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.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Your Land Raider had to pay for 2 twin-linked Lascannons, even though more often than not, you'd only get to shoot with one because of firing arcs.

Yes, restricted fields of fire is the logical result of sponson weapons. Or hull mounted weapons. They have their purposes & reasons, but there's a reason turrets were developed....
How many WWI British Mk.V tanks do you think ever fired both sponsons at the same target? None.
How many German Stugs in WWII ever shot their hull mounted forward facing gun out their ass? None...

The Land Raider specifically got Power of the Machine Spirit to let it fire at two different targets because there are people who find this frustrating. In 30k PotMS is available as a costed upgrade to a bunch of different tanks, because there are people who find this frustrating. Deleting armour facings/fire arcs wholesale just so you don't have to maneuver at all to fire all your guns all the time isn't the only answer to the problem.

Why are you quoting me? I have no problem firing every gun on a tank at multiple targets. Or as many guns on one target as you can bring to bear. I do have a problem with being able to shoot the left sponson out the right side of a tank.....

Yeah, the AV system was good for its narrative value, but in terms of gameplay it had its limits. Sure, one could devise an improved system, but the same is true for the current one.

Spoletta wrote:
Yeah, the AV system was good for its narrative value, but in terms of gameplay it had its limits. Sure, one could devise an improved system, but the same is true for the current one.

And yet GW has done neither...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Yeah, the AV system was good for its narrative value, but in terms of gameplay it had its limits. Sure, one could devise an improved system, but the same is true for the current one.

And yet GW has done neither...

Colour me surprised.

Forget S4, wouldn't this also completely invalidate all S3 weaponry, aka Guard and Scions? Who gives a crap if they can take 28 Melta command squads, if the base troop cost of the army is worthless against anything T7 or better? I mean lets be honest here, there is really no way to put the genie back into the bottle here, without a complete redo of the edition, and having just bought my 9th books, I don't want to have to buy all new books next year again. The only things that can be logically done without causing another 1/7/21 on the GW HQ would be to up the costs of A. AT weapons to make them unfeasible as "basic units" or B. Bloat the wounds of everything T7+ into oblivion to compensate for the sheer derpness of the current Melta situation. Baneblades are now 40 wounds and cost 700 points. Stompas are now the same as a Warhound. Rhinos now have 15 wounds and cost 350pts. Repulsors now have 20 wounds and cost 500pts. Custodes now get a flat 5 wounds increase across the board to all models and cost double the ammount, thus making them the only truly ELITE army.

They broke 9th with this AT BS, and we cannot unbreak it. I will however take suggestions on how to play 5th-7th on tables in GW stores as a protest untill they fix 9th.

The rules for super heavies have always been a mess.

It's insane that a lot of the time, vehicles the size of buildings had the same or less rules interaction with damage and targeting than an ork buggy.

It's a by-product of them being pushed primarily in Apocalypse, which was simultaneously striving to get models off the table as quickly as possible, because the game takes a long time at massive points levels (duh).

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
if we want the old wounding chart, then Imperial Knights would need to be discontinued as a faction, and we know GW is never doing that.

People say the craziest things . . . Like, why in gods name would the AV system necessitate the removal of Knights?

The old wounding chart is what they said.

Because, if Knights kept a Toughness value, and it stayed at 8, S4 and under couldn't wound them at all.

and the problem is?

One of 40k's major flaws is that the only way of interacting with a model is to kill it (or not kill it) meaning that models which cannot be killed also then cannot be meaningfully interacted with.

Therefore, having an army that is unkillable by another army is basically the same as having an army that doesn't interact with the other army. That's bad for the game.

a knight is already effectively unkillable by small arms anyway... It wouldnt change much to just say straight up that stuff with S<=4 just cannot wound at all.

So it doesn't hurt to leave in that they can still hurt the knight at super-bad efficiency since "It couldn't change much" anyway: ya?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Forget S4, wouldn't this also completely invalidate all S3 weaponry, aka Guard and Scions? Who gives a crap if they can take 28 Melta command squads, if the base troop cost of the army is worthless against anything T7 or better? I mean lets be honest here, there is really no way to put the genie back into the bottle here, without a complete redo of the edition, and having just bought my 9th books, I don't want to have to buy all new books next year again. The only things that can be logically done without causing another 1/7/21 on the GW HQ would be to up the costs of A. AT weapons to make them unfeasible as "basic units" or B. Bloat the wounds of everything T7+ into oblivion to compensate for the sheer derpness of the current Melta situation. Baneblades are now 40 wounds and cost 700 points. Stompas are now the same as a Warhound. Rhinos now have 15 wounds and cost 350pts. Repulsors now have 20 wounds and cost 500pts. Custodes now get a flat 5 wounds increase across the board to all models and cost double the ammount, thus making them the only truly ELITE army.

They broke 9th with this AT BS, and we cannot unbreak it. I will however take suggestions on how to play 5th-7th on tables in GW stores as a protest untill they fix 9th.

If youre shooting your lasguns at my tanks, i'm already winning the game. Just because you CAN do it doesn't mean it will have any effect whatsoever. Currently you need about 40 shots to do a single wound to a T7 3+ platform..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bitharne wrote:

So it doesn't hurt to leave in that they can still hurt the knight at super-bad efficiency since "It couldn't change much" anyway: ya?

it does hurt the game actually because it incentivizes meaningless dice rolling.

From a "vehicles are too squishy" perspective, your statement is true. The real problem IMO is still that high rate of fire, mid AP weapons are still too good at too many roles and that melta got overbuffed in 9th.

I don't disagree on the rolling; however, It's not worth engaging on since GW won't change it. It's a streamline addition that they simply won't walk back on since it would cause too much damage to optics even if it's, as we say, a rather meaningless change.

As to the middling weapons: this is probably why a "Duty Eternal" style rule for all tanks might be the best solution. -1 damage from all weapons S6/7 or lower. Could say half but that wouldn't really come up much.

Of course, I'm not even sure that that is even an issue since I just take more stuff. Then again, I refuse to take tanks with any respectably elite army because they cost too large a percentage of my army. That is just a general stance since I have a pretty bad history with RNG, Luck, and dice as it is so I make every decision possible to mitigate dice to the most extreme degree I can.

 Blackie wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think vehicles need more defense against non-AT fire. Just more toughness, wounds, and save could probably do it. I was pretty shocked that SM vehicles weren't 2+ save standard.

If GW weren't so afraid of rules that can be applied across the game (some might call them, universal) then they could easily resolve this by introducing the concept or Anti-Infantry, Anti-Vehicle and "Macro" or whatever weapons for things that should be able to do both.

That would use the keyword system that already exists (units would be defined as either Infantry or Vehicles), and the opposite type of weapon would have a penalty vs the non-optimal target (ie. Anti-Infantry weapons only wound units with the Vehicle Keyword on a 6+). That's a potentially extreme example, but you get the idea.

But it's mostly anti tank tools like melta weapons that make vehicles squishy. Lasguns that actually damage Land Raiders is a fairy tale.

I'd like vehicles to be tougher, but without adding more dice rolling, more wounds or mechanics like those abilities that reduce damage. I'd simply cut ALL re-rolls, including from CPs, except maybe but just a few relegated to specific signature units, like Tankbusta, I'd also remove ALL the fire-twice abilties (inlcuding options like sisters' cherubs) with no exceptions and some of the combos that enhance some firepower to be overly devastating. Increase the points cost of some weapons if there the need to do it and that's it.

Yes, but plasma and assault cannons killing them is a real thing and that literally couldn't happen in earlier editions of the game.

Bitharne wrote:
I don't disagree on the rolling; however, It's not worth engaging on since GW won't change it. It's a streamline addition that they simply won't walk back on since it would cause too much damage to optics even if it's, as we say, a rather meaningless change.

As to the middling weapons: this is probably why a "Duty Eternal" style rule for all tanks might be the best solution. -1 damage from all weapons S6/7 or lower. Could say half but that wouldn't really come up much.

Of course, I'm not even sure that that is even an issue since I just take more stuff. Then again, I refuse to take tanks with any respectably elite army because they cost too large a percentage of my army. That is just a general stance since I have a pretty bad history with RNG, Luck, and dice as it is so I make every decision possible to mitigate dice to the most extreme degree I can.

i really don't understand when people bring up the bolded argument. Nothing is worth engaging on if we use this logic...

i really don't understand when people bring up the bolded argument. Nothing is worth engaging on if we use this logic...

It's almost as if you think we're on some kind of "discussion" forum

Weird ...

ccs wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Melta weapons are now appropriate on the majority of the platforms that can carry them. Removing things like shooting twice or re-rolls for Eradicators or Retributors would be already a solid achievement. 40k worked well for many years without those mechanics.

I don't see the shooting twice thing as a big deal. My MM armed Dev squad? Each of those MM can shoot twice. So what's it matter if these primaris guys with their melta-rifles can shoot twice IF they all shoot at the same target? Same range, same damage, same special melta rules....

Now if the Eradicators rule had been stated as a negative how many people do you think would complain?
Ex; "Lack of Focus": If the squad splits fire, each Eradicator may only fire once. {make up some bs fluff explanation about linked targeters etc as needed}

Now all these re-rolls to everything? Those need to go.

I'd rather they just not have double shooting at all if Aggressors lost it. Be consistent in what Gravis armor lets you do. They don't even need to let you double shoot. Just ignoring penalties would've been fine to keep. Count as Stationary, don't lose accuracy for moving with heavy weapon, don't lose accuracy accuracy advancing and shooting with Assault weapon.

Very little detail that adds flavor to Heavy Intercessors, Aggressors, and Eradicators. Instead, we have what we have now because GW is inconsistent just as usual.

Spoletta wrote:Yeah, the AV system was good for its narrative value, but in terms of gameplay it had its limits. Sure, one could devise an improved system, but the same is true for the current one.

Here's my take: an front/side/rear armor value system is essentially unnecessary to have in a wargame above fireteam scale. Mechanically, it was essentially irrelevant unless a special rule called for hits to automatically hit the rear of a vehicle: the board area of a vehicle's rear arc was so small and moving to get into it from the front was essentially impossible, so like it didn't matter.

As for simulationist purpose it can be safely assume that much like how we assume that an infantryman is in fact sufficiently capable to take care of their own facing, a commander at company scale wouldn't concern themself with exactly how the tanks under her/his command are oriented. If one doesn't include different facing armors for vehicles, it can be safely assumed that the vehicle crews are a minimum level of competence to point the front towards the enemy. Even then, front armor and side armor are both usually pretty good, particularly since impacts on the side arc will usually be at a high angle of incidence, so it doesn't really need a layer of mechanical rules from either a simulationist perspective or a gamist perspective.

As for incorporating one, I personally haven't had a problem with the Flames of War one. At the very least, because it's front 180 / side 180 and real tanks are mostly rectangular, it doesn't ever have any of those "which arc am I in" arguments that existed in pre-8th 40k. That said, I still basically find that side shots never happen, it's basically just top [from arty] and front.


Were I to develop a new system for 40k, I would do away with wounds in favor of damage tables, but I probably wouldn't incorporate armor facings. It's not really necessary. [I would do away with wounds as a mechanic in general. They don't representing anything anyway; toughness and armor already cover how hard it is to make a element a casualty in a much more versimilistic way]. It also might be fun to have unique damage tables for each vehicle, though a general damage table or a FoW style "firepower roll to knock out" would be acceptable too.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Yeah, the AV system was good for its narrative value, but in terms of gameplay it had its limits. Sure, one could devise an improved system, but the same is true for the current one.

And yet GW has done neither...

Honestly, the current implementation is pretty okay as far as things go. I don't like HP mechanics, but it's an okay system and I'd say it feels less frustrating that the old system where tanks were just worse than things with wounds.

The problem, IMO, is that tank guns just don't have enough power relative to light weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Melta weapons are now appropriate on the majority of the platforms that can carry them. Removing things like shooting twice or re-rolls for Eradicators or Retributors would be already a solid achievement. 40k worked well for many years without those mechanics.

I don't see the shooting twice thing as a big deal. My MM armed Dev squad? Each of those MM can shoot twice. So what's it matter if these primaris guys with their melta-rifles can shoot twice IF they all shoot at the same target? Same range, same damage, same special melta rules....

Now if the Eradicators rule had been stated as a negative how many people do you think would complain?
Ex; "Lack of Focus": If the squad splits fire, each Eradicator may only fire once. {make up some bs fluff explanation about linked targeters etc as needed}

Now all these re-rolls to everything? Those need to go.

Yes, because Eradicators are a 135 point unit that is more resilient than, effectively more mobile, and has similar firepower to a 170 point unit. Eradicators would still be better than comparable units at 180 points for three. IMO, they should either lose the multiple-fire rule, or go up drastically in points. [Even firing once at 135 points they'd compare more favorably to literally every single points-comparable vehicle in the game, plus almost all melta-carrying medium infantry]

Doesn't a squad of Melta Devs with a SGT and a cherub out shoot the Eradicators for less points?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Bitharne wrote:
I don't disagree on the rolling; however, It's not worth engaging on since GW won't change it. It's a streamline addition that they simply won't walk back on since it would cause too much damage to optics even if it's, as we say, a rather meaningless change.

As to the middling weapons: this is probably why a "Duty Eternal" style rule for all tanks might be the best solution. -1 damage from all weapons S6/7 or lower. Could say half but that wouldn't really come up much.

Of course, I'm not even sure that that is even an issue since I just take more stuff. Then again, I refuse to take tanks with any respectably elite army because they cost too large a percentage of my army. That is just a general stance since I have a pretty bad history with RNG, Luck, and dice as it is so I make every decision possible to mitigate dice to the most extreme degree I can.

i really don't understand when people bring up the bolded argument. Nothing is worth engaging on if we use this logic...

I think you misunderstand my point: we already discussed the topic in a full circle where both angles are said, by both of us, to not matter that much. So why bother talking about it more...especially when you just ignore other things that effect what you, yourself, just stated is the more important bugaboo?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Melta weapons are now appropriate on the majority of the platforms that can carry them. Removing things like shooting twice or re-rolls for Eradicators or Retributors would be already a solid achievement. 40k worked well for many years without those mechanics.

I don't see the shooting twice thing as a big deal. My MM armed Dev squad? Each of those MM can shoot twice. So what's it matter if these primaris guys with their melta-rifles can shoot twice IF they all shoot at the same target? Same range, same damage, same special melta rules....

Now if the Eradicators rule had been stated as a negative how many people do you think would complain?
Ex; "Lack of Focus": If the squad splits fire, each Eradicator may only fire once. {make up some bs fluff explanation about linked targeters etc as needed}

Now all these re-rolls to everything? Those need to go.

Yes, because Eradicators are a 135 point unit that is more resilient than, effectively more mobile, and has similar firepower to a 170 point unit. Eradicators would still be better than comparable units at 180 points for three. IMO, they should either lose the multiple-fire rule, or go up drastically in points. [Even firing once at 135 points they'd compare more favorably to literally every single points-comparable vehicle in the game, plus almost all melta-carrying medium infantry]

This is the largest problem imo. I was kind of excited to use the new Gladiators since I, historically, hate Space Marine vehicles and kinda like the new ones. Yet when I looked at the points and stuff on them, and the new Speeder, I couldn't believe how trash they were compared to Eradiactors and ATVs respectively.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Doesn't a squad of Melta Devs with a SGT and a cherub out shoot the Eradicators for less points?

Less Toughness, Mobility, or Damage (if you take the heavy rifles which I prefer). Some of those may not be a concern to you so sure

All I said was out shoot for the cost, but sure, throw in a bunch of things I didn't mention. All I am saying is that Eradicators aren't the biggest problem. Melta has made a lot of units in the SM arsenal broken.

TBH Erradicators have nothing to do agaisnt attack bikes. That doesnt mean they are fine, but I'll never know why people is so obssesed with them instead of attack bikes.

 Galas wrote:
...That doesnt mean they are fine, but I'll never now why people is so obssesed with them instead of attack bikes.

Independent of which one's better the unit that's a) new, b) Primaris, and c) has a "shoots-twice" ability is going to make people angrier.

 Mulletdude wrote:

 addnid wrote:
Eradicators and harlequin stuff avoided the "point increase bat" ? whyyyyyyyy ?

Not sure what you're on about, but Eradicators went up 5ppm.

Harlies, however, have remained 100% at current prices.

Oh wow, well, 5ppm is a huge nerf, lets see...that is a 12.5% points increase for a unit that can delete most light and medium vehicles in 1 turn. As opposed to my Grotz who received a 66% points increase, but in fairness, 1,000 pts of grotz might have a chance of killing a medium vehicle eventually.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Yes, but plasma and assault cannons killing them is a real thing and that literally couldn't happen in earlier editions of the game.

True, but at the same time a single lascannon or melta shot could instant kill a tank and litterally can't happen now. A single power klaw dude from a boyz or biker squad used to instant kill tanks like Predators or Leman Russes, and he can barely scratch them in the current edition. My ork vehicles are all extremely more resilient now, even with the new melta's profile. Overall vehicles are way more resilient now, it's only the former full AV14 boxes that aren't as hard to kill.

Battlewagons with AV14 (or AV13 in 3rd) only in the front used to be paper things in any edition I've played. Most vehicles that used to be tougher than the current edition were so also because rate of fire was extremely lower than now and re-rolls, damage multipliers, etc didn't exist.

Damage table was also harsher compared to 8-9th brackets. Even the worst result used to invalidate the vehicle for at least a turn.

While a few weapons are now more capable against tanks or are finally capable of doing something, overall I think it's pretty safe to assume that vehicles have become more resilient than they used to be in most of the previous editions, since 3rd at least. Generalist mid strenght weapons that are effective against multiple kinds of targets should be costed appropriately to avoid spamming them.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Mulletdude wrote:

 addnid wrote:
Eradicators and harlequin stuff avoided the "point increase bat" ? whyyyyyyyy ?

Not sure what you're on about, but Eradicators went up 5ppm.

Harlies, however, have remained 100% at current prices.

Oh wow, well, 5ppm is a huge nerf, lets see...that is a 12.5% points increase for a unit that can delete most light and medium vehicles in 1 turn. As opposed to my Grotz who received a 66% points increase, but in fairness, 1,000 pts of grotz might have a chance of killing a medium vehicle eventually.

I'm sure we can all see the writing on the wall here. GW wants to either:

A. Speed up the pace of games, based off the amount of dice rolls in 8th, a 5 turn game could end up taking as many hours. It was like the Yankees vs. the Red sox during some tournaments on stream. They are making a lot of choices that prevent redundent of overly useless rolls. I never liked the Overwatch mechanic and thought it was slightly useless with giving a 2nd round of shooting in a different phase with only a extremely small chance of anything happening.

B. Make armies more "Elite" and less "hordey". Its obvious they don't want games with 75+ models anymore, I'll be surprised if Conscipts don't get tossed in the rubbish heap when their codex drops. GW doesn't want hordes in 9th. I won't/can't speculate on why, but they don't. Hordes are getting nerfed across the board. Blast rules, price increases, Core mechanics, etc. GW does not like what it was seeing in 7th/8th, and wants smaller more elite games.

So yeah, Grotz are nerfed. Likely a lot more nerfs coming for other 20+ model units.

Bitharne wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
if we want the old wounding chart, then Imperial Knights would need to be discontinued as a faction, and we know GW is never doing that.

People say the craziest things . . . Like, why in gods name would the AV system necessitate the removal of Knights?

The old wounding chart is what they said.

Because, if Knights kept a Toughness value, and it stayed at 8, S4 and under couldn't wound them at all.

and the problem is?

One of 40k's major flaws is that the only way of interacting with a model is to kill it (or not kill it) meaning that models which cannot be killed also then cannot be meaningfully interacted with.

Therefore, having an army that is unkillable by another army is basically the same as having an army that doesn't interact with the other army. That's bad for the game.

a knight is already effectively unkillable by small arms anyway... It wouldnt change much to just say straight up that stuff with S<=4 just cannot wound at all.

So it doesn't hurt to leave in that they can still hurt the knight at super-bad efficiency since "It couldn't change much" anyway: ya?

The biggest difference is the old wounding chart would save a lot of the current issues with +1 to wound, rerolls auto wounding on set numbers. 6's do mortal wounds on dice you can choose to reroll any dice.

Having a straight up NA means these rules wouldn't be applicable and lead to the odd warping effects we currently have.

It would also move the break point for medium strength multishot weapons up significantly from their S5 currently wounding T8 on 5' to needing S7 to wound T8 on 5's.

While S5/6 would still work as well against heavy infantry.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Forget S4, wouldn't this also completely invalidate all S3 weaponry, aka Guard and Scions? Who gives a crap if they can take 28 Melta command squads, if the base troop cost of the army is worthless against anything T7 or better?

Do you understand what each basic 10 man troop choice of the Guard brings to the party? Or can bring?
1) A heavy weapon in each squad - Heavy Bolter, auto-cannon, missile launcher, or las-cannon. Sometimes a heavy flamer.
2) a special weapon in each squad - plasma gun, grenade launcher, flamer, or melta gun.
3) wargear options on the sgt.
4) Bodies - wich soak up hits, allowing the heavy/special weapons to keep firing.
5) Cheap APCs in the form of the chimera. Each chimera can sport an HK missile.
5) Multiple such squads. Objectives can be held while firing those heavy weapons. While other squads manouver about. And they are all expendable.
And that's before you start taking specialist squads, vehicles & considering assorted special rules, strats, etc.

An infantry heavy Guard force can point a considerable # of heavy weapons at the foe.

There's more to the Guard than just the Loyal 32 of 8e fame....

beast_gts wrote:
The 2021 MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL is a free download

BLINK BLINK

Point values for free from GW?!? What's going on here?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Mulletdude wrote:

 addnid wrote:
Eradicators and harlequin stuff avoided the "point increase bat" ? whyyyyyyyy ?

Not sure what you're on about, but Eradicators went up 5ppm.

Harlies, however, have remained 100% at current prices.

Oh wow, well, 5ppm is a huge nerf, lets see...that is a 12.5% points increase for a unit that can delete most light and medium vehicles in 1 turn. As opposed to my Grotz who received a 66% points increase, but in fairness, 1,000 pts of grotz might have a chance of killing a medium vehicle eventually.

I'm sure we can all see the writing on the wall here. GW wants to either:

A. Speed up the pace of games, based off the amount of dice rolls in 8th, a 5 turn game could end up taking as many hours. It was like the Yankees vs. the Red sox during some tournaments on stream. They are making a lot of choices that prevent redundent of overly useless rolls. I never liked the Overwatch mechanic and thought it was slightly useless with giving a 2nd round of shooting in a different phase with only a extremely small chance of anything happening.

B. Make armies more "Elite" and less "hordey". Its obvious they don't want games with 75+ models anymore, I'll be surprised if Conscipts don't get tossed in the rubbish heap when their codex drops. GW doesn't want hordes in 9th. I won't/can't speculate on why, but they don't. Hordes are getting nerfed across the board. Blast rules, price increases, Core mechanics, etc. GW does not like what it was seeing in 7th/8th, and wants smaller more elite games.

So yeah, Grotz are nerfed. Likely a lot more nerfs coming for other 20+ model units.

On the tyranid front devilgaunts (gaunts with devourers) are clearly pushed (7points compared to 9 before). The cheapest gaunts is 5, so now both can be good choices. We will see what poxwalkers can do. If they have lots of shenanigans in the new codex, that may be a sign that GW doesn’t want to see hordes go. I dunno, hordes are important I think to the aesthetics of the grimdark

 Stormonu wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
The 2021 MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL is a free download

BLINK BLINK

Point values for free from GW?!? What's going on here?

The Field Manual is effectively an errata for the codexes, so they're giving you the fix for their poorly balanced initial try/tries for free.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Doesn't a squad of Melta Devs with a SGT and a cherub out shoot the Eradicators for less points?

No. A dev squad with 4 multimeltas is 170 points, and outputs 8 shots for d6+2 damage at 12". They have 10 wounds across 5 models at T4 Sv3+. Move 6", but a -1 to hit if they move.

Eradicators have a couple of options.
Eradicators with all Melta Rifles clock in at 135 points, with 6 shots at the same profile. 9 wounds across 3 models at T5 Sv3+. Move 5", but no hit penalty for moving.
Under this configuration, on the move, they actually register the same number of expected hits as the Devs, both buffed and unbuffed, so they can be said to be equal offensively, and better defensively, for 1 point less movement. Alternatively, they can be said to be much more mobile for slightly less power [4 hits versus 5]. For a total discount of a whopping 35 points, either way it's ridiculously astounding, particularly considering that Devastators are already a good and reasonable competitive unit if Erads weren't there to be so much more efficient.

Eradicators with a added multimelta clock in at 145 points, and now it's not a comparison. For 25 points less, you get more lethality on the move, identical stationary lethality, and better resilience. Wow.

And that's before you start comparing Erads to things in their own cost bracket. Even if they didn't get shoot twice, they would outcompete units in their price bracket in their own codex to make no mention of similar units in other codecies.

Like, Erads are completely crazy.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Spoletta wrote:Yeah, the AV system was good for its narrative value, but in terms of gameplay it had its limits. Sure, one could devise an improved system, but the same is true for the current one.

Here's my take: an front/side/rear armor value system is essentially unnecessary to have in a wargame above fireteam scale. Mechanically, it was essentially irrelevant unless a special rule called for hits to automatically hit the rear of a vehicle: the board area of a vehicle's rear arc was so small and moving to get into it from the front was essentially impossible, so like it didn't matter.

As for simulationist purpose it can be safely assume that much like how we assume that an infantryman is in fact sufficiently capable to take care of their own facing, a commander at company scale wouldn't concern themself with exactly how the tanks under her/his command are oriented. If one doesn't include different facing armors for vehicles, it can be safely assumed that the vehicle crews are a minimum level of competence to point the front towards the enemy. Even then, front armor and side armor are both usually pretty good, particularly since impacts on the side arc will usually be at a high angle of incidence, so it doesn't really need a layer of mechanical rules from either a simulationist perspective or a gamist perspective.

Gotta strongly disagree. My Drop Pods in particular found their way on the flanks and occasionally the rear armor of many a vehicle. As well as my units that assaulted them in CQB.

As for being concerned about their facing on a company level, vehicle facing was one of the few manifestations in the rules where outflanking opposing forces had a material effect upon the damage being inflicted. Striking opponents from multiple angles forced the exposure of weaker facings, and led to exploit. Assuming the competency of your vehicle crew is great and all, but being engaged from multiple angles is going to curtail the choices available by said crew. Imo facing still has its place in 40k.

The scary part is that Space Marines have several units now that are ALMOST as good as Eradicators ready to take their place when Erads do finally (maybe?) get their nerf. Dev squad, Attack bikes, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Gotta strongly disagree. My Drop Pods in particular found their way on the flanks and occasionally the rear armor of many a vehicle. As well as my units that assaulted them in CQB.

As for being concerned about their facing on a company level, vehicle facing was one of the few manifestations in the rules where outflanking opposing forces had a material effect upon the damage being inflicted. Striking opponents from multiple angles forced the exposure of weaker facings, and led to exploit. Assuming the competency of your vehicle crew is great and all, but being engaged from multiple angles is going to curtail the choices available by said crew. Imo facing still has its place in 40k.

I agree with you insectum. Vehicle facings was a great rule incompetently carried out by GW. Beyond the fact that the rule was hard to manage (arguments about what facing is being hit were frequent) there was also the fact that GW in their infinite wisdom tended to hand out AV to their favored factions but held it back for others. Take a look at the beautiful Battle Wagon. AV14!!!! on its tiny 2-3' front facing, AV12 on the gigantic 8' sides and AV 10 on its somehow wider than its front rear end. So you paid premium points for an AV 14 vehicle, but i can count on one hand how many times I got to use that value.