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.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
24W in the current damage system seems about appropriate for the larger side of regular tanks. It'd be better at T9 (much like the Land Raider should be), but I'm not seeing how this is LOW-worthy.

T9 would help, but not much.. What are you affecting? Las, Lances, Kraks, and Melta for 16%,? Any of the S5-S7 accidental tank killers don’t care and still perform the same accidentally killing your monolith/land raider. The big “tanks” especially the ones pushing knight prices need an invuln in a world where people make armies while worried about seeing a knight or more show up.

Respectfully disagree. Remember, we're talking T9 with a 2+ save. That means most of those "accidental tank killers" would only be pushing the Monolith onto a 3+ or 4+ save as they are mostly AP-1 or AP-2, while most of the stuff with AP-3 or AP-4 is S8 and would be wounding on 5s instead of 4s. Most LOWs should have the T9 2+ defensive stat line without an invul, including knights. That would help against the "accidental" anti-tank weapons while making the real anti-tank weapons more desirable against them. More standard MBTs, like Leman Russes, should be T9 with a 3+, that way meltas really want to get in close for that extra oomph to make up for wounding on 5s.

Edit: Probably a good idea to give those T9 MBTs and LOWs a rule that reduces AP-1 and possibly Ap-2 to 0 as well to help against all those HROF S5, 6, and 7 weapons. Those things should chew through light armour but not the heavy stuff.

The "Accidental Tank Killers" I'm referring to are the Grav-style/statline MEQ/TEQ guns. Multiple shots, S5/6-ish -3ish save 2ish damage. 4 shots, 3 hits, 2 and a half wounds, a sixth of a save ~4 damage per gun. The ones where S5 doesn't care about the difference between T6 and T9.

No, I'd start with giving every vehicle +10 Toughness. I'd give every anti-tank that's supposed to be anti-tank gun +10S when targetting a vehicle - or all the time and -1 to hit anything non-vehicle depending on the gun. i.e. the Battlecannon might get +10S only vs Vehicle, the Lascannon might +10S all the time,and -1 to hit non vehicles. I'd even change the Hit Modifier cap such that you can max -1 or +1 to hit from each player i.e. you can get -2 to hit if you shoot an "unweildy" gun or use an "unweildy" powerfist (-1 to hit from your side) on an an agile "dodgy" Eldar git(-1 to hit on their side for a total of -2). Of course then I'd think of Dreads in close combat, or Sentinels and old Landspeeders etc all the time and mutter some four letter words under my breath as things fall apart. I mean, I don't mind that a Dread might be immune to combat knives and the generic close combat weapon all troops are assumed to have and all Tau are assumed to have forgotten in their locker on the mothership but the power weapons etc should still hurt them especially TH and PF. You'd probably have to figure out how to draw this line for Tyranid Monsters as well.

I like reducing AP for really monstrous or tough tanks like a landraider, knight or monolith. Maybe a -1 AP to all weapons due to thick armor, hardened armor, coherent matter armor or whatever.

Breton wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
24W in the current damage system seems about appropriate for the larger side of regular tanks. It'd be better at T9 (much like the Land Raider should be), but I'm not seeing how this is LOW-worthy.

T9 would help, but not much.. What are you affecting? Las, Lances, Kraks, and Melta for 16%,? Any of the S5-S7 accidental tank killers don’t care and still perform the same accidentally killing your monolith/land raider. The big “tanks” especially the ones pushing knight prices need an invuln in a world where people make armies while worried about seeing a knight or more show up.

Respectfully disagree. Remember, we're talking T9 with a 2+ save. That means most of those "accidental tank killers" would only be pushing the Monolith onto a 3+ or 4+ save as they are mostly AP-1 or AP-2, while most of the stuff with AP-3 or AP-4 is S8 and would be wounding on 5s instead of 4s. Most LOWs should have the T9 2+ defensive stat line without an invul, including knights. That would help against the "accidental" anti-tank weapons while making the real anti-tank weapons more desirable against them. More standard MBTs, like Leman Russes, should be T9 with a 3+, that way meltas really want to get in close for that extra oomph to make up for wounding on 5s.

Edit: Probably a good idea to give those T9 MBTs and LOWs a rule that reduces AP-1 and possibly Ap-2 to 0 as well to help against all those HROF S5, 6, and 7 weapons. Those things should chew through light armour but not the heavy stuff.

The "Accidental Tank Killers" I'm referring to are the Grav-style/statline MEQ/TEQ guns. Multiple shots, S5/6-ish -3ish save 2ish damage. 4 shots, 3 hits, 2 and a half wounds, a sixth of a save ~4 damage per gun. The ones where S5 doesn't care about the difference between T6 and T9.

No, I'd start with giving every vehicle +10 Toughness. I'd give every anti-tank that's supposed to be anti-tank gun +10S when targetting a vehicle - or all the time and -1 to hit anything non-vehicle depending on the gun. i.e. the Battlecannon might get +10S only vs Vehicle, the Lascannon might +10S all the time,and -1 to hit non vehicles. I'd even change the Hit Modifier cap such that you can max -1 or +1 to hit from each player i.e. you can get -2 to hit if you shoot an "unweildy" gun or use an "unweildy" powerfist (-1 to hit from your side) on an an agile "dodgy" Eldar git(-1 to hit on their side for a total of -2). Of course then I'd think of Dreads in close combat, or Sentinels and old Landspeeders etc all the time and mutter some four letter words under my breath as things fall apart. I mean, I don't mind that a Dread might be immune to combat knives and the generic close combat weapon all troops are assumed to have and all Tau are assumed to have forgotten in their locker on the mothership but the power weapons etc should still hurt them especially TH and PF. You'd probably have to figure out how to draw this line for Tyranid Monsters as well.

Ah, so you want to alter the rules even more than my proposal. Understood. I would point out however, against those AP-3 weapons such as grav a 2+ save unit like the Monolith is getting the same save as a knight without the Rotate Ion Shields strategem, do you consider knights as lacking in durability? T9 2+ is quite durable, especially with 20+ wounds. I actually field units with that defensive profile, do you? Their problem is their price, not their durability. Agreed that penalties to hit imposed by yourself should stack with those imposed by your opponent.

Edit: Also how are you getting two and a half wounds from three hits that wound on 5s?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'll go join all zero of the players making up the local community for other wargames.

They're probably there, unless you live in the boonies. But communities don't come from nothing.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


I don't think they need to go up in cost. They're already underperforming. For reference:
Guardsman, 5 points [FRF-SRF]: 4 shots, 2 hits, 0.66 wounds, 0.22 damage. Followed by 1 attack, 0.5 hits, 0.17 wounds, 0.06 damage. Collective, 0.28 damage to MEQ-class targets.
Ork, 8 points [large section]: 1 shot, 0.39 hits, .2 wounds, 0.07 damage. Followed by 4 attacks, 2.7 hits, 1.35 wounds, 0.45 damage. Collective, 0.53 damage to MEQ class targets. Almost twice as much.
Intercessor, 21 points [Auraed, Tactical Doctrine]: 2 shots, 1.6 hits, 1 wound, 0.6 damage. Followed by 3 attacks, 2.3 hits, 1.8 wounds, 0.7 damage. Collective, 1.3 damage

In resilience:
Guardsmen and Orks are a wash:
2/3*2/3 = 0.44 versus 1/2*5/6 = 0.42
Intercessors are 1/2*1/3 = 0.16, and have 2 wounds, so really they're like more than 4 times as resilient as either.

We normalize those numbers by price, we've got:
0.056 damage per point for Guardsmen
0.066 damage per point for Orks
0.062 damage per point for Intercessors

2.2 lost points per hit for Guardsmen
3.3 lost points per hit for Orks
1.6 lost points per hit for Space Marines


This shows that while Space Marines are really out there mostly in survivability, Guardsmen and Orks are pretty close, with Guardsmen being still generally worse than Orks per point actually, and that's before getting into the relative greater value of melee than short ranged shooting because of the way things are scored.

In addition, as they lose buffs, the Space Marines about a quarter of their performance, Orks lose a about a quarter of their performance, and Guardsmen lose a whole half of their performance.


For this, Guard are at least better off than Tau.
One the outbound, fully buffed with a fireblade and 5 markerlights, Tau average 0.049 damage per point and taking fire take 3 lost points per hit.



Also, 1 dead marine per 60 points HWT isn't a great rate. It's actually pretty bad. Guardsmen do that, and they at least are obsec and have 4 more wounds

Posting HWT's up there, that's 0.05 damage per point, worse than Guardsmen, and also less resilient at 4.4 points lost per hit.



So, my 2c on infantry:
Infantry are okay at 5 points
Orks are probably good at 8 points.
Fire Warriors need to come down, probably to 7 points.
Intercessors need to be more. Probably about 33% more or so.

Actually boyz have 2 attacks base, 3 if they are slugga/choppa. 4 only if they are 20+ models which makes them a very expensive unit (160+ points). Most of the times they'll have 3 if not just 2 as shoota boyz are quite popular now; in that case they gain a BS5+ extra shot though. The shot you listed for boyz is from a 12'' pistol and CC is 1-2 turns at most while shooting is easier to do multiple times since better range ad possibility to target units behind screeners.

I think boyz and guardsmen are definitely on par and should have max 1 pts of difference in price, the reason why AM is underperforming is the lack of good CC which is required in this edition. Fire Warriors are probably better than boyz, it's the drukhari troops that should be cheaper and wyches in particular should be much cheaper, like 40-50%. But I agree about intercessors, they're undercosted, like pretty much any primaris infantry unit.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ah, so you want to alter the rules even more than my proposal. Understood. I would point out however, against those AP-3 weapons such as grav a 2+ save unit like the Monolith is getting the same save as a knight without the Rotate Ion Shields strategem, do you consider knights as lacking in durability? T9 2+ is quite durable, especially with 20+ wounds. I actually field units with that defensive profile, do you? Their problem is their price, not their durability. Agreed that penalties to hit imposed by yourself should stack with those imposed by your opponent.

Nah, I get to pay LOW prices for Land Raider and Repuslor Durability. I'm also interested in "fixing" more than just the LR/Repulsor/Mono. The Truly light vehicles (Speeders, Sentinels and the like) should be vulnerable to mid-tier (i.e. MEQ/TEQ) guns. Hollywood aside, it's hard to shoot down a helicopter with a handgun. Dreads and MC's should be able to faceroll their way through units that don't have a hefty CCW in the unit. They should be vulnerable to but not especially scared of the basic weapons. I'm looking to fix them all, really. Trukks, Wagons, Preds, HammerBladeSwords, and so on and so on. It should be a choice between taking anti-tank/anti-vehicle shooting, and taking anti infantry (even TEQ) shooting. Very few things should excel at both, and they should usually be limited to a tank turret or artillery.

Edit: Also how are you getting two and a half wounds from three hits that wound on 5s?

I'm going to guess: by doing it when I should have been sleeping. Instead of keeping the 1/3 and discarding the 2/3, I kept the 2/3 and discarded the 1/3

 Blackie wrote:

Actually boyz have 2 attacks base, 3 if they are slugga/choppa. 4 only if they are 20+ models which makes them a very expensive unit (160+ points). Most of the times they'll have 3 if not just 2 as shoota boyz are quite popular now; in that case they gain a BS5+ extra shot though. The shot you listed for boyz is from a 12'' pistol and CC is 1-2 turns at most while shooting is easier to do multiple times since better range ad possibility to target units behind screeners.

I think boyz and guardsmen are definitely on par and should have max 1 pts of difference in price, the reason why AM is underperforming is the lack of good CC which is required in this edition. Fire Warriors are probably better than boyz, it's the drukhari troops that should be cheaper and wyches in particular should be much cheaper, like 40-50%. But I agree about intercessors, they're undercosted, like pretty much any primaris infantry unit.

I think you are pretty much on point. As a Drukhari player I can live with Kabalites at 9 (with better weapons) and Wracks at 12, but Wyches at 11 is way too expensive. The other day I realised that Flayed Ones are 14... I mean, it seems that we are paying way too much for our Dodge and our drugs.
I guess other Xeno players will have the same problem, and maybe is just that the most played basic troop in the game is way cheap in comparison.

Breton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ah, so you want to alter the rules even more than my proposal. Understood. I would point out however, against those AP-3 weapons such as grav a 2+ save unit like the Monolith is getting the same save as a knight without the Rotate Ion Shields strategem, do you consider knights as lacking in durability? T9 2+ is quite durable, especially with 20+ wounds. I actually field units with that defensive profile, do you? Their problem is their price, not their durability. Agreed that penalties to hit imposed by yourself should stack with those imposed by your opponent.

Nah, I get to pay LOW prices for Land Raider and Repuslor Durability. I'm also interested in "fixing" more than just the LR/Repulsor/Mono. The Truly light vehicles (Speeders, Sentinels and the like) should be vulnerable to mid-tier (i.e. MEQ/TEQ) guns. Hollywood aside, it's hard to shoot down a helicopter with a handgun. Dreads and MC's should be able to faceroll their way through units that don't have a hefty CCW in the unit. They should be vulnerable to but not especially scared of the basic weapons. I'm looking to fix them all, really. Trukks, Wagons, Preds, HammerBladeSwords, and so on and so on. It should be a choice between taking anti-tank/anti-vehicle shooting, and taking anti infantry (even TEQ) shooting. Very few things should excel at both, and they should usually be limited to a tank turret or artillery.

Land Raiders are 285 PPM, Repulsives are 311 PPM I think? That is nowhere near LOW prices, much less the price of anything T9 2+. Sounds to me like you want to go back to the old wounding table. Good luck with that. I'd be cool with it, but probably not gw.

Edit: Also how are you getting two and a half wounds from three hits that wound on 5s?

I'm going to guess: by doing it when I should have been sleeping. Instead of keeping the 1/3 and discarding the 2/3, I kept the 2/3 and discarded the 1/3

Plenty of time for sleep in the grave.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Land Raiders are 285 PPM, Repulsives are 311 PPM I think? That is nowhere near LOW prices, much less the price of anything T9 2+. Sounds to me like you want to go back to the old wounding table. Good luck with that. I'd be cool with it, but probably not gw.

The Rep-Ex is 360ish. G is only about 5% more. Guard have something like 3 LOW cheaper than it is

The Crassus Armored Vehicle is a LOW practically IS a Land Raider when you give it two HB and 2 LC. Add two more LC it's technically not allowed to have and it's 290 points.

Its BS 4+ instead of BS 3, and it gets the usual Super Heavy special rule. It's t8 20W 3+ instead of T8 16W 2+


I mean seriously look at the thing, it even looks like someone took a Chimera and bits from the Leman Russ Kit and then used the Land Raider Instruction booklet.

Breton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Land Raiders are 285 PPM, Repulsives are 311 PPM I think? That is nowhere near LOW prices, much less the price of anything T9 2+. Sounds to me like you want to go back to the old wounding table. Good luck with that. I'd be cool with it, but probably not gw.

The Rep-Ex is 360ish. G is only about 5% more. Guard have something like 3 LOW cheaper than it is

The Crassus Armored Vehicle is a LOW practically IS a Land Raider when you give it two HB and 2 LC. Add two more LC it's technically not allowed to have and it's 290 points.

Its BS 4+ instead of BS 3, and it gets the usual Super Heavy special rule. It's t8 20W 3+ instead of T8 16W 2+


I mean seriously look at the thing, it even looks like someone took a Chimera and bits from the Leman Russ Kit and then used the Land Raider Instruction booklet.

Yes, it practically is a Land Raider...with worse shooting. 20 T8 3+ wounds takes about the same number of shots from most weapons to kill as 16 T8 2+ wounds. And it'll cost you 3CP on top of its points.

And I'm assuming that "G" refers to Gulliman, who is only a LOW for FOC reasons, I thought we were talking about real LOWs. You know, knights, Baneblades, Fellblades, etc..

Look, I'm not arguing that Land Raiders, or even Repulsive Executioners aren't currently overcosted, but they aren't hitting the price of what I was talking about, which is anything T9 2+. Those start at 680 PPM with the Cerberus. Picking the odd Guard LOW that's in that category only because gw considers anything with 20 wounds or more as one is odd, especially since having that distinction is actually a detriment for the unit in question. Would you prefer to pay less for Land Raiders and Repulsives at the expense of CP and them not having chapter tactics?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Yes, it practically is a Land Raider...with worse shooting. 20 T8 3+ wounds takes about the same number of shots from most weapons to kill as 16 T8 2+ wounds. And it'll cost you 3CP on top of its points.

And I'm assuming that "G" refers to Gulliman, who is only a LOW for FOC reasons, I thought we were talking about real LOWs. You know, knights, Baneblades, Fellblades, etc..

Guilliman is 95% of a knight in cost. The Crassus is about Land Raider priced. When you start hitting 300+ you're talking LOW prices. The KV128 Stormsurge falls about halfway between a Repulsor and a Repulsor Executioner, even slightly closer to the Rep instead of the RepEx. The Land Rander Ultima actually IS a LOW now that I think about it, though it's moved to Legends now. Those of you who bought one when the Index came out and got less than a full edition of playing with it - you have my condolences. The Obelisk is 10 points more than Gulliman, the RepEx is 92% of an Obelisk, 90% of a Wraith Knight. They are in that low end LOW ballpark price wise.

Look, I'm not arguing that Land Raiders, or even Repulsive Executioners aren't currently overcosted, but they aren't hitting the price of what I was talking about, which is anything T9 2+. Those start at 680 PPM with the Cerberus. Picking the odd Guard LOW that's in that category only because gw considers anything with 20 wounds or more as one is odd, especially since having that distinction is actually a detriment for the unit in question. Would you prefer to pay less for Land Raiders and Repulsives at the expense of CP and them not having chapter tactics?

Truth be told, I'd rather pay the same, have them get a substantial durability boost and move to the LoW slot. At least for the Land Raiders. They're supposed to be rare, so 1 per army in a SHA - or normal with the idea people like to add one LOW slot to a Batallion etc. wouldn't be unfluffy. Also I think BladeSwordHammers in a SHA should have Doctrines etc.

The Repulsors and RepEx should probably just get cheaper as they're not AFAIK fluffed as rare. A lot cheaper. And with the Impulsor move to the 10/5 or 16/8 transport schedule. I would also quit doing the segretated transport thing Marines have going.

Breton wrote:
Guilliman is 95% of a knight in cost. The Crassus is about Land Raider priced. When you start hitting 300+ you're talking LOW prices. The KV128 Stormsurge falls about halfway between a Repulsor and a Repulsor Executioner, even slightly closer to the Rep instead of the RepEx. The Land Rander Ultima actually IS a LOW now that I think about it, though it's moved to Legends now. Those of you who bought one when the Index came out and got less than a full edition of playing with it - you have my condolences. The Obelisk is 10 points more than Gulliman, the RepEx is 92% of an Obelisk, 90% of a Wraith Knight. They are in that low end LOW ballpark price wise.

Gulliman doesn't pay for true LOW stats, he pays for all those wonderful buffs he gives to his brainwashed minions (though when anyone plays him against me he's just a 380 PPM paperweight, but I digress ). Yes, those other units approach LOW price and abilities, but not quite. Which is why I call them "almost LOWs", and was so annoyed by the silly wound cap for obscuring terrain.

Truth be told, I'd rather pay the same, have them get a substantial durability boost and move to the LoW slot. At least for the Land Raiders. They're supposed to be rare, so 1 per army in a SHA - or normal with the idea people like to add one LOW slot to a Batallion etc. wouldn't be unfluffy. Also I think BladeSwordHammers in a SHA should have Doctrines etc.

I agree Land Raiders need a durability boost, T9 would do it, as would a rule to ignore low AP shots similar to Valorous Heart SoB. I don't think it would require making them LOWs with all the issues that would cause for them. Agreed that LOWs should get faction traits if they belong to the same faction as their warlord. And I'd LOVE it if they'd add a LOW slot to battalions and brigades.

The Repulsors and RepEx should probably just get cheaper as they're not AFAIK fluffed as rare. A lot cheaper. And with the Impulsor move to the 10/5 or 16/8 transport schedule. I would also quit doing the segretated transport thing Marines have going.

I could see Repulsives of both varieties getting cheaper, along with other vehicles, if gw doesn't do anything else to help them against the new melta rules. If you're implying that Impulsors should be able to transport gravis and terminators, I don't see that, unless the same happens to Rhinos, as Impulsors are just floating Rhinos. It would be nice if Classic Marines vehicles could transport primaris though, just to improve the aesthetics of the game.

But to bring this back around to where we started, you obviously don't play, and probably haven't played against, anything with the T9 2+ defensive stat line. As someone who owns and plays both a Fellblade and a Cerberus, I can tell you, durability isn't an issue for them, their problem is price, and if vehicles like Land Raiders and Repulsives get a price cut I'd expect the same for them. T9 would be a big improvement to many heavy vehicles, Monoliths and Land Raiders included.

And if you really want a tough Land Raider, get an Achilles.

Breton wrote:
. The KV128 Stormsurge falls about halfway between a Repulsor and a Repulsor Executioner, even slightly closer to the Rep instead of the RepEx.

Pfft, I wish the Stormsurge was that cheap. Standard kit if you don't want to get vaporised by the first dedicated AT unit that looks at it funny is 399.

A Duty Eternal type stat as standard for vehicles (to deal with the mid-strength HROF accidental AT weapons dealing D2 damage) and a toughness boost (to reduce the effectiveness of low strength mass infantry fire) would make a difference to survivability while preventing vehicles being immune to small arms, like in 2nd-7th...

Breton wrote:
The KV128 Stormsurge falls about halfway between a Repulsor and a Repulsor Executioner, even slightly closer to the Rep instead of the RepEx. The Land Rander Ultima actually IS a LOW now that I think about it, though it's moved to Legends now. Those of you who bought one when the Index came out and got less than a full edition of playing with it - you have my condolences. The Obelisk is 10 points more than Gulliman, the RepEx is 92% of an Obelisk, 90% of a Wraith Knight. They are in that low end LOW ballpark price wise.

Just what points are you using for those Vehicals?

Repulsor is currently 316 points, exicutioner is 356
Stormsurge is 335 base. At plus 1 point it's square in the middle with 0 transport options, costs 3CP to bring and is way more vulnerable to melta.

Just some quick maths puts it at 8.18 D6 damage melta shots to kill a Stormsurge

It takes 13.7 to kill a Repulsor seems like it's way more durable.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
. If you're implying that Impulsors should be able to transport gravis and terminators, I don't see that, unless the same happens to Rhinos, as Impulsors are just floating Rhinos. It would be nice if Classic Marines vehicles could transport primaris though, just to improve the aesthetics of the game.

I'm saying let Primaris in Rhinos, and Soon To Be Squatted Marines in Impulsors with the same Gravis/Terminator restrictions they have now.

But to bring this back around to where we started, you obviously don't play, and probably haven't played against, anything with the T9 2+ defensive stat line. As someone who owns and plays both a Fellblade and a Cerberus, I can tell you, durability isn't an issue for them, their problem is price, and if vehicles like Land Raiders and Repulsives get a price cut I'd expect the same for them. T9 would be a big improvement to many heavy vehicles, Monoliths and Land Raiders included.

And if you really want a tough Land Raider, get an Achilles.

Going to T9 realistically only affects Melta and Lascannon. The stuff you didn't want (from a balance standpoint) taking down the big tanks is going to shrug and not care. Those S5/S6/S7 get the same roll they had before. This is the downfall of Toughness over Armor Value. How many Grav Amps does it take to kill a T8 2+ Land Raider? How many does it take to kill a T9 2+ Land Raider? Now sure, there should be some lucky chance for an Onslaught to scramble a Land Raider through weight of fire. I wouldn't mind experimenting with parts of both systems. Leave them with a bunch of wounds, give them back an Armor Value, and anything that shoots it glances on a 6 unless it would Pen on a 6 or less (thus costing a Wound) Anything that Pens does extra wounds. How many I'm not sure of. Something along those lines. It would probably work out similar to T18 Heavy Tanks vs weapons that get +10S vs VEHICLE or ARMOR etc keywords. Pick whichever ones gives more room to work with and grow.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

sanguine40k wrote:

Breton wrote:
. The KV128 Stormsurge falls about halfway between a Repulsor and a Repulsor Executioner, even slightly closer to the Rep instead of the RepEx.

Pfft, I wish the Stormsurge was that cheap. Standard kit if you don't want to get vaporised by the first dedicated AT unit that looks at it funny is 399.

Its default price is. And the fact that it's less than a RepEx is both funny, and depressing.

A Duty Eternal type stat as standard for vehicles (to deal with the mid-strength HROF accidental AT weapons dealing D2 damage) and a toughness boost (to reduce the effectiveness of low strength mass infantry fire) would make a difference to survivability while preventing vehicles being immune to small arms, like in 2nd-7th...

Yeah, that's kind of what I'd like. it feel like it would be simpler just to bring back some USR's based on Keywords. They've got such a goldmine in the keyword system, but couldn't find a pick and shovel in their entire company.

That's why I suggested all heavy armour be given a rule to reduce AP-1 and AP-2 to 0 in addition to a boost in toughness.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
That's why I suggested all heavy armour be given a rule to reduce AP-1 and AP-2 to 0 in addition to a boost in toughness.

Grav is -3, Krak is -2.

Breton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
That's why I suggested all heavy armour be given a rule to reduce AP-1 and AP-2 to 0 in addition to a boost in toughness.

Grav is -3, Krak is -2.

So heavy armour would get its full 3+ or 2+ save against Krak but not Grav. A -1 to damage rule would affect all weapons, including the ones that should hurt armour. Something has to be able to damage vehicles or we'll be back at parking lots.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
That's why I suggested all heavy armour be given a rule to reduce AP-1 and AP-2 to 0 in addition to a boost in toughness.

Grav is -3, Krak is -2.

So heavy armour would get its full 3+ or 2+ save against Krak but not Grav.

Yeah, that's not right. Krak (and it's variously named Xenos versions) is actually for vehicles and gets boned, while Grav doesn't which is too good against vehicles. Of course Krak should be better. They could also give Grav+Amp a second stat-line for vehicles i.e. Concentrated: Heavy 1 (or 2), S8/9/10, -3 D2. I like the idea of anti infantry - even MEQ/TEQ quality ones only wounding the tough vehicles on a 6, and I like the idea of the actual tank killers being less accurate vs non-vehicles with limited and rare single statline dual purpose (i.e. tank turret weapons such as BC's, Auto Cannons(and this my be the boost the man portable AC's need too) and so on)

A -1 to damage rule would affect all weapons, including the ones that should hurt armour. Something has to be able to damage vehicles or we'll be back at parking lots.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
That's why I suggested all heavy armour be given a rule to reduce AP-1 and AP-2 to 0 in addition to a boost in toughness.

Something like that could work. The issue is people will just stop taking ap -1 and 2 weapons then. I really don't like "ignore this stat" abilities. There is nothing more unfun than abilities like that.

IMO a lot could be learned by GW by looking at how StarCraft balances their units. armor types and weapon types does a great job at making use you can't just spam a certain unit to win because there is another unit type that will just crush your spammed unit.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
That's why I suggested all heavy armour be given a rule to reduce AP-1 and AP-2 to 0 in addition to a boost in toughness.

Something like that could work. The issue is people will just stop taking ap -1 and 2 weapons then. I really don't like "ignore this stat" abilities. There is nothing more unfun than abilities like that.

IMO a lot could be learned by GW by looking at how StarCraft balances their units. armor types and weapon types does a great job at making use you can't just spam a certain unit to win because there is another unit type that will just crush your spammed unit.

Yeah but starcraft lets you basically bring your whole army and react to your opponent.

If i'm spamming marauders and my opponent spams zerglings, i have the option to build hellions.
If i'm spamming eradicators and my opponent spams termagants, i don't have the option to bring agressors.

yes, i know that bringing skew lists is bad, this is just as an example of how the systems differ.

Demon summoning is arguably the best existing mechanic to let you tailor a list to your opponents, the problem is how unreliable it is.

I really think GW should embrace the use of Keywords and add an "Anti-Tank" keyword.
Then give tanks a rule that ignores/reduces AP of non "Anti-Tank" weapons.
Technically tanks will still be woundable from any weapon but now things like disintegrator cannons or starcannons wont be the "best" weapons because they combine AP with a high rate of fire.

You mean 'Armorbane' and 'Fleshbane'?

The way I see it, the four battle sizes are reflection of what happens in a game of SC.

The first 4 minutes is rush timing, which is the combat patrol.
The middle 5~12 minutes is when the early techs come out & start contesting for each others expansions = incursion. This is the timing when the MMM's, immortal rushes, roach spam comes out.
The top 12~22 minutes is when you're fully tech'ed, but not max food yet - you've secured 3~4 expansions and trying to take = strike force. You have critical mass for at least one component of your army while the other is getting built. You more or less have covered both air, ground & seige components.
Past the 25~30 minute mark you're in the late game, when you begin to max out on your food and fighitng with maxed out food = onslaught. This is when you start seeing a fleet of battle cruisers, carriers & 70% of map covered in creep.

Having said, you know what you need to bring (like when you scout your enemy's base) by reading on the meta/rulebooks - see what's strong, guess what your opponent is bringing, consider your opponent's playstyle, etc. When you begin setting up at the table, this is like when the fog of war lifts and you see your opponents' entire army.

So in a sense, you CAN bring a counter list.

We could give vehicles and monsters a KEYWORD so their armour save would only be modified by weapons with the _ANTI-TANK_ KEYWORD.

Something along those lines. At the same time we could introduce ANTI-INFANTRY for various effects.

Opens up design space and gives a way to have weapons behave differently depending on the target.

yeah, something similar to that.

Just use the damn keywords, GW.

 Blackie wrote:

Spoiler:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


I don't think they need to go up in cost. They're already underperforming. For reference:
Guardsman, 5 points [FRF-SRF]: 4 shots, 2 hits, 0.66 wounds, 0.22 damage. Followed by 1 attack, 0.5 hits, 0.17 wounds, 0.06 damage. Collective, 0.28 damage to MEQ-class targets.
Ork, 8 points [large section]: 1 shot, 0.39 hits, .2 wounds, 0.07 damage. Followed by 4 attacks, 2.7 hits, 1.35 wounds, 0.45 damage. Collective, 0.53 damage to MEQ class targets. Almost twice as much.
Intercessor, 21 points [Auraed, Tactical Doctrine]: 2 shots, 1.6 hits, 1 wound, 0.6 damage. Followed by 3 attacks, 2.3 hits, 1.8 wounds, 0.7 damage. Collective, 1.3 damage

In resilience:
Guardsmen and Orks are a wash:
2/3*2/3 = 0.44 versus 1/2*5/6 = 0.42
Intercessors are 1/2*1/3 = 0.16, and have 2 wounds, so really they're like more than 4 times as resilient as either.

We normalize those numbers by price, we've got:
0.056 damage per point for Guardsmen
0.066 damage per point for Orks
0.062 damage per point for Intercessors

2.2 lost points per hit for Guardsmen
3.3 lost points per hit for Orks
1.6 lost points per hit for Space Marines


This shows that while Space Marines are really out there mostly in survivability, Guardsmen and Orks are pretty close, with Guardsmen being still generally worse than Orks per point actually, and that's before getting into the relative greater value of melee than short ranged shooting because of the way things are scored.

In addition, as they lose buffs, the Space Marines about a quarter of their performance, Orks lose a about a quarter of their performance, and Guardsmen lose a whole half of their performance.


For this, Guard are at least better off than Tau.
One the outbound, fully buffed with a fireblade and 5 markerlights, Tau average 0.049 damage per point and taking fire take 3 lost points per hit.



Also, 1 dead marine per 60 points HWT isn't a great rate. It's actually pretty bad. Guardsmen do that, and they at least are obsec and have 4 more wounds

Posting HWT's up there, that's 0.05 damage per point, worse than Guardsmen, and also less resilient at 4.4 points lost per hit.



So, my 2c on infantry:
Infantry are okay at 5 points
Orks are probably good at 8 points.
Fire Warriors need to come down, probably to 7 points.
Intercessors need to be more. Probably about 33% more or so.

Actually boyz have 2 attacks base, 3 if they are slugga/choppa. 4 only if they are 20+ models which makes them a very expensive unit (160+ points). Most of the times they'll have 3 if not just 2 as shoota boyz are quite popular now; in that case they gain a BS5+ extra shot though. The shot you listed for boyz is from a 12'' pistol and CC is 1-2 turns at most while shooting is easier to do multiple times since better range ad possibility to target units behind screeners.

I think boyz and guardsmen are definitely on par and should have max 1 pts of difference in price, the reason why AM is underperforming is the lack of good CC which is required in this edition. Fire Warriors are probably better than boyz, it's the drukhari troops that should be cheaper and wyches in particular should be much cheaper, like 40-50%. But I agree about intercessors, they're undercosted, like pretty much any primaris infantry unit.

You are dramatically overestimating the power of ranged troops, especially this edition. Melee troops are head and shoulders above ranged troops this edition because they're melee troops and can do the melee thing, which Guardsmen and Fire Warriors cannot do. Position and pressure advantage, zoning the enemy in with all your models, and being able to kill them off an objective are far more powerful intangible tactical bonuses that contribute to winning the objective game and having lasting local superiority over the marginally increased threat range of short range shooting units.
They're also not really having all this additional effect that close quaters units aren't. The battle is a scrum in the middle mostly, decided by charging the enemy off of points, and for pretty much any army you're engaged in melee on any round after the first, and many armies are engaged on turn 1 if they want to be [of which Orks are one of those armies].

Anyway, Shoota Boyz:
0.48 wounds dealt to an MEQ target per combined shoot+charge phase. That's 0.06 wounds per point.

Orks are the only massed light infantry army performing well right now. Guard and Tau are really bad and Tyranids aren't doing particularly hot either. Combining the pressures of the edition with the actual numerical performance expectations of the units, I think Boyz are good at 8 points compared to 5 point Guardsmen.
It's the fire warriors, termigaunts, and hormagaunts that need to come down. Boyz and Infantry can go up, but if they go up they'll become nonviable or even less viable against the armies that aren't light massed infantry [read, Marines].




But our discussion of light infantry is off topic for a threat about vehicles.

I don't think that vehicles ignoring AP-2 is what's needed and doesn't solve the problem. The fundamental problem for the tanks is as follows:
Infantry has 3 measures of resilience: Toughness, Armor, and Wounds. Basically all weapons are graduated on their strength, ap, and damage based on their effect on infantry, with the exception of high end AT weapons which are still graduated on anti-infantry strength and AP but have a damage based on AT effect.

Because any weapon that can logically be expected to damage a vehicle would and should also paste infantry utterly, they all have high S and AP. They have to have high enough strength to wound infantry on 2's and high enough AP to ignore heavy infantry armor.

Tanks are graduated on the same 2+-6+ scale for armor saves, but they're graduated on that scale versus each other while the weapons that are inbound are graduated on the scale versus infantry. The same applies to toughness, since tanks were selected to be 6/7/8 and the weapons need to be 8/9/10 out of legacy and the expected effect on infantry, tanks are basically all seen the same way by AT weapons.

This means that tanks' toughness and armor are effectively irrelevant relative to each other, and all have essentially the same defensive effect with only their guns differing.



I think the simple solutions would be to slide the scales for vehicles to match with the scales of the weapons used against them. Pretty much all armored vehicles are at least bulletproof armored, so infantry weapons wounding on 6's should be a given, with T6 and T7 reserved for unarmored irregular vehicles pressed into combat roles.
Then, slide their armor scale to a range several points adjusted, probably 2 points down, so that the primary region of interest of AT weapons AP2/3/4 corresponds with vehicle armor saves the way the primary region of interest for infantry weapons AP0/1/2/3 corresponds with infantry saves.

This would give differentiation to the way vehicle resilience and AT weapons interact with each other so that there are legitimately heavy vehicles that require big guns to damage.



Then, one would have to visit the damage profile of heavy weapons. A vehicle tank gun doing 1d6 damage for a single shot is really pitiful when you can bring massed d3 or 3 damage fire from supposedly lower quality weapons [or even bring a Demolisher Cannon which has D6 damage and shoots D6 times]. Increasing the damage of single-shot AT weapons like the Vanquisher, Railcannon, etc. would bring vehicle resilience back into line so that heavy vehicles aren't unstoppable, but require the right tools.

So, another option would be to repurpose a rule we already have seen - instead of 'treat weapons with AP values of -1 or -2 as 0' we could go with 'treat weapons with a damage value of D2 as D1' and give that to heavy vehicles (tanks, etc) but not light vehicles (speeders, APC's, buggies, etc).

Then you have:

D1 weapons - for killing light/medium infantry (W1 models, etc).
D2 weapons - for killing Heavy infantry/light vehicles (W2-6 models, in general plus bikes/speeders, etc)
Dd3+ weapons - dedicated anti-tank weapons (and generally inefficient for killing the other 2 categories)

And before anyone brings up weapon X (totes anti-tank, but is only D2) or weapon Y (totes not, but does Dd3, etc) - as we have seen, weapon stats can be tweaked in FAQ'S.

Breton wrote:

Guilliman is 95% of a knight in cost. The Crassus is about Land Raider priced. When you start hitting 300+ you're talking LOW prices. The KV128 Stormsurge falls about halfway between a Repulsor and a Repulsor Executioner, even slightly closer to the Rep instead of the RepEx. The Land Rander Ultima actually IS a LOW now that I think about it, though it's moved to Legends now. Those of you who bought one when the Index came out and got less than a full edition of playing with it - you have my condolences. The Obelisk is 10 points more than Gulliman, the RepEx is 92% of an Obelisk, 90% of a Wraith Knight. They are in that low end LOW ballpark price wise.

MY Gorkanaut is 340pts and T8 Can i get that 2+ save and become a LOW as well?

These solutions are silly. Just give the vehicles more wounds, better saves, and/or higher toughness. Those are stats that exist; no need to create extra rules.

Quasistellar wrote:
These solutions are silly. Just give the vehicles more wounds, better saves, and/or higher toughness. Those are stats that exist; no need to create extra rules.

The problem is, with that no single anti tank weapon can destroy or wreck a vehicle in one shot, aside for some of the really light and small ones, but maybe not even those, if those too got extra wounds. So either GW would have to make whole units really good at destroying tanks, but then the same units are going to be really good at killing marines. Or make the anti tank weapons able to blow up even those big vehicles with a shot or two, but then they become great hunters of big high cost models GW wants everyone to buy, and GW doesn't want people to remove their nice big model just after they deployed them.
So we are kind of a forced in to the situation we are right now.

Karol wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
These solutions are silly. Just give the vehicles more wounds, better saves, and/or higher toughness. Those are stats that exist; no need to create extra rules.

The problem is, with that no single anti tank weapon can destroy or wreck a vehicle in one shot, aside for some of the really light and small ones, but maybe not even those, if those too got extra wounds. So either GW would have to make whole units really good at destroying tanks, but then the same units are going to be really good at killing marines. Or make the anti tank weapons able to blow up even those big vehicles with a shot or two, but then they become great hunters of big high cost models GW wants everyone to buy, and GW doesn't want people to remove their nice big model just after they deployed them.
So we are kind of a forced in to the situation we are right now.

No single anti-tank weapon? A single Eradicator standing within melta range holding a Multi-melta can theoretically do 32 damage a turn it averages 6.66 dmg.

A 135pt squad of Eradicators with Heavy rifles, in melta range can theoretically do 60 Damage a turn. And averages 15.

So when you say no single anti-tank weapon...you mean besides Space Marines.