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.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I do not understand what would be so hard about just making it have a higher damage characteristic against vehicles/monsters. Surely that would be the easiest and most straightforward way to do things?

Yeah. I have been thinking about it a bit. Why not make something like a lascanon D3 or even D4, but if it has a vehicle or monster it does x3 dmg. We wouldn't need melta double tapping or those wierd moments where a anti meq weapon like plasma suddenly becoming the anti tank weapon of choice, on top of being the best anti light vehicle, anti character , anti elite infantry etc.

Maybe melta should do more damage then lascanon to a single target, but the lascanon gets wound over spill.

Karol wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I do not understand what would be so hard about just making it have a higher damage characteristic against vehicles/monsters. Surely that would be the easiest and most straightforward way to do things?

Yeah. I have been thinking about it a bit. Why not make something like a lascanon D3 or even D4, but if it has a vehicle or monster it does x3 dmg. We wouldn't need melta double tapping or those wierd moments where a anti meq weapon like plasma suddenly becoming the anti tank weapon of choice, on top of being the best anti light vehicle, anti character , anti elite infantry etc.

Maybe melta should do more damage then lascanon to a single target, but the lascanon gets wound over spill.

Because an anti tank missile doesn't do less damage against a person.
Giving true AT weapons stuff like D3+3 damage is, imo, fine so long as they are priced correctly. Stuff like this is also why re-evaluating weapons and their profile isn't a bad thing (the bad thing was doing it to Marines first).
Many weapons haven't changed since the move to multi-damage weapons and many suffer from GW not really knowing what they were doing. All those D d6 weapons are way to unreliable to see real use.

Alcibiades wrote:
I see absolutely no reason to think that the HKM was designed as a heavy-vehicle killer...

Except that's exactly what it is meant to be, and always has been since it was first introduced in the Dark Millennium box from 2nd Ed.

For reference:



Armor penetration value is that of a Krak Missile with an extra D10.

Bit of a tangent but I could swear that the HK missile in 2nd edition would stick around if it missed. You'd roll every turn until it hit.

Am I thinking of something else then?

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Bit of a tangent but I could swear that the HK missile in 2nd edition would stick around if it missed. You'd roll every turn until it hit.

Am I thinking of something else then?

That was the Hunters missile from 7th IIRC

And for comparison's sake, the average armour pen of Lascannon in 2nd Ed was 19.5, and the HK was 22.5. So yes, it was a dedicated anti-tank weapon.

GW is trying to replicate this with S10 without realising that that's not what kills vehicles in 9th, and hasn't been since the start of 8th.

 Ordana wrote:

Because an anti tank missile doesn't do less damage against a person.
Giving true AT weapons stuff like D3+3 damage is, imo, fine so long as they are priced correctly. Stuff like this is also why re-evaluating weapons and their profile isn't a bad thing (the bad thing was doing it to Marines first).
Many weapons haven't changed since the move to multi-damage weapons and many suffer from GW not really knowing what they were doing. All those D d6 weapons are way to unreliable to see real use.

An anti tank projectile flys through a person, and kills one dude they don't suddenly turn around and go in for another go. An anti tank weapon should be an anti tank weapon, not an anti tank weapon , an anti infantry weapon, an anti flyer weapon, because in such a case the weapon should be give to every person and vehicle able to carry it. and in w40k it seems to go down to the number of shots, because it doesn't matter if the weapon does 2 or 3 dmg, if it has 8 shots instead of 4, it is going to be a better weapon in all cases.

I am not sure why the marine are a problem is mentioned though. Would you want the first 9th ed codex to not have changes that fit the 9th ed rules design? If it was not done, this would mean that marine players, who make up the majority of all players, would lag behind other factions as soon as they started getting their own books. This would end like 8th, or at least I think so, it would be an example of very bad design.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And for comparison's sake, the average armour pen of Lascannon in 2nd Ed was 19.5, and the HK was 22.5. So yes, it was a dedicated anti-tank weapon.

GW is trying to replicate this with S10 without realising that that's not what kills vehicles in 9th, and hasn't been since the start of 8th.

Wounding T8 on a 3+ is a start, but yes more damage and/or more AP would help. Then again, it's only 5 points right now and can be taken more than once, while the 2nd Ed. version costs 30 points and you could only take one in an army.

Karol wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Because an anti tank missile doesn't do less damage against a person.
Giving true AT weapons stuff like D3+3 damage is, imo, fine so long as they are priced correctly. Stuff like this is also why re-evaluating weapons and their profile isn't a bad thing (the bad thing was doing it to Marines first).
Many weapons haven't changed since the move to multi-damage weapons and many suffer from GW not really knowing what they were doing. All those D d6 weapons are way to unreliable to see real use.

An anti tank projectile flys through a person, and kills one dude they don't suddenly turn around and go in for another go. An anti tank weapon should be an anti tank weapon, not an anti tank weapon , an anti infantry weapon, an anti flyer weapon, because in such a case the weapon should be give to every person and vehicle able to carry it. and in w40k it seems to go down to the number of shots, because it doesn't matter if the weapon does 2 or 3 dmg, if it has 8 shots instead of 4, it is going to be a better weapon in all cases.

I am not sure why the marine are a problem is mentioned though. Would you want the first 9th ed codex to not have changes that fit the 9th ed rules design? If it was not done, this would mean that marine players, who make up the majority of all players, would lag behind other factions as soon as they started getting their own books. This would end like 8th, or at least I think so, it would be an example of very bad design.

Agreed with the first part

If you boost a already powerful faction and make it even better as they are obviously doing with Marines then its a problem. Just look at the massive slab of cheese that is Eradicators.

For once they actually are boosting other Imperial armies but similar weapons in non Imperial armies will suffer massively in comparison.

We don't know if marines are boosted by the new codex or not. Individual units are boosted,but even then we don't know how expensive wargear will be.it still comes down to points efficiency,and that includes chapter tactics and stratagems, too.

As if GW would not buff their master race. Their whole point is to be the heroic guys Tim-12yo's can play and defeat the evil NPC races. Thus they need to be strong enough Tim-12yo's can win with them. Can't have them lose game.

tneva82 wrote:
As if GW would not buff their master race. Their whole point is to be the heroic guys Tim-12yo's can play and defeat the evil NPC races. Thus they need to be strong enough Tim-12yo's can win with them. Can't have them lose game.

I really hope when a xenos book comes out and is top of the meta, you officially retire from posting this hyperbolic junk.

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
As if GW would not buff their master race. Their whole point is to be the heroic guys Tim-12yo's can play and defeat the evil NPC races. Thus they need to be strong enough Tim-12yo's can win with them. Can't have them lose game.

I really hope when a xenos book comes out and is top of the meta, you officially retire from posting this hyperbolic junk.

Edgelords gonna edgelord. It's what the ignore button is for!

tneva82 wrote:
As if GW would not buff their master race. Their whole point is to be the heroic guys Tim-12yo's can play and defeat the evil NPC races. Thus they need to be strong enough Tim-12yo's can win with them. Can't have them lose game.

I wonder where you were when marines where below average for half of the last edition.

nekooni wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
As if GW would not buff their master race. Their whole point is to be the heroic guys Tim-12yo's can play and defeat the evil NPC races. Thus they need to be strong enough Tim-12yo's can win with them. Can't have them lose game.

I wonder where you were when marines where below average for half of the last edition.

depends entirely if you count index era gulliman spam.. then that was waaaaayyy less than half the edition.

Sm needed a fix, especially the core statline old school marines , whilest the intercissors would've needed a bit of work aswell, what sm didn't need was a 2.0 dex with such systems in place.....

They needed a fix and got three.

That's kind of the whole problem we have now

You know, if antitank weapons can't one-shot tanks, perhaps the problem is the amount of damage they do, rather than the strength.

GW: "Lascannons are anti-tank, how do we make the HKM more anti-tank like it used to be?"

Also GW: "I know, let's give it one better strength. That's how armor penetration works, right?"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know, if antitank weapons can't one-shot tanks, perhaps the problem is the amount of damage they do, rather than the strength.

GW: "Lascannons are anti-tank, how do we make the HKM more anti-tank like it used to be?"

Also GW: "I know, let's give it one better strength. That's how armor penetration works, right?"

Or, hear me out here, we classify vehicles seperatly and implement armor facings? Right? that way, we have positioning and angle of attack counting for something, and terrain would become even more important? Right?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
They needed a fix and got three.

That's kind of the whole problem we have now

reminds me of south park the bankers with the chicken.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know, if antitank weapons can't one-shot tanks, perhaps the problem is the amount of damage they do, rather than the strength.

GW: "Lascannons are anti-tank, how do we make the HKM more anti-tank like it used to be?"

Also GW: "I know, let's give it one better strength. That's how armor penetration works, right?"

Or, hear me out here, we classify vehicles seperatly and implement armor facings? Right? that way, we have positioning and angle of attack counting for something, and terrain would become even more important? Right?

shhh you'll scare the kiddos, it's much easier to remember 30 different types of boltgun and 160 stratagems than it is to understand armor facing and *gasp* a second type of damage resolution in a wargame.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know, if antitank weapons can't one-shot tanks, perhaps the problem is the amount of damage they do, rather than the strength.

GW: "Lascannons are anti-tank, how do we make the HKM more anti-tank like it used to be?"

Also GW: "I know, let's give it one better strength. That's how armor penetration works, right?"

Or, hear me out here, we classify vehicles seperatly and implement armor facings? Right? that way, we have positioning and angle of attack counting for something, and terrain would become even more important? Right?

shhh you'll scare the kiddos, it's much easier to remember 30 different types of boltgun and 160 stratagems than it is to understand armor facing and *gasp* a second type of damage resolution in a wargame.

am i too old then?
i am too old,

Not Online!!! wrote:

nekooni wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
As if GW would not buff their master race. Their whole point is to be the heroic guys Tim-12yo's can play and defeat the evil NPC races. Thus they need to be strong enough Tim-12yo's can win with them. Can't have them lose game.

I wonder where you were when marines where below average for half of the last edition.

depends entirely if you count index era gulliman spam.. then that was waaaaayyy less than half the edition.

Sm needed a fix, especially the core statline old school marines , whilest the intercissors would've needed a bit of work aswell, what sm didn't need was a 2.0 dex with such systems in place.....

Marines needed 2.0,but they didn't need the Chapter supplements. Those turned them way beyond 11,and then after the hotfixes they were sitting at 11 to 12 still. 10 being the goal.
But prior to that and after gully was fixed,marines were below the curve. And it feels to me like that was a large part of 8th, at least close to 50%. Might check release dates later.

Might be skewed since I don't play UM and dont own a Gully,never played him myself.

Marines needed 2.0,but they didn't need the Chapter supplements.

My codex without the PA supplement is one of the worse codex of 8th ed. It is hard for me to judge the DA and 1ksons stuff in the book we share, as I don't play those armies, but I don't think the players of those armies were unhappy that they got extra rules.

shhh you'll scare the kiddos, it's much easier to remember 30 different types of boltgun and 160 stratagems than it is to understand armor facing and *gasp* a second type of damage resolution in a wargame.

Well it is. Because there is a whole planet of difference between learning an arbitrary rule or even a rule set, and have you and your opponent agree on something you both have opposit views on. One is at worse a 5-10 min checking in a rule book, the other can be months of hate and different friends of different people getting the blow back for what you or your opponent did durning a game. Anything that is a competition that requires an ad hoc agreement between two people is a simple way to create instant hell. And from reports and stories people tell it seemed to have been a very universal thing, not just limited to my part of the woods.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Or, hear me out here, we classify vehicles seperatly and implement armor facings? Right? that way, we have positioning and angle of attack counting for something, and terrain would become even more important? Right?

Not as long as a vehicle in this kind of position receives zero benefits for cover and can fire all its guns, even the ones on the opposite side of the tank, without having to move.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know, if antitank weapons can't one-shot tanks, perhaps the problem is the amount of damage they do, rather than the strength.

GW: "Lascannons are anti-tank, how do we make the HKM more anti-tank like it used to be?"

Also GW: "I know, let's give it one better strength. That's how armor penetration works, right?"

Or, hear me out here, we classify vehicles seperatly and implement armor facings? Right? that way, we have positioning and angle of attack counting for something, and terrain would become even more important? Right?

shhh you'll scare the kiddos, it's much easier to remember 30 different types of boltgun and 160 stratagems than it is to understand armor facing and *gasp* a second type of damage resolution in a wargame.

am i too old then?
i am too old,

Nah. If you were really old, you'd remember that vehicles started with Toughness and wounds (well, 'Damage'), and the armor systems the cropped up to replace it kept getting replaced and revised (sometimes twice an edition) because they were just _that bad_.
The starting point for the Land Raider was T8, Damage 30, and a 5+ save.

Karol wrote:

Marines needed 2.0,but they didn't need the Chapter supplements.

My codex without the PA supplement is one of the worse codex of 8th ed. It is hard for me to judge the DA and 1ksons stuff in the book we share, as I don't play those armies, but I don't think the players of those armies were unhappy that they got extra rules.

shhh you'll scare the kiddos, it's much easier to remember 30 different types of boltgun and 160 stratagems than it is to understand armor facing and *gasp* a second type of damage resolution in a wargame.

Well it is. Because there is a whole planet of difference between learning an arbitrary rule or even a rule set, and have you and your opponent agree on something you both have opposit views on. One is at worse a 5-10 min checking in a rule book, the other can be months of hate and different friends of different people getting the blow back for what you or your opponent did durning a game. Anything that is a competition that requires an ad hoc agreement between two people is a simple way to create instant hell. And from reports and stories people tell it seemed to have been a very universal thing, not just limited to my part of the woods.

What? We're talking about the supplements, not psychic awakening.
Also what? Learning one more damage resolution is much simpler than learning by heart the difference between every single boltgun there is.
The whole arguing about facings was a real problem that was easily solved by being a decent human being. Worse case scenario you can just chose to not play a particular persone if the issue keeps coming up.

And in a normal relationship, "friends" don't hold grudges for months becasue of something that happened in a wargame.

Karol wrote:

Marines needed 2.0,but they didn't need the Chapter supplements.

My codex without the PA supplement is one of the worse codex of 8th ed. It is hard for me to judge the DA and 1ksons stuff in the book we share, as I don't play those armies, but I don't think the players of those armies were unhappy that they got extra rules.

I'm talking about Codex:Space Marines 2.0, and the Chapter Supplements for Iron Hands, Salamanders, Raven Guard, Imperial Fists, Ultramarines and White Scars. I have no idea what Codex YOU are talking about, or how that relates to me saying that Marines 2.0 was fine, and the Chapter Supplements fethed it up.

edit: "fine" is a relative term obviously, still had some issues probably, but it was in line with other upper tier factions.

And regarding the rest of your post: I think this was said to you multiple times, but you're apparently in an incredibly toxic community and you should really try to find a new one. This is not how local gaming communities work, generally speaking.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
I see absolutely no reason to think that the HKM was designed as a heavy-vehicle killer...

Except that's exactly what it is meant to be, and always has been since it was first introduced in the Dark Millennium box from 2nd Ed.

I don't know what it said in 2E, but that's not what it says now.

It's been a one-shot krak missile for years and years; which is to say it has been an anti-light-vehicle weapon.

Alcibiades wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
I see absolutely no reason to think that the HKM was designed as a heavy-vehicle killer...

Except that's exactly what it is meant to be, and always has been since it was first introduced in the Dark Millennium box from 2nd Ed.

I don't know what it said in 2E, but that's not what it says now.

It's been a one-shot krak missile for years and years; which is to say it has been an anti-light-vehicle weapon.

Where does it say that, though?
It says it's an anti-tank weapon. It has the profile of an anti-tank weapon. I would assume, based on that, that it is indeed an anti-tank weapon.
Just point me to the source you're basing this on, where it says that a HKM is only used to take down light vehicles or something similar.

Autocannons are what you use to take down light vehicles. The profiles are pretty different.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Or, hear me out here, we classify vehicles seperatly and implement armor facings? Right? that way, we have positioning and angle of attack counting for something, and terrain would become even more important? Right?

Not as long as a vehicle in this kind of position receives zero benefits for cover and can fire all its guns, even the ones on the opposite side of the tank, without having to move.

That is a completely seperate issue, and anyone normally minded that comes from an edition with armor facings also comes from an edition were firing arks were a thing aswell.

And yes btw, my opinion on that one is as follows: