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.

This is something that's kind of been troubling me since the news of the meltagun update, which presumably will be translating over to all equivalent styles of weaponry across all codexes.

One of the biggest things we're seeing in the new marine codex and the new necron codex alike is a massive increase to the reliability of antitank weaponry. We've got:

D2 heavy bolters (more effective vs tanks than current Autocannons)
D4 thunder hammers
D3d3 Heavy Destroyer gun (average of 6 damage)
new Void Dragon with a total of 6 3+D3 S9 AP-4 attacks (causing 16.4 unsaved wounds vs a standard 3+sv vehicle) before accounting for any other abilities or powers.
Eradicators, with improved melta causing 14.7 unsaved wounds vs standard vehicles
New Primaris Predator-replacement, with 14.9 unsaved wounds vs standard vehicles within 12"
Sisters of Battle Retributors, who with the new melta update will be a 160pt unit that unlike Eradicators can freely split fire and causes 19.5 unsaved wounds in melta range

And thanks to the new infiltration universal stratagem, every single one of these units can infiltrate for a small number of CP (2CP to infiltrate 3 melta retributor squads if you want at their new power level) and can just appear, turn 2, in melta range.

In the face of these sorts of units, part of me wonders what the purpose behind the distinctions between vehicles' statlines actually is. The distinction between a guard "light tank" like a taurox at T6 Sv3+ W10, a medium tank like a Chimera at T7 Sv3+ W11 and a leman russ at T8 Sv3+ W12 seems pretty laughable in the face of all these units whose gameplay pattern appears to be "shows up and deletes whatever your most expensive unit is, counter them by making your most expensive unit <150pts so they can't instantly make their points back".

There's not a whole lot of durability upgrades, or stratagems, or whatever that seem to make a whole lot of difference. Say I'm playing Eldar and my opponent brings Retributors, and I happen to have brought a Fire Prism, or a Hemlock, or a Night Spinner to the battlefield. It's just gonna be gone, turn 2. I can put Spirit Stones on it, average rolling is still going to easily take it out. I can use Lightning Fast Reactions (well, except for the Hemlock, rip), it's still going to die. I can screen them perfectly out of melta range, ehhhh still an average of 12.4 wounds from those 8 melta shots.

It seems like the best solution is to solve the problem at the listbuilding level by making sure I don't concentrate >160pts in any one model. If anyone else has any ideas for dealing with a threat that reliable, I'm pretty dang interested in hearing it.

Also if you've got thoughts on how to take out models that can only take a certain number of wounds per phase with an army that doesn't have psykers and primarily does damage in either shooting or fighting, I'd love to hear that too.

It's really hard to say right now.

I will say the Necron effect is likely going to be negligible. We just didn't have really good anti-tank once it was stripped away from our Gauss weapons. Our updated profiles and new stuff just brings us more in line with what we should have since the gauss change.

 Sasori wrote:
It's really hard to say right now.

I will say the Necron effect is likely going to be negligible. We just didn't have really good anti-tank once it was stripped away from our Gauss weapons. Our updated profiles and new stuff just brings us more in line with what we should have since the gauss change.

I would say it will most likely bring Necrons into what going forward will be the "new normal" for damage put out by dedicated anti-tank units.

My question is mostly: It seems like a whole heck of a lot, in terms of damage, and I don't know why I would bring big stuff to the table in light of the output generated by some of this stuff.

If it helps, talk about Sisters Retributors: We know exactly what their rules are going to be with the release of the new marine dex, their point cost, their power level, and their access to strats and traits and auras and whatever. There's no 'well we dont know what x and y and z are going to cost, well we don't have the full profile with all the special rules'

How do you avoid deep-strikeable 8-shot 24" range suicide melta with the new melta damage rule?

Heavy destroyer is 70 pts model(assuming codex doesn't up it). Has about 50% chance of whiffing if enemy has no inv save. So you average about 3 dam per heavy destoyer.

As for how to avoid. Don"t deploy tanks to edges, have screens. Have unit about 3" from vehicle toward table edge. No melta range even for multi melta. Screens are needed for various reasons anyway

Inv save equiped vehicles and those that are cheap, should be doing fine.

Karol wrote:
Inv save equiped vehicles and those that are cheap, should be doing fine.

Best I can do is give 1 vehicle a 5+ invuln, that isn't going to do much.

_Maybe_ anti tank units are becoming so efficient so we have to take less in each list to make room for units to deal with horde armies.

As much as I like to see a good reasoning behind it, I doubt GW does have this kind of foresight to their own rules.

I have no idea what to do with my Nid monsters against this escalation. They will just evaporate when something looks in their direction.

And I don't think the mid-sized 3W 4+ elites will fare much better. They have no answer to the elite-hunting meta either.

Simply put you don't, even thing's with invulnerable saves aren't looking to be competitive outside of the insanely cheap.

Imagine we got a light vehicle heavy meta, who saw that coming? There are already signs with the ork buggy lists using about 20 small vehicles. A cynic would say that's a big money maker for GW...

Kitane wrote:
I have no idea what to do with my Nid monsters against this escalation. They will just evaporate when something looks in their direction.
And I don't think the mid-sized 3W 4+ elites will fare much better. They have no answer to the elite-hunting meta either.

Granted, this isn't an ideal situation to be in, but one possibility to consider - try keeping your big bugs off the table in Strategic Reserves and give your other units a shot at taking out or otherwise tying up some of the threats first.
Or, go full zerg rush and take lots of cheaper monster spam (lots of Warriors, default loadout Carnifexes etc) to give your opponent too much target saturation, so that *something* will get through. That's a lot riskier in my eyes, though.

First off dedicated anti-tank was to unreliable previously, D6 damage is complete garbage so anti tank weapons being more reliable to actually deal meaningful damage to a tank is not a bad thing.

But this can mean that the new and improved anit-tank is now to effective and needs to have an increased point cost.

Reminds me of when the MFM points were first revealed:

Multimeltas are more expensive than Lascannons. Has GW lost their minds? Lascannons are so much better.

Now it is:

Multimeltas are so deadly. Has GW lost their minds? They need to go up in points.

I'll guess we'll have to continue waiting and seeing.

I don't think anybody said that. The problem isn't points values - you could raise the points and they'd still auto-delete anything they shoot at, with guaranteed alpha strike.

The basic problem is that the combination of outflank becoming universal, the smaller board size, and the drastically increased lethality adds up to something that's extremely unfriendly to anything except 1) units with good invulns, or 2) cheap stuff that you don't care if it gets blown off the table.

It feels like the universal outflank really wasn't thought out well in combination with the smaller board size. You either end up in a situation where someone can screen, in which case outflank is useless, or a situation where they can't screen, in which case certain units are essentially guaranteed to make their points back in a single turn of shooting with no option for the opponent but to take it.

I think the real solution is to do what they bizarrely didn't do when they reduced the table size by 25%, and reduce weapon ranges (and probably mobility abilities) by a similar amount.

If MMs had 18" range instead of 24", for example, melta range would be 9", meaning you couldn't outflank into it period, and also making it possible to position in places that can't be easily hit from an outflank in the first place. How does it make any sense that units can lurk just outside the table range and be totally invulnerable, but in such a way that they can hit any point on the table with 24" range weaponry the turn they come in? When standard range small arms fire can hit any point on the table the first turn the unit enters the battle, you've done something pretty weird to your game design.

That said, the obvious time to do this was at the start of the edition, and they pointedly didn't do so. So I think it's safe to say they don't think it's a problem to have this outflank meta where you can hit anywhere on the table T2 with units that make their points back from range in the same turn they come in.

Necrons were one of the most underpowered factions in the game and everything we've seen so far merely brings them into parity with the median. Oh and the new Heavy Destroyer is pants - unless it becomes much cheaper.

As far as Marines go, well they've been broken for a year now so what else is new

The other potential solution, which I just thought of now, is to require the person outflanking a unit to declare what board edge it is outflanking on, without the option to declare the opponent's edge. On T2, it can come in on that edge, or the player can declare the unit is moving to an adjacent board edge instead, where it will come in on T3.

This dramatically changes the opponent's ability to adapt, because they know which side the flankers are coming from. That 24" MM range can actually be played around now, because it's 24" from one edge, not from 3 edges. 48" range suddenly means something again, because it means *those* weapons can hit any point.

Wouldn't it be great to have a game where weapon range actually mattered for heavy weapons, instead of having everything able to hit basically everything? The 42nd millenium sure is a weird place - everybody stands around within easy range of each other's guns, but nobody can actually shoot until someone shoots off the pistol to let you know the battle has begun!

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't think anybody said that. The problem isn't points values - you could raise the points and they'd still auto-delete anything they shoot at, with guaranteed alpha strike.

The basic problem is that the combination of outflank becoming universal, the smaller board size, and the drastically increased lethality adds up to something that's extremely unfriendly to anything except 1) units with good invulns, or 2) cheap stuff that you don't care if it gets blown off the table.

It feels like the universal outflank really wasn't thought out well in combination with the smaller board size. You either end up in a situation where someone can screen, in which case outflank is useless, or a situation where they can't screen, in which case certain units are essentially guaranteed to make their points back in a single turn of shooting with no option for the opponent but to take it.

I think the real solution is to do what they bizarrely didn't do when they reduced the table size by 25%, and reduce weapon ranges (and probably mobility abilities) by a similar amount.

If MMs had 18" range instead of 24", for example, melta range would be 9", meaning you couldn't outflank into it period, and also making it possible to position in places that can't be easily hit from an outflank in the first place. How does it make any sense that units can lurk just outside the table range and be totally invulnerable, but in such a way that they can hit any point on the table with 24" range weaponry the turn they come in? When standard range small arms fire can hit any point on the table the first turn the unit enters the battle, you've done something pretty weird to your game design.

That said, the obvious time to do this was at the start of the edition, and they pointedly didn't do so. So I think it's safe to say they don't think it's a problem to have this outflank meta where you can hit anywhere on the table T2 with units that make their points back from range in the same turn they come in.

I think GW just should have made those tables sizes that absolute minimum size the table can be (which is still likely to have issues) for a set amount of points instead making it the recommend table size. That way it would be less of an issue.

That is what they did

 alextroy wrote:
That is what they did

Oh, I know. Just pointing it out. Also hard to sympathize when player's are the architects of their own destruction such as this.

onto the original topic, GW I think mostly wants 40k to be infantry focused, with tanks being an occasional supporting unit. things like core rules enchouraging the use of infantry, while ensuring devestator squads and their equivilants have the tools to deal with tanks. IMHO the most valuable tanks will be the ones that play a role no infantry unit can reasonably duplicate, the Lemen russ will remain a staple of guard lists. but you'll likely not see a ton of tanks in marine lists. (and I suspect those we do see may end up as mostly distraction carnifexes)

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I think GW just should have made those tables sizes that absolute minimum size the table can be (which is still likely to have issues) for a set amount of points instead making it the recommend table size. That way it would be less of an issue.

I think GW should have not made any sort of table-size recommendations at all, especially when their recommendations just boil down to Buy All Our Playsets & Toys™.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I think GW just should have made those tables sizes that absolute minimum size the table can be (which is still likely to have issues) for a set amount of points instead making it the recommend table size. That way it would be less of an issue.

I think GW should have not made any sort of table-size recommendations at all, especially when their recommendations just boil down to Buy All Our Playsets & Toys™.

problem with that HMBC is you'd be fine with that, and I'd be fine with that, but little timmy whose just starting out might need some sort of guidance onbare minimum play space

Honest question: Has GW ever put recommended board sizes in the 40K rulebooks in the past? Did 8th have it? 7th? 6th was replaced before the ink was dry so forget that. 5th?

 alextroy wrote:
Reminds me of when the MFM points were first revealed:

Multimeltas are more expensive than Lascannons. Has GW lost their minds? Lascannons are so much better.

Now it is:

Multimeltas are so deadly. Has GW lost their minds? They need to go up in points.

If gw aren't amateur fools mm will go up. Any half decent game developer puts　price on what abilities cost NOW rather than couple months later. If prices don't go up with buffs final nail in coffin for gw's　reputation as professionals


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:


I think GW just should have made those tables sizes that absolute minimum size the table can be (which is still likely to have issues) for a set amount of points instead making it the recommend table size. That way it would be less of an issue.

Funny that. They　ARE minimum and not recommended. And　by very definition of word it's thus not optimal.

It's players who jumped to bandwagon of it's mandatory because itc decided it's good way to get more profits for themselves

I guess it depends on points costs. In 6th and 7th Edition being a vehicle meant the unit was extremely easy to kill and had a lot of restrictions to its shooting and movement compared to any other unit. Nevertheless people brought some, either because transports were necessary or, and that's what could happen in 9th again, because they were extremely cheap. A Rhino was cheaper than a Plague Marine with Plasma gun. In fact at one point a Rhino was 0points for Space Marines.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Honest question: Has GW ever put recommended board sizes in the 40K rulebooks in the past? Did 8th have it? 7th? 6th was replaced before the ink was dry so forget that. 5th?

6th did in fact. But it was in the scenarios (most of them anyway). 'This mission is intended to be played on a battlefield that is 6'x4', although you should adapt the size accordingly if you are using very large or small forces'

8th said 'We typically assume a battlefield is 6'x4' (but yadda yada larger armies) (p186). The six deployment possibilities also assume 6x4, but you have to count the grid squares and compare it to the few areas with measurements.

Rogue Trader puts it as 'Six feet by four feet is a fair size; larger tables are difficult to reach across properly. Many gamers (including the author on occasions) improvise by using the dining room table.'

I'd have to dig for any other editions, bar 7th, where I assume its either exactly the same as 6th or in the handful of pages of errata that they bothered to do to make 6.25 edition 'different enough' for the sake of reselling it.


----
But yes, GW recommended board sizes, all the way back to the beginning.

The furor here is apparently GW is wrong for giving people multiple options rather than just stating what was best and moving on, leaving folks to figure out alternatives that might suit them better on their own.

Honestly I keep wondering this as well. Like for all of 8th everyone has been expected to be able to quickly kill a knight, and now they’ve made it easier for absolutely everyone to do that. Like why would I expect any vehicle I have to survive if damage profiles are starting to say things like D3+6? And saying “just put things in strategic reserve” sounds like a step away from “if you don’t use a unit, it can’t get shot”.

Kitane wrote:
I have no idea what to do with my Nid monsters against this escalation. They will just evaporate when something looks in their direction.

And I don't think the mid-sized 3W 4+ elites will fare much better. They have no answer to the elite-hunting meta either.

I don't understand why they don't give Tyranids a blanket 5+ FNP army wide to represent just how brutal and unforgiving they are. When you read stories about Tyranid assaults, they're always taking massive amounts of damage before going down. And while on the subject, wouldn't it be neat if Tyranids had the opposite affect of other armies, the more wounds their monsters take, the faster and harder hitting they become, like a trapped animal lashing out at its predator?

BrianDavion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I think GW just should have made those tables sizes that absolute minimum size the table can be (which is still likely to have issues) for a set amount of points instead making it the recommend table size. That way it would be less of an issue.

I think GW should have not made any sort of table-size recommendations at all, especially when their recommendations just boil down to Buy All Our Playsets & Toys™.

problem with that HMBC is you'd be fine with that, and I'd be fine with that, but little timmy whose just starting out might need some sort of guidance onbare minimum play space

If little Timmy is smart enough to play 40k, then little Timmy is smart enough to figure out a decent table size on his own. If he can't? Then he's not ready for 40k.