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.

Basically, anti-tank has a problem in 40k where anything that's S9+ is... Basically, S9. Very occasionally, (usually when fighting FW or something buffed by a psychic power,) having S10 can be a boon for shooting at tanks, and it's sometimes nice when fighting T5 models, but that's about it. S12 stuff technically does help against T6 models, but there aren't a lot of S12 ranged attacks, and those that do exist are rarely worth wasting on a T6 model due to also having really high AP and Damage which usually isn't needed against T6 stuff.

About the only stuff that's S14 and S16 is melee attacks. The lack of really high-strength shooting makes most anti-tank seem kind of flat. You've got 'It wounds T8 on 4+' and 'It wounds T8 on 3+', and that's about the only distinction that exists.
(Not taking into account FW, the only S14 and S16 shooting that I can think of is... Two Baneblade variants? If I'm missing something else, I dunno what it is. (Note: Halfway through writing this, I noticed that the Stormsurge can get S14, so that's one other thing.))

As for what weapons could qualify for such high strength? Honestly, I think a lot of stuff. The Twin Lascannons on a Predator could get a bump, to make them distinct from regular Lascannons. Since bumping from S9 to S14 only really matters against T7 models and a tiny, tiny fraction of other stuff, it's not nearly as big of an issue as it seems like on paper. (And to make Predators more viable when compared to Razorbacks.)
I also think that, rather than getting two dice for damage at short range, Melta weapons should just double in strength when at half range - Thus making them effective weapons at piercing super strong armor, rather than being great at sniping characters and bad at actually wounding strong tanks.

For non-imperial stuff, the Hammerhead Railgun should really be higher strength. (Really, I think S16 on it would be fine. It used to be basically the strongest single shot in the game, and it's still only one shot.) A lot of Ork stuff that has randomized strength could be buffed - Shokk Attack Guns and Zapp Guns, in particular, really need a buff, since they're still treated like 7th edition weapons, where S10 was the highest you could go and would basically wound anything on 2s. Bumping them to 3d6 strength would make them actually decent at cracking tanks.



These are just a few examples, but you get the point.

I'm all for it in theory. The railhead is a great example of a unit that would make sense with such a buff as would, arguably, the fire prism (though the new linked shot rules probably make it unnecessary there). Vanquishers, which are designed to blast open fortress walls, could stand to add a little more quality to their lack of quantity too.

I don't think I'd up the strength on any lascannon platform though. Being strength 9 rather than 8 (like eldar lance weapons) actually makes the lascannon pretty good as a dedicated "big thing" killer. Against an imperial knight or predator, for instance, you'd much rather have the lascannons to the krak missile launcher. I think lascannons are filling their niches pretty well right now.

I don't think I'm on board with your melta change. While it stinks to fail to wound a vehicle, it also really stinks to roll a 1 for damage. Plus, it would feel weird for meltaguns to be less good at blasting away characters. They already wound most characters on 2s, so this would just make my archon oddly resistant to meltaguns to the face.

I like where youre going with this, but I think above S10 should be reserved to FW titan levels.

I disagree completely. The Hammerhead main gun should absolutely be S16.

On the whole, given the way codices are going and the appearance of the Indexes from Forge World, etc. I do think there is a definitely place ofr Strength 14/16 weapons - albeit rarely.

For instance, the Vanquisher cannon on the Leman Russ? Easily suitable as a Strength 14 weapon, keeping in mind the Strength 14/16 gap is as important as the Strength 7/8 gap. I do think Strength 16 is pushing it. I can't think of much on a normal vehicle which should be 2+ wounding something like a Land Raider, etc. If you're going to go Strength 16 for a normal 40K vehicle --- hinder the damage perhaps.

Note that with the codices, some weapons did go from 10 up to 12 in a couple of books (D-Cannon for the Eldar etc.) meaning you have better chance of 2+ wounding light vehicles, etc.

I think the removal of 10 as the limit is a smart choice - but I suspect GW rules writers will slowly but surely obliterate the balance of the game. I'm already seeing waaay more long range -3 and -4 weapons than expected.

The main hammerhead gun should absolutely wound land raiders on a 2+.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm all for it in theory. The railhead is a great example of a unit that would make sense with such a buff as would, arguably, the fire prism (though the new linked shot rules probably make it unnecessary there). Vanquishers, which are designed to blast open fortress walls, could stand to add a little more quality to their lack of quantity too.

I don't think I'd up the strength on any lascannon platform though. Being strength 9 rather than 8 (like eldar lance weapons) actually makes the lascannon pretty good as a dedicated "big thing" killer. Against an imperial knight or predator, for instance, you'd much rather have the lascannons to the krak missile launcher. I think lascannons are filling their niches pretty well right now.

I'm generally in agreement, except in the case of Predators and other 'Really big' platforms. Lascannons on Predators currently have a problem where, despite being visually very larger and built onto a tank whose entire existence is predicated on being a platform for big guns, they don't actually do any more damage than your standard MP Lascannon. This is kind-of-sort-of remedied if you bring three Predators and take advantage of the Killshot strategem, but having to spend 600 Points as well as a Command Point every single turn in order to make Predators stronger than a few guys standing around holding big guns is generally not viable for most armies. (And it is really, really easy to shut down, since killing one Predator in a 2k game is incredibly easy.)
By increasing the power of the Predator Lascannon Turret (not the sponsons, just the main turret,) in the same way that the Predator Autocannon has higher damage than a standard Autocannon, we make the prospect of taking a single Predator into something that's effective, rather than being generally worse than taking two Lascannon Razorbacks.
(Also, as a sidenote: Predators, being T7, barely notice the difference between a Lascannon and Krak Missile Launcher - The only thing that changes is that they get a 6+ save instead of a 5+ save.)

I don't think I'm on board with your melta change. While it stinks to fail to wound a vehicle, it also really stinks to roll a 1 for damage. Plus, it would feel weird for meltaguns to be less good at blasting away characters. They already wound most characters on 2s, so this would just make my archon oddly resistant to meltaguns to the face.

The thing is, though, the rule as it currently exists is a complete reversal from how it used to work in every edition since at least 5th, and I'm fairly certain before that. (I started playing in 5th, so I can't vouch for pre-5th edition rules.) Meltaguns have always been incredibly good at breaking through armor and wounding vehicles, no matter how tough the vehicle. Where a S10 weapon would hurt a Land Raider only half the time and Penetrate it only 1/3rd of the time, and a Lascannon would only cause damage 1/3rd of the time and penetrate 1/6th of the time, a Meltagun would hurt a Land Raider almost 3/4ths of the time and penetrate 3/5ths of the time. They were also top-tier at getting good damage results, thanks to AP1.
However, Meltaguns were only so-so at wounding Characters. While they would inflict Instant Death on most human-level stuff and Marines, anything that was T5+ could shrug off a Meltagun, and AP1 had no extra effect over AP2, because killing characters was not what Meltaguns were designed to do. (Not to mention that, generally, you wouldn't get to hit a character with a Meltagun because they would be buried in squads.)

Now, however, the inverse is true - Meltaguns are worse at damaging tanks than Lascannons, but are very good at killing heavy infantry and characters - They're a great, reliable way to kill T5 and T6 stuff as well, like Warbosses, Biker characters, and tons of stuff I'm not gonna bother listing. Meanwhile, their AP offers no specific benefit against tanks anymore, and isn't even particularly amazing -
AP-5 is the standard for 'Really good at penetrating' now, but Meltaguns only get AP-4. This completely goes against how they are described in the fluff, their historical usage, and any kind of logical sense of what they should be doing. It's in the name - They should be melting tanks, not bouncing off tanks and instead obliterating characters.

Waaaghpower wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm all for it in theory. The railhead is a great example of a unit that would make sense with such a buff as would, arguably, the fire prism (though the new linked shot rules probably make it unnecessary there). Vanquishers, which are designed to blast open fortress walls, could stand to add a little more quality to their lack of quantity too.

I don't think I'd up the strength on any lascannon platform though. Being strength 9 rather than 8 (like eldar lance weapons) actually makes the lascannon pretty good as a dedicated "big thing" killer. Against an imperial knight or predator, for instance, you'd much rather have the lascannons to the krak missile launcher. I think lascannons are filling their niches pretty well right now.

I'm generally in agreement, except in the case of Predators and other 'Really big' platforms. Lascannons on Predators currently have a problem where, despite being visually very larger and built onto a tank whose entire existence is predicated on being a platform for big guns, they don't actually do any more damage than your standard MP Lascannon. This is kind-of-sort-of remedied if you bring three Predators and take advantage of the Killshot strategem, but having to spend 600 Points as well as a Command Point every single turn in order to make Predators stronger than a few guys standing around holding big guns is generally not viable for most armies. (And it is really, really easy to shut down, since killing one Predator in a 2k game is incredibly easy.)
By increasing the power of the Predator Lascannon Turret (not the sponsons, just the main turret,) in the same way that the Predator Autocannon has higher damage than a standard Autocannon, we make the prospect of taking a single Predator into something that's effective, rather than being generally worse than taking two Lascannon Razorbacks.
(Also, as a sidenote: Predators, being T7, barely notice the difference between a Lascannon and Krak Missile Launcher - The only thing that changes is that they get a 6+ save instead of a 5+ save.)

I don't think I'm on board with your melta change. While it stinks to fail to wound a vehicle, it also really stinks to roll a 1 for damage. Plus, it would feel weird for meltaguns to be less good at blasting away characters. They already wound most characters on 2s, so this would just make my archon oddly resistant to meltaguns to the face.

The thing is, though, the rule as it currently exists is a complete reversal from how it used to work in every edition since at least 5th, and I'm fairly certain before that. (I started playing in 5th, so I can't vouch for pre-5th edition rules.) Meltaguns have always been incredibly good at breaking through armor and wounding vehicles, no matter how tough the vehicle. Where a S10 weapon would hurt a Land Raider only half the time and Penetrate it only 1/3rd of the time, and a Lascannon would only cause damage 1/3rd of the time and penetrate 1/6th of the time, a Meltagun would hurt a Land Raider almost 3/4ths of the time and penetrate 3/5ths of the time. They were also top-tier at getting good damage results, thanks to AP1.
However, Meltaguns were only so-so at wounding Characters. While they would inflict Instant Death on most human-level stuff and Marines, anything that was T5+ could shrug off a Meltagun, and AP1 had no extra effect over AP2, because killing characters was not what Meltaguns were designed to do. (Not to mention that, generally, you wouldn't get to hit a character with a Meltagun because they would be buried in squads.)

Now, however, the inverse is true - Meltaguns are worse at damaging tanks than Lascannons, but are very good at killing heavy infantry and characters - They're a great, reliable way to kill T5 and T6 stuff as well, like Warbosses, Biker characters, and tons of stuff I'm not gonna bother listing. Meanwhile, their AP offers no specific benefit against tanks anymore, and isn't even particularly amazing -
AP-5 is the standard for 'Really good at penetrating' now, but Meltaguns only get AP-4. This completely goes against how they are described in the fluff, their historical usage, and any kind of logical sense of what they should be doing. It's in the name - They should be melting tanks, not bouncing off tanks and instead obliterating characters.

This is a really good take away. The removal of AV system really did a number on many weapons. But also, this line of thought was what I had in mind when I initially objected the S16 idea - proliferation of high strength, high damage weapons will inevitably reduce the weight of tanks down even further and further enhance the current horde meta.

I 100% agree with you on providing different profiles for vehicle mounted guns and the handheld versions - much like how tau has different 'calibers' or rail weapons.

I think a softer fix is to provide better special rules to specialized weapons. Say, like how shuriken weapons work with non vehicles, meltas could gain an extra rule so it wounds on 2+ against vehicles. Currently, overcharging two plasmaguns at half range has better potential damage output than melta alone.

Something I'm going to point out - Swapping 'Two dice for damage' and 'Double Strength' makes Melta better against T8+, does nothing against T5-7, and decreases damage against T4 and lower. In effect, it makes Meltaguns more specialized, but does not make it a more powerful gun overall. Meltas aren't currently pulling their weight; if you're an Imperial who wants anti-T8, you're bringing Lascannons. This wouldn't be a nerf to tanks, it would add another tool that still wouldn't be as good as Lascannons most of the time.

I'm going to go with no on this idea. I think Vehicles not getting wounded at range on better than a 3+ is a good thing. Vehicles already tend to melt to focused high damage shots in comparison to infantry vs anti-infantry weapons. We don't really need more ranged weapons that wound vehicles easily, ignore their armor, and do a ton of damage.

Maybe for a select few expensive options it is ok, but things like predator lascannons, or any other easy spam option I don't think it is a great idea.

As for the melta gun. AP -4 is actually the standard for really good at penetrating now, it is not very common and eliminates all but a 2+ save. IT is also of note that against T7 or below a melta gun is better than a lascannon against all vehicles. That said I would be ok with double strength at half range on the current melta profile as it does simulate the old penetration power. It is also not fair to say double strength on melta does nothing against T5-7. It makes it wound those T values on a 2 instead of a 3, in fact baring FW stuff it makes a melta wound everything in the game on a 2 at 6 in range.

GW probably didnt give lascannons (and similiar anti vehicle guns) S12+ because they want vehicles to be tough.

I'd definitely support a few weapons topping str10. As has already been said i think hammerhead railguns should be str14 or even 16. With the way the new wound chart works strength has become a bit strange tbh. I think a more reliable way of causing damage is something worth looking into. More 3+d3 or 2d3 than d6

I'm actually for the Vanquished Cannon getting S14 or even 16.

Breng77 wrote:
I'm going to go with no on this idea. I think Vehicles not getting wounded at range on better than a 3+ is a good thing. Vehicles already tend to melt to focused high damage shots in comparison to infantry vs anti-infantry weapons. We don't really need more ranged weapons that wound vehicles easily, ignore their armor, and do a ton of damage.

Maybe for a select few expensive options it is ok, but things like predator lascannons, or any other easy spam option I don't think it is a great idea.

As for the melta gun. AP -4 is actually the standard for really good at penetrating now, it is not very common and eliminates all but a 2+ save. IT is also of note that against T7 or below a melta gun is better than a lascannon against all vehicles. That said I would be ok with double strength at half range on the current melta profile as it does simulate the old penetration power. It is also not fair to say double strength on melta does nothing against T5-7. It makes it wound those T values on a 2 instead of a 3, in fact baring FW stuff it makes a melta wound everything in the game on a 2 at 6 in range.

Predator Lascannons aren't easy to spam. It's 35pts more expensive than spamming four Devestator Lascannons (And actually LESS deadly, since those Devestators bring in an Armorium and get to use a Signum every turn, while a Predator just doesn't,) and while it's 35pts less than two Razorbacks, those Razorbacks get a massive durability buff in the exchange.
On top of which, the Predator Lascannon would only be the turret, not the sponsons. So it's only half the guns that would even be getting a buff.

Also, you seem to be either missing or ignoring the pragmatics of some of what I've said. AP-4 is not the best AP that you can get, which was my point - Is it pretty darn good? Yes! But AP-5 is the best in the game, not AP-4. The whole point of Melta was that it effectively ignored Armor, and now it... Doesn't.
Additionally, the reason that I said 'Double strength does nothing against T 5-7' is because I was comparing the average damage of the shot - Replacing 'Two dice for damage' with 'Double strength' would increase the likelyhood to wound but decrease the average damage of a succesful shot. The average damage currently is 1.9166, the average damage with my change would be 1.9173.

p5freak wrote:
GW probably didnt give lascannons (and similiar anti vehicle guns) S12+ because they want vehicles to be tough.

I'm specifically talking about one kind of lascannon sponson that doesn't get brought to competitive games because of how crappy it is currently compared to the alternatives.

Martel732 wrote:
The main hammerhead gun should absolutely wound land raiders on a 2+.

100% agree.

Although I do think that S12+ really should be rare overall. Considering that most weapons with S10+ ignore most vehicle armour saves and do D6 damage, giving these weapons the ability to wound on 2+ would skew the meta too far against vehicles.

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The main hammerhead gun should absolutely wound land raiders on a 2+.

100% agree.

Although I do think that S12+ really should be rare overall. Considering that most weapons with S10+ ignore most vehicle armour saves and do D6 damage, giving these weapons the ability to wound on 2+ would skew the meta too far against vehicles.

Thing is, S12 itself is actually one of the most useless Strength values. It only offers benefit against T6, but T6 is already so fragile that you're better off hitting it with light attacks - Assault Cannon-type weapons wound on 4s, and Autocannon-type weapons absolutely shred T6. Only one army that I can think of (Tyranids) has a really significant amount of T6 that actually have enough durability otherwise (From wounds and a decent save) that you might want to pump real anti-tank into them.

The reason that S14 and S16 are important is because T7 and T8 are the points where you can no longer get by without bringing anti-tank weaponry. T7 can be hurt by S4 attacks reasonably well, but starts to gain resistance to Autocannons and the like, and T8 is the point where many dedicated anti-tank weapons are no longer capable of wounding the majority of the time, and S7 stuff only wounds 1/3rd of the time.

 Galef wrote:
skew the meta too far against vehicles.

But on the other hand, if these weapons are only available mounted on vehicles, like the Hammerhead and Vanquisher, that should even out. 'cause you'd need vehicles to mount them on.

Panzergraf wrote:

 Galef wrote:
skew the meta too far against vehicles.

But on the other hand, if these weapons are only available mounted on vehicles, like the Hammerhead and Vanquisher, that should even out. 'cause you'd need vehicles to mount them on.

But infantry is still as good against tanks as they were BUT all those buffs you got from taking vehicles would be useless.

tneva82 wrote:

Panzergraf wrote:

 Galef wrote:
skew the meta too far against vehicles.

But on the other hand, if these weapons are only available mounted on vehicles, like the Hammerhead and Vanquisher, that should even out. 'cause you'd need vehicles to mount them on.

But infantry is still as good against tanks as they were BUT all those buffs you got from taking vehicles would be useless.

There are many problems with the current meta. This is only a fix to one of them, because changing one aspect of the game is not a wholistic approach that will somehow fix everything.
Right now, most tank-based anti-tank isn't worth taking, with a few noteworthy exceptions. (The Shadowsword comes to mind.) This is because the Strength and Toughness system, while allegedly supposed to be infinitely scaleable and have no cap, pretty much caps out at 10, which breaks down in the face of T8+ models. The jump from S7 to S8 is massive for killing tanks, the jump from S8 to S9 is really good against very heavy enemies, and after that, there's nowhere else to go. T9 is so rare in standard games as to be almost nonexistent, and the only way I can think of to get T10 outside of Forge World Super Heavies is to use mild shenanigans (bring a specific Salamanders relic on a Land Raider Excelsior and then cast Might of Heroes on top of that).
Because of this, there's no real reason to take 'really really strong' anti-tank weapons.

Though, if you want to make this more of a 'Fix everything in the meta' category, what should really happen is that the number of hyper-powerful anti tank weapons should increase, and the durability of tanks in general should increase as well - Adding a couple wounds to anything tougher than a Rhino. (Light transports are pretty ok on durability right now, it's the big heavy stuff that just seems too fragile.) That way, tanks don't become unstoppable, but you can't just shred them with supposed anti-infantry weapons.

Waaaghpower wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I'm going to go with no on this idea. I think Vehicles not getting wounded at range on better than a 3+ is a good thing. Vehicles already tend to melt to focused high damage shots in comparison to infantry vs anti-infantry weapons. We don't really need more ranged weapons that wound vehicles easily, ignore their armor, and do a ton of damage.

Maybe for a select few expensive options it is ok, but things like predator lascannons, or any other easy spam option I don't think it is a great idea.

As for the melta gun. AP -4 is actually the standard for really good at penetrating now, it is not very common and eliminates all but a 2+ save. IT is also of note that against T7 or below a melta gun is better than a lascannon against all vehicles. That said I would be ok with double strength at half range on the current melta profile as it does simulate the old penetration power. It is also not fair to say double strength on melta does nothing against T5-7. It makes it wound those T values on a 2 instead of a 3, in fact baring FW stuff it makes a melta wound everything in the game on a 2 at 6 in range.

Predator Lascannons aren't easy to spam. It's 35pts more expensive than spamming four Devestator Lascannons (And actually LESS deadly, since those Devestators bring in an Armorium and get to use a Signum every turn, while a Predator just doesn't,) and while it's 35pts less than two Razorbacks, those Razorbacks get a massive durability buff in the exchange.
On top of which, the Predator Lascannon would only be the turret, not the sponsons. So it's only half the guns that would even be getting a buff.

Also, you seem to be either missing or ignoring the pragmatics of some of what I've said. AP-4 is not the best AP that you can get, which was my point - Is it pretty darn good? Yes! But AP-5 is the best in the game, not AP-4. The whole point of Melta was that it effectively ignored Armor, and now it... Doesn't.
Additionally, the reason that I said 'Double strength does nothing against T 5-7' is because I was comparing the average damage of the shot - Replacing 'Two dice for damage' with 'Double strength' would increase the likelyhood to wound but decrease the average damage of a succesful shot. The average damage currently is 1.9166, the average damage with my change would be 1.9173.

p5freak wrote:
GW probably didnt give lascannons (and similiar anti vehicle guns) S12+ because they want vehicles to be tough.

I'm specifically talking about one kind of lascannon sponson that doesn't get brought to competitive games because of how crappy it is currently compared to the alternatives.

The point is though that predator lascannons are easy to spam, they might not be the easiest right now but that doesn't make them difficult. For instance if I just wanted to spam S 14 I could get one with no sponsons for 140 points Put that with RG and say good by to any T7 tanks on the table in short order. The issue is, that is already true, so why the need to change? Just because you think high T stuff should be able to get wounded on a 2+. T8 is the highest toughness outside of FW models, and units with that T are meant to be super durable. IMO there should not be weapons that wound them on a 2+ that are easily available, on a titan sure, on something as cheap as say 150 points, no. Especially because those weapons inevitably go on to have good AP so now you are negating both methods of defense available to those tough targets, they get little to no save, and get easily wounded. This change will just force the game even more to horde infantry who won't care about those big guns.

As for the melta change, you are still being disingenuous. There are a ton of T5 single wound models, and even more with only 2 wounds. So wounding more easily is a big buff over the more reliable high damage. T6 and 7 a little less so though there are still 2 and 3 wound infantry that are T6. SO the biggest change would be melta being slightly worse against T4 and below multi wound models.

As for the AP, I'm struggling to think of any ranged AP -5 on non FW models. Just looking through some stuff orks, have 1 weapon, the SAG that AP -5, AM have one the Volcano cannon. SO two gun that has AP -5 in the standard game. SO in general AP -4 is the best AP available to most things, and the equivalent of the old AP 1. Elite stuff and vehicles are already weak compared to cheap infantry in this edition, this doesn't need to be fixed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Panzergraf wrote:

 Galef wrote:
skew the meta too far against vehicles.

But on the other hand, if these weapons are only available mounted on vehicles, like the Hammerhead and Vanquisher, that should even out. 'cause you'd need vehicles to mount them on.

But infantry is still as good against tanks as they were BUT all those buffs you got from taking vehicles would be useless.

There are many problems with the current meta. This is only a fix to one of them, because changing one aspect of the game is not a wholistic approach that will somehow fix everything.
Right now, most tank-based anti-tank isn't worth taking, with a few noteworthy exceptions. (The Shadowsword comes to mind.) This is because the Strength and Toughness system, while allegedly supposed to be infinitely scaleable and have no cap, pretty much caps out at 10, which breaks down in the face of T8+ models. The jump from S7 to S8 is massive for killing tanks, the jump from S8 to S9 is really good against very heavy enemies, and after that, there's nowhere else to go. T9 is so rare in standard games as to be almost nonexistent, and the only way I can think of to get T10 outside of Forge World Super Heavies is to use mild shenanigans (bring a specific Salamanders relic on a Land Raider Excelsior and then cast Might of Heroes on top of that).
Because of this, there's no real reason to take 'really really strong' anti-tank weapons.

Though, if you want to make this more of a 'Fix everything in the meta' category, what should really happen is that the number of hyper-powerful anti tank weapons should increase, and the durability of tanks in general should increase as well - Adding a couple wounds to anything tougher than a Rhino. (Light transports are pretty ok on durability right now, it's the big heavy stuff that just seems too fragile.) That way, tanks don't become unstoppable, but you can't just shred them with supposed anti-infantry weapons.

The issue is that at the same time the S/T scale for T is essentially Capped at T8. ONLY FW goes above this level, so if you want Higher strength guns, you also need higher T models. FOr instance I'm ok with you having a S16 gun, if say my Gorkanaut is T12, e need for those bigger guns because things like lascannons on infantry struggle against it.

Breng77 wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I'm going to go with no on this idea. I think Vehicles not getting wounded at range on better than a 3+ is a good thing. Vehicles already tend to melt to focused high damage shots in comparison to infantry vs anti-infantry weapons. We don't really need more ranged weapons that wound vehicles easily, ignore their armor, and do a ton of damage.

Maybe for a select few expensive options it is ok, but things like predator lascannons, or any other easy spam option I don't think it is a great idea.

As for the melta gun. AP -4 is actually the standard for really good at penetrating now, it is not very common and eliminates all but a 2+ save. IT is also of note that against T7 or below a melta gun is better than a lascannon against all vehicles. That said I would be ok with double strength at half range on the current melta profile as it does simulate the old penetration power. It is also not fair to say double strength on melta does nothing against T5-7. It makes it wound those T values on a 2 instead of a 3, in fact baring FW stuff it makes a melta wound everything in the game on a 2 at 6 in range.

Predator Lascannons aren't easy to spam. It's 35pts more expensive than spamming four Devestator Lascannons (And actually LESS deadly, since those Devestators bring in an Armorium and get to use a Signum every turn, while a Predator just doesn't,) and while it's 35pts less than two Razorbacks, those Razorbacks get a massive durability buff in the exchange.
On top of which, the Predator Lascannon would only be the turret, not the sponsons. So it's only half the guns that would even be getting a buff.

Also, you seem to be either missing or ignoring the pragmatics of some of what I've said. AP-4 is not the best AP that you can get, which was my point - Is it pretty darn good? Yes! But AP-5 is the best in the game, not AP-4. The whole point of Melta was that it effectively ignored Armor, and now it... Doesn't.
Additionally, the reason that I said 'Double strength does nothing against T 5-7' is because I was comparing the average damage of the shot - Replacing 'Two dice for damage' with 'Double strength' would increase the likelyhood to wound but decrease the average damage of a succesful shot. The average damage currently is 1.9166, the average damage with my change would be 1.9173.

p5freak wrote:
GW probably didnt give lascannons (and similiar anti vehicle guns) S12+ because they want vehicles to be tough.

I'm specifically talking about one kind of lascannon sponson that doesn't get brought to competitive games because of how crappy it is currently compared to the alternatives.

The point is though that predator lascannons are easy to spam, they might not be the easiest right now but that doesn't make them difficult. For instance if I just wanted to spam S 14 I could get one with no sponsons for 140 points Put that with RG and say good by to any T7 tanks on the table in short order. The issue is, that is already true, so why the need to change? Just because you think high T stuff should be able to get wounded on a 2+. T8 is the highest toughness outside of FW models, and units with that T are meant to be super durable. IMO there should not be weapons that wound them on a 2+ that are easily available, on a titan sure, on something as cheap as say 150 points, no. Especially because those weapons inevitably go on to have good AP so now you are negating both methods of defense available to those tough targets, they get little to no save, and get easily wounded. This change will just force the game even more to horde infantry who won't care about those big guns.

I can't tell if you're ignoring my point or just missing it, but I'll go down point-by-point:
140pts for two shots isn't cheap or spammable, and it isn't NEARLY so broken or powerful as you seem to be acting like it is. (I'm also unclear how taking Raven Guard would improve the damage of a Predator, you seem to think that Chapter Tactics can buff tanks.) I'm gonna do some quick math here, by the way:
Let's assume a S14 turret that's otherwise the same - Both in cost, AP, and Damage. You are apparently scared of someone spamming Predators with nothing but that turret, because S14 being readily available will make tanks too fragile. We'll shoot it at a T7 enemy.

However, here's the actual math on the damage output:
2 shots, hitting on 3+, wounding on 2+, against a 6+ save (AP-3 against most tanks leaves 6+ armor,) dealing 3.5 damage = 3.2 damage.
That's a 140pt tank, dealing 3.2 damage.
Without the buff, a Predator would instead be dealing 2.5 wounds.
The buff, then, gives an increase of .7 wounds as compared to not having the buff.

This also works out to 43.75 points per wound with the buff, or 56pts per wound without the buff.
Incidentally, a Razorback with Lascannon turrets currently costs 46pts per wound against the same target. So, my proposed buff would do exactly what I am saying it would, which is to say that it would make Predators (a dedicated tank hunting platform) more valuable at tank hunting than Razorbacks (a transport with the ability to bring some heavy guns).

I think you are just reacting with a gut-level fear to S14 because it sounds really high and scary, but in effect it really just amounts to getting +1 to wound against T5-7. (And who is taking Lascannons with the intent of killing T5 models?)

Now, on to your next point:

As for the melta change, you are still being disingenuous. There are a ton of T5 single wound models, and even more with only 2 wounds. So wounding more easily is a big buff over the more reliable high damage. T6 and 7 a little less so though there are still 2 and 3 wound infantry that are T6. SO the biggest change would be melta being slightly worse against T4 and below multi wound models.

You seem to be acting like Meltaguns are being used against single wound T5 models regularly. This... Well, it might be true? I can't prove that it isn't. But what I can prove is that using Meltaguns to kill single-wound T5 models is just a terrible idea, regardless of whether or not my changes were to be used.
Also: Where are all these T5 one-wound models at? In a secret rulebook that nobody told me about? Off the top of my head, I can think of... Plague Marines, I guess, but they have 5+ FNP which compensates somewhat for only having one wound. I just flipped casually through the four Indexes I own - Xenos 2, Chaos, Imperium 1, and Imperium 2, and couldn't find ANY outside of Plague Marines - If I missed anything, please let me know, but I think this pretty much proves that there aren't "Tons of T5 single wound models" when I can only find one while looking through four mostly-comprehensive books.

Finally, you seem to not understand the point of my change - The point, see, is to make Melta slightly worse against T4 and below multi-wound models, while making Melta better against T8+.
This is because Melta is supposed to be a dedicated anti-tank weapon, but currently struggles to hurt heavy tanks and is instead very good at hurting low-toughness models.
This is exactly what my change does.

As for the AP, I'm struggling to think of any ranged AP -5 on non FW models. Just looking through some stuff orks, have 1 weapon, the SAG that AP -5, AM have one the Volcano cannon. SO two gun that has AP -5 in the standard game. SO in general AP -4 is the best AP available to most things, and the equivalent of the old AP 1. Elite stuff and vehicles are already weak compared to cheap infantry in this edition, this doesn't need to be fixed.

Here's the thing, though: AP1 was not 'The best AP available to most things' it was 'The best AP you could possibly have'.
Most really-good-at-penetrating-armor weapons did not get AP1. They got AP2. Lances? AP2. Shokk Attack Gun? AP2. The Burning Blade? AP2. 'D' weapons? AP2, almost exclusively.
AP1 wasn't just 'Pretty good and the best available to most things', it was 'The best possible AP, given to a small, exclusive subset of weapons that are specifically built to punch through even the toughest of armor.'
AP1 is not the equivalent of AP-4, AP1 is the equivalent of AP-5. The difference is, GW completely flip-flopped on which weapons they thought deserved to have 'the best' AP.
Melta has been downgraded to, "Eh... It's one of the better things, I guess."

The issue is that at the same time the S/T scale for T is essentially Capped at T8. ONLY FW goes above this level, so if you want Higher strength guns, you also need higher T models. FOr instance I'm ok with you having a S16 gun, if say my Gorkanaut is T12, e need for those bigger guns because things like lascannons on infantry struggle against it.

That's not really true at all, though. I'm not advocating that every single anti-tank weapon gets buffed to S14 or S16, I'm saying that S14 and S16 shooting shouldn't be so rare as to only even exist for two factions. The very best possible anti-tank gun that an army can bring shouldn't be struggling to wound tough enemies, because the whole point of 'The very best possible anti-tank gun' is that it should be able to kill tough enemies.

Do you know how much shooting Orks have that can wound T8 on 3s? They have three weapons. One of them is mounted on a thousand-point model, and is S10. The other two have random Strength values, and will only be S9+ a whopping 27% of the time.

Space Marines get off a little better - They get six. Three of those are Lascannon variants, and one is single-use-only.

Tau - Friggin 'Our-dakka-is-better-than-yours' Tau, get four weapons, two of which are exclusive to the Stormsurge, the other two of which are Railguns.

Astra Militarum seem like the only exception to the rule, with 10 weapons of S9+. (This is mostly due to having Baneblade variants, though not exclusively.)


This isn't a case where I'm calling for massive proliferation of S14 and S16, because you are correct in one regard - If S14 and S16 were everywhere, T7 and T8 wouldn't really mean anything. But the problem is, you're arguing past me at some kind of change that nobody is actually asking for.
I'm not calling for these weapons to be common, I'm just calling for them to exist.

Roboute Guilliman, he meant.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Roboute Guilliman, he meant.

Oh, gotcha. Dakka doesn't have Guilliman listed under abbreviations for RG, so I missed that.
With that in mind, though: Do I need to point out that Guilliman buffs attacks that wound on 3+ more than he buffs attacks that wound on 2+?
Comparing a Predator with my buff to without, the difference was 3.2 wounds versus 2.5 - A .7 wound difference, or 128%.
Add in Guilliman to the same comparison, you get 4.6 wounds to 5 wounds - A .4 wound difference, or a mere 109%. Guilliman negates the need for the higher strength - In fact, half the point of this buff would be to get Predators to the point of inflicting a decent amount of damage without needing Guilliman.

Arguably, though, wounding on a 2+ is significantly better due to Lieutenants. They buff a 3+ wound roll from 24/36 to 28/36 (a 16.67% buff) whereas 2+ goes from 30/36 to 35/36 (a... 16.67% bufff. Huh.).

But it VASTLY increases reliability. 22% chance of failure is much worse than 3%.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Arguably, though, wounding on a 2+ is significantly better due to Lieutenants. They buff a 3+ wound roll from 24/36 to 28/36 (a 16.67% buff) whereas 2+ goes from 30/36 to 35/36 (a... 16.67% bufff. Huh.).

But it VASTLY increases reliability. 22% chance of failure is much worse than 3%.

'

This is very true.

Waaaghpower wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I'm going to go with no on this idea. I think Vehicles not getting wounded at range on better than a 3+ is a good thing. Vehicles already tend to melt to focused high damage shots in comparison to infantry vs anti-infantry weapons. We don't really need more ranged weapons that wound vehicles easily, ignore their armor, and do a ton of damage.

Maybe for a select few expensive options it is ok, but things like predator lascannons, or any other easy spam option I don't think it is a great idea.

As for the melta gun. AP -4 is actually the standard for really good at penetrating now, it is not very common and eliminates all but a 2+ save. IT is also of note that against T7 or below a melta gun is better than a lascannon against all vehicles. That said I would be ok with double strength at half range on the current melta profile as it does simulate the old penetration power. It is also not fair to say double strength on melta does nothing against T5-7. It makes it wound those T values on a 2 instead of a 3, in fact baring FW stuff it makes a melta wound everything in the game on a 2 at 6 in range.

Predator Lascannons aren't easy to spam. It's 35pts more expensive than spamming four Devestator Lascannons (And actually LESS deadly, since those Devestators bring in an Armorium and get to use a Signum every turn, while a Predator just doesn't,) and while it's 35pts less than two Razorbacks, those Razorbacks get a massive durability buff in the exchange.
On top of which, the Predator Lascannon would only be the turret, not the sponsons. So it's only half the guns that would even be getting a buff.

Also, you seem to be either missing or ignoring the pragmatics of some of what I've said. AP-4 is not the best AP that you can get, which was my point - Is it pretty darn good? Yes! But AP-5 is the best in the game, not AP-4. The whole point of Melta was that it effectively ignored Armor, and now it... Doesn't.
Additionally, the reason that I said 'Double strength does nothing against T 5-7' is because I was comparing the average damage of the shot - Replacing 'Two dice for damage' with 'Double strength' would increase the likelyhood to wound but decrease the average damage of a succesful shot. The average damage currently is 1.9166, the average damage with my change would be 1.9173.

p5freak wrote:
GW probably didnt give lascannons (and similiar anti vehicle guns) S12+ because they want vehicles to be tough.

I'm specifically talking about one kind of lascannon sponson that doesn't get brought to competitive games because of how crappy it is currently compared to the alternatives.

The point is though that predator lascannons are easy to spam, they might not be the easiest right now but that doesn't make them difficult. For instance if I just wanted to spam S 14 I could get one with no sponsons for 140 points Put that with RG and say good by to any T7 tanks on the table in short order. The issue is, that is already true, so why the need to change? Just because you think high T stuff should be able to get wounded on a 2+. T8 is the highest toughness outside of FW models, and units with that T are meant to be super durable. IMO there should not be weapons that wound them on a 2+ that are easily available, on a titan sure, on something as cheap as say 150 points, no. Especially because those weapons inevitably go on to have good AP so now you are negating both methods of defense available to those tough targets, they get little to no save, and get easily wounded. This change will just force the game even more to horde infantry who won't care about those big guns.

I can't tell if you're ignoring my point or just missing it, but I'll go down point-by-point:
140pts for two shots isn't cheap or spammable, and it isn't NEARLY so broken or powerful as you seem to be acting like it is. (I'm also unclear how taking Raven Guard would improve the damage of a Predator, you seem to think that Chapter Tactics can buff tanks.) I'm gonna do some quick math here, by the way:
Let's assume a S14 turret that's otherwise the same - Both in cost, AP, and Damage. You are apparently scared of someone spamming Predators with nothing but that turret, because S14 being readily available will make tanks too fragile. We'll shoot it at a T7 enemy.

However, here's the actual math on the damage output:
2 shots, hitting on 3+, wounding on 2+, against a 6+ save (AP-3 against most tanks leaves 6+ armor,) dealing 3.5 damage = 3.2 damage.
That's a 140pt tank, dealing 3.2 damage.
Without the buff, a Predator would instead be dealing 2.5 wounds.
The buff, then, gives an increase of .7 wounds as compared to not having the buff.

This also works out to 43.75 points per wound with the buff, or 56pts per wound without the buff.
Incidentally, a Razorback with Lascannon turrets currently costs 46pts per wound against the same target. So, my proposed buff would do exactly what I am saying it would, which is to say that it would make Predators (a dedicated tank hunting platform) more valuable at tank hunting than Razorbacks (a transport with the ability to bring some heavy guns).

I think you are just reacting with a gut-level fear to S14 because it sounds really high and scary, but in effect it really just amounts to getting +1 to wound against T5-7. (And who is taking Lascannons with the intent of killing T5 models?)

140 points is pretty cheap, not excessively so but still cheap. I think you forget that every shot that wounds has a non-zero chance of doing 6 wounds. So making it easier for tough targets to get wounded, means that their toughness is essentially a non-factor in their durability (anti-tank weapons are designed to deal with lots of wounds on a model, and high T, to make them better at high T killing just makes high T multi-wound models useless)

Now, on to your next point:

As for the melta change, you are still being disingenuous. There are a ton of T5 single wound models, and even more with only 2 wounds. So wounding more easily is a big buff over the more reliable high damage. T6 and 7 a little less so though there are still 2 and 3 wound infantry that are T6. SO the biggest change would be melta being slightly worse against T4 and below multi wound models.

You seem to be acting like Meltaguns are being used against single wound T5 models regularly. This... Well, it might be true? I can't prove that it isn't. But what I can prove is that using Meltaguns to kill single-wound T5 models is just a terrible idea, regardless of whether or not my changes were to be used.
Also: Where are all these T5 one-wound models at? In a secret rulebook that nobody told me about? Off the top of my head, I can think of... Plague Marines, I guess, but they have 5+ FNP which compensates somewhat for only having one wound. I just flipped casually through the four Indexes I own - Xenos 2, Chaos, Imperium 1, and Imperium 2, and couldn't find ANY outside of Plague Marines - If I missed anything, please let me know, but I think this pretty much proves that there aren't "Tons of T5 single wound models" when I can only find one while looking through four mostly-comprehensive books.

Finally, you seem to not understand the point of my change - The point, see, is to make Melta slightly worse against T4 and below multi-wound models, while making Melta better against T8+.
This is because Melta is supposed to be a dedicated anti-tank weapon, but currently struggles to hurt heavy tanks and is instead very good at hurting low-toughness models.
This is exactly what my change does.

Just because something isn't the ideal target doesn't mean that it isn't better at killing it than it would otherwise be. You are probably right that there are many more 2 wound T5 models, which are also killed better by your change than they are now. You are doing averages, but when you are looking at the random damage weapons that only tells half the story. IF I'm wounding T5 on 2s instead of 3s I am more likely to dish out more wounds, then I roll for damage, for a 2 wound model I kill on a 2+, so the more wounds I get through the better. Current melta if it succeeds in wounding I am doing at least 4 damage 75% of the time, as opposed to only 50% of the time and I only do 1 damage 3% of the time. So wounding more often is better against these models than having consistently high damage.

As for the AP, I'm struggling to think of any ranged AP -5 on non FW models. Just looking through some stuff orks, have 1 weapon, the SAG that AP -5, AM have one the Volcano cannon. SO two gun that has AP -5 in the standard game. SO in general AP -4 is the best AP available to most things, and the equivalent of the old AP 1. Elite stuff and vehicles are already weak compared to cheap infantry in this edition, this doesn't need to be fixed.

Here's the thing, though: AP1 was not 'The best AP available to most things' it was 'The best AP you could possibly have'.
Most really-good-at-penetrating-armor weapons did not get AP1. They got AP2. Lances? AP2. Shokk Attack Gun? AP2. The Burning Blade? AP2. 'D' weapons? AP2, almost exclusively.
AP1 wasn't just 'Pretty good and the best available to most things', it was 'The best possible AP, given to a small, exclusive subset of weapons that are specifically built to punch through even the toughest of armor.'
AP1 is not the equivalent of AP-4, AP1 is the equivalent of AP-5. The difference is, GW completely flip-flopped on which weapons they thought deserved to have 'the best' AP.
Melta has been downgraded to, "Eh... It's one of the better things, I guess."

Except it is the equivalent of AP -4 because in general that is how things got translated. AP 2 went to -3 in general and AP 1 went to -4. AP1 was worse than D when it came to save ignoring in the past. However AP1 also had no bonus over AP2 when it came to ignoring saves, now it does. It used to just be a bonus to a damage table that no longer exists.

The issue is that at the same time the S/T scale for T is essentially Capped at T8. ONLY FW goes above this level, so if you want Higher strength guns, you also need higher T models. FOr instance I'm ok with you having a S16 gun, if say my Gorkanaut is T12, e need for those bigger guns because things like lascannons on infantry struggle against it.

That's not really true at all, though. I'm not advocating that every single anti-tank weapon gets buffed to S14 or S16, I'm saying that S14 and S16 shooting shouldn't be so rare as to only even exist for two factions. The very best possible anti-tank gun that an army can bring shouldn't be struggling to wound tough enemies, because the whole point of 'The very best possible anti-tank gun' is that it should be able to kill tough enemies.

Do you know how much shooting Orks have that can wound T8 on 3s? They have three weapons. One of them is mounted on a thousand-point model, and is S10. The other two have random Strength values, and will only be S9+ a whopping 27% of the time.

Space Marines get off a little better - They get six. Three of those are Lascannon variants, and one is single-use-only.

Tau - Friggin 'Our-dakka-is-better-than-yours' Tau, get four weapons, two of which are exclusive to the Stormsurge, the other two of which are Railguns.

Astra Militarum seem like the only exception to the rule, with 10 weapons of S9+. (This is mostly due to having Baneblade variants, though not exclusively.)


This isn't a case where I'm calling for massive proliferation of S14 and S16, because you are correct in one regard - If S14 and S16 were everywhere, T7 and T8 wouldn't really mean anything. But the problem is, you're arguing past me at some kind of change that nobody is actually asking for.
I'm not calling for these weapons to be common, I'm just calling for them to exist.

Breng77 wrote:

140 points is pretty cheap, not excessively so but still cheap. I think you forget that every shot that wounds has a non-zero chance of doing 6 wounds. So making it easier for tough targets to get wounded, means that their toughness is essentially a non-factor in their durability (anti-tank weapons are designed to deal with lots of wounds on a model, and high T, to make them better at high T killing just makes high T multi-wound models useless)

... Are you just not reading any of the math that I'm posting which features the incredibly minor change in average damage output? Yes, every shot that wounds has a non-zero chance of doing 6 wounds. That's actually a 1/6th chance. It has the same chance of doing 1 wound.
Incidentally, a Lascannon *already* has a 1/6th chance of doing 6 wounds, or 1 wound. That is not changing.

Why does a 28% increase in damage, which only happens against T7 or lower, on a turret that is currently doesn't get taken very often because it costs way too much, make 'High T multi-wound models useless'?

If you're going to continue arguing that the damage is too high, show me math or real, in-game scenarios where this would make some kind of massive, game-remaking difference, as opposed to giving a slight buff to an underwhelming gun.
This specific change wouldn't even do anything to T8 models!

Just because something isn't the ideal target doesn't mean that it isn't better at killing it than it would otherwise be. You are probably right that there are many more 2 wound T5 models, which are also killed better by your change than they are now. You are doing averages, but when you are looking at the random damage weapons that only tells half the story. IF I'm wounding T5 on 2s instead of 3s I am more likely to dish out more wounds, then I roll for damage, for a 2 wound model I kill on a 2+, so the more wounds I get through the better. Current melta if it succeeds in wounding I am doing at least 4 damage 75% of the time, as opposed to only 50% of the time and I only do 1 damage 3% of the time. So wounding more often is better against these models than having consistently high damage.

You know, I thought you might have a point here, so I was willing to go out and do the math that you seem hesitant to do. And you're not entirely wrong, exactly, but you're only right in a very negligible sense, and only partly.

A Meltagun fired at a T5, 2W model:
Current rules will kill the target 41% of the time.
Updated rules would kill the target 45% of the time.

A Meltagun fired at a T6, 3W model:
Current rules would kill the target 39% of the time.
Updated rules would kill the target 36% of the time.

And, just for fun, a Plasma Gun fired at a T5, 2W model: (I gave it a 6+ save, assuming that it has a 3+ save base.)
Current rules will kill the target 72% of the time.

In short, no, this change would not make Melta significantly better against T5 2w models, because Melta will never be good against single, low-mid durability models.

Except it is the equivalent of AP -4 because in general that is how things got translated. AP 2 went to -3 in general and AP 1 went to -4. AP1 was worse than D when it came to save ignoring in the past. However AP1 also had no bonus over AP2 when it came to ignoring saves, now it does. It used to just be a bonus to a damage table that no longer exists.

That's only kind-of-sort-of true. Power Swords went from AP3 to AP-3, Shokk Attack Guns went from AP2 to AP-5. Things didn't get translated at a perfect 1:1 scale.
Also, this is worth pointing out: You mention that AP1 had a bonus against vehicles. So where's that bonus at now? Why are Meltaguns suddenly only 'Pretty good' at penetrating armor and ineffective against tough vehicles? What justification can you possibly offer for this change?

I'd rather see other factions get weaker weapons or toughness on truly tough units go up. I already don't like how easily lascannons down what are supposed to be very tough units. While things like land raiders previously did not have a save it is important to note that other than Strength D no weapon ever "wounded" a land raider on better than a 4+, now it is pretty common for them to be wounded on a 3+. I already agreed I'd be ok with melta being double strength at half range as that was more similar to how they used to work, I would also be ok with them having something like 2D3 damage.

You're right! Land Raiders could NEVER be wounded on better than a 4+.
Unless it was a Melta weapon, which would wound 72% of the time - And instantly kill the LR from full health 20% of the time.
Unless it was a haywire weapon, which would wound 83% of the time.
Unless it was a Lance weapon, which really depended on the strength, but could get up to 83% of the time if it was S10.
Unless it was an Armorbane weapon, which as with lance depended heavily but could get up to 83% of the time.
Do I need to keep going? The point is, there were TONS of instances where you could hurt tanks more easily than on a 4+.

Oh, and Lascannons were terrible and nobody ever brought them unless they had some kind of trick to improve their damage. Their rules this edition, where they're actually potent and good at killing things, is a long time coming.

Personally to me Given that toughness cap at T8 I think lascannons are currently too cheap and easy to access as they are far and away the best anti-tank weapon most factions have access to. If they start having units with higher toughness I think we can talk more "super" strong weapons, until then these units already die to easily to regular strength weapons.

You're kind-of-sort of right here, but missing one key point:
Lascannons are far and away the best anti-tank weapon that most factions have access to. That much is correct, but the reason they are is because they are pretty much the only anti-tank weapon that most factions have access to that will reliably wound T8 models. They aren't actually particularly amazing at killing tanks unless you have someone nearby to buff them, like Guilliman, or if they have some way to be spammed very cheaply. I'd be fine with Lascannons generally getting a slight price bump, but that's not what's being discussed here: I'm talking about an increased diversity in options, because right now, every anti-tank weapon does the exact same thing, and caps out at Lascannon strength.

I'm not missing your point. I just don't agree with it. I don't feel that the toughest units in the game should be getting reliably wounded by a ton of weapons, simple as that. The hole point of these units is being tough so outside of very expensive options I don't think a 2+ to wound should be a thing, maybe with half range melts as an exception or close combat because there is risk involved with those weapons.

You AP examples are the exceptions not the rule in this edition. Power swords got changed so that each weapon type had a useful role, the SAG is a 50 point weapon with random shots and damage. Lance is another example of a change from ap 2 to -4 but that is to replace the loss of its reduction of AV mechanic. In general AP was translated as I stated. Melts could go to -5 however it would then need to cost more. Further -5 does nothing to represent how it worked in previous editions.

I get your point, however S14 and S16 being mainly melee exclusive also gives those units a niche. It's hard enough to get a dreadnought in CC in an edition where dedicated fire can kill Knights, Mortarion and Magnus in a single turn so when they do get there I feel they should be rewarded for it. Maybe Tau could get some S14+ weapons (Hammerhead railgun indeed comes to mind) because they are balanced around having no melee whatsoever but those would need to be 1 shot per turn only to remain balanced.

If the Vanquisher was made S16 VS Vehicles, it would inflict an average of 1.5 damage pr shot on an enemy T8 3+ vehicle, compared to 0.97 damage currently, assuming it hits on a 4+.
A regular Battle Cannon inflicts 1.16 damage on the same kind of target, so I don't exactly think it would break the game.
The max damage of the Vanquisher would still be lower than the regular Battle Cannon (6 damage pr shot VS 18, if lots of 6's are rolled), but it would more reliably "penetrate" and do some damage. As it should.