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.

Slipspace 805087 11370571 wrote:

For GK, there are a couple of options. You could easily justify making halberds a heavy power weapon (basically a PF) while the falchion and sword are just regular power weapons. Or make them all regular power weapons so the difference is purely aesthetic. This looks to be how CSM are going with the Accursed Weapon profile. Staffs could be either type, or be more of a defensive upgrade rather than offensive.

There's no reason why all these different types need to have different rules. There's also no reason this should only affect Imperial weapons. The designers should be looking to create archetypes for weapons so they fulfil a specific purpose, instead of worrying about how to differentiate between two swords of slightly different lengths. Incidentally, this is where USRs where really good, because you could have two weapons with identical profiles but add a single USR to one to modify it under certain conditions (make one slightly better against vehicles, for example).

Well the thing is the whole codex is build around GK having those different weapons in melee, and in return the heavy weapons squads have are rather bad. Aside of of being forced to remove weapons from model, which in case of my metal terminators would not be possible, it would be really wierd thing to do. Specialy if at the same time other non imperial armies are suppose to keep their different type of weapon, what most people seem to propose.
And long swords aren't slightly different lenght, they are 1/3 longer, try wrestling or box a guy who has 1/3 longer arms. It is not a slight difference. longer reach is a huge adventage, there is a reason why a pole arm weapon user can fight two sword user, unless they fight with something like a montante. But that is more or less a sword version of a spear it even has an additional grip in front of the guard to go stab mode.

To me this all sounds like people with armies that have ccw, fist and maybe sword weapons as only options for weapons trying to make armies that have more varity in their choices lose gear options, they don't care about, because their army don't have them. Can we lose transports or efficient heavy weapons in squads too, because I just decided they are unfun and too confusing to play with. Lets just have squads armed with basic weapons, and any special ammo or special kind of shot should be moved in to stratagems or core weapon rules.

Karol wrote:


Well the thing is the whole codex is build around GK having those different weapons in melee, and in return the heavy weapons squads have are rather bad.

But We're not talking about 'this' codex or the current incarnation of the game. Just because things are ^this way^ now doesn't mean it's the best way, the only way, the correct way, or that there aren't other approaches that can be considered.

People are talking about cutting down the categories of weapons as per earlier editions

And this might blow your mind but in earlier editions grey knights were not like their current incarnation and ^shock^ worked within the older framework of smaller categories of weapons just fine. Nemesis force weapons were s6 power weapons back in the day, as I recall. and for Sergeants and higher they were force weapons (and force weapons could be nasty)

Karol wrote:

Aside of of being forced to remove weapons from model, which in case of my metal terminators would not be possible, it would be really wierd thing to do. Specialy if at the same time other non imperial armies are suppose to keep their different type of weapon, what most people seem to propose.

Why would you need to remove weapons?

The whole point of this approach is the weapons modelled can have greater variety (grey knights with axes, clubs, blades etc for example...), but in rules terms these would simply be considered power weapons/fists etc like it was back in the day. In other words your models are perfectly fine...

And I'm pretty sure your grey knights aren't bring picked out in isolation. Your just hyper focused on them.

Karol wrote:

And long swords aren't slightly different lenght, they are 1/3 longer, try wrestling or box a guy who has 1/3 longer arms. It is not a slight difference. longer reach is a huge adventage, there is a reason why a pole arm weapon user can fight two sword user, unless they fight with something like a montante. But that is more or less a sword version of a spear it even has an additional grip in front of the guard to go stab mode.

'Abstraction', Karol. Go and look it up.

Karol wrote:


To me this all sounds like people with armies that have ccw, fist and maybe sword weapons as only options for weapons trying to make armies that have more varity in their choices lose gear options, they don't care about, because their army don't have them.

No it's just you, as usual, completely missing the point.

Karol wrote:

Can we lose transports or efficient heavy weapons in squads too, because I just decided they are unfun and too confusing to play with. Lets just have squads armed with basic weapons, and any special ammo or special kind of shot should be moved in to stratagems or core weapon rules.

Ill meet you half way. Having a million varieties of pseudo-variety isn't clever- there's no reason not to consolidate transports. That said we are not talking about eliminating options, just consolidating the excessive bloat like in previous versions of the game. Maybe do some research on older editions and how they worked to understand this pov.

And I'm all in board for basic weapons and limiting special ammo types.

Karol wrote:

Slipspace 805087 11370571 wrote:

For GK, there are a couple of options. You could easily justify making halberds a heavy power weapon (basically a PF) while the falchion and sword are just regular power weapons. Or make them all regular power weapons so the difference is purely aesthetic. This looks to be how CSM are going with the Accursed Weapon profile. Staffs could be either type, or be more of a defensive upgrade rather than offensive.

There's no reason why all these different types need to have different rules. There's also no reason this should only affect Imperial weapons. The designers should be looking to create archetypes for weapons so they fulfil a specific purpose, instead of worrying about how to differentiate between two swords of slightly different lengths. Incidentally, this is where USRs where really good, because you could have two weapons with identical profiles but add a single USR to one to modify it under certain conditions (make one slightly better against vehicles, for example).

Well the thing is the whole codex is build around GK having those different weapons in melee, and in return the heavy weapons squads have are rather bad. Aside of of being forced to remove weapons from model, which in case of my metal terminators would not be possible, it would be really wierd thing to do. Specialy if at the same time other non imperial armies are suppose to keep their different type of weapon, what most people seem to propose.
And long swords aren't slightly different lenght, they are 1/3 longer, try wrestling or box a guy who has 1/3 longer arms. It is not a slight difference. longer reach is a huge adventage, there is a reason why a pole arm weapon user can fight two sword user, unless they fight with something like a montante. But that is more or less a sword version of a spear it even has an additional grip in front of the guard to go stab mode.

To me this all sounds like people with armies that have ccw, fist and maybe sword weapons as only options for weapons trying to make armies that have more varity in their choices lose gear options, they don't care about, because their army don't have them. Can we lose transports or efficient heavy weapons in squads too, because I just decided they are unfun and too confusing to play with. Lets just have squads armed with basic weapons, and any special ammo or special kind of shot should be moved in to stratagems or core weapon rules.

Harliquins managed to put 4 melee weapons into 2 profiles and 3 stratagems. Is there a reason Grey Knights cannot put 5 melee weapons into 2 profiles and 4 stratagems?

It's not that hard a thought exercise since we already have a Warding Stave Stratagem (Zone of Warding). So give all the weapons except the Daemon Hammer the same weapon profile and add a stratagem each for Swords, Halberds, and Falchions.

Karol wrote:

Well the thing is the whole codex is build around GK having those different weapons in melee, and in return the heavy weapons squads have are rather bad. Aside of of being forced to remove weapons from model, which in case of my metal terminators would not be possible, it would be really wierd thing to do. Specialy if at the same time other non imperial armies are suppose to keep their different type of weapon, what most people seem to propose.

Why would you need to remove weapons? The whole point of this type of consolidation is you're much less likely to need to do that. GK are the perfect example of this benefit. Falchions were the best option in 8th but are not in 9th, so anyone who built around them in 8th would "need" to replace them when the new Codex came out. If the options were consolidated it wouldn't matter which choice you made or when you bought the models as the weapons would follow the same rules and the choice of which to put onto a model would be purely aesthetic.

I'm not arguing for this to only apply to Imperial armies either. In fact, we've already seen it happen to Haemonculi. I'd argue they went a little too far in that case, but in previous editions they've had a big list of weapons that all did more or less the same thing, leading to one choice just being better than the half-dozen others. I'd have preferred them to keep maybe 2-3 options and make them distinct, but the principle is fine for me.

Karol wrote:

And long swords aren't slightly different lenght, they are 1/3 longer, try wrestling or box a guy who has 1/3 longer arms. It is not a slight difference. longer reach is a huge adventage, there is a reason why a pole arm weapon user can fight two sword user, unless they fight with something like a montante. But that is more or less a sword version of a spear it even has an additional grip in front of the guard to go stab mode.

Just looking at various SM/CSM armies, we have units equipped with gladius, khopesh, longsword, scimitar and various other types of sword. Every one of those requires a different style. There comes a point where you need to decide what level of detail you need in a game of 40k's scale. I'm arguing the difference between a falchion and a longsword is simply not important enough to take into account at this sort of scale. If you think it is, where do you draw the line? The gladius used by a lot of UM units is a short sword too, should that get different rules to a power sword?

Karol wrote:
To me this all sounds like people with armies that have ccw, fist and maybe sword weapons as only options for weapons trying to make armies that have more varity in their choices lose gear options, they don't care about, because their army don't have them. Can we lose transports or efficient heavy weapons in squads too, because I just decided they are unfun and too confusing to play with.

I run many armies and my arguments are not being made with any one army in particular in mind. I'm purely talking about the game as a whole, regardless of how this might affect my own armies. This may shock you, but people are entirely capable of proposing ideas that they think will improve the game, even at the cost of losing some power from their own armies.

My arguments aren't about how fun something is. They're about how necessary a distinction they are within the context of the game, so your transport and heavy weapon examples are simply missing the point. You're welcome to argue for the removal of transports, if you can come up with a sensible reason why, but it seems you've missed the entire basis for the argument against multiple different types of close combat weapons.

Karol wrote:
Lets just have squads armed with basic weapons, and any special ammo or special kind of shot should be moved in to stratagems or core weapon rules.

Heavy and special weapons should still be a thing. I'm actually not aware of any special ammo or special shot other than DW bolters and missile launchers so I'm not really sure what you're getting at with this suggestion. I wouldn't be opposed, in principle, to moving those kind of things to core weapon rules or removing them entirely, depending on the specifics.

 alextroy wrote:
Harliquins managed to put 4 melee weapons into 2 profiles and 3 stratagems. Is there a reason Grey Knights cannot put 5 melee weapons into 2 profiles and 4 stratagems?

Just because something has been done stupidly once, doesn't mean we should encourage GW to do it stupidly again in the future.

After all, this was why people bitched about the 4th ed Dark Angels and Chaos books...

 Dysartes wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Harliquins managed to put 4 melee weapons into 2 profiles and 3 stratagems. Is there a reason Grey Knights cannot put 5 melee weapons into 2 profiles and 4 stratagems?

Just because something has been done stupidly once, doesn't mean we should encourage GW to do it stupidly again in the future.

After all, this was why people bitched about the 4th ed Dark Angels and Chaos books...

Wargear Stratagems are the way of the future

Love them or hate them, they have become more and more common. If they can be used to make the game simpler and faster, I say go with the flow.

Note that I would rather half the stratagems disappear with many incorporated into the unit datasheets, even in a limited use capacity. There is no reason for a stratagem used by 1 or 2 units to be separated from their datasheet.

My Wyches are hating this change so much.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
My Wyches are hating this change so much.

Yeah, as it is their loadout is a pain. 3 special melee weapons with different profiles, a 4th one on the leader and then the basic weapons on the remaining wyches means it takes forever to resolve their attacks without any tactical benefit. All the special weapons are kinda samey in fact, always have been but at least people could equip their squads with multiples of the same weapon. That's why I'd advocate for consolidating all those weapons into a single profile and adding a stratagem for the shardnet/impaler to lock enemy models in combat.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

If Boneswords are supposed to be the anti-heavy infantry option and Scything Talons the anti-chaff one, I'd expect the Talons to be at least 33-50% better against chaff- but start playing around with the values and you soon find that you have to get a boatload of extra attacks to actually make up for a reduction of S and AP. The game system just doesn't support differentiating weapons in this manner.

Sorry I haven't really been following the dialogue here in detail, but this statement didn't ring true to me so I took it up as a challenge.

Scything Talons proposal: S4, AP-1, D1 - doubles attacks
Boneswords proposal: S5 AP-3 D2

Scything Talons vs (calculations remove WS for brevity, also ignoring AoC for broader application and also because it's dumb )
MEQ: 6x .5 x .5 = 1.5
GEQ: 6x .666 x .83 = 3.3

Boneswords vs
MEQ: 3x .666 x .83 x 2 = 3.3
GEQ: 3x .666 = 1.998

So you get a pretty decent difference between targets for both of those outcomes. Once you leverage Damage, AP and S you can get reasonable amounts of differentiation. Is doubling attacks a boatload? I don't think it breaks the bank necessarily. (you could replace extra attacks with bonuses to hit or rerolls *bleh*) I don't know how it all plays with other rules, but 40K has too many other rules so I'll just leave it at that

I was looking at it from the perspective of how you would modify Talons to bring them up to the level of Boneswords. In order to get this differentiation between the two weapons, you've had to
-Give the Talons extra attacks
-Give the Boneswords extra AP
-Heavily nerf the strength of both weapons and the base profile (currently, Talons hit at S6, and Boneswords at S7, with Warriors being S5 base)
-Remove the extra attack from dual Boneswords

All that just to get the anti-chaff weapon to, against chaff, inflict 65% more damage. Would this be a better differentiation of roles than we currently have? Absolutely, and I'd actually really like for Boneswords to have low S so they're not better anti-tank weapons than Rending Claws (which we haven't even touched on yet!), but I think when you need one weapon to outright double your attacks and the other to have anti-tank levels of AP in order to clearly say that one is anti-chaff and the other is anti-MEQ, it highlights the limitations of the system.

Upgrade Sprues

 catbarf wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

If Boneswords are supposed to be the anti-heavy infantry option and Scything Talons the anti-chaff one, I'd expect the Talons to be at least 33-50% better against chaff- but start playing around with the values and you soon find that you have to get a boatload of extra attacks to actually make up for a reduction of S and AP. The game system just doesn't support differentiating weapons in this manner.

Sorry I haven't really been following the dialogue here in detail, but this statement didn't ring true to me so I took it up as a challenge.

Scything Talons proposal: S4, AP-1, D1 - doubles attacks
Boneswords proposal: S5 AP-3 D2

Scything Talons vs (calculations remove WS for brevity, also ignoring AoC for broader application and also because it's dumb )
MEQ: 6x .5 x .5 = 1.5
GEQ: 6x .666 x .83 = 3.3

Boneswords vs
MEQ: 3x .666 x .83 x 2 = 3.3
GEQ: 3x .666 = 1.998

So you get a pretty decent difference between targets for both of those outcomes. Once you leverage Damage, AP and S you can get reasonable amounts of differentiation. Is doubling attacks a boatload? I don't think it breaks the bank necessarily. (you could replace extra attacks with bonuses to hit or rerolls *bleh*) I don't know how it all plays with other rules, but 40K has too many other rules so I'll just leave it at that

I was looking at it from the perspective of how you would modify Talons to bring them up to the level of Boneswords. In order to get this differentiation between the two weapons, you've had to
-Give the Talons extra attacks
-Give the Boneswords extra AP
-Heavily nerf the strength of both weapons and the base profile (currently, Talons hit at S6, and Boneswords at S7, with Warriors being S5 base)
-Remove the extra attack from dual Boneswords

All that just to get the anti-chaff weapon to, against chaff, inflict 65% more damage. Would this be a better differentiation of roles than we currently have? Absolutely, and I'd actually really like for Boneswords to have low S so they're not better anti-tank weapons than Rending Claws (which we haven't even touched on yet!), but I think when you need one weapon to outright double your attacks and the other to have anti-tank levels of AP in order to clearly say that one is anti-chaff and the other is anti-MEQ, it highlights the limitations of the system.

If you don't mind me asking, what would be your proposed solution to this sort of problem? Not just boneswords/scything talons but the overall lack of meaningful specialisation for most weapons.

As in, do you think it can be fixed within the current system or would you prefer us moving back to AV values and the old version of AP?

It doesn't have to be specialization though; boneswords can be just straight-up better at the cost of more points. That in itself distinguishes them from one another. Maybe I am in the minority but I like having the option to pay extra for weapons that are simply better.

You can certainly have both - specialised weapons and straight upgrades.

vipoid wrote:If you don't mind me asking, what would be your proposed solution to this sort of problem? Not just boneswords/scything talons but the overall lack of meaningful specialisation for most weapons.

As in, do you think it can be fixed within the current system or would you prefer us moving back to AV values and the old version of AP?

I think it could be fixed if the weapons were really specialized in what benefits they provided, with more special abilities tied to weapons. Make power weapons give you bonus AP but nothing, nada, zip for S or Dam. Make chaff-clearing weapons give you bonus attacks, not re-roll 1s or a point of S. Make the big bruiser weapons always strike last, so you're taking a risk in return for that high damage.

NinthMusketeer wrote:It doesn't have to be specialization though; boneswords can be just straight-up better at the cost of more points. That in itself distinguishes them from one another. Maybe I am in the minority but I like having the option to pay extra for weapons that are simply better.

Sure, but where does that leave Rending Claws?

I mean, the reason I'm using Tyranids as an example is because they showcased both differentiation and upgrades- Boneswords were the best weapon overall (and the most costly), but there were still situations where Scything Talons or Rending Claws were better. Even if you had points to spare, it was worth considering what you were going to use the squad for.

I don't think there's anything wrong with having weapons that are just upgrades, like taking a power sword in lieu of a chainsword, but if your options always come down to taking X to stay cheap or taking Y to do damage then that's not a particularly deep choice.

There are many different ways they could keep the differentiation without one being necessarily the best. GW chooses not to.

 Blackie wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
My Wyches are hating this change so much.

Yeah, as it is their loadout is a pain. 3 special melee weapons with different profiles, a 4th one on the leader and then the basic weapons on the remaining wyches means it takes forever to resolve their attacks without any tactical benefit. All the special weapons are kinda samey in fact, always have been but at least people could equip their squads with multiples of the same weapon. That's why I'd advocate for consolidating all those weapons into a single profile and adding a stratagem for the shardnet/impaler to lock enemy models in combat.

Yeah, i used to just go 3 HGs in 1 unit and 3 Shardnets in another. Made it really easy, fun, and gave each unit a role. But now.... nope, just annoying now.

 catbarf wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

If Boneswords are supposed to be the anti-heavy infantry option and Scything Talons the anti-chaff one, I'd expect the Talons to be at least 33-50% better against chaff- but start playing around with the values and you soon find that you have to get a boatload of extra attacks to actually make up for a reduction of S and AP. The game system just doesn't support differentiating weapons in this manner.

Sorry I haven't really been following the dialogue here in detail, but this statement didn't ring true to me so I took it up as a challenge.

Scything Talons proposal: S4, AP-1, D1 - doubles attacks
Boneswords proposal: S5 AP-3 D2

Scything Talons vs (calculations remove WS for brevity, also ignoring AoC for broader application and also because it's dumb )
MEQ: 6x .5 x .5 = 1.5
GEQ: 6x .666 x .83 = 3.3

Boneswords vs
MEQ: 3x .666 x .83 x 2 = 3.3
GEQ: 3x .666 = 1.998

So you get a pretty decent difference between targets for both of those outcomes. Once you leverage Damage, AP and S you can get reasonable amounts of differentiation. Is doubling attacks a boatload? I don't think it breaks the bank necessarily. (you could replace extra attacks with bonuses to hit or rerolls *bleh*) I don't know how it all plays with other rules, but 40K has too many other rules so I'll just leave it at that

I was looking at it from the perspective of how you would modify Talons to bring them up to the level of Boneswords. In order to get this differentiation between the two weapons, you've had to
-Give the Talons extra attacks
-Give the Boneswords extra AP
-Heavily nerf the strength of both weapons and the base profile (currently, Talons hit at S6, and Boneswords at S7, with Warriors being S5 base)
-Remove the extra attack from dual Boneswords

All that just to get the anti-chaff weapon to, against chaff, inflict 65% more damage. Would this be a better differentiation of roles than we currently have? Absolutely, and I'd actually really like for Boneswords to have low S so they're not better anti-tank weapons than Rending Claws (which we haven't even touched on yet!), but I think when you need one weapon to outright double your attacks and the other to have anti-tank levels of AP in order to clearly say that one is anti-chaff and the other is anti-MEQ, it highlights the limitations of the system.

Yeah, I agree it's not elegant with the double attacks. But maybe double attacks is preferable to tacking on other rules like rerolls. The nice thing about the atracks is that it's still relying on modifying the base variables. Otherwise I found myself twiddling the S value to leverage differentiation on the to-wound roll.

Dropping the strength even more on BS could get you further, but thematically doesn't feel as good imo. The balance between designing for "role" vs. Designing for "flavor/cool" is tricky, though I suspect I may be a little more in the "flaver/cool" camp on this one, as long as each weapon isn't terrible for the points I'm ok.

I'll have to refresh myself on how earlier editions handled them. I don't recall.

Racerguy180 wrote:
There are many different ways they could keep the differentiation without one being necessarily the best. GW chooses not to.

People keep saying this but I've not seen any suggestions where there doesn't end up with a "best weapon", usually because people cook up a suggestion don't assign points to their suggestions.

Gw is just too chicken to actually give something a negative trait or anything other than a -1 to hit w PF...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You can certainly have both - specialised weapons and straight upgrades.

Yes, that was what I meant to convey (could have done better).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

NinthMusketeer wrote:It doesn't have to be specialization though; boneswords can be just straight-up better at the cost of more points. That in itself distinguishes them from one another. Maybe I am in the minority but I like having the option to pay extra for weapons that are simply better.

Sure, but where does that leave Rending Claws?

I mean, the reason I'm using Tyranids as an example is because they showcased both differentiation and upgrades- Boneswords were the best weapon overall (and the most costly), but there were still situations where Scything Talons or Rending Claws were better. Even if you had points to spare, it was worth considering what you were going to use the squad for.

I don't think there's anything wrong with having weapons that are just upgrades, like taking a power sword in lieu of a chainsword, but if your options always come down to taking X to stay cheap or taking Y to do damage then that's not a particularly deep choice.

I imagine something like this:
Scything Talons; no AP, D1, reroll 1s to hit, no points cost
Rending Claws; AP -1, D1, AP -4 on 6s to wound, no points cost
Bonesword(s); AP -2, D2, costs extra points

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I imagine something like this:
Scything Talons; no AP, D1, reroll 1s to hit, no points cost
Rending Claws; AP -1, D1, AP -4 on 6s to wound, no points cost
Bonesword(s); AP -2, D2, costs extra points

Well, to make a counter-proposal:
Scything Talons- no AP, D1, extra attack per pair, no cost
Rending Claws- AP-1, D1, on 6s to wound become AP-4 and Dam D6, low cost
Boneswords- AP-2, D2, low cost

That keeps Scything Talons as the budget option with a niche use case against chaff, while Boneswords and Rending Claws are specialized for anti-heavy-infantry and anti-vehicle respectively. I think that's more interesting than just going for Boneswords if you have the points every time.

On the standard A3/S5 Warrior profile, comparing a single pair of each weapon, the performance against MEQs (without AoC) then looks like:
STs- 0.59 dam
RCs- 1.11 dam
BSs- 1.78 dam

Against Cultists:
STs- 1.48 dam
RCs- 1.33 dam
BSs- 1.33 dam

Against T7/8 vehicles:
STs- 0.3 dam
RCs- 1.33 dam
BSs- 0.89 dam

(You'd still have to figure out how to handle Bonesword+Lash Whip, as Boneswords no longer grant extra attacks when taken in pairs, but there are a number of ways you could do that. Perhaps have the Warrior lose an attack in exchange for forcing the enemy to strike last)

Things is, if you have the points you could spend them on boneswords... or more models. Or heavy weapons, or upgrades on other units, they don't exist in a vacuum. But d6 damage? WAY too swingy; a min squad of warriors could one-shot a tank with good rolls!

And therein lies the problem. The only characteristic that separates anti-tank weapons from anti-heavy-infantry weapons is high damage, particularly randomized damage that will tend to overkill infantry but can occasionally roll a 1 and get soaked by a multi-wound infantry model instead of killing it outright. D6 damage on 6s is the best I can come up with for making a weapon specifically anti-vehicle in contrast to the flat D2 of Boneswords.

Though a swingy ability where rolling a few lucky 6s lets you eat a tank would be spot-on for how the old Rending rule worked.

 catbarf wrote:
And therein lies the problem. The only characteristic that separates anti-tank weapons from anti-heavy-infantry weapons is high damage, particularly randomized damage that will tend to overkill infantry but can occasionally roll a 1 and get soaked by a multi-wound infantry model instead of killing it outright. D6 damage on 6s is the best I can come up with for making a weapon specifically anti-vehicle in contrast to the flat D2 of Boneswords.

Though a swingy ability where rolling a few lucky 6s lets you eat a tank would be spot-on for how the old Rending rule worked.

It's not like the game has any grounding in thematic sense anymore. You could just give a weapon a rule that specifically does more damage to weapons and less to infantry.

e.g Lascannon stats stats stats Dmg d3/+3 if target has Vehicle keyword.

Epic Armageddon had cool unit/weapon interactions so that you needed AT weapons to shoot tanks and AI weapons to shoot infantry, and Macro weapons to shoot both (or be a light vehicle).

 Sim-Life wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
And therein lies the problem. The only characteristic that separates anti-tank weapons from anti-heavy-infantry weapons is high damage, particularly randomized damage that will tend to overkill infantry but can occasionally roll a 1 and get soaked by a multi-wound infantry model instead of killing it outright. D6 damage on 6s is the best I can come up with for making a weapon specifically anti-vehicle in contrast to the flat D2 of Boneswords.

Though a swingy ability where rolling a few lucky 6s lets you eat a tank would be spot-on for how the old Rending rule worked.

It's not like the game has any grounding in thematic sense anymore. You could just give a weapon a rule that specifically does more damage to weapons and less to infantry.

e.g Lascannon stats stats stats Dmg d3/+3 if target has Vehicle keyword.

You mean how a lascannon would instant death anything T4 or less and could pen a vehicle?
Or like when that same lascannon hit a Centurion and absolutely didn't kill it, but could certainly have had the chance to kill a tank?

The game is no less thematically linked than it used to be. If anything the outcomes are more grounded in profiles that reflect the real durability of models.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
And therein lies the problem. The only characteristic that separates anti-tank weapons from anti-heavy-infantry weapons is high damage, particularly randomized damage that will tend to overkill infantry but can occasionally roll a 1 and get soaked by a multi-wound infantry model instead of killing it outright. D6 damage on 6s is the best I can come up with for making a weapon specifically anti-vehicle in contrast to the flat D2 of Boneswords.

Though a swingy ability where rolling a few lucky 6s lets you eat a tank would be spot-on for how the old Rending rule worked.

Why is it necessary to have a distinction of weapons used against tanks as opposed to heavy infantry?

Because half of the factions in the game consist of heavy infantry. making an army which can spam efficient anti tank automaticly favourable in half, or more the match ups. On top of that if the weapons are multi shot and/or easy to spam, they become a good choice vs non heavy infantry too. Or at least a good enough option. Such a set up creates 8th ed where plasma is king, and running sm and csm in a sm or csm army makes no sense at all.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
And therein lies the problem. The only characteristic that separates anti-tank weapons from anti-heavy-infantry weapons is high damage, particularly randomized damage that will tend to overkill infantry but can occasionally roll a 1 and get soaked by a multi-wound infantry model instead of killing it outright. D6 damage on 6s is the best I can come up with for making a weapon specifically anti-vehicle in contrast to the flat D2 of Boneswords.

Though a swingy ability where rolling a few lucky 6s lets you eat a tank would be spot-on for how the old Rending rule worked.

Why is it necessary to have a distinction of weapons used against tanks as opposed to heavy infantry?

It's not 'necessary' to have that distinction. It's not necessary to have any distinctions between weapons. We can freely declare that any weapon rolls a single die and on a 4+, the target model is removed from the table.

Sorry to snark but have you been following the conversation at all? The point is that the current rules don't support the functional niches that used to exist and forced decisions about unit role. Boneswords and Rending Claws used to be very straightforwardly distinguished as anti-heavy-infantry (Instant Death) and anti-vehicle (Rending) respectively; now it is simply the bland choice between a good weapon and a bad one. This is a single illustrative example of a broader trend, even if you don't feel that the decision between being able to instagib Terminators or being able to crack open a Land Raider was particularly 'necessary'.

Yea I just don't think the actual application of these differences were as stark as you suggest. It mattered more for a Tyrant than it did for Warriors.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You mean how a lascannon would instant death anything T4 or less and could pen a vehicle?
Or like when that same lascannon hit a Centurion and absolutely didn't kill it, but could certainly have had the chance to kill a tank?

The game is no less thematically linked than it used to be. If anything the outcomes are more grounded in profiles that reflect the real durability of models.

Again you present previous problems as a reason why current problems cannot ever be solved.