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.

 Jidmah wrote:
Because the people that don't even play 9th are derailing the thread, just like they do with every general topic connected to 9th edition recently.

In all honesty, fliers certainly deserve their own thread....I just don't think the talk belongs in this one.

Sledehammer...you seem to be the driving force behind this derailment (but I'm interested in a discussion on fliers), care to make a separate thread?

 Jidmah wrote:
Because the people that don't even play 9th are derailing the thread, just like they do with every general topic connected to 9th edition recently.

Obviously we're not allowed to have an opinion on anything if the opinion isn't "EVERYTHING'S FINE HERE MOVE ALONG SOMETHING SOMETHING TOURNAMENT WINRATES."

Getting back to the tanks, and trying to keep this from being too derailed, I think we can all agree while we want them to be better the rules can't get too clunky which is why I'm in favor of the wounds buff paired with the -1 dmg to shooting attacks approach (as well as a small points bump on all anti-tank/monster weapons).

It encourages you to protect your tanks much like real tanks need to be protected from people getting to close, while ensuring the extra wounds don't just see an uptick in massed mid-damage weapons to counter them. I'd even argue for the same changes to monstrous creatures as they share many of the same issues against shooting.

To add to this, vehicles and monsters need a better impact hit ability. Say when they successfully charge roll a d6 for every wound they have remaining and it does mortals on a 5+ to anything that isn't vehicle or monster or titanic. Let's put the mass of the vehicle to better use than spinning in place to do melee attacks.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Getting back to the tanks, and trying to keep this from being too derailed, I think we can all agree while we want them to be better the rules can't get too clunky which is why I'm in favor of the wounds buff paired with the -1 dmg to shooting attacks approach (as well as a small points bump on all anti-tank/monster weapons).

It encourages you to protect your tanks much like real tanks need to be protected from people getting to close, while ensuring the extra wounds don't just see an uptick in massed mid-damage weapons to counter them. I'd even argue for the same changes to monstrous creatures as they share many of the same issues against shooting.

To add to this, vehicles and monsters need a better impact hit ability. Say when they successfully charge roll a d6 for every wound they have remaining and it does mortals on a 5+ to anything that isn't vehicle or monster or titanic. Let's put the mass of the vehicle to better use than spinning in place to do melee attacks.

Agreed on the points bumps for AT weapons. But I don't think we'll see a rollout of the -1 damage mechanic for all vehicles, as it's a special rule, just like invulnerable saves, and they won't be giving it to everything. Likewise, I don't see gw giving a blanket increase of wounds either. It would require reworking the wound brackets for everything affected, as well as adjusting any rules that affect models with "X" number of wounds, and probably redefining what qualifies as TITANIC, as that seems to be capped at 20 wounds. I COULD see strategems that mimic the old Tank Shock rule though, which is what you seem to be describing.

I still think our best bets are the price increases to AT weapons and platforms as well as changing how the cap on negative modifiers to hit works so that AT infantry units are fully penalized for moving to get the best shot.

I don't think a blanket -1 would work but a -1 againd shooting damage specifically would open up a nice design space for vehicles.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't think a blanket -1 would work but a -1 againd shooting damage specifically would open up a nice design space for vehicles.

I agree. I just don't think gw will do that. Not for all vehicles. At least not in this edition.

What if for vehicles and monsters with a bracket system had a smiliar system to the no more than X wounds per phase.

(forgive me as I butcher the language as I'm brain dead and cant think of the terminology atm)

something like,
Impervious: After an attack has resolved that inflicted damage to this unit. if this unit has dropped a tier in its bracket it can suffer no further wounds this phase.

you wont be able to 1 punch the heavy vehicles anymore but you can still severely damage it (with the bracketing)

Could come with a downside like
Shaken: If Impervious was triggered during your opponents last turn, this unit suffers a -1 to hit penallty with all attacks this turn.

with something like impervious massed 1d weapons would drop you to only 1w below your bracket, where a heavy D attack could still chunk you as long as it was the attack to drop you below.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Because the people that don't even play 9th are derailing the thread, just like they do with every general topic connected to 9th edition recently.

Obviously we're not allowed to have an opinion on anything if the opinion isn't "EVERYTHING'S FINE HERE MOVE ALONG SOMETHING SOMETHING TOURNAMENT WINRATES."

You're allowed to have an opinion and you and your like-minded companions have made sufficiently clear among the hundreds of posts you have graced us with across dozens of threads in the past few months.

It's just that this beautiful opinion is utterly worthless to anyone actually playing 9th, so I'd love if you create one thread where you can continue your "9th is the worst thing ev0r, we need to go back!" echo chamber and stay there so your noise stops choking every productive discussion about 9th to death.

 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.

If this is the problem, there's a simple fix:

Just don't buy gw tank models.

I've seen plenty of cardboard rhinos and even predators. And the people gaming with them were having as much fun as anyone who spent 300$ on gw official models. I've seen a foamrcore land raider with bits side mounts on them. As long as its not 'modeled for advantage and at least recognizably the same size and shape, people are ok with it, except the GW white knights, and frankly feth them.

Doable if you play at home. Not doable, if most games are played at stores. That is why resin is so popular. Once undercoated, there is little ways to tell if a Contemptor or Siccarian is FW or not, besides maybe the non FW ones having better detail.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm in favor of the wounds buff paired with the -1 dmg to shooting attacks approach (as well as a small points bump on all anti-tank/monster weapons).

It encourages you to protect your tanks much like real tanks need to be protected from people getting to close, while ensuring the extra wounds don't just see an uptick in massed mid-damage weapons to counter them. I'd even argue for the same changes to monstrous creatures as they share many of the same issues against shooting.

I agree with this proposal - I think it could even be tailored to Toughness. Say, anything with the "VEHICLE" Keyword takes -1 damage to a minimum of 0 when wounded by a shooting attack that has a S of less than T-1. A Land Raider wouldn't take damage from assault cannons, a Devilfish would only take 1 damage per hit from Heavy Bolters, but Land speeders and Ork Trukks would still be vulnerable to massed Heavy Bolter fire, and autocannons would be able to apply all of their damage potential to any vehicle. But bolters and lasguns and pulse rifles would no longer be whittling down Imperial Knights.

 Matt Swain wrote:

If this is the problem, there's a simple fix:

Just don't buy gw tank models.

I've seen plenty of cardboard rhinos and even predators. And the people gaming with them were having as much fun as anyone who spent 300$ on gw official models. I've seen a foamrcore land raider with bits side mounts on them. As long as its not 'modeled for advantage and at least recognizably the same size and shape, people are ok with it, except the GW white knights, and frankly feth them.

Unnecessary. Predators, rhinos and land raiders are by far the easiest models to get on ebay. For my DG I just bought a bunch Ultramarine ones for 10€ per model, scratched them up, replaced all imperial insignias with nurgle symbols from a 3D printer and added nurglings. Done.

One thing that is painfully obvious (as Gadzilla pointed out) is that GW will not do a sweeping change to the fundamental stats in this edition. So if that just leaves us with points increases for the worst offenders, what should we be looking at?

Darklance (future brightlance) -
Cognis lascannon -
Multimelta -

The thing is, because GW has included the weapon points in each unit entry (this is actually an excellent choice btw), you really only need to adjust the worst offenders. For example, are Devastator MMs really an issue? New Retributors? Probably not (yeah, I got my eye on you Argent Shroud!), but a mobile MM on an attack bike or ATV could get a small points boost. Maybe also not put up the weapon costs on certain tanks since they are already expensive.

Darklance on Raiders is built in, but maybe it should be +10-15pts. I don't see the need to increase the cost of a dark lance on a kabalite warrior (already +15pts).

I know absolutely zero about admech so not sure where the cognis las is abusive.

In truth, I tink this is the only real option moving forward, if it continues to be a problem. The incentive has to be for fewer AT weapons of this magnitude on the table, rather than trying to find a suitable way to improve the defences of the target for these weapons.

 bullyboy wrote:
One thing that is painfully obvious (as Gadzilla pointed out) is that GW will not do a sweeping change to the fundamental stats in this edition. So if that just leaves us with points increases for the worst offenders, what should we be looking at?

I disagree with the premise that it's impossible to see sweeping changes to vehicles when 8th introduced sweeping changes to Marines. Trick is that we just need to convince GW that we need to fix vehicles to fix Marines.

 bullyboy wrote:
One thing that is painfully obvious (as Gadzilla pointed out) is that GW will not do a sweeping change to the fundamental stats in this edition. So if that just leaves us with points increases for the worst offenders, what should we be looking at?

Doing a sweeping update to the wounds characteristics of vehicles should be within GW's possibilities.

 bullyboy wrote:
One thing that is painfully obvious (as Gadzilla pointed out) is that GW will not do a sweeping change to the fundamental stats in this edition. So if that just leaves us with points increases for the worst offenders, what should we be looking at?

Darklance (future brightlance) -
Cognis lascannon -
Multimelta -

But those aren't the worst offenders. Those types of weapons should be feared by vehicles.

It's everything else that's the problem.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
One thing that is painfully obvious (as Gadzilla pointed out) is that GW will not do a sweeping change to the fundamental stats in this edition. So if that just leaves us with points increases for the worst offenders, what should we be looking at?

Darklance (future brightlance) -
Cognis lascannon -
Multimelta -

But those aren't the worst offenders. Those types of weapons should be feared by vehicles.

It's everything else that's the problem.

such as????

All the mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons.

Why do you think so many people in this thread have been discussing changes to Toughness and damage reduction? To neuter or at the very least reduce the "chip damage" these weapons provide. Make it so that for anti-tank work you need anti-tank weapons.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
All the mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons.

Why do you think so many people in this thread have been discussing changes to Toughness and damage reduction? To neuter or at the very least reduce the "chip damage" these weapons provide. Make it so that for anti-tank work you need anti-tank weapons.

Very much this. And if we fix the chip damage issue the heavier weapons can get a point bump because they wouldn't be competing with the chip damage so the game could be more balanced.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
All the mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons.

Why do you think so many people in this thread have been discussing changes to Toughness and damage reduction? To neuter or at the very least reduce the "chip damage" these weapons provide. Make it so that for anti-tank work you need anti-tank weapons.

I totally disagree with this sentiment. Tanks were not a serious liability until MMs got their 2 shot +2D change and we entered into the 3+D3 damage range for weapons. Chip damage is not that bad in this edition, unlike 8th. I'm pretty sure most people here are more concerned with the cheap easy tank killers.
We have to at least be talking about the same problem here.

chip damage might take the final 1 or 2 wounds off a vehicle, and I'm totally fine with that, but they are not deleting vehicles at minimal cost.
In my opinion, if people really are thinking it's a problem with chip damage, I say change nothing, because I just don't see it.

 bullyboy wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
All the mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons.

Why do you think so many people in this thread have been discussing changes to Toughness and damage reduction? To neuter or at the very least reduce the "chip damage" these weapons provide. Make it so that for anti-tank work you need anti-tank weapons.

I totally disagree with this sentiment. Tanks were not a serious liability until MMs got their 2 shot +2D change and we entered into the 3+D3 damage range for weapons. Chip damage is not that bad in this edition, unlike 8th. I'm pretty sure most people here are more concerned with the cheap easy tank killers.
We have to at least be talking about the same problem here.

People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.

 Jidmah wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
One thing that is painfully obvious (as Gadzilla pointed out) is that GW will not do a sweeping change to the fundamental stats in this edition. So if that just leaves us with points increases for the worst offenders, what should we be looking at?

Doing a sweeping update to the wounds characteristics of vehicles should be within GW's possibilities.

Possible? Sure, it would just require a FAQ. Likely? Ask my 1W CSM. Instigating the -1 damage rule for all vehicles would be more likely, as it wouldn't require as many other rules changes. But I still very much doubt gw doing it. They could surprise us though.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
All the mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons.

Why do you think so many people in this thread have been discussing changes to Toughness and damage reduction? To neuter or at the very least reduce the "chip damage" these weapons provide. Make it so that for anti-tank work you need anti-tank weapons.

I totally disagree with this sentiment. Tanks were not a serious liability until MMs got their 2 shot +2D change and we entered into the 3+D3 damage range for weapons. Chip damage is not that bad in this edition, unlike 8th. I'm pretty sure most people here are more concerned with the cheap easy tank killers.
We have to at least be talking about the same problem here.

People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.

with the current cost of vehicles (some got much cheaper this edition), chip damage will not be enough to do the job. You will need dedicated AT.
This discussion did not come about because of chip damage, it came about because there is no point bringing a 120-180pt tank when 0-15pt cost DL equivalents and MMs are deleting them with such ease.

You take a BS3 HB vs a typical T7 3+ vehicle with 12W. It takes 18 HBs to drop that vehicle. Frankly, there are just better targets for those HBs. It takes 3.5 DLs with same stats.

 bullyboy wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
All the mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons.

Why do you think so many people in this thread have been discussing changes to Toughness and damage reduction? To neuter or at the very least reduce the "chip damage" these weapons provide. Make it so that for anti-tank work you need anti-tank weapons.

I totally disagree with this sentiment. Tanks were not a serious liability until MMs got their 2 shot +2D change and we entered into the 3+D3 damage range for weapons. Chip damage is not that bad in this edition, unlike 8th. I'm pretty sure most people here are more concerned with the cheap easy tank killers.
We have to at least be talking about the same problem here.

People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.

with the current cost of vehicles (some got much cheaper this edition), chip damage will not be enough to do the job. You will need dedicated AT.
This discussion did not come about because of chip damage, it came about because there is no point bringing a 120-180pt tank when 0-15pt cost DL equivalents and MMs are deleting them with such ease.

It's part of a larger problem, but go on pretending that if we didn't points bump those heavier weapons we wouldn't see the increase of chip damage due to the damage to points cost ratio tipping back in favor of them.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
All the mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons.

Why do you think so many people in this thread have been discussing changes to Toughness and damage reduction? To neuter or at the very least reduce the "chip damage" these weapons provide. Make it so that for anti-tank work you need anti-tank weapons.

I totally disagree with this sentiment. Tanks were not a serious liability until MMs got their 2 shot +2D change and we entered into the 3+D3 damage range for weapons. Chip damage is not that bad in this edition, unlike 8th. I'm pretty sure most people here are more concerned with the cheap easy tank killers.
We have to at least be talking about the same problem here.

People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.

with the current cost of vehicles (some got much cheaper this edition), chip damage will not be enough to do the job. You will need dedicated AT.
This discussion did not come about because of chip damage, it came about because there is no point bringing a 120-180pt tank when 0-15pt cost DL equivalents and MMs are deleting them with such ease.

It's part of a larger problem, but go on pretending that if we didn't points bump those heavier weapons we wouldn't see the increase of chip damage due to the damage to points cost ratio tipping back in favor of them.

so why now? Why wasn't this such a big issue before these new weapon stats?

The reason MM's got a boost to lethality was to make them attractive as an anti-tank option, because there wasn't much point in bringing dedicated anti-tank weapons in 8th given how pathetic vehicles* are.

But the increased lethality of the MM meant that now vehicles were afraid of them and all the stuff that was already killing them, making vehicles even worse. Now trying to 'balance' anti-tank weapons would just be further missing the problem.



*Everything I say about vehicles applies to monsters as well, BTW.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 bullyboy wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
All the mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons.

Why do you think so many people in this thread have been discussing changes to Toughness and damage reduction? To neuter or at the very least reduce the "chip damage" these weapons provide. Make it so that for anti-tank work you need anti-tank weapons.

I totally disagree with this sentiment. Tanks were not a serious liability until MMs got their 2 shot +2D change and we entered into the 3+D3 damage range for weapons. Chip damage is not that bad in this edition, unlike 8th. I'm pretty sure most people here are more concerned with the cheap easy tank killers.
We have to at least be talking about the same problem here.

People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.

with the current cost of vehicles (some got much cheaper this edition), chip damage will not be enough to do the job. You will need dedicated AT.
This discussion did not come about because of chip damage, it came about because there is no point bringing a 120-180pt tank when 0-15pt cost DL equivalents and MMs are deleting them with such ease.

It's part of a larger problem, but go on pretending that if we didn't points bump those heavier weapons we wouldn't see the increase of chip damage due to the damage to points cost ratio tipping back in favor of them.

Exactly what are these "chip damage" offenders? And how many of them do you think will be as effective now as they were in 8th? Enough stuff already has the -1 damage rules to make spamming 2D weapons a bad idea.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.

People complained, because they hate the concept - not because it was an effective method of tank killing.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 bullyboy wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
All the mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons.

Why do you think so many people in this thread have been discussing changes to Toughness and damage reduction? To neuter or at the very least reduce the "chip damage" these weapons provide. Make it so that for anti-tank work you need anti-tank weapons.

I totally disagree with this sentiment. Tanks were not a serious liability until MMs got their 2 shot +2D change and we entered into the 3+D3 damage range for weapons. Chip damage is not that bad in this edition, unlike 8th. I'm pretty sure most people here are more concerned with the cheap easy tank killers.
We have to at least be talking about the same problem here.

People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.

with the current cost of vehicles (some got much cheaper this edition), chip damage will not be enough to do the job. You will need dedicated AT.
This discussion did not come about because of chip damage, it came about because there is no point bringing a 120-180pt tank when 0-15pt cost DL equivalents and MMs are deleting them with such ease.

It's part of a larger problem, but go on pretending that if we didn't points bump those heavier weapons we wouldn't see the increase of chip damage due to the damage to points cost ratio tipping back in favor of them.

Exactly what are these "chip damage" offenders? And how many of them do you think will be as effective now as they were in 8th? Enough stuff already has the -1 damage rules to make spamming 2D weapons a bad idea.

Glad I'm not crazy. I don't worry about chip damage this edition.

HBMC..The MM dropped in points for the most part, got a better damage attribute (D6+2), but more importantly gained an extra shot. Don't get me wrong, melta needed an improvement, totally agree. However, this massive boost to damage has to come at a cost, and it hasn't. The reason you can't buy Attack Bikes right now certainly isn't because of the Hvy Bolter!

If chip damage was so bad, nobody would be worrying about cheap raiders, they'd die to it easily enough. Trouble with raiders, is that super cheap (free) dark lance, and the fact that they have a 5++ that can stop the big guns coming in (among other benefits).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The reason MM's got a boost to lethality was to make them attractive as an anti-tank option, because there wasn't much point in bringing dedicated anti-tank weapons in 8th given how pathetic vehicles* are.

But the increased lethality of the MM meant that now vehicles were afraid of them and all the stuff that was already killing them, making vehicles even worse. Now trying to 'balance' anti-tank weapons would just be further missing the problem.



*Everything I say about vehicles applies to monsters as well, BTW.

Exactly this. It's a big reason I said that the changes I mentioned for tanks should be applied to monsters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.

People complained, because they hate the concept - not because it was an effective method of tank killing.

It was more effective than the "anti-tank" weapons we had in the game point for point. If we saw a points increase on anti-tank weapons to bring them back in line with their new stats we'd be right back where we started without some kind of change.