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.
BrianDavion wrote: MMs being able to one shot tanks reasonably reliably is who the gun functioned back before 8th
Absolutely not like this, though.
Back before 8th, melta weapons were only getting their 2D6 to penetrate armor if they were within half range. Because of variable armor facings, you were often looking at S8 versus AV13+ frontal armor early in the game, which means the multi-melta's S8 was a real liability, having to fish for 5s and 6s to get penetrating hits (thanks to AP1). Melta only got really scary to tanks when it either was within half range or was able to flank your vehicles and hit a lower armor, and the latter was largely irrelevant to units with AV13 sides.
If you could keep multi-meltas more than a foot away, they were less effective than lascannons, penetrating on the same rolls but unable to get glancing hits in addition. To give a real example: Against AV13, a multi-melta was penetrating on a 5+, while a lascannon was glancing on a 4 and penetrating on a 5+. A lascannon was strictly better than a multi-melta unless you got within the 12" magic zone.
The problem we're about to run into in 9th is that with two shots, the multi-melta is strictly better than the lascannon by a wide margin. Against a T8 tank, the multi-melta will average 50% more wounds, at higher AP and the same damage, outside melta range.
In 4th Ed, if you wanted to kill a Leman Russ on the first turn (AV14 front) at 12-24", at BS4 you would need an average of 18 multi-meltas to do the job. If you had a speedy platform and could expect a side shot (not likely, but sure) against AV12 at 12-24", you 'only' needed 6 multimeltas to do it. If you got within 12", against AV12, 3.3 multi-meltas averaged a kill.
In 9th Ed, killing a single Leman Russ at BS3+ will require an average of 5.14 multi-meltas outside of melta range. No flanking necessary, just dip your toe within 24" and go for that frontal shot at maximum range. If you do get within melta range, 3.27 multi-meltas do the job.
Basically the new multi-melta has performance within 12" comparable to getting flanking shots at the same range in older editions, and is astronomically better outside of 12". In the early game where frontal shots are the norm, the new multi-melta will be over three times more powerful than it was in 4th. It's not a weapon that has to get close or get flanking shots to be effective, it's just strictly better than a lascannon, and any platform that can take lots of them is perfectly safe to camp in its deployment zone.
Why they didn't just change the melta rule to something like a flat 2D6 damage within melta range is beyond me. Doubling its shots dramatically improves performance at all ranges and completely displaces the lascannon.
ERJAK wrote: Lol, because 'terrain attrition' and 'touched a bush and violently exploded killing several of the soldiers inside' are totally the same thing.
Whomever told you that this was a consequence of the HH rules cheated. It is impossible, in the rules, for a vehicle to suffer the Explodes! result on the vehicle damage chart from touching terrain.
It is also not possible for the passengers inside to suffer casualties if the Explodes! result doesn't occur, unless the vehicle's access points are blocked by foes (in which case, the problem appears to be the enemy murdering the passengers as they struggle to extricate themselves from the vehicle, not any sort of detonation).
Also, I hope you engage with me on this one, because this is the 4th thread now where you've outright lied about HH rules surrounding vehicles.
So i wasn't just dreaming then and have seen that played out now multiple times?
Yeah, he lies about HH and then ducks any attempt at correction.
Kanluwen wrote: That's actually something to consider, Scotsman. Especially if the weapons are spread across several factions like we know is the case with the 'Marine weapon buffs' we know are coming to all the Imperium stuff.
Yeah, there's a reason that (For example) Atalan Incinerators and Heavy Flamers in the GSC list are the exact same point cost despite being, as of now, 8" range Heavy Flamers and 12" range heavy flamers.
They're going to be identical in October.
which is the core issue i guess.
Right. Why release points now based on rules that won't be in place until October. And even if that explains the odd changes to weapon points nothing explains some of the bizarre changes to actual units. We already know loyalist points will change with the new codex. Ca 2020 is just insane.
Kanluwen wrote: That's actually something to consider, Scotsman. Especially if the weapons are spread across several factions like we know is the case with the 'Marine weapon buffs' we know are coming to all the Imperium stuff.
Yeah, there's a reason that (For example) Atalan Incinerators and Heavy Flamers in the GSC list are the exact same point cost despite being, as of now, 8" range Heavy Flamers and 12" range heavy flamers.
They're going to be identical in October.
which is the core issue i guess.
Right. Why release points now based on rules that won't be in place until October. And even if that explains the odd changes to weapon points nothing explains some of the bizarre changes to actual units. We already know loyalist points will change with the new codex. Ca 2020 is just insane.
It's even more insane when your looking at the xeno factions that don't share weapons with marines and as such won't actually get their updated weapon stats untill their codex's.
I suppose the other option for the CA 2020 points being BS is they are based on some future codex points minus some small random values to hide the true future points costs while not relating in anyway to how the units play untill their new codex.
Kanluwen wrote: That's actually something to consider, Scotsman. Especially if the weapons are spread across several factions like we know is the case with the 'Marine weapon buffs' we know are coming to all the Imperium stuff.
Yeah, there's a reason that (For example) Atalan Incinerators and Heavy Flamers in the GSC list are the exact same point cost despite being, as of now, 8" range Heavy Flamers and 12" range heavy flamers.
They're going to be identical in October.
which is the core issue i guess.
Right. Why release points now based on rules that won't be in place until October. And even if that explains the odd changes to weapon points nothing explains some of the bizarre changes to actual units. We already know loyalist points will change with the new codex. Ca 2020 is just insane.
Yeah, I have no idea, can't even begin to fathom why rules content and miniatures produced at Games Workshop's factory in Nottingham, England might be coming out now, while codex books produced and printed in factories in China might be delayed until October.
I can't even possibly think to speculate! It's a grand mystery! What could be going on to produce this strange, bizarre delay in China???
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Kanluwen wrote: That's actually something to consider, Scotsman. Especially if the weapons are spread across several factions like we know is the case with the 'Marine weapon buffs' we know are coming to all the Imperium stuff.
Yeah, there's a reason that (For example) Atalan Incinerators and Heavy Flamers in the GSC list are the exact same point cost despite being, as of now, 8" range Heavy Flamers and 12" range heavy flamers.
They're going to be identical in October.
which is the core issue i guess.
Right. Why release points now based on rules that won't be in place until October. And even if that explains the odd changes to weapon points nothing explains some of the bizarre changes to actual units. We already know loyalist points will change with the new codex. Ca 2020 is just insane.
It's even more insane when your looking at the xeno factions that don't share weapons with marines and as such won't actually get their updated weapon stats untill their codex's.
I suppose the other option for the CA 2020 points being BS is they are based on some future codex points minus some small random values to hide the true future points costs while not relating in anyway to how the units play untill their new codex.
which then goes to show that GW artificially holds back releases to sell an aditional book and pad their income over all quartals.
Or has issues with the contractors capability.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/17 15:15:01
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Yeah, I have no idea, can't even begin to fathom why rules content and miniatures produced at Games Workshop's factory in Nottingham, England might be coming out now, while codex books produced and printed in factories in China might be delayed until October.
I can't even possibly think to speculate! It's a grand mystery! What could be going on to produce this strange, bizarre delay in China???
Print space. Assuming they do bulk orders, over time, they may very well have a contractor which then produces X ammount of books over a certain time.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Kanluwen wrote: That's actually something to consider, Scotsman. Especially if the weapons are spread across several factions like we know is the case with the 'Marine weapon buffs' we know are coming to all the Imperium stuff.
Yeah, there's a reason that (For example) Atalan Incinerators and Heavy Flamers in the GSC list are the exact same point cost despite being, as of now, 8" range Heavy Flamers and 12" range heavy flamers.
They're going to be identical in October.
which is the core issue i guess.
Right. Why release points now based on rules that won't be in place until October. And even if that explains the odd changes to weapon points nothing explains some of the bizarre changes to actual units. We already know loyalist points will change with the new codex. Ca 2020 is just insane.
Yeah, I have no idea, can't even begin to fathom why rules content and miniatures produced at Games Workshop's factory in Nottingham, England might be coming out now, while codex books produced and printed in factories in China might be delayed until October.
I can't even possibly think to speculate! It's a grand mystery! What could be going on to produce this strange, bizarre delay in China???
Sarcasm duly noted. But you know that nothing in those codexes will explain some of the weird points in ca 2020. It's just a mess. Nothing in those books will explain guardsmen and grots being the same price or relic contemptors getting a drop so they're the same price as all the other contemptors. Some of it seems to be in anticipation of the new codexes, some of it seems to be based on current rules, and some of it is just nuts.
Kanluwen wrote: That's actually something to consider, Scotsman. Especially if the weapons are spread across several factions like we know is the case with the 'Marine weapon buffs' we know are coming to all the Imperium stuff.
Yeah, there's a reason that (For example) Atalan Incinerators and Heavy Flamers in the GSC list are the exact same point cost despite being, as of now, 8" range Heavy Flamers and 12" range heavy flamers.
They're going to be identical in October.
which is the core issue i guess.
Right. Why release points now based on rules that won't be in place until October. And even if that explains the odd changes to weapon points nothing explains some of the bizarre changes to actual units. We already know loyalist points will change with the new codex. Ca 2020 is just insane.
Yeah, I have no idea, can't even begin to fathom why rules content and miniatures produced at Games Workshop's factory in Nottingham, England might be coming out now, while codex books produced and printed in factories in China might be delayed until October.
I can't even possibly think to speculate! It's a grand mystery! What could be going on to produce this strange, bizarre delay in China???
Sarcasm duly noted. But you know that nothing in those codexes will explain some of the weird points in ca 2020. It's just a mess. Nothing in those books will explain guardsmen and grots being the same price or relic contemptors getting a drop so they're the same price as all the other contemptors. Some of it seems to be in anticipation of the new codexes, some of it seems to be based on current rules, and some of it is just nuts.
Yup. Agreed. My assessment is "the points pass in CA2020 is overall just bad."
The new imperial weapons were, most likely, factored in, but that doesn't make a 35ppm Abberrant or a 10ppm eldar guardian or a 5ppm grot make any goddamn sense at all.
Certain xenos factions, notably Drukhari, GSC, CWE, and Orks, just got a pants-on-head stupid points adjustment and their only hope is to get their new codex quickly.
At least we know Drukhari and Ork models are incoming, hopefully with a new 'dex in tow that will give them....something.....I don't know.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
At least we know Drukhari and Ork models are incoming, hopefully with a new 'dex in tow that will give them....something.....I don't know.
Did I miss something? How do we know that?
There was a preview video in one of the "After Indomitus" articles on WHC, which showed bits of four or five models, finishing with the full reveal of the SoB Palantine. I can't remember which article, unfortunately.
However, we saw segments of a model each for, from memory, AdMech, Dark Eldar, Orks, Death Guard and SoB. As a result, we know they'll get a small release each, possibly by the end of the year (I'd normally say within 3 months or so, but this is 2020...).
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
the_scotsman wrote: At least we know Drukhari and Ork models are incoming, hopefully with a new 'dex in tow that will give them....something.....I don't know.
Given that all signs point to the Drukhari one being yet another bloody remake of an existing character, the only thing stopping my optimism from sinking any lower is that I've not yet tunnelled out the requisite subbasement.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
At least we know Drukhari and Ork models are incoming, hopefully with a new 'dex in tow that will give them....something.....I don't know.
Did I miss something? How do we know that?
There was a preview video in one of the "After Indomitus" articles on WHC, which showed bits of four or five models, finishing with the full reveal of the SoB Palantine. I can't remember which article, unfortunately.
However, we saw segments of a model each for, from memory, AdMech, Dark Eldar, Orks, Death Guard and SoB. As a result, we know they'll get a small release each, possibly by the end of the year (I'd normally say within 3 months or so, but this is 2020...).
I wouldn't mind this "MMs have been terrible forever, they deserve their time in the sun" - but their time in the sun is set to be crazy good compared to other 1 shot D6 damage weapons - unless they see a comparable buff. Or MMs are made really expensive to compensate.
For all we know LC could see a tweak to damage as well.
I wouldn't mind this "MMs have been terrible forever, they deserve their time in the sun" - but their time in the sun is set to be crazy good compared to other 1 shot D6 damage weapons - unless they see a comparable buff. Or MMs are made really expensive to compensate.
For all we know LC could see a tweak to damage as well.
Giving lascannons the "minimum 3 damage" rule would make sense. Less pure damage potential than a multi-melta but less swingy and with greater range. Makes it more of a choice between the two.
ERJAK wrote: Lol, because 'terrain attrition' and 'touched a bush and violently exploded killing several of the soldiers inside' are totally the same thing.
Whomever told you that this was a consequence of the HH rules cheated. It is impossible, in the rules, for a vehicle to suffer the Explodes! result on the vehicle damage chart from touching terrain.
It is also not possible for the passengers inside to suffer casualties if the Explodes! result doesn't occur, unless the vehicle's access points are blocked by foes (in which case, the problem appears to be the enemy murdering the passengers as they struggle to extricate themselves from the vehicle, not any sort of detonation).
Also, I hope you engage with me on this one, because this is the 4th thread now where you've outright lied about HH rules surrounding vehicles.
So i wasn't just dreaming then and have seen that played out now multiple times?
Yeah, he lies about HH and then ducks any attempt at correction.
Sorry, your vehicle just suffers an immobilized result so it's only essentially destroyed. I deeply, deeeply apologize that I got the pedantry of your stupid rule wrong. But please, go ahead and explain to me why it's SOOOOOO realistic that a future tank made out out space magic can become totally immobolized on a bush or small stone.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/18 23:53:13
2020/08/19 00:03:12
Subject: Re:How are xenos armies meant to compete?
Tanks get bogged or the tracks are damaged in some way it's not hard for them to get stuck in place. It was a flawed but good way to represent just how different a tank and anything else functions. Now there's almost no real difference, in the attempt to make the game less clunky you've lost neat mechanics like that.
2020/08/19 02:16:24
Subject: Re:How are xenos armies meant to compete?
if points are so jacked with CA2020, is there really anything stopping people just not using those points and continue with those from CA2019 until Codexes come out? If GW refuses to deliver better rules for these increased points, why endorse them? Let marines play with their new points and rules in October, and Imperial forces use new weapon points for rules that change, while other armies continue with 8th points until their codexes come out. Heck, it's not like tournaments are going on right now anyway.
Of course, if Necrons suck with their new increased points, that would be rough, but what is so out of whack right now which is Xenos if you are using CA2019? Of course, this means you don't get to implement the new Blast rules on weapons unless you are willing to accept their new cost.
I totally agree with other posters, why on earth would you adjust points while expecting people to wait on their codex to receive better rules. it's pretty asinine.
2020/08/19 02:26:06
Subject: Re:How are xenos armies meant to compete?
bullyboy wrote: if points are so jacked with CA2020, is there really anything stopping people just not using those points and continue with those from CA2019 until Codexes come out? If GW refuses to deliver better rules for these increased points, why endorse them? Let marines play with their new points and rules in October, and Imperial forces use new weapon points for rules that change, while other armies continue with 8th points until their codexes come out. Heck, it's not like tournaments are going on right now anyway.
Of course, if Necrons suck with their new increased points, that would be rough, but what is so out of whack right now which is Xenos if you are using CA2019? Of course, this means you don't get to implement the new Blast rules on weapons unless you are willing to accept their new cost.
I totally agree with other posters, why on earth would you adjust points while expecting people to wait on their codex to receive better rules. it's pretty asinine.
Some things are definitely not right. Eradicators are one egregious example. But if you're going to play with people you don't know, you can't really go too far out from the standard.
2020/08/19 02:32:51
Subject: Re:How are xenos armies meant to compete?
bullyboy wrote: if points are so jacked with CA2020, is there really anything stopping people just not using those points and continue with those from CA2019 until Codexes come out? If GW refuses to deliver better rules for these increased points, why endorse them? Let marines play with their new points and rules in October, and Imperial forces use new weapon points for rules that change, while other armies continue with 8th points until their codexes come out. Heck, it's not like tournaments are going on right now anyway.
Of course, if Necrons suck with their new increased points, that would be rough, but what is so out of whack right now which is Xenos if you are using CA2019? Of course, this means you don't get to implement the new Blast rules on weapons unless you are willing to accept their new cost.
I totally agree with other posters, why on earth would you adjust points while expecting people to wait on their codex to receive better rules. it's pretty asinine.
Some things are definitely not right. Eradicators are one egregious example. But if you're going to play with people you don't know, you can't really go too far out from the standard.
well it all depends on the power level of the new marine dex in October. If it just makes the current marine meta worse, the community should simply reject the current point values. If marines get a little nerf, then we can go on as normal.
At least we know Drukhari and Ork models are incoming, hopefully with a new 'dex in tow that will give them....something.....I don't know.
Did I miss something? How do we know that?
There was a preview video in one of the "After Indomitus" articles on WHC, which showed bits of four or five models, finishing with the full reveal of the SoB Palantine. I can't remember which article, unfortunately.
However, we saw segments of a model each for, from memory, AdMech, Dark Eldar, Orks, Death Guard and SoB. As a result, we know they'll get a small release each, possibly by the end of the year (I'd normally say within 3 months or so, but this is 2020...).
I wouldn't mind this "MMs have been terrible forever, they deserve their time in the sun" - but their time in the sun is set to be crazy good compared to other 1 shot D6 damage weapons - unless they see a comparable buff. Or MMs are made really expensive to compensate.
For all we know LC could see a tweak to damage as well.
Giving lascannons the "minimum 3 damage" rule would make sense. Less pure damage potential than a multi-melta but less swingy and with greater range. Makes it more of a choice between the two.
Giving LC a minimum 3 rule would be terrible and a kick in the teeth to many xenos players no matter how well intentioned it is. Xenos have their own d6 weaponry which would benefit from such a rule but to give it to Imperial Armies but not xenos..... besides which such a change in the Tau costs them a 'relic' and to one unit only. You couldn't give all LCs the rule for nothing.
Andrew
I don't care what the flag says, I'm SCOTTISH!!!
Best definition of the word Battleship?
Mr Nobody wrote:
Does a canoe with a machine gun count?
I don't think anyone would be opposed to the same concept being applied to other weapons for other factions such as Bright Lances, but were only talking about it in the context of the MM vs LC.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Lascannons should be made reliable by the ability to have many of them and change their points to reflect that properly. Most armies can't have as many of their primary long-range tank hunting weapons as marines or guard factions can have lascannons.
If you want to reliably take out vehicles you either take a melta and get up close and personal or take a bunch of lascannons and shoot them from a distance.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
I wouldn't mind this "MMs have been terrible forever, they deserve their time in the sun" - but their time in the sun is set to be crazy good compared to other 1 shot D6 damage weapons - unless they see a comparable buff. Or MMs are made really expensive to compensate.
For all we know LC could see a tweak to damage as well.
Giving lascannons the "minimum 3 damage" rule would make sense. Less pure damage potential than a multi-melta but less swingy and with greater range. Makes it more of a choice between the two.
Giving LC a minimum 3 rule would be terrible and a kick in the teeth to many xenos players no matter how well intentioned it is. Xenos have their own d6 weaponry which would benefit from such a rule but to give it to Imperial Armies but not xenos..... besides which such a change in the Tau costs them a 'relic' and to one unit only. You couldn't give all LCs the rule for nothing.
Andrew
So ,apply the rule to Xenos equivalents of lascannons too, like Vaktathi said. And if you think I want that rule for Imperial armies, you obviously don't know who you're talking to.
They could just give lascannons, fusion blasters, lances, and so on have two shots or minimum 3 damage or whatever - but then you have the issue of significantly improving lethality in an already very lethal game.
I guess we'll just see - but I think a future coming to us soon is wall to wall complaining as MMs make all vehicles/monsters essentially non-viable in a meta sense, because the odds of them dying straight off is just too high.
Increasing damage for anti tank weapons could be ok IF vehicles and monsters also go up in wounds. This way mid strenght low AP weapons would be good only in dealing with infantries, giving proper anti tank weapons the role they should have. Meltas or lascannons are already effective against monsters and vehicles, it's weapons with S5/6 AP-1/-2 Damage2 that are too effective against the same targets and compete with anti tank weapons despite being designed for a different role.
One shotting vehicles was a silly mechanic of older editions, and I'm glad it's no more possible. In fact I'd like vehicles to be even a bit more resilient that how they are now.
