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 19:16:09
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
gigasnail wrote: yeah i'm going to have to call bs on small arms fire doing even a mobility kill on a modern battle tank. i can't find even anecdotes about it. lot of anecdotes about tankers complaining about their rucksacks getting shot up though, and plenty of firsthand accounts stating small arms fire is basically useless.
snipers are and will always be a problem for tank crews out of the vehicle but that's not what's being discussed.
there were plenty trashed in the iraq invasion and especially the years after, and were generally taken out by IED's (made from anti tank mines, 155mm howitzer shells, or good old chemical fertilzer) and two stage RPGs which are specifically made to crack composite armor. there is no shortage of these weapons and the abrams is a big, expensive tempting target. so of course it gets lit up.
even the outline of the procurement document for the next gen infantry carrier scoffs at small arms as a threat, and these are only tanks in the loosest sense of the word and certainly not MBT.
so, i'm going to need to see the receipts on this one.
Reread the conversations they weren't mobility killed, nobody was injured, the tank became combat/mission ineffective because I'm going to guess being ambushed in areas they weren't cleared to return fire in, resulted in sufficient damage to thermal sights, camera's and vision blocks which resulted in such a reduction in situational awareness/ability to aim weapons the tank was not considered fit for combat.
It really comes down to the old adage you can't kill what you can't see.
2020/08/26 19:18:27
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Insectum7 wrote: @catbarf
One could make the observation that if better AT weapons make vehicles more vulnerable, then reducing the effectivness of small arms against vehicles can counter-balance that oncreased vulnerability.
So you want to make the MM better?
Gw is already doing that. The question is whether or not they'll do anything to help vehicles survive.
But how does reducing small arms fire make it ok for vehicles? His point wasn't vehicles get more durable. It was just that small arms do nothing and anti-tank gets scarier, which does nothing to make vehicles better, because most of them are already getting hit by big guns.
This whole bolters killing tanks exercise is a little gremlin that lives inside people's heads and rarely comes out into the light. Things like Rubrics - 10 do 6 wounds to a knight with reroll 1s and 2 CP and only if they stood still. This doesn't get you anywhere close to offing a knight. Either you smite the ever loving gak out of it (hard to do now since HQs slots are harder to come by) or you use AT.
I think people only ever look at Aggressors (and other marines) doing silly things and that shapes their whole world view.
Ah, sorry Daed, I was commenting on the vulnerabilities of vehicles against all the improvements gw is making to weapons like meltas and multi-meltas, I don't care if someone wants to fish for 6s in an attempt to bring down a tank with lasguns or bolters, unless those bolters belong to Loyalist Dogs that get free AP on them "just because". Something like a boost to toughness, or some way to reduce AP. Those multi-meltas are going to wreck anything T8 without an invul, and anything T7 with one.
T9 with a 2+ will be ok, however.
2020/08/26 19:19:44
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Ice_can wrote: Reread the conversations they weren't mobility killed, nobody was injured, the tank became combat/mission ineffective because I'm going to guess being ambushed in areas they weren't cleared to return fire in, resulted in sufficient damage to thermal sights, camera's and vision blocks which resulted in such a reduction in situational awareness/ability to aim weapons the tank was not considered fit for combat.
It really comes down to the old adage you can't kill what you can't see.
I would like to point out that there is a huge gulf between a vehicle being deemed not fit for combat and a vehicle becoming actually combat-ineffective and a mission kill. If it was the former, then that does not necessarily mean the vehicle was at all incapacitated. It could just be the kind of damage that would fall under 'Crew Shaken' in the old system.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it'd probably be better just to give vehicles more wounds or a base 2+ rather than more toughness. Your solution wouldn't actually make it significantly harder to wound vehicles with those things either. You'd need to bring vehicles to T10 to change the math on S5 weapons wounding them, for example.
The fundamental problem is stat inflation. But that's a different conversation.
2+ saves help untill GW does a GW and hands out free AP to 50% of the armies.
Also I do think vehicals should be Tougher but with MW spam GW also kinda made T redundant already.
2020/08/26 19:29:08
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Insectum7 wrote: @catbarf
One could make the observation that if better AT weapons make vehicles more vulnerable, then reducing the effectivness of small arms against vehicles can counter-balance that oncreased vulnerability.
So you want to make the MM better?
I think I'm on record as desiring the Multimelta get two shots in 2017. I'm fine with the Multimelta getting better.
Ice_can wrote: Reread the conversations they weren't mobility killed, nobody was injured, the tank became combat/mission ineffective because I'm going to guess being ambushed in areas they weren't cleared to return fire in, resulted in sufficient damage to thermal sights, camera's and vision blocks which resulted in such a reduction in situational awareness/ability to aim weapons the tank was not considered fit for combat.
It really comes down to the old adage you can't kill what you can't see.
I would like to point out that there is a huge gulf between a vehicle being deemed not fit for combat and a vehicle becoming actually combat-ineffective and a mission kill. If it was the former, then that does not necessarily mean the vehicle was at all incapacitated. It could just be the kind of damage that would fall under 'Crew Shaken' in the old system.
When your talking the dollar values and lists of parts we're not talking 1 or 2 where talking like 12 vision blocks 3 thermal sights and other auxiliaries.
Just to be sure I've not mis terminology this as I've learned what MoD classifies things and DoD means by the same phrase isn't the same.
A mission kill means the vehical was removed from the mission due to damage sustained.
2020/08/26 19:35:36
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
which conversations am i supposed to be rereading? because i'm literally finding nothing supporting even this. any significant damage has been from IEDs/RPGs.
2020/08/26 19:35:56
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
This whole bolters killing tanks exercise is a little gremlin that lives inside people's heads and rarely comes out into the light. Things like Rubrics - 10 do 6 wounds to a knight with reroll 1s and 2 CP and only if they stood still. This doesn't get you anywhere close to offing a knight.
Those 6 wounds are the average damage that Eight Lascannons do to the same Knight.
gigasnail wrote: which conversations am i supposed to be rereading? because i'm literally finding nothing supporting even this. any significant damage has been from IEDs/RPGs.
You changed the measure from removed from combat/mission to mobility kill. I never claimed any data backed up mobility kills.
I know of 1 but that's an odd ball Adrams design issue where pouring fuel onto the engine deck causes a fire.
2020/08/26 19:49:01
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
This whole bolters killing tanks exercise is a little gremlin that lives inside people's heads and rarely comes out into the light. Things like Rubrics - 10 do 6 wounds to a knight with reroll 1s and 2 CP and only if they stood still. This doesn't get you anywhere close to offing a knight.
Those 6 wounds are the average damage that Eight Lascannons do to the same Knight.
8 x .666 x .666 x .5 x 3.5 = 6.2
Knights are designed to withstand lascannons, Rubrics use anti-tank Strat, Knight uses anti lascannon Strat. Unfair comparisson, not to mention shootx2 effects are cancer, because with those 2cp spent on Rubs 5 Slaanesh Havocs with lascannons can do the same thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 19:49:48
2020/08/26 19:54:16
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
vict0988 wrote: Knights are designed to withstand lascannons
That's a big part of the problem, though, isn't it? I mean, it's not just Knights- in addition to AT weapons being generally less effective than they were in previous editions (example: used to be that 3 lascannon hits popped a Rhino, now it's around 5), the heavier things that you should really want lascannons to kill now generally have invulns that render high-AP useless.
yukishiro1 wrote: Can you imagine the tedium in a game like modern 40k where somebody can bring 12 tanks? Just figuring out where each one was being hit by what would take you 20 minutes every shooting phase. The arguments about "no, only 3 of your guys can hit my side armor! no, 5 can, these two are .01mm closer to the side than the front!" etc etc.
No need to imagine, because those games exist, and it's not actually a problem in real life. The games of Heresy I've played (with lots of tanks, to be clear) have gone faster than 40K. Lack of rerolls dramatically outweighs the (minimal) time requirement to work out facing. In Flames of War you can have 40+ vehicles on the board and spend no measurable time at all assessing facing.
Honestly, you really would be a lot better off if you had game experience outside 40K to refer to. That's not a jab, I'm serious. 40K alone provides a very limited perspective on game design.
Yup. We find that a game of FoW moves just as fast as 40k.
And you know what else we FoW players can handle? FIRE ARCs! We understand the difference between weapons that point Forward/Left/Right (even rear in a few cases!). Why weapons are placed in turrets (hint, it's not because it "looks kewl").
2020/08/26 19:59:11
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
This whole bolters killing tanks exercise is a little gremlin that lives inside people's heads and rarely comes out into the light. Things like Rubrics - 10 do 6 wounds to a knight with reroll 1s and 2 CP and only if they stood still. This doesn't get you anywhere close to offing a knight.
Those 6 wounds are the average damage that Eight Lascannons do to the same Knight.
8 x .666 x .666 x .5 x 3.5 = 6.2
Knights are designed to withstand lascannons, Rubrics use anti-tank Strat, Knight uses anti lascannon Strat. Unfair comparisson, not to mention shootx2 effects are cancer, because with those 2cp spent on Rubs 5 Slaanesh Havocs with lascannons can do the same thing.
So if souped up bolters arent supposed to kill Knights, and dedicated anti armor isn't supposed to kill knights, what's supposed to kill knights?
vict0988 wrote: Knights are designed to withstand lascannons
That's a big part of the problem, though, isn't it? I mean, it's not just Knights- in addition to AT weapons being generally less effective than they were in previous editions (example: used to be that 3 lascannon hits popped a Rhino, now it's around 5), the heavier things that you should really want lascannons to kill now generally have invulns that render high-AP useless.
I have had this discussion before so I won't go too much into it, but I fall into the camp where I view the event of one army not packing enough anti-tank and then having a bad game for that reason to be generally negative. This will mostly happen against a skew list, Knights are designed to be a skew list, so they should not counter anything very hard and they should not be hard-countered by anything. You might find it appealing that you would be able to crush Timmy's knight list if you had only brought more lascannons, but that doesn't help during the game when you've either brought a lot of lascannons and crush a Knight player or not enough to deal with the Knights and you feel hopeless and weak. The invul save of Knights smooths out the experience, it makes them less susceptible to lascannons while doing nothing to help against anything with AP-0 or -1. I understand that some people want their lascannons to pop Knights real good, because it's an anti-tank weapon and Knights are tanks. I'll leave the discussion on vehicles and invulns on that as far as this thread is concerned.
This whole bolters killing tanks exercise is a little gremlin that lives inside people's heads and rarely comes out into the light. Things like Rubrics - 10 do 6 wounds to a knight with reroll 1s and 2 CP and only if they stood still. This doesn't get you anywhere close to offing a knight.
Those 6 wounds are the average damage that Eight Lascannons do to the same Knight.
8 x .666 x .666 x .5 x 3.5 = 6.2
Knights are designed to withstand lascannons, Rubrics use anti-tank Strat, Knight uses anti lascannon Strat. Unfair comparisson, not to mention shootx2 effects are cancer, because with those 2cp spent on Rubs 5 Slaanesh Havocs with lascannons can do the same thing.
So if souped up bolters arent supposed to kill Knights, and dedicated anti armor isn't supposed to kill knights, what's supposed to kill knights?
I would say that souped up Rubrics are supposed to kill Knights, I thought you were making the point that they were too good compared to lascannon Havocs? Sorry if I was mistaken.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 20:07:45
2020/08/26 20:20:27
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
gigasnail wrote: which conversations am i supposed to be rereading? because i'm literally finding nothing supporting even this. any significant damage has been from IEDs/RPGs.
You changed the measure from removed from combat/mission to mobility kill. I never claimed any data backed up mobility kills.
I know of 1 but that's an odd ball Adrams design issue where pouring fuel onto the engine deck causes a fire.
i'm not changing any measure, i'm asking you to present proof of damage via small arms fire (i.e. not RPG's, IED's, or mines), significant enough to actually take a MBT out of the fight because i cannot find any citing any meaningful damage at all. i looked and couldn't find anything of the sort. loosing a vision port is not going to take a tank out of the fight, loosing all of them would but that's a bit of a different thing and good luck pulling it off. the odds of this ever happening in the real would be absurd. the crew would literally have to sit there for an hour, unsupported, and not move or fire, while taking it in the face from infantry at short range. it's absurd.
i did find an account of a direct hit to the top of an abrams from an 82mm mortar which tripped the circuit breaker which killed power (turret control especially is electric). when the CB was reset the vehicle started right back up with no issues. this was interesting to me because we were taught to mass fires into choke points where tanks were stacked up or you had good gun data on a tank that'd gone hull down but we were firing 120mm which is a 35 pound shell and is a bit of a different beast. it was more of a theoretical application, i don't know of anyone that has ever done this in out in the world though i did it a number of times during training exercises (korea for instance was real bad about this. very limited movement options and lots of bridges. fething turkey shoot).
i was surprised the 80 did anything even as incidental as that.
2020/08/26 20:21:08
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
That's a big part of the problem, though, isn't it? I mean, it's not just Knights- in addition to AT weapons being generally less effective than they were in previous editions (example: used to be that 3 lascannon hits popped a Rhino, now it's around 5), the heavier things that you should really want lascannons to kill now generally have invulns that render high-AP useless.
Edition dependent. That was true for 4th (or maybe it was 5th) but not for latter editions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 20:28:04
2020/08/26 20:30:35
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
This whole bolters killing tanks exercise is a little gremlin that lives inside people's heads and rarely comes out into the light. Things like Rubrics - 10 do 6 wounds to a knight with reroll 1s and 2 CP and only if they stood still. This doesn't get you anywhere close to offing a knight.
Those 6 wounds are the average damage that Eight Lascannons do to the same Knight.
8 x .666 x .666 x .5 x 3.5 = 6.2
Well, what's so bad about rapid firing grenade launchers shooting magic, exploding miniature rockets forged in hell to hurt a tank as well as a laser?
2020/08/26 20:31:09
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
This whole bolters killing tanks exercise is a little gremlin that lives inside people's heads and rarely comes out into the light. Things like Rubrics - 10 do 6 wounds to a knight with reroll 1s and 2 CP and only if they stood still. This doesn't get you anywhere close to offing a knight.
Those 6 wounds are the average damage that Eight Lascannons do to the same Knight.
8 x .666 x .666 x .5 x 3.5 = 6.2
Knights are designed to withstand lascannons, Rubrics use anti-tank Strat, Knight uses anti lascannon Strat. Unfair comparisson, not to mention shootx2 effects are cancer, because with those 2cp spent on Rubs 5 Slaanesh Havocs with lascannons can do the same thing.
So if souped up bolters arent supposed to kill Knights, and dedicated anti armor isn't supposed to kill knights, what's supposed to kill knights?
I would say that souped up Rubrics are supposed to kill Knights, I thought you were making the point that they were too good compared to lascannon Havocs? Sorry if I was mistaken.
Daedelus's appeared to be trying to make a point that Rubrics were NOT good, presumably because you should be using dedicated AT weapons. My point was that dedicated AT fire didn't fare any better.
This whole bolters killing tanks exercise is a little gremlin that lives inside people's heads and rarely comes out into the light. Things like Rubrics - 10 do 6 wounds to a knight with reroll 1s and 2 CP and only if they stood still. This doesn't get you anywhere close to offing a knight.
Those 6 wounds are the average damage that Eight Lascannons do to the same Knight.
8 x .666 x .666 x .5 x 3.5 = 6.2
Well, what's so bad about rapid firing grenade launchers shooting magic, exploding miniature rockets forged in hell to hurt a tank as well as a laser?
Read Daedelus's quote. He's trying to say that the Rubrics AREN'T good.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 20:32:41
Wow, this thread hurts my brain. And reinforces the idea that unfortunately, 40k has abandoned players like me.
I just can't believe the argument about a "take all comers" list. Yes, I know what the words literally mean. I also know the common usage of the term throughout my years of tabletop gaming outside and inside the GW bubble. Its disingenous to act like there are no other terms in English that their common usages means something different than the literal meaning of the words.
The real issue is what kind of game do you want? Do you want a strategy game based very loosely on war and lore (like say, Stratego), or do want an actual wargame based upon versimilitude and the lore?
GW is going the way of the first. It used to try to be the second.
What I dont like in this thread is people basically telling those people that GW is essentially abandoning (those who want a game based upon the lore and internal consistency) to get lost.
I don't mean to be a downer, but I really do think if people realized that there IS a hobby outside of GW and experienced it, they could hold GW to a higher standard and everyone would benefit.
2020/08/26 21:15:33
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
That's a big part of the problem, though, isn't it? I mean, it's not just Knights- in addition to AT weapons being generally less effective than they were in previous editions (example: used to be that 3 lascannon hits popped a Rhino, now it's around 5), the heavier things that you should really want lascannons to kill now generally have invulns that render high-AP useless.
Edition dependent. That was true for 4th (or maybe it was 5th) but not for latter editions.
That would be 5th they were tougher. Rhinos were basically paper and relied on a quick delivery rush in 4th. The damage table was absurdly unforgiving and why people still thought Necrons were king of AT even though the advent of HP for 6th/7th on cheaper vehicles made them not so much.
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 21:32:50
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
And the lascannon itself has been left behind by heavier AT weapons.
2020/08/26 21:42:44
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Tyran wrote: Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
Depends. In 3rd-4th a Lascannon hit had about a 30% chance of destroying a Rhino in a single hit.
And the lascannon itself has been left behind by heavier AT weapons.
If, by heavier AT weapons, you actually mean multishot anti-elite weapons. The new Multimelta is welcome, but I'm actually wondering what "heavier" AT weapons you're referring to.
Tyran wrote: Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
Depends. In 3rd-4th a Lascannon hit had about a 30% chance of destroying a Rhino in a single hit...
25% in 4e, by my count (2 to glance/6 to wreck or 3+ to pen/5-6 to destroy). Or 15.3% if the Rhino is obscured.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 21:59:41
Tyran wrote: Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
Depends. In 3rd-4th a Lascannon hit had about a 30% chance of destroying a Rhino in a single hit.
And the lascannon itself has been left behind by heavier AT weapons.
If, by heavier AT weapons, you actually mean multishot anti-elite weapons. The new Multimelta is welcome, but I'm actually wondering what "heavier" AT weapons you're referring to.
Laser destroyers, neutron lasers, volcano lances, railguns.... Trust me, as a proud owner of two Hellforged super heavys I can think of lots of stuff S10 and up with AP-4 or better. They're some of the few things that can really threaten something T9 with a 2+ save.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 21:59:34
2020/08/26 22:00:23
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Tyran wrote: Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
Depends. In 3rd-4th a Lascannon hit had about a 30% chance of destroying a Rhino in a single hit.
And the lascannon itself has been left behind by heavier AT weapons.
If, by heavier AT weapons, you actually mean multishot anti-elite weapons. The new Multimelta is welcome, but I'm actually wondering what "heavier" AT weapons you're referring to.
The new necron destroyer, the new doom scythe, the tyranid rupture cannon, the demolisher cannon, the neutron laser, etc.
2020/08/26 22:04:10
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Tyran wrote: Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
Depends. In 3rd-4th a Lascannon hit had about a 30% chance of destroying a Rhino in a single hit...
25% in 4e, by my count (2 to glance/6 to wreck or 3+ to pen/5-6 to destroy). Or 15.3% if the Rhino is obscured.
Penetrating hit kills on a 4+ in 3rd-4th. I forget 5th.
@Tyran + Gadzilla666. Fair enough, but a lot of those things are definitely a lot rarer. Plus things like the Rupture Cannon and Neutron laser come one per-vehicle, while I'm generally looking at 2-4 Lascannons on a unit. They seem to net the same effects in the end. (Esp. with the rerolls I can pump Lascannons with.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/26 22:09:17
Tyran wrote: Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
Depends. In 3rd-4th a Lascannon hit had about a 30% chance of destroying a Rhino in a single hit...
25% in 4e, by my count (2 to glance/6 to wreck or 3+ to pen/5-6 to destroy). Or 15.3% if the Rhino is obscured.
Penetrating hit kills on a 4+ in 3rd-4th. I forget 5th.
only for Ordnance Penetrating
2020/08/26 22:10:18
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Tyran wrote: Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
Depends. In 3rd-4th a Lascannon hit had about a 30% chance of destroying a Rhino in a single hit...
25% in 4e, by my count (2 to glance/6 to wreck or 3+ to pen/5-6 to destroy). Or 15.3% if the Rhino is obscured.
Penetrating hit kills on a 4+ in 3rd-4th. I forget 5th.
only for Ordnance Penetrating
Look it up. I just did 4+ to kill, non-Ordinance. Ordinance just had a particularly spectacular "destroyed" result.
5th edition moved to a single damage table with "destroyed" on 5+, and made Ordinance and Glances modifiers to the table.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/08/26 22:13:54
Tyran wrote: Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
Depends. In 3rd-4th a Lascannon hit had about a 30% chance of destroying a Rhino in a single hit...
25% in 4e, by my count (2 to glance/6 to wreck or 3+ to pen/5-6 to destroy). Or 15.3% if the Rhino is obscured.
Penetrating hit kills on a 4+ in 3rd-4th. I forget 5th.
only for Ordnance Penetrating
Look it up. I just did 4+ to kill, non-Ordinance. Ordinance just had a particularly spectacular "destroyed" result.
5th edition moved to a single damage table with "destroyed" on 5+, and made Ordinance and Glances modifiers to the table.
ahhh fair enough. I guess I thought Vehicle Annihilated pushed everything down 1.
2020/08/26 22:20:47
Subject: Who likes the willingness of GW to change stats for 9th?
Tyran wrote: Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
Depends. In 3rd-4th a Lascannon hit had about a 30% chance of destroying a Rhino in a single hit...
25% in 4e, by my count (2 to glance/6 to wreck or 3+ to pen/5-6 to destroy). Or 15.3% if the Rhino is obscured.
Penetrating hit kills on a 4+ in 3rd-4th. I forget 5th.
only for Ordnance Penetrating
Look it up. I just did 4+ to kill, non-Ordinance. Ordinance just had a particularly spectacular "destroyed" result.
5th edition moved to a single damage table with "destroyed" on 5+, and made Ordinance and Glances modifiers to the table.
Which made a massive difference.
in 4th 3 lascannons hits were needed to destroy a rhino, while in 5th 5 hits were needed.
