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.

Back in the day, Fire Warriors slagged a Rhino in an average of just 9 hits, so it wouldn't be that unreasonable to make them D2.

I mean, people are saying it'd break the game with anti-vehicle damage as if Stalker Bolt Rifles don't already exist. Take a comparison vs T8/3+ at 24", turn 1:

[edit: math where I forget an SBR doesn't get to bolter discipline out two shots, never mind!]

But I don't think D2 is especially likely; AP-1 seems a more reasonable change, now that S5/AP-1/D1 is no longer a heavy bolter profile. Wounding Marines on 3s and reducing them to a 4+ save is pretty spicy for a 30" rifle on a sub-10pt platform.

A Stalker Bolt Rifle is Heavy 1.

You only get two shots if you spend 2 CP. I would not take that as baseline for a comparison as it is limited to one unit per turn and costs a lot of your ressources.

a_typical_hero wrote:
A Stalker Bolt Rifle is Heavy 1.

You only get two shots if you spend 2 CP. I would not take that as baseline for a comparison as it is limited to one unit per turn and costs a lot of your ressources.

Unless you are ultra marines ?

a_typical_hero wrote:
A Stalker Bolt Rifle is Heavy 1.

You only get two shots if you spend 2 CP. I would not take that as baseline for a comparison as it is limited to one unit per turn and costs a lot of your ressources.

My bad and thanks for the correction, got my bolt weapon profiles mixed up.

In abstract I like the idea of a basic rifle being effective enough at AT that the faction doesn't need dedicated heavy weapons, but yeah D2 might be pushing it for how cheap they are. I still think AP-1 is much more likely.

Anyways, back to Eldar- I think this hints at some of the changes we might see for Craftworlds. Guardians in particular seem likely to go to 4+, which will help as currently they're hideously overcosted. I think GW is recognizing now that the AP modifier system allows for more scope to mess with armor values without running into problems with breakpoints like the old system.

I could see craftworld guardians getting 4+Save. But I wouldn’t expect them to get the additional attack that kabalites get. Dark eldar has always been more martially inclined than their craftworld cousins (who used to compensate with buffs, through a broad access to psykers). It would be really nice to see that martial difference be represented in their stat lines, once again. To me, at least.
(But I could see aspect warriors getting it)

Ice_can wrote:

So do we now get 4+ Sv Guardians?
Do Dire avengers now come with a 3+ Sv?

Guard with a 4+ army wide as they were 5+ Save too.

Do firewarriors get a 3+ or are they just supposed to accept getting worse while being more point's per model?

I'd probably move Guardians to a 4+ save and then Aspects to 2w but keep the save. Same for Incubi, Mandrakes, Hellions, everything Harliequin, etc. That gives them durability against things like bolters while rewarding the enemy for having mid strength anti-elite weapons (like the new splinter cannon, for example). Things get kind of weird anyway if the offense/defense of a unit gets too out of proportion.

Under this model Fire warriors would stay at 4+ because the elite models in a Tau army are the battlesuits.

novembermike wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

So do we now get 4+ Sv Guardians?
Do Dire avengers now come with a 3+ Sv?

Guard with a 4+ army wide as they were 5+ Save too.

Do firewarriors get a 3+ or are they just supposed to accept getting worse while being more point's per model?

I'd probably move Guardians to a 4+ save and then Aspects to 2w but keep the save. Same for Incubi, Mandrakes, Hellions, everything Harliequin, etc. That gives them durability against things like bolters while rewarding the enemy for having mid strength anti-elite weapons (like the new splinter cannon, for example). Things get kind of weird anyway if the offense/defense of a unit gets too out of proportion.

Under this model Fire warriors would stay at 4+ because the elite models in a Tau army are the battlesuits.

If FW is any indication thats a nope for CWE aspects. Also ANYTHING getting more than 4 attacks..

I doubt we actually get that, Incubi are already not where I said they should be. I just think that's the right spot, GW should be fairly generous about moving units up to 2w if they represent elite infantry but also be generous about giving out guns that deal 2w.

Dark lances (and Bright lances) are most likely going to change in only one way. They are probably going to be -1 to save against.

They used to ignore AV higher than 12. So either they go to always wound on a 4+ vs everything (mostly pointless), or they go to a -1 to saves. This makes them fairly unique as a ranged weapon and not at all bad.

novembermike wrote:
I doubt we actually get that, Incubi are already not where I said they should be. I just think that's the right spot, GW should be fairly generous about moving units up to 2w if they represent elite infantry but also be generous about giving out guns that deal 2w.

That feels... pointless. As if none of the 'real contenders' have really gained or lost anything.

It also has unintended consequences. Making vehicles/monsters worse (as they're also hit by an extra abundance of D2 weapons), and makes really cheap 1W horde armies a meta spoiler, and in a fairly absurd way, oddly elite for being 'non-preferred' targets.

It also makes mid-tier units who can't boast low cost, 2W or 2D, both too expensive for the little they can achieve and not durable enough to last against the improved firepower. Worst of all possible worlds, and that currently affects a lot of (non marine) armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Dark lances (and Bright lances) are most likely going to change in only one way. They are probably going to be -1 to save against.

They used to ignore AV higher than 12. So either they go to always wound on a 4+ vs everything (mostly pointless), or they go to a -1 to saves. This makes them fairly unique as a ranged weapon and not at all bad.

Always wound on a 4+ would be _terrible_. The number of things that are T9 or above is very low. They'd be worse against everything T7 or below, which is a _heck_ of a lot more. That's a horrifying downgrade.

-1 to save against is pointless. They're already -4. Their AP is fine. Dark and Bright lances already have good AP (better than imperial lascannons, equal to melta weapons), so I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Their big issue is they're not great at wounding the things they're supposed to be shooting at (heavy vehicles), and they've got lol!random damage. Neither are good for what were dedicated heavy tank hunter weapons (that incidentally also popped light vehicles).

The problem is things that are supposed to be less effective anti-tank (pulse lasers and disintegrators) are actually statistically better against a lot of targets, because of multiple shots and reliable damage.
---

Voss wrote:

Always wound on a 4+ would be _terrible_.

I agree.

Alas, we're still stuck with Poison.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Part of the point of Kalabites is they had absolutely gakky armor and that they relied on fast transports to make up for it as they fire away, so who the hell decided they needed a 4+?

Everything is killier so 4+ is the new 5+.

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Lass cannons didn't.

I had always perceived Dark/Bright Lances as superior Lascannons in prior editions.

Presumably in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Guess you've never played 40k before 8th edition then

123ply wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Lass cannons didn't.

I had always perceived Dark/Bright Lances as superior Lascannons in prior editions.

Presumably in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Guess you've never played 40k before 8th edition then

During the AV era of 40k, the brightlance was only superior against AV14, it was equal to a lascannon against AV13 and worse against AV everything else. And that doesn't include its 12" shorter range.

Given that the majority of AV in 40k back then was 10-13 and 14 only appeared on a couple of vehicles or vehicle faces, in practice the brightlance was never as good as a S9 lascannon.

 vipoid wrote:

Voss wrote:

Always wound on a 4+ would be _terrible_.

I agree.

Alas, we're still stuck with Poison.

I of course meant always wounds on nothing less than a 4+. You would still wound T7 on a 3+ and T4 on a 2+.

Nothing could make you wound on less than a 4+ however, so like the opposite of transhuman. I apologize for not explaining that better.

Also, -1 save would not be useless as it would effect invuns.............

 Eihnlazer wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Voss wrote:

Always wound on a 4+ would be _terrible_.

I agree.

Alas, we're still stuck with Poison.

I of course meant always wounds on nothing less than a 4+. You would still wound T7 on a 3+ and T4 on a 2+.

Nothing could make you wound on less than a 4+ however, so like the opposite of transhuman. I apologize for not explaining that better.

Eh. That's still just pointless special rules bloat. It just doesn't affect much of anything, there is almost nothing that isn't a LoW that more than T8, and even a lot of LoW's aren't.
For example, even Monoliths and Land Raiders are T8, and land raiders were part of the reason the old lance rule existed. This would do basically nothing but add word count (and convince GW that they need to cost more points, despite how useless the rule is).

Also, -1 save would not be useless as it would effect invuns.............

Yeah, no. We don't need more special rules that exist only to counter other rules. What reason would they have to affect invulnerable saves?
Weapons just need to be effective. They don't need word salad jammed into the abilities column.

The only units I'm aware of that have a toughness value greater than 8 are the Mastodon (800 PPM), the Revenant Titan (1500 PPM), and the Phantom Titan (3000 PPM) all of which are T9. So yeah, always wounding on a 4+ or lower wouldn't be useful very often.

It would certainly effect things that have -1 to wound on them or abilities that lower the strength of the weapon being fired at them.

It would not be a major effect, but a slight buff to a lackluster weapon.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
The only units I'm aware of that have a toughness value greater than 8 are the Mastodon (800 PPM), the Revenant Titan (1500 PPM), and the Phantom Titan (3000 PPM) all of which are T9. So yeah, always wounding on a 4+ or lower wouldn't be useful very often.

The Warlord Titan is also T9.

 Hellebore wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
The only units I'm aware of that have a toughness value greater than 8 are the Mastodon (800 PPM), the Revenant Titan (1500 PPM), and the Phantom Titan (3000 PPM) all of which are T9. So yeah, always wounding on a 4+ or lower wouldn't be useful very often.

The Warlord Titan is also T9.

Whoops, sorry, forgot about the Warlord.

"Cearly need al that posion. The warlord titan we see at all that pick up games these days is a big problem"

Said nobody ever...



This is all going to be just great.. I can feel it already...

 Argive wrote:
"Cearly need al that posion. The warlord titan we see at all that pick up games these days is a big problem"

Said nobody ever...



This is all going to be just great.. I can feel it already...

It was in the interests of accuracy, not an indication of efficacy...


T5 Gravis armour marines are going to be taking it a bit harder though.

 Hellebore wrote:

 Argive wrote:
"Cearly need al that posion. The warlord titan we see at all that pick up games these days is a big problem"

Said nobody ever...



This is all going to be just great.. I can feel it already...

It was in the interests of accuracy, not an indication of efficacy...


T5 Gravis armour marines are going to be taking it a bit harder though.

I know I know.
I was just sporting. The thought of some designer saying: "Ugh I have to do some lame alien stuff... I just want to write good rules for my sons fav chapter... Ugh what a drag.. How about this. these rando dark aliens wont be good vs a lot of stuff... But they will be really good against T9+. Thats warlord titan level of toughness! This ought to amke people happy"

Eihnlazer wrote:
I of course meant always wounds on nothing less than a 4+. You would still wound T7 on a 3+ and T4 on a 2+.

Nothing could make you wound on less than a 4+ however, so like the opposite of transhuman. I apologize for not explaining that better.

Also, -1 save would not be useless as it would effect invuns.............

Personally, I'd rather not go that route. Never wounding on worse than a 4+ would be so extremely niche that I'd rather just not have the ability. Even if they didn't charge us any points for it, the existence of such a rule would make me worry about just how well the guys tasked with writing our book understand the faction/the game overall.

Also not a fan of lowering invuln saves with lances if only for fluff reasons. Nothing about a lance makes me think it should be especially good at hitting targets cloaked by hologram tech (like venoms and star weavers), targets that are jinking (like Raven Wing), or especially good at overcoming the non-physics that govern daemonic invuln saves. You could make try to come up with a reason for it to be good at piercing forcefields, but those are just a small subset of invulns in the game and aren't currently labeled with any sort of keyword. Such a rule would create dissonance between the fluff and the crunch for me.

Eihnlazer wrote:It would certainly effect things that have -1 to wound on them or abilities that lower the strength of the weapon being fired at them.

It would not be a major effect, but a slight buff to a lackluster weapon.

How many things are lowering to-wound rolls to worse than a 4+ against a strength 8 weapon? Even harlequin vehicles with a -1 to wound aura on them would still be getting wounded on a 4+ by a bright lance. How many situations can you think of where always wounding on a 4+ would benefit a dark/bright lance? And how many points are you willing to pay every time you take that weapon on the off-chance that the rule matters?

Not trying to be a jerk, but I'd really rather not bother remembering the text or paying the points for such a highly-specific rule. Personally, I don't think dark/bright lances are all that bad, though the latter have certainly benefitted from Expert Crafters lately. If we really wanted to give those weapons a boost, just make them d6 damage minimum 3. You have the same chance of spiking your damage high as you do now, but you no longer have to worry about rolling an annoyingly low damage result. Not so good that drukhari spamming darklight becomes a problem. Not so niche that you'll forget you even have it.

Why not just make lance weapons ignore any modifiers to wound and call it a day?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Why not just make lance weapons ignore any modifiers to wound and call it a day?

There's not too many of those though for that to be worth it.

GW like breaking their own rules.
Clearly "Lance" should give a -1 penalty to invul saves.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Why not just make lance weapons ignore any modifiers to wound and call it a day?

There's not too many of those though for that to be worth it.

DG has a fair few, including some on targets lances would rather like to wound normally. We also don't know what's planned for other armies as I could easily see Chaos Marines, Tyranids, and Custodes having a -1 to wound rule/stratagem that could easily impact lance targets.

That or make them ignore damage mitigation effects like DG, Astartes Dreadnaughts. -1 making things 1-5 but keeping yourself at 1-6 might not feel like much buts it's an avarage bump of +.88 Damage.

If that doesn't feel enough maybe some anti FNP rule though I think that has it's own raft of issues.

Though to be blunt are people running the risk of doing the GW special of trying to invent a rule to reflect fluff when in game terms on a D6 that difference just isnt enough to be statistically significant?

As a lance with a better points vost and basic stats actually going to be more useful than going daft with paying extra points for a rule that doesnt always effect the result?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
The only units I'm aware of that have a toughness value greater than 8 are the Mastodon (800 PPM), the Revenant Titan (1500 PPM), and the Phantom Titan (3000 PPM) all of which are T9. So yeah, always wounding on a 4+ or lower wouldn't be useful very often.

Any non armiger chaos knight can get T9 too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Why not just make lance weapons ignore any modifiers to wound and call it a day?

There's not too many of those though for that to be worth it.

DG has a fair few, including some on targets lances would rather like to wound normally. We also don't know what's planned for other armies as I could easily see Chaos Marines, Tyranids, and Custodes having a -1 to wound rule/stratagem that could easily impact lance targets.

i'd rather GW stopped fething around with the wounding chart tbh. Lances should do damage in the form of mortal wounds, and be D3+3. That way the damage wouldnt be reduceable and it would still be better than lascannons