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.

I think the main thing that people dislike about D is the 6 roll that says, and I quote: "do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars."

Well, what if D/Stomps were changed to the following:

-D weapons are Ap2

-If they hit:
1, nothing happens
2-5, current 2-5 result (auto-pen and d3 HP gone from vehicles/auto-wound and d3 wounds gone from non-vehicles).
6, same as 2-5 but ignores cover.


If people still want a roll of a "6" to have some bite, then maybe have a 6 result ignore cover as well.

This makes it so that (1) cover/invul saves will generally still mean something against units with D weapons and that the "do not pass go" aspect of the weapons are gone.

Indeed, it is that whole "ignore everything you just die" aspect of these weapons that gives people the most grief and I don't think such rules have a place in a STRATEGY game.

I could live with this. Subscribed just in case anyone else comes in to contribute to this discussion.


I don't even think a chart is necessary. Say, if it hits, it causes d3 ID wounds, 6s ignore cover. We still have all the arbitrary rolling we know and love, but aren't consulting a chart every turn.

How am I supposed to fight 12 wave serpents or 40 jet bikes that all jink?

My issue is with the 1-2 causing no wounds. Why should a 2 to wound with D not hurt my models, when a S10 will on a 2?

I like this rule. I agree with kingbobbito though, 2 should still cause wounds. Other than that, I think you may have just solved a huge problem.

I don't get why it needs to be different from the old 5th Edition rules.

Destroyer weapons automatically wound and inflict Instant Death regardless of how little they are touched by the marker with no Cover Saves allowed. Vehicles suffer an automatic Penetrating Hit with a +1 modifier to thedamage table.

However, nowhere in the description does it mention that it ignores Armour Saves, meaning that an Ap6 Destroyer would still grant your Guardsmen their saves. This meant thay you could home-brew some odd and interesting weapons: a dirty-bomb for example, could be Destroyer with no Ap value, representing the harmful radiation blocked by armour, etc.

Played a few Apoc games in 5th and this rule was balanced; powerful without going over the top. Vortex was totally different but were one-use weapons anyway.

 Valkyrie wrote:
I don't get why it needs to be different from the old 5th Edition rules.

Destroyer weapons automatically wound and inflict Instant Death regardless of how little they are touched by the marker with no Cover Saves allowed. Vehicles suffer an automatic Penetrating Hit with a +1 modifier to thedamage table.

However, nowhere in the description does it mention that it ignores Armour Saves, meaning that an Ap6 Destroyer would still grant your Guardsmen their saves. This meant thay you could home-brew some odd and interesting weapons: a dirty-bomb for example, could be Destroyer with no Ap value, representing the harmful radiation blocked by armour, etc.

That sounds a lot more deadly to a Carnifex than it does to a Chimera, which doesn't sound right to me.

 Lotet wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
I don't get why it needs to be different from the old 5th Edition rules.

Destroyer weapons automatically wound and inflict Instant Death regardless of how little they are touched by the marker with no Cover Saves allowed. Vehicles suffer an automatic Penetrating Hit with a +1 modifier to thedamage table.

However, nowhere in the description does it mention that it ignores Armour Saves, meaning that an Ap6 Destroyer would still grant your Guardsmen their saves. This meant thay you could home-brew some odd and interesting weapons: a dirty-bomb for example, could be Destroyer with no Ap value, representing the harmful radiation blocked by armour, etc.

That sounds a lot more deadly to a Carnifex than it does to a Chimera, which doesn't sound right to me.

This was also when the damage tables were different, most Destroyer weapons would be destroying on 4+ at least thanks to Destroyer and Ap1 in some cases. Loads of factors were also in play, such as wargear allowing Invuln saves in greater numbers, etc.

I'll always dislike any weapon idea (or most ideas in general) that rely on a random chart to determine how killy they are (Orks aside).

Either D weapons should be consistent in their damage and appropriately costed and limited, or be removed from the game entirely. We're a bit past the point on no return with D weapons, so the best solution is to make them consistent without the added dice rolling (roll to hit, roll on D table, roll D3 wounds, roll wounds, its excessive), and limit them strictly to LoW, which should further be limited to a certain % of your army's total. Somewhere between 25% and 33% of your army total would be fine.

I still believe D-weapons should be the realm of Apoc only, along with super heavy anything, but the cat's out of the bag now.

Why are people complaining about Strength D so often? It's not like they are common in games. Apart from Knights and Vortex of Doom.

 Valkyrie wrote:
This was also when the damage tables were different, most Destroyer weapons would be destroying on 4+ at least thanks to Destroyer and Ap1 in some cases. Loads of factors were also in play, such as wargear allowing Invuln saves in greater numbers, etc.

I know, but I chose Carnifex and Chimera for a reason. There are plenty of other units that would be just as valid examples. It's not about how a Space Marine Captain can survive getting hit, it's about the lightests of vehicles being twice as survivable than than all but Gargantuan Creatures or Daemons.

bibotot wrote:
Why are people complaining about Strength D so often?

A few reasons, but I'm sure you can figure them out if you're complaining about complaining.

It's not like they are common in games. Apart from Knights and Vortex of Doom.

And now we're looking at the potential of Eldar troops and other wraith constructs getting access to ranged D weaponry is the rumours pan out to be true. Not to mention the new Bloodthirster has a D strength melee attack.

They may not be super common right now, but it'd also be a lie to claim they're in any way uncommon or staying that way.

Hence why people on forums like this are discussing ways they can be fixed.

You can either add to that discussion, or find somewhere else to post.

I dont know why cover would stop a destoyer hit... well thank god that tree blocked a shot that could vaporise a razorback.....

jink would really become common place, all bikes, fliers, skimmers.

Its intresting and would proberbly help fix some of the issues definatly.

a 6 to wound should just be D3+1 wound or something so its a little more.?

Also why people worried now theres a bloodthirster with a str D meele weapon, the knights been out longer and no ones really minded that much.

 Blacksails wrote:
I'll always dislike any weapon idea (or most ideas in general) that rely on a random chart to determine how killy they are (Orks aside).

Isn't the whole idea of the game that a random die roll determines if a weapon kills stuff or not? I mean, even just looking at a sniper on a scout. a 4+ hits, a 6 is precision, then a 4+ wounds, and a 6 has AP2. That seems like pretty random rolls to decide whether or not something dies. Similarly, D weapons roll to hit, then roll to wound. The only difference is one extra d3 to see how many instant wounds it causes.... the same way a weapon with soulblaze rolls to see if it causes extra wounds after it scores a wound.

EDIT: And, like the sniper, the D weapon gets the added benefit of ignoring invulns (since it already ignores armor).

 kingbobbito wrote:
Isn't the whole idea of the game that a random die roll determines if a weapon kills stuff or not? I mean, even just looking at a sniper on a scout. a 4+ hits, a 6 is precision, then a 4+ wounds, and a 6 has AP2. That seems like pretty random rolls to decide whether or not something dies. Similarly, D weapons roll to hit, then roll to wound. The only difference is one extra d3 to see how many instant wounds it causes.... the same way a weapon with soulblaze rolls to see if it causes extra wounds after it scores a wound.

EDIT: And, like the sniper, the D weapon gets the added benefit of ignoring invulns (since it already ignores armor).

Rolling basic dice to determine if you hit or wound is fine; its a necessary aspect to fairly determine certain outcomes. Most weapons operate on a predictable and linear scale of more successes translate into more damage with these rolls. However, D-weapons in particular have an additional roll on a table to determine how killy it is. Before firing it, I don't know if I'll delete a vehicle, or merely annoy it. Its unpredictable and its an extra roll that is frankly not necessary. The unpredictable nature and particularly deadly nature and differing powers between if you roll a 1 or a 6 is much more of an issue than rolling for autocannons, which are entirely predictable and mathematically reliable given enough shots.

The point is, a random table for a weapon as strong as destroyer weapons is poor game design, because the balance aspect is dependent on the fact the outcome is random. If D-weapons were universally the '6' result, they'd be absurdly broken on certain platforms. But because its only a 1 in 6 chance, people think its fair (ish). Having a 1 in 6 chance is still a chance that every time it fires, it deletes what its firing at, which neither party can predict. If you're spending the points on a D-weapon, reliability would be my first concern, and even as an opponent, I'd much rather have certain knowledge what a D weapon is capable of. It makes the damage predictable and easier to balance because you don't have to justify the 1 in 6 potential for total annihilation.

I think snipers are also ungainly with their different results based on a roll, but the difference between a sniper shot and a D-weapon shot is far greater and will have far more impact on a game's outcome than rolling well on a sniper shot.

It would be better for the game to have a set profile and balance it accordingly from there. I think the same goes for a handful of other weapons, but I'm not as bothered with the likes of snipers due to their rarity, niche, and power level.

*Edit* Let me turn this around though; can you convince me having a random table determine my weapons outcome followed by a random dice roll to determine how much damage I deal is a superior or even good option than having a concrete profile?

Well blacksails, I don't think anyone needs to try to convince you of anything, and if you have your mind made up-well, why bother.

In all honesty, Sniper is strong because it wounds on a fixed value regardless of Toughness, that is what makes it potent-especially against high T targets. This also balances it out from being too strong as in game-play, the potential rending and the precision shot aspect of sniper weapons make them strong enough on their own against the right targets.

D is strong because it either auto-wounds or auto-pens if it hits... The cover or invul save isn't there to specifically see if the D weapon does any damage but to see if the target was sufficiently hit where damage should be done.

Therefore, since D weapons are so strong and destructive, it makes sense to assume that if they hit they will automatically do damage, instead of rolling "to-wound" or "armor pen" you roll to see how MUCH you wound or penetrate the armor... How is that bad game design? You know that if the hit from a D weapon goes through cover/invul that unless you roll a 1 (which may be considered a critical miss) you will be doing damage.

Overall, I think I will modify the proposed D chart to be 1=nothing, 2-5 the auto-wound/auto-pen but do d3 HP or wounds and a 6 be the same but ignores cover.

 Blacksails wrote:

Spoiler:

Rolling basic dice to determine if you hit or wound is fine; its a necessary aspect to fairly determine certain outcomes. Most weapons operate on a predictable and linear scale of more successes translate into more damage with these rolls. However, D-weapons in particular have an additional roll on a table to determine how killy it is. Before firing it, I don't know if I'll delete a vehicle, or merely annoy it. Its unpredictable and its an extra roll that is frankly not necessary. The unpredictable nature and particularly deadly nature and differing powers between if you roll a 1 or a 6 is much more of an issue than rolling for autocannons, which are entirely predictable and mathematically reliable given enough shots.

The point is, a random table for a weapon as strong as destroyer weapons is poor game design, because the balance aspect is dependent on the fact the outcome is random. If D-weapons were universally the '6' result, they'd be absurdly broken on certain platforms. But because its only a 1 in 6 chance, people think its fair (ish). Having a 1 in 6 chance is still a chance that every time it fires, it deletes what its firing at, which neither party can predict. If you're spending the points on a D-weapon, reliability would be my first concern, and even as an opponent, I'd much rather have certain knowledge what a D weapon is capable of. It makes the damage predictable and easier to balance because you don't have to justify the 1 in 6 potential for total annihilation.

I think snipers are also ungainly with their different results based on a roll, but the difference between a sniper shot and a D-weapon shot is far greater and will have far more impact on a game's outcome than rolling well on a sniper shot.

It would be better for the game to have a set profile and balance it accordingly from there. I think the same goes for a handful of other weapons, but I'm not as bothered with the likes of snipers due to their rarity, niche, and power level.

*Edit* Let me turn this around though; can you convince me having a random table determine my weapons outcome followed by a random dice roll to determine how much damage I deal is a superior or even good option than having a concrete profile?

I think the biggest issue with D weapons is that the game just isn't designed to be at that scale. D weapons are supposed to be what titans use to kill each other. They need to be noticeably better than S10 AP1, or there's not much point to them. Against a vehicle a single S10 AP1 shot is kind of crap. At the same time, saying "guaranteed pen" still means that, against a superheavy, you're really not doing anything. There needs to be the chance to deal massive damage to a superheavy. But then, if we aren't going up against a superheavy, D just seems kind of dumb if it always deals such obscene damage... no vehicle in existence could survive a shot from it. If GW just made it deal 6 wounds and ignore invulns people would hate them. If they made them all deal 3 wounds ignoring cover and armor, people would be upset that leman russes always get 1-shot. If they just deal 1 wound, people would declare them utterly crap, because you can't do anything against vehicles.

So what can we do to please everyone that wants D weapons to be so many different power levels? Give it all those power levels. Sure, it's largely so people blame it on the dice instead of saying that the rules themself are crap.
Thinking about it, why don't they get rid of that annoying D3 system and say that your roll to wound is just how many wounds you cause, with a roll of 2 being 1, 3 being 2, etc.?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mortetvie wrote:
Overall, I think I will modify the proposed D chart to be 1=nothing, 2-5 the auto-wound/auto-pen but do d3 HP or wounds and a 6 be the same but ignores cover.

I'd honestly still say that a 6 should ignore invulns, because it's silly saying a storm shield will under all circumstances block this like it's a plasma shot. There should be a chance shields will outright fail. And as other people have pointed out, huge issues with not ignoring cover. Bikes and skimmers are now immune to D weapons basically, and guardsmen hiding in a ruin shouldn't be safe from a blast that vaporizes terminators that are standing out in the open.

 kingbobbito wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Spoiler:

Rolling basic dice to determine if you hit or wound is fine; its a necessary aspect to fairly determine certain outcomes. Most weapons operate on a predictable and linear scale of more successes translate into more damage with these rolls. However, D-weapons in particular have an additional roll on a table to determine how killy it is. Before firing it, I don't know if I'll delete a vehicle, or merely annoy it. Its unpredictable and its an extra roll that is frankly not necessary. The unpredictable nature and particularly deadly nature and differing powers between if you roll a 1 or a 6 is much more of an issue than rolling for autocannons, which are entirely predictable and mathematically reliable given enough shots.

The point is, a random table for a weapon as strong as destroyer weapons is poor game design, because the balance aspect is dependent on the fact the outcome is random. If D-weapons were universally the '6' result, they'd be absurdly broken on certain platforms. But because its only a 1 in 6 chance, people think its fair (ish). Having a 1 in 6 chance is still a chance that every time it fires, it deletes what its firing at, which neither party can predict. If you're spending the points on a D-weapon, reliability would be my first concern, and even as an opponent, I'd much rather have certain knowledge what a D weapon is capable of. It makes the damage predictable and easier to balance because you don't have to justify the 1 in 6 potential for total annihilation.

I think snipers are also ungainly with their different results based on a roll, but the difference between a sniper shot and a D-weapon shot is far greater and will have far more impact on a game's outcome than rolling well on a sniper shot.

It would be better for the game to have a set profile and balance it accordingly from there. I think the same goes for a handful of other weapons, but I'm not as bothered with the likes of snipers due to their rarity, niche, and power level.

*Edit* Let me turn this around though; can you convince me having a random table determine my weapons outcome followed by a random dice roll to determine how much damage I deal is a superior or even good option than having a concrete profile?

I think the biggest issue with D weapons is that the game just isn't designed to be at that scale. D weapons are supposed to be what titans use to kill each other. They need to be noticeably better than S10 AP1, or there's not much point to them. Against a vehicle a single S10 AP1 shot is kind of crap. At the same time, saying "guaranteed pen" still means that, against a superheavy, you're really not doing anything. There needs to be the chance to deal massive damage to a superheavy. But then, if we aren't going up against a superheavy, D just seems kind of dumb if it always deals such obscene damage... no vehicle in existence could survive a shot from it. If GW just made it deal 6 wounds and ignore invulns people would hate them. If they made them all deal 3 wounds ignoring cover and armor, people would be upset that leman russes always get 1-shot. If they just deal 1 wound, people would declare them utterly crap, because you can't do anything against vehicles.

So what can we do to please everyone that wants D weapons to be so many different power levels? Give it all those power levels. Sure, it's largely so people blame it on the dice instead of saying that the rules themself are crap.
Thinking about it, why don't they get rid of that annoying D3 system and say that your roll to wound is just how many wounds you cause, with a roll of 2 being 1, 3 being 2, etc.?

So replace the d3 wounds with another d6 system? Your solution replaces the perceived problem of rolling a dice to determine how many wounds are done with another way to roll a dice and determine how many wounds are done.

In all honesty, D weapons probably should not be in regular 40k. However, IF D weapons are here to stay, my proposed changes in the original post are what I think would be a more balanced way to include them.

Indeed, the main thing, the main problem that people have with D weapons is the potential for that 6 result to come up where models are just removed all together. That is what I am addressing-and that is the part of the D weapon that needs to go the most in 40k. It doesn't matter that D weapons *SHOULD* obliterate anything they touch, that mechanic doesn't work well in 40k nor should it have a place there. What matters is how to best integrate a D weapon into 40k so that it doesn't become a dumb erase everything kind of weapon because that is simply not fun or good for the game.

 mortetvie wrote:
Well blacksails, I don't think anyone needs to try to convince you of anything, and if you have your mind made up-well, why bother.

This is a discussion. If you put forward a strong enough argument that a random table to determine its power is a good idea, I'd change my tune.

D is strong because it either auto-wounds or auto-pens if it hits... The cover or invul save isn't there to specifically see if the D weapon does any damage but to see if the target was sufficiently hit where damage should be done.

Right, but why not just remove the random table and give D weapons a set profile. The blast template/to-hit roll is more than sufficient from a fluff perspective to explain how well the shot hit or didn't.

Therefore, since D weapons are so strong and destructive, it makes sense to assume that if they hit they will automatically do damage, instead of rolling "to-wound" or "armor pen" you roll to see how MUCH you wound or penetrate the armor... How is that bad game design? You know that if the hit from a D weapon goes through cover/invul that unless you roll a 1 (which may be considered a critical miss) you will be doing damage.

You could remove the table entirely and give D weapons a set amount of damage. As a random example not meant to be a serious proposal for D weapons, make them S10 AP1, Armoure and Flesh Bane, Instant Death and causes 3 wounds or hull points. Rolling to hit/scatter is plenty of randomness to see if the weapon will hit or deal damage. There comes a point in game design when you forego a little bit of detailed fluff in order to make gameplay more balanced, smooth and predictable. Setting a universal, never changing profile would put it inline with most of the weapons in game, and therefore make it easier to balance, use, and play around. The only drawback is the tiny amount of fluff that you're arguing about seeing how much it penetrates, which is a debatable point depending on the target.

Overall, I think I will modify the proposed D chart to be 1=nothing, 2-5 the auto-wound/auto-pen but do d3 HP or wounds and a 6 be the same but ignores cover.

I would propose a flat profile. No D3s, no tables, just a predictable outcome for both parties.

Blacksails... Why does it matter if there is a table or not? Everything in 40k has to roll against some table to see if any damage is done and so on, tables are just a part of 40k. it just so happens most things generally do only 1 wound with some outlying exceptions (Tank Shock removing a model regardless of wounds/stats and so on is an example of an attack doing more than 1 wound).

It makes sense to have a table in this case because the POWER in the weapon is to auto-wound/auto-pen, that on its own is HUGE. Seeing how MUCH damage you do is simply replacing the "seeing if you do any damage at all" mechanic and both involve charts (i.e., to-wound chart/armor pen formula ignored).

So like I said, you know you will do at least 1 HP/Wound, with the possibility of doing more-anything above the 1 HP/Wound is a bonus. if you want D weapons to always do 3 wounds/HP, that is your preference but that is not necessary as the main power in the D weapon in a 40k setting should be the fact that it auto-pens/wounds, not that it auto-pens/wounds with a set amount of damage. That is my opinion and preference so take it or leave it, we are discussing what I propose to be the changes to D weapons in 40k, not how we can convince you that those proposals are good or bad.

@kingbobbito, skimmers and bikes are not immune to D weapons, a 6 would still ignore any cover saves. Anyway, Jink is to reflect how HARD it is to hit a target moving that fast and that makes sense-super fast units should be able to avoid damage from D weapons/avoid being hit by them. Cover is not simply a rock blocking the shot but to see if the shot actually hits the target at all. Think of the BS roll the shooters ability to shoot weapon in the right direction while the cover save being a luck/skill factor in avoiding the shot all together on the part of the target.

 mortetvie wrote:
Blacksails... Why does it matter if there is a table or not? Everything in 40k has to roll against some table to see if any damage is done and so on, tables are just a part of 40k.

Well, it doesn't matter. None of this matters, really. The rules are published, so this is all theory and discussion anyways. If you don't want to discuss this notion with me, then you can duck out. No harm no foul.

But, if we're discussing how something can be improved, stating 'that's how 40k does it' is not a valid argument; we're here to discuss how to improve or change something, which inherently means that we're mostly ignoring GW's standard methods. There's no reason why D weapons couldn't be made more like other weapons in game and have a set profile instead of an additional table and additional D3 of rolling.

It makes sense to have a table in this case because the POWER in the weapon is to auto-wound/auto-pen, that on its own is HUGE. Seeing how MUCH damage you do is simply replacing the "seeing if you do any damage at all" mechanic and both involve charts (i.e., to-wound chart/armor pen formula ignored).

Right, and my proposal is to remove the table to see if you deal D6 or D3, and just give it a set value. It makes it simpler and predictable. There really isn't much of a downside of just assigning a damage value. Most games do this. 40k has an obsession with D6's and D3's replacing a set value, like Victory Points on Maelstrom cards for example. Just set a number to it and tweak it until it's balanced. A D3 is not a substitute for balance.

So like I said, you know you will do at least 1 HP/Wound, with the possibility of doing more-anything above the 1 HP/Wound is a bonus. if you want D weapons to always do 3 wounds/HP, that is your preference but that is not necessary as the main power in the D weapon in a 40k setting should be the fact that it auto-pens/wounds, not that it auto-pens/wounds with a set amount of damage. That is my opinion and preference so take it or leave it, we are discussing what I propose to be the changes to D weapons in 40k, not how we can convince you that those proposals are good or bad.

And likewise, I believe its better for the game to have a set damage profile for something so powerful. Making a random amount between 1 and 6 is not good for any sort of tactical play. Its entirely too unpredictable, not to mention how much simpler it would if it was a set value.

This is a discussion. People will have differing opinions. The point is to hash out the pros and cons and discuss alternatives. I don't know why you're having a hard time understanding that. Its fine to disagree with me, but I have every reason to be here and discuss alternatives, whether you like it or not.

Blacksails, except you were taking the discussion and turning it into a "well, convince me about X" which isn't really a discussion at that point anymore. Indeed, it is one thing to say "I think it should be X for the following reasons" and another to go "well, convince me."

Regardless, I think a chart that says the set damage of something is unnecessary and you don't, no worries. We'll see if any tournaments do any meaningful changes about D weapons in light of what Eldar will be able to bring.

Overall, it probably isn't a big deal as it is the hard to kill, multiple 5" blast/hellstorm template slinging units that make D weapons so hard to deal with (i.e., able to cover multiple and entire units and erase them with the dreaded 6).

With Eldar, as it stands, the units in the dex (wraithguard/wraithknights) are all still relatively easy to kill with conventional weapons rather than having some Eldar super heavy with super force field on another force field because yo dawg?

Destroyer weapons should be powerful, but not cheap, and not cost effective against targets smaller than tanks.

 mortetvie wrote:
Blacksails, except you were taking the discussion and turning it into a "well, convince me about X" which isn't really a discussion at that point anymore. Indeed, it is one thing to say "I think it should be X for the following reasons" and another to go "well, convince me."

If that's what you got from that, then I apologize as it wasn't intended to be taken like that. All I wanted was to hear your reasons why you feel a random mechanic is better than a flat one. That's all. A relevant discussion to be had, I'm sure you'll agree. The convince me comment was more of an idiom or turn of phrase really.

Regardless, I think a chart that says the set damage of something is unnecessary and you don't, no worries. We'll see if any tournaments do any meaningful changes about D weapons in light of what Eldar will be able to bring.

Sure, we can agree to disagree. I'd even be happy if the D weapon did a universal D3 wounds/hullpoints, though I suppose you may as well just cut out the roll and average it to 2. Details, I suppose, and aspects of game design I care more about then the average person.

Overall, it probably isn't a big deal as it is the hard to kill, multiple 5" blast/hellstorm template slinging units that make D weapons so hard to deal with (i.e., able to cover multiple and entire units and erase them with the dreaded 6).

Its a lot to do with the platform the D-weapon is on, yes. A shadowsword is much less threatening than a Warhound, which is less threatening than a Revenant for packing D weapons. Throw in Invisibility, and you quickly have a broken game.

With Eldar, as it stands, the units in the dex (wraithguard/wraithknights) are all still relatively easy to kill with conventional weapons rather than having some Eldar super heavy with super force field on another force field because yo dawg?

I wouldn't say they're easy to kill, but sure, they're certainly not that hard either.

Let's just be thankful a Wraithknight can't transport Wraithguard in its feet if this D-weapon nonsense comes true. D-weapons inside your D-weapons.

*Edit* Words are hard.

My fix is distortion weapons wound on a 2+ on a 6 they remove from play. Against vehicles, a 2+ does an automatic pen, a6 adds +2 to the damage chart.

Blacksails is right. The only reason people are okay with all the tables is because there are already a bunch of tables. But the game would be significantly better served by a reduction in the number of tables.

Game play should be as smooth and seamless as possible. Every additional table you have to look up is more time checking rules then it is playing the actual game.

I would simply make D: "Strength 10, Multiple Wounds (D3), -2 Invul Save Mod"

Make it consistently better against the stuff that D is in theory "supposed" to counter (Screamerstars, etc) while making it less of a Roulette choice against bigger monsters or stuff in cover.

what i hate is that StrD weapons are carried by stuff that are hard to kill. If they made some anti Titan/super heavy weapons better than lascannons then that would be great. Stuff that ignores void shields, and easily strips haul points then that be great.

I call it: Str F Ap U and hwt guardsmen, dev/havocs can carry it.

What if they made it that successful saves VS a destroyer weapon have to be rerolled? Hilariously, if you have a 2+ Inv save w/reroll you'll always just reroll and choose the second roll (roll a 1, you reroll, roll a 2-6 you reroll, save time by just rolling once).

EDIT: Also, have it ignore cover all the time, and instead of dealing D3 or d6+6, just have it deal 2 wounds/penetrating hits. That's pretty incredible still.