<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/16.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision AT weapon since it should be even more effective against low AV vehicles.

As a result, I propose that the lance rule instead reduce the AV of the enemy vehicle by 2 when rolling for the purposes of armour penetration. This way the S8 AP2 of Dark and Bright Lances maintain the same damage output against AV14 while increasing their effectiveness against AV13-10. It also makes things like the heat lance a heck of a lot better.

Personally I also think lances should be AP1 base to begin with, but that's touching more on the weapons more than the rule itself.

So what do you guys think?


]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8255185.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8255185.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256137.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256137.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it.
Martel732 wrote:
You'd have to make single shot anti-tank viable again. That's not a problem of lance, that's a problem of single shot weapons sucking now.


So it's mainly a matter about how HP-stripping is more effective due to the way the damage table works and the fact that MC's and GMC's/SHW's now have so many ablative saves against AT-weapons that the only good single shot weapons are strength D?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256160.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256160.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it.
 Grimskul wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
You'd have to make single shot anti-tank viable again. That's not a problem of lance, that's a problem of single shot weapons sucking now.


So it's mainly a matter about how HP-stripping is more effective due to the way the damage table works and the fact that MC's and GMC's/SHW's now have so many ablative saves against AT-weapons that the only good single shot weapons are strength D?


Exactly. S10 AP 2 is just as awful as S8 AP 2 lance. They both have virtually no chance of taking out a vehicle, where as Mass S6/7 have an excellent chance. And doubles as anti-infantry and triples as anti-MC. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256164.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256164.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it.
Thus, being more reliably able to deal "damage" effects is more efficient than being able to deal more "damage+bonus" effects. They either need to make penetrating hits be more dangerous, or glancing hits less dangerous, in order for things like Lascannons to ever be a thing again.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256166.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256166.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it. AT weapons really aren't that good anymore. With a Bright Lance you need a 6+ to explode most vehicles. It's just so much easier to strip hull points off with other weapons than it is to try and use single shot AT weapons. The damage table is very punishing to those kind of weapons.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256167.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256167.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it. MCs. But that would make too much sense. Clearly, MCs don't care about gaping holes burned straight through their torsos. It's just a single wound. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256172.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256172.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it.
I don't have the Eldar/Dark Eldar books handy, but something like the Transauranic Arquebus from the Skitarii(S4 versus vehicles because of the "Sniper" rule) having the ability to count any of the heavier vehicles as AV12 rather than their normal AV while rolling 2D6 for armor pen?

All of a sudden, that gun can make its 25 points back fast in certain match-ups.

I should add that I'm going to be testing Armourbane weapons as doing D3 Wounds rather than a single Wound(with no spillover possible) against Infantry, MCs, and GMCs soon. Feel free to see if anyone local to you will do the same.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256270.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256270.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256280.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256280.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it. AoS did right, which was make it so that monsters/vehicles have diminishing returns on weapons/attacks/movement the more wounds they suffer. Unfortunately with the rules being all over the place for 40K it'd be hard to streamline all that into the game but it'd be a cool way to make wounds taken off MC/GMC's count.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256332.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256332.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256439.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256439.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it.
 Tactical_Spam wrote:
The real problem is Hullpoints, not the lance rule. We should double all hullpoints for vehicles and make Glancing hits do 1 hull point and Pen hits do 2 hull points, plus damage chart


That sounds like a worthy improvement, but doesn't change the lack of efficacy of powerful anti-tank weapons vs MCs. If you shot a Tyrannosaur with the main gun of an Abrams, it's dead. It doesn't take a "wound". ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256746.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256746.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it.
Martel732 wrote:
 Tactical_Spam wrote:
The real problem is Hullpoints, not the lance rule. We should double all hullpoints for vehicles and make Glancing hits do 1 hull point and Pen hits do 2 hull points, plus damage chart


That sounds like a worthy improvement, but doesn't change the lack of efficacy of powerful anti-tank weapons vs MCs. If you shot a Tyrannosaur with the main gun of an Abrams, it's dead. It doesn't take a "wound".


It would have to work something like blast templates in fifth. If it direct hit's, it will inflict instant death. Non blast weapons would be on a 4+]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256764.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256764.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it. MC's getting an identical "damage chart"
(1-3 shaken, 4 stunned, 5 arm damaged, 6 legs damaged, 7 catastrophic failure of brains/hearts.)

...or vehicles losing the damage chart and gaining some hull points.

One of those two needs to happen to bring back the pendulum between the two towards the middle.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256792.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256792.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256800.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256800.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it. EW. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256810.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256810.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it.
 niv-mizzet wrote:
I'm actually a fan of EITHER MC's getting an identical "damage chart"
(1-3 shaken, 4 stunned, 5 arm damaged, 6 legs damaged, 7 catastrophic failure of brains/hearts.)

...or vehicles losing the damage chart and gaining some hull points.

One of those two needs to happen to bring back the pendulum between the two towards the middle.


The former makes a lot more sense. A lascannon would be incredibly deadly to a living organism. There's a reason it did 2D6 wounds in 2nd ed. The more I think about this game, the angrier I get. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256824.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256824.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I didn't realize that Blast Weapons worked like that in 5th. I kinda like it as a mechanic.


Multimetas did work in 5th



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
 niv-mizzet wrote:
I'm actually a fan of EITHER MC's getting an identical "damage chart"
(1-3 shaken, 4 stunned, 5 arm damaged, 6 legs damaged, 7 catastrophic failure of brains/hearts.)

...or vehicles losing the damage chart and gaining some hull points.

One of those two needs to happen to bring back the pendulum between the two towards the middle.


The former makes a lot more sense. A lascannon would be incredibly deadly to a living organism. There's a reason it did 2D6 wounds in 2nd ed. The more I think about this game, the angrier I get.


This is why we have forums to talk about how to make it better ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256838.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256838.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it. AV damage system was to have Glancing hits have a save depending on the vehicle type. Tanks would have 3+, Walkers 4+, Others 5+. Whereas a penetrating hit would ignore the save and act as it does currently.

It would represent the sturdiness of vehicle types while making single-shot weapons much more useful.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256973.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256973.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it.
 Quickjager wrote:
I always thought that the best way to change the AV damage system was to have Glancing hits have a save depending on the vehicle type. Tanks would have 3+, Walkers 4+, Others 5+. Whereas a penetrating hit would ignore the save and act as it does currently.

It would represent the sturdiness of vehicle types while making single-shot weapons much more useful.


That'd be really cool to implement. Definitely gives a chance to those who get hit on rear armour, especially now with the new Tau stealth formation with the ghostkeel.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256989.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8256989.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it.
Second, I think GC's would be uneffected for the most part by these rules because they are so big.

Third, we could add "destructible environments" to the game, because cover saves get ridiculous in the Tau meta. A demolisher shell should instant death everything. Your dinky Ghostkeel sitting in that pile of rocks should be scrap metal in one from a vindicator]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8257091.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8257091.page GMT Making the Lance rule worth it.
 Tactical_Spam wrote:


Third, we could add "destructible environments" to the game, because cover saves get ridiculous in the Tau meta.

Yes, yes and yes again, destructuble terrain would add a lot to the game.

A demolisher shell should instant death everything.

Once more hell yes, a 150mm+ HE shell should obliterate everything it hits, or at least severely damage bigger things.

Your dinky Ghostkeel sitting in that pile of rocks should be scrap metal in one from a vindicator

Fully agreed, a shell that size should remove everything it hits.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8257883.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8257883.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision Str D from half the eldar stuff because there are things that are really Str D and then theres someone who thought itd be cool to overpower eldar]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8257888.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8257888.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision 40k would make high strength low ap weapons a lot scarier. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8257985.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8257985.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision AV all around, BUT at the same time you do not want them to instantly wipe out any other vehicle by getting a good attack angle. Hence, Lance exists.

This is thus one of those things that will be harder to balance than appears at first sight. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8258071.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8258071.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision
Alcibiades wrote:
In my opinion, Lance is the way it is because both Eldar and Dark Eldar have lots of fast and/or deep striking units that can easily get shots at side or rear armor. You want such weapons to be able to threaten vehicles that have high AV all around, BUT at the same time you do not want them to instantly wipe out any other vehicle by getting a good attack angle. Hence, Lance exists.

This is thus one of those things that will be harder to balance than appears at first sight.


Right, but at this point in the game they're heavily outclassed by the RoF weapons of Scatbikes and mass fire dragon super meltas. The Lance rule doesn't really give a viable alternative either Eldar armies to really bother consider taking them in comparison to other more efficient methods of anti-vehicle/MC. And especially with 7th edition where we've discussed has neutered one shot weapons like the dark/bright lance from being able to reliably take out vehicles, much less MC's. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8258084.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8258084.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8258091.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8258091.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision
 Grimskul wrote:
Alcibiades wrote:
In my opinion, Lance is the way it is because both Eldar and Dark Eldar have lots of fast and/or deep striking units that can easily get shots at side or rear armor. You want such weapons to be able to threaten vehicles that have high AV all around, BUT at the same time you do not want them to instantly wipe out any other vehicle by getting a good attack angle. Hence, Lance exists.

This is thus one of those things that will be harder to balance than appears at first sight.


Right, but at this point in the game they're heavily outclassed by the RoF weapons of Scatbikes and mass fire dragon super meltas. The Lance rule doesn't really give a viable alternative either Eldar armies to really bother consider taking them in comparison to other more efficient methods of anti-vehicle/MC. And especially with 7th edition where we've discussed has neutered one shot weapons like the dark/bright lance from being able to reliably take out vehicles, much less MC's.


Lance is good in some armies like necrons where the lance weapon happens to be S10. And Scatbikes are a little stupid. When did the eldar turn into the Sons of Malice Anarchy?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8258211.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8258211.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8261432.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8261432.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision
raverrn wrote:
Make S8, S9 and S10 ignore cover saves from terrain only.


Im sorry, but being invisible doesnt save you from a demolisher shell]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8261494.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8261494.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision
 Tactical_Spam wrote:
raverrn wrote:
Make S8, S9 and S10 ignore cover saves from terrain only.


Im sorry, but being invisible doesnt save you from a demolisher shell


That sounds like a problem with invisibility.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8261518.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8261518.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision
 Tactical_Spam wrote:
raverrn wrote:
Make S8, S9 and S10 ignore cover saves from terrain only.


Im sorry, but being invisible doesnt save you from a demolisher shell

Strictly speaking, if you've got the Invisibility power on you...yeah, it does. You can only be Snap-Fired at and you can't Snap Fire Ordnance...

Quite frankly though? I can see where he's going with it. Stealth/Shrouded, like Jink, should be their own unique saves rather than just tied to Cover saves.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8261604.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8261604.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision 3 invisible Vindicators, against my Guard army who rely primarily upon their Leman Russ for long range AT firepower. I have Veteran Melta sections but they never survive long enough to get close - a single shot from that triple derp spam will wipe many of them out.
Long story short, my regular AT can not get close enough to deal the damage whilst my longer ranged 'could stop them from being too much of a threat' stuff cannot shoot them because blasts and Invisibility stupidity.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8264043.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8264043.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision
 master of ordinance wrote:
Now that is another issue I have. A certain friend of mine keeps running the Librarius Conclave and almost always gets Invisibility. One of his favourite things to wap it on is a triple Vindicator squadron.
3 invisible Vindicators, against my Guard army who rely primarily upon their Leman Russ for long range AT firepower. I have Veteran Melta sections but they never survive long enough to get close - a single shot from that triple derp spam will wipe many of them out.
Long story short, my regular AT can not get close enough to deal the damage whilst my longer ranged 'could stop them from being too much of a threat' stuff cannot shoot them because blasts and Invisibility stupidity.


then play invisibility as ITC has ruled it for all tournaments, as it is the dumbest rule in all of 40k]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8264090.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8264090.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision
 master of ordinance wrote:
Now that is another issue I have. A certain friend of mine keeps running the Librarius Conclave and almost always gets Invisibility. One of his favourite things to wap it on is a triple Vindicator squadron.
3 invisible Vindicators, against my Guard army who rely primarily upon their Leman Russ for long range AT firepower. I have Veteran Melta sections but they never survive long enough to get close - a single shot from that triple derp spam will wipe many of them out.
Long story short, my regular AT can not get close enough to deal the damage whilst my longer ranged 'could stop them from being too much of a threat' stuff cannot shoot them because blasts and Invisibility stupidity.


Is this the same friend who likes bringing 30k primarchs into a 40k marine army? If so please slap him.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8264094.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8264094.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision
 master of ordinance wrote:
Now that is another issue I have. A certain friend of mine keeps running the Librarius Conclave and almost always gets Invisibility. One of his favourite things to wap it on is a triple Vindicator squadron.
3 invisible Vindicators, against my Guard army who rely primarily upon their Leman Russ for long range AT firepower. I have Veteran Melta sections but they never survive long enough to get close - a single shot from that triple derp spam will wipe many of them out.
Long story short, my regular AT can not get close enough to deal the damage whilst my longer ranged 'could stop them from being too much of a threat' stuff cannot shoot them because blasts and Invisibility stupidity.


Remember, your friend isn't invisible and you are within charge range


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 Tactical_Spam wrote:
raverrn wrote:
Make S8, S9 and S10 ignore cover saves from terrain only.


Im sorry, but being invisible doesnt save you from a demolisher shell

Strictly speaking, if you've got the Invisibility power on you...yeah, it does. You can only be Snap-Fired at and you can't Snap Fire Ordnance...

Quite frankly though? I can see where he's going with it. Stealth/Shrouded, like Jink, should be their own unique saves rather than just tied to Cover saves.


By invisible, I meant stealth and shrouded. It seems stupid that having some active camo is gonna save to from being pulped]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8264163.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8264163.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision
 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
 Tactical_Spam wrote:
raverrn wrote:
Make S8, S9 and S10 ignore cover saves from terrain only.


Im sorry, but being invisible doesnt save you from a demolisher shell

Strictly speaking, if you've got the Invisibility power on you...yeah, it does. You can only be Snap-Fired at and you can't Snap Fire Ordnance...

Quite frankly though? I can see where he's going with it. Stealth/Shrouded, like Jink, should be their own unique saves rather than just tied to Cover saves.


By invisible, I meant stealth and shrouded. It seems stupid that having some active camo is gonna save to from being pulped

Well seeing as how apparently a laser pointer means that you are no longer protected by a building?
Yes, you're right. In that sense it absolutely would make no sense.

But if Stealth/Shrouded was modified to reduce the ability for someone to actually hit you to begin with? Much different story.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8264216.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8264216.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8264229.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8264229.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision
 War Kitten wrote:
That idea is actually kind of interesting. Maybe stealth would be -1 to hit, and shrouded could be -2?


-1 BS or -2 BS to a minimum of 1]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8264289.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8264289.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision BS/WS one so that blast weapons could still be fired at Invisible units? Odds are they would still miss (BS 1 makes for horrific scatters) but they would still be able to fire at them.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8264306.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8264306.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision
 War Kitten wrote:
Could that maybe be applied to Invisibility as well? Maybe making BS/WS one so that blast weapons could still be fired at Invisible units? Odds are they would still miss (BS 1 makes for horrific scatters) but they would still be able to fire at them.


That would work, but it wouldn't penalize flamers. Not even being invisible can protect you from the indiscriminate flame ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8264336.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8264336.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8264556.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8264556.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision
 War Kitten wrote:
 master of ordinance wrote:
Now that is another issue I have. A certain friend of mine keeps running the Librarius Conclave and almost always gets Invisibility. One of his favourite things to wap it on is a triple Vindicator squadron.
3 invisible Vindicators, against my Guard army who rely primarily upon their Leman Russ for long range AT firepower. I have Veteran Melta sections but they never survive long enough to get close - a single shot from that triple derp spam will wipe many of them out.
Long story short, my regular AT can not get close enough to deal the damage whilst my longer ranged 'could stop them from being too much of a threat' stuff cannot shoot them because blasts and Invisibility stupidity.


Is this the same friend who likes bringing 30k primarchs into a 40k marine army? If so please slap him.


Yup, it is sadly.

I would use the ITC rules but sadly at my club we only use the BRB. Using other rules requires both players consent.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8265517.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8265517.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision HP, you roll a d6 (1-4 gets you crew shaken result, 5-6 strips a HP and gets crew shaken)?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8281558.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8281558.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision
 War Kitten wrote:
Could that maybe be applied to Invisibility as well? Maybe making BS/WS one so that blast weapons could still be fired at Invisible units? Odds are they would still miss (BS 1 makes for horrific scatters) but they would still be able to fire at them.


That is already how ITC has changed the rules for invisibility. BS1 to hit for range and hit on 5+ in CC]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8281607.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8281607.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision HP via glances is too reliable.

My Broadside unit can reliably glance AV13 to death in one volley, considering they need 6s to glance thats just dumb. They should do damage, but not kill it without insane dice luck.

Thats why in another thread i suggested doubling the HP of vehicles (supers by half since theyre immune to instant deaths, but still unfairly suffer compared to GMC) would fix the problem. It still allows glancing to death to be viable, but actually force you to try really hard to do it vs getting that 1 shot causing an Explode! and killing them outright even if that Landraider would have 7hp left.
Its a medium between current and 5th rules, to me anyway. 5th they were too damn strong since you pretty much couldnt do jack without blowing them up or stripping weapons (which was harder). 6th on they became too easy to wreck.

Nerfing vehicles more to make 1shot weapons stronger isnt going to help. Its going to make vehicles even LESS appealing. Those 1shot weapons need to be the ones that kill vehicles because of their higher Explode! chances - not make them deal more glance damage when its already super super easy to glance to death. Technically 1shot weapons never got weaker - they got outshined

Also despite being a Tau player so this hurts me, i am for making these special anti-tank weapons have a rule where it causes double damage to MCs. That way they have more targets to fire at, but clearly better at vehicles since they have high odds of Explode! result. Anti-tank weapons are designed to hit large, heavily armored targets....well what the hell are MCs if they dont fit that profile?
(Except Melta. Meltas are too easily spammed and would remove MCs from the game lol)]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8282098.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8282098.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision MCs being removed from the game. They've had their fun. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8282318.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8282318.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision
 Tactical_Spam wrote:
raverrn wrote:
Make S8, S9 and S10 ignore cover saves from terrain only.


Im sorry, but being invisible doesnt save you from a demolisher shell
The problem with that is invisibility is a game construct. Yes, it won't protect you, but the point it that they wouldn't know where to shoot. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8282342.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8282342.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision
Martel732 wrote:
I wouldn't mind MCs being removed from the game. They've had their fun.


Yeah... no.

Riptides and Dreadknights being too good doesn't mean that Carnifexs, Daemon Princes, Greater Daemons, Tervigons, Exocrines and the like should be removed as well.
But I suppose BA and SMs don't get those, so who gives a .]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8283063.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8283063.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision OP.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8283248.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8283248.page GMT Re:Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8283250.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8283250.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision
- All models above a specific size have a damage chart (without a kill result)

- deadly one-shot weapons get "Multihit" (double the amount of inflicted wounds)

- indirect fire can be placed anywhere and doesn't need a specific target]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8283301.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8283301.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision
Could that maybe be applied to Invisibility as well? Maybe making BS/WS one so that blast weapons could still be fired at Invisible units? Odds are they would still miss (BS 1 makes for horrific scatters) but they would still be able to fire at them.


That's exactly what the Culexus Assassin does, too. Trust me, it's still really good, but it means you can actually hit him with something like a hellhammer cannon...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8283422.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8283422.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision
 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I wouldn't mind MCs being removed from the game. They've had their fun.


Yeah... no.

Riptides and Dreadknights being too good doesn't mean that Carnifexs, Daemon Princes, Greater Daemons, Tervigons, Exocrines and the like should be removed as well.
But I suppose BA and SMs don't get those, so who gives a .


That's pretty much where I'm at. After you get your face pounded by MCs enough, enough becomes enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 raverrn wrote:
I'm constantly shocked that people STILL think the Dreadknight is brutal and OP.


Dreadknights are too good in that they have T6 2+ save. That's just too good of a combination in general. They are much more mortal than a Riptide, because they put themselves in harms way much more often. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8285551.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8285551.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision IA is AP2 without nova charge for some stupid reason, that risk goes away and it makes the Riptide unbelievably tanky as a result.

Bursttide is nowhere near as tanky unless you somehow never fail a nova. Even then, it has 12 potential gets hots (that still goes through a 2+ armor in those numbers btw).

Friends of mine and i were discussing the walker issue yesterday. We agree walker rules are trash and should just be removed because the mechanized MCs are too fuzzy as a walker and making all walkers MCs removes Haywire threats.
We had the idea of leaving the current MC rule as it is, but only Tyranids/Garg Squigs/Knarlocs use it.... i.e. fleshy things. Another MC rule called Mechanized Monsterous Creature replaces walkers, essentially the same thing but with Haywire and Melta threats added in (Melta causes 2 wounds per hit within Melta range, Haywire wounds on a 2+). This would be put on Tau MCs, Dreadknights, and WL/WKs instead of normal MC rules, since theyre all mechanical and makes no sense to dodge anti-vehicle crap.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8286037.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8286037.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision
The weapons I suggest are

Meltaguns
Meltabombs
Laser Cannon
Krak Missiles
Bright/Dark lance
Exorcist Missiles
Vindicator Cannon
Thermal Cannon
Fusion Blaster
Fire Dragoon's guns
Really anything S8 and above ap2 or ap1(exception was Krak Missiles bc its ap3)

Not rapid battle cannon. Not blast masters. Not Plasmaguns.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8303521.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8303521.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision AP/Single Shot weapons (Say S8/AP2 or better, so basically Melta and Lascannon equivalent) the Instant Death rule on a 6+ To Wound an option to deal with MC's? It also might help deal with multi-wound T5/6 models that are otherwise difficult for some armies to kill.

Now you have a similar chance to 'explode' a MC as a vehicle (better actually, since you don't have that intermediate step of rolling to see if you penetrate). Doesn't help address the issue of stripping Hull Points obviously, but its a start.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8303611.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8303611.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8303975.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8303975.page GMT Re:Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision -Marine vehicles are Front Armor 12; vehicles without sponsons/troop access points on the side are also Side Armor 12.
-Vehicles also get improved Hull Points (an extra HP for every 3, or so).
-The vehicle damage chart is modified to +3/+2/+1 for AP 1/2/3.
-Vehicle Destroyed - Explodes! and Instant Death replaced with Overkill: Model loses an extra D3 Wounds/HP.
-Tank Hunters lets you reroll vehicle damage results.

=This is the new part=
-Modify the To-Wound chart; currently, a T6 model doesn't care if it's hit by a S10 or S8 weapon and both do the same amount of damage. If Strength is 3 greater than Toughness, Wound on 2+, and overkill is triggered on a 6 to-wound. If Strength is greater than toughness by 4, make it trigger on a 5+ to-wound. If greater than toughness by 5, make it trigger on a 4+, etc.
Monster Hunter lets you halve the Monster's toughness for purposes of checking whether Overkill triggers.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8305523.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8305523.page GMT Making one shot weapons worth it, MC/Vehicle Rules Revision
That said, I would not give the following vehicles an extra HP, because IMHO they're tough enough as it stands:

Skyray
Hammerhead
Falcon
Fire Prism
Night Spinner
Wave Serpent
Devilfish
Ghost Ark
Doomsday Ark
Spartan Assault Tank]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8305555.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/670258/8305555.page GMT