Let me fix your Math for that Lascannon Hit:
Land Raider Penetrate (1/6) * chance to destroy on Pen (1/3) = 1/18 Chance to Destroy
Rhino Penetrate (2/3) * 1/3 chance to destroy on Pen (1/3) = 2/9 (or 4/18) Chance to Destroy
Amazing! A Lascannon is 4 times more likely to destroy a Rhino then a Land Raider.
WFB 8th Edition Empire W/L/D: 0/2/1
Sister of Battle 6th W/L/D: 3/2/0
Terran Alliance W/L/D: 7/4/1
Why would they? They aren't Relentless, nor would they be able to move and have full fire effect from their Bolters any more then the regular Chaos Marine.Originally Posted by gunmnky
I think it's the 2 to Glance vs 5 to Glance which CURRENTLY makes it far easier to avoid that -2 on the damage chart converting a Explosion to Immobilize and a Wreck to Weapon Destroyed for a Rhino than a Land Raider that is being pointed out, not the chart itself.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
I don't have the chaos codex handy, but I guarantee it's going to match page 102 of the C:SM codex (either now or after the FAQ): ...models in Terminator armour have the relentless universal special rule.Why would they? They aren't Relentless, nor would they be able to move and have full fire effect from their Bolters any more then the regular Chaos Marine.
No, it's not. You're combing rolls that cannot be combined. You don't roll to hit, penetrate, and destroy with a single die roll.Let me fix your Math for that Lascannon Hit:
Land Raider Penetrate (1/6) * chance to destroy on Pen (1/3) = 1/18 Chance to Destroy
Rhino Penetrate (2/3) * 1/3 chance to destroy on Pen (1/3) = 2/9 (or 4/18) Chance to Destroy
Amazing! A Lascannon is 4 times more likely to destroy a Rhino then a Land Raider.
Roll to Hit
Roll to Penetrate/Glance
Roll to Destroy
That's 3 rolls with 3 entirely different outcomes. The Roll to Destroy is what I'm talking about. I don't understand what is so hard to grasp about that.
Both HIT with the same chance.
The Rhino is PENETRATED easier.
Both DESTROY with the same chance.
Is that a little easier?
Last edited by gunmnky; 17-06-2012 at 01:56.
Fractured Mesh - my digital to 3d print blog.
No, vehicle rules are not fine regardless of their cost. A Chimera could cost 150 points and the vehicle rules (especially the transport rules) would still be frustrating and busted. It would still be a problem that a supposedly light vehicle was as hard to destroy as it would still be--with anything but melta in 2D6 pen range--and it would still be frustrating that a penetrating hit had equal chances to do something almost completely meaningless or to blow the thing apart. It would still be a problem that Troops could score without ever getting out of it and it would still be a problem that they could do drive-by shootings. The rules would still be bad.
That making a Chimera cost 150 points would heavily nerf IG, and mean they'd probably take infantry blobs with Commissars instead of Chimera Vets (maybe), would not fix anything. Heck, making it cost a more reasonable amount, say, 100 points, still doesn't get at the issue. Either it is good enough for its cost and it will be spammed to the nines or it is not good enough for its cost and won't be spammed. Wave Serpents are slightly overcosted but mech Eldar is still far more common and arguably but, IMO, almost certainly more competitive than foot Eldar, as an example in support of this, and mech Eldar still spam Wave Serpents, because the points cost range of a transport under current design philosophy (none costs over 120, most are far cheaper) is never realistically going to prevent spamming nor make it a bad idea, especially when cheapo minimum Troops can be put inside--and there's no reason not to do this because the goal is for them never to disembark in many cases. 120 points is nothing out of 2k. (And as an aside I think that people playing games which are about 500 points too large is another side of the problem here, particularly when it comes to spamming anything, but that's another issue which will have to be addressed in completely different ways.)
As for the availability of transports being a codex issue, well, only if you consider the FoC a codex-specific thing, and it really isn't, even though it is given in each codex. The fact that they're unrestricted by the FoC or any other means beyond straight up points is a problem. I consider this a core rules issue and I think it's reasonable to do so.
In summation, I'm not talking about transports or other vehicles being too cheap--in many cases, they are, but yes, that is a codex issue--but rather saying that there are fundamental design flaws that would cause problems even if you doubled the costs of those considered most undercosted at the moment.
Let me get this straight: You're saying that meltaguns are the only effective (Imperial, which covers most armies actually seeing table time) anti-tank weapon in the game, and this is not a problem? That meltaguns are available to take is an answer to the issue from the point of view of a player looking at a whack game system and trying to decide how to compete within it (in this case, spam melta, because you must, because most all else is terrible against vehicles and everyone is playing mech so you need to spam anti-vehicle weapons ... and everyone is playing mech because vehicles are too good), but from a games design perspective it only highlights the problem.
I'm not complaining about vehicles being hard to kill because I spam lascannons and am disappointed in their performance as a player. I'm complaining about it because, objectively, they are too difficult to kill considering how many can be included in an army, and considering that the durability, being partially based on a universal damage chart which applies to all of them, extends to even "light" vehicles.
However, for the record, if I spam lascannons to the exclusion of anti-infantry weapons, and you show up with a mechanized list, in a balanced game it's you who should have the uphill battle. I've made a weak list but one which happens to spam a counter to the thing you took lots of--you took lots of vehicles and I took lots of anti-vehicle. This applies to any weapon that isn't a meltagun, so please don't get fixated on lascannons, however; it's just an example I'm using because anti-tank is its clear intended purpose.
Last edited by Aluinn; 17-06-2012 at 03:08.
How Flayed Ones infiltrate:
Guarantee all you want, the word 'Relentless' shows up no where in the Chaos Terminator description, it just details advantages that act just like Relentless currently does, except for firing Rapid-Fire weapons as if you were stationary.
It depends on the paradigm point I guess. Usually, when someone tells me how effective a weapon is at destroying something it starts with the Hitting, not the final results after the hit. Otherwise, melta weapons wouldn't be considered so effective at destroying vehicles. It barely has anything to do with the average AP of melta weapons, but the relative ease in which they apply Penetrating hits compared to normal. Because let's face it, Glancing takes a while to kill most vehicles,No, it's not. You're combing rolls that cannot be combined. You don't roll to hit, penetrate, and destroy with a single die roll.
Roll to Hit
Roll to Penetrate/Glance
Roll to Destroy
That's 3 rolls with 3 entirely different outcomes. The Roll to Destroy is what I'm talking about. I don't understand what is so hard to grasp about that.
Both HIT with the same chance.
The Rhino is PENETRATED easier.
Both DESTROY with the same chance.
Is that a little easier?
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
I was talking about how against a landraider half the time it'll be a glance and half the time a pen, where with a rhino you have a much higher chance of getting a pen than a glance when you hit.
If you're talking about damage charts, you should be arguing even harder for railguns or melta guns with their AP one bonus =P
Lastly,
You're raging pretty hard. Go lie down and take a nap
Win/Ties/Loss:
Tau 27/2/8 2009, 5/0/2 2012, 1/0/0 2013
Greyknights 17/3/4 2011, 47/4/11 2012
To everyone raging about the hull points on vehicles, I offer the following snippet gleaned from a friend who actually had time to skim the 6th Ed book... Supposedly...
Apparently he said that only results from a penetrating hit will remove hull points, glances do not remove hull points but do still damage based on the chart...
For Orks the Lookout sir rule may not seem likely. The thought of an Ork selflessly jumping in front of his commander to protect him from incoming fire doesn’t seem to fit their nature. However the reality of the situation cannot be further from the truth, especially when the commanding Ork grabs the boy next to him and uses him as a shield.
For My armies, go here....Link
Anyone here going to pull a 'Office Space' fax machine moment with the 5th edition rule book once the new one comes out? I won't, but I kinda get the feeling some would...
Anyways, I'm stuck in between the whole armor hull points deal. I'm not sure whether to think it will be a cool change, or just another topic to hear arguments over.
HIKEEBA!
WOAH there, nelly. I'm sorry but this is blatantly untrue and illogical. Point efficiency is what drives competitive lists; if you want an example of a vehicle that has been left by the wayside because it's too expensive in points for what it does, look no further than the Land Raider.
Mech MSU works because the transports are cheap for what they do. Smaller MSU armies would give AT weapons greater point efficiency against them, making walking units with heavy weapons (like IG Heavy Weapon Teams) better value and thus changing the meta.
Archon of the Ravenous Void Kabal.
This is pretty far from rage. More confusion. Not sure why the concept of vehicle destruction occurring over 3 separate stages is so complex.
First portion is covered in other posts.
Not sure why I should be arguing for railguns or meltaguns. I think you missed the entire point of my posts.
Fractured Mesh - my digital to 3d print blog.
Yes, but your original statement that everyone has been arguing against was:
As has been stated repeatedly, that is just not true. A Lascannon is 4 times the chance of destroying a Rhino as a Land Raider. Your problem seems to be that a Penetrating Hit from a Lascannon is a s likely to destroy a Land Raider as a Rhino. To that, the problem is the relative value of the Rhino and the Land Raider (codex problems) not the Vehicle Damage chart.
WFB 8th Edition Empire W/L/D: 0/2/1
Sister of Battle 6th W/L/D: 3/2/0
Terran Alliance W/L/D: 7/4/1
Some of Fantasy's special weapons have universal rules in the main rule book. There are exceptions though in some cases, like cannons for instance. Some armies have their own rules for when cannons go bad and all that, right? What if they did the same for 40K? There could be set universal rules for damaging all vehicles, but then it could carry over to each specific army's book on how to deal damage onto that vehicle or transport. That could also bring some...uniqueness to the army? I really don't know.
HIKEEBA!
How would this be relevant at all? Models with PWs potentially getting a small survivability boost won't be helping them get past Terminator armor, which is all we're talking about. Absolute best case scenario, it's cutting their offense by 50% (2+ vs 3++) while giving them a 33% survivability boost. Those numbers in an absolute vacuum are already an unfair trade, and they ignore all the realities of combat--i.e., that the Terminators would be striking at I1, so the offensive nerf is actually simultaneously a defensive nerf because more Termies will survive to swing.
And this is more nonsense thinking. Like, you're out in orbit somewhere. Let me get this straight:
A). Nobody plays Terminators except TH/SS
B). Everyone spams Power Weapons to kill Terminators
C). The difference between 2+ and 3+ is "marginal at best," so using Power Weapons to kill Terminators is irrelevant
I'm just pointing out that these are all things you just said, in rapid succession. The most nonsensical of them is, of course, the final one--yes, the number "2" is relatively close to the number "3." That doesn't discount the fact that when you're rolling the 3+ instead of the 2+, you're taking twice as many casualties.
It's also pretty much insane to suggest that buffing 2+ armor on Tacticals is more of an improvement than the identical buff to 2+ armor on TH/SS, due to them being, y'know, identical. If you have two comparable units, and everybody only plays one of them because it's so much better, and then you improve the two of them exactly the same amount, that will not result in everyone then deciding to play the worse one.
A buff to 2+ armor, which is mostly represented in the form of Terminators, cannot be undone by a buff that is mostly contained within the same Codex(es). Exactly three sets of people have access to Rapid Fire AP2 weapons: Tau, IG, and Marines. Outside of the odd PW-laden blob squad, these are absolutely not the same people who will be feeling the brunt of the Power Weapon nerf. Incubi and Bloodletters will not be re-balanced against Terminators because a Crisis Suit is slightly better against them. It's not "Marines v. EVERYONE ELSE COMBINED," despite that apparently being how you're viewing it--if you're a Marine player, then yes, you can say "well, I got better against X, but worse against Y" and it's all well and good--but if you're X, you don't get to share in Y's buff, and you got shafted for zero gain.
what
While that's a pretty absurd overstatement, how does this line of thought make any sense to you? At all? And I'm not even talking about the broken circle of logic from up above--this is ridiculous in its' own right.
Step 1: Terminators, TH/SS in particular, are pretty good, and are being played commonly
Step 2: People "spam power weapons" specifically to kill Terminators, as in many cases it's the best/only to counter them
Step 3: NERF POWER WEAPONS SO THEY CAN'T KILL TERMINATORS
Step 4: ??????
Step 5: PROFIT (for GW, from all the new Terminator boxes they sell, presumably)
They haven't brought it up because it's not true--Meganobz don't get Painboyz. You could hypothetically have one unit of Meganobz with FNP...if you want to deal with One Scalpel Short of a Medpack. Which noone does, ever.
Don't be too surprised if monstrous creatures and walkers can tank shock in new rules set...
Army of the Southern Gate
theDarkGeneral
T'raj the Terrible
Khorne Legion Daemongorge
Oooh that would be nice for my nids
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
|\_______
||
|
|>
|/
My Nids
Battleworlds - 20% off everything & more!!
"Its a war game, not just top trumps." - Latro
so forgive me if i didnt have time to read over all 73 pages and this has already been asked.
The new psychic system thingamajigger. it does seem that this will be replacing the current psychic powers in the book. if that is the case, is there any speculation as to how this effects units like the Psyker battle squad? a major character like Mephiston?
it seems to be hurting alot of the more unique units and models. psyker wise anyway.
any thoughts?
That making a Chimera cost 150 points would heavily nerf IG, and mean they'd probably take infantry blobs with Commissars instead of Chimera Vets (maybe), would not fix anything. Heck, making it cost a more reasonable amount, say, 100 points, still doesn't get at the issue. Either it is good enough for its cost and it will be spammed to the nines or it is not good enough for its cost and won't be spammed. Wave Serpents are slightly overcosted but mech Eldar is still far more common and arguably but, IMO, almost certainly more competitive than foot Eldar, as an example in support of this, and mech Eldar still spam Wave Serpents, because the points cost range of a transport under current design philosophy (none costs over 120, most are far cheaper) is never realistically going to prevent spamming nor make it a bad idea, especially when cheapo minimum Troops can be put inside--and there's no reason not to do this because the goal is for them never to disembark in many cases. 120 points is nothing out of 2k. (And as an aside I think that people playing games which are about 500 points too large is another side of the problem here, particularly when it comes to spamming anything, but that's another issue which will have to be addressed in completely different ways.)
Eldar have to disembark from their transports in order to do anything. So do Ork boyz and Nobz. Sure, mech vets and burnaboyz are best shooting from their vehicles, but there are plenty of solutions to them. The points costs of transports in my opinion is just right, but the damage charts just need some slight alteration. Perhaps a more abstract reduction in functionality of the vehicle instead of this tedious blowing off of bits.
A dilligent Commissar does not waste breath on an admonition that may correct a single trooper when a summary execution serves to straighten out the entire platoon.
I know your pain. Join the paint-straight-out-the-pot club
Dont think anyones mentioned any rumours about it so far but anyone aware of any changes to Monstrous Creatures? just wondering if maybe some WHFB style combat buff might be in the pipeline, admitedly some MC do fine already but others just dont feel all that dangerous as things are atm.
I don't think it's pts values with transports that are the isse and if the rumours of stacking damage results pan out I think their survivability is fine. Personelly it's things like the vehicles can't contest that are a good idea but go further, a scoring unit not being "scoring" while embarked, making infantry embarked on transports that are destroyed pinned, possible forced disembarks with lower (not wrecked) damage results, Can't benefit from a cover save on the turn they disembarked from a transport. IMO all examples of ways to help balance footslogger vs mechanized infantry through Cons to using transports without detracting from their primary purpose more rapidly and in a relative degree of safety moving troops around the battlefield.
Sorry for the wishlisty nature I just really would like to see more balance between footslogging and mechand do think it can be achieved but feel that nerfing the survivability of transports is not a good approach.
Sorry no GW I will not pay twice the $$$ to buy from retail stores in Australia and no amount of adds to the hobby, support you FLGS bulldung is going to change the fact your charging twice as much.
I've always thought it beyond ridiculous that all vehicles can't perform a tank shock type action. I'm pretty sure driving a car or some sort of giant man-eating insect into a crowd has the same effect as driving a tank through)
Posting Permissions
