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.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

I'm basing this off of the words of DE players, but I often see people question why anybody would use a Lance or Splinter Cannon when Disintegrators exist and do better against a lot of common targets while still being good enough against vehicles. Hence my suggestion that we give them a buff that at least makes them interesting against a common type of protection we've been seeing on tough units. I do rather wish I could make such suggestions without facing a dogpile but the mods *shrugs* they have their own ideas.

I think your point is well made.

Dissies are taken in preference to DL (even after the points were adjusted) because they are more reliable (particularly when facing invul. saves) and more versatile (due to muliple shots).

The solution should lie either in DL having higher damage and/or some means of obviating invul. saves.

They are the main anti vehicle weapon in a faction that is not over blessed with such options, and I don't think the answer is to "take more of them" or to nerf dissies.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Then all of a sudden, comparing them in 8e or 9e isnt a valid argument anymore. The fact that both weren't the optimal weapon doesnt change the fact that theyre very similar, with Lances having better pen. And jut because theyre not optimal doesn't mean they aren't being used by anyone. Most players won't play the most competitive options and spam them.

Quoting their stats at me when my response was to Slayer claiming they used to AP1 does feth all for the discussion so why bring it up at all?

I've made my suggestion for how to add a little spice into the lance recipe by letting them ignore modifiers to wound. I see it as a fun nod to how they used to treat everything as AV12 without being crazy OTT like suggestions of lances being 3+d3 damage with a mortal wound clause attached.

i don't see how making the damage into mortal wounds would be crazy or break anything, instead of messing around on the wound chart, it would simple prevent damage prevention skills that are much more present in the game than transhuman physiology

Wyldhunt wrote:
We're spending a lot of time talking about adding some pretty niche or wordy rules onto lance weapons, but do they really need changing in the first place?

The issue really is opportunity cost.

If we were in the world of early 8th, when the Lascannon was a respectable weapon, then a few points reductions would probably be enough.
But this is the melta-meta. Where 2 S8 AP-4 D6 damage shots, doing +2 damage in half range, costs... well not that many points. Retributors. Eradicators. MM Attack Bikes, etc.

In that world a 3 Lance Ravager should cost... what? 90ish points? With a lot of those points going towards toughness and movement to contribute to its weaker damage output? Its no where near 140 - that gives it half the damage output of those units (quite a bit less in the case of retributors).

Its a similar situation with say Scourge. For 27 points I get one shot, and for 34 points Retributors get 2. Now putting a bazillion rules here maybe can help - but I think thats a bridge too far. How low can you go? Should dark lance/heat lance Scourge be just 17ish points?

I suspect in time MMs will be nerfed (either a massive points hike, or stripping the extra shot), and rejigging the whole game to make up for stupidly isn't sensible. But... yeah. Balance dictates some of this.

There perhaps other alternatives - like say all forms of Eldar *always* reroll 1s to hit and 1s to wound because they are super special snowflakes. But I think that would be a bad direction for the game.

 harlokin wrote:
I think your point is well made.

Dissies are taken in preference to DL (even after the points were adjusted) because they are more reliable (particularly when facing invul. saves) and more versatile (due to muliple shots).

The solution should lie either in DL having higher damage and/or some means of obviating invul. saves.

They are the main anti vehicle weapon in a faction that is not over blessed with such options, and I don't think the answer is to "take more of them" or to nerf dissies.

I've nothing more to add here but I wanted to give you a kudos that's more tangible than a simple exalt.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i don't see how making the damage into mortal wounds would be crazy or break anything, instead of messing around on the wound chart, it would simple prevent damage prevention skills that are much more present in the game than transhuman physiology

The changes you suggested would make lances into the single best long ranged anti-tank option around and it wouldn't be close.

In a world where meltas are causing people to call for nerfs your idea would just throw gas on the fire.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Lances have been worse than lascannons for most of the game's history, they had an advantage against AV14 and that's it. So give them some minor special rule, leave them at S8, and give them a reasonable points cost and call it a day.

They also have the advantage of AP-4. SUPER MINOR, but it's there. As I recall, were they not AP1 back in ye olde days?

They've been AP2 for since 3e, I even went back and checked just in case I missed something. So rather than ALL CAPS WORDS at me, try looking up the rules next time.

Brightlances have been S8 -4 D6 ever since 8th edition.
Vs Lascannons S9 -3 D6

So the odds of an unsaved Wound between the two are:
Against T7 Sv 3+:

Brightlance: 66.7%

Lascannon: 55.6%

Against T8 Sv 3+:

Brightlance: 50%

Lascannon: 55.6%

Against T8 Sv 2+:

Brightlance: 41.7%

Lascannon: 44.4%

Against T9 Sv 3+:

Brightlance: 50%

Lascannon: 41.7%

Looks like the Brightlance could use a little something since it is worst against T8 models regardless of Sv value. Call me crazy, but I say make it S9 AP -4 Dmg D6 and go home.

Here's a sugestion:

Lance weapons are specialised penetration weapons aimed at taking out high armoured/ force fielded thingies..

So make lance weapons flat 6 damage vs vehicals and mosnters with an invuln while D6 against everything else.

The issue with lance weapons is that that they are stupidly expensive for 1 shot dealing D6 damage.
Single shot weapons with D6 damage are just garbage.. So that single shot really needs to be scary and really needs to count.
Whenever Ive taken a bright lance or twin bright lance I have always regretted not taking AML or star cannons isntead...

Yea that'd be obscenely powerful. No thanks.

What if Lances did a straight 4 damage?

So more reliable (and slightly higher average damage) than currently, but without the higher ceiling.


Otherwise, I liked the earlier suggestion of them also reducing/ignoring invulnerable saves - as I think those are one of the killers for single-shot weapons at the moment.

 vipoid wrote:
What if Lances did a straight 4 damage?

So more reliable (and slightly higher average damage) than currently, but without the higher ceiling.


Otherwise, I liked the earlier suggestion of them also reducing/ignoring invulnerable saves - as I think those are one of the killers for single-shot weapons at the moment.

Well think about it like this. The titanic pulsars that eldar use are:

S14 AP-4 D5 (Phantom)
S12 AP-4 D4 (Revenant)
S12 AP-4 D3 (Scorpion)
S9 AP-3 D3 (Lynx)


So I imagine they'll probably be rebuilding them to align with this in some way.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea that'd be obscenely powerful. No thanks.

Why?

Without rerolls its not that scary. I fully expect expert crafters not to make it into 9e. ANd lets not forget that only one faction is blessed with "everything is core" so any rerolls will be unlikely.

At 20pts theres only so many you can take and as soon as you come up against infantry and elite infantry or vehicles without invulns its just exatly the same as it is..

 Argive wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea that'd be obscenely powerful. No thanks.

Why?

Without rerolls its not that scary. I fully expect expert crafters not to make it into 9e. ANd lets not forget that only one faction is blessed with "everything is core" so any rerolls will be unlikely.

At 20pts theres only so many you can take and as soon as you come up against infantry and elite infantry or vehicles without invulns its just exatly the same as it is..

Yeah. Against a Knight, it's an average of 4/3 damage per shot hitting on a 3+.

Compare to a Lascannon, which does 1.03 damage per shot hitting on a 3+.

Assuming 5++. Decrease damage by 25% for a 4++.

Edit: It'd be pretty mean to Sisters of Battle, though... They have a 6++ army-wide, which barely offers any protection, but would still increase the damage to a flat 6.

Yeah. Against a Knight, it's an average of 4/3 damage per shot hitting on a 3+.

Compare to a Lascannon, which does 1.03 damage per shot hitting on a 3+.

This seems fine to me? Knights are aggressively over-durable against Lascannons.

Rihgu wrote:

Yeah. Against a Knight, it's an average of 4/3 damage per shot hitting on a 3+.

Compare to a Lascannon, which does 1.03 damage per shot hitting on a 3+.

This seems fine to me? Knights are aggressively over-durable against Lascannons.

I was agreeing that it seemed fine to me.

Again, excepting SoB, or others with a token 6++.

Maybe only have it work if the Invuln is 5+ or better?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i don't see how making the damage into mortal wounds would be crazy or break anything, instead of messing around on the wound chart, it would simple prevent damage prevention skills that are much more present in the game than transhuman physiology

The changes you suggested would make lances into the single best long ranged anti-tank option around and it wouldn't be close.

In a world where meltas are causing people to call for nerfs your idea would just throw gas on the fire.

Why? it would be the exact same damage output as regular lascannons except in mortal wounds form to prevent FnPs.

Because you massively heighten the chance to a huge swing in damage on a bad streak of invulnerable saves. A Ravager with 3 of them is only 140.

The very popular Greater Daemons are sitting on a 5++ most of the time and it takes just three to go through for a killing blow.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i don't see how making the damage into mortal wounds would be crazy or break anything, instead of messing around on the wound chart, it would simple prevent damage prevention skills that are much more present in the game than transhuman physiology

The changes you suggested would make lances into the single best long ranged anti-tank option around and it wouldn't be close.

In a world where meltas are causing people to call for nerfs your idea would just throw gas on the fire.

Why? it would be the exact same damage output as regular lascannons except in mortal wounds form to prevent FnPs.

That's not how Mortal Wounds or FNPs work.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Because you massively heighten the chance to a huge swing in damage on a bad streak of invulnerable saves. A Ravager with 3 of them is only 140.

The very popular Greater Daemons are sitting on a 5++ most of the time and it takes just three to go through for a killing blow.

You mean like people with vehicle heavy armies that have invuln would have to prioratise lance platforms over other stuff ? While people taking lances will be usless against not intended targets ?

Also the wing now is on you rolling a 6 on the damage so the wing just moves elsewhere but at least would make lances need to be dealt with.

Seems fine to me. Tailoring would suck for sure, but in a TAC environment I dont think that egregious.

Im not sure what the fix is but 1 shot D6 damage weapons just suck currently. If I had a £1 for every time i failed to kill something cos roll 1-2 id have some new models.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea that'd be obscenely powerful. No thanks.

Perhaps, but one S8, AP-4 D6 shot is less obscene than two S8, AP-4, Dd6+2 shots, and gw has already given us a weapon that does just that.

I get that long-range anti-tank is an area that needs buffing across all factions but should lances be significantly better than lascannons? I know a lot of Xenos players will treat this as a Marine rules (Eradicators) versus Xenos rules (Fire Dragons) but I have to question if anybody really wants a constant cycle of something being fixed for only a single faction. Many of these ideas to change lances are great and should apply to everything in that class of weapons but probably shouldn't happen unless GW is planning to change them for everybody.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Why? it would be the exact same damage output as regular lascannons except in mortal wounds form to prevent FnPs.

This:

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

Is the same as:

Heavy 1 S9 AP-3 D1d6

In what world are these profiles the same?

People consider some of the things GW do to be overpowered while writing things like these profiles out without a genuine hint of irony?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
People consider some of the things GW do to be overpowered while writing things like these profiles out without a genuine hint of irony?

Sometimes (often) its different people.
But also yes. I've frequently noticed that when people tout their own homebrew, house rules, suggestion, or their own system, it definitely isn't ever overpowered. No matter what.

 vipoid wrote:
What if Lances did a straight 4 damage?

So more reliable (and slightly higher average damage) than currently, but without the higher ceiling.

Speaking as someone who regularly uses both dissies and dark lances, making lances a flat 4 damage would (oddly enough) make me strongly consider not using lances.

Currently, disintegrators are more flexible than a dark lance (they have more shots and are quite good at killing marines) and are only slightly worse than a lance at hurting a T6 or T7 vehicle. They're also (if I remember some math I ran over a year ago correctly) less likely to do nothing than a lance is due to the higher number of shots. Additionally, they synergize better than lances do with things like the archon's captain aura (more shots means more chances to roll 1s that then get rerolled into hits), Test of Skill (+1 to wound versus vehicles with enough wounds; 50% increase in wounds on dissies vs only a 33% or 25% increase for lances), and Dark Technomancers (+1 to wound and +1 damage; potentially +3 damage on dizzies and a proportionately higher increase in number of wounds compared to a dark lance).

So why do I bother with lances at all? Other than nostalgia and liking how a high damage roll feels, dark lances present an opportunity to spike high on damage. Basically, it takes less good luck to roll a 5 or 6 on a dark lance's damage roll than to do 6 damage with a disintegrator (though I'm not sure if that's still true where Dark Techno is concerned). Every once in a while, a single lance will kill a star weaver, or two lances will kill something like a rhino. I can't rely on those damage spikes happening at a specific time, but I can give myself a lot of opportunities for those spikes to happen thorughout the game by taking enough lances. When those spikes happen, they can mean that I suddenly have a bunch of guns freed up to shoot at additional targets.

Basically, they're a gambler's choice. An occassional high spike in damage can be worth trading a little reliability or even a little average damage. Making them a flat 4 damage would remove their chance to spike high on damage and risk making disintegrators the clearly better choice by virtue of having an almost as high (sometimes higher?) average damage and more flexibility. On the other hand, making lances d3+3 or d6 minimum 3 damage would avoid raising their max damage, avoid troublingly low damage rolls, and preserve the possibility of a damage spike.

Otherwise, I liked the earlier suggestion of them also reducing/ignoring invulnerable saves - as I think those are one of the killers for single-shot weapons at the moment.

Not a fan of making lances good against invulnerable saves. What about a lance weapon would make it better at bypassing the holographic defenses of a starweaver/venom or the jink maneuvers of a raven wing model or the supernatural powers of a daemon?

GW has been doing a bit of redesign on the durability front, to counter the worst things that happened during 8th.

GW introduced many -1 damage rules, to give a clear counter to high ROF multi damage weapons.

GW is increasing a few armor values and removing 3+ invul saves, to make AP matter more.

In the DA supplement, there is a relic which caps a target to 5+ invul saves. I suspect that this is just an hint of a new mechanic, which will become more widespread with xenos. It introduces a counter to the lists that overly rely on 4++ saves.

I could see blasters and dark lances having this last one.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
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

So lance should somehow become very good at dealing infantry? Isn't that bit odd way?

Wyldhunt wrote:

Speaking as someone who regularly uses both dissies and dark lances, making lances a flat 4 damage would (oddly enough) make me strongly consider not using lances.

Currently, disintegrators are more flexible than a dark lance (they have more shots and are quite good at killing marines) and are only slightly worse than a lance at hurting a T6 or T7 vehicle. They're also (if I remember some math I ran over a year ago correctly) less likely to do nothing than a lance is due to the higher number of shots. Additionally, they synergize better than lances do with things like the archon's captain aura (more shots means more chances to roll 1s that then get rerolled into hits), Test of Skill (+1 to wound versus vehicles with enough wounds; 50% increase in wounds on dissies vs only a 33% or 25% increase for lances), and Dark Technomancers (+1 to wound and +1 damage; potentially +3 damage on dizzies and a proportionately higher increase in number of wounds compared to a dark lance).

So why do I bother with lances at all? Other than nostalgia and liking how a high damage roll feels, dark lances present an opportunity to spike high on damage. Basically, it takes less good luck to roll a 5 or 6 on a dark lance's damage roll than to do 6 damage with a disintegrator (though I'm not sure if that's still true where Dark Techno is concerned). Every once in a while, a single lance will kill a star weaver, or two lances will kill something like a rhino. I can't rely on those damage spikes happening at a specific time, but I can give myself a lot of opportunities for those spikes to happen thorughout the game by taking enough lances. When those spikes happen, they can mean that I suddenly have a bunch of guns freed up to shoot at additional targets.

Basically, they're a gambler's choice. An occassional high spike in damage can be worth trading a little reliability or even a little average damage. Making them a flat 4 damage would remove their chance to spike high on damage and risk making disintegrators the clearly better choice by virtue of having an almost as high (sometimes higher?) average damage and more flexibility. On the other hand, making lances d3+3 or d6 minimum 3 damage would avoid raising their max damage, avoid troublingly low damage rolls, and preserve the possibility of a damage spike.

That's fair. And I'd have no objections to d3+3 damage.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Not a fan of making lances good against invulnerable saves. What about a lance weapon would make it better at bypassing the holographic defenses of a starweaver/venom or the jink maneuvers of a raven wing model or the supernatural powers of a daemon?

Surely you could ask the exact same questions of a Vindicare Assassin's rifle/pistol?

Surely you could ask the exact same questions of a Vindicare Assassin's rifle/pistol?

Lore wise that is superior technology. Rules wise that is one model in an army. While lances could be easily spamed, if they were good, rules and cost wise.

It is like ++4inv and -1 to hit. On one model it is good, but not broken, on an entire army it is very much broken, because it halfs the incoming damage on avarge, but more important creates spikes in damage which are impossible to deal with with limited number of units and heavier weapons.

Karol wrote:
Lore wise that is superior technology.

Ah yes. How foolish of me to forget that Imperium technology is always superior to everything.

 Hellebore wrote:

Well think about it like this. The titanic pulsars that eldar use are:

S14 AP-4 D5 (Phantom)
S12 AP-4 D4 (Revenant)
S12 AP-4 D3 (Scorpion)
S9 AP-3 D3 (Lynx)


So I imagine they'll probably be rebuilding them to align with this in some way.

Pulsars are heavy 6 (or 8 in the Phantom's case) though.
At heavy 2, lances would be like multimeltas with longer range and no bonus damage for being close. While a bit uninspired, it might be enough.

Karol wrote:

Surely you could ask the exact same questions of a Vindicare Assassin's rifle/pistol?

Lore wise that is superior technology. Rules wise that is one model in an army. While lances could be easily spamed, if they were good, rules and cost wise.

It is like ++4inv and -1 to hit. On one model it is good, but not broken, on an entire army it is very much broken, because it halfs the incoming damage on avarge, but more important creates spikes in damage which are impossible to deal with with limited number of units and heavier weapons.

If you look up further in the thread, you'll note that someone has already claimed that "superior technology" could mean any number of things that doesn't result in increased combat effectiveness.

(This was when we were talking about why the "Superior Technology" of the drukhari Splinter Cannons and Dark Lances were inferior to the "mass produced" imperial guard heavy bolters and lascannons)

 JNAProductions wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i don't see how making the damage into mortal wounds would be crazy or break anything, instead of messing around on the wound chart, it would simple prevent damage prevention skills that are much more present in the game than transhuman physiology

The changes you suggested would make lances into the single best long ranged anti-tank option around and it wouldn't be close.

In a world where meltas are causing people to call for nerfs your idea would just throw gas on the fire.

Why? it would be the exact same damage output as regular lascannons except in mortal wounds form to prevent FnPs.

That's not how Mortal Wounds or FNPs work.

yeah i miss typed, i meant to say the new DR-like abilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I get that long-range anti-tank is an area that needs buffing across all factions but should lances be significantly better than lascannons? I know a lot of Xenos players will treat this as a Marine rules (Eradicators) versus Xenos rules (Fire Dragons) but I have to question if anybody really wants a constant cycle of something being fixed for only a single faction. Many of these ideas to change lances are great and should apply to everything in that class of weapons but probably shouldn't happen unless GW is planning to change them for everybody.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Why? it would be the exact same damage output as regular lascannons except in mortal wounds form to prevent FnPs.

This:

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

Is the same as:

Heavy 1 S9 AP-3 D1d6

In what world are these profiles the same?

Then just make if D6 damage, keep the S8 but make the damage output be in mortals only against vehicles/monsters.

That way lances still suck against infantry (as they should) but are marginally better against their intended targets because most of the time they'll have the same damage output than lascannons do. Until you shoot at some DG or dreadnought or anything with a damage reduction rule.