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.

Perhaps I'm just a bit too bitter about most of my Anti-Big-Thing weapons being pointless vs Knights. Higher volume small arms shouldn't be more ideal for taking down a Knight than low-volume good-AP weapons.

Consider a Brightlance hit vs a Knight: a 1/2 chance to wound, and a 1/3 chance to get past a 3++. So 1/6 Brightlance hits wound.

Consider Lasblaster/Lasgun hits vs a Knight. 1/6 chance to wound, 1/3 chance to get past the 3++.

So a single Guardsman unit in RF range, no upgrades, no buffs does more damage to an IK than a Brightlance. WTF.

Lascannons aren't a lot better. 12" more range, and 33% better chance to range.

*That's* a big problem thematically.

Bharring wrote:
Perhaps I'm just a bit too bitter about most of my Anti-Big-Thing weapons being pointless vs Knights. Higher volume small arms shouldn't be more ideal for taking down a Knight than low-volume good-AP weapons.

Consider a Brightlance hit vs a Knight: a 1/2 chance to wound, and a 1/3 chance to get past a 3++. So 1/6 Brightlance hits wound.

Consider Lasblaster/Lasgun hits vs a Knight. 1/6 chance to wound, 1/3 chance to get past the 3++.

So a single Guardsman unit in RF range, no upgrades, no buffs does more damage to an IK than a Brightlance. WTF.

Lascannons aren't a lot better. 12" more range, and 33% better chance to range.

*That's* a big problem thematically.

Yeah, high invulnerable save (and IG being ludicrously undercosted) causes this. That's why I cringe when every time when there is a problem with an unit's durability people suggest giving in an invul or improving an existing one. better than 5+ invulnerable saves should be rare, they feth up the weapon roles.

Perhaps I shouldn't have brought IG into this. Pretend I said 5 Corsairs or Swooping Hawks or Kabs instead.

Bharring wrote:
Perhaps I'm just a bit too bitter about most of my Anti-Big-Thing weapons being pointless vs Knights. Higher volume small arms shouldn't be more ideal for taking down a Knight than low-volume good-AP weapons.

Consider a Brightlance hit vs a Knight: a 1/2 chance to wound, and a 1/3 chance to get past a 3++. So 1/6 Brightlance hits wound.

Consider Lasblaster/Lasgun hits vs a Knight. 1/6 chance to wound, 1/3 chance to get past the 3++.

So a single Guardsman unit in RF range, no upgrades, no buffs does more damage to an IK than a Brightlance. WTF.

Lascannons aren't a lot better. 12" more range, and 33% better chance to range.

*That's* a big problem thematically.

Yup. They COULD introduce more complicated rules to make it more fair, but leaving it as a simple invulnerable save is easier, so that's how they wrote it. If I was writing Ion Shield rules, it would be like an Invulnerable save, but for each wound saved you still roll the damage, and the Ion Shield takes the damage. Maybe give the Ion Shield 20-30 wounds. Once the Ion Shield is brought down to zero, then the model loses it's invulnerable save, unless it uses a stratagem like Rotate Ion Shields to bring the shields back up, or they regen on the next turn. Or maybe just make it like Titan void shields, where it degrades as the Titan takes damage, so it might start as a 3++, but once it's down to like 10 wounds left it's on a 5++.

... Or make Ion Shield (or one of the other buffs) +1 Armor Save instead of Invuln Save?

If I get a few Melta Guns in range of your Knight, you should be scared of their AP-4. Currently, their AP-4 is about the same as AP0.

Bharring wrote:
... Or make Ion Shield (or one of the other buffs) +1 Armor Save instead of Invuln Save?

If I get a few Melta Guns in range of your Knight, you should be scared of their AP-4. Currently, their AP-4 is about the same as AP0.

Invulnerable saves should be rare period. I hate how stormshields give ++3 invulnerable save. Very few things should give that even space marines don't need something that good.

I agree that it should just be an improvement of your armor save so you get a +1 to your armor save (1s still fail), but if your opponent has something with ap - 4 its now ap-3. You still have a 5+ save. Anything more and its a bit OP

Bharring wrote:
Perhaps I'm just a bit too bitter about most of my Anti-Big-Thing weapons being pointless vs Knights. Higher volume small arms shouldn't be more ideal for taking down a Knight than low-volume good-AP weapons.

Consider a Brightlance hit vs a Knight: a 1/2 chance to wound, and a 1/3 chance to get past a 3++. So 1/6 Brightlance hits wound.

Consider Lasblaster/Lasgun hits vs a Knight. 1/6 chance to wound, 1/3 chance to get past the 3++.

So a single Guardsman unit in RF range, no upgrades, no buffs does more damage to an IK than a Brightlance. WTF.

Lascannons aren't a lot better. 12" more range, and 33% better chance to range.

*That's* a big problem thematically.

The thing is if GW had actually blank canvassed the stats and design units for 8th edition that could have been avoided by actually embracing the concept that stats no longer have a cap of 10.

They could have had infantry 1-10 wounds, light vehicals small monsters 10 to 20 wounds, medium Vehicals/monsters 20 to 30 wounds, heavy vehicals 30 to 40, LoW 40 to 80.

Could have made a lascannon 8 damage in those sort of stats and infantry weapons would never be a good choice at 1 ot 2 wounds per shot. Especially if expanded the T stats aswell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
... Or make Ion Shield (or one of the other buffs) +1 Armor Save instead of Invuln Save?

If I get a few Melta Guns in range of your Knight, you should be scared of their AP-4. Currently, their AP-4 is about the same as AP0.

They already have a 2+sv relic, just no-one takes it as it's esentially redundant as most anti tank weapons are -3AP so 5+ with a 5++? It's not a buff it's just a pointless option.

It's only "not a buff" because their Invulns are too good.

When people say they bring anti-tank, they should be talking about Lascannons, Melta, and Bright/Darklances, not Plasma, Ravagers, and Reapers.

Bharring wrote:
It's only "not a buff" because their Invulns are too good.

When people say they bring anti-tank, they should be talking about Lascannons, Melta, and Bright/Darklances, not Plasma, Ravagers, and Reapers.

So your claiming a 5++ is too good now?
A 5++ on a unit that pays 12points per wound, A russ pays 10 points per wound a 20% premium for a 5++ doesn't sound unreasonable.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Bharring wrote:
... Or make Ion Shield (or one of the other buffs) +1 Armor Save instead of Invuln Save?

If I get a few Melta Guns in range of your Knight, you should be scared of their AP-4. Currently, their AP-4 is about the same as AP0.

Invulnerable saves should be rare period. I hate how stormshields give ++3 invulnerable save. Very few things should give that even space marines don't need something that good.

I agree that it should just be an improvement of your armor save so you get a +1 to your armor save (1s still fail), but if your opponent has something with ap - 4 its now ap-3. You still have a 5+ save. Anything more and its a bit OP

Storm Shields should only protect the wearer from the front 90°. Something similar should also apply for IK: Declare either the Front, one of two Sides or Rear as protected. But apparently this is too complicated for 8th.

Sometimes I have to chop through units with a 4++ that pay 5 pts per wound. Sometimes I'm paying nearly 30 ppw for a 4++. It's not very consistent.

At a 5++, going from a 3+ to a 2+ is only "not a buff" when faced with Ap-4 or better. In other words, only a handful of marginal weapons.

At a 3++, that's a very different story. It's still a buff vs weapons with AP0 (Which, as shown above, outperform dedicated Tank/Knight killer weapons like Melta or Brightlances - wtf). So still not "not a buff". But a lot closer.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Bharring wrote:
... Or make Ion Shield (or one of the other buffs) +1 Armor Save instead of Invuln Save?

If I get a few Melta Guns in range of your Knight, you should be scared of their AP-4. Currently, their AP-4 is about the same as AP0.

Invulnerable saves should be rare period. I hate how stormshields give ++3 invulnerable save. Very few things should give that even space marines don't need something that good.

I agree that it should just be an improvement of your armor save so you get a +1 to your armor save (1s still fail), but if your opponent has something with ap - 4 its now ap-3. You still have a 5+ save. Anything more and its a bit OP

Storm Shields should only protect the wearer from the front 90°. Something similar should also apply for IK: Declare either the Front, one of two Sides or Rear as protected. But apparently this is too complicated for 8th.

I still think it was stupid that you don't have to be facing the unit your firing at. Like as if a massive war titan can turn around and fire as accurately without tilting it off its axis.... I mean eldar i would get, but tau and imperium not so much.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Bharring wrote:
... Or make Ion Shield (or one of the other buffs) +1 Armor Save instead of Invuln Save?

If I get a few Melta Guns in range of your Knight, you should be scared of their AP-4. Currently, their AP-4 is about the same as AP0.

Invulnerable saves should be rare period. I hate how stormshields give ++3 invulnerable save. Very few things should give that even space marines don't need something that good.

I agree that it should just be an improvement of your armor save so you get a +1 to your armor save (1s still fail), but if your opponent has something with ap - 4 its now ap-3. You still have a 5+ save. Anything more and its a bit OP

Storm Shields should only protect the wearer from the front 90°. Something similar should also apply for IK: Declare either the Front, one of two Sides or Rear as protected. But apparently this is too complicated for 8th.

I still think it was stupid that you don't have to be facing the unit your firing at. Like as if a massive war titan can turn around and fire as accurately without tilting it off its axis.... I mean eldar i would get, but tau and imperium not so much.

Too complicated for 8th edition that idea, but 15 books/FAQ etc to play the game is not complicated at all.
It was really about removing thing's that could be argued, but they still didn't actually properly read the rules as they wrote them to check they worked as intended so

At least we don't have totally broken formations yet.

Too complicated for 8th edition that idea, but 15 books/FAQ etc to play the game is not complicated at all.
It was really about removing thing's that could be argued, but they still didn't actually properly read the rules as they wrote them to check they worked as intended so

At least we don't have totally broken formations yet.

Key Word : Yet.

Its going to happen we all know it.

But vehicle rules should still be a thing, i get infantry being able to move quick cause they are infantry, but vehicles need a back side where they are at least weaker.... (though at that point why not just bring back the old tank armor rules)

Facings work in a skirmish game.

40k is no longer a skirmish game.

Models are abstract representations in 8th, not actual positioning like they were in 2nd (where even Infantry facing mattered).

Gods, I don’t miss checking infantry fire arcs with a 90 degree template one by one.

I actually miss using the laser for TLOS, as a visually impaired gamer it was amazing!

 Blndmage wrote:
I actually miss using the laser for TLOS, as a visually impaired gamer it was amazing!

LOS was fine, checking arcs for each infantry model would not be.

 Blndmage wrote:
I actually miss using the laser for TLOS, as a visually impaired gamer it was amazing!

Funnily enough TLOS is the one thing 8th does "well". It's completely binary, you can either see it or you can't.

for a tactical point...I would like lof to matter when shooting at things like tanks.

I can 'imagine' that tank is spinning around in circles shooting in all directions over the course of its move......that is fine visually.

However the purpose of back stabbing or shooting someone in the rear does matter....So keep shooting from that fender...that is going to pass I guess....but shooting back at the fender seems odd.

First make better saves or modifiers to hit rules....They did it in prior editions...so they know how.

BUT if I manage to bring my melta guns around the bend and sneak up behind that tank....and shoot it in the butt...then that should matter....its a matter of tactics.

Is this a game where models matter?

Or is it a MTG/card game where power combos and stacking your stuff in such a way matters?

I see the models on the board so the answer should be obvious. Otherwise give us cardboard chips for playing pieces and we can still play the game.

 admironheart wrote:
for a tactical point...I would like lof to matter when shooting at things like tanks.

I can 'imagine' that tank is spinning around in circles shooting in all directions over the course of its move......that is fine visually.

However the purpose of back stabbing or shooting someone in the rear does matter....So keep shooting from that fender...that is going to pass I guess....but shooting back at the fender seems odd.

First make better saves or modifiers to hit rules....They did it in prior editions...so they know how.

BUT if I manage to bring my melta guns around the bend and sneak up behind that tank....and shoot it in the butt...then that should matter....its a matter of tactics.

Is this a game where models matter?

Or is it a MTG/card game where power combos and stacking your stuff in such a way matters?

I see the models on the board so the answer should be obvious. Otherwise give us cardboard chips for playing pieces and we can still play the game.

I think positioning is not as important as it used to be. And its a shame I think there should be a refocus on postioning actually being punishable. Blobs and rear attacks should matter. Maybe you charged a unit that is facing away from you from behind and your units attack, maybe that unit doesn't get overwatch?

Maybe if I shoot the back of a titan (which is the weakest part in previous editions) maybe it should have a lower toughness?

Maybe all vehicles should have that?

The issue with "tactical" positioning to kill a tank is that, a lot of the time, when you had enough Melta Guns in the first place it was overkill.

It was a MORE guaranteed death but the death was already more than likely.

Well imagine a card game. You put your attack card in the middle. Then you surround it with buff cards. Then you attack.

Is this not What 40K has pretty much become as far as positioning.

It used to be only the Eldar had to utilize supporting units to make their other units very effective. Now everyone is that.

I like the rules...but as someone said 40K needs a clean slate.
I understand that Guard is not a hth army...but it don't mean in the battles we play they cannot have some great hth units available.

Every army should have a the same set of playing pieces give or take some fluff/rules. I know it would not be perfectly balanced but give everyone similar pieces but with faction/army differences to make it a bit different.(no it would not be chess with flare)

Then it is how many Rocks, how many Papers and how many Scissors you bring to the game. And how you position those Rock Paper Scissors vs your opponents...then add in the mission and it is pretty diverse and different everytime.

"The issue with "tactical" positioning to kill a tank is that, a lot of the time, when you had enough Melta Guns in the first place it was overkill."
Only because Melta Guns were designed to blow up any vehicle, on any facing.

The same was not true of the Plasma Gun or Heat Lance or Auto Cannon. In 6e/7e, a Plasma Gun shooting front armor on almost any tank had a negligible chance to do real damage, but rear armor gave it a great chance to kill the vehicle.

Even Melta, in 6e/7e, if it couldn't get within half range, benefited greatly from rear armor. A sizable Fire Dragon squad within 6" was likely to pop anything, sure. But even a Fire Dragon squad in that edition would try to get side/rear armor. you'd be surprised how often they failed to pop even medium threats from the front arch.

Bharring wrote:
"The issue with "tactical" positioning to kill a tank is that, a lot of the time, when you had enough Melta Guns in the first place it was overkill."
Only because Melta Guns were designed to blow up any vehicle, on any facing.

The same was not true of the Plasma Gun or Heat Lance or Auto Cannon. In 6e/7e, a Plasma Gun shooting front armor on almost any tank had a negligible chance to do real damage, but rear armor gave it a great chance to kill the vehicle.

Even Melta, in 6e/7e, if it couldn't get within half range, benefited greatly from rear armor. A sizable Fire Dragon squad within 6" was likely to pop anything, sure. But even a Fire Dragon squad in that edition would try to get side/rear armor. you'd be surprised how often they failed to pop even medium threats from the front arch.

With Lances, Lascannons, and Autocannons, you were paying for essentially the range. The units that take those weapons don't have to do any tactical positioning as they're typically campers. If you want to try and Infiltrate a Lascannon to get the rear armor of a Predator, be my guest.

Fire Dragons also didn't have much an issue as they KINDA get special rules yo help them pop pop pop watching tanks drop. I can count maybe on one hand the situation you describe for 7th, and I definitely played tons of 7th. Of course when everyone and their mother discovered how much better Wraithguard were, who cares?

"I can count maybe on one hand the situation you describe for 7th, and I definitely played tons of 7th."
Fair enough. I can't count the number of times I saw that in 7th on one hand. Not a huge number, but certainly more than 5 times. Dice are crazy.

Sure, you rarely got side/rear armor with Lascannons, Brightlances, or autocannons. But you frequently got side/rear armor with Plasma, Heat Lances, Blasters, Melta Guns, Krak Grenades, and more. Another thing I can't count on one hand? The number of vehicles with Front AV > 10 that I finished off with *boltguns*. Facing really did matter.

Bharring wrote:
"I can count maybe on one hand the situation you describe for 7th, and I definitely played tons of 7th."
Fair enough. I can't count the number of times I saw that in 7th on one hand. Not a huge number, but certainly more than 5 times. Dice are crazy.

Sure, you rarely got side/rear armor with Lascannons, Brightlances, or autocannons. But you frequently got side/rear armor with Plasma, Heat Lances, Blasters, Melta Guns, Krak Grenades, and more. Another thing I can't count on one hand? The number of vehicles with Front AV > 10 that I finished off with *boltguns*. Facing really did matter.

I really dislike how much GW has made positioning and LOS not matter. Between AV facings being gone, no templates or scattering any more, really reducing cover mattering, and allowing you to pre measure it's really dumbed down where you place a model mattering in a given game.

Scattering rules are only part of why small blasts were absolutely terrible and kept large blasts mediocre at best.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

Bharring wrote:
"I can count maybe on one hand the situation you describe for 7th, and I definitely played tons of 7th."
Fair enough. I can't count the number of times I saw that in 7th on one hand. Not a huge number, but certainly more than 5 times. Dice are crazy.

Sure, you rarely got side/rear armor with Lascannons, Brightlances, or autocannons. But you frequently got side/rear armor with Plasma, Heat Lances, Blasters, Melta Guns, Krak Grenades, and more. Another thing I can't count on one hand? The number of vehicles with Front AV > 10 that I finished off with *boltguns*. Facing really did matter.

I really dislike how much GW has made positioning and LOS not matter. Between AV facings being gone, no templates or scattering any more, really reducing cover mattering, and allowing you to pre measure it's really dumbed down where you place a model mattering in a given game.

Wow I seriously must've not been playing this edition, in my games I do not allow premeasuring. I basically call it "Declaring a target."

They have dumbed it down for the worst, and I know of people who take severe advantage of the game's rulesets.

Reducing how cover works never really made sense to me, neither did getting rid of AV facings or vehicle positioning... if one of your sponsons is facing the other direction and there is no possible way that it can see me it should not be able to shoot. Weapons should be destroyable...

Scattering rules are only part of why small blasts were absolutely terrible and kept large blasts mediocre at best.

Scatter wasn't terrible for small blasts, it prevented certain weapons from going out of control like plasma cannons...

Though plasma in general for the imperium should always be : If you roll 1 the bearer takes a wound.

Bharring wrote:
"I can count maybe on one hand the situation you describe for 7th, and I definitely played tons of 7th."
Fair enough. I can't count the number of times I saw that in 7th on one hand. Not a huge number, but certainly more than 5 times. Dice are crazy.

Sure, you rarely got side/rear armor with Lascannons, Brightlances, or autocannons. But you frequently got side/rear armor with Plasma, Heat Lances, Blasters, Melta Guns, Krak Grenades, and more. Another thing I can't count on one hand? The number of vehicles with Front AV > 10 that I finished off with *boltguns*. Facing really did matter.

FWIW, Eldar had easy ways to increase their hit rate (not to mention how silly Aspect Shrine was for the time for not a single downside).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

Bharring wrote:
"I can count maybe on one hand the situation you describe for 7th, and I definitely played tons of 7th."
Fair enough. I can't count the number of times I saw that in 7th on one hand. Not a huge number, but certainly more than 5 times. Dice are crazy.

Sure, you rarely got side/rear armor with Lascannons, Brightlances, or autocannons. But you frequently got side/rear armor with Plasma, Heat Lances, Blasters, Melta Guns, Krak Grenades, and more. Another thing I can't count on one hand? The number of vehicles with Front AV > 10 that I finished off with *boltguns*. Facing really did matter.

I really dislike how much GW has made positioning and LOS not matter. Between AV facings being gone, no templates or scattering any more, really reducing cover mattering, and allowing you to pre measure it's really dumbed down where you place a model mattering in a given game.

Wow I seriously must've not been playing this edition, in my games I do not allow premeasuring. I basically call it "Declaring a target."

They have dumbed it down for the worst, and I know of people who take severe advantage of the game's rulesets.

Reducing how cover works never really made sense to me, neither did getting rid of AV facings or vehicle positioning... if one of your sponsons is facing the other direction and there is no possible way that it can see me it should not be able to shoot. Weapons should be destroyable...

Scattering rules are only part of why small blasts were absolutely terrible and kept large blasts mediocre at best.

Scatter wasn't terrible for small blasts, it prevented certain weapons from going out of control like plasma cannons...

Though plasma in general for the imperium should always be : If you roll 1 the bearer takes a wound.

Scatter + 2" coherency (on top of usually low firing rates) kept Small Blasts terrible. Forgetting even Invisibility for a moment, they weren't a good weapon profile to have at all. I'd even wager you were better off with a two shot weapon.