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.
Not really a fan, I'd want the Flamers firing before charges, just in case they kill anything and potentially increase the charge distance and make it more likely to fail.
What's the point... I'd rather get a chance to kill stuff with a flamer, and then it also fails a charge!
As normally the person doing charges (I'm usually a melee based army) I don't mind either way but there's no reason to over complicate the rules just for flamers.
This change makes them weaker - deaths in over-watch are fairly rare anyway.
Improving the range of flamer weapons overall will result in players deepstriking flamer blobs onto the field and immediately destroying one or more medium strength units.
Dropping a battlewagon full of kombi-skorcha nobs with the tellyporta would be absolutely devastating.
Increasing their range for overwatch is a good option, and not a difficult rule to remember. Maybe even "this weapon doubles its range for the purposes of firing overwatch" to make it an easy system to remember.
I honestly think that it wouldn't be overly difficult or game-changing to have a couple more weapon types in the mix, such as "Flamer", with their own special rules. They could be basic, such as "Flamer weapons always count as being in range for the purposes of overwatch". There are a few instances where this might be a bit unrealistic, but that's never stopped rules like shooting out of the left buttock of a baneblade with all its weapons, round a corner, at the tip of the sword of a model behind a wall, or phasing up through ruins without slowing down, or only 1 model throwing a grenade when they all have them, or flamers autohitting fliers, etc. etc.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
some bloke wrote: I honestly think that it wouldn't be overly difficult or game-changing to have a couple more weapon types in the mix, such as "Flamer", with their own special rules.
I'd personally go the other way. I'm a big fan of Games Workshop's decision to get rid of universal special rules this edition, but I think they didn't go far enough. Keeping weapon types was a mistake in my opinion, and restricts weapons far too much. Much better to have all of a weapons rules described on its individual datasheet so I don't have to keep flipping the page.
some bloke wrote: I honestly think that it wouldn't be overly difficult or game-changing to have a couple more weapon types in the mix, such as "Flamer", with their own special rules.
I'd personally go the other way. I'm a big fan of Games Workshop's decision to get rid of universal special rules this edition, but I think they didn't go far enough. Keeping weapon types was a mistake in my opinion, and restricts weapons far too much. Much better to have all of a weapons rules described on its individual datasheet so I don't have to keep flipping the page.
At that point, why not just get rid of the statlines as well? Afterall, characteristics themselves are a form of universal rule.
Why is there this constant push to turn flamers into a defensive weapon, when that wouldn't even benefit the majority of units that can take flamer and equivalent weapons? This doesn't help units like burna boyz who offer nothing useful over a similar amount of shoota boyz.
Making flamers aggressive weapons would give them a more universal buff. Like make them do max amount of hits to units in cover.
The proposed rule is effectively the Cities of Death stratagem that allows a units being charged to wait till the charger finishes their charge move before firing overwatch.
Might not sound great, but good against chargers that are coming in from out of LoS.
Ginjitzu wrote:I'm a big fan of Games Workshop's decision to get rid of universal special rules this edition, but I think they didn't go far enough. Keeping weapon types was a mistake in my opinion, and restricts weapons far too much. Much better to have all of a weapons rules described on its individual datasheet so I don't have to keep flipping the page.
At that point, why not just get rid of the statlines as well? Afterall, characteristics themselves are a form of universal rule.
As are the basic rules for moving, shooting and charging, but I'm not proposing getting rid of all universal rules, I'm just in favour of keeping them to a minimum.
Luke_Prowler wrote:Why is there this constant push to turn flamers into a defensive weapon...?
I can't speak for others, but for me, I just can't think of a fluffy rationalization for not firing when chargers are out of range, and I like to at least try to rationalize the rules, even when it takes somewhat of a stretch. I suppose in principle, this restriction applies to all weapons being charged from out of range, it's just that in practice, flamers - and shotguns as well I suppose - are the only ones with a short enough range to actually be affected.
Giantwalkingchair wrote:The proposed rule is effectively the Cities of Death stratagem that allows a units being charged to wait till the charger finishes their charge move before firing overwatch.
Might not sound great, but good against chargers that are coming in from out of LoS.
Luke_Prowler wrote:
Why is there this constant push to turn flamers into a defensive weapon...?
Not sure if this applies to other armies, but I speak as a Guard player.
In 7th, flamers on Infantry squads were taken mainly as defensive weapons as a defense against charges as well as an offensive weapon. In 8th, the offensive capabilities of the flamer were severely reduced, while the defensive capability remained more or less the same. The thing that appeared anew is that thanks to deep strike rules, charges happen mostly from a range of 9"+, this making the flamers nearly pointless unless taken to very close ranges with offensive intentions. That's why, imho.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/03 09:05:39
I do see the "flamers should be offensive" point. we're only 2 editions deep in overwatch, flamers have a much greater history of being horde clearers. I think a rewrite of their rules to make them hit all models in a unit up to "X" would be the way to make them viable. However, with overwatch existing, it does seem silly that flamers don't work if you charge from further away.
If it weren't for the excessive rules needed, I'd have some sort of moral check to not be slowed by flamers, EG roll D6 + each flamer weapon in target unit, and get -1 to your charge if this exceeds morale (or for each point it exceeds morale, max -3"). Means units have to get closer to charge units with lots of flamers, thus making the flamers more useful in overwatch. But this would mean more rolling, as lots of units will be running flamers. Could be a useful rule to add to Burna Boys and other dedicated flamer squads, though.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
some bloke wrote: I do see the "flamers should be offensive" point. we're only 2 editions deep in overwatch, flamers have a much greater history of being horde clearers. I think a rewrite of their rules to make them hit all models in a unit up to "X" would be the way to make them viable. However, with overwatch existing, it does seem silly that flamers don't work if you charge from further away.
If it weren't for the excessive rules needed, I'd have some sort of moral check to not be slowed by flamers, EG roll D6 + each flamer weapon in target unit, and get -1 to your charge if this exceeds morale (or for each point it exceeds morale, max -3"). Means units have to get closer to charge units with lots of flamers, thus making the flamers more useful in overwatch. But this would mean more rolling, as lots of units will be running flamers. Could be a useful rule to add to Burna Boys and other dedicated flamer squads, though.
I too recall a time when flamers were 'horde clearers' (especially when a unit of scorchas turned them against my horde), but that was a time in which there were templates. Now though, you are limited to a dice roll, which can be a capricious thing. A variable statline would also be a possible solution to them, one where if there are more than a certain number of models (say 10, which is a standard number) in the targeted unit, the flamer's wounds characteristic either could increase to the maximum number, or more d6s of wounds.
'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!'
some bloke wrote: I do see the "flamers should be offensive" point. we're only 2 editions deep in overwatch, flamers have a much greater history of being horde clearers. I think a rewrite of their rules to make them hit all models in a unit up to "X" would be the way to make them viable. However, with overwatch existing, it does seem silly that flamers don't work if you charge from further away.
If it weren't for the excessive rules needed, I'd have some sort of moral check to not be slowed by flamers, EG roll D6 + each flamer weapon in target unit, and get -1 to your charge if this exceeds morale (or for each point it exceeds morale, max -3"). Means units have to get closer to charge units with lots of flamers, thus making the flamers more useful in overwatch. But this would mean more rolling, as lots of units will be running flamers. Could be a useful rule to add to Burna Boys and other dedicated flamer squads, though.
I too recall a time when flamers were 'horde clearers' (especially when a unit of scorchas turned them against my horde), but that was a time in which there were templates. Now though, you are limited to a dice roll, which can be a capricious thing. A variable statline would also be a possible solution to them, one where if there are more than a certain number of models (say 10, which is a standard number) in the targeted unit, the flamer's wounds characteristic either could increase to the maximum number, or more d6s of wounds.
The most favoured idea for flamers that I've seen (and championed) on here is to add a "Blast" weapon type to cover flamers and the old blast weapons, and to replace their current D6 shot method.
So a Flamer would be Assault Blast(6), meaning they get 1 shot for each model in the target unit, up to a maximum of 6. the shots autohit, being a flamer.
A battlecannon might be Heavy Blast(5), meaning 1 shot for each model in the target unit, up to 5, which don't auto-hit.
it's an easy mechanic to work with, and saves you counting your models to see if there are 29 or 30 models in the unit, to see if there are extra shots.
It also means flamers are much more effective vs hordes than single models, as you'll never get more than 1 hit per flamer on 1 model. On fire is on fire, you don't get more-on-fire.
Heavy flamers could have larger numbers instead of higher strength, to represent a larger spew of flame. This didn't happen before as there was a single flamer template. Having Flamers be Blast(6) and heavy flamers Blast(9), with the same S & AP, would be a better representation of a bigger flamer than the current, archaic, system.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
some bloke wrote: The most favoured idea for flamers that I've seen (and championed) on here is to add a "Blast" weapon type to cover flamers and the old blast weapons, and to replace their current D6 shot method.
So a Flamer would be Assault Blast(6), meaning they get 1 shot for each model in the target unit, up to a maximum of 6. the shots autohit, being a flamer.
A battlecannon might be Heavy Blast(5), meaning 1 shot for each model in the target unit, up to 5, which don't auto-hit.
it's an easy mechanic to work with, and saves you counting your models to see if there are 29 or 30 models in the unit, to see if there are extra shots.
It also means flamers are much more effective vs hordes than single models, as you'll never get more than 1 hit per flamer on 1 model. On fire is on fire, you don't get more-on-fire.
Heavy flamers could have larger numbers instead of higher strength, to represent a larger spew of flame. This didn't happen before as there was a single flamer template. Having Flamers be Blast(6) and heavy flamers Blast(9), with the same S & AP, would be a better representation of a bigger flamer than the current, archaic, system.
some bloke wrote: I do see the "flamers should be offensive" point. we're only 2 editions deep in overwatch, flamers have a much greater history of being horde clearers. I think a rewrite of their rules to make them hit all models in a unit up to "X" would be the way to make them viable. However, with overwatch existing, it does seem silly that flamers don't work if you charge from further away.
If it weren't for the excessive rules needed, I'd have some sort of moral check to not be slowed by flamers, EG roll D6 + each flamer weapon in target unit, and get -1 to your charge if this exceeds morale (or for each point it exceeds morale, max -3"). Means units have to get closer to charge units with lots of flamers, thus making the flamers more useful in overwatch. But this would mean more rolling, as lots of units will be running flamers. Could be a useful rule to add to Burna Boys and other dedicated flamer squads, though.
I too recall a time when flamers were 'horde clearers' (especially when a unit of scorchas turned them against my horde), but that was a time in which there were templates. Now though, you are limited to a dice roll, which can be a capricious thing. A variable statline would also be a possible solution to them, one where if there are more than a certain number of models (say 10, which is a standard number) in the targeted unit, the flamer's wounds characteristic either could increase to the maximum number, or more d6s of wounds.
The most favoured idea for flamers that I've seen (and championed) on here is to add a "Blast" weapon type to cover flamers and the old blast weapons, and to replace their current D6 shot method.
So a Flamer would be Assault Blast(6), meaning they get 1 shot for each model in the target unit, up to a maximum of 6. the shots autohit, being a flamer.
A battlecannon might be Heavy Blast(5), meaning 1 shot for each model in the target unit, up to 5, which don't auto-hit.
it's an easy mechanic to work with, and saves you counting your models to see if there are 29 or 30 models in the unit, to see if there are extra shots.
It also means flamers are much more effective vs hordes than single models, as you'll never get more than 1 hit per flamer on 1 model. On fire is on fire, you don't get more-on-fire.
Heavy flamers could have larger numbers instead of higher strength, to represent a larger spew of flame. This didn't happen before as there was a single flamer template. Having Flamers be Blast(6) and heavy flamers Blast(9), with the same S & AP, would be a better representation of a bigger flamer than the current, archaic, system.
Actually it did, just way back in 2nd edition the heacy flamer template was far larger than the flamer or hand flamer templates, something GW seems to have forgotten about.
Though can we all agree that a return to templates is not the way forward? Aside from their imprecise nature, I'd just rather not have to bring any more "paraphernalia" to my games than is absolutely necessary.
Ginjitzu wrote: Though can we all agree that a return to templates is not the way forward? Aside from their imprecise nature, I'd just rather not have to bring any more "paraphernalia" to my games than is absolutely necessary.
I loved the visuals of templates. It was only 3 items to bring, but there was something so satisfying about landing a perfect hit on a unit which was bunched up, and you knew this was your only turn to do it, because next turn they would be spread out again. It added an element of anticipation and climax to the proceedings, in a way which simply doesn't happen with "yay, I rolled a 6 for my hits!". if the potential result is the same no matter what, no shot becomes more "edge-of-your-seat" than any other. Trying to score a direct hit with a boomgun on a unit of marines who just got turfed out of their rhino - that was intense. And thanks to the old rules, they got a 5+ cover save from the exploding rhino's still-smoking entrails. There's no "seizing the moment" with blast weapons any more.
I do miss them, but the time it added to a game with people spacing their models out was their killer. Of the 2 evils, I prefer lacklustre blast weapons to an hour-long movement phase.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/04 08:01:00
Ginjitzu wrote: Though can we all agree that a return to templates is not the way forward? Aside from their imprecise nature, I'd just rather not have to bring any more "paraphernalia" to my games than is absolutely necessary.
Noone that wants to finish games in a reasonable time wants to bring back templates but that doesn't mean that blast weapons can't be cahnged to have roll No of hits = number of models upto a maximum or N/2 where N is the number of models in the target unit. Counting models in a unit realy shouldn't take more than 10 seconds and it's hard to argue about.
Templates while fluffy were torturing to use against certain factions/players.
Ginjitzu wrote: Though can we all agree that a return to templates is not the way forward? Aside from their imprecise nature, I'd just rather not have to bring any more "paraphernalia" to my games than is absolutely necessary.
Noone that wants to finish games in a reasonable time wants to bring back templates but that doesn't mean that blast weapons can't be cahnged to have roll No of hits = number of models upto a maximum or N/2 where N is the number of models in the target unit. Counting models in a unit realy shouldn't take more than 10 seconds and it's hard to argue about.
Templates while fluffy were torturing to use against certain factions/players.
Hitting N/2 isn't a good representation. Hitting 5 guys is just as easy whether there are 5 guys behind them or 50. The total number of models in a unit shouldn't matter unless it is low, a flamer shouldn't do better against 40 models than against 30, but should do better against 10 than 3. It's quicker & easier to establish if there are 5 or more models than the exact count. If a flamer hits half a unit, it takes 2 flamers to hit the whole horde, and 4 flamers to kill almost all of them. any unit with 5-6 flamers will guarantee destruction of any single-wound normal toughness units in a single round of shooting. Not a good system!
Ginjitzu wrote: Though can we all agree that a return to templates is not the way forward? Aside from their imprecise nature, I'd just rather not have to bring any more "paraphernalia" to my games than is absolutely necessary.
Noone that wants to finish games in a reasonable time wants to bring back templates but that doesn't mean that blast weapons can't be cahnged to have roll No of hits = number of models upto a maximum or N/2 where N is the number of models in the target unit. Counting models in a unit realy shouldn't take more than 10 seconds and it's hard to argue about.
Templates while fluffy were torturing to use against certain factions/players.
Hitting N/2 isn't a good representation. Hitting 5 guys is just as easy whether there are 5 guys behind them or 50. The total number of models in a unit shouldn't matter unless it is low, a flamer shouldn't do better against 40 models than against 30, but should do better against 10 than 3. It's quicker & easier to establish if there are 5 or more models than the exact count. If a flamer hits half a unit, it takes 2 flamers to hit the whole horde, and 4 flamers to kill almost all of them. any unit with 5-6 flamers will guarantee destruction of any single-wound normal toughness units in a single round of shooting. Not a good system!
Neither is the current rules, also hitting a 30 man blob with a explosive shell is way easier than hitting a single dude.
The way 8th edition works leads to a number of issues when it comes to dealing with creating a design space for blast weapons.
I'd suggest that they half to hit modifiers to a minimum of -1.
It also makes the mass flamer units a little less imbalanced if they actually have to use hit rolls.
Though they really should ignore cover.
in honesty, it was 4. You forgot about the scatter dice. Or 6 in Apoc\big model games - hellstorm\massive blast. The game lost something when my Acheron's flamer lost that rule.
- this will severely reduce the damage it deals to vehicles and monsters. There should be a way to go around this. Perhaps the Blast(n) will work only against infantry and swarms?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/04 11:16:38
- this will severely reduce the damage it deals to vehicles and monsters. There should be a way to go around this. Perhaps the Blast(n) will work only against infantry and swarms?
Why should a Battle cannon work agaist tanks better than 4 lascannon shots?
A Battle Cannon needs to be worse against vehicals to give vanquishers etc space to exsist in.
It's supposed to be the ok at everything weapon, not best at everything like it's current rules.
Ginjitzu wrote: Though can we all agree that a return to templates is not the way forward? Aside from their imprecise nature, I'd just rather not have to bring any more "paraphernalia" to my games than is absolutely necessary.
Noone that wants to finish games in a reasonable time wants to bring back templates but that doesn't mean that blast weapons can't be cahnged to have roll No of hits = number of models upto a maximum or N/2 where N is the number of models in the target unit. Counting models in a unit realy shouldn't take more than 10 seconds and it's hard to argue about.
Templates while fluffy were torturing to use against certain factions/players.
Hitting N/2 isn't a good representation. Hitting 5 guys is just as easy whether there are 5 guys behind them or 50. The total number of models in a unit shouldn't matter unless it is low, a flamer shouldn't do better against 40 models than against 30, but should do better against 10 than 3. It's quicker & easier to establish if there are 5 or more models than the exact count. If a flamer hits half a unit, it takes 2 flamers to hit the whole horde, and 4 flamers to kill almost all of them. any unit with 5-6 flamers will guarantee destruction of any single-wound normal toughness units in a single round of shooting. Not a good system!
Neither is the current rules, also hitting a 30 man blob with a explosive shell is way easier than hitting a single dude.
The way 8th edition works leads to a number of issues when it comes to dealing with creating a design space for blast weapons.
I'd suggest that they half to hit modifiers to a minimum of -1.
It also makes the mass flamer units a little less imbalanced if they actually have to use hit rolls.
Though they really should ignore cover.
I don't think flamers should ever have to roll to hit, spraying fuel everywhere isn't dependant on your ability to aim.
My suggestions for blast weapons do make them better against 30 man units than single models - but the cap is at (for example) 5 hits, so over 5 models always takes full hits. If a blast weapon hits half the unit, then a leman russ will get 30 shots at 30 boys (as they fire twice), which is too much.
this will severely reduce the damage it deals to vehicles and monsters. There should be a way to go around this. Perhaps the Blast(n) will work only against infantry and swarms?
My entire suggestion to fix blast weapons is to re-introduce Ordnance Weapons. These would work like combi-weapons, in that they would fire 2 profiles; a single shot and a blast. This allows anti-tank/monster and anti-infantry to be tuned separately. As such a battlecannon might have a Heavy 1 S8 AP-4 2D3 damage profile and a Heavy Blast (8) S5 Ap-1 D1 profile. This maintains their tank hunting but tunes down their infantry mushing a little, so you can justify more shots and so improve anti-horde. It also allows you a niche in having weapons which are good at hunting tanks, good at hunting hordes, but bad against elite infantry - which I feel the game needs! Currently killing big things relies on weight of shots, which skews the game to destroy elite infantry - thus making people hate space marines, cursing them as overpriced.
Vindicators might have a S12 AP-4 4D6 damage shot and a Blast (4) S7 AP-2 D2 profile, making them good vs tanks and good vs elites, but not so much vs hordes.
Wyvern might be Heavy 4 S6 AP-2 Dam D3, and Heavy Blast (12) AP- Dam 1.
Frag missiles etc wouldn't be ordnance so would just have a blast (EG blast(4)) profile.
- this will severely reduce the damage it deals to vehicles and monsters. There should be a way to go around this. Perhaps the Blast(n) will work only against infantry and swarms?
Why should a Battle cannon work agaist tanks better than 4 lascannon shots?
A Battle Cannon needs to be worse against vehicals to give vanquishers etc space to exsist in.
It's supposed to be the ok at everything weapon, not best at everything like it's current rules.
Because Vanquisher is utter anyway and dealing 1-3dmg to a multi-wound target will make render most of the current tanks useless.
I'm all for multiple weapon profiles. HE and AP round, much like Macharius Vanquisher have, as some bloke here suggested.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/04 12:49:10
Ginjitzu wrote: Though can we all agree that a return to templates is not the way forward? Aside from their imprecise nature, I'd just rather not have to bring any more "paraphernalia" to my games than is absolutely necessary.
Noone that wants to finish games in a reasonable time wants to bring back templates but that doesn't mean that blast weapons can't be cahnged to have roll No of hits = number of models upto a maximum or N/2 where N is the number of models in the target unit. Counting models in a unit realy shouldn't take more than 10 seconds and it's hard to argue about.
Templates while fluffy were torturing to use against certain factions/players.
Hitting N/2 isn't a good representation. Hitting 5 guys is just as easy whether there are 5 guys behind them or 50. The total number of models in a unit shouldn't matter unless it is low, a flamer shouldn't do better against 40 models than against 30, but should do better against 10 than 3. It's quicker & easier to establish if there are 5 or more models than the exact count. If a flamer hits half a unit, it takes 2 flamers to hit the whole horde, and 4 flamers to kill almost all of them. any unit with 5-6 flamers will guarantee destruction of any single-wound normal toughness units in a single round of shooting. Not a good system!
Neither is the current rules, also hitting a 30 man blob with a explosive shell is way easier than hitting a single dude.
The way 8th edition works leads to a number of issues when it comes to dealing with creating a design space for blast weapons.
I'd suggest that they half to hit modifiers to a minimum of -1.
It also makes the mass flamer units a little less imbalanced if they actually have to use hit rolls.
Though they really should ignore cover.
I don't think flamers should ever have to roll to hit, spraying fuel everywhere isn't dependant on your ability to aim.
My suggestions for blast weapons do make them better against 30 man units than single models - but the cap is at (for example) 5 hits, so over 5 models always takes full hits. If a blast weapon hits half the unit, then a leman russ will get 30 shots at 30 boys (as they fire twice), which is too much.
this will severely reduce the damage it deals to vehicles and monsters. There should be a way to go around this. Perhaps the Blast(n) will work only against infantry and swarms?
My entire suggestion to fix blast weapons is to re-introduce Ordnance Weapons. These would work like combi-weapons, in that they would fire 2 profiles; a single shot and a blast. This allows anti-tank/monster and anti-infantry to be tuned separately. As such a battlecannon might have a Heavy 1 S8 AP-4 2D3 damage profile and a Heavy Blast (8) S5 Ap-1 D1 profile. This maintains their tank hunting but tunes down their infantry mushing a little, so you can justify more shots and so improve anti-horde. It also allows you a niche in having weapons which are good at hunting tanks, good at hunting hordes, but bad against elite infantry - which I feel the game needs! Currently killing big things relies on weight of shots, which skews the game to destroy elite infantry - thus making people hate space marines, cursing them as overpriced.
Vindicators might have a S12 AP-4 4D6 damage shot and a Blast (4) S7 AP-2 D2 profile, making them good vs tanks and good vs elites, but not so much vs hordes.
Wyvern might be Heavy 4 S6 AP-2 Dam D3, and Heavy Blast (12) AP- Dam 1.
Frag missiles etc wouldn't be ordnance so would just have a blast (EG blast(4)) profile.
1 shot per 2 so 15 shots then 7-8 hits that's reasonable.
I really don't see why russes should get to keep double shooting period it's a bad bandaid that screwed over every other tank in the game.
Having units hit up to a cap number just results in blast weapons still killing thing's like marines and custodes way harder than mass unarmed targets they exact opposite of how actual blasts wound inflict wounds.
I can see what your trying to do with your AP/HE profiles but that runs very counter to how 8th is supposed to be the simplest edition ever.
- this will severely reduce the damage it deals to vehicles and monsters. There should be a way to go around this. Perhaps the Blast(n) will work only against infantry and swarms?
Why should a Battle cannon work agaist tanks better than 4 lascannon shots?
A Battle Cannon needs to be worse against vehicals to give vanquishers etc space to exsist in.
It's supposed to be the ok at everything weapon, not best at everything like it's current rules.
Because Vanquisher is utter anyway and dealing 1-3dmg to a multi-wound target will make render most of the current tanks useless.
I'm all for multiple weapon profiles. HE and AP round, much like Macharius Vanquisher have, as some bloke here suggested.
The fluff does portray Leman Russes as fairly poor at Tank vrs tank duals, they get destroyed by vanquishers, predator and landraiders consistently in fluff
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/04 15:20:06
Ginjitzu wrote: Though can we all agree that a return to templates is not the way forward? Aside from their imprecise nature, I'd just rather not have to bring any more "paraphernalia" to my games than is absolutely necessary.
Noone that wants to finish games in a reasonable time wants to bring back templates but that doesn't mean that blast weapons can't be cahnged to have roll No of hits = number of models upto a maximum or N/2 where N is the number of models in the target unit. Counting models in a unit realy shouldn't take more than 10 seconds and it's hard to argue about.
Templates while fluffy were torturing to use against certain factions/players.
Hitting N/2 isn't a good representation. Hitting 5 guys is just as easy whether there are 5 guys behind them or 50. The total number of models in a unit shouldn't matter unless it is low, a flamer shouldn't do better against 40 models than against 30, but should do better against 10 than 3. It's quicker & easier to establish if there are 5 or more models than the exact count. If a flamer hits half a unit, it takes 2 flamers to hit the whole horde, and 4 flamers to kill almost all of them. any unit with 5-6 flamers will guarantee destruction of any single-wound normal toughness units in a single round of shooting. Not a good system!
Neither is the current rules, also hitting a 30 man blob with a explosive shell is way easier than hitting a single dude.
The way 8th edition works leads to a number of issues when it comes to dealing with creating a design space for blast weapons.
I'd suggest that they half to hit modifiers to a minimum of -1.
It also makes the mass flamer units a little less imbalanced if they actually have to use hit rolls.
Though they really should ignore cover.
I don't think flamers should ever have to roll to hit, spraying fuel everywhere isn't dependant on your ability to aim.
My suggestions for blast weapons do make them better against 30 man units than single models - but the cap is at (for example) 5 hits, so over 5 models always takes full hits. If a blast weapon hits half the unit, then a leman russ will get 30 shots at 30 boys (as they fire twice), which is too much.
this will severely reduce the damage it deals to vehicles and monsters. There should be a way to go around this. Perhaps the Blast(n) will work only against infantry and swarms?
My entire suggestion to fix blast weapons is to re-introduce Ordnance Weapons. These would work like combi-weapons, in that they would fire 2 profiles; a single shot and a blast. This allows anti-tank/monster and anti-infantry to be tuned separately. As such a battlecannon might have a Heavy 1 S8 AP-4 2D3 damage profile and a Heavy Blast (8) S5 Ap-1 D1 profile. This maintains their tank hunting but tunes down their infantry mushing a little, so you can justify more shots and so improve anti-horde. It also allows you a niche in having weapons which are good at hunting tanks, good at hunting hordes, but bad against elite infantry - which I feel the game needs! Currently killing big things relies on weight of shots, which skews the game to destroy elite infantry - thus making people hate space marines, cursing them as overpriced.
Vindicators might have a S12 AP-4 4D6 damage shot and a Blast (4) S7 AP-2 D2 profile, making them good vs tanks and good vs elites, but not so much vs hordes.
Wyvern might be Heavy 4 S6 AP-2 Dam D3, and Heavy Blast (12) AP- Dam 1.
Frag missiles etc wouldn't be ordnance so would just have a blast (EG blast(4)) profile.
1 shot per 2 so 15 shots then 7-8 hits that's reasonable.
I really don't see why russes should get to keep double shooting period it's a bad bandaid that screwed over every other tank in the game.
Having units hit up to a cap number just results in blast weapons still killing thing's like marines and custodes way harder than mass unarmed targets they exact opposite of how actual blasts wound inflict wounds.
I can see what your trying to do with your AP/HE profiles but that runs very counter to how 8th is supposed to be the simplest edition ever.
That's all well and good, but let's go to extremes here:
Shooting your battlecannon at a tank, single model, so 1 shot, as we would expect
Shooting at 5 models, who would easily fit under the template; 3 shots, 1 hit
Shooting at a mobbed-up unit of 40 boys, 20 shots, 10 hits
Now compare that to the punisher; 20 shots, 10 hits. it's the same. Difference is, on your battle cannon, it's S8.
Squad size should only impact a blasts capability to some extent. I don't know if it still exists, but the apocalypse "green tide" formation of 200-300 ork boys, offering each battlecannon 150 shots? not realistic, or balanced, at all.
Battlecannons were always for anti-MEQ anyway. They used to do instant-death and ignore their saves, they were never for taking out hordes. Back when they were ordnance, they were quite good at light - medium vehicles too.
- this will severely reduce the damage it deals to vehicles and monsters. There should be a way to go around this. Perhaps the Blast(n) will work only against infantry and swarms?
Why should a Battle cannon work agaist tanks better than 4 lascannon shots?
A Battle Cannon needs to be worse against vehicals to give vanquishers etc space to exsist in.
It's supposed to be the ok at everything weapon, not best at everything like it's current rules.
Because Vanquisher is utter anyway and dealing 1-3dmg to a multi-wound target will make render most of the current tanks useless.
I'm all for multiple weapon profiles. HE and AP round, much like Macharius Vanquisher have, as some bloke here suggested.
The fluff does portray Leman Russes as fairly poor at Tank vrs tank duals, they get destroyed by vanquishers, predator and landraiders consistently in fluff
That might be true, but I think it is clear to everyone that the game does not represent the fluff very accurately in many ways. Vanquisher tank being one of them. In fluff, Vanquishers are feared tanks even by space marines thanks to their ability to easily penetrate armor. Game-wise, the Punisher, clearly anti-infantry variant is statistically better at dealing wounds to T8 Sv3+ units than the Vanquisher.
Vanquisher would need to be boosted. +1S or a wound reroll and deal damage more reliably, like 2d3 or even 3d3 and/or have an ability to reroll.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/04 19:43:49
Neutran Panzergrenadiers, 
Ostrakan Skitarii Legions, 
Order of the Silver Hand
Bonespitta's Badmoons 1441 pts. 
anyway and dealing 1-3dmg to a multi-wound target will make render most of the current tanks useless.