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.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
This really just feeds into the kill it faster mentality of competitive, why not go the other way?

Titanic units have a -1 to hit units without the titanic keyword. Keeps the rules changes to the model at hand, the fire power concentration is moved heavily in the direction of things you'd expect titanic units to shoot at and it'd be a reasonable excuse to drop some other titanic unit's points values without completely skewing the game in their favor. Also, give armigers and actual reason to exist. Tweak any anti-air weapons they have to have +2 instead of +1 and you wind up with a reason to consider anti-air weapons even.

Apparently for some, this doesn't make sense apparently because titans should be able to wipe everything it points at.

 skchsan wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
This really just feeds into the kill it faster mentality of competitive, why not go the other way?

Titanic units have a -1 to hit units without the titanic keyword. Keeps the rules changes to the model at hand, the fire power concentration is moved heavily in the direction of things you'd expect titanic units to shoot at and it'd be a reasonable excuse to drop some other titanic unit's points values without completely skewing the game in their favor. Also, give armigers and actual reason to exist. Tweak any anti-air weapons they have to have +2 instead of +1 and you wind up with a reason to consider anti-air weapons even.

Apparently for some, this doesn't make sense apparently because titans should be able to wipe everything it points at.

Well you are free to continue the discussion :/

i mean sure trying to spear an ant with a tooth pick is going to be tough for anyone.

but its 40k, you are throwing super sonic explosive tipped rapid fire and often computer or brain guided toothpicks from your nipple gun.

its not a cross bow or a spear thrower. they have guns.

(this applies mostly to the auxiliary guns like the stubber,heavy bolters, lascannons and the like. its not even funny when you add in guns that can delete a city block just by pointing at it. why whould it be hard to hit infantry with something like that? IE taking a flame thrower to an ant hill.

the only exception to this i can see would be close combat against infantry. mostly because titanic models are generally huge and so would swing pretty slow compared to a human sized thing. meaning you could see most attacks coming from a mile away. even stomps.

to the OP. My Tigersharks would love to be BS1. That BS2 is PAID for. and is reduced to BS3 as they Must move every turn.

It's almost as though the designers thought of this...

Absolutely no on giving them a -1 to hit none Titan units. -1s to be hit is the worst way to balance because it's so horribly powerful, proof of that being almost all top competitive lists utilize that.

Plus you now make a lot of armies at a -2 at all times, now guard super heavies are hitting on 6, and knights are hitting on 5s for a lot of armies that have a natrual -1 to be hit.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Absolutely no on giving them a -1 to hit none Titan units. -1s to be hit is the worst way to balance because it's so horribly powerful, proof of that being almost all top competitive lists utilize that.

Plus you now make a lot of armies at a -2 at all times, now guard super heavies are hitting on 6, and knights are hitting on 5s for a lot of armies that have a natrual -1 to be hit.

And of course the owners of cheese with a -2 to hit army are laughing all the way to auto winning even harder.

Ice_can wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Absolutely no on giving them a -1 to hit none Titan units. -1s to be hit is the worst way to balance because it's so horribly powerful, proof of that being almost all top competitive lists utilize that.

Plus you now make a lot of armies at a -2 at all times, now guard super heavies are hitting on 6, and knights are hitting on 5s for a lot of armies that have a natrual -1 to be hit.

And of course the owners of cheese with a -2 to hit army are laughing all the way to auto winning even harder.

I think this could work if there was a cap at -1 to hit.

I mean, it's an explosion, so whether you hit them or near them, it will still hurt them as much, invisible or not. essentially, your superheavies would be there to hunt the invisible cheese.

Perhaps just chuck -1 to their BS on their datasheets, and then have a rule stating that they never hit on worse than X, meaning you can buff them but never make them worse. Then they'll be filling a niche in the meta.

 some bloke wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Absolutely no on giving them a -1 to hit none Titan units. -1s to be hit is the worst way to balance because it's so horribly powerful, proof of that being almost all top competitive lists utilize that.

Plus you now make a lot of armies at a -2 at all times, now guard super heavies are hitting on 6, and knights are hitting on 5s for a lot of armies that have a natrual -1 to be hit.

And of course the owners of cheese with a -2 to hit army are laughing all the way to auto winning even harder.

I think this could work if there was a cap at -1 to hit.

I mean, it's an explosion, so whether you hit them or near them, it will still hurt them as much, invisible or not. essentially, your superheavies would be there to hunt the invisible cheese.

Perhaps just chuck -1 to their BS on their datasheets, and then have a rule stating that they never hit on worse than X, meaning you can buff them but never make them worse. Then they'll be filling a niche in the meta.

Now that would be funny, but I can't imagine how much salty emails GW would receieve from alitoc spam about gaining 0 from their army trait against Knights as mono knights are so blatantly OP and meta defining.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
This really just feeds into the kill it faster mentality of competitive, why not go the other way?

Titanic units have a -1 to hit units without the titanic keyword. Keeps the rules changes to the model at hand, the fire power concentration is moved heavily in the direction of things you'd expect titanic units to shoot at and it'd be a reasonable excuse to drop some other titanic unit's points values without completely skewing the game in their favor. Also, give armigers and actual reason to exist. Tweak any anti-air weapons they have to have +2 instead of +1 and you wind up with a reason to consider anti-air weapons even.

tell you what, give me back the Tau's old markerlight rules (any of them...) and you are welcome to give my titanic units -1 to hit against non titanic models. . .
actually, no. My BS4 Stormsurge becoming BS5? you.

I just realized.

Tempestus Drop Force +1 and +1 from this against titanics.

Tempestus Scions with plus 2 to hit with overcharged plasma and melta, re-rolling ones, exploding shots on 4+.

 carldooley wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
This really just feeds into the kill it faster mentality of competitive, why not go the other way?

Titanic units have a -1 to hit units without the titanic keyword. Keeps the rules changes to the model at hand, the fire power concentration is moved heavily in the direction of things you'd expect titanic units to shoot at and it'd be a reasonable excuse to drop some other titanic unit's points values without completely skewing the game in their favor. Also, give armigers and actual reason to exist. Tweak any anti-air weapons they have to have +2 instead of +1 and you wind up with a reason to consider anti-air weapons even.

tell you what, give me back the Tau's old markerlight rules (any of them...) and you are welcome to give my titanic units -1 to hit against non titanic models. . .
actually, no. My BS4 Stormsurge becoming BS5? you.

You could give specific anti-infantry weapons mounted on super heavies a +to hit against infantries to cancel out the -hit. Anti-titan weapons being pointed at non-titans to insta erase them is silly.

 skchsan wrote:
Anti-titan weapons being pointed at non-titans to insta erase them is silly.

Tell that to the targets in the AOE of an AC-130 or the guy that looks down the barrel of an Abrams.

 carldooley wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Anti-titan weapons being pointed at non-titans to insta erase them is silly.

Tell that to the targets in the AOE of an AC-130 or the guy that looks down the barrel of an Abrams.

And... the tank engineer would waste a $5000 ammo against a measly insurgent... Tanks are brought to the battlefield for a reason as titans should be being brought to battlefield.

 skchsan wrote:

 carldooley wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Anti-titan weapons being pointed at non-titans to insta erase them is silly.

Tell that to the targets in the AOE of an AC-130 or the guy that looks down the barrel of an Abrams.

And... the tank engineer would waste a $5000 ammo against a measly insurgent... Tanks are brought to the battlefield for a reason as titans should be being brought to battlefield.

sounds like a deal...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-314944.html

and the reason is... to support its army.

There needs to be a purpose for each clsss of unit. And ESG class should get a blanket rule for them. Infantry hold objectives and get great cover bonuses against anything other than other infantry.

Assault troops and elites can handle light infantry well but cost more but don’t get the same cover bonuses

Tanks do good against vehicle and heavy infantry and buildings but have no cover saves.

The ability for all units to do nothing on their turn so they can have significant bonuses to overwatch on the enemy turn. Etc.

Titanic models rape tanks. And other titans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Weapons need classes and blanket bonuses and penalties

A tank equipped with all las cannons should have penalties to hit infantry. But it will be great at killing other tanks.

Same tank equipped with assault cannons and heavy bolters will have no penalty to shoot infantry.

It should be a rock paper scissor type system. So people don’t just load up on cheese ball units like imperial knights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be clear. Weapons not intended to kill infantry have problems hitting infantry Automatic and assault weapons like heavy bolters or assault cannons have no penalty to shooting infantry of any kind. Then give infantry a bonus to hitting tanks. So now you have incentives to have rocket teams hiding in buildings. Now the enemy has to send on troops to dislodge them and clear the buildings. Now there’s more incentive for terrain and use of cover

What army do you play?

Saim hann

It's worth noting that you should be looking at weapon types to dictate how effective a unit is against another, not unit types.

EG: you state that titans "should rape tanks and other titans".

Historically, the majority of superheavies have been predominantly anti-infantry. they had enormous blast markers or spat out an enormity of shots.

Take the ork kill tanks. You have the kill bursta, which is good at killing most things, and the kill blasta, which fires 6D6 S6 shots. not a tank killer, that one - it's for mowing down infantry.

I don't believe that the "preferred target" rules are back in action any more, so we can implement a very simple change:

1: Add "Light" "Heavy" and "SuperHeavy" keywords to infantry, beasts, cavalry, bikers, jump infantry, monsters etc. etc. to match their type (this will avoid having to state "light infantry, heavy infantry, light cavalry, heavy cavalry, light bikers, heavy bikers, blah blah blah. instead just state "Light, Heavy"). Superheavy is monster types -they are basically superheavy infantry, after all.
2: Expand vehicles to "light Vehicle, Heavy Vehicle, Superheavy Vehicle". land speeders, vindicators and landraiders, in order.

Then add a "Preferred enemy" to each weapon. Also add a "preferred enemy" to some units - we'll get to that later.


Now, and this is key, we make the game less killy.

"If a weapon makes an attack on a unit which does not contain one or more keywords listed as that weapons preferred enemy, this weapon suffers -1 on it's "to wound" rolls."

This will have some fairly serious effects:

1: Weak weapons will no longer be able to take out tough tanks. needing a 6+ to wound, and not having "heavy vehicle" as a preferred enemy - you will need to roll a 7 to wound.

2: the game becomes less killy - this will make peoples armies more survivable, in general. my original thought was "reroll failed rolls to wound vs preferred target" but this would increase damage output, which is already too high.


Now, to the specialists.

"If both a unit and the weapon it is firing share a "preferred enemy" keyword with the target, they may re-roll failed rolls to wound."

EG: Tankbustas would have "preferred enemy; light vehicles, heavy vehicles, superheavy vehicles". Their rokkit launchas would have "Preferred enemy; light vehicles, heavy vehicles". The tankbusta bomms would have "Heavy Vehicles, Superheavy Vehicles". As such, if they all shoot a light vehicle, and one throws a tankbusta bomm, the tankbusta bomm is at -1 to wound as it doesn't prefer light vehicles. the rokkits will reroll failed rolls to wound, as both the tankbusta and the weapon prefer this enemy.


Burnas would have "preferred enemy; Light". as would the burna boys. Meaning they reroll failed to wound rolls vs light infantry/cavalry/bikers etc. but have -1 to wound heavy infantry.

Shootas would have "preferred enemy: Light" and boys wouldn't have any preferred enemy. if they shoot at guardsmen, it's as normal. if they shoot marines, it's -1 to wound.

Lootas would be "light, heavy, light vehicles". I might allow them to pick one of these keywords as a preferred enemy for the unit, to reflect their kustomised guns. Decision would have to be in the "list building" stage.

so the general aim I have here is to punish people for shooting the wrong thing more than you reward people for shooting the right thing.

It's an easier way to do it than rewriting the whole game, I think!