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.

It was a 10 man tactical squad and I said hits, not shots (given that BS is the same regardless of target).

Vs a predator: 99 hits is 33 wounds and 11 past saves.

Vs 10 man tactical squad: 120 hits is 60 wounds is 20 past saves.

If I am interested in killing units (rather than points efficiency) with my small arms, the better choice is to shoot them at tanks. That's fething hilarious.

This was a solved problem in 40k in 1999.

If you are interested in winning the game, you would bring less bolters and more weapons that kill things faster. You'd also kill the ObSec Tac Marines to keep them from scoring the primary objective rather than worry about the Predator.

Everything in the game isn't about what is the most efficient kill. It's about what it the most important kill.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Let's not try and compare a bolter to 5.56 or any other useless "real life" comparison people want to make.

Why shouldn't the game have some grounding in the effects of real weapons? Or, why shouldn't the effectiveness against targets be more variable by target type?

Lasguns are equivalent to Autoguns, which are equivalent to modern assault rifles, which are not shot at tanks because they're really ineffective against them, and you'd be wasting ammunition. But in the game those lasgun shots can actually do meaningful damage.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

If you think bolters are more effective then by all means go all bolters and let us know how it works out. Just don't stand there and tell us you're making a fair comparison when you put up a single gun against a whole squad.

I'll make it easy to see how kind of bs that is.

10 tacs v 9 tacs with 1 lc.

20 * .666 * .333 * .5 = 2.2

16 * .666 * .333 * .5 = 1.8
1 * .666 * .666 * .833 * 3.5 = 1.3

Oh I'm aware that the Lascannon is valuable. But in your example 9-man squad the Bolters wind up averaging more damage than the Lascannon, absolutely illustrating my point.

The game isn't even grounded in reality for mechanics. You really want to choose to die on the hill that Bolters harming Predators isn't realistic? We have Infantry that can move faster than vehicles and armies that do everything they want to before the opposing army responds, and your problem is Bolters harming vehicles?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Let's not try and compare a bolter to 5.56 or any other useless "real life" comparison people want to make.

Why shouldn't the game have some grounding in the effects of real weapons? Or, why shouldn't the effectiveness against targets be more variable by target type?

Lasguns are equivalent to Autoguns, which are equivalent to modern assault rifles, which are not shot at tanks because they're really ineffective against them, and you'd be wasting ammunition. But in the game those lasgun shots can actually do meaningful damage.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

If you think bolters are more effective then by all means go all bolters and let us know how it works out. Just don't stand there and tell us you're making a fair comparison when you put up a single gun against a whole squad.

I'll make it easy to see how kind of bs that is.

10 tacs v 9 tacs with 1 lc.

20 * .666 * .333 * .5 = 2.2

16 * .666 * .333 * .5 = 1.8
1 * .666 * .666 * .833 * 3.5 = 1.3

Oh I'm aware that the Lascannon is valuable. But in your example 9-man squad the Bolters wind up averaging more damage than the Lascannon, absolutely illustrating my point.

The game isn't even grounded in reality for mechanics. You really want to choose to die on the hill that Bolters harming Predators isn't realistic? We have Infantry that can move faster than vehicles and armies that do everything they want to before the opposing army responds, and your problem is Bolters harming vehicles?

What hill am I dying on? The hill where not every weapon should be able to hurt every target? The game functioned quite nicely for 30 years with common anti-infantry weapons often being completely unable to damage most vehicles.

But go ahead and argue for grinding health bars down if you want.

It was stupid that some weapons just couldn't harm some units. It was neither realistic nor balanced.

A lasgun hurting a vehicle once every 36 hits is not a problem.

It's terrible for game balance when certain units just can't harm other units at all. Invincible units are neither fun to play nor play against. It rewards skew too much and shifts even more of the game to list-building rather than actually playing. Nobody enjoys a game where you reveal lists and discover your opponent has hard counters to your stuff and the game is essentially over before it starts.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It was stupid that some weapons just couldn't harm some units. It was neither realistic . .

Source?

 Insectum7 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It was stupid that some weapons just couldn't harm some units. It was neither realistic . .

Source?

The source is we don't have Lasguns or Bolters and this is a game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It was stupid that some weapons just couldn't harm some units. It was neither realistic . .

Source?

The source is we don't have Lasguns or Bolters and this is a game.

We have fists, knives and handguns. Handguns are equivalent to stub guns or autopistols. Assault rifles are Autoguns, which are equivalent to Lasguns. We have shotguns, so does the game. What are you going to do with your handgun/shotgun/assault rifle to an Abrams at 20 yards?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Let's not try and compare a bolter to 5.56 or any other useless "real life" comparison people want to make.

Why shouldn't the game have some grounding in the effects of real weapons? Or, why shouldn't the effectiveness against targets be more variable by target type?

Lasguns are equivalent to Autoguns, which are equivalent to modern assault rifles, which are not shot at tanks because they're really ineffective against them, and you'd be wasting ammunition. But in the game those lasgun shots can actually do meaningful damage.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

If you think bolters are more effective then by all means go all bolters and let us know how it works out. Just don't stand there and tell us you're making a fair comparison when you put up a single gun against a whole squad.

I'll make it easy to see how kind of bs that is.

10 tacs v 9 tacs with 1 lc.

20 * .666 * .333 * .5 = 2.2

16 * .666 * .333 * .5 = 1.8
1 * .666 * .666 * .833 * 3.5 = 1.3

Oh I'm aware that the Lascannon is valuable. But in your example 9-man squad the Bolters wind up averaging more damage than the Lascannon, absolutely illustrating my point.

The game isn't even grounded in reality for mechanics. You really want to choose to die on the hill that Bolters harming Predators isn't realistic? We have Infantry that can move faster than vehicles and armies that do everything they want to before the opposing army responds, and your problem is Bolters harming vehicles?

What hill am I dying on? The hill where not every weapon should be able to hurt every target? The game functioned quite nicely for 30 years with common anti-infantry weapons often being completely unable to damage most vehicles.

But go ahead and argue for grinding health bars down if you want.

The game functioned? LOL good one. You mean the game where if you managed to get 10 guys next to a tank all ten of them would use grenades and not suffer any harm from it? Because THAT was somehow realistic? The game where you could already infinitely glance a vehicle to death outside one edition and where hitting AV10 in the rear with Bolters was already easy to begin with? Where you argue grinding health bars are bad but the damage table before was already very all or nothing?

The hill you're choosing to die on is a pretty bad one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It was stupid that some weapons just couldn't harm some units. It was neither realistic . .

Source?

The source is we don't have Lasguns or Bolters and this is a game.

We have fists, knives and handguns. Handguns are equivalent to stub guns or autopistols. Assault rifles are Autoguns, which are equivalent to Lasguns. We have shotguns, so does the game. What are you going to do with your handgun/shotgun/assault rifle to an Abrams at 20 yards?

Yeah and it was already possible to punch a tank to death, so your point is?

yukishiro1 wrote:
A lasgun hurting a vehicle once every 36 hits is not a problem.

1 in 18 hits, actually.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's terrible for game balance when certain units just can't harm other units at all. Invincible units are neither fun to play nor play against. It rewards skew too much and shifts even more of the game to list-building rather than actually playing. Nobody enjoys a game where you reveal lists and discover your opponent has hard counters to your stuff and the game is essentially over before it starts.

Conversely, diluting the specialization of weaponry makes for a more bland game, devalues the strategy involved in deploying the right weapon for the right purpose, and makes it much easier to min-max. Case in point, mid-S high-volume weapons like Disintegrators rule for anti-tank, because you don't actually need a high-strength high-AP shot to threaten armor, so a higher volume of weaker shots works better.

Given that the entire point of skew is to min-max into certain unit composition to minimize the amount of viable weaponry that can be used against it, as long as skew has no downsides the only way to beat skew through weapon design is to homogenize weapons entirely. In any well-designed system, there's no problem with skew lists being resistant to a good chunk of the enemy's weapons so long as there are commensurate penalties associated with it.

We see this already with Knights: Most low-strength weaponry is nigh-worthless against them. It would change very little if Knights were made outright immune to lasguns. However, in 9th, their inability to hold objectives is a huge downside. You don't want to skew into all-Knights, because all-Knights doesn't have the tools you need to win.

The right way to beat skew isn't to genericize weapons so that there's less difference between anti-infantry and anti-tank, it's to provide associated strengths and weaknesses that make skew intrinsically weaker than combined-arms.

@Slayer
Guardsmen with Strength 3 could not punch a tank to death.

Understanding that the game has some abstractions, the idea that a squad could assault a vehicle with Grenades, plant the grenades in weak points, and dive for cover before detonating the bombs, makes perfect sense.

But you're avoiding the question. What are you going to do to a tank at 20 yards with an Assault Rifle, Shotgun or Handgun?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The game functioned? LOL good one. You mean the game where if you managed to get 10 guys next to a tank all ten of them would use grenades and not suffer any harm from it? Because THAT was somehow realistic? The game where you could already infinitely glance a vehicle to death outside one edition and where hitting AV10 in the rear with Bolters was already easy to begin with? Where you argue grinding health bars are bad but the damage table before was already very all or nothing?

The hill you're choosing to die on is a pretty bad one.

Model contact representing 'close combat' rather than assuming they are literally standing with their noses touching the hull is a reasonable abstraction. Giving explosive rocket rifles the ability to (possibly) inflict light damage when firing on the weakest points of the lightest vehicles seems reasonable. All-or-nothing tank destruction is far closer to how AFVs work in the real world (armor penetration generally means a mission kill, even if not a hard-kill) than a slowly degrading health bar.

I mean, there were some real issues with how vehicles were implemented in prior editions, but it's weird that you've chosen a list of total non-issues as gotchas.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yeah and it was already possible to punch a tank to death, so your point is?

In what edition prior to 8th could S3 Guardsmen punch a AV10+ vehicle to death?

All or nothing may be realistic, but it wasn't good system.

There is a reason most games have health bar mechanics rather than all or nothing health mechanics.

 Insectum7 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It was stupid that some weapons just couldn't harm some units. It was neither realistic . .

Source?

Everything has weaknesses. Maybe you shoot off an antenna? The shot hits between the slats of the tread and stops it? Happens to go right through a view portal? Hits a spot that's already been weakened? All these things become more likely the closer the person firing is, which isn't represented in GW's ruleset; according to GW, a lasgun fired from point blank range is just as dangerous as one fired at 24".

The game abstracts all these factors with a wounds characteristic and a strength characteristic. But if you're talking about reality it is simply wrong to say that small arms fire can't damage tanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
A lasgun hurting a vehicle once every 36 hits is not a problem.

1 in 18 hits, actually.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's terrible for game balance when certain units just can't harm other units at all. Invincible units are neither fun to play nor play against. It rewards skew too much and shifts even more of the game to list-building rather than actually playing. Nobody enjoys a game where you reveal lists and discover your opponent has hard counters to your stuff and the game is essentially over before it starts.

Conversely, diluting the specialization of weaponry makes for a more bland game, devalues the strategy involved in deploying the right weapon for the right purpose, and makes it much easier to min-max. Case in point, mid-S high-volume weapons like Disintegrators rule for anti-tank, because you don't actually need a high-strength high-AP shot to threaten armor, so a higher volume of weaker shots works better.

Given that the entire point of skew is to min-max into certain unit composition to minimize the amount of viable weaponry that can be used against it, as long as skew has no downsides the only way to beat skew through weapon design is to homogenize weapons entirely. In any well-designed system, there's no problem with skew lists being resistant to a good chunk of the enemy's weapons so long as there are commensurate penalties associated with it.

We see this already with Knights: Most low-strength weaponry is nigh-worthless against them. It would change very little if Knights were made outright immune to lasguns. However, in 9th, their inability to hold objectives is a huge downside. You don't want to skew into all-Knights, because all-Knights doesn't have the tools you need to win.

The right way to beat skew isn't to genericize weapons so that there's less difference between anti-infantry and anti-tank, it's to provide associated strengths and weaknesses that make skew intrinsically weaker than combined-arms.

If someone is shooting lasguns at your tank you're winning. There's already enough differentiation there. There's no need to make the tank completely immune.

As you noted, the problem is not with lasguns, it's with mid-strength, mid-AP, high volume weapons coming out as good or better than low volume high S high AP weapons. Making a tank immune to lasguns isn't going to change the fact that disintegrators are better than dark lances.

Even then it is because disintegrators synergize better with other buffs and because the disintegrator is more flexible.

 Tyran wrote:
All or nothing may be realistic, but it wasn't good system.

There is a reason most games have health bar mechanics rather than all or nothing health mechanics.

Disagree, the Armor system was a fine system. It's just designed to be less predictable, and some people are more comfortable with predictable, while other people prefer mechanics that provide harder delineation between weapons/armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It was stupid that some weapons just couldn't harm some units. It was neither realistic . .

Source?

Everything has weaknesses. Maybe you shoot off an antenna? The shot hits between the slats of the tread and stops it? Happens to go right through a view portal? Hits a spot that's already been weakened? All these things become more likely the closer the person firing is, which isn't represented in GW's ruleset; according to GW, a lasgun fired from point blank range is just as dangerous as one fired at 24".

The game abstracts all these factors with a wounds characteristic and a strength characteristic. But if you're talking about reality it is simply wrong to say that small arms fire can't damage tanks.

Do professional soldiers spend clips of ammunition firing at MBTs with their battle rifles?

Because I do it all the time in the game. Why? Because it's waaay more effective than it should be.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
All or nothing may be realistic, but it wasn't good system.

There is a reason most games have health bar mechanics rather than all or nothing health mechanics.

Disagree, the Armor system was a fine system. It's just designed to be less predictable, and some people are more comfortable with predictable, while other people prefer mechanics that provide harder delineation between weapons/armor.

The armor system was crap because it made vehicles into an entirely different game and was specially glaring when compared to monsters.

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
All or nothing may be realistic, but it wasn't good system.

There is a reason most games have health bar mechanics rather than all or nothing health mechanics.

Disagree, the Armor system was a fine system. It's just designed to be less predictable, and some people are more comfortable with predictable, while other people prefer mechanics that provide harder delineation between weapons/armor.

The armor system was crap because it made vehicles into an entirely different game and was specially glaring when compared to monsters.

The vehicle system looked like it had issues because Monsters became problematic, you mean.

AT firepower was required to engage high Armor targets. Makes perfect sense.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It was stupid that some weapons just couldn't harm some units. It was neither realistic nor balanced.

A lasgun hurting a vehicle once every 36 hits is not a problem.

It's terrible for game balance when certain units just can't harm other units at all. Invincible units are neither fun to play nor play against. It rewards skew too much and shifts even more of the game to list-building rather than actually playing. Nobody enjoys a game where you reveal lists and discover your opponent has hard counters to your stuff and the game is essentially over before it starts.

Some units not being able to harm others is fine for balance. Problems arise when the game provides no ways to interact with enemy models other than shooting or punching them.

It is not a balance problem. It is a design problem.

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
All or nothing may be realistic, but it wasn't good system.

There is a reason most games have health bar mechanics rather than all or nothing health mechanics.

Disagree, the Armor system was a fine system. It's just designed to be less predictable, and some people are more comfortable with predictable, while other people prefer mechanics that provide harder delineation between weapons/armor.

The armor system was crap because it made vehicles into an entirely different game and was specially glaring when compared to monsters.

I think the writing was on the wall for armour values when the riptide came out and they made it a monster because the vehicle rules would have made it non-viable as a walker... (the wraithknight too, but IIRC that was later and at least it had the wraithlord as a sort of precedent)

Lord Zarkov wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
All or nothing may be realistic, but it wasn't good system.

There is a reason most games have health bar mechanics rather than all or nothing health mechanics.

Disagree, the Armor system was a fine system. It's just designed to be less predictable, and some people are more comfortable with predictable, while other people prefer mechanics that provide harder delineation between weapons/armor.

The armor system was crap because it made vehicles into an entirely different game and was specially glaring when compared to monsters.

I think the writing was on the wall for armour values when the riptide came out and they made it a monster because the vehicle rules would have made it non-viable as a walker... (the wraithknight too, but IIRC that was later and at least it had the wraithlord as a sort of precedent)

Right, but the problem wasn't with the Vehicle rules, the problems were on the Monster rules.

Monsters could only take a single Wound from even weapons like Lascannons.
Monsters could get a 4++ for even just touching cover.

And that's not even touching giving the Riptide the ability to have a 3++

Ultimately for me if you were going to resurrect old-style armor values with facings, you'd have to do 2nd ed style damage results (although not quite as convoluted).

The big issue (for me, anyway) with the old damage table was that it didn't scale linearly at all. It was fine for a light vehicle hit with a lascannon to explode in a one-shot Kaboom, but pretty universally unsatisfying to have that happen to a land raider, leman russ or monolith. Pretty silly and immersion-breaking too - not every vehicle used by every faction in the game has like, a critical central fuel source that if you hit it the whole thing goes kablooey, that's kind of a holdover from historical WW2 games where tanks in the 1940s worked like that.

Similiarly, not every vehicle had "crew" - hence the whole Wraithknight thing.

You'd have to create a "damage results" table for each vehicle - or at least, create a few template ones and apply them to various vehicles as a general rule - and make them less devastating the heavier and beefier the vehicle/monster is meant to be.

That'd be way cooler to me than just having a boring old hit point bar even with a degrading profile. But I'm more of a simulationist wargamer at heart.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
All or nothing may be realistic, but it wasn't good system.

There is a reason most games have health bar mechanics rather than all or nothing health mechanics.

Disagree, the Armor system was a fine system. It's just designed to be less predictable, and some people are more comfortable with predictable, while other people prefer mechanics that provide harder delineation between weapons/armor.

The armor system was crap because it made vehicles into an entirely different game and was specially glaring when compared to monsters.

The vehicle system looked like it had issues because Monsters became problematic, you mean.

AT firepower was required to engage high Armor targets. Makes perfect sense.

And monster don't have high armor? Why should they get a different system?

Or Terminators, they also have high armor.

It never made any sense, you cannot have a game in which almost everyone uses one system, and then somehow mount a completely different system on it.

^I'd be all for modifying it a bit to handle larger vehicles better. Ditto on a simpler version of the 2nd Ed style.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

And monster don't have high armor? Why should they get a different system?

Or Terminators, they also have high armor.

It never made any sense, you cannot have a game in which almost everyone uses one system, and then somehow mount a completely different system on it.

Shoot your friend and then shoot your car. See if they react any differently.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^I'd be all for modifying it a bit to handle larger vehicles better. Ditto on a simpler version of the 2nd Ed style.

I would also like to see a lot more simulationist elements return to 40k. If I had my way, the game would still have scatter shot weaponry that could accidentally hit your own men, much more involved morale and command rules, and more abstracted line of sight and terrain rules to reflect things that aren't possible to be physically on the board, like models posed jumping off a rock doing a spin-kick not always having to be 10 feet off the ground and instead they could maybe be hiding behind something.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^I'd be all for modifying it a bit to handle larger vehicles better. Ditto on a simpler version of the 2nd Ed style.

Shoot your friend and then shoot your car. See if they react any differently.

Both stopped "working", that is pretty much the same outcome.

 Tyran wrote:

The armor system was crap because it made vehicles into an entirely different game and was specially glaring when compared to monsters.

That's a little harsh, I think.

The system certainly had it's issues, but I don't actually think it was much of an issue until late-5th or the beginning of 6th onwards.

In general, I think most races had enough ways to take on vehicles (with one or two exceptions - looking at you, Dark Eldar). However, IMO there were two major issues that developed over the last few editions prior to 8th:

1) Misuse of the 'Monster' type. Until late 5th, Monsters were generally decent but in no way overwhelming. They typically had 4 wounds at most, and generally had either a 3+ armour save or a 5+ invulnerable. Almost never did a monster get both. What's more, while some did have ranged attacks, they tended to be primarily melee-beasts, and so had to get within optimal range for plasma and meltaguns in order to be effective. Even the new, shiny Tyranid
beasts that the 5th edition codex brought were still just 6 wounds with 3+ armour and no invulnerable saves.

But then came Tau and GKs. Suddenly, you had """monsters""" rocking 2+ armour saves and invulnerable saves as well. Suddenly you had monsters with incredible mid-long range firepower, which easily out-ranged the melta and plasma that would normally be effective against them. This was clearly done just to sell the new models by giving them the 'stronger' type, as both were quite obviously vehicles and should have been classified as such. But sadly all restraint went out of the window and the problem only got worse after that.

2) Knights. Knights changed everything because suddenly you could have an entire army that was outright immune to anything below S7. Lasguns? Useless. Bolters? Useless. Heavy Bolters? Useless. Poison? Useless. Even stuff like Multilasters, Scatter Lasers and Disintegrators were largely or completely ineffective. This was a key change because in the past small-arms always had something to shoot at, even if you had to pop open a transport to get at it. Now you could face armies where your small and even mid-strength arms were literally worthless. This was also a situation that didn't need to exist, but GW were determined to turn 40k into Mechwarrior. And even with the change of system, the stench of Imperial Knights still hangs over the game, as their mere existence pressures armies towards cramming in as much anti-tank as possible.

 Denegaar wrote:
I like special rules because they make the armies more akin to the lore and different to the others, but I agree that nowadays some armies have a lot of them and it should be arranged.

I like the way GW is taking, but I don't like that this enormous change is made army by army, for me, that only play one Xenos army, 9th edition is not here yet and is not going to be until I get my codex. My hype has fallen down.

I think in a perfect world, the character and uniqueness of a unit would be expressed through it's stats rather than extra special rules. Admittedly that's very difficult with the current stat model!

What I dislike about special rules is the creation of artificial synergy, for example there is nothing synergistic between Archons and Ravagers apart from a rule saying that one gets better with the other standing next to it.

I prefer when synergys arise naturally out of the unit roles, for example if Gargoyles presented a deadly threat to isolated enemy units, that encourages the enemy to group up to cover each other. The enemy then present a juicy target for Warriors with barbed stranglers.

If GW are revamping unit stats, then I they've got an oppotunity to create some cool natural synergies with that.

 vipoid wrote:

1) Misuse of the 'Monster' type. Until late 5th, Monsters were generally decent but in no way overwhelming. They typically had 4 wounds at most, and generally had either a 3+ armour save or a 5+ invulnerable. Almost never did a monster get both. What's more, while some did have ranged attacks, they tended to be primarily melee-beasts, and so had to get within optimal range for plasma and meltaguns in order to be effective. Even the new, shiny Tyranid beasts that the 5th edition codex brought were still just 6 wounds with 3+ armour and no invulnerable saves.

Monsters were generally crap, with GK and Tau being the exception by being broken.

Use spoiler tags for massive quotes please
The biggest issue I've found with the current rules, specifically the wounding chart is, Toughness values are way too low.

Getting +1 to wound and reroll wounds means you can have Agressors with their insane output, stacked with +1 to wound and rerolls are better vrs T7 than anti tank weapons.

Same with VotLW all these +1 to wound melarky just devalued T stats way too much, it wouldn't be half the issue it currently is if vehicals started at T10.