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.

 catbarf wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Even with those anti-tank weapons, used to be that you needed 9 lascannon hits to take out a Russ on hull points against front armor. Now it's just over 5.

Or a single shot killed you with no save.

8.3% chance it happens on the first damaging hit. 16% chance it happens in the first or second. 84% chance the vehicle dies from lost hull points, not premature explosion.

It can happen and I'm sure left a lasting impression when it did. But it's not very relevant to the averages; making the vehicle 92% as durable as if that possibility didn't exist.

So call it 8 lascannon hits, then. Still a lot tougher than under the current system.

Big difference is that it could and did happen - you can't shoot one Lascanon at a undamaged vehicle in 8th/9th and see it explode, or be unable to shoot or move or both.

It's never just one lascannon, multi-meltas are now capable of instakilling tanks anyways, and instead of fishing for rare random weapon loss or immobilization you have predictable (and significant) degradation alongside normal damage.

Anyone who knows what they're doing plays to averages, not to possibilities. D6 damage is not better than 5 damage because yOu MiGhT rOlL a SiX. The single-shot destruction probability is borderline irrelevant to the game- certainly not nearly as significant as being nearly half as hard to kill on average, let alone vulnerability to weapons that wouldn't even scratch the paint before.

 catbarf wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Really it's just the land raider and a few other exceptions that were harder to kill before and some armies didn't have any problem against those AV14 boxes anyway. Armies that couldn't one shot a land raider before 8th still can't do it now.

I can certainly believe that light armor has gotten a lot tougher. But heavy armor now gets hurt by a whole range of mid-strength weapons that AV13/14 used to be able to ignore or at worst be glanced on a 6.

My Leman Russes are threatened by massed Heavy Bolters, Autocannons, Disintegrators, Cyclic Ion Blasters, Plasma Guns (and Cannons), and even infantry weapons like Stalker Bolt Rifles.
Used to be that AV14 on my front arc meant that turn 1 I only needed to worry about big anti-tank weapons.

Even with those anti-tank weapons, used to be that you needed 9 lascannon hits to take out a Russ on hull points against front armor. Now it's just over 5.

You combine nearly halved resistance to dedicated AT with new vulnerability to a whole ton of common weapons, and tanks don't stick around nearly as long.

The real winners are light vehicles; heavies are only marginally tougher despite much higher cost.

Your Leman Russes were AV10 in the back IIRC though. Which means 10 trukk boyz could wreck it without even using the nob's power klaw. Now the same trukk boyz will strip 6W at most and not without the power klaw (or killsaw), typically even less.

My Battlewagon was AV14/12/10 and died pretty much everytime against a single melta shot that went through saves, in an era in which a drop pod could land in the face of an enemy unit. Now it takes way more lascannons and meltas to kill it. Sure it can also be threatened by S5-6 weapons but overall it's extremely more durable than it was before. And the damage chart now is not as harsh as before when a single pen hit invalidated the whole vehicle for a turn if not the entire battle.

Deff dreads and nauts saw some light at the the end of the tunnel only in 8th, they were trash before (dreads sucked after 3rd actually).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

D6 damage is not better than 5 damage because yOu MiGhT rOlL a SiX.

D6 damage is far worse than 5 damage.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Even with those anti-tank weapons, used to be that you needed 9 lascannon hits to take out a Russ on hull points against front armor. Now it's just over 5.

Or a single shot killed you with no save.

8.3% chance it happens on the first damaging hit. 16% chance it happens in the first or second. 84% chance the vehicle dies from lost hull points, not premature explosion.

It can happen and I'm sure left a lasting impression when it did. But it's not very relevant to the averages; making the vehicle 92% as durable as if that possibility didn't exist.

So call it 8 lascannon hits, then. Still a lot tougher than under the current system.

Big difference is that it could and did happen - you can't shoot one Lascanon at a undamaged vehicle in 8th/9th and see it explode, or be unable to shoot or move or both.

Also, Lascannons were gak at killing vehicles compared to most other guns in those editions. Melta guns and anything else that was AP -1 were essentially guaranteed kills on the damage chart. 2 grav cannons killed basically every non-superheavy in the game on average. Anything that wasn't AV 13 or better would die to 2 scatbikes.

In practice vehicles were tissue paper filled with nitroglycerine in 6th and 7th and that was BEFORE D weapons came in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
It's never just one lascannon, multi-meltas are now capable of instakilling tanks anyways, and instead of fishing for rare random weapon loss or immobilization you have predictable (and significant) degradation alongside normal damage.

Anyone who knows what they're doing plays to averages, not to possibilities. D6 damage is not better than 5 damage because yOu MiGhT rOlL a SiX. The single-shot destruction probability is borderline irrelevant to the game- certainly not nearly as significant as being nearly half as hard to kill on average, let alone vulnerability to weapons that wouldn't even scratch the paint before.

Which again, would be true if it wasn't for the fact that immobilize, weapon destroyed and explodes were INCREDIBLY likely results. Especially in 6th when explodes happened on a 4+ for AP-1 weapons.

You can throw out a bunch of probabilities and whatever but the fact of the matter is that in 9th some armies are willing to pay 70+pts for a rhinos when space marines didn't even take them when they were FREE. (towards the end of the edition.)

I'll still be running larger vehicles. As far as new SM are concerned, new techmarine is better at buffing a big vehicle (repair and +1 to hit) than captain rerolls did before core unit changes. If my opponent shows up with eradicators, into strategic reserves goes the landraider.

The only list building change i've taken on for 9th is more obsec, both small units for actions and durable units to hold key areas.

Vehicles dont seem fragile to me when i am playing HH(basically better 7th) in Tabletop simulator. My knight asterius almost never dies when i use it.

terror51247 wrote:
Vehicles dont seem fragile to me when i am playing HH(basically better 7th) in Tabletop simulator. My knight asterius almost never dies when i use it.

Superheavies are a different animal altogether in 7th than something like a landraider. Back when superheavy was actually a distinct thing and not just a big tank on legs.

Also, a HH army is about...60% of the powerlevel of a late 7th 40k army. Even worse for really cutting edge competitive lists.

So just to be complete here...MM points costs didn't change, as most of us predicted. They were already baked into the MM2020 price. All the weapon prices were already updated.

yukishiro1 wrote:
So just to be complete here...MM points costs didn't change, as most of us predicted. They were already baked into the MM2020 price. All the weapon prices were already updated.

Pretty much seems to imply that those points are sadly here to stay untill your codex and well if you don't have a 9th edition codex GG scrub your paying points today for rules you will get at some nebulous time in the future.

Ice_can wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
So just to be complete here...MM points costs didn't change, as most of us predicted. They were already baked into the MM2020 price. All the weapon prices were already updated.

Pretty much seems to imply that those points are sadly here to stay untill your codex and well if you don't have a 9th edition codex GG scrub your paying points today for rules you will get at some nebulous time in the future.

Nah, they just released the erratas. None for fw yet though.