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.

 kodos wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

I look it more like this. I have a tactical squad with 4 bolter marines and a melta gun. Right now I don't shoot those bolter marines at the land raider because they don't do anything, now at least there is a chance they might.

so Bolters are still useless against the LR, but because there is a chance people think it is different than before
my idea would be to let different weapon groups chose different targets to solve this problem instead of giving the Bolters a pointless chance.

And if they have no other target? The issue with your solution is that if the opponent brings only squads in land raiders I have a lot of entirely useless weapons. With having some ability (however small) to hurt them, I increase the likelihood of getting squads out, it also means I never have units that can do nothing on their turn. Even if all they do is put 2 wounds on it all game, that is better than nothing.

I love games where everything has the potential to hurt anything else in large enough numbers. There's nothing worse than feeling helpless because you don't have the tools to deal with something.

AoS has this, and you don't need to worry about Archaon being taken down by goblin bows unless he is either on one wound of there are hundreds of goblins on the table.

My Steamtank has a 3+ save and 12 wounds. It feels tough to crack. Especially as I can buff its armour give it ward saves and heal its wounds through the game.

 DarkBlack wrote:
On the topic of speculating about the release:

14 force org charts is enough to give each race (not faction) one, so each one can have a bit of flavour:
1: CSM
2: Daemons
3: SM (various)
4: IG
5: Inquisition (Soroitas etc)
6: Mechanicus
7: Agents
8: Knights
9: Eldar (various)
10: Nids
11: Orks
12: Necrons
13:Tau
14: Generic (maybe allied?)

FWIW, they previewed a page showing 3 generic FOCs on yesterday's Q&A. Essentially they were just varying sizes of the current CAD, with a bonus to command points if you managed to fill out every slot. The largest FOC gave the most command points, with the intention of giving players an incentive to focus on a single faction rather than picking & choosing the best of each.

Guys, enough with the lasgun/tank/real worlkd stuff already.

Remember this post?

 Lorek wrote:
This monstrosity of a post:

Spoiler:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Not-not-kenny wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:


Yeah 50 guardsmen won't do the job. But what if it was 100 or more? What if they had BS modifiers or rerolls? I mean yeah thats a ton of models, so thats not really a good example. Bet we've got things like skitarii vanguard that have great BS and they make 3 shots. Does that justify a ton of them killing a LR? Of course it doesn't it's still a freaking LR. Taping a ton of rifles together does not make them into an anti-tank cannon, that's not how this works.

No, but pour enough shots into it and eventually it might hit an exposed part or weaken an area enough to cause damage. Since Terminators are said to have armour like a tank should they also be completely immune to small-arms fire?

First of all armor like a tank is too broad of a term to have an argument about, especially considering the diversity of vehicles in 40k. Second, terminator armor being body armor is inevitably going to have weaker parts like visors or joints. It's juat that they are extremely hard to land s shot on.
An undamaged LR doesn't have that. Having a LR being damaged by some anti-tank weapon means there is such a weapon on the field and even still the whole shoot the damaged part thing is really fishy. But that's not my point.
Realistically the only thing a lot of autoguns would be able to achieve against and undamaged LR is to maybe damage it's visors.

Well lets see if guardsmen poured enough fire to track the Raider, blind the vision blocks, knock out the unarmored guns, blow out the unarmored machine spirit, kill the tank commander and rip up the exhaust ports.....is not the Land Raider dead? The hull remains undamaged.

Guns are armored, save the pintle mounted storm bolter. Not to metion that heavy weaponry is typically pretty sturdy even withour armor, due to the fact that it has to withstand the power of it's own shots. Machine spirit is perfectly safe inside the tank's hull so is it's crew. Only the very top part of exhaust pipes is unarmored but damaging them would give no useful effect in battle at all.

They are armored laterally not frontally and have exposed optics and power cabling. Your next remark makes zero sense what so ever. A barrel and bolt housing only have to withstand the PSI generated by the firing of the round not its "power" whatever that means. The actual machine spirit by canon is the optic system located to the left of the heavy bolters and thus unarmored. The tank commander rides in the open and so will the driver if the vision blocks are impaired, most causalities on a tank is the tank commander from small arms fire. Damaging exhaust would cause significant issues to a tank plus the exhaust all includes most of the ridged back of the raider, which directly leads to the engine.

Erm, what? You do realise that to withstand the pressure you have to buld the barrel out of really durable material, making it pretty much impossible to damage by small arms fire during real combat?
Here's a picture just for you:

The mahine spirit is 2. See how its inside the hull? You know, under the armor and only has wiring connecting it to the sensor?
Do you think that tank commander is somehow unable to get back inside the vehicle and will be hanging out of commander’s cupola untill he is shot dead? Because that's not what happens at all.
Sure, you can maybe knock of the very top part of the exhaust. However I have hard time seeing how this is going in any way impaire the LR in it's current battle scince it's not going to block the gas from coming out.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

There are 3 points. Machine Spirit, Driver and Tank Commander. Disabling any of those would be a significant issue.

IKR. Shame lasguns won't be able to do anything to them since they'll all be inside the hull during intence gunfire.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

As for every other comment, you don't seem to know much about how weaponry or armor works. But if you want to keep going on the 'realistic' bent you have your going to keep getting shown why your realism is fantasy.

Ahh, the good old "im smart ur dumb" argument.

Please stop filling the rumor thread with this nonsense. I've had to sift through this ridiculous conversation for actual interesting content all day.

I'm pretty sure there are separate forums for this, maybe take it there?

Not a mod (obviously), just a humble lurker who wants to read about the new edition.

It's Off Topic. We've had a number of on-topic warnings in the past few days. I'm very close to locking this thread and making you all take the discussion to a new, heavily moderated thread. That's right, we'll do stealth edits and play pranks. We'll put words in your mouth and set you against the people in your Friends list.

STAY.

ON.

TOPIC.

It's not hard.

I do...

 auticus wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Pete Foley confirms on Twitter that in the new 40k you WON'T be able to shoot in/out of combat

Now if only they'd do the same in AOS, my happy jig would be complete.

It's gonna require a rules rewrite on a lot of warscrolls because for every cannon shooting out of combat that perhaps seems odd, it would be just as odd if Fyreslayers couldn't throw hand axes in combat or if trolls couldn't vomit in combat.

I sit in the fence as to if it should be amended or not :-)

As for 40k I am happy to not see it included as pistols and small arms will likely be able to be used as melee weapons like they can currently.

GW stated all 14 are generic.

MaxT wrote:

 Capamaru wrote:
A Land raider as it stands it is quite easily dispatched by lascannon fire or a plethora of other weapons capable of doing so and widespread among all races. Adding insult to injury now lasguns or bolters or shurikens will be able to do so also, so how about a couple of lascannon shots and then shoot the flashlight guns at it to finish it of... is this dumb enough for you?

Currently, 1 Lascannon shot rolling perfectly equals 1 dead Land Raider, but 4 Lascannon shots rolling perfectly equals 1 still fully functional Riptide. Is that dumb enough ?

In #New40k a Lascannon may do D6 wounds, and Land Raiders will probably have 13+ wounds. So 1 Lascannon cannot 1 shot it anymore. And in fact may need a bunch of Lascannon shots hitting to take it out reliably. We don't know yet. But removing the 1 shot may equal 1 kill issue with vehicles is a huge help for them

The disadvantage is though that LR become more vulnerable to everything else and they will lose that hard as nails view because any heavy weapon can damage. High accuracy, high numbers of shots with reasonable amour penetration are likely to be it's bane rather than lascannons. Shuriken cannons, scatter lasers, missile pods, assault cannons and similar may suddenly become the weapon of choice because they have decent damage output against all targets (whereas lascannons might be deemed less effective against some as well as not always hitting).

LRs also potentially become more vulnerable to those weapons that used to have big pie plates (demolisher cannons etc). It would have been one hit before but now you will potentially have them causing multiple hits with multiple wounds depending on their stats. If we assume, for example, a demolisher cannon becomes D6 hits each causing D6 wounds then potentially that's potentially one dead landraider 40% of the time assuming 25 wounds (and the demolisher cannon neuters any amour save). That's on top of, unless you roll one wound, then the LR is likely to severely reduced in capability.

I assume that the new heavy weapon profiles will give the opportunity to ID vehicles and MCs, for a purely hypothetical example:

If I have a vehicle/MC with 10 wounds and shoot at it with a Demolisher cannon that does 2d6 wounds and virtually ignores armour then I could theoretically kill it in one turn. The same vehicle/MC is still going to be pretty resilient to small arms fire though.

Iracundus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Breaking news:
Pete Foley confirmed that Destroyer weapons will be gone in 8th Edition: https://twitter.com/GeekJockPete/status/856833455568629761

well, with how they got abused by 7E, as opposed to originally being reflective of the most destructive titan mounted weapons, I'd say this is a good thing.

Wonder how they will restat the existing Destroyer weapons. Maybe by making them inflict varying numbers of multiple wounds per hit? If they remove the Destroyer weapon rule, they need to ensure the big models do not become too difficult to kill.

I expect they wont. We already know that there wont be a cap on the maximum strength of weapons (S15 Wraithcannons anyone?) and that high powered weapons will strip multiple wounds per unsaved hit. In effect this is what Destroyer does in 7th, so they've made it completely redundent under 8th where the tuning of basic stats is a far simpler method of creating powerful weapons rather than throwing in extra rules and tables.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Breaking news:
Pete Foley confirmed that Destroyer weapons will be gone in 8th Edition: https://twitter.com/GeekJockPete/status/856833455568629761

And yet you forgot the important one right before it...

Nope, you can't shoot into/out of combat. #New40k

I'm kinda bummed by that. I loved it in AoS.

If you think about it. This discussion just proves two things.

One, a landraider/predator will have a purpose as a huge fire sink on the table. Something they are not right now. Meaning if you spent the points on a predator you actually get something for your points.

The other thing we are seeing with this discussion is people view horde armies as a possible counter to those same predator/landraiders. This in and of itself is good. It means your looking at large number of troops as having any purpose at all.

So, we can agree. It put's a bit of a tactical element into the game. What is your points better spent on?

If you look at the current Armies:

Space Marines: Normally come in two different army types:
Drop pod: Assault armies
Vehicle heavy; Mechanized Armies

This might make the following two armies useful again:
Heavy troop with limited Vehicle armies
Elite armies with lots of terminators/dreadnoughts

And it will be glorious to see the ravaging horde armies again we are looking at you Ork and Tyarnids.

 xttz wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:
On the topic of speculating about the release:

FWIW, they previewed a page showing 3 generic FOCs on yesterday's Q&A. Essentially they were just varying sizes of the current CAD, with a bonus to command points if you managed to fill out every slot. The largest FOC gave the most command points, with the intention of giving players an incentive to focus on a single faction rather than picking & choosing the best of each.

Talking about that, does anyone have the picture/screenshot showing the three FOCs handy? Don't remember where I last saw it and would like to have another look...

Any word or speculation on whether Harlequins will be their own faction - as in they will have an 'official' HQ unit, etc? I haven't played since 5th edition, but from what I understand about recent editions, a all Harlequin list was possible.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Breaking news:
Pete Foley confirmed that Destroyer weapons will be gone in 8th Edition: https://twitter.com/GeekJockPete/status/856833455568629761

And yet you forgot the important one right before it...

Nope, you can't shoot into/out of combat. #New40k

I'm kinda bummed by that. I loved it in AoS.

Honestly, shooting out of combat is a bit silly so I'm gald thats not in.

Based on AoS, I very much doubt any weapons are going to be both D6 hits and D6 damage. Not only is that a crazy scope of output (1-36 wounds) it's also beyond powerful. Stuff that does high damage is usually limited to a low amount of shots. A demolisher cannon only fires one salvo so it would likely only fire one shot (maybe 2 at most).

I would guess a demolisher cannon would do 1d6 hits of 2 wounds each with a -2 rend. That alone would make that a stupidly powerful weapon.

dosmill wrote:
Any word or speculation on whether Harlequins will be their own faction - as in they will have an 'official' HQ unit, etc? I haven't played since 5th edition, but from what I understand about recent editions, a all Harlequin list was possible.

Yes, they'll still be there.

The only factions I can see getting "removed" are those like Khorn Daemon Kin and Skitarii, and that'll be more because they're getting rolled back into Chaos and Ad mech respectively were they belonged in the first place.

I think you should be able to shoot in or out of hth combat. The game is more cinematic than realistic. I can just see scenes as in Hacksaw Ridge where the Japanese over-ran the Marines. There was a lot of shooting in and out of hth combat in that movie.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

Exactly, I brought this up earlier. Where is people's sense of the 40k narrative? The heroism, the against all odds stories, the chance for grand feats taken by the most unlike of heroes, the daft humour of a universe where there is NOTHING BUT WAR?

The problem is that, as much as people bring this up, all too often it ends up with a "well...that was dumb" moment of reflection on a rules artifact rearing its ugly head rather than some great epic moment.

Yeah. You quickly learn to spot these moments. When I landed my Shas'El on Ork rear lines, only to be spotted by nearby Gretchin who promptly shot him dead with their antique pea shooters....now that is heroic.

When my pair of Gun Drones was assaulted by squad of IG Veterans, who totally whiffed combat combined with great 4+ saves by me...last remaining Drone won combat by 1, oops, Guardsmen lost their morale roll and Drone has I4...Sweeping advance! All Guardsmen perished under iron boot...threads...er...something...of a single flying frisbee who doesn't even have arms. Heroic, but also real dumb.

Or when I took my Assault team led by Company Master over open terrain towards the objective, only to met by combined firepower of half the Necron Empire. I put my Company Master with his Artificer armour on front, and after horrible defilade of Gaussic firepower, I had made nearly all my saves, my Assault team was untouched and Master had taken 1 wound. Just plain dumb.

Youn wrote:
I would guess a demolisher cannon would do 1d6 hits of 2 wounds each with a -2 rend. That alone would make that a stupidly powerful weapon.

That's not too bad by AoS standards. Even if it does 6 shots max, those still need to hit and wound and it might be 4+ and 2+

Warnings handed out, off topic posts deleted.

Please pay attention to Mod Post in this thread, and to Rule #1, #2 and #3 as well.

Thanks!

Ah, like my last game I played were an imperial knight opened up on my techmarine with thunderfire cannon for 3 rounds. All shots were tanked by the techmarine standing in front of his gun.

The 4 thunderfire cannons plus 1 razorback immobilized the Imperial Knight and glanced it out of existance!.

Heroic!

Backfire wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

Exactly, I brought this up earlier. Where is people's sense of the 40k narrative? The heroism, the against all odds stories, the chance for grand feats taken by the most unlike of heroes, the daft humour of a universe where there is NOTHING BUT WAR?

The problem is that, as much as people bring this up, all too often it ends up with a "well...that was dumb" moment of reflection on a rules artifact rearing its ugly head rather than some great epic moment.

Yeah. You quickly learn to spot these moments. When I landed my Shas'El on Ork rear lines, only to be spotted by nearby Gretchin who promptly shot him dead with their antique pea shooters....now that is heroic.

When my pair of Gun Drones was assaulted by squad of IG Veterans, who totally whiffed combat combined with great 4+ saves by me...last remaining Drone won combat by 1, oops, Guardsmen lost their morale roll and Drone has I4...Sweeping advance! All Guardsmen perished under iron boot...threads...er...something...of a single flying frisbee who doesn't even have arms. Heroic, but also real dumb.

Or when I took my Assault team led by Company Master over open terrain towards the objective, only to met by combined firepower of half the Necron Empire. I put my Company Master with his Artificer armour on front, and after horrible defilade of Gaussic firepower, I had made nearly all my saves, my Assault team was untouched and Master had taken 1 wound. Just plain dumb.

Lots of ways you can interpret just about any game situation. It's all about attitude... forge that narrative!

One of the grots had stolen a very "speshul" shoota from the local mekboy - the battlesuit commander never expected one of their 'antique pea shooters' to be a one-shot mini-plasma cannon... the unfortunate grot thief surely won't be seeing anything ever again!

A team of guard veterans charge over a hill towards the Tau lines, encountering some small resistance on the way: a pair of gun drones. Against all odds, the damned things won't go down, despite las and bayonet and grenade. Realizing the drones have left them completely exposed, a moment of panic quickly becomes a rout. The gun drones barely notice any of this: they just systematically gun down every target they can see, one at a time, methodically slaughtering the veterans even as they retreat...

And come on, a Space Marine hero striding into battle, leading from the front as shots deflect uselessly off their ancient artificer armour... that's about as classic 40k as you can get.

 Bottle wrote:
Based on AoS, I very much doubt any weapons are going to be both D6 hits and D6 damage. Not only is that a crazy scope of output (1-36 wounds) it's also beyond powerful. Stuff that does high damage is usually limited to a low amount of shots. A demolisher cannon only fires one salvo so it would likely only fire one shot (maybe 2 at most).

Edit - Nevermind apparently talking about the potential rules implications of the new 40k is off topic

Breng77 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

I look it more like this. I have a tactical squad with 4 bolter marines and a melta gun. Right now I don't shoot those bolter marines at the land raider because they don't do anything, now at least there is a chance they might.

so Bolters are still useless against the LR, but because there is a chance people think it is different than before
my idea would be to let different weapon groups chose different targets to solve this problem instead of giving the Bolters a pointless chance.

And if they have no other target? The issue with your solution is that if the opponent brings only squads in land raiders I have a lot of entirely useless weapons. With having some ability (however small) to hurt them, I increase the likelihood of getting squads out, it also means I never have units that can do nothing on their turn. Even if all they do is put 2 wounds on it all game, that is better than nothing.

ok, looking at a standard game, your enemy is a tank company, you gave only brought Bolter guys

old edition, you can try to get in the back for a lucky shot, but trying to kill them is pointless, so ignore them and aim for fulfilling the mission targets

new edition, no need to get in his back as you can try your lucky shot from the front, but it is pointless trying to kill them, so aim for fulfilling the mission targets


so adding the rule just for people to believe they can do something and/or make it possible that some guy with a lucky dice roll (the 10 bolter guys rolled 20 6s and killd one Raider each round) is pointless, as a different rule would improve the game by adding a valid option instead of just adding a rule that the devs call "pointless" before the game is out

Foley answered some more questions on twitter regarding 8th today:

No D weapons.

No shooting into or out of combat (unlike AoS).

Fixed to hit (like AoS, unlike SWA).

Has Strength vs Toughness to Wound (unlike AoS).

No random Initiative turn (unlike AoS).

Core rules are about 14 pages not including narrative, matched play, battle forged stuff.

 KiloFiX wrote:
Foley answered some more questions on twitter regarding 8th today:

No D weapons.

No shooting into or out of combat (unlike AoS).

Fixed to hit (like AoS, unlike SWA).

Has Strength vs Toughness to Wound (unlike AoS).

No random Initiative turn (unlike AoS).

Core rules are about 14 pages not including narrative, matched play, battle forged stuff.

I will miss the WS, but fixed To Hit means theres only one table to consult.

 Jambles wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

Exactly, I brought this up earlier. Where is people's sense of the 40k narrative? The heroism, the against all odds stories, the chance for grand feats taken by the most unlike of heroes, the daft humour of a universe where there is NOTHING BUT WAR?

The problem is that, as much as people bring this up, all too often it ends up with a "well...that was dumb" moment of reflection on a rules artifact rearing its ugly head rather than some great epic moment.

Yeah. You quickly learn to spot these moments. When I landed my Shas'El on Ork rear lines, only to be spotted by nearby Gretchin who promptly shot him dead with their antique pea shooters....now that is heroic.

When my pair of Gun Drones was assaulted by squad of IG Veterans, who totally whiffed combat combined with great 4+ saves by me...last remaining Drone won combat by 1, oops, Guardsmen lost their morale roll and Drone has I4...Sweeping advance! All Guardsmen perished under iron boot...threads...er...something...of a single flying frisbee who doesn't even have arms. Heroic, but also real dumb.

Or when I took my Assault team led by Company Master over open terrain towards the objective, only to met by combined firepower of half the Necron Empire. I put my Company Master with his Artificer armour on front, and after horrible defilade of Gaussic firepower, I had made nearly all my saves, my Assault team was untouched and Master had taken 1 wound. Just plain dumb.

Lots of ways you can interpret just about any game situation. It's all about attitude... forge that narrative!

One of the grots had stolen a very "speshul" shoota from the local mekboy - the battlesuit commander never expected one of their 'antique pea shooters' to be a one-shot mini-plasma cannon... the unfortunate grot thief surely won't be seeing anything ever again!

A team of guard veterans charge over a hill towards the Tau lines, encountering some small resistance on the way: a pair of gun drones. Against all odds, the damned things won't go down, despite las and bayonet and grenade. Realizing the drones have left them completely exposed, a moment of panic quickly becomes a rout. The gun drones barely notice any of this: they just systematically gun down every target they can see, one at a time, methodically slaughtering the veterans even as they retreat...

And come on, a Space Marine hero striding into battle, leading from the front as shots deflect uselessly off their ancient artificer armour... that's about as classic 40k as you can get.

sometimes these things are fine. The mighty Space Marine hero at the front tanking the fire for his comrades works fine against a hail of plasma gun fire from the front deflecting off his stormshield. That works.

When a demolosher cannon or a hail of artillery shells hits amidst the squad however, it makes zero sense that the character tanks all the damage from that leaving everyone else caught in the explosion miraculously unharmed. That sort of thing is a bad rules artifact that results in a "that was dumb moment".

There is a line between these two things.

That said, I am totally willing to live with Land Raiders and other thanks being killed by lasguns or bolters if it means overall they are more functional than they are now and better balanced vs MC's, vehicles are in an awful state right now, and it doesn't sound like such weapons will be particularly more effectice than they are now against units like Riptides, so it probably wont be a huge deal.

But not every improbable event is cinematic or epic, they can just end up being nonsensical or dumb.

 kodos wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

I look it more like this. I have a tactical squad with 4 bolter marines and a melta gun. Right now I don't shoot those bolter marines at the land raider because they don't do anything, now at least there is a chance they might.

so Bolters are still useless against the LR, but because there is a chance people think it is different than before
my idea would be to let different weapon groups chose different targets to solve this problem instead of giving the Bolters a pointless chance.

And if they have no other target? The issue with your solution is that if the opponent brings only squads in land raiders I have a lot of entirely useless weapons. With having some ability (however small) to hurt them, I increase the likelihood of getting squads out, it also means I never have units that can do nothing on their turn. Even if all they do is put 2 wounds on it all game, that is better than nothing.

ok, looking at a standard game, your enemy is a tank company, you gave only brought Bolter guys

old edition, you can try to get in the back for a lucky shot, but trying to kill them is pointless, so ignore them and aim for fulfilling the mission targets

new edition, no need to get in his back as you can try your lucky shot from the front, but it is pointless trying to kill them, so aim for fulfilling the mission targets


so adding the rule just for people to believe they can do something and/or make it possible that some guy with a lucky dice roll (the 10 bolter guys rolled 20 6s and killd one Raider each round) is pointless, as a different rule would improve the game by adding a valid option instead of just adding a rule that the devs call "pointless" before the game is out

So the effects cause essentially the same game play situation (it's best to ignore them and play to objectives), but since they no longer need to spend page count explaining how vehicle armor and facings act differently than regular armor they can fit the core rules in all of the codexes and we don't have to drag around a separate book anymore.

Seems like a win to me.

theocracity wrote:

That's not really tactics though, that's just list building and purchasing decisions. The only tactical element of that is knowing your local metagame, which will still be important - there's just less chance of there being binary games where you hardly have a reason to even put models on the table.

I mean, in your example, 9 times out of 10 shotgun beats bow - but that doesn't mean the bow has literally no point in even picking up the dice.

Given the amount of choice that exists in Infinity, even in a non-tournament environment against my mates I have no idea what they might bring, so can't build a list to counter that. Plus I would always build my list for the mission not to counter my opponent. Match-ups are decided at the stage of deployment and as the game evolves, especially when camo is factored in. Tactical depth. Of course luck is a factor, it's a dice game, but the best players mitigate this by picking good match-ups whether it be with range-bands, MSV vs camo etc. etc.

Sydrian wrote:

So to point out how stupid a system where everything can hurt everything is, we use an example from a game where everything can hurt everything?

Hence 'nine times out of ten'. Try relying on the crit mechanic with a combi-rifle against a jotum and see what happens. Instead, what you would do is use a hacker. Using the right tool for the right job is what gives Infinity so much tactical depth and was an important part of what made 40k compelling, and it would be a shame to see it go.