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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If the game had USRs you could make vehicle durability really very simple:

Vehicle/Monster - Units with this Keyword only ever suffer 1 Damage from all wounding hits unless the weapon has the High Impact weapon special rule. Note that additional damage caused by Mortal Wounds is unaffected by this rule.

High Impact - A weapon with this ability causes its listed Damage against units with the Vehicle/Monster keyword. All weapons S8 and higher are assumed to be High Impact.

Vengeful (X) - A weapon with this ability will cause a number of Mortal Wounds equal to the listed value on an unmodified To Wound roll of 6.

Insane Durability (X) - A unit with this ability reduces incoming Damage by the listed value, to a minimum of 1. This ability does not impact Damage caused by Mortal Wounds.

There. Done. Rules are scalable where they need to be, and aren't where they don't!

That would make weapons specifically designed as light-medium AT, like the Autocannon, even worse than they already are.

Poly Ranger wrote:
That would make weapons specifically designed as light-medium AT, like the Autocannon, even worse than they already are.

Why?

Because with those rules, at S7 (or S6) guns such as the Autocannon would halve the damage they do to vehicles and MCs (or worse if more than D2).

Poly Ranger wrote:
Because with those rules, at S7 (or S6) guns such as the Autocannon would halve the damage they do to vehicles and MCs (or worse if more than D2).

Not sure how what I wrote would lead to that.

Yes, back in the day carnifexes were basically heavy tanks.
So was a rhino. Your point? Prior to the vehicles getting wounds even a rhino was pretty difficult to actually kill.

 Tyran wrote:
Personally back in the day I struggled to see how a T6 creature was supposed to be equivalent to AV13-14 battle tanks.

People these days complain that their tanks are vulnerable to light arms, back in the day Carnifexes were actually quite easy to kill with lasguns.

It was a trade off. The amount of punishment a carnifex took was still comparable to tanks.

But whereas a tank could literally be done over in a single lascannon or meltagun shot the carnifex could take multiple of those and keep going.
However, as mentioned, the small arms fire vulnerability was there.

I played my buddy a lot who runs orks. So I am quite familiar with meting a lott of T8. Some armies handle in better then others, tyranids in particular does not like it. Wounding on 5s is so bad.

GSC and SW however is OK with it.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Personally back in the day I struggled to see how a T6 creature was supposed to be equivalent to AV13-14 battle tanks.

People these days complain that their tanks are vulnerable to light arms, back in the day Carnifexes were actually quite easy to kill with lasguns.

It was a trade off. The amount of punishment a carnifex took was still comparable to tanks.

But whereas a tank could literally be done over in a single lascannon or meltagun shot the carnifex could take multiple of those and keep going.
However, as mentioned, the small arms fire vulnerability was there.

Eh... kinda depends on the edition.

In 4th? sure, but in 5th vehicles were absurdly durable needing 5+ on pens to be destroyed.

 Grimskul wrote:
It seems like it and I'm glad they're finally making it exist besides largely limiting it to SHV and specific centerpiece units like Land Raiders. What I'm really hoping they do at the beginning of 10th edition is a potential stat reset. The fact that they are resorting to all these bespoke rules of Transhuman, -1D and D3+3 damage shows that they're struggling to make units worth the raw stats they have on their datasheet. The fact that GW didn't take advantage of the stat reset at the beginning of 8th was a great mistake since capping themselves at T8 and not changing a lot of the new units into a more wide spectrum of toughness and strength given the wounding table changes would have made it easier to distinguish 5 point models like grots and current 6 point models like Kroot.

100% with you on this. I'd love to see a stat reset instead of every army getting some variant of Transhuman. GW is pretty slow on changing sacred cows but I think they are testing the waters making Orks T5.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Because with those rules, at S7 (or S6) guns such as the Autocannon would halve the damage they do to vehicles and MCs (or worse if more than D2).

Not sure how what I wrote would lead to that.

Your first rule states Vehicles and MCs will only suffer damage 1 unless the weapon is high impact.
Your second rule states high impact weapons are S8+.
Autocannon currently is S7 damage 2.
Under your suggested rules, autocannons and similar weapons would be damage 1 against vehicles and MCs.

Poly Ranger wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Because with those rules, at S7 (or S6) guns such as the Autocannon would halve the damage they do to vehicles and MCs (or worse if more than D2).

Not sure how what I wrote would lead to that.

Your first rule states Vehicles and MCs will only suffer damage 1 unless the weapon is high impact.
Your second rule states high impact weapons are S8+.
Autocannon currently is S7 damage 2.
Under your suggested rules, autocannons and similar weapons would be damage 1 against vehicles and MCs.

The second rule is that S8+ weapons are High Impact-but it doesn’t say that ONLY those weapons are High Impact.

 Vineheart01 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
its kinda needed. Ever since Armor Values went away vehicles have been extremely squishy since they werent immune to small arms anymore

Completely untrue

In 6/7th weapons of S7+ were not common outside of melee. Units using them either cost an arm and a leg or were extremely fragile and easily disposed of.

Whaaaaaaaaaat!? Did we play the same 6/7th edition?

Rihgu wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
its kinda needed. Ever since Armor Values went away vehicles have been extremely squishy since they werent immune to small arms anymore

Completely untrue

In 6/7th weapons of S7+ were not common outside of melee. Units using them either cost an arm and a leg or were extremely fragile and easily disposed of.

Whaaaaaaaaaat!? Did we play the same 6/7th edition?

Agree on your 6/7.

Plasma spam, rifleman dreads and similar things were all over the place where I was playing. Only tradition kept me on melta for AV use. Mid-S multi shot stuff was the preferred way to kill tanks in the day.

Rihgu wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
its kinda needed. Ever since Armor Values went away vehicles have been extremely squishy since they werent immune to small arms anymore

Completely untrue

In 6/7th weapons of S7+ were not common outside of melee. Units using them either cost an arm and a leg or were extremely fragile and easily disposed of.

Whaaaaaaaaaat!? Did we play the same 6/7th edition?

Yeah I have no clue what the hell that poster is talking about LOL

It was kind of funny if you did something crazy like put a LR on the table. Sure, it was overpriced and underperformed, but you got to watch all the light weight rounds do nothing. Or more accurately murder the rest of your list while they figured out how to deal with it.

But that look as you plonked that brick on the table was worth it.

Counter-meta can be fun. Risky, but fun.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Your second rule states high impact weapons are S8+.

That's not actually what the rule says.

Ok, ok, ok. I'll stop playing with my food. I knew the mistake you were making from the first post you made, but I didn't want to jump the gun.

JNA (post below yours) got it.

High Impact is the rule the would let weapons do more than 1 Damage to units with the Vehicle/Monster keyword. S8 and higher weapons are always assumed to be High Impact, even if it is not stated in their rules. That doesn't preclude other weapons from having the High Impact rule. Autocannons and Missile Pods are two weapons that would absolutely have the High Impact rule as standard, as they should be taking out light(er) vehicles.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Your second rule states high impact weapons are S8+.

That's not actually what the rule says.

Ok, ok, ok. I'll stop playing with my food. I knew the mistake you were making from the first post you made, but I didn't want to jump the gun.

JNA (post below yours) got it.

High Impact is the rule the would let weapons do more than 1 Damage to units with the Vehicle/Monster keyword. S8 and higher weapons are always assumed to be High Impact, even if it is not stated in their rules. That doesn't preclude other weapons from having the High Impact rule. Autocannons and Missile Pods are two weapons that would absolutely have the High Impact rule as standard, as they should be taking out light(er) vehicles.

Fair, but aside from the heavy bolter, I can't think off the top of my head many weapons that are multi-damage that shouldn't be included as high-impact then. Over-charged Plasma, for example, needs to be considered high impact since you already pay a risk to use it and will gimp multiple armies or builds if it's not. Plus Lore wise it is often used to take down vehicles and MCs so it absolutely should keep the D2 against them.
Close combat weapons - if all Custodes weapons aren't considered high impact that faction would immediately be relegated. And what about x2 strength weapons for S3 factions such as a powerfist?
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there will be a fair few multi damage weapons that could be argued not to get it. But surely there are significantly more that would get it. The weapons it would therefore exclude aren't the real issue behind vehicle durability and it would be easier just to single out these few options that it would affect (rather than require many more to need an extra rule)?

Personally id like to see GW expand its keyword system into a more starcraft like approach (not that my knowledge of starcraft is anything more than superficial)

give units the standard keywords it has now (such as infantry, monster, vehicle, etc), and add things like biological, mechanical, light, armored, etc

weapons can be tied into the keyword system to get bonus's against their prefered targets. this would give far more balance levers to work with (could give more damage, ap, wound/hit roll modifiers, extra hits, etc) to its prefered targets whatever is needed.

would allow for weapons to do the job they are intended to do and not end up being unintentially great in other roles

Poly Ranger wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Your second rule states high impact weapons are S8+.

That's not actually what the rule says.

Ok, ok, ok. I'll stop playing with my food. I knew the mistake you were making from the first post you made, but I didn't want to jump the gun.

JNA (post below yours) got it.

High Impact is the rule the would let weapons do more than 1 Damage to units with the Vehicle/Monster keyword. S8 and higher weapons are always assumed to be High Impact, even if it is not stated in their rules. That doesn't preclude other weapons from having the High Impact rule. Autocannons and Missile Pods are two weapons that would absolutely have the High Impact rule as standard, as they should be taking out light(er) vehicles.

Fair, but aside from the heavy bolter, I can't think off the top of my head many weapons that are multi-damage that shouldn't be included as high-impact then. Over-charged Plasma, for example, needs to be considered high impact since you already pay a risk to use it and will gimp multiple armies or builds if it's not. Plus Lore wise it is often used to take down vehicles and MCs so it absolutely should keep the D2 against them.
Close combat weapons - if all Custodes weapons aren't considered high impact that faction would immediately be relegated. And what about x2 strength weapons for S3 factions such as a powerfist?
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there will be a fair few multi damage weapons that could be argued not to get it. But surely there are significantly more that would get it. The weapons it would therefore exclude aren't the real issue behind vehicle durability and it would be easier just to single out these few options that it would affect (rather than require many more to need an extra rule)?

In the marine range alone there are a number of D2 infantry rifles. The “heavy” sniper version a lot of the troops get, and the MC ones that characters get.

As for invalidating plasma as an AV pick, I’m good with that. Plasma is for killing elite/heavy infantry. It can put some hurt on light vehicles, but that’s not it’s job. And it has the rate of fire to do multiple wounds if needed and light vehicles don’t have a ton of those generally. Plasma has overshadowed the other options for far too long by just being good at everything.

Are there armies that rely on plasma? Or is it just the best option? Armies like SoB who are mostly locked into the holy trinity of flamer/bolter/melta can be very sensitive to changes to the few categories they have access to, but I don’t think anyone has that kind of relation to plasma. Even Dark Angels, where they lean into it, still have plenty of other options.

 Nevelon wrote:
It was kind of funny if you did something crazy like put a LR on the table. Sure, it was overpriced and underperformed, but you got to watch all the light weight rounds do nothing. Or more accurately murder the rest of your list while they figured out how to deal with it.

But that look as you plonked that brick on the table was worth it.

Counter-meta can be fun. Risky, but fun.

That's not Counter Meta though because armies packed both those mid Strength weapons and stuff that can just glance/haywire. Literally nobody was scared of AV14

 Nevelon wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Your second rule states high impact weapons are S8+.

That's not actually what the rule says.

Ok, ok, ok. I'll stop playing with my food. I knew the mistake you were making from the first post you made, but I didn't want to jump the gun.

JNA (post below yours) got it.

High Impact is the rule the would let weapons do more than 1 Damage to units with the Vehicle/Monster keyword. S8 and higher weapons are always assumed to be High Impact, even if it is not stated in their rules. That doesn't preclude other weapons from having the High Impact rule. Autocannons and Missile Pods are two weapons that would absolutely have the High Impact rule as standard, as they should be taking out light(er) vehicles.

Fair, but aside from the heavy bolter, I can't think off the top of my head many weapons that are multi-damage that shouldn't be included as high-impact then. Over-charged Plasma, for example, needs to be considered high impact since you already pay a risk to use it and will gimp multiple armies or builds if it's not. Plus Lore wise it is often used to take down vehicles and MCs so it absolutely should keep the D2 against them.
Close combat weapons - if all Custodes weapons aren't considered high impact that faction would immediately be relegated. And what about x2 strength weapons for S3 factions such as a powerfist?
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there will be a fair few multi damage weapons that could be argued not to get it. But surely there are significantly more that would get it. The weapons it would therefore exclude aren't the real issue behind vehicle durability and it would be easier just to single out these few options that it would affect (rather than require many more to need an extra rule)?

In the marine range alone there are a number of D2 infantry rifles. The “heavy” sniper version a lot of the troops get, and the MC ones that characters get.

As for invalidating plasma as an AV pick, I’m good with that. Plasma is for killing elite/heavy infantry. It can put some hurt on light vehicles, but that’s not it’s job. And it has the rate of fire to do multiple wounds if needed and light vehicles don’t have a ton of those generally. Plasma has overshadowed the other options for far too long by just being good at everything.

Are there armies that rely on plasma? Or is it just the best option? Armies like SoB who are mostly locked into the holy trinity of flamer/bolter/melta can be very sensitive to changes to the few categories they have access to, but I don’t think anyone has that kind of relation to plasma. Even Dark Angels, where they lean into it, still have plenty of other options.

Scions for one absolutely rely on plasma for AT (only 1 regiment does well with melts - it's a trap for all the other regiments).
Plasma already pays a risk cost for the increase in damage. It also already had this in place at the start of 8th before new D2 weapons started popping up. It was designed as anti heavy infantry and anti tank/monster - it has been in every edition and all the lore. Changing it to be cr*p against MCs and vehicles goes against all the history of the game and lore.
I would still argue that there will be far more weapons that deserve this 'high impact' rule than don't. So it would have to be added on to more weapons than the issue it solves. Plasma and autocannons were just two examples, what about Custodes - do they get gimped in combat too? Or do we have to apply this rule to the entirety of their ccw range (on top of every power fist and thunder hammer plus their equivalent special character versions and relics, let alone special cases that have unique weapons like SG - and that's just imperium)?
And let's face it - with the new Tau and Eldar weapon rules, it's not going to be a low strength D2 heavy rifle why vehicles and MCs will be struggling.

Over-charged Plasma is S8, so it'd be High Impact.

T8 is very bad for S6, S7

Poly Ranger wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
In the marine range alone there are a number of D2 infantry rifles. The “heavy” sniper version a lot of the troops get, and the MC ones that characters get.

As for invalidating plasma as an AV pick, I’m good with that. Plasma is for killing elite/heavy infantry. It can put some hurt on light vehicles, but that’s not it’s job. And it has the rate of fire to do multiple wounds if needed and light vehicles don’t have a ton of those generally. Plasma has overshadowed the other options for far too long by just being good at everything.

Are there armies that rely on plasma? Or is it just the best option? Armies like SoB who are mostly locked into the holy trinity of flamer/bolter/melta can be very sensitive to changes to the few categories they have access to, but I don’t think anyone has that kind of relation to plasma. Even Dark Angels, where they lean into it, still have plenty of other options.

Scions for one absolutely rely on plasma for AT (only 1 regiment does well with melts - it's a trap for all the other regiments).
Plasma already pays a risk cost for the increase in damage. It also already had this in place at the start of 8th before new D2 weapons started popping up. It was designed as anti heavy infantry and anti tank/monster - it has been in every edition and all the lore. Changing it to be cr*p against MCs and vehicles goes against all the history of the game and lore.
I would still argue that there will be far more weapons that deserve this 'high impact' rule than don't. So it would have to be added on to more weapons than the issue it solves. Plasma and autocannons were just two examples, what about Custodes - do they get gimped in combat too? Or do we have to apply this rule to the entirety of their ccw range (on top of every power fist and thunder hammer plus their equivalent special character versions and relics, let alone special cases that have unique weapons like SG - and that's just imperium)?
And let's face it - with the new Tau and Eldar weapon rules, it's not going to be a low strength D2 heavy rifle why vehicles and MCs will be struggling.

There is a limit to how much arguing I’m going to do about proposed rules, but I want to point out the disconnect between lore and mechanics.

Lore wise, plasma can do AV work. But when armor needs to be cracked open, you call in the meta gunners. Or lascannons. Monsters and tough infantry is what the plasma gun is there for.

But melta has historically sucked on the tabletop for a LONG time. When your 40k army needs AV to build a TAC list, you go with plasma. It works on tanks as well or better in a lot of cases, and is more flexible vs a lot of other things, better range, etc. The “risk” of plasma has always been worth it. Even before the re-roll saturated world of 8/9th. And yes, I’ve lost a lot of plasma gunners over the years. Still worth it.

The fact that only some sub-factions can make melta efficient in the current rules does not mean that it should not be the preferred anti-armor choice of a list. I think most people who have access to plasma also have access to melta. It’s not taken because it doesn’t have a job. Plasma stole it on the table, and has for years.

My concern with this rules change is that if you reduce the secondary anti-vehicle aspect of plasma (which it was performing better at than primary AV weapons) would there be armies that would have no recourse? If scions can take melta, they can just swap out a squad. I wasn’t sure if armies like skitari had other options besides just plasma spam. 40k is big enough these days I don’t know all the specifics of all the armies.

 Tyran wrote:
Personally back in the day I struggled to see how a T6 creature was supposed to be equivalent to AV13-14 battle tanks.

People these days complain that their tanks are vulnerable to light arms, back in the day Carnifexes were actually quite easy to kill with lasguns.

Personally I would have considered the old T6 monstrous creature as similar to AV11 or AV12. It was something more like the old wraithlord with its T8 I would consider equivalent to AV14.

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
T8 is very bad for S6, S7

Good?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
T8 is very bad for S6, S7

Good?

good for the one with T8
bad for the attacker

 Manchild 1984 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
T8 is very bad for S6, S7

Good?

good for the one with T8
bad for the attacker

That's the point. You should need anti-tank weapons to efficiently kill tanks. If you aren't using anti-tank weapons, then they should be bad at it.

But S3 Skitarii do just fine against T8... only the middle of the road units get hit.

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
But S3 Skitarii do just fine against T8... only the middle of the road units get hit.

They only do "fine" if you slap multiple buffs on them. Similar buffs can be applied to the "middle of the road units". But, I'd argue that buff stacking is something that needs to be cut back on considerably.