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.

I wager DLs will get something like the 3 + D3 for damage thing. How they do it exactly who knows but that seems to be the design space they are going with those kinds of AT weapons.

 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.

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.

I stand corrected, but those are more expensive to field than a 140 point ravager with 3 DL.

Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

 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.

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.

I stand corrected, but those are more expensive to field than a 140 point ravager with 3 DL.

True, except for the Rapier Carrier, which is 120 PPM, and the Rapier Laser Destroyer Battery, which is 85 PPM, probably because it's BS4 vs the marine Rapier Carrier at BS3. But both are putting out 3 S10, AP-4, Dd3+3 shots. But as Canadian 5th correctly points out, they are far less mobile. The Vindicator Laser Destroyer is only 35 PPM more than your hypothetical Ravager, and has the option to overcharge for 3 S10, AP-4, D6 shots, only suffering 1MW for every unmodified hit roll of one if it moves (which isn't a problem for Ultramarines or Death Guard).

Canadian 5th wrote:

 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.

I don't think anyone wants the Heavy Melta-Rifles to be the benchmark we aim for. One of those on a BS3 platform averages 3.667 damage against a T8 3+ target, while the proposed Heavy 1, S8, AP-4, Dd3+3 lance weapons would deal 1.667 damage from a BS3 platform against the same target. The Heavy Melta-Rifles do 120% more damage.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I don't think anyone wants the Heavy Melta-Rifles to be the benchmark we aim for. One of those on a BS3 platform averages 3.667 damage against a T8 3+ target, while the proposed Heavy 1, S8, AP-4, Dd3+3 lance weapons would deal 1.667 damage from a BS3 platform against the same target. The Heavy Melta-Rifles do 120% more damage.

That same Dd3+3 profile is however going from 1.167 damage to 1.667 damage on average all while keeping the same chance to score six damage and having no risk of dealing less damage. It's a huge step up in terms of lethality and while a faction like DE might need just such an increase other factions probably don't need the same.

D6 min 3 splits the difference.

Canadian 5th wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I don't think anyone wants the Heavy Melta-Rifles to be the benchmark we aim for. One of those on a BS3 platform averages 3.667 damage against a T8 3+ target, while the proposed Heavy 1, S8, AP-4, Dd3+3 lance weapons would deal 1.667 damage from a BS3 platform against the same target. The Heavy Melta-Rifles do 120% more damage.

That same Dd3+3 profile is however going from 1.167 damage to 1.667 damage on average all while keeping the same chance to score six damage and having no risk of dealing less damage. It's a huge step up in terms of lethality and while a faction like DE might need just such an increase other factions probably don't need the same.

Perhaps, but as we've seen, gw is already increasing the damage output of a lot of weapons, even in the Compendium, which is supposed to bring fw units "in line" with codex units. And those Heavy Melta-Rifles are a huge outlier (I don't personally have a problem with the changes to other melta weapons, but those are ridiculous). And we're just hypothesizing here, we don't know that lances are changing. But Dark Eldar need some Cannon to go with their Glass.

Insectum7 wrote:D6 min 3 splits the difference.

That's true, but do any weapons in 9th edition books have that profile? They may be moving away from it.

Personally, I'd like to see the lances as a weapon that loses potency as range increases, but being right in front is deadly.
Stats the same except damage.

0-12" D6+2
13-24" D6+1
25-36" D6.

 bullyboy wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see the lances as a weapon that loses potency as range increases, but being right in front is deadly.
Stats the same except damage.

0-12" D6+2
13-24" D6+1
25-36" D6.

Sorta in line with Melta, which is nice and all, but eh. That kinda steps on the tails of Cannon Wraithguard and Fire Dragons. I'd opt for the C Beamer approach, where the further our you are the deadlier you are. Ya know, like a real lance!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see the lances as a weapon that loses potency as range increases, but being right in front is deadly.
Stats the same except damage.

0-12" D6+2
13-24" D6+1
25-36" D6.

Sorta in line with Melta, which is nice and all, but eh. That kinda steps on the tails of Cannon Wraithguard and Fire Dragons. I'd opt for the C Beamer approach, where the further our you are the deadlier you are. Ya know, like a real lance!

ither of those could be mechanically interesting. Wouldn't that be a bit of an odd property to retcon onto an existing weapon so late into their history though? As far as I"m aware, there's no fluff talking about how bright lances are particularly lethal up close or at a distance. It would be sort of like suddenly describing how shuriken projectiles all boomerang back into their ammo clip after they're fired or something. XD

Then again, "energy beam up close hurt more," makes a certain amount of caveman brain sense to me.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see the lances as a weapon that loses potency as range increases, but being right in front is deadly.
Stats the same except damage.

0-12" D6+2
13-24" D6+1
25-36" D6.

Sorta in line with Melta, which is nice and all, but eh. That kinda steps on the tails of Cannon Wraithguard and Fire Dragons. I'd opt for the C Beamer approach, where the further our you are the deadlier you are. Ya know, like a real lance!

ither of those could be mechanically interesting. Wouldn't that be a bit of an odd property to retcon onto an existing weapon so late into their history though? As far as I"m aware, there's no fluff talking about how bright lances are particularly lethal up close or at a distance. It would be sort of like suddenly describing how shuriken projectiles all boomerang back into their ammo clip after they're fired or something. XD

Then again, "energy beam up close hurt more," makes a certain amount of caveman brain sense to me.

There's a lot of stuff not covered in fluff that present on the tabletop, and a bunch of fluff on stuff not on the tabletop. I simply don't think it's anything people will bat an eye at.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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.

While I don't disagree entirely, if Drukhari can't be an outlier in terms of pushing the damage envelope, then the whole concept of them as 'glass cannons' ceases to exist.

 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?

Given the GW rules team wrote the current profiles, I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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.

Bit late to try and keep that train from going.
Unless GW is willing to go back and change all the Imperial profiles yet again the escalation has already happened and the only choice is to bring everyone else into line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 harlokin wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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.

While I don't disagree entirely, if Drukhari can't be an outlier in terms of pushing the damage envelope, then the whole concept of them as 'glass cannons' ceases to exist.

Yep, its the logical result of buffing the durable space marine armies with so much damage, either glass cannons become absolutely insane or they become garbage.

Compare any old elite combat unit with the profile of a basic assault intercessor and the buffs GW needs to be throwing left right and center become ridiculous.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see the lances as a weapon that loses potency as range increases, but being right in front is deadly.
Stats the same except damage.

0-12" D6+2
13-24" D6+1
25-36" D6.

Sorta in line with Melta, which is nice and all, but eh. That kinda steps on the tails of Cannon Wraithguard and Fire Dragons. I'd opt for the C Beamer approach, where the further our you are the deadlier you are. Ya know, like a real lance!

ither of those could be mechanically interesting. Wouldn't that be a bit of an odd property to retcon onto an existing weapon so late into their history though? As far as I"m aware, there's no fluff talking about how bright lances are particularly lethal up close or at a distance. It would be sort of like suddenly describing how shuriken projectiles all boomerang back into their ammo clip after they're fired or something. XD

Then again, "energy beam up close hurt more," makes a certain amount of caveman brain sense to me.

There's a lot of stuff not covered in fluff that present on the tabletop, and a bunch of fluff on stuff not on the tabletop. I simply don't think it's anything people will bat an eye at.

It's not like GW aren't prone to changing weapon design, remember scatter lasers?
I'm not fully versed in lance "fluff" to justify the change, but I'm not sure it treads on fusion as much since they don't have all equivalent. But I guess it does infringe on the range band too much and the inverse would want you to keep more distance and therefore have a different role.

 Ordana wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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.

Bit late to try and keep that train from going.
Unless GW is willing to go back and change all the Imperial profiles yet again the escalation has already happened and the only choice is to bring everyone else into line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 harlokin wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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.

While I don't disagree entirely, if Drukhari can't be an outlier in terms of pushing the damage envelope, then the whole concept of them as 'glass cannons' ceases to exist.

Yep, its the logical result of buffing the durable space marine armies with so much damage, either glass cannons become absolutely insane or they become garbage.

Compare any old elite combat unit with the profile of a basic assault intercessor and the buffs GW needs to be throwing left right and center become ridiculous.

Well, it seems they've at least gotten Incubi right. 7 Incubi using the Demi-Klaives on the "double blade" profile: +2 two attacks for each Incubi for 5 and 6 on the Klaivex for 36 total, +1 strength for S4, AP-2, D2, hitting on 2s vs intercessors:

36 attacks, hitting on 2s, wounding on 4s, loyalists saving on 5s: 36×5/6=30, 30×1/2=15, 15×2/3=10. 10 unsaved wounds at 2 damage apiece gets you 10 dead intercessors. Assuming that the current points stand that's 112 points of Incubi killing either 190 points of assault intercessors or 200 points of standard intercessors. Just make sure they fight first, because at T3, 3+, 1W, they also fulfill the "glass" part of glass cannon.

Looks like the arms race is underway.

Edit: Fixed the points for Incubi.

isnt it the point of elves to be glass cannons? So why would having D3+3 lances be bad when the things carrying them die to anything that sneezes at them? Thats the whole point of the army : Go fast, Hit hard, die quick, don't even think about holding an objective

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Well, it seems they've at least gotten Incubi right. 7 Incubi using the Demi-Klaives on the "double blade" profile: +2 two attacks for each Incubi for 5 and 6 on the Klaivex for 36 total, +1 strength for S4, AP-2, D2, hitting on 2s vs intercessors:

36 attacks, hitting on 2s, wounding on 4s, loyalists saving on 5s: 36×5/6=30, 30×1/2=15, 15×2/3=10. 10 unsaved wounds at 2 damage apiece gets you 10 dead intercessors. Assuming that the current points stand that's 112 points of Incubi killing either 190 points of assault intercessors or 200 points of standard intercessors. Just make sure they fight first, because at T3, 3+, 1W, they also fulfill the "glass" part of glass cannon.

I thought only the Kalivex had access to Demi-Klaives?

So it would be 27 attacks in total, not 36.

21 of those attacks would be AP-3, though.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
isnt it the point of elves to be glass cannons? So why would having D3+3 lances be bad when the things carrying them die to anything that sneezes at them? Thats the whole point of the army : Go fast, Hit hard, die quick, don't even think about holding an objective

The thing with dark eldars is that they have also a 1/3 of the army that is literally "elves but extremely tought". Not thats a bad thing. I'm not opposed to d3+3 lances. Single shot weapons have always been garbage, and in an edition where infantry is king, is not like is gonna make a difference for vehicles without an invul, they aren't used.

 Galas wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
isnt it the point of elves to be glass cannons? So why would having D3+3 lances be bad when the things carrying them die to anything that sneezes at them? Thats the whole point of the army : Go fast, Hit hard, die quick, don't even think about holding an objective

The thing with dark eldars is that they have also a 1/3 of the army that is literally "elves but extremely tought". Not thats a bad thing. I'm not opposed to d3+3 lances. Single shot weapons have always been garbage, and in an edition where infantry is king, is not like is gonna make a difference for vehicles without an invul, they aren't used.

the tough elves don't get dark lances tho. And yeah, even if lances could one shot every vehicle in the game, disintegrators would still be better because of their overall better stat. Plus if you spam lances on infantry youre gonna be shooting with less efficiency since theyre heavy weapons.

 vipoid wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Well, it seems they've at least gotten Incubi right. 7 Incubi using the Demi-Klaives on the "double blade" profile: +2 two attacks for each Incubi for 5 and 6 on the Klaivex for 36 total, +1 strength for S4, AP-2, D2, hitting on 2s vs intercessors:

36 attacks, hitting on 2s, wounding on 4s, loyalists saving on 5s: 36×5/6=30, 30×1/2=15, 15×2/3=10. 10 unsaved wounds at 2 damage apiece gets you 10 dead intercessors. Assuming that the current points stand that's 112 points of Incubi killing either 190 points of assault intercessors or 200 points of standard intercessors. Just make sure they fight first, because at T3, 3+, 1W, they also fulfill the "glass" part of glass cannon.

I thought only the Kalivex had access to Demi-Klaives?

So it would be 27 attacks in total, not 36.

21 of those attacks would be AP-3, though.

Is that right? Sorry, I was going by the leaked datasheet, my apologies.

I sense that many people are going to be upset after this wishlisting.

New Incubi are going to be 14-18 points each, according to the new PL. They would also be in the same cost range as repentia, which seems about right.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
isnt it the point of elves to be glass cannons? So why would having D3+3 lances be bad when the things carrying them die to anything that sneezes at them? Thats the whole point of the army : Go fast, Hit hard, die quick, don't even think about holding an objective

Because the other elf army mounts their lances exclusively on things that _don't_ die when sneezed on. You just don't see them much because they aren't that great compared to the other weapons, but double lance wave serpents could totally be a thing if they were better. And wraithlords. And war-walkers. The odd one on a falcon. Even some on guardian HW platforms, though that would be the most vulnerable option, but would still have 10 ablative wounds each.

 Galas wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
isnt it the point of elves to be glass cannons? So why would having D3+3 lances be bad when the things carrying them die to anything that sneezes at them? Thats the whole point of the army : Go fast, Hit hard, die quick, don't even think about holding an objective

The thing with dark eldars is that they have also a 1/3 of the army that is literally "elves but extremely tought". Not thats a bad thing. I'm not opposed to d3+3 lances. Single shot weapons have always been garbage, and in an edition where infantry is king, is not like is gonna make a difference for vehicles without an invul, they aren't used.

I would be okay with all the d6 weapons getting this profile.

Voss wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
isnt it the point of elves to be glass cannons? So why would having D3+3 lances be bad when the things carrying them die to anything that sneezes at them? Thats the whole point of the army : Go fast, Hit hard, die quick, don't even think about holding an objective

Because the other elf army mounts their lances exclusively on things that _don't_ die when sneezed on. You just don't see them much because they aren't that great compared to the other weapons, but double lance wave serpents could totally be a thing if they were better. And wraithlords. And war-walkers. The odd one on a falcon. Even some on guardian HW platforms, though that would be the most vulnerable option, but would still have 10 ablative wounds each.

Aren't we discussing specifically Darklances? Brightlances could very well have some other rule, its not the same weapons at all.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I sense that many people are going to be upset after this wishlisting.

At least you'll get to feel superior, as usual!

I'm not crazy about 3+d3 damage dark lances (DE really can spam those; Eldar can't spam bright lances as efficiently so I'm less concerned there but the profiles should be the same) but I'm also not crazy about current melta/multimelta or several of the recent encroachments on game balance from new codices. I don't see how this is any worse.

ETA: Huh, Voss is saying the opposite of me, which is interesting. I think I'd rather have a cheapo Raider with a DL + 5++ than a 180 point Wave Serpent with 2 BLs but no invuln. But it's an interesting point; I never bring war walkers/wraithlords with BLs but I could. Maybe Voss is right. But again, I don't think it's an escalation that's out of keeping with the rest of the 9th codices. As others have said, I almost guarantee Eldar will lose Expert Crafters which is what makes this really nasty (Marines still will get re-rolls on their heavy weapon platforms, Eldar might only get Guide at best.)

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
At least you'll get to feel superior, as usual!

Sure champ. Why don't you go pick a fight somewhere else?

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:


I'm not crazy about 3+d3 damage dark lances (DE really can spam those; Eldar can't spam bright lances as efficiently so I'm less concerned there but the profiles should be the same)

Should Splinter Cannons and Shuriken Cannons have the same profiles?......they both have the word Cannon in them.

 harlokin wrote:
Should Splinter Cannons and Shuriken Cannons have the same profiles?......they both have the word Cannon in them.

Go back and look at Bright and Drak Lances throughout the game's history. They've always had the same profile and, when they've had any, the same special rules baked into them. It would be very strange to change that now.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I sense that many people are going to be upset after this wishlisting.

At least you'll get to feel superior, as usual!

I'm not crazy about 3+d3 damage dark lances (DE really can spam those; Eldar can't spam bright lances as efficiently so I'm less concerned there but the profiles should be the same) but I'm also not crazy about current melta/multimelta or several of the recent encroachments on game balance from new codices. I don't see how this is any worse.

Man, Multi-Melta has been bad for most of its existence, so what are you talking about with that recent design?