rbstr wrote:
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

 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.

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.

 aphyon wrote:

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.

Martel732 wrote:
No, terminators should not have an invuln in the 8th/9th ed system. Or pay more for having it. And I've already stated in the thread that the first two points of AP are the most valuable.

What do you mean "became"? Go look at how much AP 2 there was in 5th-7th.

Spoletta wrote:

Spoiler:

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.

Racerguy180 789469 10843584 wrote:

It makes zero sense that marines would sit back and act like bluefishfaces. Why in BiggiEs palace would you put all your eggs in one basket? Sounds heretical to me.

What do you mean "became"? Go look at how much AP 2 there was in 5th-7th.

 aphyon wrote:

What do you mean "became"? Go look at how much AP 2 there was in 5th-7th.

Back when heavy weapons that were meant to deal with terminators and heavy armor had AP2 in the old system there were many platforms that could take them, but normally aside from grav weapons were basically all one shot guns and very expensive to take.

When every singe gun in your army (that now gets double the shots) including your basic infantry arms have the same effect in 8th with terrain having little to no affect, then yes it does become a joke when all the factors are combined.

Martel732 wrote:
It's wishful thinking. Or they are really depending on missions to get people to move.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's wishful thinking. Or they are really depending on missions to get people to move.

With 75 points up for grabs on primaries and 45 on secondaries, yea. That means even if you could get all kill secondaries (you can't) that holding objectives vastly out-weighs killing. Isn't that the exact thing people have been asking for?

To score more you need to be well into the middle of the table. Otherwise you're picking up 1/3 your primary. That plus perfect secondaries is 70 points, which means if the opponent picks up perfect secondaries they just need 2 turns of max primary to win or 3 turns of half-assing it.

Martel732 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's wishful thinking. Or they are really depending on missions to get people to move.

With 75 points up for grabs on primaries and 45 on secondaries, yea. That means even if you could get all kill secondaries (you can't) that holding objectives vastly out-weighs killing. Isn't that the exact thing people have been asking for?

To score more you need to be well into the middle of the table. Otherwise you're picking up 1/3 your primary. That plus perfect secondaries is 70 points, which means if the opponent picks up perfect secondaries they just need 2 turns of max primary to win or 3 turns of half-assing it.

But if they murder the opponent to where they can't score at all, they don't need to score many primary points. Dead units can't score. This is the fundamental problem with every "fix" GW tries. Murder is too effective.

Martel732 wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

What do you mean "became"? Go look at how much AP 2 there was in 5th-7th.

Back when heavy weapons that were meant to deal with terminators and heavy armor had AP2 in the old system there were many platforms that could take them, but normally aside from grav weapons were basically all one shot guns and very expensive to take.

When every singe gun in your army (that now gets double the shots) including your basic infantry arms have the same effect in 8th with terrain having little to no affect, then yes it does become a joke when all the factors are combined.

Plasma spam from 5th really started it. Don't forget plasma.