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.

 Hellebore wrote:

In 2-5 ed, 1 pf attack could kill a land raider.

The lethality of a pf has dropped substantially BEFORE 10th, ever since they gave vehicles structure points and then Wounds.

The 10th ed pf is in the same lethality range as an 8-9 ed pf, more like a 6-7 Ed pf and nothing like 2-5 Ed pf.

I find it weird that this is the issue people are obsessing over. The difference between an 8th Ed index pf with 1d3 damage -3ap and the 10th ed 2d -3ap is pretty minor.

Its worth pointing out that the 10th ed PF has dropped to -2AP not -3 as it was before, and although it has stayed the same strength, the Toughness has gone up on all the vehicles previewed, For example the Rhino has gone from T7 to T9, changing the wound roll for the PF to a 5+ instead of a 3+, combined with the drop in AP it makes a significant change to how much damage a PF can expect to put into a vehicle.

The days you could charge a single Power Fist into a Rhino and destroy it died when we entered 8th Edition. It getting worst in 10th is not much of a surprise give they said they are reducing lethality and improving vehicle resilience. I hope they didn't overcompensate and make the true anti-tank weapons too feeble against vehicles.

 Hellebore wrote:

In 2-5 ed, 1 pf attack could kill a land raider.

The lethality of a pf has dropped substantially BEFORE 10th, ever since they gave vehicles structure points and then Wounds.

The 10th ed pf is in the same lethality range as an 8-9 ed pf, more like a 6-7 Ed pf and nothing like 2-5 Ed pf.

I find it weird that this is the issue people are obsessing over. The difference between an 8th Ed index pf with 1d3 damage -3ap and the 10th ed 2d -3ap is pretty minor.

So back then if the tank moved .01" it would only be hit on 4+.

2 * .5 * .167 * .167 = 0.03

That means you'd need 66 pf swings to score a destroyed on average.

If you pull off all the guns and immobilize you'd need something like 15 to 20.

That's 10 termies back then.

Do the math for 10 termies on whatever with OoM on, because that's the system you're balancing in.

10 Termis are 30 attacks (if Sarge can get a Fist-assuming yes for ease of math)
2+ rerolling to hit is 175/6 hits
5+ rerolling to wound is 875/54 wounds
Saving on a 5+ is 1750/162 failed saves
20-22 damage

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breton wrote:

I'm saying the "top dog" of each army should (usually) be able to go toe to toe in some form with the "top dog" of any other army.

So like, my IG or Tau commander should be able to go toe to toe with a Custodes Captain?

Yeah, no. F that.

"In some form". I'm not saying Commander Shadowsun should be able to outpunch Marneus Calgar, but I do think they should be able to (maybe/as an example) outshoot him by about as much as Calgar can outpunch him (adjusting for the ease/frequency of shooting over melee)

A Daemon Prince should best a Marine Captain, a Greater Daemon should best a Daemon Prince, an Avatar should be roughly on par with a Greater Daemon. The Nightbringer should be up there too, and that tier should be chopping Chapter Masters in half.

Factions should be different. Part of that means not being equal in the "beatstick" category.

Where did I say beastick?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Afrodactyl wrote:

Breton wrote:


Oh my lord is this going to suck.

What makes you say that?

Because it sounds like we're either going to be playing checkers with chess pieces, or they're going to spend most of the next two years throwing things against the wall trying to rebalance everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:


Unless he likes to spam troops. Who of course should be able to go toe to toe with best elites 1=1. 1 grot should be able to fight terminator of course.

Because 500 points of Grots vs 500 points of Knights is 1:1. If you're going to lie, could you do it better?

As oc helps elite troops over troops compared to now no wonder he complains. Can't just spam cheap troops to win(cheap yet be just as good in fight as elite)

Again, if you're going to lie could you do it better? I've made several posts pointing out that ObSec needed a rework, and things that didn't have ObSec either should have it or should have some sort of cancellation effect to alter the ObSec subgame thing. But you lie you.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:

I'm saying the "top dog" of each army should (usually) be able to go toe to toe in some form with the "top dog" of any other army.
[/quote

Okay. Have you noticed captains are way cheaper(like half) of stuff like gd's?

You just admitted being so hilariously bad player you admit needing ridictulously op units to have a stand

Good job!

Have you ever considered you might be more honest if your shorts weren't in a twist?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
"A Grot should be able to go against Mortarion in some form because the Grot is the leader of the Grot army" is such a weird take on the game.

And on the flipside of that, it's such a weird take on the game to feel that something should be entirely unable to do something because of a bad match-up.

That's where we used to be. Nobody's asking for Mabari to be able to one-shot Mortarion or whatever goofy argument you're putting forward here to strawman against.

Also who says Makari is the top dog in a Grot list? Warlord and "Top Dog" are not always the same.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breton wrote:

I'm saying the "top dog" of each army should (usually) be able to go toe to toe in some form with the "top dog" of any other army.

So like, my IG or Tau commander should be able to go toe to toe with a Custodes Captain?

Yeah, no. F that.

A Daemon Prince should best a Marine Captain, a Greater Daemon should best a Daemon Prince, an Avatar should be roughly on par with a Greater Daemon. The Nightbringer should be up there too, and that tier should be chopping Chapter Masters in half.

Factions should be different. Part of that means not being equal in the "beatstick" category.

Then we need more categories for characters to fulfill and more diverse loadouts.

It's daft that people think Guard Commanders should just explode when engaged in combat, especially considering they insist on giving them "beatstick" loadouts or piddly peashooters like a boltgun on a T3 platform. Tau at least get the ability to load up on more specialized weapons on their Battlesuited Commanders.

Besides which, I'd probably lean toward the Stormsurge for "Top Dog" status - though the Commander in Suit should have some give and take with a SM Cap shoot vs punch as I said above.

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breton wrote:

I'm saying the "top dog" of each army should (usually) be able to go toe to toe in some form with the "top dog" of any other army.

So like, my IG or Tau commander should be able to go toe to toe with a Custodes Captain?

Yeah, no. F that.

"In some form". I'm not saying Commander Shadowsun should be able to outpunch Marneus Calgar, but I do think they should be able to (maybe/as an example) outshoot him by about as much as Calgar can outpunch him (adjusting for the ease/frequency of shooting over melee)

Shadowsun would be her, not him.

Breton wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:

Breton wrote:


Oh my lord is this going to suck.

What makes you say that?

Because it sounds like we're either going to be playing checkers with chess pieces, or they're going to spend most of the next two years throwing things against the wall trying to rebalance everything

To expand on this - look at the vehicle rules that were "Part 1" of this rules teaser leak.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/13/vehicles-are-even-tougher-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

The Rhino Tank is shows as T9 W10, while the Primaris ___Strike Speeder is T9, W11, the Gladiator is T10, W12, and the Repulsor is T12 W16.

The Rhino is a tank, but "less" than a speeder which are usually portrayed as more fragile than a tank. Assuming they keep the same Chassis/Statblock paradigm from previous editions the Implusor is also T10 W12 - ergo also more than the Rhino Tank - and also bad news for Predators, Whirlwinds/etc. - Additionally the durability difference between the ____Strike Speeder, and the Gladiator ____ is unlikely to be enough to overcome any terrain difficulties the non-flying hover tank will run into (unless they restore Hover flight, or in some other way clear the path for vehicles)

Knee Jerk reaction to Twin Linking Aggressors (And potentially others - but Aggressors were the only one specifically listed) feels painful. Taking a breath to analyze maybe not. Depends on Points afterwards. I suspect they're being pushed onto the shelf in order to sell new Terminators. But don't be surprised to see Terminators and Stormbolters in general turn into a Twin Linked Bolter. Apply this same paradigm to double Boneswords/Scything Claws/Lightning Claws/and so on. GW isn't good at trickle-down balancing. They rarely go to a second order cause/effect check i.e. First Order: Lethality is too high, so Stormbolters/etc are now twin linked that make half the shots better. Second Order is that now all the high priced stuff with stormbolters/twinlinked talons/whatever they applied the first order to are now putting out half the offense for the same price.

I'm also worried about what they're going to do with Bolter Drill flavor now that bolters are Assault And/Or Heavy but not Rapid Fire.

We aleady know that Terminators have rapid fire 2 stormbolters.

Breton wrote:

I'm also worried about what they're going to do with Bolter Drill flavor now that bolters are Assault And/Or Heavy but not Rapid Fire.

It looks like it may be gone as the stats they showed off for the Bolt Rifle basically make them do what Bolter Drill used to. If that's the case, I think it's an elegant solution - replacing a special rule with just the basic weapon rules.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
We aleady know that Terminators have rapid fire 2 stormbolters.

indeed. it will be intresting to see if Chaos and relic terminators with combi-bolters turn back to being twin linked bolters, or remain storm bolters with another name.

Slipspace wrote:

Breton wrote:

I'm also worried about what they're going to do with Bolter Drill flavor now that bolters are Assault And/Or Heavy but not Rapid Fire.

It looks like it may be gone as the stats they showed off for the Bolt Rifle basically make them do what Bolter Drill used to. If that's the case, I think it's an elegant solution - replacing a special rule with just the basic weapon rules.

That's 10th in a nutshell, it seems.

"Instead of And They Shall No Know Fear, why not just give Marines a really good Leadership stat?"

"Instead of Bolter Discipline, why not just build the rules into the weapon profile?"

The story of Rhinos and Powerfists is more about how Rhino resilience has risen over time. To a degree this is a problem - because it means the Metal Bawkses have to become more expensive.

You probably wouldn't want a scenario where say Rhino's were 35 points, and you could use 10 of them to set up car parks across large parts of the board (while still retaining most of your army). Your opponent would have to spend all game trying to cut through 100 T9 3+ wounds (that regenerate).

But equally - as we've seen - if Rhinos (or Trukks etc) are expensive then its harder to justify them in lists. You'd rather bring a second unit than let one go a bit faster on the first turn.

Breton wrote:
I'm also worried about what they're going to do with Bolter Drill flavor now that bolters are Assault And/Or Heavy but not Rapid Fire.

I don't understand what flavour bolter drill delivered. That Space Marines are a static force? It seems to me it was wholly inappropriate rule for them. Space Marines are the defensive faction of the 40k video game Gladius, they don't have large numbers so they rely on their fortresses to hold the line, while the Space Marines themselves can move to where they are most needed, this works super well. But just making Tactical Squads shoot twice when they remain stationary is probably the most stupid change of 8th. I think Combat/Super Doctrines was a better idea, even if the execution was unbalanced.

 vict0988 wrote:

Breton wrote:
I'm also worried about what they're going to do with Bolter Drill flavor now that bolters are Assault And/Or Heavy but not Rapid Fire.

I don't understand what flavour bolter drill delivered. That Space Marines are a static force? It seems to me it was wholly inappropriate rule for them. Space Marines are the defensive faction of the 40k video game Gladius, they don't have large numbers so they rely on their fortresses to hold the line, while the Space Marines themselves can move to where they are most needed, this works super well. But just making Tactical Squads shoot twice when they remain stationary is probably the most stupid change of 8th. I think Combat/Super Doctrines was a better idea, even if the execution was unbalanced.

That was not what Bolter Drill did (in Ninth) - or at least not the limit:

Original Rule
"Tactical Squad" (likely sitting on an objective) double taps while defending.
Termies and Bikes (used to be more, but the list was whittled as units on that list caught a nerf-bat) just plain double tapped to assist their more assaulty roles.

Breton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Breton wrote:
I'm also worried about what they're going to do with Bolter Drill flavor now that bolters are Assault And/Or Heavy but not Rapid Fire.

I don't understand what flavour bolter drill delivered. That Space Marines are a static force? It seems to me it was wholly inappropriate rule for them. Space Marines are the defensive faction of the 40k video game Gladius, they don't have large numbers so they rely on their fortresses to hold the line, while the Space Marines themselves can move to where they are most needed, this works super well. But just making Tactical Squads shoot twice when they remain stationary is probably the most stupid change of 8th. I think Combat/Super Doctrines was a better idea, even if the execution was unbalanced.

That was not what Bolter Drill did (in Ninth) - or at least not the limit:

Original Rule
"Tactical Squad" (likely sitting on an objective) double taps while defending.
Termies and Bikes (used to be more, but the list was whittled as units on that list caught a nerf-bat) just plain double tapped to assist their more assaulty roles.

Why should vehicles, Termies and Bikes get to double tap at more than half range? I've only played a few games with SM in 8th and it's been a good while since I read a lot of SM fluff so I'm sorry if this is obvious to an SM player or someone with a better memory of all the fluff but I don't get it.

 vict0988 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Breton wrote:
I'm also worried about what they're going to do with Bolter Drill flavor now that bolters are Assault And/Or Heavy but not Rapid Fire.

I don't understand what flavour bolter drill delivered. That Space Marines are a static force? It seems to me it was wholly inappropriate rule for them. Space Marines are the defensive faction of the 40k video game Gladius, they don't have large numbers so they rely on their fortresses to hold the line, while the Space Marines themselves can move to where they are most needed, this works super well. But just making Tactical Squads shoot twice when they remain stationary is probably the most stupid change of 8th. I think Combat/Super Doctrines was a better idea, even if the execution was unbalanced.

That was not what Bolter Drill did (in Ninth) - or at least not the limit:

Original Rule
"Tactical Squad" (likely sitting on an objective) double taps while defending.
Termies and Bikes (used to be more, but the list was whittled as units on that list caught a nerf-bat) just plain double tapped to assist their more assaulty roles.

Why should vehicles, Termies and Bikes get to double tap at more than half range? I've only played a few games with SM in 8th and it's been a good while since I read a lot of SM fluff so I'm sorry if this is obvious to an SM player or someone with a better memory of all the fluff but I don't get it.

I don't really remember vehicles (except Dreads - and I could be wrong vehicles were pretty bad and didn't get a lot of play) along with Cents which flows in the same way Termies do - implacable inexorable advance, covering fire until the fist of death is in range kind of thing. Plus the whole Marines sleep with their bolters under their pillows fluff thing.

Plus what we have now (at least so far) is that the Stalker Bolt Rifle is gone so no D2 sniper bolt rifle you might see in a Ravenguard theme, "they" all get 2 24" shots, and if you stand still you get +1 to hit which isn't going to push Marines to move. I suspect at best you'll see the "Tactical Squad" move, then Assault Move - but AWAY from the enemy - to get on a different objective while still tagging the enemy unit from 24" away. Especially if Sticky Capping makes the jump.

Breton wrote:

Because it sounds like we're either going to be playing checkers with chess pieces, or they're going to spend most of the next two years throwing things against the wall trying to rebalance everything

To expand on this - look at the vehicle rules that were "Part 1" of this rules teaser leak.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/13/vehicles-are-even-tougher-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

The Rhino Tank is shows as T9 W10, while the Primaris ___Strike Speeder is T9, W11, the Gladiator is T10, W12, and the Repulsor is T12 W16.

The Rhino is a tank, but "less" than a speeder which are usually portrayed as more fragile than a tank. Assuming they keep the same Chassis/Statblock paradigm from previous editions the Implusor is also T10 W12 - ergo also more than the Rhino Tank - and also bad news for Predators, Whirlwinds/etc. - Additionally the durability difference between the ____Strike Speeder, and the Gladiator ____ is unlikely to be enough to overcome any terrain difficulties the non-flying hover tank will run into (unless they restore Hover flight, or in some other way clear the path for vehicles)

What are you on about? Why is it bad for Predators? If Rhinos are T9 and meltas have a harder time wounding them and Predator winds up being T9 then it, too, is more durable than before.

Why are you assuming Impulsors are T10? They're T7 now. But even if they are the Rhino presumably allows 2 "units" to shoot out with a traditional capacity of 10 where the Impulsors capacity is 6. I'm guessing you're concerned that Predators won't be T10 and that the Impulsor will be tougher than them?

And the gladiator is worse, because it can't fly, even if it's tougher? Is that what you're trying to say?

Knee Jerk reaction to Twin Linking Aggressors (And potentially others - but Aggressors were the only one specifically listed) feels painful. Taking a breath to analyze maybe not. Depends on Points afterwards. I suspect they're being pushed onto the shelf in order to sell new Terminators. But don't be surprised to see Terminators and Stormbolters in general turn into a Twin Linked Bolter. Apply this same paradigm to double Boneswords/Scything Claws/Lightning Claws/and so on. GW isn't good at trickle-down balancing. They rarely go to a second order cause/effect check i.e. First Order: Lethality is too high, so Stormbolters/etc are now twin linked that make half the shots better. Second Order is that now all the high priced stuff with stormbolters/twinlinked talons/whatever they applied the first order to are now putting out half the offense for the same price.

I'm also worried about what they're going to do with Bolter Drill flavor now that bolters are Assault And/Or Heavy but not Rapid Fire.

The Aggressor datasheet isn't even fully revealed and you want to claim it's to sell the new Terminators. We don't even have the stats for their frag launcher, but ignoring that -- Aggressors get 3 shots to 18" with wound rerolls. Terminators get 2 to 24" or 4 to 12" with no rerolls. Aggressors get 3 swings at 4+ but with wound rerolls. Terminators get 3 swings at 3+, but no rerolls. Then throw in the Frag Launchers and whatever ability they get.

And, yes, it still comes down to points. Aggressors are more consistent in damage than Terminators, but Terminators are more durable and have heavy options.

they're going to spend most of the next two years throwing things against the wall

I think rather what's happening here is you're making up stuff, throwing it against a wall, and using that to justify whatever misplaced angst it is you wish to have.

This whole thing feels like a 'Primaris units are better and I hate it' using made up evidence until you get to Terminators, which you assume must be getting pushed, because they're new.

So far the only thing I've seen that gives me question is that the melta weapon shown didn't have any bonuses against vehicles and had S9 I think.

Now if we assume it's higher than normal because primaris and they have to get the best stuff, which is evident by the bolt rifle shown being better than normal because I guarantee that the regular bolt is not going to be that good, doesn't that remove the benefit of melta weapons as being anti-tank?

I'm fine with them making small arms less effective against vehicles as long as they understand and remember the entire reason they changed that design in the first place was because it was almost impossible to actually wound vehicles unless you brought dedicated anti-tank. So either they're going to remember that or they're just going to backtrack to how things were years ago and have to change it again later showing they are absolute morons and have learned nothing.

Breton wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:

Breton wrote:


Oh my lord is this going to suck.

What makes you say that?

Because it sounds like we're either going to be playing checkers with chess pieces, or they're going to spend most of the next two years throwing things against the wall trying to rebalance everything

To expand on this - look at the vehicle rules that were "Part 1" of this rules teaser leak.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/13/vehicles-are-even-tougher-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

The Rhino Tank is shows as T9 W10, while the Primaris ___Strike Speeder is T9, W11, the Gladiator is T10, W12, and the Repulsor is T12 W16.

The Rhino is a tank, but "less" than a speeder which are usually portrayed as more fragile than a tank. Assuming they keep the same Chassis/Statblock paradigm from previous editions the Implusor is also T10 W12 - ergo also more than the Rhino Tank - and also bad news for Predators, Whirlwinds/etc. - Additionally the durability difference between the ____Strike Speeder, and the Gladiator ____ is unlikely to be enough to overcome any terrain difficulties the non-flying hover tank will run into (unless they restore Hover flight, or in some other way clear the path for vehicles)

The Primaris Hover Vehicles have always been an oddity in being more or as resilient as their tracked counterparts. But we have learned that:

Rhino: T 7, W 10, Sv 3+ has become T9, W 10, Sv 3+

Storm Speeder: T 6, W 10, Sv 3+ has become T9, W 11, Sv 3+

Gladiator: T 8, W 12, Sv 3+ has become T10, W 12, Sv 3+

Repulsor: T 8, W 16, Sv 3+ has become T12, W 16, Sv 3+

Takaways are minimum Toughness of vehicles is up and the range of Toughness values has been spreed out. Hopefully the increased Toughness place on Predators and Land Raiders will continue into 10 Edition. The Predator and Vindicator were historically tougher than a Rhino.

Knee Jerk reaction to Twin Linking Aggressors (And potentially others - but Aggressors were the only one specifically listed) feels painful. Taking a breath to analyze maybe not. Depends on Points afterwards. I suspect they're being pushed onto the shelf in order to sell new Terminators. But don't be surprised to see Terminators and Stormbolters in general turn into a Twin Linked Bolter. Apply this same paradigm to double Boneswords/Scything Claws/Lightning Claws/and so on. GW isn't good at trickle-down balancing. They rarely go to a second order cause/effect check i.e. First Order: Lethality is too high, so Stormbolters/etc are now twin linked that make half the shots better. Second Order is that now all the high priced stuff with stormbolters/twinlinked talons/whatever they applied the first order to are now putting out half the offense for the same price.

As other have pointed out Stormbolters are Rapid Fire 2 per the Terminator datasheet. It is unclear when they will apply Twin-Linked as opposed to other rules. In Killteam, they applied more attack dice to paired weapons compared to their single weapon counterparts. The new weapon rules give them that simple option, but they also have the option to Twin-Link if they like. I hope they use restraint since they are supposed to be handing out less re-rolls in 10th.

I'm also worried about what they're going to do with Bolter Drill flavor now that bolters are Assault And/Or Heavy but not Rapid Fire.

Again, Bolter Drill has been rolled into the Bolt Rifle. They managed to imperfectly, but interestingly put three weapons and a unit ability into one weapon profile. I know we are all used to the current Rapid Fire vs Assault 3 vs Heavy 1 with more damage/AP, but go back to the beginning. My imperfect memory says we started back in 8th with Auto Bolt Rifles being Assault 2 24" (no AP?) and Stalkers being Heavy 1 36" with only 1 damage (maybe AP -2?). We then went through various iterations in an attempt to make all three attractive. Now we have one weapon that provides flavor of them all. You have Assault of the Autobolt Rifle, always 2 attacks for Bolter Drill, AP -1 for the Bolt Rifle, and Heavy for the Stalkers (more accurate when not moving rather than more range). Cutting back the range to 24" is a way of reducing lethality by limiting engagement range. Bolt Rifles no longer reach beyond the classic 24" No Mans Land! I have to say I am rather happy with this and am interested to see what other interesting things they do with weapons in 10th.

Wayniac wrote:
So far the only thing I've seen that gives me question is that the melta weapon shown didn't have any bonuses against vehicles and had S9 I think.

Melta's bonus is right there.

Personally? I'm fine with it not being vehicles only. Melta is supposed to be used for bunker-busting, vehicle hunting, and monster hunting. Makes sense that the bonus isn't restricted to just vehicles.

Haywire would finally have a real place to exist if it's treated as such.

As long as all man-portable Metlas are Strength 9, we should be fine.

Now Haywire, I can see it now: Haywire [Anti-Vehicle 4+, Devastating]. Any Wound Roll against a Vehicle of 4+ is a Critical Hit, which Devastating turns into Mortal Wounds! The Entire rule is turned into 2 USRs.

Wayniac wrote:
I'm fine with them making small arms less effective against vehicles as long as they understand and remember the entire reason they changed that design in the first place was because it was almost impossible to actually wound vehicles unless you brought dedicated anti-tank.

If you don't bring anti-tank weapons, you should have problems when facing tanks and/or monsters...

 Dysartes wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I'm fine with them making small arms less effective against vehicles as long as they understand and remember the entire reason they changed that design in the first place was because it was almost impossible to actually wound vehicles unless you brought dedicated anti-tank.

If you don't bring anti-tank weapons, you should have problems when facing tanks and/or monsters...

Whilst I agree, it's also not fun if you literally can't stop them because you invested ~25% of your force into anti armour as a TAC list, which has been annihilated already, but likewise of you take more than hordes just laugh at you. Ofc this is a problem that was more exacerbated at 1500 in old editions.

Wayniac wrote:
So far the only thing I've seen that gives me question is that the melta weapon shown didn't have any bonuses against vehicles and had S9 I think.

Now if we assume it's higher than normal because primaris and they have to get the best stuff, which is evident by the bolt rifle shown being better than normal because I guarantee that the regular bolt is not going to be that good, doesn't that remove the benefit of melta weapons as being anti-tank?

I'm fine with them making small arms less effective against vehicles as long as they understand and remember the entire reason they changed that design in the first place was because it was almost impossible to actually wound vehicles unless you brought dedicated anti-tank. So either they're going to remember that or they're just going to backtrack to how things were years ago and have to change it again later showing they are absolute morons and have learned nothing.

They made the 8th/9th because of IGOUGO which skew the game in favor of the starting player who can strategically cripple your army on turn 1.

Making infantry more capable at killing tanks was a way to go around that gameplay problem.

One thing they still haven't learned is that IGOUGO needs to be abandoned, alongside rerolls of any kind, to give proper space to strategic decision.

Breton wrote:
I don't really remember vehicles (except Dreads - and I could be wrong vehicles were pretty bad and didn't get a lot of play) along with Cents which flows in the same way Termies do - implacable inexorable advance, covering fire until the fist of death is in range kind of thing. Plus the whole Marines sleep with their bolters under their pillows fluff thing.

It was quickly removed from vehicles because of hurricane bolters. Cents took a while longer, they were just way too cheap for what they did. If you actually want Termies and Cents to advance then don't enable them to double-tap at more than half range, because you're giving them an incentive to stay at max range instead of getting within half range. I think Marines sleeping with their bolters is represented by their high BS of 3+, I assume you like the SoB flamer profile buff? To me it clutters the game up too much.

Dudeface wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I'm fine with them making small arms less effective against vehicles as long as they understand and remember the entire reason they changed that design in the first place was because it was almost impossible to actually wound vehicles unless you brought dedicated anti-tank.

If you don't bring anti-tank weapons, you should have problems when facing tanks and/or monsters...

Whilst I agree, it's also not fun if you literally can't stop them because you invested ~25% of your force into anti armour as a TAC list, which has been annihilated already, but likewise of you take more than hordes just laugh at you. Ofc this is a problem that was more exacerbated at 1500 in old editions.

Agree with Wayniac and Dudeface. Lowered lethality is a good thing. Making small arms less good against vehicles is a valid thing. I just don't want to spend half the game unable to meaningfully hurt my opponent's mechanized skew list because I took a "normal" amount of anti-tank instead of spamming anti-tank. And by extension, I don't want to find myself ignoring half the options in my codex because a skew-heavy meta demands I always take fire dragons over scorpions.

That said, there's still a ton we don't know, and I'm open to change.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Agree with Wayniac and Dudeface. Lowered lethality is a good thing. Making small arms less good against vehicles is a valid thing. I just don't want to spend half the game unable to meaningfully hurt my opponent's mechanized skew list because I took a "normal" amount of anti-tank instead of spamming anti-tank. And by extension, I don't want to find myself ignoring half the options in my codex because a skew-heavy meta demands I always take fire dragons over scorpions.

That said, there's still a ton we don't know, and I'm open to change.

The thing is outside the forums, no one was killing vehicles with small arms. So really making vehicles/monsters tougher meant nerfing "anti-tank".

Its still very much in the "wait and see" phase - but I suspect they want to change the idea that almost every boosted up 200 point unit can go smash every other 200 point unit in a turn.

I mean its not as if the 10th edition Terminators won't tear down a 10th Rhino (or Gladiator). Its just that it will take 2-3 fight phases rather than "charge, maybe pop a stratagem to be sure, move on".

Siegfriedfr wrote:
They made the 8th/9th because of IGOUGO which skew the game in favor of the starting player who can strategically cripple your army on turn 1.

Making infantry more capable at killing tanks was a way to go around that gameplay problem.

One thing they still haven't learned is that IGOUGO needs to be abandoned, alongside rerolls of any kind, to give proper space to strategic decision.

AA has flaws when you're trying to apply it to a game with the model count and flexibility of 40K. 10th appears to be a hybridized version that allows decision making on the opponent's turn. I don't know to what degree, however.

Alpha strikes haven't been a problem in 9th for quite some time.

Tyel wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Agree with Wayniac and Dudeface. Lowered lethality is a good thing. Making small arms less good against vehicles is a valid thing. I just don't want to spend half the game unable to meaningfully hurt my opponent's mechanized skew list because I took a "normal" amount of anti-tank instead of spamming anti-tank. And by extension, I don't want to find myself ignoring half the options in my codex because a skew-heavy meta demands I always take fire dragons over scorpions.

That said, there's still a ton we don't know, and I'm open to change.

The thing is outside the forums, no one was killing vehicles with small arms. So really making vehicles/monsters tougher meant nerfing "anti-tank".

Its still very much in the "wait and see" phase - but I suspect they want to change the idea that almost every boosted up 200 point unit can go smash every other 200 point unit in a turn.

I mean its not as if the 10th edition Terminators won't tear down a 10th Rhino (or Gladiator). Its just that it will take 2-3 fight phases rather than "charge, maybe pop a stratagem to be sure, move on".

Yeah. Honestly, I've been pretty okay with where small arms vs vehicles have been for 8th and 9th. Generally, S4 guns have been able to chip away a meaningful amount of a T7 vehicle's health to finish it off, set it up to die using one fewer Anti-Tank units, etc. But they haven't been so powerful that you're efficiently going around killing rhinos with bolters and shurikens. That's a decent state of affairs. Let the S4 attacks contribute while still making people want to bring dedicated anti-tank to be more efficient.

That said, I'm open to change. Like you said, we're in the "wait and see" phase.

Tyel wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Agree with Wayniac and Dudeface. Lowered lethality is a good thing. Making small arms less good against vehicles is a valid thing. I just don't want to spend half the game unable to meaningfully hurt my opponent's mechanized skew list because I took a "normal" amount of anti-tank instead of spamming anti-tank. And by extension, I don't want to find myself ignoring half the options in my codex because a skew-heavy meta demands I always take fire dragons over scorpions.

That said, there's still a ton we don't know, and I'm open to change.

The thing is outside the forums, no one was killing vehicles with small arms. So really making vehicles/monsters tougher meant nerfing "anti-tank".

Its still very much in the "wait and see" phase - but I suspect they want to change the idea that almost every boosted up 200 point unit can go smash every other 200 point unit in a turn.

I mean its not as if the 10th edition Terminators won't tear down a 10th Rhino (or Gladiator). Its just that it will take 2-3 fight phases rather than "charge, maybe pop a stratagem to be sure, move on".

I imagine if things stay relatively the same points wise then terminators will be 5 for 200.

CML - 2 * .666 * .5 * .666 * 3.5 = 1.6
SB - 20 * .666 * .167 * .333 = 0.7

2.3

PF -12 * .666 * .333 * .666 * 2 = 3.5
PS - 4 * .666 * .333 * .666 = 0.6
( CF - 12 * .5 * .666 * .666 * 2 = 5.3 ) Alternate with Chainfist

4.1

So a not dead Rhino for twice it's cost, at least.

Under current rules :

CML - 2 * .666 * .666 * .666 * 3.5 = 2.1
SB - 20 * .666 * .333 * .333 = 1.5

PF - 12 * .5 * .666 * .833 * 2 = 6.6
PS - 4 * .666 * .333 * .833 = 0.7
( CF - 12 * .5 * .666 * 3 = 12 ) Alternate with Chainfist

10.9

This is without any chapter bonuses or doctrines.

So small arms goes from 15% ( 22% under doctrine ) of a Rhino to 7% and it will definitely take more effort.

I get that some people just want to have a miraculous PF punch straight through everything, but this is just not that game anymore.