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.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I could get behind a flat 3 damage gun, but then I would hate seeing all the hordes of Havocs mowing down anything in the game at 48".

It could work if it becomes heavy 2 S8, AP -1, D3 @ price of lascannon, as to become a lower AP, static damage, higher ROF alternative to lascannon.

Reaper autocannon could be reworked as lower D, higher ROF version of autocannon (i.e. assault cannon)

You mean put them to S8!

I dont think saying that it would make the las-cannon worthless a valid argument, in the sense that the auto cannon is just under-performing, I think the las-cannon is also a bit under-performing and we see that games-workshop is making las-cannon "like" weapons better in the way of flat 3 damage or even 3damage + d3 damage in the case of las-cannon rapiers, also a big problem is games-workshop obsession with the factor of 5 in their point costs, currently the las-cannon at 15 pts is over-costed in the guard with a BS of 4+, it should cost 12, or have its damage not capable of being only 1 on a d6

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Because it's literally designed to kill large amounts of heavy infantry, lol. I mean without getting into the fluff, it actually fires bigger bullets than the AC.

So why was it AP 4 and not AP 3 in the old AP system? No, I think we should get into the fluff, how do you know the different calibres of the guns in 40k? You can't say "without getting into the fluff" and then get into the fluff and then also not provide proof of your claim, that's just weasely debate tactics. If you can't explain away why heavy bolters were not an anti-MEQ weapon previous to 8th you should at least be able to find a piece of fluff that says heavy bolters are designed for killing large amounts of Astartes and not just generic infantry like Guardsmen. I found one quote in the Astra Militarum book that said that heavy bolters and autocannons are good at mulching down infantry and light tanks, whether that means both are good at killing both or that heavy bolters are good at killing infantry while autocannons are good at killing light tanks is unclear, but even you read heavy bolters as being excellent anti-light tank leading to Damage 2 then autocannons should be excellent at killing infantry as well and should get another shot. Giving them the same profile would at least make the game a little simpler.

I really don't know why you are picking a fight on a fantasy space battle forum, but whatever.

Getting into the fluff - They (The writers have listed out the dimensions of the rounds in various texts and books.) That being said, the HB round is a larger Bolter round, which is already a Rocket Propelled Grenade. The dimensions of the Bolter round are .75 calibre mass reactive explosive tipped round(https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Bolter#Standard_Bolt). The heavy bolter fires a much larger round (https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Bolter#Heavy_Bolter) So all I have to do is prove the AC fires a smaller round than the standard bolter and I'm set. In several of the gaunt books it talks about the Autocannons putting out 20mm rounds of death. A 20mm is effectively .76 caliber. So if the HB is MUCH larger than a standard Bolter round, the HB round would be bigger than the AC round, not to mention Explosive tipped mass reactive and rocket propelled.
Again, I don't like getting "into the fluff" because none of it matters. IT's all completely made up and the rules are dropped at the earliest convenience. Ala back flipping terminators and Multi-laser Land Raiders, or Brothers of the Snake where a single marine is faster than a pack of Dark Eldar. Or the entire Cain series, where he defeats a Black Legionaire in single combat. Fluff is BS and not to be trusted. Thats why I said lets not get into it.

Thank you for providing a source, I can get behind the lore in Black Library books not being something to base rules on directly, but I do think lore is important for crafting a narrative with the rules of the game. If HBs are much better anti-vehicle weapons than autocannons then I think that should be displayed in the rules. It sounds kind of like the autocannon is way overstatted, perhaps it should be S4 D1...

D2 HBs are leaving a role in the Imperium heavy weapons arsenal unfilled (anti-medium infantry) and taking over roles that other weapons already fill in both AM and SM (autocannons and plasma cannons respectively). I think the game design argument goes in favour of reverting the heavy bolter, the only argument I can see is that the designers want more D2 weapons in the game to make 2W models worse.

as i see it 3 "Solutions" To the AC.

1. Up rof, by one f.e..
It's not really an generalist anti heavy infantry and anti light vehicle gun anymore and quite well would lead to issues in some cases.

2. Up S value. --> you turned it into a discount AT weaponry with bad penetration values.

3. You improve the penetration statistic. This would lend itself probably the most i guess.

It's a relic of an old edition where noting had much armor, especially light vehicles. Now everything is running around with a 3+ or a 2+/4++/5+++. Instead of making everything more killy, just drop AVs on stuff. Plague Marines and gravis are now AV5, tanks are AV4, and only knights and above are 2+.

Then ACs become much better with their AP2, because they'd be wounding on 5s (v S8) and forcing saves of 6+. Infantry wouldn't be able to save without a stormshield or an invuln.

bat702 wrote:
I dont think saying that it would make the las-cannon worthless a valid argument, in the sense that the auto cannon is just under-performing, I think the las-cannon is also a bit under-performing and we see that games-workshop is making las-cannon "like" weapons better in the way of flat 3 damage or even 3damage + d3 damage in the case of las-cannon rapiers, also a big problem is games-workshop obsession with the factor of 5 in their point costs, currently the las-cannon at 15 pts is over-costed in the guard with a BS of 4+, it should cost 12, or have its damage not capable of being only 1 on a d6

It's not that it's under performing, it's just that the weapon is designed that way. I don't really care what it is supposed to be as per lore, and as far as its in-game role goes (since 3rd ed) it's a pot-shot gun capable of insta-gib/near insta-gibbing models (it was ALWAYS "it doesn't always hit well, but when it does hit well, it hits like a truck" type of gun). If LC was the go to weapon for AV14, then autocannon was undoubtedly the go to weapon for AV10~13. Now that any vehicle explodes if you just look at it the wrong way, there's no need for dedicated light/medium armor weapons anymore, so why not fold it into anti-high armor option?

If you like to gamble, then you include lascannon in your list. If you like stable damage, you take something else.

I genuinely wish they would extend the strength and toughness values and just restrict the ability of small arms to even damage tanks beyond scratch damage which they are kinda doing right now. Issue is, they could do more. I have little problem with my shootas or Ork Boyz being able to chop down a Leman Russ and leave it the Nob with a Power Klaw.

One of the things I think would help the various mid strength weapons would be an opening of the T and Str values to help reduce the clumping of values. If to use Guard as a bench mark, Russes were T9, Lascannons were strength 10 and Autocannons 8 this would establish that you'd prefer the Lascannon as an AT gun against the tank but if say Chimera stayed at T7 to reflect their lighter construction in order to have a large carrying capacity, you could use the big Lascannon against it but the Autocannon is just as good and if the Autocannon got improved AP, such as AP-2 to reflect its improved penetration over the heavy bolter but not at the same level as a Lascannon. Increasing it to Damage 3 would be nice, however I think autocannons should be diversified, with a difference made between the ones on the Leman Russ/Hydra and the infantry portable one. Think a 40mm autocannon vs a 20mm autocannon.

The infantry one could be given a higher ROF while the vehicle mount could be a higher damage one. Hell the Predator autocannon is remarkably similar to that Russian 57mm autocannon and using the effects of those IRL systems could be a good basis for establishing their effectiveness in game.

Combining these ideas could probably bring a more balanced and nuance to list construction for Guard lists, along with being a decent basis for other factions division between essentially Light, medium and heavy autocannons. Treating the various autocannons as variations from that archetype. Reaper Autocannons are multibarreled light autocannons with high ROF. Accelerators are beefy light autocannons with good AP ammo. Executioner Autocannons on a Russ are twin medium autocannons. Predator autocannon is the archetypical Heavy autocannon.

A wounding table based on greater dice value would be very handy.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
A wounding table based on greater dice value would be very handy.

Such as using D10s over d6s or expanding the current used values to the point where they make more sense.

If you raise the LC to S10, what does the Melta become? This is the problem with the bloat of killiness. Bolters suddenly became D2, then HBs became 3 shot S2, then there were HEAVY HEAVY Bolters, which are 3 damage, then Meltas became d6+2/3 depending on type, distance, and what color pants your opponent is wearing, not we are talking about making ACs s8, and LCs S10? No. Stop bloating the old useless guns and just get rid of them. Whats next, Plasma is d6 damage when overcharged and D3 normally?

panzerfront14 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
A wounding table based on greater dice value would be very handy.

Such as using D10s over d6s or expanding the current used values to the point where they make more sense.

You can just have a second wound roll, that would be way easier to implement.

10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%.

3%, 6%, 8%, 11%, 14%, 17%... Having a second wound roll gives more values and does not require everyone to get new dice.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If you raise the LC to S10, what does the Melta become? This is the problem with the bloat of killiness. Bolters suddenly became D2, then HBs became 3 shot S2, then there were HEAVY HEAVY Bolters, which are 3 damage, then Meltas became d6+2/3 depending on type, distance, and what color pants your opponent is wearing, not we are talking about making ACs s8, and LCs S10? No. Stop bloating the old useless guns and just get rid of them. Whats next, Plasma is d6 damage when overcharged and D3 normally?

My point was regarding changes values across the board, using Leman Russ tanks as an examples. Raising T values for vehicles and tanks as appropriate and returning to the older 7th Edition style wound chart, or possible retaining the current one but increasing the various values across the board so you can further differentiate the various armored units from one another in order to add a bit of nuance to Guard models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

panzerfront14 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
A wounding table based on greater dice value would be very handy.

Such as using D10s over d6s or expanding the current used values to the point where they make more sense.

You can just have a second wound roll, that would be way easier to implement.

10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%.

3%, 6%, 8%, 11%, 14%, 17%... Having a second wound roll gives more values and does not require everyone to get new dice.

To clarify requiring a second successful wound after the first?

Yes, you could call it whatever roll to shock or whatever, give every weapon a shock value to have more points between S3 and S4, but needing a D10 is silly IMO.

Apocalypse shows just how useless adding D10s to a system can be. It does nothing except make it so that heavily armoured units need even numbers of wounds inflicted on them while unarmoured units are hurt almost as much by uneven damage in terms.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The heavy bolter fires a much larger round.... So all I have to do is prove the AC fires a smaller round than the standard bolter and I'm set.

-- That's not how penetration works in the real world. Pure width is not as important as density, velocity and the shape of the round. A 9x19mm pistol round is much wider and typically has a bullet twice as heavy as the one in a 5.56x45mm NATO round. But the 5.56mm has much higher penetration because of its much higher velocity and design. The round in a bolter/heavy bolter lore wise is designed to penetrate the thick skin and lightish armour of Xenos and then explode inside them causing serious wounds. It's anti-infantry weapon. It has pretty much universally been the case across editions that the heavy bolter is for high RoF/low strength shots, the Lascannon is a one shot, high strength weapon, and the Autocannon kind of sits between the two. Until the ruined the strength/toughness chart.

As far as people complaining about D6s again, it's a perfectly adequate system. GW just seems to find new and interesting ways to break it and/or make it needlessly complicated in what should otherwise be a fairly fast moving game e.g. having toughness and armour saves seperately, which makes little sense when most high strength weapons also have high armour penetration.

Auto cannons do need something, in the same thought I have thought multi lasers need a touch upon as well.

Str 6, ap 0 and heavy 3 dam 1 means all of crapola. Heavy bolter is better than it in every metric of worth. Now maybe some weapons are just supposed to gak, maybe that is their goal I'm not sure but for that stat line multilaser needs to have more shots at least, or any kind of ap or something. As is its been crap for awhile and all it had before was when AV was a thing and Str 6 actually meant anything in touching a vehicles armor.

Missile launchers as are could be fine it they worked on their costing. As is they seem to overly hamstring them based on being versatile but that hasn't been a real good choice in a long time if ever. At this point I feel I take as many of them as I do less to be effective and more to give GW the finger and use it just to be unique or out of some sense of bitterness that it always feels like the inferior choice.

I dare say, every type of las-weapon needs a buff. Right now the most useful is LasCannons, and those are only useful on vehicles or devestators. Las rifles and pistols need to be S4, and multilas needs to be assault 5, I mean you only ever find them on vehichles like transports or the stupid walker things. Neither of them are that prevelent in the AM meta. let alone the whole game meta. ACs are almost everywhere.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:I dare say, every type of las-weapon needs a buff. Right now the most useful is LasCannons, and those are only useful on vehicles or devestators. Las rifles and pistols need to be S4, and multilas needs to be assault 5, I mean you only ever find them on vehichles like transports or the stupid walker things. Neither of them are that prevelent in the AM meta. let alone the whole game meta. ACs are almost everywhere.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:If you raise the LC to S10, what does the Melta become? This is the problem with the bloat of killiness. Bolters suddenly became D2, then HBs became 3 shot S2, then there were HEAVY HEAVY Bolters, which are 3 damage, then Meltas became d6+2/3 depending on type, distance, and what color pants your opponent is wearing, not we are talking about making ACs s8, and LCs S10? No. Stop bloating the old useless guns and just get rid of them. Whats next, Plasma is d6 damage when overcharged and D3 normally?

Posted for the irony.

Are you saying I'm wrong? I don't see how either point is mutually exclusive. On one hand Las weapons have become pointless. On the other point, I am saying they are useless BECAUSE everything has grown out of control. Raising las weaponry to S4 doesn't break the game at all. But it does allow an entire faction to still be slightly competitive against factions that field T5/T6 units with 3+5++ like it's going out of style.

panzerfront14 wrote:

You can just have a second wound roll, that would be way easier to implement.

10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%.

3%, 6%, 8%, 11%, 14%, 17%... Having a second wound roll gives more values and does not require everyone to get new dice.

To clarify requiring a second successful wound after the first?

For reference, this is what the Lord of the Rings SBG does/did.

S=T or S>T by 1: 4+
S<T by 1 or 2: 5+
by 3 or 4: 6+
by 5: 6+/4+
by 6: 6+/5+
by 7: 6+/6+
by 8+: Cannot wound.

EDIT: Very strange bug involving less than and greater than symbols.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Are you saying I'm wrong? I don't see how either point is mutually exclusive. On one hand Las weapons have become pointless. On the other point, I am saying they are useless BECAUSE everything has grown out of control. Raising las weaponry to S4 doesn't break the game at all. But it does allow an entire faction to still be slightly competitive against factions that field T5/T6 units with 3+5++ like it's going out of style.

I will if he doesn't. You seem like a troll. They are mutually exclusive because moving up lasgun strength makes them too similar to boltguns, meaning boltguns have to be further improved... The thing you pointed out. Lasguns are not pointless, especially for AM where you have very decent damage compared to durability via orders, the game has enough glasscannons, games are decided early enough already. 5++ does not matter against lasguns, T5 is no better than T4 against lasguns and lasguns are not supposed to be good against medium vehicles like T6 models are, raising lasguns to S4 makes them twice as good against T6/T7. It's a hilariously bad suggestion, if AM are bad then they should get points decreases. You cannot go in and fix every single balance problem with a rules adjustment, people will never be able to adjust or learn the game if rules are changed too often.

 vict0988 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Are you saying I'm wrong? I don't see how either point is mutually exclusive. On one hand Las weapons have become pointless. On the other point, I am saying they are useless BECAUSE everything has grown out of control. Raising las weaponry to S4 doesn't break the game at all. But it does allow an entire faction to still be slightly competitive against factions that field T5/T6 units with 3+5++ like it's going out of style.

I will if he doesn't. You seem like a troll. They are mutually exclusive because moving up lasgun strength makes them too similar to boltguns, meaning boltguns have to be further improved... The thing you pointed out. Lasguns are not pointless, especially for AM where you have very decent damage compared to durability via orders, the game has enough glasscannons, games are decided early enough already. 5++ does not matter against lasguns, T5 is no better than T4 against lasguns and lasguns are not supposed to be good against medium vehicles like T6 models are, raising lasguns to S4 makes them twice as good against T6/T7. It's a hilariously bad suggestion, if AM are bad then they should get points decreases. You cannot go in and fix every single balance problem with a rules adjustment, people will never be able to adjust or learn the game if rules are changed too often.

Right now there are three things about your post that are Internet tough guyish, so hakuna your tata's tough guy.

1. AM - Points decreases? Are you high? they are already the cheapest faction by points.
2. Rules changed too often people won't learn - yep, you are smoking crack. The rules here change literally every month with FAQs, CAs, and new codex drops, not to mention the ridiculousness that is WD rules leaks.
3. Very decent damage compared to durability via orders: A full squad of AM with FRFSRF will on AVERAGE score just over 1.5 wounds against a squad of basic marines. So that isn't even a single dead marine. That isn't decent.


But I'm a troll for wanting to eliminate a useless weapon that has been a useless weapon for several generations of this game, unless it's on a FW Dread along with 7 others, firing a BS 2+_with double shooting.

Yeah, AC's are garbage, Las weaponry is garbage. Catch up.

I'm not interested in "fixing" Lasguns but we could say that Multilasers and Lascannons need a bit of fixing. A fixed damage value on Lascannons (or less deviation like the new Dark Lances) and bumping Multis to Heavy 4 or even 5 are solid ideas.

However that has nothing to do with Autocannons hahaha

Multi las guns are only on two vehicles (check?) in the entire game. I don't know if they need fixing. But Lascannons are supposed to be long range anti-heavy armor. Which is reflected in their s9 48" range. What really hampers them is their 1 shot nature. If all Melta is now assault 2-3, perhaps we look at multiple firing profiles for lasguns? Heavy 1 S9, D6+3 AP3. or Heavy 2 S8 AP2 d3+1?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Multi las guns are only on two vehicles (check?) in the entire game. I don't know if they need fixing. But Lascannons are supposed to be long range anti-heavy armor. Which is reflected in their s9 48" range. What really hampers them is their 1 shot nature. If all Melta is now assault 2-3, perhaps we look at multiple firing profiles for lasguns? Heavy 1 S9, D6+3 AP3. or Heavy 2 S8 AP2 d3+1?

All Melta isn't assault 2-3 though? Meltaguns are still Assault 1.
It was Multi-meltas that got the extra shot (and Eradictors with their "shoot twice" rule).

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Right now there are three things about your post that are Internet tough guyish, so hakuna your tata's tough guy.

I'm not mad, you're mad I will also never kick your ass, I am not a violent person. At worst I'll call you a troll for suggesting laspistols should have the same profile as bolt pistols.

1. AM - Points decreases? Are you high? they are already the cheapest faction by points.

Termagants are cheaper than Infantry Squads, AM are doing poorly at tournaments and their rules outside Stratagems are already as powerful as they can possibly be without stopping the game from making sense.

2. Rules changed too often people won't learn - yep, you are smoking crack. The rules here change literally every month with FAQs, CAs, and new codex drops, not to mention the ridiculousness that is WD rules leaks.

The rules are changing too fast. Keeping up with who gets to use new or old weapon profiles, which Marines do or do not get an extra wound. It's a good thing the hobby isn't growing right now, imagine having to teach someone these things.

"Oh yeah, Ork flamers don't get the the same range as most other flamer weapons, but every time you play against an Ork player with any flamers make sure to ask if this month was the month that Orks won the weapon lottery and had their profiles changed."

Errata and codexes for matched play should come out a couple of times a year, not every month. Campaign books should not be bringing in new rules that everybody using a given faction have to use, the Book of Rust stuff seems fine, since people can ignore the rules in most cases.

3. Very decent damage compared to durability via orders: A full squad of AM with FRFSRF will on AVERAGE score just over 1.5 wounds against a squad of basic marines. So that isn't even a single dead marine. That isn't decent.

FRFSRF Guardsmen kill 6 Guardsmen or 1 Marine ((9*4+1)/2/3/3=2).
5 Marines with tactical doctrine, Captain and Lieutenant kill 5 Guardsmen or 1,13 Marines.

Your expectations for how much damage a small squad of weaklings should do is simply out of wack.

Yeah, AC's are garbage, Las weaponry is garbage.

But I'm a troll for wanting to eliminate a useless weapon that has been a useless weapon for several generations of this game, unless it's on a FW Dread along with 7 others, firing a BS 2+_with double shooting.

That's purely a question of points. Lasguns and ACs were great in 8th, their profiles don't need to be updated for 9th. Multi-meltas are the guns that were actually trash for many editions outside of flyers with power of the machine spirit, but even those went too far IMO. GW probably just thought Heavy 2 made sense because it is called a MULTI melta so it should have MULTIple shots or something silly like that. Lascannons were not trash in previous editions, a little meh perhaps.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Multi las guns are only on two vehicles (check?) in the entire game. I don't know if they need fixing. But Lascannons are supposed to be long range anti-heavy armor. Which is reflected in their s9 48" range. What really hampers them is their 1 shot nature. If all Melta is now assault 2-3, perhaps we look at multiple firing profiles for lasguns? Heavy 1 S9, D6+3 AP3. or Heavy 2 S8 AP2 d3+1?

All Melta isn't assault 2-3 though? Meltaguns are still Assault 1.
It was Multi-meltas that got the extra shot (and Eradictors with their "shoot twice" rule).

Let him live in his fantasy land of Assault 3 meltaguns. The Necron twin multi-melta actually didn't even get any extra shots in the new codex.

Yeah Multilasers need some work, I can't recall seeing anyone opt to have one on their vehicles if they had a different option. Perhaps making them heavy 5 would do it, more emphasis on tearing into light targets as opposed to the heavier targets that heavy bolters are for.

panzerfront14 wrote:
Yeah Multilasers need some work, I can't recall seeing anyone opt to have one on their vehicles if they had a different option. Perhaps making them heavy 5 would do it, more emphasis on tearing into light targets as opposed to the heavier targets that heavy bolters are for.

They weren't terrible in 6th/7th, as glancing with them wasn't unreasonable and weren't paying for AP that wouldn't be used.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

panzerfront14 wrote:
Yeah Multilasers need some work, I can't recall seeing anyone opt to have one on their vehicles if they had a different option. Perhaps making them heavy 5 would do it, more emphasis on tearing into light targets as opposed to the heavier targets that heavy bolters are for.

They weren't terrible in 6th/7th, as glancing with them wasn't unreasonable and weren't paying for AP that wouldn't be used.

I remember, that was the last time I saw them commonly used. Now its only on tanks that were built with them from that era that have them. I always see them using heavy bolters or heavy flamers.

TBH if they ever updated the heavy weapons team, I could see them adding multilasers to the kit, would be a nice addition

I think we have the stats on the new Autocannon: 48", 3 shots, S7, AP-1, D2, from BoLS (https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/04/warhammer-40k-breaking-updated-mechanicus-ironstriders-sydonians-confirmed.html)