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.

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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.

Not just destroy but keep in mind that if you immobilize a Rhino it's nothing but a Storm Bolter. Was immobilization factored into this?

That is a fair point.

Although on the other hand, Rhinos were one of the vehicles that were given the best stats in 8th. Most other vehicles weren't that buffed.

To answer the OP yeah I do as long as it translates to other factions and not just power armour of spiky and non spiky variety..

 Tyran wrote:
And the lascannon itself has been left behind by heavier AT weapons.

And heavier AT weapons have been left behind by spammable mid-strength, AP1-2, multishot weapons. That's the core of the problem here.

 Tyran wrote:
Although on the other hand, Rhinos were one of the vehicles that were given the best stats in 8th. Most other vehicles weren't that buffed.

Tougher than a Carnifex.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
And the lascannon itself has been left behind by heavier AT weapons.

And heavier AT weapons have been left behind by spammable mid-strength, AP1-2, multishot weapons. That's the core of the problem here.

 Tyran wrote:
Although on the other hand, Rhinos were one of the vehicles that were given the best stats in 8th. Most other vehicles weren't that buffed.

Tougher than a Carnifex.

As many attacks(with shock assault) as the entire CWE codex bar 2 entries..

 Insectum7 wrote:
Read Daedelus's quote. He's trying to say that the Rubrics AREN'T good.

I'm not saying they're not good. I'm saying they're not moving mountains.

You did the LC comparison, but you didn't put the same effort into it. What if you double shot those with VOTLW? 12 damage from 48" without having to stand still.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Read Daedelus's quote. He's trying to say that the Rubrics AREN'T good.

I'm not saying they're not good. I'm saying they're not moving mountains.

You did the LC comparison, but you didn't put the same effort into it. What if you double shot those with VOTLW? 12 damage from 48" without having to stand still.

You also didn't duplicate Yukoshiro's knight killing WOMBO COMBO. It involves 20 rubrics and a lot more than those two strategems if I've worked it out correctly.

It was also like 700+ points worth of stuff and relied on not having to move your rubrics, 2CP, and three psychic powers, one of them at WC8. It definitely wasn't overpowered, it was just a nifty trick to allow you to threaten T8 if you really needed to in a list that otherwise would struggle with it.

There are so many better ways to kill knights much more cheaply in other lists without nearly so much setup - smash captains, repentia, etc etc.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

You also didn't duplicate Yukoshiro's knight killing WOMBO COMBO. It involves 20 rubrics and a lot more than those two strategems if I've worked it out correctly.

I'd never even consider using it, because it's terribly risky. Maybe when they're W2, but then they'll be more points.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It was also like 700+ points worth of stuff and relied on not having to move your rubrics, 2CP, and three psychic powers, one of them at WC8. It definitely wasn't overpowered, it was just a nifty trick to allow you to threaten T8 if you really needed to in a list that otherwise would struggle with it.

There are so many better ways to kill knights much more cheaply in other lists without nearly so much setup - smash captains, repentia, etc etc.

Shriveling Pox from the Poxbringer + Death Hex + Prescience + Vets + Infernal Fusillade + rerolling 1s from a nearby HQ, probably a daemon prince. Am I right?

Yeah, though you can probably do without one of prescience or the reroll 1s and still do enough to kill it, assuming you have something else that can plink the last few wounds off, or if you softened it up with a smite or two first.

It wasn't like that list was tabling Knights or anything, it just gave you the capability to kill one or maybe two in an unorthodox and interesting way.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, though you can probably do without one of prescience or the reroll 1s and still do enough to kill it, assuming you have something else that can plink the last few wounds off, or if you softened it up with a smite or two first.

It wasn't like that list was tabling Knights or anything, it just gave you the capability to kill one or maybe two in an unorthodox and interesting way.

It's an effective method for killing a knight, but too many moving parts for me. I'd rather pound one with accelerator cannon AE shells and quad lascannons until I get within demolisher cannon range to finish it off. A Diabolic Strength juiced double chainclaw Contemptor works great as well in a more conventional list once you've knocked some wounds off of it.

Oh, and that combo averages just under 26 wounds against a knight. Against a T9 2+ target it'll get you just under 13, 10 if Benediction of Darkness is active (and it will be). You want to kill a real super heavy? Better bring some real anti-tank.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Read Daedelus's quote. He's trying to say that the Rubrics AREN'T good.

I'm not saying they're not good. I'm saying they're not moving mountains.

You did the LC comparison, but you didn't put the same effort into it. What if you double shot those with VOTLW? 12 damage from 48" without having to stand still.

I am not aware of a chaos unit that can double shoot with 8 lascannons, and as loyalists I can't double shoot.

My default Knight-killing build is a simple 10 Razorbacks with Twin Las and HK missiles. My fun build is just TH/SS Terminators, which can kill four Gallants in a CC phase.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Because the Proposed Rules system is for talking about actual proposed rules, while this forum lends itself more to philosophy and conceptual discussion. As for it never coming back? Never is a long time, my friend.

But this thread isn't in the Proposed Rules subforum but in the General Discussion, and it is clearly about stat changes, not base mechanics. It may come back, but it would require both a new edition and an entire reset of the ruleset, so at least not for a few years and even then it would be very unlikely.

Very interesting discussion.

I think that AoS has been a bit of a blueprint for 40k. AoS was a massive switch from simulation to board game, and some of the mechanics there were then implemented in 40k. This is what GWS envisioned, at some point, for their games. I do not know if this paradigm has been abandoned, since we didn't get rid off toughness altogether like AoS (I suspect yukishiro1 would actually prefer the no toughness approach in AoS).

Personally, I also prefer the AV style and not having command points. Command points have become an umbrella for anything "gamey", like out of the blue some units dealing "mortal wounds" on 6s, or for whatever reason bolter rounds being more effective at shooting armored targets.

Those "stratagems" (or tricks and gamey arcade stuff for others), have increasingly become the focus on the battle. In my opinion, the gotcha moments they create far outweight the "feel bad" that some people mentioned. You see that unit over there, that you have kept an eye on and considered in your battle plan? Well now they took the "power up" and hence charge at far longer distances / have an abnormal rate of fire.

It is a pure gotcha moment it rewards knowing the "meta" (current hot tricks) over having an overall decent assessment of the capabilities of the opposing army. I cringed hard when I read about the IF aggressor + mortal combo wombo.

I very much prefer army composition to be dictated by some "lore coherent" rules on what a good balanced army ought to have (traditional AT, small arms) within the warhammer universe to represent combined arms tactics (which may be a bit more skewed for some factions or by player preference). And for the army to play according to some reasonable expectation of how the crazy 40k units would behave.

It seems that GWS has noticed this divide and is creating two lines: i) specialist games for those who want simulation (HH, Old World), ii) board games for those who want far more abstract approaches (9th edition, AoS). I don't it is simpler to play 9th or AoS, they just added bloat via special rules and stratagems. The sad part is when then they proceed to sideline i) to pour resources into ii).

It is also inevitable that as an IP evolves, olds fans eventually drop by disliking the changes while new fans are introduced to the new system.

This has been true for 40k for a lot of time, you can find old fans that are of the opinion that 40k shouldn't have moved from Rogue Trader, 2nd ed, 3rd ed, etc.

This also is true for any multi-generational IP, books, comics, movies, videogames, etc.

You mean as an IP dumbs itself down for profit. . .

 Insectum7 wrote:
You mean as an IP dumbs itself down for profit. . .

So you have all Rogue Trader era models?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
So you have all Rogue Trader era models?

This might be a more apt example.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You mean as an IP dumbs itself down for profit. . .

So you have all Rogue Trader era models?

I have an entire army of original plastic Tyranid Warriors. I have an entire company of Rogue Trader Beakies. I have 40 plastic Squats, and another 40 original plastic Guardsmen. I have 4 Rogue Trader Land Raiders, 2 Rhinos, and a Land Speeder. I have a small but growing collection of RT Chaos Marines, and three of the original Bloodthirsters. I also have many later models that are in good taste.

And no Primaris

 Insectum7 wrote:
You mean as an IP dumbs itself down for profit. . .

Complexity =/= Depth

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You mean as an IP dumbs itself down for profit. . .

Complexity =/= Depth

New =/= depth either.

I d argue that removing rules and adding dozens of stratagems makes it more cumbersome to play. Stratagems are ad hoc rules, at the end of the day; arcade combos that often result in feel bad moments. Wombo combo gotcha!

Plus of course they are all extremely specific and many of them are useless (bloat). They even rotate the meta stratagems via nerfs and buffs so it is like season cards. It is almost like GWS wanted to have metas / flavors of the month, and top / bottom armies.

Take GK, and their PA, and how combo wombos were integral to their new found power (buffing paladin bombs).

If you want an example of how board gamification changes a game check AoS, with pure health bars (a goblin toothpick can hurt a dragon); mortal wounds, and the removal of strategic thinks like flanking for exactly what?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps - couldn’t resist...can 100k goblin toothpicks hurt a dragon because of the odds that they poke him in THAT lose scale? (Cough Smaug cough).

Grey40k wrote:
Very interesting discussion.

I think that AoS has been a bit of a blueprint for 40k. AoS was a massive switch from simulation to board game, and some of the mechanics there were then implemented in 40k. This is what GWS envisioned, at some point, for their games. I do not know if this paradigm has been abandoned, since we didn't get rid off toughness altogether like AoS (I suspect yukishiro1 would actually prefer the no toughness approach in AoS).

The sad thing is, GW seem to have shoehorned a pile of dodgy AoS nonsense into 40k, yet failed to import a few things that might have actually improved the game.

e.g. AoS seems to have a much more sensible structuring of Chaos forces - wherein they're split based on their allegiance to a particular god. So rather than having a separate book for Chaos Daemons, which itself functions basically as four completely separate factions, you'd have a book for Death Guard + Nurgle Daemons, a book for Thousand Sons + Tzeentch Daemons etc..

Then you've got the Command abilities, which seem like a far better and more grounded way to insert a CP/Stratagem mechanic into the game. But no, instead we just get to try and play 40k and Yugioh at the same time.

Yeah, AOS isn't perfect.

I suppose the biggest deal though is that Warhammer Fantasy was never very good in the "realism" department. Steam tanks and dragons could always be hurt by arrows or swords (aside from the brief stint in 7th edition where the steam tank was T10 instead of T6).

Shifting from "Arrows and swords can hurt your steam tank" to "arrows and swords can hurt your steam tank, but more easily" is less painful of a verisimilitude jump than "small arms and combat blades can't hurt your tank at all" to "small arms and combat blades aren't even really wasting their time shooting at you." I mean what, you only need 18 lasgun hits to put a wound on t8 3+?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, AOS isn't perfect.

I suppose the biggest deal though is that Warhammer Fantasy was never very good in the "realism" department. Steam tanks and dragons could always be hurt by arrows or swords (aside from the brief stint in 7th edition where the steam tank was T10 instead of T6).

Shifting from "Arrows and swords can hurt your steam tank" to "arrows and swords can hurt your steam tank, but more easily" is less painful of a verisimilitude jump than "small arms and combat blades can't hurt your tank at all" to "small arms and combat blades aren't even really wasting their time shooting at you." I mean what, you only need 18 lasgun hits to put a wound on t8 3+?

That's true. I mean, I imagine a lot of monsters got easier to wound in 8th with small arms due to the change to the wounding table, but that seems to have drawn far fewer complaints than the removal of AVs for vehicles.

 vipoid wrote:
That's true. I mean, I imagine a lot of monsters got easier to wound in 8th with small arms due to the change to the wounding table, but that seems to have drawn far fewer complaints than the removal of AVs for vehicles.

It was less of a jump for monsters because they tended to have lower toughness to begin with, and there weren't many that were outright immune to anything S4 or lower. In the transition they got a lot more wounds, which offset the increased vulnerability.

Example- Carnifex. Formerly T7, 4 wounds. Now T7, 8 wounds. Bolters used to wound on 6s, now they wound on 5s. So in theory, the Carnifex is just as durable against bolters as it used to be. In practice, widespread easy access to AP and other force multipliers means Carnifexes die quickly and badly; but that's more of a game-wide issue than an MC-specific one.

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, AOS isn't perfect.

I suppose the biggest deal though is that Warhammer Fantasy was never very good in the "realism" department. Steam tanks and dragons could always be hurt by arrows or swords (aside from the brief stint in 7th edition where the steam tank was T10 instead of T6).

Shifting from "Arrows and swords can hurt your steam tank" to "arrows and swords can hurt your steam tank, but more easily" is less painful of a verisimilitude jump than "small arms and combat blades can't hurt your tank at all" to "small arms and combat blades aren't even really wasting their time shooting at you." I mean what, you only need 18 lasgun hits to put a wound on t8 3+?

That's true. I mean, I imagine a lot of monsters got easier to wound in 8th with small arms due to the change to the wounding table, but that seems to have drawn far fewer complaints than the removal of AVs for vehicles.

Yes and no. The largest T8 monsters got easier to wound (remmeber that T8 was exclusive to superheavy monsters). But the average monster was T6 and thus already vulnerable to small arms fire. Moreover the wound inflation made the smaller monsters far more resistnat to small arms, e.g the Carnifex went from needing 72 lasguns hits to die to needing the double, 144.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
That's true. I mean, I imagine a lot of monsters got easier to wound in 8th with small arms due to the change to the wounding table, but that seems to have drawn far fewer complaints than the removal of AVs for vehicles.

It was less of a jump for monsters because they tended to have lower toughness to begin with, and there weren't many that were outright immune to anything S4 or lower. In the transition they got a lot more wounds, which offset the increased vulnerability.

Example- Carnifex. Formerly T7, 4 wounds. Now T7, 8 wounds. Bolters used to wound on 6s, now they wound on 5s. So in theory, the Carnifex is just as durable against bolters as it used to be. In practice, widespread easy access to AP and other force multipliers means Carnifexes die quickly and badly; but that's more of a game-wide issue than an MC-specific one.

The Carnifex was T6 although in 4th it had an upgrade for T7.

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, AOS isn't perfect.

I suppose the biggest deal though is that Warhammer Fantasy was never very good in the "realism" department. Steam tanks and dragons could always be hurt by arrows or swords (aside from the brief stint in 7th edition where the steam tank was T10 instead of T6).

Shifting from "Arrows and swords can hurt your steam tank" to "arrows and swords can hurt your steam tank, but more easily" is less painful of a verisimilitude jump than "small arms and combat blades can't hurt your tank at all" to "small arms and combat blades aren't even really wasting their time shooting at you." I mean what, you only need 18 lasgun hits to put a wound on t8 3+?

That's true. I mean, I imagine a lot of monsters got easier to wound in 8th with small arms due to the change to the wounding table, but that seems to have drawn far fewer complaints than the removal of AVs for vehicles.

Well, they had other things which made a lot of them quite noncompetitive in 8th. Highly accurate Cannons made using most monsters against Dwarfs and Empire a big risk (especially Dwarf cannons with flaming shots from runes to shut down Regeneration).

So basically whilst the small stuff was able to hurt them a bit easier, the big stuff which was already very dangerous also became even more dangerous. Save or die spells could also be an issue, especially Pit of Shades as most monsters had quite low Initiative.

If they had brought in the joint profile for heroes on monsters that they did for the End Times at the beginning of 8th then I think we'd have seen more monsters on the table, even if it was only mounted monsters (dragons, manticores etc.) rather than singular monsters (Giants).

 Tyran wrote:
The Carnifex was T6 although in 4th it had an upgrade for T7.

Oh yup, my bad. It was the wounding on 6s with bolters that I remembered; lasguns also wounded on 6s, but still wound on 6s, so I guess the Carnifex has actually gotten twice as hard to kill with flashlights as before.