legion weapon disparity

[Blindhamster]

I had an interesting conversation about rules from other games I'd personally like to see come over to heresy with Lorenzen and a couple of other friends. Those rules were:

 

• Armour Modifiers instead of AP. The AP system is pretty poor, i really hate the way that weapons are totally useless, and a lot of them it doesnt even make sense on... more on that later.
• To hit modifiers instead of save modifiers for cover, I love this approach in necromunda and kill team.
• Pistols at dawn in combat, it just makes sense and would make a lot of units stand out more (hello destroyers).
• More wounds on certain units. I've been spoiled by primaris, and by 8th eds approach where things like command squads have multiple wounds, but truth be told I've always felt more powerful marines should be 2 wounds, same as ork nobz.

 

On the topic of the first one anyway, a big part of my loathing for the system as it stands, is that one of the more iconic weapons of the setting, the humble power sword is pretty redundant, the kind of units you want your elite units to attack, are usually in 2+ save armour.

 

Add to this that some legions get access to AP2 melee weapons that don't strike last that they can give sergeants, or in some cases entire squads. Whilst others are left high and dry and it make for a pretty frustrating element of the game. For example, Power Glaives for white scars are much much better, and they can be taken on sergeants, and they'll soon have entire squads  with the option. Compare it to blood angels who have no fancy melee weapon available at that level, or death guard with their AP2 power scythes which then compare to night lords chain glaives that MIGHT be useful, but are as often as not going to just bounce off.

Switching to an AP system would mean that those AP2 weapons are BETTER, but not in entirely different leagues.

What are other peoples perceptions of the legion unique melee weapons?

[Marshal Loss]

Would absolutely adore AP modifiers. I'm happy with everything else though.

[Blindhamster]

If AP mods came in, i'd like FW to be bold in the way GW wasn't and make terminators be a 1+ save, or perhaps say they reduce AP mods of weapons by 1.

It would make weapons considerably more nuanced.

[Charlo]

I am incredibly torn on this subject but I do wonder if its a necessity now that Heresy is it's own rules system. I'll admit the AP modifiers make sense more-so in the heresy than any other system, where all weapons can be balanced around their ability to harm the most common statline: T4 3+ and costed appropriately.

 

It would certainly make all non-ap2 combat weapons instantly viable and as you say, potentially lead to a large variety of difference between the Legion Specific gear. The only problem I can see happening is that the combat weapons could change and it's still exactly the same result with units just using a 4+ invulnerable when hit by ap2 equivalent.

 

To-Hit modifiers instead of cover sounds fine to me too, from both a logic and game-play perspective, it also make invulnerable saves relevant when combined with cover.

 

Pistols in combat yes! Excellent change to be made.

 

Wounds... I'm no so sure. While we should adopt the ap system, I don't think the damage system is very good. I still prefer the likes of "double strength is instant death" or it doesn't matter. I think it would require an entire upheaval of the system and ad needless complexity as opposed to good complexity.

 

While were talking about rules, there is also the elephant in the room... Vehicles. I quite like both systems for vehicles, but I think profiles without degrading stats (at least outside of something like LoW) would make the most sense. Though then I suppose you need the damage system, which I do not like!

 

Oh, and i'd say individual move values are also a must too!

[Blindhamster]

i don't think the damage system should come over, i just think slightly more things should be multi wound than they are currently. :D


For me the biggest ones are pistols in combat and the AP system. The switch around of cover to hit modifiers i like because it makes other parts of the systems more relevant.

I don't think 30k should go to 8th, but i do think there are elements of 30k that would benefit from being adjusted to be closer to 8th/necromunda/kill team.

[Gorgoff]

Vehicles with wounds and toughness feels like living creatures which I don't like at all.

Besides it kills a lot of micromanagement from the movement phase when vehicles become basically huge infantry models.

Doesn't feel believably.

And it takes more skill to handle AV on vehicles on both sides.

The vehicles owner wants to protect it from anti tank weapons and the tank hunters want to shoot them with that. Same with lower AV on the back.

It's a game in the game to protect/ prey on the vulnerable spota on each tank.

Besides: it is totally realistic that tanks blow off after one penetrating hit.

If a missle come through your hull the whole crew is pretty much :cussed and the tank is done.

 

 

Ap systems.

I like it and I can tell you why.

First of all it feels more believably then modifiers (dodging the word realism here).

If I shoot someone in the chest, he drops dead.

If he wears armour he don't.

So ping or penetrate nothing in between.

I DO know that it is a simplified description of the reality but it fits more then modifiers.

For me, of course.

Second reason is that the AP system needs skill to utilize it. Just like the AV on tanks you need skill to prey on/ stop being preyed on by those weapons.

If you play BA or NL the humble Power Sword is a good weapon. If you play against Solar Auxilia, Xenos, Imperialis Militia or Mechanicum with lots of Secutarii/ Vorax/ Adsecularis/ Thallax etc the mighty Power Mauls is an awesome weapon.

If you field a Terminator squad which deep strikes (ROW, special character, being IF etc) why don't give them Power Mauls and one Chainfist on the sarge?

I use that tactic since 4th edition and it works very well. After they shot with their combi-melters those who survive the retaliation can still wreck havoc and kill tanks.

And so on.

Sure, modifiers are easier to use, but that's not a very persuading reason to change the system if you ask me.

 

Individual movement: agreed

 

To hit modifiers in shooting: agreed

 

To hit modifiers for clunky weapons instead of unwiedly: agreed

 

Giving underwhelming PW rules like Rending: agreed

 

Change psychic phase: agreed

 

Change challenges: agreed

 

There are quiet some things to change, but please stay of things which only needs skill to master.

[Blindhamster]

wholeheartedly disagree on the AP system. but otherwise I agree with what you've listed (I dislike 8e approach to vehicles too)

[Gorgoff]

wholeheartedly disagree on the AP system. but otherwise I agree with what you've listed (I dislike 8e approach to vehicles too)

Every opinion is equally worth mentioning.

After all it is just a matter of taste. :)

[Blindhamster]

absolutely, i probably wouldn't mind if all legions had equal access to AP2 at init lol.

[Laughingman]

Vehicles with wounds and toughness feels like living creatures which I don't like at all.

Besides it kills a lot of micromanagement from the movement phase when vehicles become basically huge infantry models.

Doesn't feel believably.

And it takes more skill to handle AV on vehicles on both sides.

The vehicles owner wants to protect it from anti tank weapons and the tank hunters want to shoot them with that. Same with lower AV on the back.

It's a game in the game to protect/ prey on the vulnerable spota on each tank.

Besides: it is totally realistic that tanks blow off after one penetrating hit.

If a missle come through your hull the whole crew is pretty much and the tank is done.

 

 

Ap systems.

I like it and I can tell you why.

First of all it feels more believably then modifiers (dodging the word realism here).

If I shoot someone in the chest, he drops dead.

If he wears armour he don't.

So ping or penetrate nothing in between.

I DO know that it is a simplified description of the reality but it fits more then modifiers.

For me, of course.

Second reason is that the AP system needs skill to utilize it. Just like the AV on tanks you need skill to prey on/ stop being preyed on by those weapons.

If you play BA or NL the humble Power Sword is a good weapon. If you play against Solar Auxilia, Xenos, Imperialis Militia or Mechanicum with lots of Secutarii/ Vorax/ Adsecularis/ Thallax etc the mighty Power Mauls is an awesome weapon.

If you field a Terminator squad which deep strikes (ROW, special character, being IF etc) why don't give them Power Mauls and one Chainfist on the sarge?

I use that tactic since 4th edition and it works very well. After they shot with their combi-melters those who survive the retaliation can still wreck havoc and kill tanks.

And so on.

Sure, modifiers are easier to use, but that's not a very persuading reason to change the system if you ask me.

 

Individual movement: agreed

 

To hit modifiers in shooting: agreed

 

To hit modifiers for clunky weapons instead of unwiedly: agreed

 

Giving underwhelming PW rules like Rending: agreed

 

Change psychic phase: agreed

 

Change challenges: agreed

 

There are quiet some things to change, but please stay of things which only needs skill to master.

 

 

The Original Sin per say was making an AP system in a D6 game (the mechanic works significantly better in D10+ systems).  It does not help they are instigating a metaphorical race to the bottom in terms of AP value and a race to the top in terms of initiative. 

[Gorgoff]

That you have to explain.

[Excessus]

In reply to the 8th ed toughness thing on vehicles and damage on weapons.

 

In my humble opinions I like the effect that the swap to toughness did to the system, a less binary system. Krak grenades can destroy a regular vehicle easily, but a contemptor with more moving parts out in the open is completely immune to it? An autocannon does one wound to a T4 model, but a missile launcher kills it outright no matter how many wounds...3...4...binary yet again.

 

BUT, I dislike the feeling it did in 8th ed and made vehicles bland...so personally I would like to have different toughness values on different sides...so maybe a rhino had T7 in the front and sides, and T5 in the back or something. That would still make the vehicles care about facings and differentiates the vehicles between each other, while removing the binary effects that armour values have.

 

On variable AP and cover giving -1 to hit though, I'm all aboard!

[Gorgoff]

I know what you wanted to say with the "Contemptor example", but I have to throw in the fact that a Contemptor is not immune to a Krak Grenade. It has an AV of 10 in the back and if you throw it from behind OR attack an immobilized dreadnought in cc you can kill it with said grenade just like regular vehicles. :)

But again I know what you tried to say.

 

You can kill a Land Speeder with a Bolter in one go and cannot with a missle launcher. That is just one of the oddities our system produces.

The big question is if a toughness system would solve all problems or just produces other.

 

Truth to be told I'd prefer an improved second edition. There you have all the things pwople tend to love about the 8th (individual movement, to hit modifiers for cover, Armour modifiers, shoot at multible targets etc.) without the stupid stuff. Of course it has it's flaws (just like every edition so far) but that's where the improvement bit has to happen.

The thing is that the system how vehicles worked was the best so far.

Every vehicle had a datafax with different to hit locations. Like "Turret", "tracks", "sponson-left" and so forth, with different armour values.

The penetration system wasn't based on D6 either but instead used more dice.

If I remember correctly a Lascannon had 3D6 plus 9, a heavy Bolter had 5+D4 (the damage)+d6 and so on.

If you penetrated the armour you threw a d6 on a damage chart.

In cc you got bonuses on penetration. That should simulate the fact that is is possible for attackers to unload their guns into muzzles or other vulnerable spots.

Like I said that system had it flaws on it's own.

Embarked troops where dead meat if a shot goes through simply speaking which wasn't fun at all. ;)

But it was nonetheless the overall better system because it felt more realistic.

[Excessus]

I know what you wanted to say with the "Contemptor example", but I have to throw in the fact that a Contemptor is not immune to a Krak Grenade. It has an AV of 10 in the back and if you throw it from behind OR attack an immobilized dreadnought in cc you can kill it with said grenade just like regular vehicles.

But again I know what you tried to say.

 

 

Semantics, as you say, you know what I was saying.

 

 

As to the other points, I liked 2nd ed too but a looot of those points would slow down the game too much in the sizes we play the heresy in. 2nd ed are nice skirmish and smaller point game rules, but 3500p with LoWs and LRs and artillery and speeders and bikes...keeping tab of "oh the left sponson of that predator has no gunner" and such individually for all the vehicles would be impossible in what we would usually call the time-slot for a normal game. Events would be impractical when a game takes 6-7 hours...and imagine bigger games or multiple players per side...just impossible...

 

8th ed has a solid "ground" to build upon in my opinion. Loooooots of things can be (and would have to be!!!) improved, but most rules are pretty solid as a start, and that includes the damage system instead of the instant death rule.

 

As an example, I would hope that any such HH rules would have a chapter of "special rules" instead of naming them differently on all the units even if they do the same...dear gods that is annoying in 8th edition...

[Gorgoff]

name=]&quot]]

 

8th ed has a solid "ground" to build upon in my opinion. Loooooots of things can be (and would have to be!!!) improved, but most rules are pretty solid as a start, and that includes the damage system instead of the instant death rule.

 

As an example, I would hope that any such HH rules would have a chapter of "special rules" instead of naming them differently on all the units even if they do the same...dear gods that is annoying in 8th edition...

Don't get me started on 8th edition. ;)

A horrible game. Feels like a boardgame without board. They literally wiped every aspekt which makes the game interesting in sake of simplicity so that everyone can play it.

It just feels like someone took my scissors away because some fool hurt himself with that and replaced it with a toodlers version of it.

 

So no, I don't think that the 8th is a good starting point.

 

By the way: for twenty years it was absolutely clear and manageble to put a dime/dice/marker next to a damage vehicle to show which weapon is destroyed and only because some NOMNOMs ate those markers or whatsoever the :cuss went wrong in their games they dumbed it down.

Wonderful.

Now the NOMNOMs have a great time and I stand here with my plastic scissors in my hand and cannot fathom how to cut my papers. ;)

I'm to old for childsplay.

[Excessus]

Respectfully I disagree. I remember the charts and markers of 2nd edition and I doubt the "added complexety" would be enjoyable for a majority of players. Just adding complexity for complexity's sake wouldn't make a better game. I'm definitely not advocating porting over 8th ed to HH word for word, but making HH less binary would go a long way to make the game more enjoyable for many people...and as an example, would make pure knight lists more reasonable.

[Gorgoff]

Respectfully I disagree. I remember the charts and markers of 2nd edition and I doubt the "added complexety" would be enjoyable for a majority of players.

Yeah sure, I 100% agree on this one.

Of course that has to be reshaped.

But as a starting point it is a very good game.

[Charlo]

Above "Different toughness for each vehicle facing" was mentioned. This is GENIUS. It could really work well too. Flareshield could be something like -1 to wound instead of -1 to strength etc. There would be a lot of re balancing to do but it could work.

 

I also dislike the idea of degradation tables, how about instead, every wounds threshold yields a roll on the vehicle damage table? So instead of a strict stat degredation, dealing half the wounds to a vehicle may destroy a weapon/ immobilize/ shake/ stun etc and when the vehicle is in its final few wounds the chance to actually destroy it could be higher.

 

As we are proposing this without the system for multiple damage on a weapon - maybe higher strength weapons designated as "anti-tank" could instead force more rolls on the damage table?

[Excessus]

I don't think it's advisable to change armour value and hull point rules without having weapons with multiple damage stats.

[Cryptix]

My two largest problems with 7th edition are the hull point system and AP. If we could adopt AP and make it so glancing hits only result in a crew shaken, and not lose a hull point, I'd probably come back to HH. Beyond that however, I have problems with the how the only real viable units are those with some kind of invulnerable save or other way to mitigate damage reliably. There needs to be some way of interacting with invuln saves more, be it through psychic powers or maybe high strength attacks? IE, if the attack has strength >= Toughness, -1 to invuln saves, if strength is >= Toughness+2, -2, if strength >= Toughnessx2, no invuln saves. 

[Gorgoff]

. If we could adopt AP and make it so glancing hits only result in a crew shaken, and not lose a hull point, I'd probably come back to HH.

 

From 3rd to 5th edition we kind of had that and you know how that was? It sucked.

It sucked so hard and made 5th THE transporter edition because vehicles where so hard to kill. Everyone who played those editions

can tell you the stories of unkillable Rhinos and other tanks, who refused to die.

So no, it is not a good idea and it wouldn't improve the fun.

Been there, done that.

 

. Beyond that however, I have problems with the how the only real viable units are those with some kind of invulnerable save or other way to mitigate damage reliably.

 

Really?

Veterans are a bad unit?

You got to be kidding. :D

They are hands down one of the best units in the game and you say they are not a viable unit because they don't have a invul save or some way to mitigate damage?

 

I guess you've got one specific unit in mind, which you struggled against and base on that very personal experience you think the whole system doesn't work.

Well, I can tell you that that is wrong.

Most of all the units in the game don't have a invul save (or stuff like FnP etc) and still do a pretty damn good job on the battlefield.

At least if fielded correctly of course. ;)

[rendingon1+]

 

. If we could adopt AP and make it so glancing hits only result in a crew shaken, and not lose a hull point, I'd probably come back to HH.

From 3rd to 5th edition we kind of had that and you know how that was? It sucked.

It sucked so hard and made 5th THE transporter edition because vehicles where so hard to kill. Everyone who played those editions

can tell you the stories of unkillable Rhinos and other tanks, who refused to die.

So no, it is not a good idea and it wouldn't improve the fun.

Been there, done that.

 

Hear, hear!

I too remember this frustrating struggle to stop rhino rush. No more thankfully.

 

As for current 40k AP system I'm dead aginst it. I'm tired of hearing from my friends how power and terminator armour suck now. I've also read countless threads on this forum how bad things are for the astartes.

 

Part of the problem I think is too generous access to artificer armour. Lowly sergeant in almost EVERY unit can take it - tacticals, assault, breachers and RECON (yes, even scouts can have it!) should be a big NO for AA. "Tanking Sergeants (or apothecaries)" should end right now.

 

I agree that AP2 at ini weapons are too common in some legions and that shouldn't be a thing. White scars and DG are main offenders here, scythes and glaives are just too good with (almost) no downsides at all. Even centurion level AP2ini is too much for me, I remember times when paragon blade was a big WOW, now it is rather meh when compared to some legion specific options. .FW should reconsider their decision.

[SkimaskMohawk]

The 8th version of ap single handedly ruined any claims the marine statline had of being durable. Solar auxilia, mechanicum and cults/militia would get a very large boost to their performance, while marines and custodes would drop. In a game system centered around marines, them dying even more would be a bad thing. You then combine it with the following;

 

Cover as a hit modifier rather than a save. It feels great in Kill Team, no doubt. But that's only because 8th has the worst cover system I've played with in a GW game; it's like going from Dow2's cover system to DoW3's. So yes, the modifier is great in Kill team. But after dropping off survivability due to ap, you're now cutting cover as well.  Medusas, phosphex, demolishers, etc... all went from making you take 4+ cover saves to 6s (phosphex is a 5 with canister). So even more things die now once you get past the hit roll, further trivializing the marine statline.

 

Pistols in cc. Well in theory it could be good, as long as it's not the 8th edition way; something like Kaedes Nex instead.