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.
Tyran wrote: Except that no everyone utilizes combined arms tactics in 40k. e.g Daemons, and to a lesser extent Custodes.
I think the new Godblight novel even highlights the fact that Daemons use medieval era tactics and formations against tanks, and they somehow work.
If we're going to start advocating for rules on the tabletop to make entirely melee armies capable of killing anything and everything including fliers and tanks, viable, then I have no interest in 40k. Just move your units across the table top and try to stay behind cover, roll your charge dice and win.
No need to think about how to get your anti tank units into position, just charge! No need to figure out how to get your infantry unit to get a flank on the enemy. Just move them up and charge! Just deep strike, use my stratagems, and army bonuses to get a charge!
The idea of combined arms is to prevent people from bringing solo lists and creates a more dynamic play experience.
One of two things can happen, then:
1) Suck it up and realize that, at least starting with 8th if not sooner, melee armies are harder to use than shooting armies.
2) Give Daemons a lot more options.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't get the arguements for jump infantry not being able to assault aircraft. Then again, I rather liked that sequence from Space Marine and thought it fit the universe.
At least we're not in 5th ed where all plames where skimmers and could be assaulted by anyone.
the crux seems to be in the world where they travel through hell to travel faster than light speed, where technology and sorcery are inter-twined, where demons or space elves can invade out of a tear in reality that it... breaks reality for a jet pack unit to hit a plane
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't get the arguements for jump infantry not being able to assault aircraft. Then again, I rather liked that sequence from Space Marine and thought it fit the universe.
At least we're not in 5th ed where all plames where skimmers and could be assaulted by anyone.
the crux seems to be in the world where they travel through hell to travel faster than light speed, where technology and sorcery are inter-twined, where demons or space elves can invade out of a tear in reality that it... breaks reality for a jet pack unit to hit a plane
In order for a fantasy setting to be engaging and allow for its audience to suspend disbelief you must adhere to your own internal set of rules. If you consistently break those rules you break the suspension of disbelief. Designing a game around edge cases is fundamentally bad for the universe as a whole.
I mean, let's make stormboyz a unit in aeronautica imperalis and saint celestine a unit in battle fleet gothic!
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't get the arguements for jump infantry not being able to assault aircraft. Then again, I rather liked that sequence from Space Marine and thought it fit the universe.
At least we're not in 5th ed where all plames where skimmers and could be assaulted by anyone.
the crux seems to be in the world where they travel through hell to travel faster than light speed, where technology and sorcery are inter-twined, where demons or space elves can invade out of a tear in reality that it... breaks reality for a jet pack unit to hit a plane
In order for a fantasy setting to be engaging and allow for its audience to suspend disbelief you must adhere to your own internal set of rules. If you consistently break those rules you break the suspension of disbelief. Designing a game around edge cases is fundamentally bad for the universe as a whole.
I mean, let's make stormboyz a unit in aeronautica imperalis and saint celestine a unit in battle fleet gothic!
And the "internal rules" of the 40k universe says that flying infantry can tear aircraft from the sky. Because that's cool, and the Number One rule of 40k is the Rule of Cool.
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't get the arguements for jump infantry not being able to assault aircraft. Then again, I rather liked that sequence from Space Marine and thought it fit the universe.
At least we're not in 5th ed where all plames where skimmers and could be assaulted by anyone.
the crux seems to be in the world where they travel through hell to travel faster than light speed, where technology and sorcery are inter-twined, where demons or space elves can invade out of a tear in reality that it... breaks reality for a jet pack unit to hit a plane
In order for a fantasy setting to be engaging and allow for its audience to suspend disbelief you must adhere to your own internal set of rules. If you consistently break those rules you break the suspension of disbelief. Designing a game around edge cases is fundamentally bad for the universe as a whole.
I mean, let's make stormboyz a unit in aeronautica imperalis and saint celestine a unit in battle fleet gothic!
And the "internal rules" of the 40k universe says that flying infantry can tear aircraft from the sky. Because that's cool, and the Number One rule of 40k is the Rule of Cool.
Lets add storm boys to aeronautica! They're viable anti aircraft after all!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 16:55:22
With the current rules and deadly anti-tank weaponry being thrown out like candies, i think all tanks toughness should be upscaled by 1; with the rhino chassis starting at T8, and T8 tanks becoming T9 etc.
Also, i think there should be a core rule, built-in -1 damage, from bolter/flamer weapons when targeting a T7+ target.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/06/11 16:58:23
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't get the arguements for jump infantry not being able to assault aircraft. Then again, I rather liked that sequence from Space Marine and thought it fit the universe.
At least we're not in 5th ed where all plames where skimmers and could be assaulted by anyone.
the crux seems to be in the world where they travel through hell to travel faster than light speed, where technology and sorcery are inter-twined, where demons or space elves can invade out of a tear in reality that it... breaks reality for a jet pack unit to hit a plane
In order for a fantasy setting to be engaging and allow for its audience to suspend disbelief you must adhere to your own internal set of rules. If you consistently break those rules you break the suspension of disbelief. Designing a game around edge cases is fundamentally bad for the universe as a whole.
I mean, let's make stormboyz a unit in aeronautica imperalis and saint celestine a unit in battle fleet gothic!
And the "internal rules" of the 40k universe says that flying infantry can tear aircraft from the sky. Because that's cool, and the Number One rule of 40k is the Rule of Cool.
Lets add storm boys to aeronautica! They're viable anti aircraft after all!
that might make me actually pick up the game where i currently have very little interest in it.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
They need to go back to how vehicles used to be in terms of how you damaged them. Str vs Armor Value based on facing. Maybe you keep the wounds and melee stats of vehicles, but vehicles using Toughness has to go because otherwise we have the current model where the best weapon to kill an Imperial Knight is a bunch of lasguns.
At least back then, vehicles felt like vehicles. Maybe it was a little messy determining facing sometimes, but its better than it is now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 17:00:07
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
bullyboy wrote: For one thing, this isn't old 40K where one or two tanks were on the table. Now, GW wants you to have multiple tanks on the table (more money), so only being able to kill 1 a turn would make people spam vehicles more (the points are certainly there) and so we would be having the opposite discussion here.
Honestly, I don't think we need to change much, the meta will probably do it all for us. Sure, right now, lots of melta and dark lances. But after orks get released, I have a feeling some weapon options for players will need to change. We were all talking about how 8th was a horde meta and that early 9th was all about elite tough units (no blast effects, etc). Well, a MM/DL is just as good plinking a 4W elite as a tank and is still a solid trade off for points efficiency. Now use it vs 30+ T5 orks.
let's come back to this discussion in a few months (after sisters, admech and orks are on the table) and see if we are still in the same place.
As for fliers, I'm trying to figure out why they are considered so poor this edition? Outside of -2 to hit (which not all fliers could get, only a minority), not much has changed really.
Points for the tanks should be lower if they're supposed to be spammed.
No kidding. Also we need more HS slots, or more tanks need to come in squadrons. I don't think gw expects anyone to spam Land Raiders.
Tanks can be spammed now but the incentive isn't there. Gun transports are a thing and if we upped the durability too much, we could easily see 8-10 tanks per side. I think 4 or 5 is about right for this size game (even more so because of the smaller table suze)
Tyran wrote: Aren't those what used to be apocalypse only?
That stuff never fitted in the TT anyway.
Not since 4th. 5e brought in a bunch of flyers as fast skimmers with 36" turbo-boost (the Valkyrie, Razorwing, Night Scythe/Doom Scythe, and Stormraven at least are from this period), which is why their durability got so badly inflated (a 4e Valkyrie was 175pts for 11-11-10, a 5e Valkyrie was 100pts for 12-12-10) that they're now just really fast tanks.
Not since 4th. 5e brought in a bunch of flyers as fast skimmers with 36" turbo-boost (the Valkyrie, Razorwing, Night Scythe/Doom Scythe, and Stormraven at least are from this period), which is why their durability got so badly inflated (a 4e Valkyrie was 175pts for 11-11-10, a 5e Valkyrie was 100pts for 12-12-10) that they're now just really fast tanks.
With the arguable exception of the Necron craft, all those are atmospheric aircraft, not space capable bombers meant to take on capital ships (or reduce hive cities to irradiated mushroom clouds).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 17:16:45
Sledgehammer thinks stormboys charging an aircraft is an edge case, others do not think that.
Depends on the aircraft. 200mph valkyries? Fine. Supersonic space-capable orbital bombers? less fine.
But your game needs greater granularity for that
Try 1100 KPH according to both wikis.
How large are the battlefields, in-universe?
If a flyer moves at 1,100 KPH, and a Marine moves at anywhere from 30 MPH to 60 MPH (48-96 KPH)... We'll round the Marines up to 100 KPH.
A Marine moves 6" and stays combat capable.
They move 7-12" while giving up shooting and charging, unless Assault weapons/White Scars/etc.
We'll call the Marine's 6" move their 50 KPH, and their 12" 100 KPH.
So, a Valkyrie moving at 1,100 KPH should move at least 132" on the table.
The table is, assuming an old 6' by 4' table, just over 86" across on the diagonal.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Sledgehammer thinks stormboys charging an aircraft is an edge case, others do not think that.
Depends on the aircraft. 200mph valkyries? Fine. Supersonic space-capable orbital bombers? less fine.
But your game needs greater granularity for that
Try 1100 KPH according to both wikis.
How large are the battlefields, in-universe?
If a flyer moves at 1,100 KPH, and a Marine moves at anywhere from 30 MPH to 60 MPH (48-96 KPH)... We'll round the Marines up to 100 KPH.
A Marine moves 6" and stays combat capable.
They move 7-12" while giving up shooting and charging, unless Assault weapons/White Scars/etc.
We'll call the Marine's 6" move their 50 KPH, and their 12" 100 KPH.
So, a Valkyrie moving at 1,100 KPH should move at least 132" on the table.
The table is, assuming an old 6' by 4' table, just over 86" across on the diagonal.
Which is why assault infantry shouldn't be able to assault aircraft unless they're in hover.
If a flyer moves at 1,100 KPH, and a Marine moves at anywhere from 30 MPH to 60 MPH (48-96 KPH)... We'll round the Marines up to 100 KPH.
A Marine moves 6" and stays combat capable.
They move 7-12" while giving up shooting and charging, unless Assault weapons/White Scars/etc.
We'll call the Marine's 6" move their 50 KPH, and their 12" 100 KPH.
So, a Valkyrie moving at 1,100 KPH should move at least 132" on the table.
The table is, assuming an old 6' by 4' table, just over 86" across on the diagonal.
You got it backwards, interpolating from a 1100 KPH Valkyrie moving 65" a turn, we get that Space Marines can Naruto Run at 200 KPH.
bullyboy wrote: For one thing, this isn't old 40K where one or two tanks were on the table. Now, GW wants you to have multiple tanks on the table (more money), so only being able to kill 1 a turn would make people spam vehicles more (the points are certainly there) and so we would be having the opposite discussion here.
Honestly, I don't think we need to change much, the meta will probably do it all for us. Sure, right now, lots of melta and dark lances. But after orks get released, I have a feeling some weapon options for players will need to change. We were all talking about how 8th was a horde meta and that early 9th was all about elite tough units (no blast effects, etc). Well, a MM/DL is just as good plinking a 4W elite as a tank and is still a solid trade off for points efficiency. Now use it vs 30+ T5 orks.
let's come back to this discussion in a few months (after sisters, admech and orks are on the table) and see if we are still in the same place.
As for fliers, I'm trying to figure out why they are considered so poor this edition? Outside of -2 to hit (which not all fliers could get, only a minority), not much has changed really.
Points for the tanks should be lower if they're supposed to be spammed.
No kidding. Also we need more HS slots, or more tanks need to come in squadrons. I don't think gw expects anyone to spam Land Raiders.
Tanks can be spammed now but the incentive isn't there. Gun transports are a thing and if we upped the durability too much, we could easily see 8-10 tanks per side. I think 4 or 5 is about right for this size game (even more so because of the smaller table suze)
Ah, the "Razorback Problem". Easy fix: remove them from Dedicated Transports and put them into Heavy Support, same as Land Raiders. Never understood why those things were Dedicated Transports in the first place. And for the record, I haven't been suggesting anything like upping things to T9, but decreasing general lethality by changing the cap on negative modifiers to hit and giving points bumps to some super efficient AT units.
Sledgehammer thinks stormboys charging an aircraft is an edge case, others do not think that.
Depends on the aircraft. 200mph valkyries? Fine. Supersonic space-capable orbital bombers? less fine.
But your game needs greater granularity for that
Try 1100 KPH according to both wikis.
How large are the battlefields, in-universe?
If a flyer moves at 1,100 KPH, and a Marine moves at anywhere from 30 MPH to 60 MPH (48-96 KPH)... We'll round the Marines up to 100 KPH.
A Marine moves 6" and stays combat capable.
They move 7-12" while giving up shooting and charging, unless Assault weapons/White Scars/etc.
We'll call the Marine's 6" move their 50 KPH, and their 12" 100 KPH.
So, a Valkyrie moving at 1,100 KPH should move at least 132" on the table.
The table is, assuming an old 6' by 4' table, just over 86" across on the diagonal.
Which is why assault infantry shouldn't be able to assault aircraft unless they're in hover.
Aircraft shouldn't spend more than a singular turn on the table then, unless they're hovering. If they enter at exactly the corner, and move to the opposite corner, they still have over a third of their move left to keep going to maintain speed.
If they enter on the long side and only have to cross 4', then they can cross two entire tables with move to spare.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Sledgehammer thinks stormboys charging an aircraft is an edge case, others do not think that.
Depends on the aircraft. 200mph valkyries? Fine. Supersonic space-capable orbital bombers? less fine.
But your game needs greater granularity for that
Try 1100 KPH according to both wikis.
How large are the battlefields, in-universe?
If a flyer moves at 1,100 KPH, and a Marine moves at anywhere from 30 MPH to 60 MPH (48-96 KPH)... We'll round the Marines up to 100 KPH.
A Marine moves 6" and stays combat capable.
They move 7-12" while giving up shooting and charging, unless Assault weapons/White Scars/etc.
We'll call the Marine's 6" move their 50 KPH, and their 12" 100 KPH.
So, a Valkyrie moving at 1,100 KPH should move at least 132" on the table.
The table is, assuming an old 6' by 4' table, just over 86" across on the diagonal.
Which is why assault infantry shouldn't be able to assault aircraft unless they're in hover.
Aircraft shouldn't spend more than a singular turn on the table then, unless they're hovering. If they enter at exactly the corner, and move to the opposite corner, they still have over a third of their move left to keep going to maintain speed.
If they enter on the long side and only have to cross 4', then they can cross two entire tables with move to spare.
Epic Armageddon does this, while still allowing anti air and other aircraft to interact with each other. It's much better overall.
Tyran wrote: Epic Armageddon is an entirely different scale, it makes sense it would do it better, it has way more space to do it.
You're correct, but 7th also showed at the very least that aircraft can have a role and be distinguished from other units in a much more immersive and satisfactory way than it is now.
Arguing against units having combat roles in a combined arms system is a detriment to the game as a whole. This goes for tanks and aircraft. Rules that reward aircraft for staying stationary, and to not fly around the board are fundamentally bad.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 17:39:42
It seems that most suggestions either revolve around increasing stats (wounds, toughness, saves) or major additions like armor facing.
For my two cents: I like the modest new universal rules ideas the best (like the person who suggested just a flat -1d to vehicles).
Regardless, it seems like this really is a tricky issue with a lot of balance potential. I'm personally a big fan of tanks, but I certainly don't want anything that turns the game into an ONLY tank meta!
If you start having stuff like only AA can deal with aircraft, you create a race for identical armies, for good reason. That is what happens in real life. Only AA can deal with planes, so I better take planes. Ok I don't want planes, but without them I have to take AA or I will just get shot with no return. And so on.
You see this in Epic. Every army takes at 10% of their points value in AA of some form, if you don't have any planes will have a field day with you.
And back to rocket packs hitting planes - these planes are typically only moving at 4 times the speed of the infantry on the ground (20 odd" compared to 6"), where is the problem catching them up wearing a rocket pack?
Grey Templar wrote: They need to go back to how vehicles used to be in terms of how you damaged them. Str vs Armor Value based on facing. Maybe you keep the wounds and melee stats of vehicles, but vehicles using Toughness has to go because otherwise we have the current model where the best weapon to kill an Imperial Knight is a bunch of lasguns.
At least back then, vehicles felt like vehicles. Maybe it was a little messy determining facing sometimes, but its better than it is now.
Definitrly not. I don't want to go back to arguements on how armour facing works on Eldar tanks nor do we need to return to a single shot popping tanks.
The_Real_Chris wrote: If you start having stuff like only AA can deal with aircraft, you create a race for identical armies, for good reason. That is what happens in real life. Only AA can deal with planes, so I better take planes. Ok I don't want planes, but without them I have to take AA or I will just get shot with no return. And so on.
You see this in Epic. Every army takes at 10% of their points value in AA of some form, if you don't have any planes will have a field day with you.
And back to rocket packs hitting planes - these planes are typically only moving at 4 times the speed of the infantry on the ground (20 odd" compared to 6"), where is the problem catching them up wearing a rocket pack?
This is what a combined arms system is. It requires you to bring tools to do a job and then figure out how to use them in the context of the battle. It gives every unit something to do, and something to fear. It creates a more balanced and dynamic list building phase where more things are viable. It creates actual armies rather than the list building meta we are currently in.
If you refuse to acknowledge a threat and build a force without AA or anti tank that's your fault. You need to take more than one tool in your tool kit.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/06/11 18:01:36
The_Real_Chris wrote: If you start having stuff like only AA can deal with aircraft, you create a race for identical armies, for good reason. That is what happens in real life. Only AA can deal with planes, so I better take planes. Ok I don't want planes, but without them I have to take AA or I will just get shot with no return. And so on.
You see this in Epic. Every army takes at 10% of their points value in AA of some form, if you don't have any planes will have a field day with you.
And back to rocket packs hitting planes - these planes are typically only moving at 4 times the speed of the infantry on the ground (20 odd" compared to 6"), where is the problem catching them up wearing a rocket pack?
This is what a combined arms system is. It requires you to bring tools to do a job and then figure out how to use them in the context of the battle. It gives every unit something to do, and something to fear. It creates a more balanced and dynamic list building phase where more things are viable. It creates actual armies rather than the list building meta we are currently in.
If you refuse to acknowledge a threat and build a force without AA that's your fault. You need to take more than one tool in your tool kit.
What AA can my daemons take?
Nurgle daemons specifically, but honestly, what AA guns do daemons have at all?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
7000 
