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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
In fact, this is the machine spirit of a titan itself talking, referring to a time when its armor was penetrated by tyranid light infantry ambushing it in a forest, resulting in its defeat.

Did the Titan say how these light infantry were a danger? Were they spraying Fleshborers at it? Were they attacking it in CC? Were they in fact Genestealers, known for their armor penetrating capability? Did they have some special equipment? Do you have any details?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Heck, even in Star Wars they had armor that's "too strong for blasters!".

And yet in Star Wars Legion blasters can hurt tanks, they're much better at it too than lasguns vs tanks in 40k. About equal in potency to a boltgun vs medium tank in 40k.
Although I do note that amassing high volumes of mid strength/mid AP firepower is pretty much impossible in Legion, yet standard operating procedure in 40k. Which means tanks in Legion still feel very tough to remove without dedicated AT weaponary.

AV is a staple of historical games, and it suits the units and capabilities inherent in those games well. I can easily see why the dynamic of 40k makes it unsuited to such a mechanic (it's hard to balance AT when the premier AT weapon lascannon is easily man portable in every squad).
Other games like Legion (and I believe DUST) use a mechanic more similar to 40k. And it works well there. GW, as ever, simply managed to take a sound idea and bungle it completely.

I think the problem is that people have built up expectations of what immersive anti-tank capability should look like from previous editions, rather than approaching the new edition with a fresh and open mind.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that a squad of guardsmen does as much damage to a tank with their lasguns as they do with a krak missile. IMO that's not a problem of lasguns being too good (0.6 wounds is nothing) it's a problem of krak missiles being too weak. GW massively fluffed the statistical relationship of weapons and protection. A major cause of this is them changing the to-wound chart but keeping the same statlines (eg boltgun = strength 4, lascannon = strength 9). Returning to the old to-wound chart would go a long way to resolve some of these issues.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
In fact, this is the machine spirit of a titan itself talking, referring to a time when its armor was penetrated by tyranid light infantry ambushing it in a forest, resulting in its defeat.

Did the Titan say how these light infantry were a danger? Were they spraying Fleshborers at it? Were they attacking it in CC? Were they in fact Genestealers, known for their armor penetrating capability? Did they have some special equipment? Do you have any details?

Does that really matter? None of the infantry infantry units could harm a warlord titan in any way, not even genestealers.

Uhh. . . as it pertains to the discussion, yes it matters.

Also there was a time when Genestealers had Rending Claws which could Pen AV up to 16. (4+6+6)

 Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
So Lasguns against Titans is where we're at.

Not really, as that's just an completely unsupported claim so far. The claim is that lasguns should never be able to hurt titans under any circumstances, do not push the burden of proof for that on me.

My claim is merely that the AV system is not more immersive than the toughness/save/wounds system, and I have provided ample of proof for the shortcomings of the AV system in regards to contradicting common sense and lore.

You have? Like what? The Titan reference you provide above but refuse to provide details for?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Heck, even in Star Wars they had armor that's "too strong for blasters!".

And yet in Star Wars Legion blasters can hurt tanks, they're much better at it too than lasguns vs tanks in 40k. About equal in potency to a boltgun vs medium tank in 40k.
Although I do note that amassing high volumes of mid strength/mid AP firepower is pretty much impossible in Legion, yet standard operating procedure in 40k. Which means tanks in Legion still feel very tough to remove without dedicated AT weaponary.

AV is a staple of historical games, and it suits the units and capabilities inherent in those games well. I can easily see why the dynamic of 40k makes it unsuited to such a mechanic (it's hard to balance AT when the premier AT weapon lascannon is easily man portable in every squad).
Other games like Legion (and I believe DUST) use a mechanic more similar to 40k. And it works well there. GW, as ever, simply managed to take a sound idea and bungle it completely.

I think the problem is that people have built up expectations of what immersive anti-tank capability should look like from previous editions, rather than approaching the new edition with a fresh and open mind.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that a squad of guardsmen does as much damage to a tank with their lasguns as they do with a krak missile. IMO that's not a problem of lasguns being too good (0.6 wounds is nothing) it's a problem of krak missiles being too weak. GW massively fluffed the statistical relationship of weapons and protection. A major cause of this is them changing the to-wound chart but keeping the same statlines (eg boltgun = strength 4, lascannon = strength 9). Returning to the old to-wound chart would go a long way to resolve some of these issues.

Returning to the old wound chart has long been my proposal. T7 would be immune to Lasfire and T8 immune to bolter fire. And I'm all for pumping up the damage potential of supposedly dedicated AT weapons.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The Lasgun has the same stats as an Autogun, and the Autogun is the equivalent of a modern assault rifle. Also, even in this imaginary setting there are anti infantry weapons and anti tank weapons. And as has been noted before, there's a legacy of prior editions that set some precedent for expectation. There's over 20 years of legacy promoting the idea that in this fictional universe lots of weapons simply can't hurt heavy vehicles.

Legacy is often used as an euphemism for "outdated gak".

Heck, even in Star Wars they had armor that's "too strong for blasters!".

If I remember Star Wars correctly, there was this guy who blew up that heavily armored battlestation with a single shot that should never have penetrated the station's armor or shields.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Also there was a time when Genestealers had Rending Claws which could Pen AV up to 16. (4+6+6)

Rending was an extra d3, for a maximum of 13 against a titans front armor of 14.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

panzerfront14 wrote:
To make a point regarding the effect of small arms on tanks, it depends on several factors, the armor of the tank in question, what the intent is. Tanks often have hatches open and crew looking around, the tank commander in particular so they have better situational awareness. Yes no amount of .556 fire will penetrate the armor of even a T-55 tank which is a rather weak tank on modern battlefields. Yet fire can and will strip off outer equipment from the tank. If a bullet impacts one of our periscopes and disables it, then yes the tank was "hurt" by a weapon completely incapable of penetrating its armor, though it will continue to function.

Now in the event the armor suffers major damage, such as the damage a Melta weapon would inflict, then yes the big gapping hole in the armor could be targeted by small arms and in all likelihood the crew would be slaughtered in the cramped confines of the tank, with bullets ricocheting inside the tank and turning them into slurry. This of course assumes the intervention of a true AT gun.

Its also why I think the true AT guns of 40k should be very much capable of 1 shoting tanks. Should one of my battlewagons get targeted by a Leman Russ Vanquisher or a Tau Railgun, I should suffer a catastrophic ammunition detonation or something to that effect from those weapons. Thats the trade off of anti infantry weapons being completely useless, if that is what you're going for, then AT guns should be absolutely devastating, as opposed to spamming plasma guns which i commonly see used over most AT weaponry.

You basically just described 1st through 4th edition, where dedicated AT weapons would regularly one-shot or cripple vehicles with a solid penetrating hit.

You mean the same editions where a Lascannon couldn't kill a Carnifex in one hit? You're really just picking and choosing what's immersion breaking.

In 2nd ed a lascannon was S9 and 2D6 wounds vs a T8 W10 carnifex. They could definitely one shot a carnifex.

Other games like Legion (and I believe DUST) use a mechanic more similar to 40k.

Well considering that Andy chambers worked on DUST i am certain there is crossover there.

What they use is a wound system combined with vehicle/infantry armor classes instead of AV facings however facing still matter for LOS from the weapon mounts.

but unlike 40k they base damage output on armor class 1-4 for infantry and 1-7 for vehicles

The heavier the armor class the less shots you get at it to none at all as the armor class increases

take this light infantry unit
they are armor class 1
they have 2 anti tank weapons very similar in damage but different in range (12" V 16"), infantry rifles and an anti-air/infantry cluster rocket launcher

the hits/damage output is similar to 40K but as you notice there is a limit to what weapons can hurt what class of armor or how much.

Lethality is based on number of shots as it is a d6 (d3) symbol dice sytem that effectively makes almost everybody hit on 5+. as armor class goes up shots and damage potential go down.



class 1 infantry is no armor, 2 is light armor (think a guardsman), 3 is power armor and 4 is mech suits like terminator armor
for vehicle it ranges between things like trucks and open topped sentinel like walkers that are susceptible from small arms because the pilot is literally sitting on a seat in the open.
to medium to heavy vehicle that are immune to small arms







On the up side you can split fire with all your weapons at different targets so long as the mount has LOS to the target.

So the attempt to maintain some sense of immersion is still there. you cannot kill everything with everything you still need dedicated weapons to do certain jobs.

 Jidmah wrote:


Legacy is often used as an euphemism for "outdated gak".

That depends on the country and varies a lot. There are not many people here would claim that legacy=outdated gak.

Karol wrote:In the end it does boil down to people who play models that shouldn't or think they shouldn't be wounded by stuff like lasguns puting arguments against it, and does that do not run such units claim that they very much should be able to do it.

And for those who have neither nor every had neither?

Jidmah wrote:Legacy is often used as an euphemism for "outdated gak".

Not necessarily. It could also refer to systems that work better than the current experiment. Only time will tell.

Jidmah wrote:

Heck, even in Star Wars they had armor that's "too strong for blasters!".

If I remember Star Wars correctly, there was this guy who blew up that heavily armored battlestation with a single shot that should never have penetrated the station's armor or shields.

The shielding was mentioned as to why they were required to use Proton Torpedoes. It was in a port, so it was a point were there was no armor. Rogue One explains why that single shot worked.

Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Also there was a time when Genestealers had Rending Claws which could Pen AV up to 16. (4+6+6)

Rending was an extra d3, for a maximum of 13 against a titans front armor of 14.

It was for 5th-7th, but for 3rd and 4th it was D6. I remember the whining when it changed, particularly from Assault Cannon and Genestealer fanatics.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The Lasgun has the same stats as an Autogun, and the Autogun is the equivalent of a modern assault rifle. Also, even in this imaginary setting there are anti infantry weapons and anti tank weapons. And as has been noted before, there's a legacy of prior editions that set some precedent for expectation. There's over 20 years of legacy promoting the idea that in this fictional universe lots of weapons simply can't hurt heavy vehicles.

Legacy is often used as an euphemism for "outdated gak".

But not always.

Lawyers call it precedent.

 Jidmah wrote:

Heck, even in Star Wars they had armor that's "too strong for blasters!".

If I remember Star Wars correctly, there was this guy who blew up that heavily armored battlestation with a single shot that should never have penetrated the station's armor or shields.

Using super rare space magic. Then the same guy said the quote I gave above.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Also there was a time when Genestealers had Rending Claws which could Pen AV up to 16. (4+6+6)

Rending was an extra d3, for a maximum of 13 against a titans front armor of 14.

D6 in 4th ed.

To be honest with set to hit rolls they could as well give us a fixed number of hits per models firing and save everybody the tedium/waste of time of all that rolling.

Cyel wrote:
To be honest with set to hit rolls they could as well give us a fixed number of hits per models firing and save everybody the tedium/waste of time of all that rolling.

This sounds like it ties into another thread, about lack of tactics, and also points back to the OP. Why did GW change weapon skill? Matt Ward

I think everyone who responded to me missed that the thing I was responding to in the first place was a claim that "Lasguns shouldn't hurt TERMINATORS"

Not TANKS

TERMINATORS

the armored infantry unit that is the main troop of one army, is weaker than the main troop of another army, and is the main building block of a common variant of another army.

which, to be fair to Karol, is a perfectly fine logical next step in the equation. If a person can make one claim that an imaginary weapon would be unable to harm an imaginary vehicle, then why not just make another?

Here, I'll do one too: warhammer has long established that orks generate a gestalt psychic field of waagh energy that causes reality to bend towards orks beliefs.

It seems, therefore, that it would be counter to the canon of warhammer 40,000 that orks can be harmed by ranged weaponry that doesn't make sufficient explosive noise, since Orks believe that explosive noise is what gives weaponry power. Shuriken weapons, las weapons, splinter weapons and other silent weaponry should be completely incapable of harming an ork. And you can't prove otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyel wrote:
To be honest with set to hit rolls they could as well give us a fixed number of hits per models firing and save everybody the tedium/waste of time of all that rolling.

Why has this never been a complaint with ballistic skill then? 40k has always had next to no modifiers to shooting hit rolls, compared to basically any other wargame I've played. It's still hilarious to me that we have 'realism' arguments all the time but the fact that firing a lascannon at a target 48" away and 2" away requires the exact same hit roll.

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

I think everyone who responded to me missed that the thing I was responding to in the first place was a claim that "Lasguns shouldn't hurt TERMINATORS"

Not TANKS

TERMINATORS

the armored infantry unit that is the main troop of one army, is weaker than the main troop of another army, and is the main building block of a common variant of another army.

which, to be fair to Karol, is a perfectly fine logical next step in the equation. If a person can make one claim that an imaginary weapon would be unable to harm an imaginary vehicle, then why not just make another?

Here, I'll do one too: warhammer has long established that orks generate a gestalt psychic field of waagh energy that causes reality to bend towards orks beliefs.

It seems, therefore, that it would be counter to the canon of warhammer 40,000 that orks can be harmed by ranged weaponry that doesn't make sufficient explosive noise, since Orks believe that explosive noise is what gives weaponry power. Shuriken weapons, las weapons, splinter weapons and other silent weaponry should be completely incapable of harming an ork. And you can't prove otherwise.

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyel wrote:
To be honest with set to hit rolls they could as well give us a fixed number of hits per models firing and save everybody the tedium/waste of time of all that rolling.

Why has this never been a complaint with ballistic skill then? 40k has always had next to no modifiers to shooting hit rolls, compared to basically any other wargame I've played. It's still hilarious to me that we have 'realism' arguments all the time but the fact that firing a lascannon at a target 48" away and 2" away requires the exact same hit roll.

What you point to is one limit in the ork ability to believe, that causes reality to make them vulnerable to sneaky elf weapons and so on... which, counterintuitively confirms the ork power to bend reality.

CEO Kasen wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Might help this thread if people arguing about immunity to small arms fire would identify whether or not they ever served in the military.

I have a feeling the disconnect owes to whether or not someone has seen what an automatic weapon does to armor IRL. Which is absolutely nothing.

I find it entirely believable that small ballistic weaponry wouldn't do a damn thing. I haven't been in the military but I have handled guns, and we had a metal spinner target that was essentially an inch-or-so thick cast iron plate that could just take a seemingly infinite number of hits from anything less heavily propelled than... I think it was .308 bolt-action rifle rounds that finally gouged the crap out of it? I may have that wrong, but presumably 40K armor could very easily be made that would just treat any such small arm with the same degree of total blasé.

But what about small energy weapons, even, say, the lasgun? Would massed fire heat a Russ' armor enough to melt it or bake the crew or make ammo explode or something in the timescale of game of 40K? Does the energy get absorbed, or does the armor have little mirrors baked into it or something?

Another question to ask is the materials used to make the armor. Plasteel, I assume, would have greater density and less weight than steel.

The thing about lasguns... we kind of do know how they work. I'm an SPIE member, you might want to consider attending this virtual conference.

https://spie.org/conferences-and-exhibitions/defense--commercial-sensing/registration-x137693

The exhibitor hall registration is free and will allow you to interact with a number of vendors who specialize in photonics. They're going to explain the majority of their applications are for tracking / targeting, not offense, and show you some interesting applications of lasers. Some of them resemble the flashlights described in the lore.

If you want to register for the full conference (which is cheaper if you become a member) you can attend technical sessions where you will learn about advances in spintronics, optical resonance and other concepts fundamental to offensive use of lasers.

Here's where armor becomes important. Let's say you have a piece of steel, it's 1" thick, that's your piece of armor. A sophisticated weapons system today will be able to determine the density and range in about 1/100th of a second and calculate the exact wattage necessary to burn through that steel. It's rarely useful to just put a single hole in a plate of armor (if a person was behind it, the wound would instantly cauterize) so you'd really need to be cutting some kind of a shape in the steel. Under the best circumstances - highly polished lens, active polarizing filter, multiple emitters, close proximity - that takes a few seconds.

In any case, a lasgun is going to have less wattage than the average plasma cutter you can rent from the hardware store. The point is - light doesn't work the way it's depicted in Star Wars.

https://www.homedepot.com/b/Tools-Welding-Soldering-Welding-Machines-Plasma-Cutters/N-5yc1vZ1z18gva

If you wanted to talk about meltas, submillimeter waves can be used in a manner similar to a heat ray. I'd have to look, but I saw a presentation last year of something that could probably pass for the 40k version.

How this compares with a Boltgun - with a shell, you aim, it goes boom. If the shell has enough density, the armor has a big hole in it.

Charistoph wrote:

techsoldaten wrote:I have a feeling the disconnect owes to whether or not someone has seen what an automatic weapon does to armor IRL. Which is absolutely nothing.

While I haven't served, it really depends on the automatic weapon and the armor in question. An M-16 will likely do little more than mess up the paint with lead scoring in most cases, but an M-2 is an entirely different story. However, that latter is more like a Multilaser than a lasgun

If your armor is a Trukk.... I think that the impacts alone would shake it apart.

Of course, there is one caveat. Armor is designed around expected encounters. Plate armor is pretty decent against a sword, but I wouldn't trust it to hold back a round of a model 1911, for example. In some sci-fi environs, the armor is directed against more solid energy-based attacks rather than kinetic, so kinetic attacks work well. Food for thought at any rate.

While a lot of armor is well designed, the majority of it is thick sheets of steel. It's the substrate that gets the most attention.

Personal protection - like vests and helmets - a fair amount of testing goes into that. Mostly it's related to ballistics and mobility.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Might help this thread if people arguing about immunity to small arms fire would identify whether or not they ever served in the military.

I have a feeling the disconnect owes to whether or not someone has seen what an automatic weapon does to armor IRL. Which is absolutely nothing.

Didn't realize you used Lasguns and Bolters in the military and shot a bunch of them at a tank.

It's a very small part of my job, but yes, I do.

the_scotsman wrote:

Why has this never been a complaint with ballistic skill then? 40k has always had next to no modifiers to shooting hit rolls, compared to basically any other wargame I've played. It's still hilarious to me that we have 'realism' arguments all the time but the fact that firing a lascannon at a target 48" away and 2" away requires the exact same hit roll.

1st and 2nd Edition had a lot of modifiers to hit. Modifiers for speed, size, distance and cover, iirc.

I also believe that the original design around Rapid Fire was not to represent more shots, but to represent that it was harder to hit targets further away.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

techsoldaten wrote:I have a feeling the disconnect owes to whether or not someone has seen what an automatic weapon does to armor IRL. Which is absolutely nothing.

While I haven't served, it really depends on the automatic weapon and the armor in question. An M-16 will likely do little more than mess up the paint with lead scoring in most cases, but an M-2 is an entirely different story. However, that latter is more like a Multilaser than a lasgun

If your armor is a Trukk.... I think that the impacts alone would shake it apart.

Of course, there is one caveat. Armor is designed around expected encounters. Plate armor is pretty decent against a sword, but I wouldn't trust it to hold back a round of a model 1911, for example. In some sci-fi environs, the armor is directed against more solid energy-based attacks rather than kinetic, so kinetic attacks work well. Food for thought at any rate.

While a lot of armor is well designed, the majority of it is thick sheets of steel. It's the substrate that gets the most attention.

Personal protection - like vests and helmets - a fair amount of testing goes into that. Mostly it's related to ballistics and mobility.

A lot of OUR armor is well designed with the basis being thick sheets of metal (with some including plastics and ceramics now).

This game's universe is not set up with our considerations in mind, with about 28,000 more years of development behind it, then another 10,000 years of religious degradation as well. For the Imperium it is ceramite (whatever that is), for the Craftworlders it is Wraithbone, and with Orks it is ramshackle sheets of metal slapped together held together by their own belief.

I am all for introducing modifiers for Shooting rolls based on range.

 Jidmah wrote:
...If I remember Star Wars correctly, there was this guy who blew up that heavily armored battlestation with a single shot that should never have penetrated the station's armor or shields. ...

Obviously because the dramatic moment happened the one time it needs to happen again in every piece of follow-on media just to make sure we completely deplete the specialness of it happening the first time.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
...If I remember Star Wars correctly, there was this guy who blew up that heavily armored battlestation with a single shot that should never have penetrated the station's armor or shields. ...

Obviously because the dramatic moment happened the one time it needs to happen again in every piece of follow-on media just to make sure we completely deplete the specialness of it happening the first time.

You just described 4 of 9 SW movies.

 techsoldaten wrote:


Another question to ask is the materials used to make the armor. Plasteel, I assume, would have greater density and less weight than steel.

The thing about lasguns... we kind of do know how they work. I'm an SPIE member, you might want to consider attending this virtual conference.

https://spie.org/conferences-and-exhibitions/defense--commercial-sensing/registration-x137693

...

Oh cool! Arright, I may have to take a peek when I get a good stretch of downtime at work. Lemme see if I understand what I'm reading in this post, though: A lasgun can pierce armor relatively easily but would need to move or slice the point of... let's call it "impact"... to do significant damage because otherwise you just put a hypodermic-sized cauterized hole in a person or thing? That would suggest that laser weapons should be better at piercing the denser armor of 40K than most ballistic weaponry.

The Hot-Shot Lasgun would be a better representation then - low strength but better chance to pierce armor. On which note I always thought Russes should have a damn 2+.

 Charistoph wrote:

Karol wrote:In the end it does boil down to people who play models that shouldn't or think they shouldn't be wounded by stuff like lasguns puting arguments against it, and does that do not run such units claim that they very much should be able to do it.

And for those who have neither nor every had neither?

Jidmah wrote:Legacy is often used as an euphemism for "outdated gak".

Not necessarily. It could also refer to systems that work better than the current experiment. Only time will tell.

Jidmah wrote:

Heck, even in Star Wars they had armor that's "too strong for blasters!".

If I remember Star Wars correctly, there was this guy who blew up that heavily armored battlestation with a single shot that should never have penetrated the station's armor or shields.

The shielding was mentioned as to why they were required to use Proton Torpedoes. It was in a port, so it was a point were there was no armor. Rogue One explains why that single shot worked.

Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Also there was a time when Genestealers had Rending Claws which could Pen AV up to 16. (4+6+6)

Rending was an extra d3, for a maximum of 13 against a titans front armor of 14.

It was for 5th-7th, but for 3rd and 4th it was D6. I remember the whining when it changed, particularly from Assault Cannon and Genestealer fanatics.

But said Death Star was at full health when shot at that opening. So how is that somehow better than 30+ Infantry shooting Lasguns at a target with 1-2 wounds left? Seems logical that target with tons of openings after being weakened makes more sense than how the Death Star happened.

So to come back to the OP.

The game would be better served with core mechanics rather than special exceptions to attempt to represent various aspects of the game.

ie, Genestealers have a 5+ invulnerable save to represent their reflexes because there's no other mechanical way to show this.

A core mechanic System where the Initiative characteristic is the opposed value against WS and BS would open up an entire design space currently lacking in the game.

You can keep the current 'who charges strikes first' mechanic and use Initiative entirely for opposing WS.


Armies where this would be a useful addition:

Orks - double initiative when charging into melee like they used to have. Their waaagh power represented.
Grotz I3 making them a bit harder to shoot because they're sneaky

Veteran Marines, WS/BS/I5 to show their veteran status, just like in 2nd ed.

Tyranids, I4 minimum, I6+ genestealers etc, making them harder to hit at range and in melee, making the swarm a scary opponent. Lictors being very hard to hit (maybe higher I against shooting due to their chameleonic skin).


Tau - VEspid stingwings high I as they flit around. Kroot gain I in cover, making them scary stealth predators like they should be.

Necrons - wraiths, flayed ones, melee destroyer types having higher I to reflect their skill at melee

Grey knights - Higher initiative against Daemons to reflect their psychic presence making it harder for them to be struck by daemonic attacks


DArk eldar - high initiative across the board, with nude wyches being like genestealers, relying on their I to protect them against any attack

CWE - high initiative for aspects showing their skill in their chosen ways of war, crazy high I on exarchs to reflect their kung jitsu bullet time abilities

Harlequins the same



And so there you go, If you bring back I and turn WS and BS back into a comparison value, you get a real opportunity to expand the abilities of most armies in the game.

It's not just an eldar thing - but it will help reflect a core aspect of their force that hasn't been properly reflected in 20 years.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:But said Death Star was at full health when shot at that opening. So how is that somehow better than 30+ Infantry shooting Lasguns at a target with 1-2 wounds left? Seems logical that target with tons of openings after being weakened makes more sense than how the Death Star happened.

Look up how the USS Arizona was sunk. The Death Star was not so different, except that the first Death Star was deliberately designed with this weak point where one sufficient hit would cause its own reactor to detonate, and the second had holes so big a light freighter could literally fly in to the middle.

This was one of the more realistic aspects of the 3rd-5th AV system. Even with the 6th and 7th system, I thought it worked, but they had the process backwards, in which only Penetrating Hits would guarantee Hull Point loss (the Vehicle Table would roll would only deprive a Hull Point loss on a Glancing Explodes! result).

I don't know how much redundancy that a Carnifex has, but the closest one could come to that would be removing its equivalent of a heart or primary neural cluster, which Characters did not have the same weakness. However, there was Force and other Insta-Death techniques that worked on a Carnifex, but didn't work on Vehicles.

Hellebore wrote:ie, Genestealers have a 5+ invulnerable save to represent their reflexes because there's no other mechanical way to show this.

There could be several ways to show this, but other than a reduction in dice rolls or increasing the BS number of the shooter, there really isn't any other. Also it does have precedent, as stupid as it is. If anything, certain models should be able to roll a Save against Hits before they have a chance to Wound to represent this concept. It would help be effective against Markerlights which always struck me odd about the Dodge Invul.

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:But said Death Star was at full health when shot at that opening. So how is that somehow better than 30+ Infantry shooting Lasguns at a target with 1-2 wounds left? Seems logical that target with tons of openings after being weakened makes more sense than how the Death Star happened.

Look up how the USS Arizona was sunk. The Death Star was not so different, except that the first Death Star was deliberately designed with this weak point where one sufficient hit would cause its own reactor to detonate, and the second had holes so big a light freighter could literally fly in to the middle.

This was one of the more realistic aspects of the 3rd-5th AV system. Even with the 6th and 7th system, I thought it worked, but they had the process backwards, in which only Penetrating Hits would guarantee Hull Point loss (the Vehicle Table would roll would only deprive a Hull Point loss on a Glancing Explodes! result).

I don't know how much redundancy that a Carnifex has, but the closest one could come to that would be removing its equivalent of a heart or primary neural cluster, which Characters did not have the same weakness. However, there was Force and other Insta-Death techniques that worked on a Carnifex, but didn't work on Vehicles.

Hellebore wrote:ie, Genestealers have a 5+ invulnerable save to represent their reflexes because there's no other mechanical way to show this.

There could be several ways to show this, but other than a reduction in dice rolls or increasing the BS number of the shooter, there really isn't any other. Also it does have precedent, as stupid as it is. If anything, certain models should be able to roll a Save against Hits before they have a chance to Wound to represent this concept. It would help be effective against Markerlights which always struck me odd about the Dodge Invul.

Instant Death is already a rare rule to begin with, and that's coupled with the fact that, as already mentioned, a Lascannon was able to kill/incapacitate a Rhino but only ever did a singular wound to a Carnifex.

The system sucked and people really need to stop defending it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:But said Death Star was at full health when shot at that opening. So how is that somehow better than 30+ Infantry shooting Lasguns at a target with 1-2 wounds left? Seems logical that target with tons of openings after being weakened makes more sense than how the Death Star happened.

Look up how the USS Arizona was sunk. The Death Star was not so different, except that the first Death Star was deliberately designed with this weak point where one sufficient hit would cause its own reactor to detonate, and the second had holes so big a light freighter could literally fly in to the middle.

This was one of the more realistic aspects of the 3rd-5th AV system. Even with the 6th and 7th system, I thought it worked, but they had the process backwards, in which only Penetrating Hits would guarantee Hull Point loss (the Vehicle Table would roll would only deprive a Hull Point loss on a Glancing Explodes! result).

I don't know how much redundancy that a Carnifex has, but the closest one could come to that would be removing its equivalent of a heart or primary neural cluster, which Characters did not have the same weakness. However, there was Force and other Insta-Death techniques that worked on a Carnifex, but didn't work on Vehicles.

Hellebore wrote:ie, Genestealers have a 5+ invulnerable save to represent their reflexes because there's no other mechanical way to show this.

There could be several ways to show this, but other than a reduction in dice rolls or increasing the BS number of the shooter, there really isn't any other. Also it does have precedent, as stupid as it is. If anything, certain models should be able to roll a Save against Hits before they have a chance to Wound to represent this concept. It would help be effective against Markerlights which always struck me odd about the Dodge Invul.

Instant Death is already a rare rule to begin with, and that's coupled with the fact that, as already mentioned, a Lascannon was able to kill/incapacitate a Rhino but only ever did a singular wound to a Carnifex.

The system sucked and people really need to stop defending it.

As I said previously, in 2nd ed a lascannon did 2D6 damage at S9 vs T8 W10 carnifex, meaning it could definitely one shot a carnifex. And because of the way wounds interacted with armour penetration (being rolled to add to strength and dice bonuses to penetrate) it meant that a lascannon could kill a vehicle and a carnifex in a single shot, despite using different profiles.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Instant Death is already a rare rule to begin with, and that's coupled with the fact that, as already mentioned, a Lascannon was able to kill/incapacitate a Rhino but only ever did a singular wound to a Carnifex.

The system sucked and people really need to stop defending it.

Sounds more like a problem with the Carnifex more than the AV system, unless you can provide a proper counter that would be more realistic than the AV system?

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Instant Death is already a rare rule to begin with, and that's coupled with the fact that, as already mentioned, a Lascannon was able to kill/incapacitate a Rhino but only ever did a singular wound to a Carnifex.

The system sucked and people really need to stop defending it.

Sounds more like a problem with the Carnifex more than the AV system, unless you can provide a proper counter that would be more realistic than the AV system?

Yeah, this. MC issues didn't derive from the AV system. That should be obvious.

And MCs worked well enough in 3rd-4th. I think during 5th they started getting more wounds, invulns and outputting greater lethality, making them more frustrating. By 6th-7th they had gotten pretty stupid though. That said, all that was needed was a multi-wound damage capability from bigger guns, like RT, 2nd and 8+. Easy fix.

Yeah, monsters were fine at first. Their added durability was offset by the units being given fewer and poorer guns relative to vehicles, moving at infantry speed, and also being relatively highly priced.
Things became bad around 6th edition when GW forgot those unit design limitations were there for a reason, and started handing out inexpensive and fast 'monsters' with firepower matching vehicles. Riptides and dreadknights and such.

That's why most of the tyranid range was still garbage when everyone was complaining about monsters throughout 6th and 7th, despite having about half the monsters in the game. They were largely a product of the original design, with slow movement, gakky guns, and high prices. The few ones released later (toxicrene, maleceptor) were apparently balanced to be in line with the older nid monsters, so were also terrible.

terror51247 wrote:
I am all for introducing modifiers for Shooting rolls based on range.

Me too, and others...

As for WS comparisons a la 2nd Ed, with Initiative yes, I would be all for that too.
I never understood though why a guardsman should ever be a threat to an avatar, at all, without a special weapon like a power sword for example, so pure WS might not be enough...

 jeff white wrote:

terror51247 wrote:
I am all for introducing modifiers for Shooting rolls based on range.

Me too, and others...

As for WS comparisons a la 2nd Ed, with Initiative yes, I would be all for that too.
I never understood though why a guardsman should ever be a threat to an avatar, at all, without a special weapon like a power sword for example, so pure WS might not be enough...

This is a bit like the "lasguns can kill a titan" argument though. Back when there was a WS chart a Guardsman hit the Avatar on 5+ and wounded on 6+ and the Avatar got a save (can't remember if they had their 3+ save back then or if it was just the 5++). So a single Guardsman wasn't a threat to an Avatar. An entire squad...still wasn't. I think it worked quite well. It allowed for those one-in-a-million moments when a Guardsman killed an Avatar (likely after the Leman Russ had blasted most of its wounds off from long range) but in practical terms the Avatar was pretty much invulnerable, as it should be.

For balance purposes I think you need to be careful about making things immune to damage. Making something very, very resilient is probably the better approach. I remember the frustration of my Dark Eldar opponent in 5th edition when his squad of Wyches were stuck flailing pointlessly at a Dreadnought because they had no way to hurt it in melee and couldn't fall back voluntarily. In 40k's case, a lot of the problems stem from the scope of the game. It probably would be appropriate, for example, to have lasguns unable to hurt a Titan as is the case in Epic, but 40k is a game that tries to cram far too much into its scale. It's insane to have a game include things like Titans while also worrying about modelling the exact type of power sword a squad sergeant is carrying.