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.
2020/08/26 08:06:20
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
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.
Armored Ceramite was always just for Melta though. Literally nothing else.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/08/26 08:30:54
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
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.
Armored Ceramite was always just for Melta though. Literally nothing else.
Yeah, I know. Just a thought. Maybe extra armour could ignore AP-2 or less and Armored Ceramite could stop melta from getting its bonus within half range again. Would probably be helpful with all the new melta rules.
2020/08/26 09:01:43
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
yukishiro, you were asked a couple of pages back for a citation on the claim that MBTs in the Iraq War were taken out of commission by small arms fire, a claim which you were using to argue that lasguns hurting Land Raiders was, in fact, realistic.
Such a citation has yet to be forthcoming - please provide it, or concede that your point was groundless.
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...
2020/08/26 09:35:02
Subject: Re:Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
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.
More of an aside, really, but after years of playing 40k, it's easy to forget that wargames can actually include meaningful tactical options.
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.
2020/08/26 09:54:49
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
H.B.M.C. wrote: 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.
I think GW's idea is to change "Anti-tank weapons are needed to deal with thanks because anti-tank weapons have a high S to deal with the tank's high T/AV" to "Anti-tank weapons are needed to deal with thanks because anti-tank weapons have a high D to deal with the tank's high number of HP".
The new profile seems to confirm that this is how GW wants to make some weapons better at clearing lots of small dude (high number of shots, d1) and others good at taking down very resistant targets (low number of shots, high D)
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2020/08/26 09:56:33
Subject: Re:Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
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.
More of an aside, really, but after years of playing 40k, it's easy to forget that wargames can actually include meaningful tactical options.
The sad thing, is the reason so much of that is stripped out of 40k is probably that half the factions are not supported well enough to be in a game like that. So much of it is windows dressing to make it seem far deeper than it is.
Its the Skyrim of Table top games, where every character slowly evolves into a stealth Archer
2020/08/26 11:27:30
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
I am bemused by all the people saying "because str 4 could hit the rear, you should be able to hose down a tank with MG fire and win!"
This is moving the discussion to armor facings, but I find it immensely funny to read, because it implies that people see no difference between the front and rear of a tank. They've already accepted in their mind that tanks are just damage pinyatas.
Yes, bolters could kill a Russ (but not a Demolisher from any direction, remember that). That doesn't mean it was at all common, or that it excuses the 8th edition tradition of hosing down the front of a tank with a heavy Bolter or punisher cannon or whatever because "hey, always a chance amirite?"
EDIT:
also, I know we moved past Knights, but here is my proposed fix:
- make Knights use the normal FOC, and give them other unit types (household guard for infantry, tech priests and bonded laborers, lesser vehicles to cart gear and supplies and men around, etc).
Wow I am genius game designer GW hire me
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 11:29:20
2020/08/26 11:32:29
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am bemused by all the people saying "because str 4 could hit the rear, you should be able to hose down a tank with MG fire and win!"
This is moving the discussion to armor facings, but I find it immensely funny to read, because it implies that people see no difference between the front and rear of a tank. They've already accepted in their mind that tanks are just damage pinyatas.
Yes, bolters could kill a Russ (but not a Demolisher from any direction, remember that). That doesn't mean it was at all common, or that it excuses the 8th edition tradition of hosing down the front of a tank with a heavy Bolter or punisher cannon or whatever because "hey, always a chance amirite?"
EDIT:
also, I know we moved past Knights, but here is my proposed fix:
- make Knights use the normal FOC, and give them other unit types (household guard for infantry, tech priests and bonded laborers, lesser vehicles to cart gear and supplies and men around, etc).
Wow I am genius game designer GW hire me
it'd be certainly a more interesting army to see on the table, dare i say, a more complete army.
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.
2020/08/26 11:56:26
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
I don't know why you are arguing agaisnt each other people.
An unified system like we have now, a separated wound system with AV and armor and tables for vehicles. All are viable options to make your wargame, and all can be made in the right way. An unified system is more RTS like, an armor system a more "simulation" one. Personally in 40k when you have grots facing warhound titans I believe a RTS unified one is just neccesary, but done rightly.
But this is GW. Whats the point of arguing about the virtues of one system over the other when we all know GW will make it heavely flawed?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 11:57:38
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2020/08/26 12:06:36
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
(some RTS have armor classes where small arms can't hurt vehicles, e.g. Company of Heroes or Men of War or the Wargame:Whatever series or World in Conflict...
...actually I think more have some kind of 'invulnerable to x weapon' mechanic than ones that do not)
2020/08/26 12:08:32
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Unit1126PLL wrote: (some RTS have armor classes where small arms can't hurt vehicles, e.g. Company of Heroes or Men of War or the Wargame:Whatever series or World in Conflict...
...actually I think more have some kind of 'invulnerable to x weapon' mechanic than ones that do not)
isn't it not so much invulnerable but more akin to an armor penetration check?
Especialy COH 2 to my knowledge seems to function that way, but it is some time since i checked that game out...
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.
2020/08/26 12:10:57
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Unit1126PLL wrote: (some RTS have armor classes where small arms can't hurt vehicles, e.g. Company of Heroes or Men of War or the Wargame:Whatever series or World in Conflict...
...actually I think more have some kind of 'invulnerable to x weapon' mechanic than ones that do not)
Yeah, those are actually some of the ones I was thinking that used more of a tactical/simulation system similar to old 40k, but they are, not in the minority but in general the most common way is having units just be health pools , maybe with armor and damage types to make things more effective against others (Even Warcraft 3 had that).
But as I said, both systems are functional. What isn't functional is GW using them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 12:12:53
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2020/08/26 12:42:28
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Unit1126PLL wrote: (some RTS have armor classes where small arms can't hurt vehicles, e.g. Company of Heroes or Men of War or the Wargame:Whatever series or World in Conflict...
...actually I think more have some kind of 'invulnerable to x weapon' mechanic than ones that do not)
isn't it not so much invulnerable but more akin to an armor penetration check?
Especialy COH 2 to my knowledge seems to function that way, but it is some time since i checked that game out...
Well an armor penetration check naturally yields invulnerability to weapons that cannot penetrate armor...
2020/08/26 13:06:41
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Unit1126PLL wrote: (some RTS have armor classes where small arms can't hurt vehicles, e.g. Company of Heroes or Men of War or the Wargame:Whatever series or World in Conflict...
...actually I think more have some kind of 'invulnerable to x weapon' mechanic than ones that do not)
isn't it not so much invulnerable but more akin to an armor penetration check?
Especialy COH 2 to my knowledge seems to function that way, but it is some time since i checked that game out...
Well an armor penetration check naturally yields invulnerability to weapons that cannot penetrate armor...
Not necessarily, it just severly divides normal damage done to my knowledge, take a Kar98 f.e from COH2 doing i gues 30 damage? against a tank ot does about 2? maybee 10 if you manage to hit the rear.
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.
2020/08/26 13:09:21
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
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.
Today I learned that a Take-All-Comers, TAC list, actually literally means any list that can take on any opponent, even if it leans hard into spamming one thing, and not one with a balanced composition.
I guess all-Knights lists and flyer spam are TAC now.
I mean if you can be TAC spamming one thing that doesnt mean that list is not TAC, it means is unbalanced because no single option should be viable agaisnt everything.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2020/08/26 13:15:53
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
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.
Today I learned that a Take-All-Comers, TAC list, actually literally means any list that can take on any opponent, even if it leans hard into spamming one thing, and not one with a balanced composition.
I guess all-Knights lists and flyer spam are TAC now.
imagine this, with cheaper arty and no Ro3 bandaid:
A list spamming heavy quadlaunchers, and wyverns, would be tac... because it can deal with everything...
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.
2020/08/26 13:33:09
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
To be fair to Yukishiro, TAC means something a bit different than what it says on the tin.
What it really means is a combined-arms army that utilizes a variety of tools which have synergy on both offense and defense due to variant strengths and weaknesses.
For example, an armored infantry assault supported by indirect fire and CAS employs 4 separate arms: Armor for maneuverability and survivability, CAS for destruction, indirect fire for suppression, and infantry for the "final few yards" assault that sweeps the suppressed, disorganized, and disoriented enemy and secures the area.
No army in modern 40k will look like that though while the infantry are more mobile than the tank (since you can't disembark after moving) and more survivable against the majority of enemy weapons than the tank (as proven earlier in the thread) and indirect fire serves purely a destructive purpose and is basically indistinguishable from CAS so there's really nothing to sweep when the infantry arrive....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 13:33:54
2020/08/26 13:34:40
Subject: Re:Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Galas wrote: I mean if you can be TAC spamming one thing that doesnt mean that list is not TAC, it means is unbalanced because no single option should be viable agaisnt everything.
The way I've always heard 'TAC' was meant as a balanced list you could take to the local shop and play against any random person and have a fun time. Tournament players do not go soliciting feedback on their hard-skew 'TAC' lists.
Having the most optimal strategy be to spam one thing is normally considered a bad game state, actively detrimental to player agency and game depth, not something to be praised as the core of any decent TAC list.
On that note:
yukishiro1 wrote: 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.
Seriously? You've spent the entire thread defending the idea of anti-infantry weapons hurting tanks, and portraying it as necessary to avoid skew lists further dominating the game.
"Boys are decent at killing T7 vehicles, though, whereas under the old chart they'd be totally ineffective."
"Skew lists are powerful enough already, there is no reason to make them even more powerful by making it actually impossible for people to hurt stuff if they come up against a bad skew."
"a heavy bolter SHOULD be able to harm a tank"
"I think infantry guns should be able to plink the odd wound off a tank for gameplay reasons"
These are all direct quotes from you, and you keep restating that if some weapons couldn't hurt tanks,
"more games won and lost at the list-building stage, more feel bad moments, and more people deserving to "get rolled" and "feel bad.""
How else is all that supposed to be interpreted? As far as I can see you make clear statements and then complain about being strawmanned when anyone responds directly to them.
So at this point if you're still insistent that not allowing any weapon to hurt tanks automatically means more vehicle skew dominating in the listbuilding stage and more 'feels bad' gameplay, really all I can say is go play any of the games where this isn't the case.
Also, you still haven't cited your claim about rifle fire taking out tanks in Iraq. You haven't explained what you meant about Orks vs Knights being fixed by the new wound system, either.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/08/26 13:52:19
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am bemused by all the people saying "because str 4 could hit the rear, you should be able to hose down a tank with MG fire and win!"
This is moving the discussion to armor facings, but I find it immensely funny to read, because it implies that people see no difference between the front and rear of a tank. They've already accepted in their mind that tanks are just damage pinyatas.
Yes, bolters could kill a Russ (but not a Demolisher from any direction, remember that). That doesn't mean it was at all common, or that it excuses the 8th edition tradition of hosing down the front of a tank with a heavy Bolter or punisher cannon or whatever because "hey, always a chance amirite?"
EDIT:
also, I know we moved past Knights, but here is my proposed fix:
- make Knights use the normal FOC, and give them other unit types (household guard for infantry, tech priests and bonded laborers, lesser vehicles to cart gear and supplies and men around, etc).
Wow I am genius game designer GW hire me
It actually was pretty common To hit the rear armor. The combination of that, easy access to Haywire or Melta, and of course Grav created a situation where no vehicles had worth outside Knights. Quite frankly it was similar in 4th seeing as only Skimmers were relied on as vehicles.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/08/26 14:13:24
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am bemused by all the people saying "because str 4 could hit the rear, you should be able to hose down a tank with MG fire and win!"
This is moving the discussion to armor facings, but I find it immensely funny to read, because it implies that people see no difference between the front and rear of a tank. They've already accepted in their mind that tanks are just damage pinyatas.
Yes, bolters could kill a Russ (but not a Demolisher from any direction, remember that). That doesn't mean it was at all common, or that it excuses the 8th edition tradition of hosing down the front of a tank with a heavy Bolter or punisher cannon or whatever because "hey, always a chance amirite?"
EDIT:
also, I know we moved past Knights, but here is my proposed fix:
- make Knights use the normal FOC, and give them other unit types (household guard for infantry, tech priests and bonded laborers, lesser vehicles to cart gear and supplies and men around, etc).
Wow I am genius game designer GW hire me
It actually was pretty common To hit the rear armor. The combination of that, easy access to Haywire or Melta, and of course Grav created a situation where no vehicles had worth outside Knights. Quite frankly it was similar in 4th seeing as only Skimmers were relied on as vehicles.
Your first sentence is hilarious considering Inquisitor Lord Katherine says Rear Armor never mattered in other threads. I'll let you two work out which is the truth.
The rest are all codex problems - as you rightly point out, it was access to certain weapons / the design of certain weapons, and has little to do with the contents of the core rules.
2020/08/26 14:17:12
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
It actually was pretty common To hit the rear armor.
Close combat was always vs rear armor IIRC, unless the vehicle was a walker. I remember my orks fishing for glancing 6s all the time against Leman Russes using their S4 (on the charge) choppas.
2020/08/26 14:17:17
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Pretty much, i remember the first implementations of flyers, that was fun, when most armies lacked (and even to this day often lack) reliable AA or fighters.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 16:19:18
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.
2020/08/26 14:18:13
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Facings had the additional issue that they worked well on imperial tanks which were boxes, and were a pain to determine in everyone else that had a more round or organic figure.
Also it wasn't particularly realistic how the AV system mostly only cared about Strength, with AP only having an effect in edge cases. That's not how armor penetration works, energy density (which would be represented by AP) is far more important than the overall force (that would be represented by Strength).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 14:53:17
2020/08/26 14:53:47
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Unit1126PLL wrote: depends on the edition. 4th, for example, meant you hit the armor facing you were actually standing in.
Even better, the rulebook text specifies you could only hit the side you were facing when the assault began even if there were to be some wrapping shenanigans
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.
Perhaps you don't recall that a Bolter couldn't even scratch a Rhino from 80% of it's facings. But perhaps you do and are just grasping at straws with an irrelevant point.
Tyran wrote: Facings had the additional issue that they worked well on imperial tanks which were boxes, and were a pain to determine in everyone else that had a more round or organic figure.
Also it wasn't particularly realistic how the AV system mostly only cared about Strength, with AP only having an effect in edge cases. That's not how armor penetration works, energy density (which would be represented by AP) is far more important than the overall force (that would be represented by Strength).
The Flames of War system for armor facings- front v rear, defined by a line drawn across the front of the vehicle- is a much more elegant means of determining armor facing than the often subject to disagreement 90-degree arcs.
I always thought it would have been more logical to use an AP-based system to determine armor penetration, then have Strength influence the severity of the hit. A low-S high-AP weapon would be something like a high-velocity low-caliber round that is likely to get through the armor but not inflict much damage, while a high-S low-AP weapon would be something like a howitzer that has difficulty penetrating armor, but is incredibly destructive once it gets through. The disconnect between AP and rolling to penetrate armor was an odd choice for sure.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 15:16:54
Imagine a world in which facings were "Bespoke" - I mean everyone agrees USRs are hated. But you could simply print a top-down image of the vehicle model on the datasheet, highlight points on the hull in different colors, and say "the orange part is armor 12, the grey part is 10, and the blue part is 8" or whatever you want.
Then your core rules say "models fire at the closest point on the target model" and you can correspond to that point on the datasheet and voila.
That also moves the awkwardness of Front, Side, and Rear for vehicles with odd shapes, and also allows for two sides to be different (e.g. in the case of the valdor, where one side is conventionally armored for an Imperial vehicle but the other literally has a reactor sticking out).
The actual details of the damage mechanic remain (e.g. maybe strength is used for damage dealt and AP is used to determine penetration, as above).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/08/26 15:39:34
