How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?

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.

**Argive**

Try playing a wraithknight if you think big models shouldn't get an invuln. Its nigth and day when compared to the Ik.

I would argue making big models T10 or T9 would be a potential solution also capping at 5++. A 5++ aint really all that if you got multiple multi damage shots coming through with he amount of re-rolls available. Especially now that they are visible to the entire army. The new DS rules might help here so maybe it will be enough. But on the flipside if your big asset isint on the table in your first turn to do damage by the time he comes on it might be too late.

**H.B.M.C.**

Oh I agree that the higher toughness numbers need to be used more. They made a big deal about things being able to go above 10 in this edition, yet basically nothing has it.

The Stormsurge is T7 and the Baneblade is T8, and they're two of the biggest non-FW things in the game.

**Nitro Zeus**

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Nitro Zeus wrote:

Melee has recieved significant nerfs so far, in the addition of tanks being able to fire into combat, and no longer being able to guarantee safety combat.

The removal of overwatch was delivered as some big buff to make melee viable.

It's not as much as nerfs were made to melee, but rather that no significant nerf were made to shooting lethality, which prevents melee from being relevant.

I think the mistake people make with 9th edition is thinking that GW is out to balance the game. They made a few token change to have some buzz about how they make the game evolve, but they don't address core problems which are in units datasheets and army rules rather than core rules.

I mean the tripoint nerf is absolutely huge to melee so yeah it is like melee was nerfed for a lot of factions.

But either way, it’s a problem to me because they advertised it as something they were trying to do - fix melee.

But maybe we’ll see. The fly nerf is important.

**Galas**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh I agree that the higher toughness numbers need to be used more. They made a big deal about things being able to go above 10 in this edition, yet basically nothing has it.

The Stormsurge is T7 and the Baneblade is T8, and they're two of the biggest non-FW things in the game.

I argueed about that in other thread. Tougthness values (And in many cases basic strenght ones) should go up to T10. Without touching shooting strenght values.

For example, Imperial Knights and baneblades should be T10, leman russes, land raiders, etc... T9, and normal T7 vehicles be made t8.

Stuff like imperial guardsmen, sisters of battle, etc... should remain S3/T3, and ork boyz or necron warriors S4/T4, but normal marines, necron inmortals, ork nobz should go to F5/T5 (Nobz to F6/T5), custodes to F6/T6 , etc... etc...

Make that change, and give more wounds to bigger stuff like Imperial Knights and Baneblades with 40 wounds (And maybe make things like lasscannons or meltas 2d6 damage agaisnt monsters and vehicles), and I believe it would make the edition much less lethal, make single shoot high damage weapons the proper AT weapons again, and even make meele better because for example a Space Marine would shoot F4 attacks but make F5 meele ones.

**Martel732**

Nitro Zeus wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
Nitro Zeus wrote:

Melee has recieved significant nerfs so far, in the addition of tanks being able to fire into combat, and no longer being able to guarantee safety combat.

The removal of overwatch was delivered as some big buff to make melee viable.

It's not as much as nerfs were made to melee, but rather that no significant nerf were made to shooting lethality, which prevents melee from being relevant.

I think the mistake people make with 9th edition is thinking that GW is out to balance the game. They made a few token change to have some buzz about how they make the game evolve, but they don't address core problems which are in units datasheets and army rules rather than core rules.

I mean the tripoint nerf is absolutely huge to melee so yeah it is like melee was nerfed for a lot of factions.

But either way, it’s a problem to me because they advertised it as something they were trying to do - fix melee.

But maybe we’ll see. The fly nerf is important.

BA melee is fethed, but that's because we were a one gimmick winner.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Dont' really care. They don't need to make AP worse than it already is. GW gave up on making the fanfiction match the game a long time ago anyway. Terminator suits could be used in ice cream shops. It doesn't matter.
Nothing you are saying makes any sense.

Was replying to BCB.

**H.B.M.C.**

Martel732 wrote:
Was replying to BCB.

Doesn't make what you said make anymore sense.

**Martel732**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Was replying to BCB.
Doesn't make what you said make anymore sense.

1) I don't care about the lore justification for whatever rules terminators have.
2) Terminators have 2+, don't need a 5++ on top of it anymore. That was from when AP 2 was a thing.
3) The game has too many invulns and those invulns are too cheap, and that's my position on that.

**H.B.M.C.**

Galas wrote:
... And maybe make things like lasscannons or meltas 2d6 damage agaisnt monsters and vehicles...

My only issue with what you're saying is this.

If you increase toughness and wounds, and then go and increase damage as well, then has anything really changed?

I think that weapons should be separated into three broad categories:

Anti-Tank - Are poor against infantry because they're unlikely to really hit many. I mean they'll axe the one they hit, but that's it.
Anit-Infantry - Are poor against vehicles (like a D3 Anti-Infantry weapon still only causes 1D to a vehicle/monster).
Null/Generic/Whatever - That being weapons that can kinda do anything, like Autocannons or Missile Pods, but aren't especially good at either.

This would go hand-in-hand with one extra keywords - Heavy Infantry. Heavy Infantry would suffer from AT weapons as normal, but regular infantry would not.

I did kinda come up with all this at around 3am in the morning a week ago, so it's a bit rough, but I think that would work and solve a lot of problems regarding the ubiquitous mid-range multi-shot, mid-strength mid-damage weapons being so prevalent.

Martel732 wrote:
1) I don't care about the lore justification for whatever rules terminators have.

A lot of people do. You not caring is not a reason to change it.

Martel732 wrote:
2) Terminators have 2+, don't need a 5++ on top of it anymore. That was from when AP 2 was a thing.

The game has tons of large save mods. Terminators need something to represent just how extraordinarily tough they are. That's what the 5+ invul does.

Martel732 wrote:
3) The game has too many invulns and those invulns are too cheap, and that's my position on that.

Does it though?

**Martel732**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Galas wrote:
... And maybe make things like lasscannons or meltas 2d6 damage agaisnt monsters and vehicles...
My only issue with what you're saying is this.

If you increase toughness and wounds, and then do and increase damage as well, then has anything really changed?

I think that weapons should be separated into three broad categories:

Anti-Tank - Are poor against infantry because they're unlikely to really hit many. I mean they'll axe the one they hit, but that's it.
Anit-Infantry - Are poor against vehicles (like a D3 Anti-Infantry weapon still only causes 1D to a vehicle/monster).
Null/Generic/Whatever - That being weapons that can kinda do anything, like Autocannons or Missile Pods, but aren't especially good at either.

This would go hand-in-hand with one extra keywords - Heavy Infantry. Heavy Infantry would suffer from AT weapons as normal, but regular infantry would not.

I did kinda come up with all this at around 3am in the morning a week ago, so it's a bit rough, but I think that would work and solve a lot of problems regarding the ubiquitous mid-range multi-shot, mid-strength mid-damage weapons being so prevalent.

Martel732 wrote:
1) I don't care about the lore justification for whatever rules terminators have.
A lot of people do. You not caring is not a reason to change it.

Martel732 wrote:
2) Terminators have 2+, don't need a 5++ on top of it anymore. That was from when AP 2 was a thing.
The game has tons of large save mods. Terminators need something to represent just how extraordinarily tough they are. That's what the 5+ invul does.

Martel732 wrote:
3) The game has too many invulns and those invulns are too cheap, and that's my position on that.
Does it though?

But the AT guns are invalidated by invulns. See the problem?

**H.B.M.C.**

No. Most vehicles don't have invuls. Those that do usually come about from energy shields or some sort of supernatural protection (ie. daemon engines) which seem fair enough to me.

Your problem isn't vehicles having invuls. It's the application of these invuls. If vehicles were tougher and there were proper delineations between anti-tank and non-anti-tank weapons they wouldn't need them.

**kurhanik**

Between Strength, Toughness, the Keyword system, and a scaling back of invulnerable saves, it should be possible to make vehicles and anti tank weapons matter more.

If Vehicles have more wounds / toughness - why limit it to T8, they will gain resilience. Wounds could become an issue since 9th has the 18 wound cover limit, but that still leaves space for adding 1-4 wounds on most Vehicles. If a Leman Russ is T16 with 16 wounds, or Carnifex T14 with 14 wounds, suddenly spamming rate of fire medium strength weapons isn't as viable.

Weapons whose core role is anti tank / monstrous creature can then have their strength / damage boosted to match (a S18 Lascannon doing flat 6 damage, or 3+1d6 will give a big dent to a vehicle/monster, and still kill a single infantry unit unless damage spillover is changed to Sigmar's model).

Alternatives / Supplemental bits are using keywords to fine tune things. Want a weapon to be good vs tanks but not monsters? Make a Tank Hunter rule and have it deal extra damage / penetration vs the Vehicle keyword. Same goes for weapons good or bad vs other unit types.

**Nitro Zeus**

Martel732 wrote:
Nitro Zeus wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
Nitro Zeus wrote:

Melee has recieved significant nerfs so far, in the addition of tanks being able to fire into combat, and no longer being able to guarantee safety combat.

The removal of overwatch was delivered as some big buff to make melee viable.

It's not as much as nerfs were made to melee, but rather that no significant nerf were made to shooting lethality, which prevents melee from being relevant.

I think the mistake people make with 9th edition is thinking that GW is out to balance the game. They made a few token change to have some buzz about how they make the game evolve, but they don't address core problems which are in units datasheets and army rules rather than core rules.

I mean the tripoint nerf is absolutely huge to melee so yeah it is like melee was nerfed for a lot of factions.

But either way, it’s a problem to me because they advertised it as something they were trying to do - fix melee.

But maybe we’ll see. The fly nerf is important.

BA melee is fethed, but that's because we were a one gimmick winner.

Any explanation here?

**Martel732**

Opponents get to break one tripont per turn. THat means they can delete one expensive ass BA unit per turn at a minimum. Especially if they are smart and use huge screening units that the strat can be applied to.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
No. Most vehicles don't have invuls. Those that do usually come about from energy shields or some sort of supernatural protection (ie. daemon engines) which seem fair enough to me.

Your problem isn't vehicles having invuls. It's the application of these invuls. If vehicles were tougher and there were proper delineations between anti-tank and non-anti-tank weapons they wouldn't need them.

My problem is paying for -4 AP on an expensive ass gun and only getting one point of that AP. GW doesn't understand that the FIRST point of AP is the most valuable, not the 4th or 5th. But they charge so much for high AP, they clearly don't get it.

**auticus**

Its like we all live in groundhog day lol. This thread has existed in every pre-edition. And every edition has delivered on its question.

**Martel732**

auticus wrote:
Its like we all live in groundhog day lol. This thread has existed in every pre-edition. And every edition has delivered on its question.

That's why I didn't answer that.

**Galas**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Galas wrote:
... And maybe make things like lasscannons or meltas 2d6 damage agaisnt monsters and vehicles...
My only issue with what you're saying is this.

If you increase toughness and wounds, and then go and increase damage as well, then has anything really changed?

I think that weapons should be separated into three broad categories:

Anti-Tank - Are poor against infantry because they're unlikely to really hit many. I mean they'll axe the one they hit, but that's it.
Anit-Infantry - Are poor against vehicles (like a D3 Anti-Infantry weapon still only causes 1D to a vehicle/monster).
Null/Generic/Whatever - That being weapons that can kinda do anything, like Autocannons or Missile Pods, but aren't especially good at either.

This would go hand-in-hand with one extra keywords - Heavy Infantry. Heavy Infantry would suffer from AT weapons as normal, but regular infantry would not.

I did kinda come up with all this at around 3am in the morning a week ago, so it's a bit rough, but I think that would work and solve a lot of problems regarding the ubiquitous mid-range multi-shot, mid-strength mid-damage weapons being so prevalent.

My logic is that stuff like lass cannons and meltas are actually quite bad at being anti tank by virtue of being single shot. I have no problem with a Imperial Knight dying to like, 13-15 lass cannon shots or a predator to 6-7. At the end of the day each lass cannon is an expensive weapon. 5 alone are 125 points, not counting the cost of the model that carries them. So if you make them have more damage, and give many more wounds to big things, then those weapons will be viable at killing those targets but all those Damage 2 or damage 3/1d3 weapons will lose a lot of value at anti tank. They would still be good at killing heavy infantry with 2-3 wounds.

**VladimirHerzog**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
No. Most vehicles don't have invuls. Those that do usually come about from energy shields or some sort of supernatural protection (ie. daemon engines) which seem fair enough to me.

I mean, most of the vehicles that see a lot of play DO have invulns.

**Martel732**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
No. Most vehicles don't have invuls. Those that do usually come about from energy shields or some sort of supernatural protection (ie. daemon engines) which seem fair enough to me.

I mean, most of the vehicles that see a lot of play DO have invulns.

That's why they see play. Because they cheat AT weapons.

**H.B.M.C.**

Invuls aren't there to "cheat" AT weapons.

Your logic is backwards.

**Martel732**

Explain.

That's exactly what they do. I don't get discounts on my AT guns when invulns show up.

**alextroy**

Martel732 wrote:
Explain.

That's exactly what they do. I don't get discounts on my AT guns when invulns show up.

The unit with the Invulnerable Save pays points to reduce the effectiveness of your AT guns AP. It has no impact on it's strength or damage, so it not like your AT gun disappears when the Invulerable Save appears. It's not like unit with the Invulnerable Save gets a discount if you don't bring weapons with high AP values.

**Martel732**

alextroy wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Explain.

That's exactly what they do. I don't get discounts on my AT guns when invulns show up.
The unit with the Invulnerable Save pays points to reduce the effectiveness of your AT guns AP. It has no impact on it's strength or damage, so it not like your AT gun disappears when the Invulerable Save appears. It's not like unit with the Invulnerable Save gets a discount if you don't bring weapons with high AP values.

I don't think they do. Not like the weapons do, at any rate. There are some cheapass units with invuln. The invuln saves being too cheap is the primary problem, really. I really think GW just tacks them on and never factors them into the cost.

" it not like your AT gun disappears when the Invulerable Save appears."

It half disappears, which is pretty bad.

**sanguine40k**

What about changing high ROF (not blast, obviously) weapons so that it gets its full strength/ap/damage if it fires one shot and reduce the S/AP/D by 1 if it fires more than one - to represent concentrating the full burst on a single target versus spreading the firepower around?

So, an autocannon would do S7/AP-1/D2 if you fired one shot and be S6/AP0/D1 if you fired both shots?

Though you could probably leave the AP as is for multiple shots, it's mostly the S & D that are the issues on high ROF weapons.

**Ice_can**

sanguine40k wrote:
What about changing high ROF (not blast, obviously) weapons so that it gets its full strength/ap/damage if it fires one shot and reduce the S/AP/D by 1 if it fires more than one - to represent concentrating the full burst on a single target versus spreading the firepower around?

So, an autocannon would do S7/AP-1/D2 if you fired one shot and be S6/AP0/D1 if you fired both shots?

Though you could probably leave the AP as is for multiple shots, it's mostly the S & D that are the issues on high ROF weapons.

Just no as that's a buff to primaris who damn well don't need buffs.

Invulnerable saves are needed on vehicals because GW still overcosts vehicals and then handed out numerous wats to get Rerolls for days.

Being T7 3+ Sv isnt a defensible stat line with 2 x S4 Ap -2 30 inch range as a basic infantry weapon. Hit 2/3 of the time, wounded 1/3 of the time, fail your save 2/3 of the time. Add rerolls as that math starts going even harder against vehicals.

Unless your willing to throw away the wounding chart as it exsists for 8th and 9th vehicals will always need something more to be viable as to many things can just volume of dice past statlines.

Also A basic BA marine unbuffed is wounding a Warlord Titan T16 on a 5+ FFS its T is 4xS but 5+ to wound.

**sanguine40k**

Ice_can wrote:
sanguine40k wrote:
What about changing high ROF (not blast, obviously) weapons so that it gets its full strength/ap/damage if it fires one shot and reduce the S/AP/D by 1 if it fires more than one - to represent concentrating the full burst on a single target versus spreading the firepower around?

So, an autocannon would do S7/AP-1/D2 if you fired one shot and be S6/AP0/D1 if you fired both shots?

Though you could probably leave the AP as is for multiple shots, it's mostly the S & D that are the issues on high ROF weapons.

Just no as that's a buff to primaris who damn well don't need buffs.

Invulnerable saves are needed on vehicals because GW still overcosts vehicals and then handed out numerous wats to get Rerolls for days

Being T7 3+ Sv isnt a defensible stat line with 2 x S4 Ap -2 30 inch range as a basic infantry weapon. Hit 2/3 of the time, wounded 1/3 of the time, fail your save 2/3 of the time. Add rerolls as that math starts going even harder against vehicals.

Unless your willing to throw away the wounding chart as it exsists for 8th and 9th vehicals will always need something more to be viable as to many things can just volume of dice past statlines.

Also A basic BA marine unbuffed is wounding a Warlord Titan T16 on a 5+ FFS its T is 4xS but 5+ to wound.

To answer your points in order:

That fact that it's a buff for Primaris is not the high ROF weapons' fault. Primaris overstating is a separate issue that also needs to be dealt with - they should have 1W, but base T5. The extra wound completely skews balance without giving everyone else's heavy/elite infantry an extra wound.

Rerolls do need to be reduced, especially for SM. Maybe more of the T'au model, where you get to activate the aura once per battle for 1 turn and taking multiple captains doesn't increase the number of activations?

T7 3+ is perfectly ok when you don't have basic troops running around with ap-2 weapons, but again, that's an issue with Primaris rather than the vehicles.

The high ROF weapons change would drop the bolt rifles down to S3, making them need 6's to wound T7...

BA wounding Warlords on 5+ is due to them getting +1 to wound in melee - you won't see many/any BA basic troops charging Warlords, imho. And the crushing feet are going to make a mess of any that do. In short, BA are an edge case, it's more standard marines being able to plink wounds off anything with sheer weight of fire that is the issue.

**Spoletta**

sanguine40k wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
sanguine40k wrote:
What about changing high ROF (not blast, obviously) weapons so that it gets its full strength/ap/damage if it fires one shot and reduce the S/AP/D by 1 if it fires more than one - to represent concentrating the full burst on a single target versus spreading the firepower around?

So, an autocannon would do S7/AP-1/D2 if you fired one shot and be S6/AP0/D1 if you fired both shots?

Though you could probably leave the AP as is for multiple shots, it's mostly the S & D that are the issues on high ROF weapons.

Just no as that's a buff to primaris who damn well don't need buffs.

Invulnerable saves are needed on vehicals because GW still overcosts vehicals and then handed out numerous wats to get Rerolls for days

Being T7 3+ Sv isnt a defensible stat line with 2 x S4 Ap -2 30 inch range as a basic infantry weapon. Hit 2/3 of the time, wounded 1/3 of the time, fail your save 2/3 of the time. Add rerolls as that math starts going even harder against vehicals.

Unless your willing to throw away the wounding chart as it exsists for 8th and 9th vehicals will always need something more to be viable as to many things can just volume of dice past statlines.

Also A basic BA marine unbuffed is wounding a Warlord Titan T16 on a 5+ FFS its T is 4xS but 5+ to wound.

To answer your points in order:

That fact that it's a buff for Primaris is not the high ROF weapons' fault. Primaris overstating is a separate issue that also needs to be dealt with - they should have 1W, but base T5. The extra wound completely skews balance without giving everyone else's heavy/elite infantry an extra wound.

Rerolls do need to be reduced, especially for SM. Maybe more of the T'au model, where you get to activate the aura once per battle for 1 turn and taking multiple captains doesn't increase the number of activations?

T7 3+ is perfectly ok when you don't have basic troops running around with ap-2 weapons, but again, that's an issue with Primaris rather than the vehicles.

The high ROF weapons change would drop the bolt rifles down to S3, making them need 6's to wound T7...

BA wounding Warlords on 5+ is due to them getting +1 to wound in melee - you won't see many/any BA basic troops charging Warlords, imho. And the crushing feet are going to make a mess of any that do. In short, BA are an edge case, it's more standard marines being able to plink wounds off anything with sheer weight of fire that is the issue.

Nothing really wrong with the weapon.

According to your exact scenario, you have 170 points of unit firing in ideal conditions (doctrine turn and standing still) and inflicting 3 damage on a Rhino... wow.

Don't look at the weapons as the root of the issue.

That same attack action inflicts 4,66 damage with CM and Lt near, and almost destroyes the razorback with the double shoot stratagem.

The problem is not in the weapon.

By the way, it's mandatory to mention that marines doctrines are HUGELY nerfed in 9th with strategic reserves.

Marines in general are going to change the playstyle completely. Now that castes are a thing of the past (they already were in the last part of 8th to be honest), the chars they so much rely on can be killed and the doctrines being able to be outlasted with a good use of strategic reserves, they will need to switch to an ultra aggressive playstyle. Which by the way is much more in line with the faction fluff.

**aphyon**

Just as soon as they need to sell a new model. they have done it in every edition-look a shiny new model with better rules that you don't currently own.

**rbstr**

Upping the toughness and strength of tanks and AV weapons respectively would do a lot to mitigate volume of fire and doesn't end up doing too much to balance of non-tank interactions. If the base tank was t8 you'd halve the number of wounds from a bolt rifle. Then with the Melta at S9 it's wounding everything basically the same as it already was.

IMO the thing to do with Invulns on high-toughness models is to turn them into damage reduction instead. Halve the effectiveness of the all that high-rof D2 weaponry out there.
Maybe add higher damage floors and/or higher damage period to the Lascanons and Railguns

**Karol**

Martel732 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Was replying to BCB.
Doesn't make what you said make anymore sense.

1) I don't care about the lore justification for whatever rules terminators have.
2) Terminators have 2+, don't need a 5++ on top of it anymore. That was from when AP 2 was a thing.
3) The game has too many invulns and those invulns are too cheap, and that's my position on that.

Termintor models are too cheap, what the hell? with the -1/+1 limitation they are worse intercessors for more points, assuming GW rises the point cost of everything, just like they promised. If anything terminators should get a +4inv, so they can actualy save plasma or heavy weapons. Still wouldn't change the fact that biggest termintors killer are anti personal weapons, often run by whole squads, that are ap -1 or ap -2.

**aphyon**

Karol wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Was replying to BCB.
Doesn't make what you said make anymore sense.

1) I don't care about the lore justification for whatever rules terminators have.
2) Terminators have 2+, don't need a 5++ on top of it anymore. That was from when AP 2 was a thing.
3) The game has too many invulns and those invulns are too cheap, and that's my position on that.

Termintor models are too cheap, what the hell? with the -1/+1 limitation they are worse intercessors for more points, assuming GW rises the point cost of everything, just like they promised. If anything terminators should get a +4inv, so they can actualy save plasma or heavy weapons. Still wouldn't change the fact that biggest termintors killer are anti personal weapons, often run by whole squads, that are ap -1 or ap -2.

Yes terminators became a joke in 8th,. the high points you were paying for was the 2+ save, now that there is the AP- system in place with -1/-2 all over the place they suddenly become basic marines or scouts.