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:

 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.

Doesn't mean it couldn't be changed. Plenty of things get updated between editions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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

i think complaining about MM's current strength is a valid thing. Yes, the weapon needed a buff, but as it stands, its too much of a buff (with too little of a pts increase)

And plenty isn't. By rule of probability there is a bigger chance of bright and dark lances having the same rules, then not.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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.

Doesn't mean it couldn't be changed. Plenty of things get updated between editions.

Exactly. The true Eldar and Asuryani have armies with different strengths and weaknesses. There is no reason why a previous lack of imagination should be a barrier to change.

Karol wrote:
And plenty isn't. By rule of probability there is a bigger chance of bright and dark lances having the same rules, then not.

In a thread where we are wishlisting, i'll 100% ask for new changes instead of defaulting to the statu quo

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


In a thread where we are wishlisting, i'll 100% ask for new changes instead of defaulting to the statu quo

well wish listing has to fall within specific company and game reality. Otherwise one could just say that they won't be okey with the game until their ork mega blaster gun doesn't just blow up the other side of the table, and 1/3 of the time does it for real.

3+d3 dark/bright lance makes sense. Thinking that after multiple itteration of books making both the same, now they are going to be different seems to be strange to me. I don't question the ability to want it, but it is like saying you want to fly or be 2,2m tall , when you know you won't be.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 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?

That's not how this works. Multi-melta is somewhat (not incredibly) unbalanced with the game as a whole at the moment. That could change.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


In a thread where we are wishlisting, i'll 100% ask for new changes instead of defaulting to the statu quo

well wish listing has to fall within specific company and game reality. Otherwise one could just say that they won't be okey with the game until their ork mega blaster gun doesn't just blow up the other side of the table, and 1/3 of the time does it for real.

3+d3 dark/bright lance makes sense. Thinking that after multiple itteration of books making both the same, now they are going to be different seems to be strange to me. I don't question the ability to want it, but it is like saying you want to fly or be 2,2m tall , when you know you won't be.

This is a gak comparison honestly.
The odds of suddenly being 2.2m or being able to fly are much smaller than the odds of two weapons with different names getting different ruleset, even if theyve had the same in the past.

Well the thing is without the double shot, it was considered a really bad version of a lascanon or rocket launcher. high cost, less efficient and worse then either. the 9th ed changes could of course be reverted , but then you just get marines, and important SoB, without any form of good anti tank or anti heavy infantry.
Not that such situations didn't happen in the past, but that is like wishing entire factions to be bad. SoB really don't have a replacment for multi meltas, so even if GW decided to make one shot weapons like lascanons or lances, the go to option, they wouldn't profit from it , because their heavy weapon is the Multi Melta.

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

Which is why I keep reminding everyone all of this talk about Dd3+3 lance weapons is hypothetical. Including a certain fellow who seems a bit concerned about 3 S8, AP-4, Dd3+3 shots mounted on a 10W, T6, 4+, 5++ floating slave barge.

Voss does have a point about Bright Lances mounted on "Good Guy" Eldar vehicles though.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


This is a gak comparison honestly.
The odds of suddenly being 2.2m or being able to fly are much smaller than the odds of two weapons with different names getting different ruleset, even if theyve had the same in the past.

you know maybe it is my non english brain, doing the translations. But Bright and Dark lance to me, sound like dark and white bread. And expecting one of those to end up being a cake, has more or less the same chance of happening. Specialy as others pointed out, that each time that bright and dark lances existed they did have the same rules. And GW loves to do copy paste. They would have to rewrite the entire CWE or DE codex for them to be different, and that is a lot to expect, considering they don't do full rewrites for all factions. Or at least they didn't do them in 8th.

I mean, whatever we do for the Dark Lance shouldn't go to the Bright Lance, but the "Lance" profile of the Fire Prism needs something.

Heavy 1 Strength 12 AP-5 Dd6 sounds scary, but the Focused profile (Heavy d3 Str 9, AP-4, Dd3) is statistically better against almost all relevant targets, damage-wise, especially since the Fire Prism shoots twice.

Not to take things off topic, mind, but I don't think we should fear buffing CWE vehicles too much; they're not exactly wrecking house atm.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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.

Doesn't mean it couldn't be changed. Plenty of things get updated between editions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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

i think complaining about MM's current strength is a valid thing. Yes, the weapon needed a buff, but as it stands, its too much of a buff (with too little of a pts increase)

Yeah because heaven forbid a 20+ point weapon have two shots AND have an ability to negate Randumb.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


This is a gak comparison honestly.
The odds of suddenly being 2.2m or being able to fly are much smaller than the odds of two weapons with different names getting different ruleset, even if theyve had the same in the past.

you know maybe it is my non english brain, doing the translations. But Bright and Dark lance to me, sound like dark and white bread. And expecting one of those to end up being a cake, has more or less the same chance of happening. Specialy as others pointed out, that each time that bright and dark lances existed they did have the same rules. And GW loves to do copy paste. They would have to rewrite the entire CWE or DE codex for them to be different, and that is a lot to expect, considering they don't do full rewrites for all factions. Or at least they didn't do them in 8th.

"Lance" is nothing more than the category of weapon it is. Just like shuriken and splinter, Bright and Dark are two different technologies.

GW wouldnt need to rewrite the entire codex to change a weapon's stats, wtf are you talking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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.

Doesn't mean it couldn't be changed. Plenty of things get updated between editions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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

i think complaining about MM's current strength is a valid thing. Yes, the weapon needed a buff, but as it stands, its too much of a buff (with too little of a pts increase)

Yeah because heaven forbid a 20+ point weapon have two shots AND have an ability to negate Randumb.

it shoudve been either or, not both IMO, or a more expensive cost to the weapon.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

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

Which is why I keep reminding everyone all of this talk about Dd3+3 lance weapons is hypothetical. Including a certain fellow who seems a bit concerned about 3 S8, AP-4, Dd3+3 shots mounted on a 10W, T6, 4+, 5++ floating slave barge.

Voss does have a point about Bright Lances mounted on "Good Guy" Eldar vehicles though.

Not really concerned. Just tempering the enthusiasm around the idea.

I'm really quite curious to see what kind of army DE will be capable of with the codex. Since DG and DA I see a strong likelihood that some of the strong RPS elements become more muted. The games becomes more about understanding your own army and the mechanics rather than "I took 6 multi-meltas so tanks are covered". Posts on "how do I kill X" might be thinking the wrong way about their issues.

Note: these thoughts don't apply universally, because of local meta. They may not even apply at all. Just crap tumbling around in my head since I don't have direct experience with these issues yet.

Initially there were tiers shaping up in terms of infantry and weapons - W1/D1, W2/D2, W3/D3. Then DG said, uhhh, nope.

A lot of marines posts elsewhere are scrambling to solve for DG. PBCs wreck units they can in the backfield and even HI won't be safe with the D3 strat. Marines have few tools in their current lists that can get to the backfield and make decisive kills on things like a PBC. Eradicators ae great, but they aren't getting there. Attack Bikes then become more common - they already are, because you need more precision than outright force applied to the thing right in front of you. White Scars enjoying the D2 lightning claws struggle tremendously against T5 and -1D. Similarly DA terminators spoil a lot of D2 and weapons hoping to crack them a little more easily. Thunderhammers? Great against most DG ( especially WS versions ), but terrible versus DA ( womp womp ). Necrons just don't give a gak about what you shoot at them just as long as there isn't a ton of it.

In that sense I hope DE get something like forcing a unit to fallback ( maybe a LD test or something ). Previously having something to prevent fallback was coveted, but now forcing an opponent to move off an objective would be far more valuable, I think. I can see that fitting in with the De aesthetic and motives quite well.

Anyway, the more varied each factions abilities become the less you can rely on bring X to beat Y or overstack in the most efficient unit sort of thing.

Honestly GW has a lot of issues properly pricing single shot weapons properly, or giving them rules that match their fluff.

A railgun/Vanquisher cannon or the lance profile on a Fire Prism should have a decent chance of chunking a tank or dreadnought in a single shot, maybe requiring a second shot on vehicles stronger than a Leman Russ but weaker than an a Gorkanaut or the various other "almost LOWs" like Tyranid Heirodules.

A serious single shot weapon like the Prism's Lance should be something like d6+5 damage or something hilarious like that, and Void Lances should be along that level. Sure those guns will rip apart any infantry they shoot but if you keep these weapons as single shots they'll solidly occupy their knocking chunks out of tanks. They'll have a counter in the form of invulns or making their target harder to hit.

But GW seriously needs to revaluate their weaponry rules.

The main issue is that penetration tests and random damage tables are a more realistic representation of combat against armored targets than "hit points." But game mechanics where you either ace a heavy target in a single shot or cant harm it are frustrating in a game.

the_scotsman wrote:
The main issue is that penetration tests and random damage tables are a more realistic representation of combat against armored targets than "hit points." But game mechanics where you either ace a heavy target in a single shot or cant harm it are frustrating in a game.

Unless your goal is to be consistent with the background, then it's more frustrating when things don't work that way.

But why would we want to be consistent with the background, amirite? No one who plays this game likes the lore, after all.

 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.

Necrons have the Lokhust Heavy Destroyer thats Heavy 1 S10, -4, 3D3 and the Death Ray on the Doom Scythe thats Heavy 3, S12, -4, D3+3. Pretty sure that the Repulsor Executioner and the melta and lancer variants of the Gladious have profiles on their main gun that reduce the randomness on damage as well. It seems clear that GW is moving at least some of it's heavy weapons in that direction so that every faction has access to at least 1 like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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.

Honestly there has never been a reason in the fluff or on the table top for the Dark Lance and Bright Lance to have the same stats beyond lazyness, would probably be a good thing to have the diverge rules wise, the BL might then be able to find a niche for itself in Craftworld armies rather than being strictly inferior the to Pulse Lase and Missile Launcher.

panzerfront14 wrote:
Honestly GW has a lot of issues properly pricing single shot weapons properly, or giving them rules that match their fluff.

.

That is because GW points and judges stuff around a cool moment when you hit, wounded, opponent failed save and you rolled max damage. That is why melee upgrades are either under or over costed. GW prices them as if a unit that has the options, like lets say banshees was starting in charge or outright melee range, and swining in first. When we all know that this almost never happens. On the other hand units that can do it, like old smash captins or units with 40" charges often end up really good in melee, even when they have a higher point costs.

Paying for potential of doing something is often very dissappointing.

I would be happier to see eldar(necrons too - the advanced races) get rules that ignore invune saves a lot more as a counter to invune save spam. That is the primary issue with heavy weapons anyways. You can hit wound every time if they keep making invunes you deal 0 damage. Even if you do flat 6 damage.

Make a BL/DL give a -1 to invune saves. Make a stratagem to give a single weapon complete invune save ignore. That would make the DL/BL hit harder than any boost to it's damage.

But wouldn't it punish armies, that use inv as their basic save or which don't run vehicles, like lets say demons a bit too much?

And it would just turn off all the armies that get a +6inv as some extra rule.

So I have 3 Talos built with splinter cannons because I love them as screen killers with rapid 3. Now it's moved to heavy I'm I SOL because I can't move and shoot them effectively.

the_scotsman wrote:
The main issue is that penetration tests and random damage tables are a more realistic representation of combat against armored targets than "hit points." But game mechanics where you either ace a heavy target in a single shot or cant harm it are frustrating in a game.

I gotta disagree with that. Personally I think it's more exciting on a per-roll basis, and more interesting tactically when you can have units that are straight immune to some others. Grinding down vehicles with assault rifles is not fun.

ballzonya wrote:
So I have 3 Talos built with splinter cannons because I love them as screen killers with rapid 3. Now it's moved to heavy I'm I SOL because I can't move and shoot them effectively.

are Talos Infantry?

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


In a thread where we are wishlisting, i'll 100% ask for new changes instead of defaulting to the statu quo

well wish listing has to fall within specific company and game reality. Otherwise one could just say that they won't be okey with the game until their ork mega blaster gun doesn't just blow up the other side of the table, and 1/3 of the time does it for real.

3+d3 dark/bright lance makes sense. Thinking that after multiple itteration of books making both the same, now they are going to be different seems to be strange to me. I don't question the ability to want it, but it is like saying you want to fly or be 2,2m tall , when you know you won't be.

Oh come on, it you're going to hyperbole go all out. I'll be ok with the game state when every time a bolt pistol fires in game the living embodiment of the concept of a Lord of War at 40k scale tears itself from the fabric of reality and commits seppuku on the nearest zebra-skin rug.

Imateria wrote:Honestly there has never been a reason in the fluff or on the table top for the Dark Lance and Bright Lance to have the same stats beyond lazyness, would probably be a good thing to have the diverge rules wise, the BL might then be able to find a niche for itself in Craftworld armies rather than being strictly inferior the to Pulse Lase and Missile Launcher.

I rather disagree. It would make sense for them to have the same stats as they would be competing against each other in their development. A way to differentiate them would be to each having different affects beyond the Wounding phase, such as Bright Lances literally lighting up the target making them easier To Hit (successful Wounds grant +1 to To Hit rolls against this target for one round) and Dark Lances casting them in to shadow (successful Wounds force this model to add -1 to all To Hit rolls for one round).

Xenomancers wrote:I would be happier to see eldar(necrons too - the advanced races) get rules that ignore invune saves a lot more as a counter to invune save spam. That is the primary issue with heavy weapons anyways. You can hit wound every time if they keep making invunes you deal 0 damage. Even if you do flat 6 damage.

Necrons used to do that in 3rd Ed with Warscythes and the C'tan's basic attacks. Of course, back then Monoliths could ignore Melta and Lance rules, too.

The problem of single shot weapons is invulnerable saves. Theres just too damm much invulnerable saves in this game.

 Galas wrote:
The problem of single shot weapons is invulnerable saves. Theres just too damm much invulnerable saves in this game.

There's an additional problem in that GW's business model and release schedule encourages perpetual power creep and scaling up.

If you released all codices at once (say, as free PDF documents) then you could easily make sweeping changes, such as lowering/removing a lot of invulnerable saves from the game.

However, when you release books one at a time, reducing invulnerable saves is going to make that book terribly underpowered for the next two years, until the other books are all released (and that's assuming GW don't just get bored and reverse their design philosophy halfway though the edition).

 Galas wrote:
The problem of single shot weapons is invulnerable saves. Theres just too damm much invulnerable saves in this game.

GW has chipped away at that. AP is more relevant now than before. The most popular faction is wide open to taking AP4 on the chin for the majority of its units. An AP4 weapon is only losing 1AP when shooting SS termies, termies/BGV in cover as well.

I don't think anyone should really shy away from them from fear of invulnerable saves.

 Galas wrote:
The problem of single shot weapons is invulnerable saves. Theres just too damm much invulnerable saves in this game.

It's a shame mortal wounds are usually too crappy to solve this problem.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The problem of single shot weapons is invulnerable saves. Theres just too damm much invulnerable saves in this game.

GW has chipped away at that. AP is more relevant now than before. The most popular faction is wide open to taking AP4 on the chin for the majority of its units. An AP4 weapon is only losing 1AP when shooting SS termies, termies/BGV in cover as well.

I don't think anyone should really shy away from them from fear of invulnerable saves.

The sad thing is d6 damage and the fact anything with good armor usually has a good inv. save too tends to make single shot weapons less valuable. This in turn makes multiple shot, multiple damage, average ap weapons the go to choice vs units with both saves (basically disintegrators).