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.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I never said anything about orks, who actually have a ton of S8 now. Are you confusing me with someone else?

If you never said anything about Orks, then what on earth was this supposed to mean?

Luke_Prowler wrote:Orks vs Imperial Knights, 7th edition. There was nothing more aggravating, tedious , or hopeless in 40k-dome than playing a game where the models in your army that could deal with the enemy could be counted on one hand.

Gadzilla666 wrote:The problem there isn't with the old wounding chart but with gw creation an entire faction of super heavy vehicles and not giving all other factions the tools necessary to deal with them. Pure knights armies are automatically a skew list, if gw insists on making them a viable faction then they should make sure other factions have weapons that can interact with them and make those more accessible.

yukishiro1 wrote:Like, maybe, changing the wound chart so that everything has a theoretical change to hurt everything else, no matter how slim, with the side effect that mid-range weapons become more of a threat to heavily armored targets as well?

Did you not mean that changing the wound chart helped by giving Orks the tools needed to deal with Knights...?

yukishiro1 wrote:
Why would whether I've played WW2 historical games

I'll take that refusal to answer as a 'no', which explains a lot about where you're coming from.

This isn't a snipe, this is trying to get at the heart of why you keep repeating weird statements about weapon/target specialization somehow meaning games are decided in listbuilding, that it means people deserve to 'get rolled', that it inevitably leads to 'feels bad'.

Because there are plenty of games out there where you actually need anti-tank weapons to take on tanks, and the guy who loads up on Panthers and Tigers is the guy who loses. You've already got a taste of this in 9th, with all-Knights lists being a pain in the ass to kill but trivially easy to beat on objectives.

A decent game has mitigating factors to reduce the impact of skew or, better yet, disincentivize it entirely. Old-40K had the FOC, but it also had other balancing elements as well. Every army had infantry that could take seriously dangerous grenades/meltabombs and viably kill tanks. Armor facings meant most vehicles were vulnerable to close assault and deep strike. Anti-tank weapons were significantly more threatening, and a single lascannon left on the board posed a serious threat to your vehicles. Target priority made focus-firing all the anti-tank weapons first much harder to do, and cover allowed infantry to become substantially durable against tank weapons. In HH, only infantry can actually score, so loading up on tanks without infantry to hold objectives is setting yourself up for a loss.

Historical wargames model armor's vulnerability in MOUT and terrain, making taking all-tanks suicide if you wind up in bocage or a city, and reinforce the concept of infantry holding ground by limiting the ability of armor to score. A Panther in a town square isn't an unassailable fortress that forces you to give up and repeat the words 'feeeels baaaad', it's a sitting duck for the squad's AT rifle grenades, the bazooka team moving up behind the buildings, the 3in gun hiding in some rubble, artillery support, air strikes, close assault with AT grenades, or ignoring entirely to go capture the objective while its transmission decides it's a day ending in 'Y' and breaks down. When you do successfully kill a tank, by using equipment you brought specifically to kill tanks, and employing effective anti-tank tactics, that is a feels good moment far beyond 'I'll just sit in cover and shoot the guns I brought anyways because anything works'.

In any remotely realistic game, tankers are fething terrified to operate without the support of infantry to scout ahead, clear out terrain, and provide close defense against enemy infantry. A skew list of all-tanks doesn't have to be explicitly prevented by the force organization system; it's inherently undesirable on a board with any sort of terrain. Core mechanics provide advantages and disadvantages to different unit types, and specialization/hard-counters means that an army of all scissors will lose to an army that's even a third rock. If the objective is in the middle of bocage, a Panzer company might as well give up before the game even starts.

The point being: The idea that the only way to prevent the game being dominated by vehicle skew lists is to ensure that anti-infantry weapons are still decently effective anti-tank is ridiculous, and anyone with experience with any of the systems that have directly addressed this problem knows this. There are so many ways to bring back specialization of weapons while simultaneously discouraging vehicle spam as a skew; with Knights we already have substantial evidence that making it difficult to score can be enough.

I've always killed vehicles with swords (Plague Bearers) or knifes (S4 vs rear armor of 10 meant wounding on 6s, the vehicle would get no Safe and usually only had 3 hull points).
So this is not a new problem. As I see it doctrines give too many weapons AP. If tanks die too easily again, give them more HP or better armor.
The other way would be Apokalypse style of changing the weapon profiles.

 Insectum7 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
And the wound chart does encourage and reward balanced TAC lists.

It's been argued that it encourages spamming mid-strength, AP1-2, multishot weapons since those weapons are reasonable against every potential target. Harder limitations encourage diversity.

Heck, I spent most of 8th edition Lauding the Grav Cannon becasue of just that reason. It's better against infantry than the Heavy Bolter, and better against vehicles than a Lascannon. So there's less reason to bring either of those, and instead just spam Grav (and Plasma).

Right...so, a TAC list.

If you want to argue that TAC lists are too easy to make with the current wound chart and that's why we should change the wound chart to make it more difficult to make a good TAC list go for it, but that's the literal opposite of the prior argument.

If Grav was actually the best against everything (I don't think it was, but we'll take your argument at face value) that's a problem with that particular weapon. It's not a problem with the wound chart making it difficult to skew in a way that makes it impossible or virtually impossible for your enemy to kill you.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Right...so, a TAC list.

You're not seriously saying that a "TAC list" = mid-strength, AP1-2, multishot weapons that are spammed as much as possible?

You should need anti-tank weapons to deal with tanks. Period.

The fact of the matter is that right now the To Wound chart makes that unnecessary.

 catbarf wrote:


The point being: The idea that the only way to prevent the game being dominated by vehicle skew lists is to ensure that anti-infantry weapons are still decently effective anti-tank is ridiculous, and anyone with experience with any of the systems that have directly addressed this problem knows this. There are so many ways to bring back specialization of weapons while simultaneously discouraging vehicle spam as a skew; with Knights we already have substantial evidence that making it difficult to score can be enough.

Please stop wasting everyone's time with stupid straw men; it's a lazy and totally pointless way to argue. I did not say the only way to stop the game being dominated by vehicles was to allow anti-infantry weapons to be able to hurt tanks. I never said anything like that.

What I did say was that the "new" (it's years old now) wound chart does a good job of limiting the impact of skew, particularly at the list-building stage, and I do not want to go back to a game where models are completely immune to fire from other models. I don't care how WW2 games handle it, because 40k isn't a WW2 game and it doesn't offer the options those games do. A vehicle is really just a big tough dude in 40k, and changing the wounding chart isn't going to change that except to make it an even bigger, even tougher dude.

If you want to roll back the clock and go back to AV on tanks and have damage tables again and give infantry other ways to interact with tanks short of shooting them, go ahead and make your pitch to GW, but I don't think you're going to have any luck. But going back to the old wound chart alone is an even bigger non-starter; it addresses none of the issues with the relationship between infantry and vehicles. Perhaps more importantly, it is absolutely not going to happen. We can continue arguing back and forth about whether it should or not, but I think we just disagree about some very fundamental things about the game, and since it's never going to happen anyway, I don't see much point.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

The fact of the matter is that right now the To Wound chart makes that unnecessary.

So Eradicators aren't needed? Excellent!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Right...so, a TAC list.

You're not seriously saying that a "TAC list" = mid-strength, AP1-2, multishot weapons that are spammed as much as possible?

You should need anti-tank weapons to deal with tanks. Period.

The fact of the matter is that right now the To Wound chart makes that unnecessary.

Um, that quite literally is a TAC list under the current game mechanics. I mean you'd obviously want to include a little more than that - some infantry-focused stuff and some AT as well - but that's very much the core of a current TAC list. You obviously don't think it should be a TAC list, but it very much is.

You can declare what you "should" need till you're blue in the face; I can declare the opposite too, but we're not going to get anywhere, and FWIW GW seems to agree with me.

Now I am sympathetic to the argument that right now mid-S, mid-AP, mid-damage high rate of fire weapons are more effective than they should be. And I think that is something you might see changed. Those weapons may be too efficient compared to AT right now, and addressing that efficiency makes sense.

But the wound chart is an absolute non-starter. You're wasting your time advocating it; quite apart from the fact that I think it would be a massive mistake, GW is simply not going to do it. 9th just came out. It's not even physically possible for it to happen until 10th, and you can take it to the bank that it won't then, either. So it's not a solution that you have any chance of getting .It'd be better to focus on more realistic things like efficiency than vainly tilting at the windmill of a game where vehicles are totally immune to small arms fire and virtually immune to mid-S stuff.

The reason you should want to shoot anti-tank at vehicles is because it's the most efficient way to kill them, not because it's the only way.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
And the wound chart does encourage and reward balanced TAC lists.

It's been argued that it encourages spamming mid-strength, AP1-2, multishot weapons since those weapons are reasonable against every potential target. Harder limitations encourage diversity.

Heck, I spent most of 8th edition Lauding the Grav Cannon becasue of just that reason. It's better against infantry than the Heavy Bolter, and better against vehicles than a Lascannon. So there's less reason to bring either of those, and instead just spam Grav (and Plasma).

Right...so, a TAC list.

Or a skew/spam list, depending on your definition. It was possible for me to just spam Plasma and be plenty effective, but that's not necessarily the way you want the game to manifest either.

In my eyes, a TAC list has a diversity of unit and weapons types that synergizes well. A manifestation of combined-arms.

Spamming plasma is skew, imo.

If you want to define "take all comers" as something other than "can take all comers" go for it I guess. Seems weird to me - why not just call it something else if that's what you mean - but fighting over definitions is silly.

P.S. Plasma is S7/S8 and high AP, so if even plasma is on your list of stuff that shouldn't be able to threaten tanks because it's not "real" anti-tank, I have no idea how the wound chart is going to help with that one way or another?

Plasma is the literal definition of a TAC weapon. The problem with it, if there is one, is that it doesn't pay enough of a penalty for being good at everything. But the wound chart would do absolutely nothing to fix this - in fact it would just make plasma even more of a TAC choice - so I really don't see where you're going with that one.

yukishiro1 wrote:
If you want to define "take all comers" as something other than "can take all comers" go for it I guess. Seems weird to me - why not just call it something else if that's what you mean - but fighting over definitions is silly.

P.S. Plasma is S7/S8 and high AP, so if even plasma is on your list of stuff that shouldn't be able to threaten tanks because it's not "real" anti-tank, I have no idea how the wound chart is going to help with that one way or another?

Plasma is the literal definition of a TAC weapon. The problem with it, if there is one, is that it doesn't pay enough of a penalty for being good at everything. But the wound chart would do absolutely nothing to fix this - in fact it would just make plasma even more of a TAC choice - so I really don't see where you're going with that one.

I'm going to ignore your definitions of TAC, and instead ask you what types of armies and weapons you would want to see. Do you want to see certain types of weapons spammed and used against everything? Or do you want to see a diverse array of weapons and units that are used against different types of targets?

You seem to argue against skew, but weapons skew is also a thing.

It wasn't my definition of TAC, it was yours. I assumed that TAC meant TAC - you know, what it actually says. You want to instead mean something like "balanced army with lots of different types of stuff." Which is fine, it just seems weird to call it TAC when that's not what you mean.

If you want to ignore what I'm writing that's up to you I guess, but it seems like a waste of both of our time?

I already said above what I want. I want a game where the reason you take one type of weapon over another is because it does the task most efficiently, not because it's the only way to accomplish that task. Dedicated anti-tank should be worth taking because it is the best way to kill a tank, not because it's the only way.

The funny thing is I'm the one here arguing for choice - if you want to take AT and be more efficient you can do that, if you want to take mid-S weapons instead and still be able to kill tanks but less efficiently in return for being able to better threaten non-tanks too, you should be able to do that and shouldn't just automatically lose if you come up against a tank list because of it. Y'all are the ones arguing against list choice it by saying no, you should absolutely have to take significant numbers of hard, specialized AT weapons in every list you make or else "get rolled," but somehow I'm getting painted as the one who wants everybody to take the same thing and is against list diversity, when your prescription for the game would result in less diversity than mine. My version of the game makes multiple approaches viable; yours forces everybody to to build in more restricted ways if they don't want to auto-lose games based on skew.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It wasn't my definition of TAC, it was yours. I assumed that TAC meant TAC - you know, what it actually says. You want to instead mean something like "balanced army with lots of different types of stuff." Which is fine, it just seems weird to call it TAC when that's not what you mean.

If you want to ignore what I'm writing that's up to you I guess, but it seems like a waste of both of our time?

I already said above what I want. I want a game where the reason you take one type of weapon over another is because it does the task most efficiently, not because it's the only way to accomplish that task. Dedicated anti-tank should be worth taking because it is the best way to kill a tank, not because it's the only way.

"But not the only way" doesn't mean assault rifles have to be capable of damaging tanks.

For example, in some older editions infantry always hit the rear armor of vehicles, and each infantry model could use a grenade. Frag grenades counted as S4, so even Guardsmen with Frag Grenades could run up on a vehicle, plant Frags in vital areas, and damage/take out the vehicles.

To me, that's WAAYY better than assault rifles being capable of meaningfully hurting a tank.

yukishiro1 wrote:
You want to instead mean something like "balanced army with lots of different types of stuff."

That's exactly what a "Take All Comers" list means. How could you possibly think it has any other meaning?

 Insectum7 wrote:
"But not the only way" doesn't mean assault rifles have to be capable of damaging tanks.

For example, in some older editions infantry always hit the rear armor of vehicles, and each infantry model could use a grenade. Frag grenades counted as S4, so even Guardsmen with Frag Grenades could run up on a vehicle, plant Frags in vital areas, and damage/take out the vehicles.

To me, that's WAAYY better than assault rifles being capable of meaningfully hurting a tank.

Like I said, if you want to go back to AV, make your pitch to GW. I think you'll get absolutely nowhere, but go for it if you want.

Going back to the old wound charge wouldn't accomplish what you say you want to accomplish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
You want to instead mean something like "balanced army with lots of different types of stuff."

That's exactly what a "Take All Comers" list means. How could you possibly think it has any other meaning?

What exactly do you think the words Take All Comers mean? If you want to define TAC as not TAC but instead "having a bunch of different types of unit types and weapons" go for it, but that's not what the phrase means. The phrase means what it says on the tin: a list with the ability to perform well against a variety of armies you encounter. The phrase says nothing about the composition of your own army except it's ability to handle various army types you face.

A list that can handle a lot of different types of lists through taking weaponry that performs well against a wide range of targets is literally a TAC list: it can take all comers. If you want to say that TAC doens't mean TAC and instead means something else go for it...but wouldn't it make more sense just to change the term you're using so you don't have to explain to everybody that even though you're saying TAC you actually mean something totally different?

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
"But not the only way" doesn't mean assault rifles have to be capable of damaging tanks.

For example, in some older editions infantry always hit the rear armor of vehicles, and each infantry model could use a grenade. Frag grenades counted as S4, so even Guardsmen with Frag Grenades could run up on a vehicle, plant Frags in vital areas, and damage/take out the vehicles.

To me, that's WAAYY better than assault rifles being capable of meaningfully hurting a tank.

Like I said, if you want to go back to AV, make your pitch to GW. I think you'll get absolutely nowhere, but go for it if you want.

Going back to the old wound charge wouldn't accomplish what you say you want to accomplish.

Ok, so you're just ducking out of the conversation then. K thx bye!

I'm not ducking out of anything, I'm literally quoting what you wrote and responding to it. You said it was better back when we had AV so infantry could hurt vehicles what way. Going back to the old wound chart wouldn't allow infantry to hurt vehicles that way because, well, you wouldn't have AV, which was the basis of what you said. It was a completely logical and on-topic response, as far from "ducking" as you could get. And I'm not the one who said he was ignoring what the other person said, btw.

But if you don't want to talk that's certainly up to you. If you're not having a good time talking, you shouldn't talk.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I'm not ducking out of anything, I'm literally quoting what you wrote and responding to it. You said it was better back when we had AV so infantry could hurt vehicles what way. Going back to the old wound chart wouldn't allow infantry to hurt vehicles that way because, well, you wouldn't AV, which was the basis of what you said. It was a completely logical and on-topic response, as far from "ducking" as you could get. And I'm not the one who said he was ignoring what the other person said, btw.

But if you don't want to talk that's certainly up to you. If you're not having a good time talking, you shouldn't talk.

If you're not ducking anything then answer my question: do you like the fact that you can efficiently take down heavy armour with mid-strength mid-AP weapons? If gw started introducing rules that mitigated that issue would you be ok with it? Something like letting vehicles reduce the AP of weapons? Better armour saves? You could still wound anything on 6s but those wounds would be more easily saved against. Or do you prefer big expensive units be "more bad than good"? Would it bother you if you actually needed to include anti-tank weapons in a list?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Right...so, a TAC list.

You're not seriously saying that a "TAC list" = mid-strength, AP1-2, multishot weapons that are spammed as much as possible?

You should need anti-tank weapons to deal with tanks. Period.

The fact of the matter is that right now the To Wound chart makes that unnecessary.

The wounding chart sucks but let's not pretend people were using antitank weapons all the time. Mathematically they did so little that glancing them to death or immobilizing them was just easier. Plus there were unkillable Skimmers in 4th and unkillable Rhinos in 5th (for the price anyway).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It wasn't my definition of TAC, it was yours. I assumed that TAC meant TAC - you know, what it actually says. You want to instead mean something like "balanced army with lots of different types of stuff." Which is fine, it just seems weird to call it TAC when that's not what you mean.

If you want to ignore what I'm writing that's up to you I guess, but it seems like a waste of both of our time?

I already said above what I want. I want a game where the reason you take one type of weapon over another is because it does the task most efficiently, not because it's the only way to accomplish that task. Dedicated anti-tank should be worth taking because it is the best way to kill a tank, not because it's the only way.

"But not the only way" doesn't mean assault rifles have to be capable of damaging tanks.

For example, in some older editions infantry always hit the rear armor of vehicles, and each infantry model could use a grenade. Frag grenades counted as S4, so even Guardsmen with Frag Grenades could run up on a vehicle, plant Frags in vital areas, and damage/take out the vehicles.

To me, that's WAAYY better than assault rifles being capable of meaningfully hurting a tank.

Boy if you think it's acceptable that S4 Frags were able to do damage wait until you hear the strength value of Bolters and Flamers.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

If you're not ducking anything then answer my question: do you like the fact that you can efficiently take down heavy armour with mid-strength mid-AP weapons? If gw started introducing rules that mitigated that issue would you be ok with it? Something like letting vehicles reduce the AP of weapons? Better armour saves? You could still wound anything on 6s but those wounds would be more easily saved against. Or do you prefer big expensive units be "more bad than good"? Would it bother you if you actually needed to include anti-tank weapons in a list?

You'd know the answer to that question if you read what I literally just wrote? It's hard to have a conversation with people who refuse to read what you write.

I literally just answered that for the other guy by saying that AT should be the most efficient way to take down tanks, but not the only way. Mid-S, mid-AP weapons should be able to take down tanks, but they shouldn't be the best way to do so. It should be to your advantage efficiency-wise to include some AT in your army, but if you come up against a skew list that goes heavy into tanks, the fact that you have comparatively few AT weapons in your list shouldn't make it clear from before T1 that you have zero chance of removing their models.

It would bother me if you absolutely needed to include large amounts of dedicated, specialized anti-tank guns in every list to avoid being rolled by any list that goes heavy on tanks, just like it would bother me if you absolutely had to include large amounts of dedicated, specialized anti-infantry guns in every list to avoid being rolled by an infantry-heavy list.

I literally just told someone else that I think most tanks should have a 2+ save.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

If you're not ducking anything then answer my question: do you like the fact that you can efficiently take down heavy armour with mid-strength mid-AP weapons? If gw started introducing rules that mitigated that issue would you be ok with it? Something like letting vehicles reduce the AP of weapons? Better armour saves? You could still wound anything on 6s but those wounds would be more easily saved against. Or do you prefer big expensive units be "more bad than good"? Would it bother you if you actually needed to include anti-tank weapons in a list?

You'd know the answer to that question if you read what I literally just wrote? It's hard to have a conversation with people who refuse to read what you write.

I literally just answered that for the other guy by saying that AT should be the most efficient way to take down tanks, but not the only way. Mid-S, mid-AP weapons should be able to take down tanks, but they shouldn't be the best way to do so. It should be to your advantage efficiency-wise to include some AT in your army, but if you come up against a skew list that goes heavy into tanks, the fact that you have comparatively few AT weapons in your list shouldn't make it clear from before T1 that you have zero chance of removing their models.

It would bother me if you absolutely needed to include large amounts of dedicated, specialized anti-tank guns in every list to avoid being rolled by any list that goes heavy on tanks, just like it would bother me if you absolutely had to include large amounts of dedicated, specialized anti-infantry guns in every list to avoid being rolled by an infantry-heavy list.

I literally just told someone else that I think most tanks should have a 2+ save. Again, if you would read what I write you'd have less questions.

Well it's difficult when you're constantly stealth editing your comments after posting. You literally added that line while I was responding.

Anyway, so you'd be fine if gw introduced stat changes or abilities that made heavy armour more resilient against mid-strength mid-AP weapons as long as they still wounded on 6s? If we see a new instruction booklet for a Land raider and they're suddenly T10 or ignore AP-2 or less you won't complain?

yukishiro1 wrote:
I'm not ducking out of anything, I'm literally quoting what you wrote and responding to it. You said it was better back when we had AV so infantry could hurt vehicles what way. Going back to the old wound chart wouldn't allow infantry to hurt vehicles that way because, well, you wouldn't have AV, which was the basis of what you said. It was a completely logical and on-topic response, as far from "ducking" as you could get. And I'm not the one who said he was ignoring what the other person said, btw.

But if you don't want to talk that's certainly up to you. If you're not having a good time talking, you shouldn't talk.

But you are deflecting while trying to shut the conversation down, because you're so angry you can't win the argument. You want to be right.

First it's "the game is an abstraction." You've since moved to "it doesn't matter anyway, because GW won't change anything."


Usually, you're fairly level-headed, too.

As I said above in the very post you're responding to...yes if it merely made AT more efficient, no if it meant that you have to take large amounts of AT to avoid being rolled by a vehicle skew list.

As I also said above, I am sympathetic to the argument that right now mid-S stuff is too efficient compared to dedicated AT. You could address that either by nerfing the mid-S stuff or buffing the anti-tank, and you could do it via stat changes or via point changes. I am fine with expanding the efficiency gap by say 10 or 20%. I would not be fine with any changes to the wound chart that would result in S5-6 stuff only wounding tanks on 6s.

Ignoring AP would be a terrible way to address the issue. That'd just make lasguns comparatively better, not worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I'm not ducking out of anything, I'm literally quoting what you wrote and responding to it. You said it was better back when we had AV so infantry could hurt vehicles what way. Going back to the old wound chart wouldn't allow infantry to hurt vehicles that way because, well, you wouldn't have AV, which was the basis of what you said. It was a completely logical and on-topic response, as far from "ducking" as you could get. And I'm not the one who said he was ignoring what the other person said, btw.

But if you don't want to talk that's certainly up to you. If you're not having a good time talking, you shouldn't talk.

But you are deflecting while trying to shut the conversation down, because you're so angry you can't win the argument. You want to be right.

First it's "the game is an abstraction." You've since moved to "it doesn't matter anyway, because GW won't change anything."

Usually, you're fairly level-headed, too.

You're seriously misreading me if you think I'm angry about anything. I moved to "GW won't change anything" because there's no point in continuing to go back and forth when you just have fundamentally different visions of the game. We exhausted the possibilities for discussion on the wound chart and it became obviously that nobody was going to convince the other person because we have extremely different ideas about how 40k should work on a very basic level. At that point "we're not going to agree, and GW is not going to change it anyway so there's not much point in continuing to go around in circles" is the logical and level-headed place to go.

If you'll note, once we got away from going around in circles with the wound chart, discussion actually started to pick up on actual ways to deal with the over efficiency of mid-S weapons, just like I said it would.

yukishiro1 wrote:
If you want to say that TAC doens't mean TAC and instead means something else go for it

I'm saying what TAC means because that's what a "Take All Comers List" has always meant.

The only one changing that to mean "mid-strength, AP1-2, multishot weapons that are spammed as much as possible", which has never been what TAC meant, is you!

If you think "take all comers" never meant "take all comers" and always meant "a list with a bunch of different types of units and weapons," why do you think it was literally called take all comers if you contend it never meant anything to do with being able to, well, take all comers?

If a list can take all comers, it's a take all comers list. That's literally what the words mean. If you prefer to say that a TAC list has nothing to do with being able to take all comers and only has to do with the composition of your own army go for it I guess, but it seems weird to call it something it has nothing to do with.

 Insectum7 wrote:

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

Source?

Bolters (S4) vs. Wraithlords (T8).

 catbarf wrote:

Did you not mean that changing the wound chart helped by giving Orks the tools needed to deal with Knights...?

Well, that would be inaccurate anyway. Orks aren't doing better in 8th and 9th against knights because S4 suddently hurt them. Orks simply got better anti tank options and a better codex than the crappy 7th edition one.

Stripping one or two wounds off a tank or a walker with a basic grunt's weapon isn't significant in 8-9th edition. It happens but it's not common and it doesn't change the result of the game.

People that are against lasguns, bolters, shootas, etc being able to wound tanks are the same people that hated enemy units that could tarpit their shooty champions forever. So they had no problems with enemy units not being able to wound anything but if was one of their own that couldn't do anything because it was stuck they were crying for changes. All in the name of realism, when a turn based table top game has thousand of unrealistic mechanics anyway.

Boyz are surprisingly decent against T7 vehicles with 3+ saves. Not an ideal target, obviously, but they do well enough to not be something you can just ignore or else they will kill T7 stuff. What they aren't good against is either T8 or 2+ saves.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Boyz are surprisingly decent against T7 vehicles with 3+ saves. Not an ideal target, obviously, but they do well enough to not be something you can just ignore or else they will kill T7 stuff. What they aren't good against is either T8 or 2+ saves.

True, but most of those tanks were AV10 in the back in the old editions, and boyz were very good against those targets. Not to mention that the power klaw from the nobz leading boyz could wreck an AV13 tank on his own. In practise a squad of boyz is now worse in killing predators equivalents even if choppas can hurt them.

Yeah, there is less difference than people often make out between AV and the current wound chart in terms of what can threaten what. Nobody's bringing down tanks with lasguns alone; the amount it annoys some people is really out of proportion with the very limited impact it has to allow a nominal chance of inflicting damage.

There's a reason we didn't apply the old wound chart to vehicles; it would not be a good idea to do so now.

yukishiro1 wrote:
As I said above in the very post you're responding to...yes if it merely made AT more efficient, no if it meant that you have to take large amounts of AT to avoid being rolled by a vehicle skew list.

As I also said above, I am sympathetic to the argument that right now mid-S stuff is too efficient compared to dedicated AT. You could address that either by nerfing the mid-S stuff or buffing the anti-tank, and you could do it via stat changes or via point changes. I am fine with expanding the efficiency gap by say 10 or 20%. I would not be fine with any changes to the wound chart that would result in S5-6 stuff only wounding tanks on 6s.

Ignoring AP would be a terrible way to address the issue. That'd just make lasguns comparatively better, not worse.

Would it? Seems to work quite well for SOB. I'm perfectly fine with you fishing for 6s with lasguns, bolters, etc if my tanks still get their full saves against stuff like intercessor bolt rifles in the tactical doctrine or heavy bolters. That would be a good way to bring back Armoured Ceramite, that was always a well spent 20 points in 7th.