimately, I see both of your arguments. I just happen to think that the answer isn't buffing the hell out of vehicles, and I don't think that AT weapons need any more nerfing than they pretty much have gotten.

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:lascannons should be a desperation shot

No.

I'm just going to leave my answer at that.

Just...

No.

This bit is just obviously wrong.

No, that bit is just obviously right. Lascannons should be effective against medium tanks, but marginal at best against the heavy stuff. Dealing with a LRBT (or a Baneblade, Land Raider, etc) should require way more than a random lascannon on a tactical squad. You should have to bring melta or high-end dedicated anti-tank weapons (railguns, vanquisher cannons, etc) to stop the heaviest tanks reliably.

But really, you should be happy with this change, since your C:SM Land Raiders would become more durable as well. Or are you too attached to spamming your free obsec Rhinos in your cheesy formation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Honestly, I think there could/should be a middle ground here.... Personally, I think D-weapons are fething ridiculous. In the year + that I've been back in 40k, I cannot count the number of times that I've had a vehicle with some form of save (be it Ion Shields, camo nets, building/terrain cover, intervening model cover, etc.) be insta-gibbed by D-weapons.

IMO D-weapons should be ridiculous. The main gun of a dedicated tank-killing superheavy should annihilate its target (and any cover that target happens to be hiding behind) effortlessly. The issue is not D-weapons, it's the fact that they're no longer limited to main guns of 500+ point superheavies, they're given to random infantry units and made much easier to spam.

I have to agree with Peregrine here regarding D-weapons. The weapons themselves are ok, it's the fact that they've become so much more commonplace that is the issue in my mind.

 Peregrine wrote:

IMO D-weapons should be ridiculous. The main gun of a dedicated tank-killing superheavy should annihilate its target (and any cover that target happens to be hiding behind) effortlessly. The issue is not D-weapons, it's the fact that they're no longer limited to main guns of 500+ point superheavies, they're given to random infantry units and made much easier to spam.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with their 2-5 rolls... it's seriously just that the six completely negates any opportunity for saving??? Also, since you mention that it "should" annihilate the cover that the unit is behind... why not make it a beam weapon? It would make all those smug eldar players who run wraithknight spam bring their knights out front, instead of hiding them on the back line.


And, this isn't about D strength melee, I get that IKs and Wraithknights are massive and shouldn't be STR10. At least in the shop where I game, the only really effective way to deal with a wraithknight, is with a wraithknight.... and I think that does nothing good for the game.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Honestly, I don't have a problem with their 2-5 rolls... it's seriously just that the six completely negates any opportunity for saving???

You're right, it is a bit silly. D-weapons should be that nasty all the time, not just on a 6: non-superheavy units are dead automatically with no saves or defensive abilities of any kind allowed, superheavies/GCs get random HP loss and can take invulnerable saves if they have them. If a Shadowsword's main gun hits you you're dead, period.

Also, since you mention that it "should" annihilate the cover that the unit is behind... why not make it a beam weapon? It would make all those smug eldar players who run wraithknight spam bring their knights out front, instead of hiding them on the back line.

This is also a fair point. Some D-weapons probably should be "beam" weapons that can go right through one unit and keep killing the stuff behind it. A shot from a Tigershark's heavy railgun should do exactly that.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Honestly, I don't have a problem with their 2-5 rolls... it's seriously just that the six completely negates any opportunity for saving???

You're right, it is a bit silly. D-weapons should be that nasty all the time, not just on a 6: non-superheavy units are dead automatically with no saves or defensive abilities of any kind allowed, superheavies/GCs get random HP loss and can take invulnerable saves if they have them. If a Shadowsword's main gun hits you you're dead, period.

Also, since you mention that it "should" annihilate the cover that the unit is behind... why not make it a beam weapon? It would make all those smug eldar players who run wraithknight spam bring their knights out front, instead of hiding them on the back line.

This is also a fair point. Some D-weapons probably should be "beam" weapons that can go right through one unit and keep killing the stuff behind it. A shot from a Tigershark's heavy railgun should do exactly that.

Ehh... Maybe I'm just coming off as salty. But I'm not exaggerating when I say that I've seen a ridiculous amount of things going poof just because a Wraithknight points at it. Maybe the saltiness comes from the fact that Wraithknights are so cheap that they are basically an auto-include for most Eldar players (especially the 2 at my store). Had one game of doubles where I watched literally 3 straight turns of shooting where the WK pointed at two Leman Russes, and two Leman russes got 6'd If I didn't know the guy that we were playing against, I may have suggested that he was using loaded die. But on the flip side, the fact that the WK is a creature, and not a vehicle, means that multi-melta is about pointless, as are most lascannon shots, etc. etc. Just about the only way to deal with it, is with a D-weapon of some kind, and Imperials generally only have Knights to rely on for that, and unless you're running some FW shenanigan unit, the only D you get is a CCW.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
But I'm not exaggerating when I say that I've seen a ridiculous amount of things going poof just because a Wraithknight points at it.

I think the bigger issue there is that the Wraithknight is too small/cheap to really justify having D-weapons, especially two D-weapons.

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:Then get something that's genuinely better at anti-tank? A Predator Tank is 140 points when it's kitted qith a TL Lascannon and two Lascannon sponsons. Go biy yourself some of those.

Missile launchers and lascannons are AT weapons. They shouldn't be nerfed in their AT capacity.

Nobody should really have problems slaying mech IG armies in this edition, when you look at lists and rankings, mechanized IG lists (particularly without allies) struggle to make it even into the top 50% at most events, they're awful.

That said, I think a return to a 5E system, where big guns matter and small guns can only suppress, is really where it's at. Non-skimmer tanks in general are just way too easy to kill as a whole.

Vaktathi wrote:Nobody should really have problems slaying mech IG armies in this edition, when you look at lists and rankings, mechanized IG lists (particularly without allies) struggle to make it even into the top 50% at most events, they're awful.

1. Not everyone spams cheese. The people at those events do, though.

2. Vaktathi, you play Chaos Space Marines, no? Please explain to me how you would beat mechanized IG lists using actual chaos space marines.

Traditio wrote:

2. Vaktathi, you play Chaos Space Marines, no? Please explain to me how you would beat mechanized IG lists using actual chaos space marines.

Obliterators, and Land Raiders carrying Typhus with Terminator squad. Chimera are fairly "easy" to take on with my plasma wielding plague marines, once I can get a shot on the side armor. But then, for some reason, some of the guys at my shop are terrified of my MoN bikers with no other upgrades

Traditio wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Nobody should really have problems slaying mech IG armies in this edition, when you look at lists and rankings, mechanized IG lists (particularly without allies) struggle to make it even into the top 50% at most events, they're awful.

1. Not everyone spams cheese. The people at those events do, though.

2. Vaktathi, you play Chaos Space Marines, no? Please explain to me how you would beat mechanized IG lists using actual chaos space marines.

I do play CSM's, mostly I've struggled to figure out how to beat just about anyone with actual Chaos Space Marines

The new FAQ does throw a wrench in the works as infantry assaults with Krak grenades usually formed a large part of the solution, particularly with parking lots where multi-assaults worked great (and the downsides didn't really matter too much), send the powerfist and a couple dudes with Kraks into one tank and the other 7 or 8 dudes into another tank with Krak grenades and most of the time that was two dead tanks straight away. That will be an interesting new element if that change makes it into the final FAQ draft.

However, in general, deep striking terminators and Oblits with Meltas coupled with infantry krak grenade assaults and maybe a Helldrake tossed in could kill enough of the armor and make advancement into assault range of the CSM's that now held the midfield certain death would work well *enough* to give a decent chance of mission victory. That said, the CSM book has a litany of issues that most other armies do not and makes the comparison with the larger metagame and most other factions somewhat stilted.

The bigger issue for me is that in 6E/7E I've tried mostly sticking to a relatively fluffy IW "daemon engine" army (defiler, 2 forgefiends, a Decimator, 2 Chaos Dreads, a Heldrake and 3 kitted units of CSM's with a Khornate CC Lord), that is just absolutely gutted by the current vehicle rules, and would have a much better time in general with a 5E style damage chart.