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.

Dudeface wrote:


There's consistent mention of weapons from all factions across the game rending vehicles open, leaving hopes and broken components. Melta is often described as turning armour into molten slag and opening holes in things.

There are some answers to some of those things in the lore but nobody has encyclopedic knowledge of black library battle scenes enough to pluck them from memory. Likewise I doubt you could pull an example of the opposite from memory - a fluff example of a unit firing at a vehicle and doing literally nothing and knowing it will do nothing.

"Gunheads" by Steve Parker had Kasrkin & regular infantry firing at a looted Baneblade with lasguns & hellguns. Explicitly forbidden by the general in charge of the expedition since he was convinced that it was Yarrick's Baneblade, they fired on it to keep its attention while a Techpriest prepared some way to disable it without harming it.


Admittedly, the "keeping its attention" may defeat the purpose of what you're suggesting but...

Regards "getting in close and doing nastiness" what nastiness do you mean, given we've established they're not equipped to actually damage the thing?

That said, if GW wrote in plain English "this interaction exists to represent XYZ" would that be enough?

This is another one of those spots where I feel like the "Small Arms" keyword would be handy. Make it so that the real feels bad moment of the "Deadly Demise" trigger can't be popped off by Small Arms keyworded weapons.

is there a practical gameplay difference between "lasguns and factional equivalents can't hurt vehicles, but all infantry is provided with an option that can" and "lasguns and factional equivalents can hurt vehicles"? because in my mind, when we're talking about the abstraction of gameplay, the difference really is not meaningful. if we do that, and now all vehicles are immune to small arms but then infantry get weak anti-vehicle grenades, what difference is there? is this a conversation about abstract gameplay concepts, or is this a conversation about lore?

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
is there a practical gameplay difference between "lasguns and factional equivalents can't hurt vehicles, but all infantry is provided with an option that can" and "lasguns and factional equivalents can hurt vehicles"? because in my mind, when we're talking about the abstraction of gameplay, the difference really is not meaningful. if we do that, and now all vehicles are immune to small arms but then infantry get weak anti-vehicle grenades, what difference is there? is this a conversation about abstract gameplay concepts, or is this a conversation about lore?

There is a hefty difference, even in a pure abstracted gameplay sense, between infantry spraying and praying to chip off wounds at a distance, and the scenario where the vehicle is immune up until the point when the infantry get close and plant AT bombs on it with rewarding results. Lore aside, the difference in behavior and result is pretty stark, imo.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
. . .
They already told you, s4 power weapon, which at the time was no armour saves, in a time when a vehicle didn't have an armour save. The dread would be av12 on the front, so you'd need an 8 on a d6 to glance it.

Aaagghhktually. . .

In the Cityfight rules they made an adjustment to the Dreadnought rules in CC where a Dreadnought could only be hurt on the front during its first round of combat, but in subsequent rounds it could be hit on the rear, iirc. It may have had to do with model placement, but it's been 20+ years.

Cityfight wasn't always in play - it was a variant ruleset from, as you say, 20+ years ago. In most versions of the game, and, most relevantly, in majority of pre-8th rules, Dreadnoughts were immune to being attacked on the rear in melee. An optional ruleset from 20+ years ago is negligible defence here.

Gaunt and a flamer killed a Dreadnought. Neither used "anti-tank" weapons, which is the complaint being raised here.

Saying Cityfight is obscure when the scenarios being pulled from novels seem equally so is a bit rich. And I reiterate that the scenario being described is "finding/creating weak points in hand to hand combat", which is what the earlier versions of the game did a better job of describing, as opposed to the "spray and pray" at range which is the real source of critique. Not to mention having heroic characters performing hyperbolistic deeds is also not out of place in BL novels . . .

But AHKSHUALLY I did some digging out of curiosity and discovered that the "Only Attack The Front of Walkers" rule was introduced in 4th ed. In 3rd ed infantry could attack the rear armor if they Assaulted from the rear, or surrounded the model after a round of CC. Not sure about 2nd ed or earlier, but I'll check later.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Something one would have to be aware though:

tanks become immune to small arms fire

everyone and their mother "must" include severe amount of anti tank in their list

pure infantry spam becomes worthwhile as anti tank lists can't really bring them down

no more AT than they do now.
Intermediate weapons can damage tanks much more easily and believably than a bolter or lasgun.

People like you seem to completely forget S5-9 weapons are not uncommon in most armylists


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
is there a practical gameplay difference between "lasguns and factional equivalents can't hurt vehicles, but all infantry is provided with an option that can" and "lasguns and factional equivalents can hurt vehicles"? because in my mind, when we're talking about the abstraction of gameplay, the difference really is not meaningful. if we do that, and now all vehicles are immune to small arms but then infantry get weak anti-vehicle grenades, what difference is there? is this a conversation about abstract gameplay concepts, or is this a conversation about lore?

I mean if the difference is between a lasgun damaging a tank from 24” or doubling your chances at 12” or a satchel charge or krak grenade from 3”, I think so.

It is truly amazing to me that people are still beating this dead horse about 6's wounding everything. It has L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y zero impact on gameplay. You can 100% toss a dreadnought or leman russ at 100 guys with bolters and lasguns and have confidence that the vehicle will be fine. Vehicles in 10th edition are more durable then they were in 5th, where it was literally impossible to wound even the weakest vehicles with anything less than S4 weapons.

I cannot count how many times my Lord of Change or Swarmlord were killed in overwatch by a single lucky roll from a bolt pistol in 6th edition, yet I never whined that MCs should be immune to lasguns and bolters. Why would I complain about something that has like a 1/1000th chance of happening? Who cares?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
"Cinematic" in an abstract game is bad. No one wants to pay a ton of money for an army, invest time to learn how to play it, often money too if coaching is needed and then lose important games on a roll. The person who did the "kill" is not going to forget, but the person who had the negative expiriance of an opponent rolling +5/+6 and then them failing a +2 sv potentialy can. Making people remember feels bad moments is not good.

Every single person who plays 40k knows that it is a game of chance and RNG can make or break even the most thought-out strategies or surefire plans. If bad luck "ruined experiences" then there would be no auto-fails on a 1. The titan would always kill the gretchin in close combat. Telion would always land the shot.

If someone chooses to play a game full of randomness and then gets buttblasted when RNG screws them over, that is a personal problem and they shouldn't be playing tabletop games.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It is truly amazing to me that people are still beating this dead horse about 6's wounding everything. It has L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y zero impact on gameplay. You can 100% toss a dreadnought or leman russ at 100 guys with bolters and lasguns and have confidence that the vehicle will be fine. Vehicles in 10th edition are more durable then they were in 5th, where it was literally impossible to wound even the weakest vehicles with anything less than S4 weapons.

I cannot count how many times my Lord of Change or Swarmlord were killed in overwatch by a single lucky roll from a bolt pistol in 6th edition, yet I never whined that MCs should be immune to lasguns and bolters. Why would I complain about something that has like a 1/1000th chance of happening? Who cares?

If it has 0 effect on game play then removing it shouldn’t make a difference.
If it doesn’t make a difference how come I’ve been in multiple games since 8th where it has made a difference. Whether taking a wound off to lower the vehicle to the next bracket, or destroying the vehicle, completely removing any impact that vehicle may have otherwise had in the following turn?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It has L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y zero impact on gameplay.

Oh cool, so getting rid of it would speed up the game by eliminating worthless rolling with l-i-t-e-r-a-l-l-y no downsides.

That was easy. Why are we arguing again?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It is truly amazing to me that people are still beating this dead horse about 6's wounding everything. It has L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y zero impact on gameplay.

That is L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y untrue. I've definitely sprayed a few vehicles to death since 8th dropped. It was a go-to tactic in fact, when I was fielding a bunch of Devil-gaints back when the Devourer was 3 shots. Even more annoying was that it was sometimes more effective to spray at vehicles than at the Custodes in front of them.

Dudeface wrote:

Grenades are in essence a different gun, they also have the issue of being applicable to other targets and possibly creating further balance or logic issues. In the context of 40ks known framework, a krak grenade is a short range s6 ap-1 d2(?) Heavy 1 weapon maybe? In which case, there's arguments for using those instead of lasguns a lot of the time maybe when possible. If you limit the number of grenade throws per unit, that also seems weird.

Melee stuff - what can a guardsman with a bayonette and a shovel manage in melee that they couldn't from further afield with a laser rifle?

The current game core would need shredding to facilitate base humans having any meaningful effect on vehicles without being literal cannon fodder.

Grenades have been handled a few different ways over the ages. If we went back to relying on squad grenades to kill vehicles, we'd probably do something along the lines of letting every model in a squad use grenades but add a rule saying that Grenade weapons can only be used against units with the Vehicle or Monster keywords. I imagine we'd *probably* make grenades a melee weapon at that point too so that using them requires getting into melee with the target to represent taking the time to latch them onto weak points, etc. instead of just lobbing them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
is there a practical gameplay difference between "lasguns and factional equivalents can't hurt vehicles, but all infantry is provided with an option that can" and "lasguns and factional equivalents can hurt vehicles"? because in my mind, when we're talking about the abstraction of gameplay, the difference really is not meaningful. if we do that, and now all vehicles are immune to small arms but then infantry get weak anti-vehicle grenades, what difference is there? is this a conversation about abstract gameplay concepts, or is this a conversation about lore?

Rolling fewer dice for more effect might be less feelsbad for both the attacker and the defender and less time-consuming in general. Plus you could potentially require units get into melee to use their anti-tank tools, which adds an interesting change in behavior.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It is truly amazing to me that people are still beating this dead horse about 6's wounding everything. It has L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y zero impact on gameplay. You can 100% toss a dreadnought or leman russ at 100 guys with bolters and lasguns and have confidence that the vehicle will be fine.

I L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y guarantee you that neither of those is true.

no one is forcing you to fire small arms at vehicles. if it's going to be a waste of dice in your situation, then you don't need to do it

I’d like to see the ‘anti-‘ rule reworked as well.

I’m not a fan of how it is now. Again seems ham fisted.

I think I’d rather it simply improves the AP of the weapon by 1 against the designated target type

Or maybe each class of anti- could have a different effect, so for example
Anti-aircraft +1 to hit
Anti-tank +1 to damage
Anti-infantry improve AP by 1

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
no one is forcing you to fire small arms at vehicles. if it's going to be a waste of dice in your situation, then you don't need to do it

The only wasted dice are those not rolled.

ccs wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
no one is forcing you to fire small arms at vehicles. if it's going to be a waste of dice in your situation, then you don't need to do it

The only wasted dice are those not rolled.

you weren't one of the people complaining about being forced to roll pointless dice firing at tanks

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I’d like to see the ‘anti-‘ rule reworked as well.

I’m not a fan of how it is now. Again seems ham fisted.

I think I’d rather it simply improves the AP of the weapon by 1 against the designated target type

Or maybe each class of anti- could have a different effect, so for example
Anti-aircraft +1 to hit
Anti-tank +1 to damage
Anti-infantry improve AP by 1

Not sure if this is more trolling, but...

That would break quite a few weapons. And wouldn't make much sense for some of the weapons that have those rules. Ex: Splinter weapons would suddenly be better at getting through armor, but they'd be terrible at wounding infantry in the first place. And the thing making them better at getting through armor is poison? And anything with "haywire" in its name would suddenly be awful at wounding their intended target (vehicles) when historically being able to reliable do some amount of damage to vehicles is their whole thing.

ccs wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
no one is forcing you to fire small arms at vehicles. if it's going to be a waste of dice in your situation, then you don't need to do it

The only wasted dice are those not rolled.

The majority of dice rolled for this game are wasted. There are too many rolls per model, mostly because there are too many stages in attack resolution.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Grenades are in essence a different gun, they also have the issue of being applicable to other targets and possibly creating further balance or logic issues. In the context of 40ks known framework, a krak grenade is a short range s6 ap-1 d2(?) Heavy 1 weapon maybe? In which case, there's arguments for using those instead of lasguns a lot of the time maybe when possible. If you limit the number of grenade throws per unit, that also seems weird.

Melee stuff - what can a guardsman with a bayonette and a shovel manage in melee that they couldn't from further afield with a laser rifle?

The current game core would need shredding to facilitate base humans having any meaningful effect on vehicles without being literal cannon fodder.

Grenades have been handled a few different ways over the ages. If we went back to relying on squad grenades to kill vehicles, we'd probably do something along the lines of letting every model in a squad use grenades but add a rule saying that Grenade weapons can only be used against units with the Vehicle or Monster keywords. I imagine we'd *probably* make grenades a melee weapon at that point too so that using them requires getting into melee with the target to represent taking the time to latch them onto weak points, etc. instead of just lobbing them.

And this is what bugs me, those are equally odd abstractions. A person being unable to throw something, carrying an infinite number of grenades, slapping grenades on a hover tank in melee, understanding that slapping grenades on this beats stabbing it, but apparently aren't worth using against things that aren't vehicles/monster keywords.

These are all abstractions, it's just some upsets people's sensibilities more than others.

^Those are less of an abstraction than spray and pray with small arms being a proposed anti-tank doctrine for infantry.

"Understanding grenade vs. Stabbing" though . . . Really? That feels like a stretch to claim is abstract, especially for troops equipped with grenades. Presumably they're trained with them.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Those are less of an abstraction than spray and pray with small arms being a proposed anti-tank doctrine for infantry.

"Understanding grenade vs. Stabbing" though . . . Really? That feels like a stretch to claim is abstract, especially for troops equipped with grenades. Presumably they're trained with them.

At what point has anyone suggested spray and pray as a proposed anti-tank doctrine? You're moving goalposts.

Beyond that, if we're assuming krak grenades are for melee with hover tanks, winged monsters etc. which assumingly can/do hover 6+ft above the ground, how are they telescoping their arms without throwing them? If they're throwing them why aren't they a ranged profile? If they're a ranged profile, why would you use a lasgun? Do all members of a unit carry at least 5 of each grenade just in case (gonna be heavy to carry)?

Somehow stretch arm strong patting a winged daemon price well over their heads in the air with their infinite krak grenades (which with sustained magically duplicate no doubt) is making perfect sense where shooting it's eyes doesn't?

- Grenades become baseline equipment again for most infantry units.
- Grenades get a ranged profile.
- Grenades can be used in melee against certain targets.
- Grenade supply is abstraced the same way any other ammunition is.
- Add limitations if necessary (f.e. so grenades don't get used by the whole unit instead of their regular ranged profile)

Doesn't seem very complicated to implement.

 a_typical_hero wrote:
- Grenades become baseline equipment again for most infantry units.
- Grenades get a ranged profile.
- Grenades can be used in melee against certain targets.
- Grenade supply is abstraced the same way any other ammunition is.
- Add limitations if necessary (f.e. so grenades don't get used by the whole unit instead of their regular ranged profile)

Doesn't seem very complicated to implement.

What is the reasoning for them only being used against certain units? Where is the abstraction for their ammo? I can conceivably see how a lasgun with a few spare cells can last for 120 rounds or something, a grenade is once and gone and a lot heavier. Why does only Timmy the Trooper get to throw the grenade? Was it his lucky pants?

Why are these abstractions "better"?

Edit: I guess to stop beating about the bush - these are all abstractions for a made up sci-fi game with very loosey goosey rules in reality. People are falling back on "old edition" logic as it's formed more of their logical experience with the setting, such as the grenade rules. In reality none of them can ever be abstracted to a place that makes sense for everyone, but the 6+ to wound exist to facilitate a minor interaction in skew environments. It's in setting explanation is as weird and abstract as a load of the other dumbass things that happen and people do/don't complain about.

The only thing that changes is what explanations or interactions feel better to the reader.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I’d like to see the ‘anti-‘ rule reworked as well.

I’m not a fan of how it is now. Again seems ham fisted.

I think I’d rather it simply improves the AP of the weapon by 1 against the designated target type

Or maybe each class of anti- could have a different effect, so for example
Anti-aircraft +1 to hit
Anti-tank +1 to damage
Anti-infantry improve AP by 1

Not sure if this is more trolling, but...

That would break quite a few weapons. And wouldn't make much sense for some of the weapons that have those rules. Ex: Splinter weapons would suddenly be better at getting through armor, but they'd be terrible at wounding infantry in the first place. And the thing making them better at getting through armor is poison? And anything with "haywire" in its name would suddenly be awful at wounding their intended target (vehicles) when historically being able to reliable do some amount of damage to vehicles is their whole thing.

This would be for a whole new edition…not all weapons that have certain keywords now will have them then.

Dudeface wrote:

 a_typical_hero wrote:
- Grenades become baseline equipment again for most infantry units.
- Grenades get a ranged profile.
- Grenades can be used in melee against certain targets.
- Grenade supply is abstraced the same way any other ammunition is.
- Add limitations if necessary (f.e. so grenades don't get used by the whole unit instead of their regular ranged profile)

Doesn't seem very complicated to implement.

[1]What is the reasoning for them only being used against certain units? [2]Where is the abstraction for their ammo? I can conceivably see how a lasgun with a few spare cells can last for 120 rounds or something, a grenade is once and gone and a lot heavier. [3]Why does only Timmy the Trooper get to throw the grenade? Was it his lucky pants?

[4]Why are these abstractions "better"?.

[1] The topic of the discussion is a proposal to counter skew lists of certain units.
[2] Fighting a tank in melee is supposedly an exceptional situation compared to shooting at the enemy with a rifle. A couple grenades per model is enough to be believable within the given setting. I'd like to point out that Intercessors apparently have enough ammunition for a whole battle with a single bandolier worth of grenades to use with their grenade launcher.
[3] That is not a point I made.
[4] Alot of units have their models with actual modeled grenades. An implementation that let units use their actual equipment organically, instead of gating it behind a "1 per battle round" mechanic is preferable to me.

Removed for rule 1 - ingtær

I'm not sure I'd have expected this in late 2021/early 2022, but what I'd like in 11th is some of the bloat/complexity back. I don't think its critical to 40k as a game - but it could add depth/imagination.

Dark Eldar character equipment limitations have been done to death - but Psykers in general especially seem to have got the short end of the stick.

I wouldn't necesarilly want to go back to older editions. A system of "you have a choice of 6 spells, but 1 is an auto-include and you can maybe argue for 2 more" isn't the best. In some ways the "it just happens/or it happens on a 2+" is quicker/better than rolling to manifest/deny, or assigning dice from a pool of older editions. But the current lack of customisation makes a lot of psykers feel like 0-1 inclusions. Perhaps especially on top of the leader rules where you need a unit worth attaching too as well.

Maybe this is intentional. GSC are perhaps only meant to have 1 Magos (although given there are 2 models, this feels weird, and the continued bad rules feels bad). Maybe CSM Sorcerers are meant to be second fiddle to choppy guys. Regular Marine Librarians seem to have been paying for the ancient sins of 7th and never been that hot (maybe during late 8th's Marine Mania, but even then they seemed an optional extra). Farseers are probably okay (and I'm loathe to say buff Eldar) but you probably take the Jetbike one and that's it.

Maybe detachments should get one extra spell as an enhancement choice. Although given how spells are just abilities, maybe that's no different to now.

I guess I'm not clear on the answers - but its something I'd like to see more of. I also wouldn't be surprised to see it given 40k's history.

Tyel wrote:

I wouldn't necesarilly want to go back to older editions. A system of "you have a choice of 6 spells, but 1 is an auto-include and you can maybe argue for 2 more" isn't the best. In some ways the "it just happens/or it happens on a 2+" is quicker/better than rolling to manifest/deny, or assigning dice from a pool of older editions. But the current lack of customisation makes a lot of psykers feel like 0-1 inclusions. Perhaps especially on top of the leader rules where you need a unit worth attaching too as well.

Speaking mostly with eldar in mind, you could definitely give similar psykers a list of powers to choose from with minimal issue. Let your farseer on a bike Fortune something, let the farseer on foot Guide something, and let either of them opt to take Doom without having to be Eldrad. The biggest hurtle there, I guess, is that that requires you make all powers on the same list equally useful, which means you can't up the points cost of a broken power without punishing the seers that wanted to take the not-broken powers. And you'd maybe need to watch out for certain unintended combos; maybe a warlock granting Quicken to a squad of already-fast bikes ends up being a problem where it was fine on a squad of infantry or something.

Still, it really feels like it wouldn't be hard to just give powers a wargear cost again and let people choose between a few options. Or failing that, go ahead and design two or three options for each psyker datasheet (reusing options where viable). That way, you only have to make those powers viable against one another and can lower or raise the caster's points cost as needed without punishing other datasheets.

Maybe detachments should get one extra spell as an enhancement choice. Although given how spells are just abilities, maybe that's no different to now.

I like the idea of getting rid of stratagems, replacing them with command abilities, and then having detachments grant new command abilities to leaders. So maybe Fire and Fade (move-shoot-move) becomes an ability for characters on bikes in the not-Saim-hann detachment.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Speaking mostly with eldar in mind, you could definitely give similar psykers a list of powers to choose from with minimal issue. Let your farseer on a bike Fortune something, let the farseer on foot Guide something, and let either of them opt to take Doom without having to be Eldrad. The biggest hurtle there, I guess, is that that requires you make all powers on the same list equally useful, which means you can't up the points cost of a broken power without punishing the seers that wanted to take the not-broken powers. And you'd maybe need to watch out for certain unintended combos; maybe a warlock granting Quicken to a squad of already-fast bikes ends up being a problem where it was fine on a squad of infantry or something.

Still, it really feels like it wouldn't be hard to just give powers a wargear cost again and let people choose between a few options. Or failing that, go ahead and design two or three options for each psyker datasheet (reusing options where viable). That way, you only have to make those powers viable against one another and can lower or raise the caster's points cost as needed without punishing other datasheets.

I don't think it should be that hard to come up with say 3 abilities that are roughly the same value. As you say, if say Farseers of all types had access to Fortune/Guide/Doom, but you had to pick 1 at the start, would it really throw the entire game? The "I can't believe its not Ulthwe" Detachment could have an enhancement that lets you use two or something.

I feel character customisation is a point of expression. Its been curtailed a lot in 10th - and I'd like to see it restored a bit. I don't really want to open the door to "this is an overcosted useless character" and "this is the blender to end all blenders now included in every tournament list". But the "you get zero options but can take one of four enhancements" feels too limiting. Even if some characters/enhancements are clearly very good.

Tyel wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Speaking mostly with eldar in mind, you could definitely give similar psykers a list of powers to choose from with minimal issue. Let your farseer on a bike Fortune something, let the farseer on foot Guide something, and let either of them opt to take Doom without having to be Eldrad. The biggest hurtle there, I guess, is that that requires you make all powers on the same list equally useful, which means you can't up the points cost of a broken power without punishing the seers that wanted to take the not-broken powers. And you'd maybe need to watch out for certain unintended combos; maybe a warlock granting Quicken to a squad of already-fast bikes ends up being a problem where it was fine on a squad of infantry or something.

Still, it really feels like it wouldn't be hard to just give powers a wargear cost again and let people choose between a few options. Or failing that, go ahead and design two or three options for each psyker datasheet (reusing options where viable). That way, you only have to make those powers viable against one another and can lower or raise the caster's points cost as needed without punishing other datasheets.

I don't think it should be that hard to come up with say 3 abilities that are roughly the same value. As you say, if say Farseers of all types had access to Fortune/Guide/Doom, but you had to pick 1 at the start, would it really throw the entire game? The "I can't believe its not Ulthwe" Detachment could have an enhancement that lets you use two or something.

I feel character customisation is a point of expression. Its been curtailed a lot in 10th - and I'd like to see it restored a bit. I don't really want to open the door to "this is an overcosted useless character" and "this is the blender to end all blenders now included in every tournament list". But the "you get zero options but can take one of four enhancements" feels too limiting. Even if some characters/enhancements are clearly very good.

Fully agree. The lack of customization is one of the biggest bummers in 10th, and it feels like the only reason we don't currently have more customization options is that GW doesn't feel like greenlighting it.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Those are less of an abstraction than spray and pray with small arms being a proposed anti-tank doctrine for infantry.

"Understanding grenade vs. Stabbing" though . . . Really? That feels like a stretch to claim is abstract, especially for troops equipped with grenades. Presumably they're trained with them.

At what point has anyone suggested spray and pray as a proposed anti-tank doctrine? You're moving goalposts.

It's the defense of the current paradigm. Claiming that S3 needs to be able to wound high T targets in order to provide an option for non AT specialists to deal with armor, is in effect "spray and pray".

Dudeface wrote:

Beyond that, if we're assuming krak grenades are for melee with hover tanks, winged monsters etc. which assumingly can/do hover 6+ft above the ground, how are they telescoping their arms without throwing them? If they're throwing them why aren't they a ranged profile? If they're a ranged profile, why would you use a lasgun? Do all members of a unit carry at least 5 of each grenade just in case (gonna be heavy to carry)?

Somehow stretch arm strong patting a winged daemon price well over their heads in the air with their infinite krak grenades (which with sustained magically duplicate no doubt) is making perfect sense where shooting it's eyes doesn't?

I'm fine with being able to throw Krak grenades, tbh. It was something that whole squads could be done in 2nd ed too, with a modifier to hit because they had to be precise, iirc.

But as to why aiming at weak spots might be inneffective is that I'd assume that infantry were already aiming at weak points on creatures and tanks to the best of their ability. There's just a point where a vehicle/creature is so tough that it's a pointless excercise.

Dudeface wrote:

Why are these abstractions "better"?

Because they make more sense in terms of unit behavior, and they provide more interesting game mechanics.

Or at catbarf said:

 catbarf wrote:

Tanks being at risk from small arms is a mechanic that does not track with my impression of how tanks operate within this fictional universe, does not track with how tanks work IRL, and was not present for the majority of this game's history. 'Anything can hurt anything' is a crude attempt to smooth over a more fundamental game design problem, and the post-hoc rationalizations seem more like thought experiments than anything based on lore, verisimilitude, or gameplay precedent. If the lore has evolved and I'm just out of date then I'm all ears, but given that so far the responses have been at best tangentially related to my simple request, I don't think it has.

Yeah. As much time as I've spent defending "spray and pray" on this thread, I'd probably prefer something like grenades if that option is on the table. Less rolling for more effect, and opting to go to the trouble of getting close to the enemy vehicle feels like an intentional choice whereas hosing it with rifle fire from the opposite side of the table feels a little more abstract.

Like, I still think you can feasibly finish off a tank with a lasgun by hitting the right spot, but the sort of desperate, creative actions that allow that to happen (like the examples Smudge provided) feel like they're better represented by short-ranged attacks where it's easier to imagine the infantry shoving guns and grenades through holes in the hull or lining up shots on on exposed components.