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.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 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.

Marginal? Remember, MWs bypass all saves as well as damage reduction abilities (besides FNP). It takes 21 lascannon shots from a BS3 platform on average to kill a Leviathan. Your proposal for lance weapons would do it in 9 shots. How would you price these Super Lances? Changing them to Dd3+3 would reduce swinginess and result in an increase of 30-70% average damage depending on intended target vs lascannons. That sounds pretty good.

I'm fairly certain that the suggestion is that the weapon hits, wounds and saves normally, just that the damage is treated as 'mortal wounds' for the pupose of ignoring damge reduction abilities.

IDK. Maybe Im wrong.

I think that giving DLs MW damage ends up stepping on the toes of Haywire, which is already super specialised toward anti vehicle.

the_scotsman wrote:
I'm fairly certain that the suggestion is that the weapon hits, wounds and saves normally, just that the damage is treated as 'mortal wounds' for the pupose of ignoring damge reduction abilities.

IDK. Maybe Im wrong.

Thats what my suggestion is, yes. Basically it would fit with how lances are supposed to be able to penetrate anything they hit. The dreadnought being extra tough doesnt matter, all the damage is goind through. Against 90% of the vehicles/mosnters in the game, it would have zero effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 harlokin wrote:
I think that giving DLs MW damage ends up stepping on the toes of Haywire, which is already super specialised toward anti vehicle.

In my mind, you'd still get to save against the lances, it wouldnt be automatic mortal wounds on hit like the haywire.

VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I'm fairly certain that the suggestion is that the weapon hits, wounds and saves normally, just that the damage is treated as 'mortal wounds' for the pupose of ignoring damge reduction abilities.

IDK. Maybe Im wrong.

Thats what my suggestion is, yes. Basically it would fit with how lances are supposed to be able to penetrate anything they hit. The dreadnought being extra tough doesnt matter, all the damage is goind through. Against 90% of the vehicles/mosnters in the game, it would have zero effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 harlokin wrote:
I think that giving DLs MW damage ends up stepping on the toes of Haywire, which is already super specialised toward anti vehicle.

In my mind, you'd still get to save against the lances, it wouldnt be automatic mortal wounds on hit like the haywire.

So instead of:

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

You meant just give them a rule that negates all damage reducing abilities? So they'd be better against dreadnoughts and Death Guard units than lascannons, but remain worse against anything T8 without abilities like that?

Yeah, I feel like classifying it as 'mortal wounds' just has the potential to cause stupid consequences. Just have the damage from them not be blockable by any damage reduction or wound ignoring abilities (boy, if only we could have some sort of system of rules letting us know if a rule is damage reducing or damage ignoring, some kind of "universal" way to call those kinds of "special rules" out....)

I'd just bump up the damage. Lascannons are too low damage, that's no reason to keep lances down. One shot doing 3 + d6 damage or something seems appropriate, although you might have to raise the price.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

You meant just give them a rule that negates all damage reducing abilities? So they'd be better against dreadnoughts and Death Guard units than lascannons, but remain worse against anything T8 without abilities like that?

Yeah basically, i just don't find the whole "this ability prevents this ability from preventing this ability" kind of rules to be elegant.

"Nuh uh, my soldier has a SUPER feel no pain that cant be prevented" feels like playing with a playground bully.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

You meant just give them a rule that negates all damage reducing abilities? So they'd be better against dreadnoughts and Death Guard units than lascannons, but remain worse against anything T8 without abilities like that?

Yeah basically, i just don't find the whole "this ability prevents this ability from preventing this ability" kind of rules to be elegant.

"Nuh uh, my soldier has a SUPER feel no pain that cant be prevented" feels like playing with a playground bully.

This kinda discribes the entire game though.
Ap negates armor but not invune saves or FNP.
Wound on 4+ abilities are negated by -1 to wound abilities.
So on - so on. You win by negataging more rules of your opponent than they negate from you.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

You meant just give them a rule that negates all damage reducing abilities? So they'd be better against dreadnoughts and Death Guard units than lascannons, but remain worse against anything T8 without abilities like that?

Yeah basically, i just don't find the whole "this ability prevents this ability from preventing this ability" kind of rules to be elegant.

"Nuh uh, my soldier has a SUPER feel no pain that cant be prevented" feels like playing with a playground bully.

This kinda discribes the entire game though.
Ap negates armor but not invune saves or FNP.
Wound on 4+ abilities are negated by -1 to wound abilities.
So on - so on. You win by negataging more rules of your opponent than they negate from you.

Im aware, it doesnt change the fact that i dont find it elegant game design.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

You meant just give them a rule that negates all damage reducing abilities? So they'd be better against dreadnoughts and Death Guard units than lascannons, but remain worse against anything T8 without abilities like that?

Yeah basically, i just don't find the whole "this ability prevents this ability from preventing this ability" kind of rules to be elegant.

"Nuh uh, my soldier has a SUPER feel no pain that cant be prevented" feels like playing with a playground bully.

Very much this.

Also, how many points do people propose we charge for a special rule that only matters against a handful of units in the game? If the answer is more than 0, then I don't want it. If the answer is 0... I still don't really want it because it feels inelegant and clunky.

What problem would that rule solve that isn't better solved by just making lance damage d3+3 or d6 minimum 3?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Basically it would fit with how lances are supposed to be able to penetrate anything they hit. The dreadnought being extra tough doesnt matter, all the damage is goind through. Against 90% of the vehicles/mosnters in the game, it would have zero effect.

Isn't a weapon's ability to penetrate an enemy's armor generally represented by the weapon's Armor Penetration stat?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

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?

You definitely could. I give the vindicare a little more slack, however, partly because you'll generally only see a single one of them at a time (versus bright/dark lances potentially appearing all over the place in an aeldari army), and partly because of the "weight" given to assassins. I can squint my eyes and imagine that whomever deployed the assassin knew he'd be shooting at space elves or traitor marines or whatever and sent them out with appropriate ammo. Assassinating a bouncy space elf with a proclivity for backflips and holograms? Pack the rounds that track heat signatures or lock onto souls or whatever. Afraid your tzeentchian daemon prince target is going to turn your bullets into snowflakes? Pack the blessed rounds that have been dipped in the blood of a psychic blank. Know that the radical inquisitor you're taking care of likes to utilize force fields? Pack the two-stage rounds that punch a hole in force fields and then fill the gap with shrapnel or whatever.

Bright/dark lances don't seem capable of the same flexibility, and I don't want to contort the fluff to retroactively create bright lance tracer rounds or what have you purely because lances are slightly less efficient than lascannons on the tabletop.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

You meant just give them a rule that negates all damage reducing abilities? So they'd be better against dreadnoughts and Death Guard units than lascannons, but remain worse against anything T8 without abilities like that?

Yeah basically, i just don't find the whole "this ability prevents this ability from preventing this ability" kind of rules to be elegant.

"Nuh uh, my soldier has a SUPER feel no pain that cant be prevented" feels like playing with a playground bully.

Very much this.

Also, how many points do people propose we charge for a special rule that only matters against a handful of units in the game? If the answer is more than 0, then I don't want it. If the answer is 0... I still don't really want it because it feels inelegant and clunky.

What problem would that rule solve that isn't better solved by just making lance damage d3+3 or d6 minimum 3?

As I said, it would make lance weapons better than lascannons against dreadnoughts and Death Guard units, but keep them weaker against any other T8 unit I can think of. In fact, you'd only be looking at about an increase of 5% damage against those T8 units that do reduce damage (PBCs and Ironclads being all I can think of right now) compared to lascannons. However, going to Dd3+3 or Dd6 minimum 3 would make them better against everything than they currently are, including units with damage reduction abilities.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

As I said, it would make lance weapons better than lascannons against dreadnoughts and Death Guard units, but keep them weaker against any other T8 unit I can think of. In fact, you'd only be looking at about an increase of 5% damage against those T8 units that do reduce damage (PBCs and Ironclads being all I can think of right now) compared to lascannons. However, going to Dd3+3 or Dd6 minimum 3 would make them better against everything than they currently are, including units with damage reduction abilities.

Yes. Exactly. My point is that a 5% increase against a very short list of units is so extremely niche that it's probably a bad idea. If I pitched a rule that let lances reroll to-wound rolls of 1 but only against markerlight drones that are painted blue, we'd all acknowledge that it was too specific to be worth any points or even the space in our memory banks needed to remember the rule. The "ignore damage reduction" rule is, to my mind, similarly too specific to be a good rule. Again, how many points would you increase the cost of a lance weapon by to include such a rule, and would such a minor benefit really be worth the extra rules clutter it would add to the game?

If lances do need a buff (and I'm ambivalent as to whether or not that's true), then the d3+3 or d6 minimum 3 approach would, in fact, buff them against everything (that has more than 1 wound). It would be a change significant enough to matter/be worth remembering, and it would be more uniformly useful regardless of your opponent's list thus making it easier to price.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

You meant just give them a rule that negates all damage reducing abilities? So they'd be better against dreadnoughts and Death Guard units than lascannons, but remain worse against anything T8 without abilities like that?

Yeah basically, i just don't find the whole "this ability prevents this ability from preventing this ability" kind of rules to be elegant.

"Nuh uh, my soldier has a SUPER feel no pain that cant be prevented" feels like playing with a playground bully.

This kinda discribes the entire game though.
Ap negates armor but not invune saves or FNP.
Wound on 4+ abilities are negated by -1 to wound abilities.
So on - so on. You win by negataging more rules of your opponent than they negate from you.

Yeah but that is all because GW is trying to work around basic problems with the game through special rules rather then addressing the action problems.

They could have used 9th edition to redo weapon profiles and tone everything down a bit.
Instead we get more special rules on top of special rules to try and make a terminator survive for more then 5 seconds.

I'm not sure why we needed multiple pages of discussion on rules bloat, all the Dark Lance needs is 3+D3 damage. This does away with the one reason that people take Disintegrators instead for their anti tank, the variance was so high that it was ridiculously unreliable, now it would be mathematically better against every T6, 7 or 8 target regardless or invulns in the game, i.e. monsters and vehicles.

I don't care about comparisons to the Lascannon, Drukhari don't have access to the Lascannon and while it's frustrating for those factions to have an objectively bad weapon, they also tend to have a very wide array of options to use in it's place where Drukhari just don't.

And whilst we're wishlisting, I'd like to see the Voidlance go to 3D3 damage and the Dark Scythe a flat 3 shots and D3 (seriously, the Voidraven is 200pts but only has 2 guns, it would be nice if it has a chance to actually kill something). The missiles for both flyers need a ground up rework, given GW's current willingness to mess with profiles that may happen.

 Imateria wrote:
vehicles.

I don't care about comparisons to the Lascannon, Drukhari don't have access to the Lascannon and while it's frustrating for those factions to have an objectively bad weapon, they also tend to have a very wide array of options to use in it's place where Drukhari just don't.

A lascanon dreads is one of the few anti tank options some armies have. There isn't really much of a replacment, unless it is melee options, but that is a separate cathegory.

I'd be pretty happy if Las, Krak and Lance went to min 3 damage with their D6.

If Lance ignored a point of invuln save that'd be pretty sweet.

Even 3+D3 is a bit much. I don't think any non-titanic ranged weapon has that profile that I can recall. Redemptors have it on their fist.

Plaguebuster Crawler Entropy Cannon, Chronomancer staff, theres a good bunch of 3+d3 damage weapons out there allready and more will come.

 Galas wrote:
Plaguebuster Crawler Entropy Cannon, Chronomancer staff, theres a good bunch of 3+d3 damage weapons out there allready and more will come.

Both of those are items that are exclusive to a single unit entry and one of those has 18" range and fits the melta roll far more closely than it does the role of a lance or lascannon.

Meanwhile, dark lances can be taken by:

-Kabalite Warriors
-Raiders
-Scourages
-Razorwing Jetfighters
-Ravagers

That could be a ton of 36" range, S8 AP-4 D3+d3 weapons in a single list and I doubt we see that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Even 3+D3 is a bit much. I don't think any non-titanic ranged weapon has that profile that I can recall. Redemptors have it on their fist.

Just off the top of my head: Lancer Laser Destroyer, the Repulsor Executioner's Heavy Laser Destroyer, Vindicator Laser Destroyer's Laser Volley Canon on Volley Fire (overcharg is flat D6), the Caladius Grav-Tank's Twin Arachnus Heavy Beam Cannon on the "Beam" profile, Warp Hunter D- Flail on the "Blast" profile, Reaper Storm Vortex Projector on the "Blast" profile (Hey, that one's a Dark Eldar unit. Setting a precedent maybe?), and the Swiftstrike Railgun mounted on the AX-5-2 Barracuda.

Ok, that wasn't really off the top of my head. I just listed the Primaris tanks because I knew those and then did a quick flip through of the Compendium.

And if you want to stick with infantry, I'll once again point out that 1 S8, AP-4, Dd3+3 shot is a lot less nasty than 2 S8, AP-4, D6+2 (D6+4 within 12) shots from a single infantry gun. Just one of those shots has a higher average damage, and higher max-damage than that one (hypothetical) lance shot, and every Heavy Melta-Rifle puts out 2 of them.

Wait, so are those 3 +D3 or are they D6 with a minimum if 3?

Because one will give you a minimum of 4 at 33% chane and one will give you a 50% chance at a minimum of 3.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Wait, so are those 3 +D3 or are they D6 with a minimum if 3?

Because one will give you a minimum of 4 at 33% chane and one will give you a 50% chance at a minimum of 3.

Everything I listed is Dd3+3.

Edit: And I left out the Laser Destroyer that the Rapier Carrier and Rapier Laser Destroyer Battery have. Sorry. But I think it stands to reason: Laser Destroyer = Dd3+3.

Infantry carried lances stay as they are, vehicle mounted ones get D3+3.

I think that would fix it.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Wait, so are those 3 +D3 or are they D6 with a minimum if 3?

Because one will give you a minimum of 4 at 33% chane and one will give you a 50% chance at a minimum of 3.

Everything I listed is Dd3+3.

Wow, interesting. Is that a lot of FW stuff? The Repulsor one I recognize but what's the compendium?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Even 3+D3 is a bit much. I don't think any non-titanic ranged weapon has that profile that I can recall. Redemptors have it on their fist.

Just off the top of my head: Lancer Laser Destroyer, the Repulsor Executioner's Heavy Laser Destroyer, Vindicator Laser Destroyer's Laser Volley Canon on Volley Fire (overcharg is flat D6), the Caladius Grav-Tank's Twin Arachnus Heavy Beam Cannon on the "Beam" profile, Warp Hunter D- Flail on the "Blast" profile, Reaper Storm Vortex Projector on the "Blast" profile (Hey, that one's a Dark Eldar unit. Setting a precedent maybe?), and the Swiftstrike Railgun mounted on the AX-5-2 Barracuda.

Isn't that entire list from Forge World?

And if you want to stick with infantry, I'll once again point out that 1 S8, AP-4, Dd3+3 shot is a lot less nasty than 2 S8, AP-4, D6+2 (D6+4 within 12) shots from a single infantry gun. Just one of those shots has a higher average damage, and higher max-damage than that one (hypothetical) lance shot, and every Heavy Melta-Rifle puts out 2 of them.

You should probably look at the range of those weapons and which units can reliably take them before comparing melta weapons to lances.

I'm not saying this list would be good, but you could easily run something like:

Battalion:

Dark Technomancers

HQ:
-Haemonculus: 80 points
-Haemonculus: 80 points

Troops:
-Wracks x5: 40 points
--Raider: 85 points
-Wracks x5: 40 points
--Raider: 85 points
-Wracks x5: 40 points
--Raider: 85 points

Heavy Support:
-Ravager: 140 points
-Ravager: 140 points
-Ravager: 140 points

Fliers:
-Razorwing Jetfighter: 160 points
-Razorwing Jetfighter: 160 points
-Razorwing Jetfighter: 160 points

This works out to around 1,500 points without any upgrades. This can easily drop 18 lance shots as an alpha strike and if they feel so inclined these shots can be D4+d3, all safely let loose from as far back as 36".

Again, it might not be a good list but it could certainly be unfun to play against.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Wait, so are those 3 +D3 or are they D6 with a minimum if 3?

Because one will give you a minimum of 4 at 33% chane and one will give you a 50% chance at a minimum of 3.

Everything I listed is Dd3+3.

Wow, interesting. Is that a lot of FW stuff?

Everything except the two Repulsor tanks. Like I said, I just flipped through the Compendium.

Edit: @Canadian 5th: Yes, as I've said, everything except the primaris tanks are fw sorry, the only stuff I have with 9th edition rules is fw. Also everything is range 36 or greater except for the Warp Hunter D-Flail which is range 24. As for the Heavy Melta-Rifles "only" being range 24, yeah, so are bolters, never had much trouble getting those in range. And this is all hypothetical, lances may stay exactly the same, just like lascannons.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Wait, so are those 3 +D3 or are they D6 with a minimum if 3?

Because one will give you a minimum of 4 at 33% chane and one will give you a 50% chance at a minimum of 3.

Everything I listed is Dd3+3.

Wow, interesting. Is that a lot of FW stuff?

Everything except the two Repulsor tanks. Like I said, I just flipped through the Compendium.

Cool, ty.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Even 3+D3 is a bit much. I don't think any non-titanic ranged weapon has that profile that I can recall. Redemptors have it on their fist.

Just off the top of my head: Lancer Laser Destroyer, the Repulsor Executioner's Heavy Laser Destroyer, Vindicator Laser Destroyer's Laser Volley Canon on Volley Fire (overcharg is flat D6), the Caladius Grav-Tank's Twin Arachnus Heavy Beam Cannon on the "Beam" profile, Warp Hunter D- Flail on the "Blast" profile, Reaper Storm Vortex Projector on the "Blast" profile (Hey, that one's a Dark Eldar unit. Setting a precedent maybe?), and the Swiftstrike Railgun mounted on the AX-5-2 Barracuda.

Isn't that entire list from Forge World?

And if you want to stick with infantry, I'll once again point out that 1 S8, AP-4, Dd3+3 shot is a lot less nasty than 2 S8, AP-4, D6+2 (D6+4 within 12) shots from a single infantry gun. Just one of those shots has a higher average damage, and higher max-damage than that one (hypothetical) lance shot, and every Heavy Melta-Rifle puts out 2 of them.

You should probably look at the range of those weapons and which units can reliably take them before comparing melta weapons to lances.

I'm not saying this list would be good, but you could easily run something like:

Battalion:

Dark Technomancers

HQ:
-Haemonculus: 80 points
-Haemonculus: 80 points

Troops:
-Wracks x5: 40 points
--Raider: 85 points
-Wracks x5: 40 points
--Raider: 85 points
-Wracks x5: 40 points
--Raider: 85 points

Heavy Support:
-Ravager: 140 points
-Ravager: 140 points
-Ravager: 140 points

Fliers:
-Razorwing Jetfighter: 160 points
-Razorwing Jetfighter: 160 points
-Razorwing Jetfighter: 160 points

This works out to around 1,500 points without any upgrades. This can easily drop 18 lance shots as an alpha strike and if they feel so inclined these shots can be D4+d3, all safely let loose from as far back as 36".

Again, it might not be a good list but it could certainly be unfun to play against.

As opposed to dropping 36 Melta shots for just over 800 points?

Not to mention, if you hang back and just gunline, you're gonna lose on objectives.

 JNAProductions wrote:
As opposed to dropping 36 Melta shots for just over 800 points?

At lower range, on less mobile platforms. Plus, meltas probably shouldn't be our benchmark for a balanced weapon in 9e unless you want the arms race to keep escalating.