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.

 Desubot wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I don't fully understand why they didn't transition AV14 to T10, or even T9.

Its probably because a lot of not impirum armies cap out at ST8 or have very limited access to higher ST weapons.

tons of wounds + only 5s to wound is going to be a nightmare to balance for every single army.

You're definitely not wrong, but its also the kind of work I expect a large, multi-million dollar company with decades of experience able to successfully manage. If an army's primary source of high S anti-tank is in S8 weaponry, I expect GW to have figured out that army should either have a lot of them, make them cheap, or give them a special rule to compensate somehow. This isn't rocket appliances, GW.

 Aenarian wrote:


The Dakkajet is also a terrible unit then? And everything in the game requires your opponent's permission. I can refuse to play against your Tactical Marines if I feel like it, and it is up to store owner's or tournament organisers whether or not to allow any models to be played. The argument that only Forge World models would require an opponent's permission is among the worst ones you could make.

The Dakkajet is the best flyer in a group of rather mediocreof Ork fliers. You see it in many lists.

But the point was not about the Dakkajet or the Leman Russ. The point was that the Vulture is absurdly overpowered and breaks the game.

 Blacksails wrote:
T9 would have been fine, at least lascannons and their ilk would be wounding on 4s, rather than 3s. Even with the wound chart changes, I still can't shake the feeling that Russes (and by extension, most AV14 front vehicles) should have been T10.

No way
At best only vehicles that were 360 AV14 should be T10...
Altho this isn't me saying LRs should be T10 NOW...
Just that if it had happen, Russes should not have been T10

 Kanluwen wrote:

Let's be brutally honest here. Missile Launchers have always been worse than Lascannons at dealing with armour, be it heavy or light. It's the "jack of all trades" weapon with the variable.

I'm fine with ML's being worse than LC's (they should be).
I'm not fine with them being pretty much *useless* at dealing with heavy vehicles, wich they would be if they started wounding things on 5+.

 Talamare wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
T9 would have been fine, at least lascannons and their ilk would be wounding on 4s, rather than 3s. Even with the wound chart changes, I still can't shake the feeling that Russes (and by extension, most AV14 front vehicles) should have been T10.

No way
At best only vehicles that were 360 AV14 should be T10...
Altho this isn't me saying LRs should be T10 NOW...
Just that if it had happen, Russes should not have been T10

The benefit of the new statline is that there are now three values to tweak the durability of a vehicle. Making Russes T10 but Sv3+ while LRs are T10 but Sv2+ (with more wounds too) is definitely appropriate and equally as justifiable as Russes being T9. Regardless, I think most people agree T8 is too low.

pismakron wrote:

 Aenarian wrote:


The Dakkajet is also a terrible unit then? And everything in the game requires your opponent's permission. I can refuse to play against your Tactical Marines if I feel like it, and it is up to store owner's or tournament organisers whether or not to allow any models to be played. The argument that only Forge World models would require an opponent's permission is among the worst ones you could make.

The Dakkajet is the best flyer in a group of rather mediocreof Ork fliers. You see it in many lists.

But the point was not about the Dakkajet or the Leman Russ. The point was that the Vulture is absurdly overpowered and breaks the game.

Alright, thanks. I don't know much about Orks, and I guess they could stand to be buffed quite a lot then.

I think the T factor isnt the issue, as T is of less value than it was in previous editions, I think Russ tanks should have had a 2+ save at the least (and maybe a couple extra wounds). That would matter a whole lot more than a T boost, and is a big part of what makes the Land Raider so much more resilient than the Russ.

It's just perplexing how "normal" the Russ is really relative to other tanks, especially considering it used to be just as well armored as the Land Raider, with the Demolisher originally actually being even better armored than the Land Raider.

Basically Anti Tank Weaponry needed to be bumped up in Strength in accordance to the commonly seen Vehicles

If we go by a simple conversion
Av 42 + Vehicles = T10
Av38-41 Vehicles = T9
Av35-37 Vehicles = T8
Av33-34 Vehicles = T7
Av31-32 Vehicles = T6
Av 30 - Vehicles = T5

Av = Front + Side + Rear

 Aenarian wrote:

pismakron wrote:

 Aenarian wrote:


The Dakkajet is also a terrible unit then? And everything in the game requires your opponent's permission. I can refuse to play against your Tactical Marines if I feel like it, and it is up to store owner's or tournament organisers whether or not to allow any models to be played. The argument that only Forge World models would require an opponent's permission is among the worst ones you could make.

The Dakkajet is the best flyer in a group of rather mediocreof Ork fliers. You see it in many lists.

But the point was not about the Dakkajet or the Leman Russ. The point was that the Vulture is absurdly overpowered and breaks the game.

Alright, thanks. I don't know much about Orks, and I guess they could stand to be buffed quite a lot then.

The Orks are fine, and they have access to some hillariously imba Forgeworld units themselves. The lifta cannon hits automatically, has 48" range and causes D6 mortal wounds, and it is a 39 point addition to a battlewagon. The Kill tank pretty much has the statline of a Leman russ, can transport 12, and has more wounds.

The Leman Russ needs a few extra wounds and a price decrease. It is an iconic unit for Guard and it needs to be in the game.

 MinscS2 wrote:
People who think that LR's (or heavy vehicles in general) should get T9 and/or T10 probably only play Imperium-armies, where you can easily get access to S9 AP3 in the form of Lascannons.

Not only that, but Missile Launchers (who are already worse than Lascannons at dealing with heavy armour) would be pretty much useless. Very few shots, wounding on *5+* and often leaving a decent armoursave? Very impressive...

I play IG and SM myself, and if Russes and/or Landraiders went to T9 (let alone T10) I would stop using them.
They'd be close to unkillable in regular games, especially if you spammed them, and alot of (non-imperium) armies wouldn't be able to handle them.

The Land Raider already has a 2+ save to create a similar effect, if it got T9 I would want it to be bumped down to a 3+ save and maybe lop off a couple wounds (so that it'd be +2 wounds tougher than a LR, not +4 wounds and +1Sv tougher).

As far as the LR, sure a lot of S8 AT weapons would have to be rolling 5 to wound them, but once they do they can lop off up to half its health in a single hit. On average you only need 4 unsaved wounds with an AT weapon to take down a LR, so it's actually not much different from the old AV14 and 3 hull points it had before. In fact it's easier on S8 than AV14 was: S8 could only glance AV14 on 6+.

As far as factions having weapons to deal with them:

Tau have plenty of S9/10.

Eldar have plenty of S9/10. D-cannons, D-scythes, wraith stuff, even S12 on the fire prism.

Orks have deff kannons, zzap guns and shokk guns (two of which can even do mortal wounds), plus they're a choppy army so they'll probably be able to rely on power klaws anyway.

Chaos has copies of most of the Imperium arsenal, plus their abundance of psykers give them plenty of options for mortal wounds.

Necrons, like Tau, have plenty of S9/10.

All the various Imperium armies have plenty of S9/10, especially with how easily they ally now.

The only two factions I know of that have a hard time putting high-S shooting on the table are Tyranids and Dark Eldar.

The Tyranids make up for it with crushing claws on MCs, being a choppy army. Though they do have the venom cannon.

Dark Eldar just have the void lance, which is basically just a lascannon with extra AP. I don't know why it doesn't have any rules to help it at half range though, since I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be the point of lances (much like melta). Dark Eldar are just kind of bad at AT in general, though giving lances an actual lance special rule would probably fix that. Seriously why did lances lose their special rule.

I will say though, I honestly think it would be more appropriate if the melta rule was roll 2d6 pick highest to wound instead of for damage. After all, the point of melta was supposed to be extremely reliable wounding at close range, not gambling for a big payoff.

Now, even with all that yes it does mean that a T9 LRBT would be difficult for the vast majority of weapons in the game to take down, especially weapons that don't do D6 damage. But... that's kind of the point of having a LRBT in the first place. It's supposed to be a pain to kill.

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Let's be brutally honest here. Missile Launchers have always been worse than Lascannons at dealing with armour, be it heavy or light. It's the "jack of all trades" weapon with the variable.

I'm fine with ML's being worse than LC's (they should be).
I'm not fine with them being pretty much *useless* at dealing with heavy vehicles, wich they would be if they started wounding things on 5+.

To put things into perspective here:
Lascannons are 48" Heavy 1 S9 AP-3 D6 damage.

Missile Launchers are dual profile.
Heavy D6 S4 AP0 1 damage
Heavy 1 S8 AP-2 D6 damage

Both are 20 points.

Not seeing the problem here. If you want a dedicated vehicle killer, then you pay 20 pts for a Lascannon.
If you want a weapon that can thin out hordes and deal with vehicles almost as well as a Lascannon...then you go Missile Launcher.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Let's be brutally honest here. Missile Launchers have always been worse than Lascannons at dealing with armour, be it heavy or light. It's the "jack of all trades" weapon with the variable.

I'm fine with ML's being worse than LC's (they should be).
I'm not fine with them being pretty much *useless* at dealing with heavy vehicles, wich they would be if they started wounding things on 5+.

To put things into perspective here:
Lascannons are 48" Heavy 1 S9 AP-3 D6 damage.

Missile Launchers are dual profile.
Heavy D6 S4 AP0 1 damage
Heavy 1 S8 AP-2 D6 damage

Both are 20 points.

Not seeing the problem here. If you want a dedicated vehicle killer, then you pay 20 pts for a Lascannon.
If you want a weapon that can thin out hordes and deal with vehicles almost as well as a Lascannon...then you go Missile Launcher.

Versatility is nice, but Lascannons really should be 5 points more than a Missile Launchers

I have a real problem with this T9/T10 LR gak. Lots are posting that it "should be" T9 without any substantive reason other than that's what they think. Landraiders are not dying in droves.

Missile Launchers aside -- as they pay for versatility -- a change in toughness would unbalance weapon costs. Such a change would make multi-meltas (a well known tank killing weapon) 10% weaker than a lascannon. I can't even begin on how absurd it would be to make it T10 for S5 weapons.

A simple change of predator from T7 to T8 would affect the lascannon in no way, while dropping the multi-melta by 24%. Right now MM is better all around than LC at T7 3+ as it should, because it is 24". This would make it almost strictly worse.

Aside from FW points the core rules offer meaningful choices for weapons and durability. Let's not gak on that for a gut feeling.

=======================================
Currently, per point LC, MM, and MM at half are .042, .036, and .046 respectively. The average of the multi-melta is .041.
.042 versus .041(98%)

If you made the land raider T9 then it becomes
.031 versus .028 (90%)

Lascannon 1 * .666 * .666 * . 666 * 3.5 = 1.05 / 25 = .042 1 * .666 * .5 * .666 * 3.5 = 0.77 / 25 = .031 --26%drop in effectiveness per point Multi-Melta 1 * .666 * .5 * .833 * 3.5 = 0.97 / 27 = .036 1 * .666 * .333 * .833 * 3.5 = 0.65 / 27 = .024 -- 33% drop in effectiveness per point Multi-Melta (half range) 1 * .666 * .5 * .833 * 4.5 = 1.25 / 27 = .046 1 * .666 * .333 * .833 * 4.5 = 0.83 / 27 = .031 -- 33% drop in effectiveness per point

 Vaktathi wrote:
I think the T factor isnt the issue, as T is of less value than it was in previous editions, I think Russ tanks should have had a 2+ save at the least (and maybe a couple extra wounds). That would matter a whole lot more than a T boost, and is a big part of what makes the Land Raider so much more resilient than the Russ.

It's just perplexing how "normal" the Russ is really relative to other tanks, especially considering it used to be just as well armored as the Land Raider, with the Demolisher originally actually being even better armored than the Land Raider.

Afew things worth noting when comparing Leman Russes to Land Raiders;

1)
Leman Russes used to be AV 14/13/11(10) 3HP, Land Raiders used to be AV 14/14/14 4HP.
Landraiders should be significantly tougher than a Leman Russ, and they currently are (Due to better save and +4 wounds.)

2)
A Leman Russ, depending on loadout, current costs in the ~150-200 pts region.
A Land Raider Godhammer costs 356 pts, so roughly twice the cost of a Leman Russ.
How is it in any way balanced if the Russ, being so much cheaper, had the same defensive stats as the Land Raider?

If you want a Heavy Tank for IG which is on par with the Land Raider (both pts-wise, defensive-wise and offensive-wise) I recommend one of the Malcador Heavy Tank-variants instead.
The Malcador Annihilator for instance, boasts 4 Lascannons (same as the Land Raider) and a Demolisher Cannon. It's "only" 320 pts as well, and has 2 more wounds than the Land Raider.
It doesn't have a 2+ save nor is it a transport, but it's alot closer to a Land Raider than a Leman Russ, in all aspects.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Let's be brutally honest here. Missile Launchers have always been worse than Lascannons at dealing with armour, be it heavy or light. It's the "jack of all trades" weapon with the variable.

I'm fine with ML's being worse than LC's (they should be).
I'm not fine with them being pretty much *useless* at dealing with heavy vehicles, wich they would be if they started wounding things on 5+.

To put things into perspective here:
Lascannons are 48" Heavy 1 S9 AP-3 D6 damage.

Missile Launchers are dual profile.
Heavy D6 S4 AP0 1 damage
Heavy 1 S8 AP-2 D6 damage

Both are 20 points.

Not seeing the problem here. If you want a dedicated vehicle killer, then you pay 20 pts for a Lascannon.
If you want a weapon that can thin out hordes and deal with vehicles almost as well as a Lascannon...then you go Missile Launcher.

I'm honestly not sure what you're on about.
I've never stated that the ML should be on par with the LC when it comes with dealing with heavy vehicles.
I just stated that if T9 becomes the norm for heavy vehicles, you'd see even fewer ML's than you do currently, as there would be no point in them anymore. It's currently pretty versatile between decent anti-tank and decent anti-infantry, but if it stopped being decent at anti-tank (which it would be against T9), it would become pointless.

 Talamare wrote:
Basically Anti Tank Weaponry needed to be bumped up in Strength in accordance to the commonly seen Vehicles

If we go by a simple conversion
Av 42 + Vehicles = T10
Av38-41 Vehicles = T9
Av35-37 Vehicles = T8
Av33-34 Vehicles = T7
Av31-32 Vehicles = T6
Av 30 - Vehicles = T5

Av = Front + Side + Rear

So, I really like this idea.

But, instead of giving toughness over 8, I would rather see an invulnerable save. For example, instead of T10, it's T8 with a 2+/5++.

I would also say that strength double toughness should completely negate a base save. For instance, if you hit something with a strength 12 attack and it's T6, that model should not get a base save, it should automatically fall back on its invulnerable save. Not sure how often that would come up, but it definitely would at the lower levels, for instance, marines would not get a save against lascannons, and guard would not get a save against strength 6.

 ross-128 wrote:

Tau have plenty of S9/10.

Eldar have plenty of S9/10. D-cannons, D-scythes, wraith stuff, even S12 on the fire prism.

Actually both Tau and Eldar have VERY LITTLE S9 guns, but they do have a decent amount of S8 and S10.

Altho it was incredibly disappointing to see the insanely Iconic Lance rule die.
Should have been enemies with Toughness values greater than 8, are treated as if their toughness values are 8.

or This weapon always wounds on a 4+

Missile launchers are more or less equal to lascannons in the T5-T7 range, which covers light and medium vehicles. They also both get to 2+ wounding at the same time, at T4, but honestly at that point the ML is probably going to switch to frag.

Missile launchers only start to fall off at T8 and T9. Which I'm pretty sure is supposed to be the lascannon's niche anyway.

Keep in mind the vast majority of vehicles in the game would still be in the T5-T7 range, only a small handful of heavy vehicles hit T8/T9, generally vehicles that were AV14 before. You know, that AV14 that missile launchers used to need a 6+ against. 5+ is still less punishing than 6+.

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Let's be brutally honest here. Missile Launchers have always been worse than Lascannons at dealing with armour, be it heavy or light. It's the "jack of all trades" weapon with the variable.

I'm fine with ML's being worse than LC's (they should be).
I'm not fine with them being pretty much *useless* at dealing with heavy vehicles, wich they would be if they started wounding things on 5+.

To put things into perspective here:
Lascannons are 48" Heavy 1 S9 AP-3 D6 damage.

Missile Launchers are dual profile.
Heavy D6 S4 AP0 1 damage
Heavy 1 S8 AP-2 D6 damage

Both are 20 points.

Not seeing the problem here. If you want a dedicated vehicle killer, then you pay 20 pts for a Lascannon.
If you want a weapon that can thin out hordes and deal with vehicles almost as well as a Lascannon...then you go Missile Launcher.

I'm honestly not sure what you're on about.
I've never stated that the ML should be on par with the LC when it comes with dealing with heavy vehicles.
I just stated that if T9 becomes the norm for heavy vehicles, you'd see even fewer ML's than you do currently, as there would be no point in them anymore. It's currently pretty versatile between decent anti-tank and decent anti-infantry, but if it stopped being decent at anti-tank (which it would be against T9), it would become pointless.

 MinscS2 wrote:
People who think that LR's (or heavy vehicles in general) should get T9 and/or T10 probably only play Imperium-armies, where you can easily get access to S9 AP3 in the form of Lascannons.

Not only that, but Missile Launchers (who are already worse than Lascannons at dealing with heavy armour) would be pretty much useless. Very few shots, wounding on *5+* and often leaving a decent armoursave? Very impressive...

I play IG and SM myself, and if Russes and/or Landraiders went to T9 (let alone T10) I would stop using them.
They'd be close to unkillable in regular games, especially if you spammed them, and alot of (non-imperium) armies wouldn't be able to handle them.

That's what you stated. If you think that a difference of 1 more point of Toughness is going to somehow make them useless, you're crazy.

I'm "on about" the fact that there is not a huge difference that exists, currently, between the Missile Launcher and Lascannon to begin with. There's a point of Strength and AP. That's all.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I don't fully understand why they didn't transition AV14 to T10, or even T9.

Its probably because a lot of not impirum armies cap out at ST8 or have very limited access to higher ST weapons.

tons of wounds + only 5s to wound is going to be a nightmare to balance for every single army.

You're definitely not wrong, but its also the kind of work I expect a large, multi-million dollar company with decades of experience able to successfully manage. If an army's primary source of high S anti-tank is in S8 weaponry, I expect GW to have figured out that army should either have a lot of them, make them cheap, or give them a special rule to compensate somehow. This isn't rocket appliances, GW.

true and actually that IS how a lot of non imperial anti tank weapons are.
Bright and dark lances capping out at 8, with anything higher than that being single shots on EXPENSIVE platforms or at super heavy levels (do we really want more apoc on tables? maybe maybe not)
im not sure what nids get.
Tau only having the hammer head
orks getting boned again.

T9 would make it unfairly difficult for these armies to deal with the lemon as it is. it would require quite a price hike

otherwise they really should nut up and just make them 2+ armor save native. giving them a 6+ against -4 ap. its already paying out the ass for high durability low damage output.

i think GW might also need to take applied rocket science because their missile weapons in general are pretty lacking. was really hoping missile launchers would get like a +1 to hit against flying mode (flak) maybe st 7 ap 2 d3 damage instead of the heaver hitting crack.

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's what you stated. If you think that a difference of 1 point of Toughness is going to somehow make them useless, you're crazy.

Going from wounding on 4+ to wounding on 5+ on a quite expensive weapon makes a big difference on it's performance.

Also please refrain from ad hominem, or I'll have to report you. Let's keep this civil.

 Desubot wrote:

im not sure what nids get.

They pretty much only have Impaler Cannons for long range anti-tank.
S8 AP-2. Have fun dealing with massed T9 nids.

If Tanks get a +1~2 Toughness Increase...

It's not a big deal to potentially see MLs, MMs, LC, BL, RG, etc see a +1 S increase.

Just adds granularity in balancing options.

 Talamare wrote:
If Tanks get a +1~2 Toughness Increase...

It's not a big deal to potentially see MLs, MMs, LC, BL, RG, etc see a +1 S increase.

Just adds granularity in balancing options.

But that just defeats the purpose of having the extra T.

also i feel we may have gone way off topic :/

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's what you stated. If you think that a difference of 1 point of Toughness is going to somehow make them useless, you're crazy.

Going from wounding on 4+ to wounding on 5+ on a quite expensive weapon makes a big difference on it's performance.

Its performance would remain relatively unchanged. You don't take Missile Launchers to deal with heavy vehicles en masse or to guarantee kills on them. You take Missile Launchers for the flexibility they offer you against both vehicles/monsters and infantry.

Also please refrain from ad hominem, or I'll have to report you. Let's keep this civil.

I've been civil.

You chose to try to play the "I don't know what you're on about" card after getting called out for your hyperbolic posts--which in and of itself is a thinly veiled ad hominem attack, by the by, as it lets you insinuate that the individual you're engaged in an argument with does not know what they are talking about or is behaving in an illogical manner.

 Desubot wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
If Tanks get a +1~2 Toughness Increase...

It's not a big deal to potentially see MLs, MMs, LC, BL, RG, etc see a +1 S increase.

Just adds granularity in balancing options.

But that just defeats the purpose of having the extra T.

Well, no not exactly.
Super Anti Tank Weapons would only perform best against Super Heavy Tanks
but there would be more room balance wise for Middle Anti Tank Weapons and Middle Tanks to exist.

Stuff like the Auto Cannon and Missile Launcher would find more of a home in the game.
They would just need to further increase the cost of Tanks and Super Anti Tank weaponry.

 Talamare wrote:
If Tanks get a +1~2 Toughness Increase...

It's not a big deal to potentially see MLs, MMs, LC, BL, RG, etc see a +1 S increase.

Just adds granularity in balancing options.

I don't have the Eldar book and haven't memorized Brightlances off the top of my head--but I'm genuinely opposed to Lascannons getting better than S9 unless they're on a vehicle or a structure.

I will totally agree that Multi-Meltas need something better to differentiate themselves from the standard Meltagun though.

 Talamare wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
If Tanks get a +1~2 Toughness Increase...

It's not a big deal to potentially see MLs, MMs, LC, BL, RG, etc see a +1 S increase.

Just adds granularity in balancing options.

But that just defeats the purpose of having the extra T.

Well, no not exactly.
Super Anti Tank Weapons would only perform best against Super Heavy Tanks
but there would be more room balance wise for Middle Anti Tank Weapons and Middle Tanks to exist.

Stuff like the Auto Cannon and Missile Launcher would find more of a home in the game.
They would just need to further increase the cost of Tanks and Super Anti Tank weaponry.

The Autocannon and Missile Launcher have a home in the game. Autocannons just aren't scattered all over a great many armies.

Guard have easy access to them for infantry and vehicles while Marines and Mechanicus can get Autocannons(and/or variant Autocannons as well) on vehicles only.
Missile Launchers are basically available everywhere but, well....they're missile launchers. They're the Ultramarines of Heavy Weapon options. Everyone has them at one point or another, but nobody wants to admit it or keep taking them after getting mocked for it.

 Talamare wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
If Tanks get a +1~2 Toughness Increase...

It's not a big deal to potentially see MLs, MMs, LC, BL, RG, etc see a +1 S increase.

Just adds granularity in balancing options.

But that just defeats the purpose of having the extra T.

Well, no not exactly.
Super Anti Tank Weapons would only perform best against Super Heavy Tanks
but there would be more room balance wise for Middle Anti Tank Weapons and Middle Tanks to exist.

Stuff like the Auto Cannon and Missile Launcher would find more of a home in the game.
They would just need to further increase the cost of Tanks and Super Anti Tank weaponry.

So nerf reliable dedicated anti tank weapons to make light anti tank weapons more appealing?

im getting visions of parking lots all over again.

the only thing melta weapons have going for it is the half range better damage (should of just been 3+ d3 or straight 6) and AP-4

 Marmatag wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
Basically Anti Tank Weaponry needed to be bumped up in Strength in accordance to the commonly seen Vehicles

If we go by a simple conversion
Av 42 + Vehicles = T10
Av38-41 Vehicles = T9
Av35-37 Vehicles = T8
Av33-34 Vehicles = T7
Av31-32 Vehicles = T6
Av 30 - Vehicles = T5

Av = Front + Side + Rear

So, I really like this idea.

But, instead of giving toughness over 8, I would rather see an invulnerable save. For example, instead of T10, it's T8 with a 2+/5++.

I would also say that strength double toughness should completely negate a base save. For instance, if you hit something with a strength 12 attack and it's T6, that model should not get a base save, it should automatically fall back on its invulnerable save. Not sure how often that would come up, but it definitely would at the lower levels, for instance, marines would not get a save against lascannons, and guard would not get a save against strength 6.

The game has a Ton of S10 weaponry, it makes no sense that they would have little benefit over S9 weaponry.
So, capping at T8 just seems really biased towards Lascannon.

Also, I'm a highly against devastating "On/Off" Scenario... It would basically be like a minor form of the previous Instant Death Rule.
A granular version of that S = AP seems better. For every S2 above your target you get +1 AP?
Seems decent, but a little math intensive for a fast game. It would also mean a need to heavily nerf a lot of base AP values.

 Kanluwen wrote:


You chose to try to play the "I don't know what you're on about" card after getting called out for your hyperbolic posts--which in and of itself is a thinly veiled ad hominem attack, by the by, as it lets you insinuate that the individual you're engaged in an argument with does not know what they are talking about or is behaving in an illogical manner.

You're reading way too much into my posts and using that to justify insults (twice now).

I genuinely didn't know why you where comparing Lascannons to Missile Launchers and saying "The LC is better at killing tanks" - I never stated otherwise, nor do I disagree.
You where trying to prove (or argue about) something I had never stated, hence the "I'm not sure what you're on about".

Now you've called me crazy and (indirectly) hyperbolic for no reason. I'm done wasting time on you.

 Desubot wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
If Tanks get a +1~2 Toughness Increase...

It's not a big deal to potentially see MLs, MMs, LC, BL, RG, etc see a +1 S increase.

Just adds granularity in balancing options.

But that just defeats the purpose of having the extra T.

Well, no not exactly.
Super Anti Tank Weapons would only perform best against Super Heavy Tanks
but there would be more room balance wise for Middle Anti Tank Weapons and Middle Tanks to exist.

Stuff like the Auto Cannon and Missile Launcher would find more of a home in the game.
They would just need to further increase the cost of Tanks and Super Anti Tank weaponry.

So nerf reliable dedicated anti tank weapons to make light anti tank weapons more appealing?

im getting visions of parking lots all over again.

Yes, and No
You would nerf anti tank, but you would also further increase the cost of Tanks to compensate.

The idea is to have the BEST Anti Heavy Tank too expensive to spam, but also incredibly devastating.
As well as incredibly efficient by comparison against those Heavy Tanks.

The REAL problem I see is the Lasgun...
Eventually if Tanks and Anti Tank becomes too expensive, then the Lasgun becomes the best Anti Tank Weapon.

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


You chose to try to play the "I don't know what you're on about" card after getting called out for your hyperbolic posts--which in and of itself is a thinly veiled ad hominem attack, by the by, as it lets you insinuate that the individual you're engaged in an argument with does not know what they are talking about or is behaving in an illogical manner.

You're reading way too much into my posts and using that to justify insults (twice now).

I genuinely didn't know why you where comparing Lascannons to Missile Launchers and saying "The LC is better at killing tanks" - I never stated otherwise, nor do I disagree.
You where trying to prove (or argue about) something I had never stated, hence the "I'm not sure what you're on about".

Now you've called me crazy and (indirectly) hyperbolic for no reason. I'm done wasting time on you.

I think you are very confused or distraught or something. His point was "If missile launchers are worse at killing tanks, that's fine - they're not real antitank weapons like lascannons are, even though they can pretend like it for a bit."

And I think he was arguing against the assertion that making missile launchers worse against the heaviest of tanks was a bad thing.