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.

 fraser1191 wrote:
Nobody would complain about the repulsor if firing arcs still existed.

I would. It’s bad. Way too expensive and way too fragile.

Breton wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Nobody would complain about the repulsor if firing arcs still existed.

I would. It’s bad. Way too expensive and way too fragile.

That's just the state of a lot of tanks in 9th.

I feel like tanks and monstrous creatures need a buff so they can only be affected by certain weapons again. Maybe a built in -1 to damage that can turn D1 weapons into D0 or something.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
. Maybe a built in -1 to damage that can turn D1 weapons into D0 or something.

That is a very bad idea considering some armies use their 1D and 2D weapons to destroy stuff. If vehicles had -1D, and dreads kept theirs, it would take a D3 weapon to even start damaging one.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Breton wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Nobody would complain about the repulsor if firing arcs still existed.

I would. It’s bad. Way too expensive and way too fragile.

That's just the state of a lot of tanks in 9th.

I feel like tanks and monstrous creatures need a buff so they can only be affected by certain weapons again. Maybe a built in -1 to damage that can turn D1 weapons into D0 or something.

Or just switch to D8/D10 and create a new wounding table. All-or-nothing was bad design for hurting vehicles and AP characteristics and these were good things to abandon. That's one of the few things to actually compliment GW on with 8th/9th.

Honestly, one of the big misses of the new edition and keywords was that weapons and certain unit types didn't get keyword interplay.

Imagine... if Monstrous Creatures, Tanks, and Heavy Vehicles gained a negative modifier to units attempting to Wound them with Small Arms(Lasguns, Autorifles, Bolters, etc) that do not have a Fleshbane(MC) or Armourbane(Tank/Heavy Vehicle) keyword under their types?

I've been thinking the a way to fix tanks would be to give vehicles a way to ignore AP of low strength weapons. Armored Keyword-treat attacks with a S of say <5 as AP 0. You could then tailor the level ignored based on the vehicle (Armored Sentinel is <4 where a Leman russ <5, etc...) This would not invalidate the low strength high ROF weapons in general, but help make tanks less vulnerable to them while making dedicated Anti-tank weapons have a more viable roll

Karol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
. Maybe a built in -1 to damage that can turn D1 weapons into D0 or something.

That is a very bad idea considering some armies use their 1D and 2D weapons to destroy stuff. If vehicles had -1D, and dreads kept theirs, it would take a D3 weapon to even start damaging one.

I'm assuming it would just be "duty eternal" on everything instead of "duty eternal AND -1 on top".

Vehicles barely even get wounded by damage 1 weapons anyway as it stands because of their high toughness.
The real problem is when things like starcannons become the best choice to kill tank because its a middleground profile that can do any job basically.

Make vehicles/monsters receive -1 damage (up to 0) from any non armorbane/fleshbane weapon.

I feel like the best approach would be greatly increase both the wounds total of Vehicles/Monsters and the Damage of AT weaponry. Alleviates the "one gun fits all" problem.

They could do a better job of using their keyword system too. Ie.
D5 against Vehicle/Monster on heavy hitting melee weapons so they could threaten the new profiles without one shotting infantry characters in duels etc.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Honestly, one of the big misses of the new edition and keywords was that weapons and certain unit types didn't get keyword interplay.

Imagine... if Monstrous Creatures, Tanks, and Heavy Vehicles gained a negative modifier to units attempting to Wound them with Small Arms(Lasguns, Autorifles, Bolters, etc) that do not have a Fleshbane(MC) or Armourbane(Tank/Heavy Vehicle) keyword under their types?

Agreed. If not letting vehicles and monsters Duty Eternal things down to 0 damage would help since it'd mean light weapons wouldn't be worth using against heavy targets and mid tier weapons wouldn't be the all rounders that fill every list. Maybe toss a keyword bonus onto the heaviest weapons so they negate that 1D, but honestly I don't think even negating 1D off them if they have a well balanced floor should be an issue.

EDIT: I don't think vehicles and MCs need a big buff, but they do need something to tip them over the edge from "almost playable" to "decent maybe even good depending on points".

Well sure, they could do that....

ccs wrote:
Well sure, they could do that....

sadly they'll probably raise the damage they do instead of making them more durable.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

ccs wrote:
Well sure, they could do that....

sadly they'll probably raise the damage they do instead of making them more durable.

Sculpt-wise though they'll cut them into about a dozen tiny parts for no practical reason.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Honestly, one of the big misses of the new edition and keywords was that weapons and certain unit types didn't get keyword interplay.

Imagine... if Monstrous Creatures, Tanks, and Heavy Vehicles gained a negative modifier to units attempting to Wound them with Small Arms(Lasguns, Autorifles, Bolters, etc) that do not have a Fleshbane(MC) or Armourbane(Tank/Heavy Vehicle) keyword under their types?

Agreed. If not letting vehicles and monsters Duty Eternal things down to 0 damage would help since it'd mean light weapons wouldn't be worth using against heavy targets and mid tier weapons wouldn't be the all rounders that fill every list. Maybe toss a keyword bonus onto the heaviest weapons so they negate that 1D, but honestly I don't think even negating 1D off them if they have a well balanced floor should be an issue.

EDIT: I don't think vehicles and MCs need a big buff, but they do need something to tip them over the edge from "almost playable" to "decent maybe even good depending on points".

I think gw is just too stingy with 2+ saves. With the buff to Sicarans to 2+ in the Compendium all of the tanks I play now have a 2+ and it helps a lot against the small stuff. Smokescreen helps a lot as well, with it even my tanks that got nerfed to T8 from T9 are more durable to everything but S9, which is about the same, and S8, which is about 10% more effective, which makes sense because those are actual anti-tank weapons. It just costs CP, which wouldn't be so bad if gw hadn't decided the tanks themselves should cost CP in the first place.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Honestly, one of the big misses of the new edition and keywords was that weapons and certain unit types didn't get keyword interplay.

Imagine... if Monstrous Creatures, Tanks, and Heavy Vehicles gained a negative modifier to units attempting to Wound them with Small Arms(Lasguns, Autorifles, Bolters, etc) that do not have a Fleshbane(MC) or Armourbane(Tank/Heavy Vehicle) keyword under their types?

Agreed. If not letting vehicles and monsters Duty Eternal things down to 0 damage would help since it'd mean light weapons wouldn't be worth using against heavy targets and mid tier weapons wouldn't be the all rounders that fill every list. Maybe toss a keyword bonus onto the heaviest weapons so they negate that 1D, but honestly I don't think even negating 1D off them if they have a well balanced floor should be an issue.

EDIT: I don't think vehicles and MCs need a big buff, but they do need something to tip them over the edge from "almost playable" to "decent maybe even good depending on points".

I think gw is just too stingy with 2+ saves. With the buff to Sicarans to 2+ in the Compendium all of the tanks I play now have a 2+ and it helps a lot against the small stuff. Smokescreen helps a lot as well, with it even my tanks that got nerfed to T8 from T9 are more durable to everything but S9, which is about the same, and S8, which is about 10% more effective, which makes sense because those are actual anti-tank weapons. It just costs CP, which wouldn't be so bad if gw hadn't decided the tanks themselves should cost CP in the first place.

wait a minutes..... sicarans have a 2+ now??? :O . time to order myself one, dont know which variant (i wish the big plasma one was 40k legal :( )

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Honestly, one of the big misses of the new edition and keywords was that weapons and certain unit types didn't get keyword interplay.

Imagine... if Monstrous Creatures, Tanks, and Heavy Vehicles gained a negative modifier to units attempting to Wound them with Small Arms(Lasguns, Autorifles, Bolters, etc) that do not have a Fleshbane(MC) or Armourbane(Tank/Heavy Vehicle) keyword under their types?

Agreed. If not letting vehicles and monsters Duty Eternal things down to 0 damage would help since it'd mean light weapons wouldn't be worth using against heavy targets and mid tier weapons wouldn't be the all rounders that fill every list. Maybe toss a keyword bonus onto the heaviest weapons so they negate that 1D, but honestly I don't think even negating 1D off them if they have a well balanced floor should be an issue.

EDIT: I don't think vehicles and MCs need a big buff, but they do need something to tip them over the edge from "almost playable" to "decent maybe even good depending on points".

I think gw is just too stingy with 2+ saves. With the buff to Sicarans to 2+ in the Compendium all of the tanks I play now have a 2+ and it helps a lot against the small stuff. Smokescreen helps a lot as well, with it even my tanks that got nerfed to T8 from T9 are more durable to everything but S9, which is about the same, and S8, which is about 10% more effective, which makes sense because those are actual anti-tank weapons. It just costs CP, which wouldn't be so bad if gw hadn't decided the tanks themselves should cost CP in the first place.

wait a minutes..... sicarans have a 2+ now??? :O . time to order myself one, dont know which variant (i wish the big plasma one was 40k legal :( )

It is.....for loyalists. We get the standard Sicaran, the Venator, and the Punisher. Only loyalists get the plasma and missile launcher versions.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:



wait a minutes..... sicarans have a 2+ now??? :O . time to order myself one, dont know which variant (i wish the big plasma one was 40k legal :( )

It is.....for loyalists. We get the standard Sicaran, the Venator, and the Punisher. Only loyalists get the plasma and missile launcher versions.

Damn, what a shame.

On an unrelated note, whats the GW email already?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:



wait a minutes..... sicarans have a 2+ now??? :O . time to order myself one, dont know which variant (i wish the big plasma one was 40k legal :( )

It is.....for loyalists. We get the standard Sicaran, the Venator, and the Punisher. Only loyalists get the plasma and missile launcher versions.

Damn, what a shame.

On an unrelated note, whats the GW email already?

You'll want 40kfaq@gwplc.com

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:



wait a minutes..... sicarans have a 2+ now??? :O . time to order myself one, dont know which variant (i wish the big plasma one was 40k legal :( )

It is.....for loyalists. We get the standard Sicaran, the Venator, and the Punisher. Only loyalists get the plasma and missile launcher versions.

Damn, what a shame.

On an unrelated note, whats the GW email already?

You'll want 40kfaq@gwplc.com

Yeah, I've been wearing that out since the Compendium released.

So far i didn't hear from that Email in aeons.
Btw Gad did you finally hear something from there?


Granted maybee they attempt to let grass grow over and then fix it up, considering the quality was "outstandingly high"...

Not Online!!! wrote:
So far i didn't hear from that Email in aeons.
Btw Gad did you finally hear something from there?


Granted maybee they attempt to let grass grow over and then fix it up, considering the quality was "outstandingly high"...

If they respond it's via FAQs and not direct emails.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
So far i didn't hear from that Email in aeons.
Btw Gad did you finally hear something from there?


Granted maybee they attempt to let grass grow over and then fix it up, considering the quality was "outstandingly high"...

If they respond it's via FAQs and not direct emails.

well, we are within what now 1.5 months of it beeing out and off a quality that just barely reaches above used toiletpaper especially in consideration of the premium pricetag attached.
One wonders.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
So far i didn't hear from that Email in aeons.
Btw Gad did you finally hear something from there?


Granted maybee they attempt to let grass grow over and then fix it up, considering the quality was "outstandingly high"...

If they respond it's via FAQs and not direct emails.

well, we are within what now 1.5 months of it beeing out and off a quality that just barely reaches above used toiletpaper especially in consideration of the premium pricetag attached.
One wonders.

They did an initial FAQ, we're not due one until the next big FAQ in the spring. I'm not sure what expectations you have, but they don't line up with reality.

Normal ones.
Frankly i am sure that it could even be argued that the lackluster and nonfunctioning gakshow that the compendium was warrants an more immediate response.
Alas GW as allready mentioned in another thread, rarely get's hold to task by it's community.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Normal ones.
Frankly i am sure that it could even be argued that the lackluster and nonfunctioning gakshow that the compendium was warrants an more immediate response.
Alas GW as allready mentioned in another thread, rarely get's hold to task by it's community.

There is literally a schedule for this stuff. Complaining that they aren't exceeding that schedule rings of entitlement.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Normal ones.
Frankly i am sure that it could even be argued that the lackluster and nonfunctioning gakshow that the compendium was warrants an more immediate response.
Alas GW as allready mentioned in another thread, rarely get's hold to task by it's community.

There is literally a schedule for this stuff. Complaining that they aren't exceeding that schedule rings of entitlement.

Nothing to do with entitlement, when you feth up you fix up.
Or does your boss allow you to deliever such a lackluster job and not expect you to fix it up`? Because sure as hell i'd get called on it.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Normal ones.
Frankly i am sure that it could even be argued that the lackluster and nonfunctioning gakshow that the compendium was warrants an more immediate response.
Alas GW as allready mentioned in another thread, rarely get's hold to task by it's community.

There is literally a schedule for this stuff. Complaining that they aren't exceeding that schedule rings of entitlement.

Nothing to do with entitlement, when you feth up you fix up.
Or does your boss allow you to deliever such a lackluster job and not expect you to fix it up`? Because sure as hell i'd get called on it.

You clearly don't get how long it can take to fix these things. Just because this stuff doesn't slap you in the face right after it gets turned in doesn't mean it's not being worked on. Heck, some of the "problems" might not even be problems and might be balanced out by other stuff coming later. Give it time, see how it shakes out.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Normal ones.
Frankly i am sure that it could even be argued that the lackluster and nonfunctioning gakshow that the compendium was warrants an more immediate response.
Alas GW as allready mentioned in another thread, rarely get's hold to task by it's community.

There is literally a schedule for this stuff. Complaining that they aren't exceeding that schedule rings of entitlement.

Nothing to do with entitlement, when you feth up you fix up.
Or does your boss allow you to deliever such a lackluster job and not expect you to fix it up`? Because sure as hell i'd get called on it.

You clearly don't get how long it can take to fix these things. Just because this stuff doesn't slap you in the face right after it gets turned in doesn't mean it's not being worked on. Heck, some of the "problems" might not even be problems and might be balanced out by other stuff coming later. Give it time, see how it shakes out.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/793969.page

There's a whole thread, with gems like no transport capacity Gorgons.
Non martial legacy to the rarest Land raider type for chaos.
Fellblades with 25 man transport capacity
Fellblades that have diffrent ammo for a copy and paste job with keyword switch
Wrongly assigned Symbols for units finding themselves in elite instead of fast assault.
rapiers outright failed again at Copy paste.



And that is but a small sample.

Not Online!!! wrote:So far i didn't hear from that Email in aeons.
Btw Gad did you finally hear something from there?


Granted maybee they attempt to let grass grow over and then fix it up, considering the quality was "outstandingly high"...

No, nothing yet. Not even the stock "consult rules, roll dice" response. Probably due to being swamped with questions.

ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Normal ones.
Frankly i am sure that it could even be argued that the lackluster and nonfunctioning gakshow that the compendium was warrants an more immediate response.
Alas GW as allready mentioned in another thread, rarely get's hold to task by it's community.

There is literally a schedule for this stuff. Complaining that they aren't exceeding that schedule rings of entitlement.

Yes, there is: Roughly a month after the book's release. That's the schedule they've been following with the new releases for 9th. This ones probably being delayed due to the holidays. You seem to have FAQs for new rulebooks confused with the annual Big FAQ.

That's just the state of a lot of tanks in 9th.

I feel like tanks and monstrous creatures need a buff so they can only be affected by certain weapons again. Maybe a built in -1 to damage that can turn D1 weapons into D0 or something.

That would help, but even just reducing the points on a lot of them would help. I feel like they're still suffering from the arbitrary points hike GW did to "have less models on the table so the game goes faster". Like many predicted, reducing by an average of 120 points had zero effect on game length, but really borked quite a few units. Tanks with lots of guns in particular.


Regarding the quality of the Compendium - did they ever address why they didn't use pictures in the unit entries? I would not have guessed ahead of time that it would make that much difference, but the book literally feels unfinished to me without them.

A problem with vehicles it that they're all either T7 or 8, and 2+ or 3+ save, with a ~dozen wounds. They all feel essentially the same.
If they spread that out a bit, having some T9 vehicles maybe. I'd like to suggest 1+ armour saves but I'll have to say reduce AP by one, because 1+ doesn't work so well.
Then don't be afraid to hike up the strengths of AT weapons. As it is, it doesn't matter if it's S9 or S10, you're wounding and tank on 3s. But if that was S14 or S16, now you're seeing a difference.
Or, roll back the double = 2+ system go back to the old 3 higher = 2+. Then toughnesses and strengths make more sense as they appear now.