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.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Gnarlly wrote:
So basically GW is being GW: releasing a new edition every few years instead of working on one ruleset and making gradual improvements to it based on player feedback.

That's exactly what 9th is. List of some of the issues 8th had complaints over that 9th improved on:

*Ambiguous rules writing.
*Poor terrain rules.
*Soup.
*Overpowered auras.

The only steps back GW have taken with 9th is the great points shuffle and the introduction of more faction objectives, but we had those in Maelstrom for 8th as well so that one is not new. Balance also isn't a lot worse than at the start of 8th, the systems are just similar enough between 8th and 9th that a lot of the mistakes GW made with points were obvious. 8th was different enough from 7th that fewer people immediately spotted the issues, but Ynnari were stupidly strong relative to everyone else if you don't remember. GW can also only make so many errata to 8th before it stops being 8th, so they integrated a lot of the feedback they already acted on with previous errata and a bunch of things they never managed to fix with errata and made 9th edition, a gradual improvement based on player feedback to 8th edition. I like and agree with the rest of your comment.

Similar arguments could be made for the changes from 3rd to 4th, to 5th, to 6th, to 7th, and yet in many ways the subsequent editions were one step forward, two steps back. While I do agree that 9th made some positive changes from 8th, such as minimizing the use of allies and improving CP-generation by disincentivizing multiple detachments, there were other changes that I thought were not improvements to the game. Recommending smaller board sizes, in a blatant attempt to sell GW products like similar-sized Kill Team mats, was not an improvement for the game - why bother taking long-range special and heavy weapons when standard-issue weapons like the bolt rifle have a 30" range. Doubling down on the CCG-like stratagem aspect of the game was also not an improvement IMO (an aspect of 8th/9th that I really despise). The new, more complicated terrain rules are not always intuitive, and the addition of "blast" weapons has diminished traditional horde armies like Tyranids and Orks, while emphasizing even more the utility of small-unit armies like Space Marines and Harlequins (as much as they are hated by some, templates are better for this IMO). The mission objectives with primaries and secondaries are more complicated for casual players, having to keep track of dozens of possible points, instead of the more simple missions from previous editions. Plus the addition of rules like "Core" units and additional secondary objectives in the codexes instead of the main rulebook further complicates the game.

The majority of changes from 8th to 9th are no different than many of the changes to 8th introduced in errata documents, such as Bolter Discipline, Prepared Positions, limitations on CP generation, the rule of 3, etc. But instead of updating the "8th" rulebook with a few minor needed revisions, GW introduced 9th edition primarily IMO as a cash-grab to release new codexes soon again. Did the game change that much that we really needed three Space Marines codexes in three years instead of just updating the initial 8th book with datasheets for new models and adjusting points if necessary? But we needed more special layers of rules like doctrines, super doctrines, and more stratagems! . . . (bloat) . . .

At one point 8th was supposed to be the "living" edition, and it brought many players like myself back to 40k after years of being disenchanted with how the game had evolved. I admit I liked the direction of the game when the 8th was initially released with just the indexes and the few early codexes. I appreciated the more streamlined rules (including the simplistic "cover" rules) for casual gaming, but soon recognized that WAAC players could easily abuse the system. Of course GW had to mess it up with the eventual codex creep and barrage of supplements, repeating the cycle three years afterwards with 9th edition. Burn me once . . burn me twice . . .

Salt donkey wrote:
Well I guess everyone here disagrees with me on deepstrike. Just do me a favor the next time any of you play. Whenever you are your opponent deepstrikes something in, make sure there is absolutely no enemy units within 9. Each easy to tunnel vision on 1 unit that limits your space and then completely not notice the nurgling squad hiding behind the tall ruin that also messes you.

So basically learn how to play this game....

 r_squared wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
...I could maybe get behind melee-buffing auras (as the character would basically have to be in melee himself in order to maintain the buff), but auras that directly buff ranged attacks should really be a no-no. ...

If "inspiration" is the mechanic then this makes sense. However, I'm not sure how the presence of a dude in a big shiny hat is able to exhort his troops to shoot more accurately, perhaps he's bellowing the marksmanship principles?

I think the one of the best ways to transform these rules into cinematic action on the table is to consider the character making use of their battlefield experience to apply various tactics and strategies of the character/HQ unit beyond the already micro-manage-y command and control (C2) level of the player.

It could be a marine captain knowing what direction the enemy will take or attack based on the terrain (assuming that the units on the table don't have the perfect knowledge that the player do) or effective range (assuming a number of environmental conditions not concerned by the players), reading the wind/weather to pick the best time to fire as the visibility clears from dust, smoke, fog, explosions, etc., generally knowing when/making distractions to pop up and take shots (assuming that units are still attempting to provide the smallest target to the enemy and/or even if no terrain is modeled there is still something, going prone or making the best use of personal body armor), know how to direct the enemy into more favorable firing zone, stagger a unit's shooting so they aren't all reloading at the same time, dressing better firing lines or a myriad of other things best left for field officers to worry about maximizing their subordinates and not the overall C2 element.

All pretty basic assumptions that war games assume that is what randomizers are being used for. Usually this would be more a squad leader level, but in context of 40k, I don't think Capt/Lt micro-tactics is out of place either. In fact, probably makes more sense given the battlefield expertise of these veterans and the hands-on approach of the setting. Even the Capt vs. Lt. bonus could be explained more in attempting to execute differing tactics based on operational understanding of the mission. The character is also more concerned about leading preventing them from making use of these buffs too (well, now they aren't Core anyways). You got me when these auras are doubled up though. Having two field combat officers yelling orders would be confusing even for space marines. That's one of those MST3K moments (It's just a show game I should really just relax) for me.

With vehicles and marines, it could be explained that Captains and Lieutenants aren't nearly as well-versed in armor tactics as the tech marines, vehicle operators and machine spirits to squeeze better performance out of them like they would for other Core units. Obviously, there are going to be weaker and stronger explanations to how rules transform into actions. Which means some things are going to take a lot more creativity and imagination to get something remotely satisfactory. I think going MST3K occasionally isn't going to ruin the experience either.

As good as all these points are, the first thing I'd change in 9th are the coherency rules to make them only kick in from 11+ models.

It's dumb that I can spread 5 Jetbikes out to max distance, but as soon as there's a 6th one they have to huddle together for warmth.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As good as all these points are, the first thing I'd change in 9th are the coherency rules to make them only kick in from 11+ models.

It's dumb that I can spread 5 Jetbikes out to max distance, but as soon as there's a 6th one they have to huddle together for warmth.

At the same time, a unit of 10 cultists strung out some 30" looks off. Two triangles of jetbikes looks far less off.

I guess my point is that, as always, GW had a great idea (let's establish what a "horde" is!) and then messed up the execution (anything above 5 models is a horde!).

@ H.B.M.C. (thanks for explaining your handle BTW it makes remembering it much easier)

I do understand where you are coming from. All my armies (CSM, SM, GSC) tend to run in at least ten man squads. It is just how I like to play 40k as it feels right to me, even if it isn't always the most effective. I have some trouble swallowing the idea that the typical full infantry squad is a horde. Especially when at least 2 of 3 factions I play do have the option to go well beyond ten. Units of 11+ definitely feel much more like a horde to me.

I kinda get why GW placed the coherency rule like they did. Strung out (Conga line) units for screening was more frustrating to me than the new coherency rules. It was super effective in game for a number of reasons, yet it looks so off much of the time on the table. And an opponent interacting with a strung out line of models was even weirder.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Aye, but I was refencing 3rd.

Damage charts changed for 5th, and it was noticeable on the tabletop as Space Marine armies looked like parking lots upon deployment.

Okay, for 3e:
the mean number of hits to destroy a:
Predator: 5 hits
Leman Russ: 10 hits

That's a less pronounced increase than going from 18 to 7, but 10 to 7 is still a fairly substantial increase.


Also, I personally think 5e was the height of the ruleset for the subject at hand . I had lots of tanks, my opponent had lots of tanks, mech infantry was good, it was fun and the game, at least for my playgroup, was very mobile as a consequence.

Did you include flanking and disabling shots? Because that's going to have a big effect (and did during those editions). I spent a lot of time hitting LR's enough so that they couldn't fire, in effect suppressing them while my Marines did whatever they needed to do otherwise.

With disabling (Stun/Shaking) if I'm following your math correctly I get:
Predator: 3 hits against front armor (.5x.666 = .333), 2 hits against side armor (.83 x .666 = .55)
Leman Russ: 5 hits against front armor (.333 x .666 = .22), 2.5 hits against side armor (.666 x .666 = .44)*

This is still not accounting for the Weapon Destroyed result in which taking out that Battle Cannon was the goal (Because Marines were rightfully very scared of the BC)

I personally liked 3rd and 4th more than 5th. 4th in particular.

*12 armor on the side of the LR in 3-4 as discussed in the other thread.

Stunned and shaken aren't destroyed. Your first point was "A Lascannon can one-shot a tank", which yes, it could, but that's how everything that could kill a tank killed a tank. With the exception of the less the 0.6% chance of a double-immobilized, every single AT system worked by one-shotting a tank against a relatively low probability, which, for the Lascannon, was low to the point of requiring more shots on average to destroy a vehicle than the modern lascannon. Especially compared to the actual legitimate heavy AT weapons like the Railcannon or Vanquisher, which I would say were a lot closer to one-hit-one-kill weapons. They still weren't, but 60% to pen from a Vanq is a lot higher than 16%, and should translate to a much greater effect than a Lascannon.

And weapon destroyed requires # of guns +2 to destroy the tank IIRC, so I didn't account for it because either tank has enough guns that it's probability of being destroyed by repeated weapon destroyed is pretty nil.

A Lascannon also essentially can't flank a gun tank unless it's owner let to do so or it's on a vehicle [in which case, there's almost certainly a more worthwhile weapon to use your 1 weapon firing while moving on], because it's a heavy weapon and can't fire on the move. That's also a completely different condition.


I think we're at a point where I'm unsatisfied with the fact that infantry AT teams feel unduly effective against tanks compared to a goddamn antitank gun that outweighs all three or four gunners and their guns combined, particularly the fact that a crappy man-portable recoilless rifle equivalent thing that's only slightly better than an RPG is somehow equally powerful to or more powerful than a heavy railcannon or a long-barreled smooth-bore APFSDS tank cannon, and you're unsatisfied with said shoulder-fired light at weapon not one-sh

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:@ H.B.M.C. (thanks for explaining your handle BTW it makes remembering it much easier)

I do understand where you are coming from. All my armies (CSM, SM, GSC) tend to run in at least ten man squads. It is just how I like to play 40k as it feels right to me, even if it isn't always the most effective. I have some trouble swallowing the idea that the typical full infantry squad is a horde. Especially when at least 2 of 3 factions I play do have the option to go well beyond ten. Units of 11+ definitely feel much more like a horde to me.

I kinda get why GW placed the coherency rule like they did. Strung out (Conga line) units for screening was more frustrating to me than the new coherency rules. It was super effective in game for a number of reasons, yet it looks so off much of the time on the table. And an opponent interacting with a strung out line of models was even weirder.

I wouldn't say that CSM and SM tend to run in 10 man squads. They tend to run in 5 man squads, you're the abnormal one.

As far as I see it, a 10 person unit is a horde unit, and 5 person unit isn't. If you're bringing 10 person marine squads and not combat squadding you're probably running a foot horde of marines of some kind or relying on your large units for extra efficiency, so either way getting a bonus against it seems fine to me.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I do understand where you are coming from. All my armies (CSM, SM, GSC) tend to run in at least ten man squads. It is just how I like to play 40k as it feels right to me, even if it isn't always the most effective. I have some trouble swallowing the idea that the typical full infantry squad is a horde. Especially when at least 2 of 3 factions I play do have the option to go well beyond ten. Units of 11+ definitely feel much more like a horde to me.

I've said this numerous times in the past, but I fully acknowledge that any number you, I or they would pick for what constitutes a 'horde' would be completely arbitrary.

You and I agree on 11+, right? Someone else might say, well why not 15+? Why not 20? There's no right answer to this, but there are wrong answers. Below what is, for the most part, the standard squad size across most factions (be it the max size of sometimes min size) strikes me as very wrong.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I kinda get why GW placed the coherency rule like they did. Strung out (Conga line) units for screening was more frustrating to me than the new coherency rules. It was super effective in game for a number of reasons, yet it looks so off much of the time on the table. And an opponent interacting with a strung out line of models was even weirder.

The issue with that is that GW has, as usual, decided to fix a perceived issue with a swing of a pendulum rather than fixing the issue.

If the issue was horde units with conga lines, then fix that. I doubt the problem was 6 Jetbikes. The rules don't scale well, and this is what draws my ire.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I wouldn't say that CSM and SM tend to run in 10 man squads. They tend to run in 5 man squads, you're the abnormal one.

5 is the current meta because of the way objectives are (poorly) handled in 9th. 10 is still the standard size across many, many factions.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I wouldn't say that CSM and SM tend to run in 10 man squads. They tend to run in 5 man squads, you're the abnormal one.

5 is the current meta because of the way objectives are (poorly) handled in 9th. 10 is still the standard size across many, many factions.

Besides the issues already covered I think one problem I have for 40k is that the release schedule is just ridiculously Marine Heavy.

Codex releases so far.

Space Marines
Necrons
Space Wolves
Death Watch
Blood Angels
Deathguard
Dark Eldar
Dark Angels.

So 8 releases, 6 flavors of power armor and 2 xenos factions.

FLG put out a joke article about how the next year is basically nothing but more Space Marine releases...the sad part is that a lot of people are so jaded at this point that they actually believed it at first. The good news is that GW is keeping up a blistering release pace (Compared to 7th edition and before) and are pushing out about 2 codex's a month so it won't be that long before we all get one...unless they pull an 8th edition move and switch to other games for 6+ months.

 Gnarlly wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Gnarlly wrote:
So basically GW is being GW: releasing a new edition every few years instead of working on one ruleset and making gradual improvements to it based on player feedback.

That's exactly what 9th is. List of some of the issues 8th had complaints over that 9th improved on:

*Ambiguous rules writing.
*Poor terrain rules.
*Soup.
*Overpowered auras.

The only steps back GW have taken with 9th is the great points shuffle and the introduction of more faction objectives, but we had those in Maelstrom for 8th as well so that one is not new. Balance also isn't a lot worse than at the start of 8th, the systems are just similar enough between 8th and 9th that a lot of the mistakes GW made with points were obvious. 8th was different enough from 7th that fewer people immediately spotted the issues, but Ynnari were stupidly strong relative to everyone else if you don't remember. GW can also only make so many errata to 8th before it stops being 8th, so they integrated a lot of the feedback they already acted on with previous errata and a bunch of things they never managed to fix with errata and made 9th edition, a gradual improvement based on player feedback to 8th edition. I like and agree with the rest of your comment.

Similar arguments could be made for the changes from 3rd to 4th, to 5th, to 6th, to 7th, and yet in many ways the subsequent editions were one step forward, two steps back.

How did 6th improve the game? How did 5th make things worse?

But instead of updating the "8th" rulebook with a few minor needed revisions, GW introduced 9th edition primarily IMO as a cash-grab to release new codexes soon again. Did the game change that much that we really needed three Space Marines codexes in three years instead of just updating the initial 8th book with datasheets for new models and adjusting points if necessary?

Did you not notice all the complaints about overpowered NuMarines? GW acted on it and made the difference between Primaris and Firstborn smaller by increasing the wounds characteristic of Firstborn, to do that GW needed to update codexes. Multi-meltas have also been a joke outside of flyers since at least 5th edition and flamers were terrible for the most part in 8th. Space Marines were massively weak with the first codex, Guilliman and FW units were the only reason they ever won anything, that's why Marines 2.0 was needed, but releasing both Marines 2.0 and all the supplements was overkill, it should have been either or, not both, especially with 9th so close down the line, or even better SM should have gotten 2W Firstborn instead of Doctrines, soup was going to be fixed by 9th regardless. Necrons got a big bunch of new units so they needed a new codex, none of the factions that don't need a new codex has gotten one in 9th yet.

Did we need new fonts and typesetting, new hardcover books with new art on the front? No, we agree that GW could have been done with Thousand Sons and CSM by now if they used the index format and then probably also have had time for a separate crusade supplement. I think as people that liked the idea of indexes we are in the minority, so churning out codexes might have been the option that pleases the most customers. GW is also a business and until the app developers get things up to the standard of Wahapedia + BattleScribe such that is worth paying for they have to monetize rules by releasing books or else accept a loss on that front by hoping to get more sales on miniatures, with miniature production being as high as it possibly could be despite books costing money that has also not been an option, so books it was.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Spoiler:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Aye, but I was refencing 3rd.

Damage charts changed for 5th, and it was noticeable on the tabletop as Space Marine armies looked like parking lots upon deployment.

Okay, for 3e:
the mean number of hits to destroy a:
Predator: 5 hits
Leman Russ: 10 hits

That's a less pronounced increase than going from 18 to 7, but 10 to 7 is still a fairly substantial increase.


Also, I personally think 5e was the height of the ruleset for the subject at hand . I had lots of tanks, my opponent had lots of tanks, mech infantry was good, it was fun and the game, at least for my playgroup, was very mobile as a consequence.

Did you include flanking and disabling shots? Because that's going to have a big effect (and did during those editions). I spent a lot of time hitting LR's enough so that they couldn't fire, in effect suppressing them while my Marines did whatever they needed to do otherwise.

With disabling (Stun/Shaking) if I'm following your math correctly I get:
Predator: 3 hits against front armor (.5x.666 = .333), 2 hits against side armor (.83 x .666 = .55)
Leman Russ: 5 hits against front armor (.333 x .666 = .22), 2.5 hits against side armor (.666 x .666 = .44)*

This is still not accounting for the Weapon Destroyed result in which taking out that Battle Cannon was the goal (Because Marines were rightfully very scared of the BC)

I personally liked 3rd and 4th more than 5th. 4th in particular.

*12 armor on the side of the LR in 3-4 as discussed in the other thread.

Stunned and shaken aren't destroyed. Your first point was "A Lascannon can one-shot a tank", which yes, it could, but that's how everything that could kill a tank killed a tank. With the exception of the less the 0.6% chance of a double-immobilized, every single AT system worked by one-shotting a tank against a relatively low probability, which, for the Lascannon, was low to the point of requiring more shots on average to destroy a vehicle than the modern lascannon. Especially compared to the actual legitimate heavy AT weapons like the Railcannon or Vanquisher, which I would say were a lot closer to one-hit-one-kill weapons. They still weren't, but 60% to pen from a Vanq is a lot higher than 16%, and should translate to a much greater effect than a Lascannon.

And weapon destroyed requires # of guns +2 to destroy the tank IIRC, so I didn't account for it because either tank has enough guns that it's probability of being destroyed by repeated weapon destroyed is pretty nil.

A Lascannon also essentially can't flank a gun tank unless it's owner let to do so or it's on a vehicle [in which case, there's almost certainly a more worthwhile weapon to use your 1 weapon firing while moving on], because it's a heavy weapon and can't fire on the move. That's also a completely different condition.


I think we're at a point where I'm unsatisfied with the fact that infantry AT teams feel unduly effective against tanks compared to a goddamn antitank gun that outweighs all three or four gunners and their guns combined, particularly the fact that a crappy man-portable recoilless rifle equivalent thing that's only slightly better than an RPG is somehow equally powerful to or more powerful than a heavy railcannon or a long-barreled smooth-bore APFSDS tank cannon, and you're unsatisfied with said shoulder-fired light at weapon not one-sh

Well it's true, they could one-shot a tank (and they can't do that now). But also they had a good chance of essentially removing it from offensive action for a turn, which was very important. (They also cannot do that now). What it meant was that a squad armed appropriately had a higher chance of effectively engaging a vehicle at range. Even isolated, a squad could effectively suppress the vehicle with a higher reliability. And the utility a single AT weapon brought against lighter vehicles was much greater.

As for flanking. . . Those were the good days when armies didn't blob up for auras. Spreading out your forces to force flank shots was plenty doable. Plus, you could mount Lascannons on other vehicles which could move and fire. Personally I teleported Terminators quite a bit, and the Assault Cannon did excellent work on vehicles with the 4th ed Rend rules.

I agree that the vehicle mounted anti-tank weapons are often dissapointing. The Tau Railgun is particularly embarassing. But I do like my Lascannons on my Marines, and they used to have more utility. I am all for the high tech infantry AT guns being very effective though. I prefer the balance shifted more towards infantry than you, I think. Either way, I very much agree that the one-shot-kill damage model was better than the current paradigm of grinding down a health bar.

That said, I also miss how scary those Battle Cannons were against Marines. It was tense times, fishing for a disabled tank with my rolls while knowing the template could land smack in the middle of my squad and annihilate them.

(And if you think the Lascannon was too effective as an infantry-carried AT gun, wait till you learn about the 2nd Ed Multimelta).

 vict0988 wrote:
...How did 6th improve the game?...

Expanded content. Standardization of Apocalypse-scale mechanics, and edits for consistency with the core game. Corrected 5th's over-correction towards light vehicle durability, gave skimmers back a durability mechanic based on speed/agility to replace the one 5th took away.

...How did 5th make things worse?...

Drastic reduction in the flexibility/customizability of all army books. Attached sub-faction rules to named characters in the Guard and SM books. Over-corrected towards transport durability while also dropping the price of light transports in a lot of places, leading to extreme transport-spam parking lots. Dropped Kill Team, dropped terrain height and area terrain visibility mechanics.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
...How did 6th improve the game?...

Expanded content. Standardization of Apocalypse-scale mechanics, and edits for consistency with the core game. Corrected 5th's over-correction towards light vehicle durability, gave skimmers back a durability mechanic based on speed/agility to replace the one 5th took away.

...How did 5th make things worse?...

Drastic reduction in the flexibility/customizability of all army books. Attached sub-faction rules to named characters in the Guard and SM books. Over-corrected towards transport durability while also dropping the price of light transports in a lot of places, leading to extreme transport-spam parking lots. Dropped Kill Team, dropped terrain height and area terrain visibility mechanics.

I'll add the replacement of greater-numbers morale mechanic in melee for the Number-of-casualties mechanic. I think 5th also removed the use of Frag Grenades against vehicles at S4 in CC.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Spoiler:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Aye, but I was refencing 3rd.

Damage charts changed for 5th, and it was noticeable on the tabletop as Space Marine armies looked like parking lots upon deployment.

Okay, for 3e:
the mean number of hits to destroy a:
Predator: 5 hits
Leman Russ: 10 hits

That's a less pronounced increase than going from 18 to 7, but 10 to 7 is still a fairly substantial increase.


Also, I personally think 5e was the height of the ruleset for the subject at hand . I had lots of tanks, my opponent had lots of tanks, mech infantry was good, it was fun and the game, at least for my playgroup, was very mobile as a consequence.

Did you include flanking and disabling shots? Because that's going to have a big effect (and did during those editions). I spent a lot of time hitting LR's enough so that they couldn't fire, in effect suppressing them while my Marines did whatever they needed to do otherwise.

With disabling (Stun/Shaking) if I'm following your math correctly I get:
Predator: 3 hits against front armor (.5x.666 = .333), 2 hits against side armor (.83 x .666 = .55)
Leman Russ: 5 hits against front armor (.333 x .666 = .22), 2.5 hits against side armor (.666 x .666 = .44)*

This is still not accounting for the Weapon Destroyed result in which taking out that Battle Cannon was the goal (Because Marines were rightfully very scared of the BC)

I personally liked 3rd and 4th more than 5th. 4th in particular.

*12 armor on the side of the LR in 3-4 as discussed in the other thread.

Stunned and shaken aren't destroyed. Your first point was "A Lascannon can one-shot a tank", which yes, it could, but that's how everything that could kill a tank killed a tank. With the exception of the less the 0.6% chance of a double-immobilized, every single AT system worked by one-shotting a tank against a relatively low probability, which, for the Lascannon, was low to the point of requiring more shots on average to destroy a vehicle than the modern lascannon. Especially compared to the actual legitimate heavy AT weapons like the Railcannon or Vanquisher, which I would say were a lot closer to one-hit-one-kill weapons. They still weren't, but 60% to pen from a Vanq is a lot higher than 16%, and should translate to a much greater effect than a Lascannon.

And weapon destroyed requires # of guns +2 to destroy the tank IIRC, so I didn't account for it because either tank has enough guns that it's probability of being destroyed by repeated weapon destroyed is pretty nil.

A Lascannon also essentially can't flank a gun tank unless it's owner let to do so or it's on a vehicle [in which case, there's almost certainly a more worthwhile weapon to use your 1 weapon firing while moving on], because it's a heavy weapon and can't fire on the move. That's also a completely different condition.


I think we're at a point where I'm unsatisfied with the fact that infantry AT teams feel unduly effective against tanks compared to a goddamn antitank gun that outweighs all three or four gunners and their guns combined, particularly the fact that a crappy man-portable recoilless rifle equivalent thing that's only slightly better than an RPG is somehow equally powerful to or more powerful than a heavy railcannon or a long-barreled smooth-bore APFSDS tank cannon, and you're unsatisfied with said shoulder-fired light at weapon not one-sh

Well it's true, they could one-shot a tank (and they can't do that now). But also they had a good chance of essentially removing it from offensive action for a turn, which was very important. (They also cannot do that now). What it meant was that a squad armed appropriately had a higher chance of effectively engaging a vehicle at range. Even isolated, a squad could effectively suppress the vehicle with a higher reliability. And the utility a single AT weapon brought against lighter vehicles was much greater.

As for flanking. . . Those were the good days when armies didn't blob up for auras. Spreading out your forces to force flank shots was plenty doable. Plus, you could mount Lascannons on other vehicles which could move and fire. Personally I teleported Terminators quite a bit, and the Assault Cannon did excellent work on vehicles with the 4th ed Rend rules.

I agree that the vehicle mounted anti-tank weapons are often dissapointing. The Tau Railgun is particularly embarassing. But I do like my Lascannons on my Marines, and they used to have more utility. I am all for the high tech infantry AT guns being very effective though. I prefer the balance shifted more towards infantry than you, I think. Either way, I very much agree that the one-shot-kill damage model was better than the current paradigm of grinding down a health bar.

That said, I also miss how scary those Battle Cannons were against Marines. It was tense times, fishing for a disabled tank with my rolls while knowing the template could land smack in the middle of my squad and annihilate them.

(And if you think the Lascannon was too effective as an infantry-carried AT gun, wait till you learn about the 2nd Ed Multimelta).

I am aware of various crazy things from editions past. I've participated in at least on "nostalgia game" from IIRC 3rd one time; but the bulk of my formative play experience was in 5th, followed by general disappointment with the way things went in 6th and 7th, and general satisfaction with 8th until CSM2.0 thanks to it's relatively good balance leading to a positive play experience, and now a lot of disappointment and disillusionment post SM2.0 and into 9th as balance seems to get worse and we feel like we return to the days of 7th with lots of random free rules to try to force competitive or "optimal" play to match a confined idea of narrative by using free special rule incentives..

Yeah I'd also like some consistency about hordes.

Blasts get max shots against 11+ models but horde units get their horde bonus only if they are 21+ models.

I'd uniform the standards to both 11+ or 21+, otherwise it's just an unnecessary penalty for horde units.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
SM have been in 5 man squads for essentially as long as I've been playing.

N.... no.

Marine Companies are 10 squads of 10, and they can combat squad. The standard Marine combat formation is 10 men. That is the way it's been since the 2nd Ed rationalisation, and probably before that. In the rules you can have squads lower than 10 (although not in 2nd Ed, I should point out), so you can bring understrength squads or just bring singular combat squads, but standard non-specialist Marines fight in units that are composed of 10 Marines.

5 man squads of marines made sense in 8th as the game mechanics pushed on bringing 6+ troops. 5 man squads makes sense in 9th because the 6th guy comes with a malus against blasts, which is huge against MEQs.

In 3rd-7th I've always played larger squads of marines, and my marines (SW) couldn't split up into combat squads. 8-10 man squads were simply more efficient than MSU.

SemperMortis wrote:
Besides the issues already covered I think one problem I have for 40k is that the release schedule is just ridiculously Marine Heavy.

Codex releases so far.

Space Marines
Necrons
Space Wolves
Death Watch
Blood Angels
Deathguard
Dark Eldar
Dark Angels.

So 8 releases, 6 flavors of power armor and 2 xenos factions.

FLG put out a joke article about how the next year is basically nothing but more Space Marine releases...the sad part is that a lot of people are so jaded at this point that they actually believed it at first. The good news is that GW is keeping up a blistering release pace (Compared to 7th edition and before) and are pushing out about 2 codex's a month so it won't be that long before we all get one...unless they pull an 8th edition move and switch to other games for 6+ months.

Here's the list of the faction still missing a 9th ed update:

Grey Knights
Black Templars
Imperial Fists
Iron Hands
Raven Guard
Salamanders
Ultramarines
White Scars

Sisters of Battle
Custodes
Ad Mech
Imperial Guard
Knights
(micro factions like Inquisition, Assassins, Sisters of Silence)

Chaos Daemons
Chaos Knights
CSM
Thousand Sons
(eventual new codex for Emperors Children, World Eaters)

Eldar
Harlequins
Ynnari

Orks

Tyranids
Genestealer Cults

Tau Empire

Total: 16 codices + 6-8 supplements (6 old SM ones, Templars, Ynnari) yet to be announced.
Even if they return to two new codices per month, we'd end up in 2022.

DS is perfectly fine, heck I am seeing more people reserve stuff in 9th than all of 8th.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
...How did 6th improve the game?...

Expanded content. Standardization of Apocalypse-scale mechanics, and edits for consistency with the core game. Corrected 5th's over-correction towards light vehicle durability, gave skimmers back a durability mechanic based on speed/agility to replace the one 5th took away.

...How did 5th make things worse?...

Drastic reduction in the flexibility/customizability of all army books. Attached sub-faction rules to named characters in the Guard and SM books. Over-corrected towards transport durability while also dropping the price of light transports in a lot of places, leading to extreme transport-spam parking lots. Dropped Kill Team, dropped terrain height and area terrain visibility mechanics.

I'll add the replacement of greater-numbers morale mechanic in melee for the Number-of-casualties mechanic. I think 5th also removed the use of Frag Grenades against vehicles at S4 in CC.

Let's not forget 5th edition's wound allocation system which was a total mess. Why GW chose to change from the nice and simple wound allocation system in 4th edition is beyond me.

No edition is perfect. Unfortunately, it seems that GW seems to add or change at least one rule in each new edition that is a step backwards from the previous edition. IMO there should be one "living" digital edition of Warhammer 40k and its codices, properly and thoroughly playtested before release, eventually released in its entirety all at once, with only minor necessary adjustments made based on overwhelming player feedback and any new models released. In this digital age GW could actually release "alpha" and "beta" versions of it to the public for feedback and for the players to find and report any bugs and issues; notice how fast the community finds obvious typos, incorrect points, and other issues in the current releases and updates? But that will likely never happen as GW prefers to continue to ride the gravy train of charging for new books and its shoddy app, and judging by GW's profits, most 40k hobbyists are all too happy to support this ridiculous system of continuing rules releases.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
DS is perfectly fine, heck I am seeing more people reserve stuff in 9th than all of 8th.

yeah, being able to deepstrike anything is dope in 9th. i think people complaining about DS are the ones that think you gotta bring everything on the table trurn 2.

 harlokin wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
As Drukhari player, I'm genuinely unsure whtat these auras are that you lot keep referring to.

Archons - reroll 1's to hit aura no? And get get reroll 1's to would also.

Yes, youre right. The practicality is somewhat different however, because they are invariably in a transport (or else isolated from your army)....so no aura.

I play flayed skull so I don't need the archon for my transports.
Typically bringing 3 archons though...they buff. Ravagers or go into melee with incubi. Imagine...Ravagers lose core and you cant even buff them anymore...

 Xenomancers wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
As Drukhari player, I'm genuinely unsure whtat these auras are that you lot keep referring to.

Archons - reroll 1's to hit aura no? And get get reroll 1's to would also.

Yes, youre right. The practicality is somewhat different however, because they are invariably in a transport (or else isolated from your army)....so no aura.

I play flayed skull so I don't need the archon for my transports.
Typically bringing 3 archons though...they buff. Ravagers or go into melee with incubi. Imagine...Ravagers lose core and you cant even buff them anymore...

Let's imagine a world where Archons could buff Incubi. That would be nice. I'm really curious to see what 9th brings to drukhari

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
As Drukhari player, I'm genuinely unsure whtat these auras are that you lot keep referring to.

Archons - reroll 1's to hit aura no? And get get reroll 1's to would also.

Yes, youre right. The practicality is somewhat different however, because they are invariably in a transport (or else isolated from your army)....so no aura.

I play flayed skull so I don't need the archon for my transports.
Typically bringing 3 archons though...they buff. Ravagers or go into melee with incubi. Imagine...Ravagers lose core and you cant even buff them anymore...

Let's imagine a world where Archons could buff Incubi. That would be nice. I'm really curious to see what 9th brings to drukhari

I think if we really wrack (no pun intended) our brains, we can probably come up with a fairly-accurate guess:

- No new units.

- No new models, save for Bane-cosplaying-as-Lelith.

- Still pointlessly split into 3 subfactions with barely any options each.

- Zero creativity.

- No indication that anyone working on the book had the slightest hint of enthusiasm for the army.

- No indication that anyone working on the book even understands the army.

- No attempt to address the pathetic HQ selection or abysmal wargear selection.

- Basically everything just copy-pasted with the only change being the edition number.


(I'd like to be wrong but I've yet to see a shred of evidence that would lead me to believe otherwise.)

 Xenomancers wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
As Drukhari player, I'm genuinely unsure whtat these auras are that you lot keep referring to.

Archons - reroll 1's to hit aura no? And get get reroll 1's to would also.

Yes, youre right. The practicality is somewhat different however, because they are invariably in a transport (or else isolated from your army)....so no aura.

I play flayed skull so I don't need the archon for my transports.
Typically bringing 3 archons though...they buff. Ravagers or go into melee with incubi. Imagine...Ravagers lose core and you cant even buff them anymore...

Same here, Flayed Skull for life.

It will be interesting to see how GW deal with Core for Drukhari, considering how few units there are. I wouldn't even be suprised if Ravagers ended up Core for Kabal, bearing in mind that Reapers are Kabal/Cult/Coven.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
As Drukhari player, I'm genuinely unsure whtat these auras are that you lot keep referring to.

Archons - reroll 1's to hit aura no? And get get reroll 1's to would also.

Yes, youre right. The practicality is somewhat different however, because they are invariably in a transport (or else isolated from your army)....so no aura.

I play flayed skull so I don't need the archon for my transports.
Typically bringing 3 archons though...they buff. Ravagers or go into melee with incubi. Imagine...Ravagers lose core and you cant even buff them anymore...

Let's imagine a world where Archons could buff Incubi. That would be nice. I'm really curious to see what 9th brings to drukhari

Dont get me started about incubi...I play the army for fun and typically it ether dominates or gets crushed. Incubi have got to ether A(ignore invune saves) or B(Get an invulnerable save). Also - not getting kabal traits is pretty dang silly too.

 vipoid wrote:

I think if we really wrack (no pun intended) our brains, we can probably come up with a fairly-accurate guess:

- No new units.

- No new models, save for Bane-cosplaying-as-Lelith.

- Still pointlessly split into 3 subfactions with barely any options each.

- Zero creativity.

- No indication that anyone working on the book had the slightest hint of enthusiasm for the army.

- No indication that anyone working on the book even understands the army.

- No attempt to address the pathetic HQ selection or abysmal wargear selection.

- Basically everything just copy-pasted with the only change being the edition number.


(I'd like to be wrong but I've yet to see a shred of evidence that would lead me to believe otherwise.)

they already said in a stream that the army would not be split anymore in 9th so we've got that going at least.
Getting nothing but lelith in terms of models would suck hard. We NEED new stuff. Bring back Vect, give coven a LoW, give options to our existing HQs, give us lesser HQs, rework poison.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

they already said in a stream that the army would not be split anymore in 9th so we've got that going at least.

Are you certain of that?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Getting nothing but lelith in terms of models would suck hard. We NEED new stuff. Bring back Vect, give coven a LoW, give options to our existing HQs, give us lesser HQs, rework poison.

I agree completely. But how many new DE models have you seen GW preview besides Loleth Hamthighs?