T should go up more.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

One of the most annoying things to me is how much some weapons overlap when they have different roles.

the AC and HB are an example.

 

if T were to max out at 12 or 14, there’d be more times where the AC is clearly the better choice.

Weapons like grenade launchers could then get a slight buff with krak grenades going up to S7

it would also make it feel like there’s an actual difference between light, medium, heavy, and super heavy vehicles, where right now you have mini-vehicles like bikes, then ‘light’ vehicles in the form or impulsors or chimeras, which don’t really feel light at T7 out of an 8 max. Now new vehicles maxing out at 9 might help, but since that will only be for real heavy heavies I don’t think it will make much difference.

but a chimera at T7 will feel light compared to a leman Russ at T9

it will also nerf the lethality of the game a bit as well.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[MARK0SIAN]

I agree the T ceiling definitely needs to go up, it’s frankly baffling that they removed the max 10 cap then didn’t actually exploit that removal. 
 

I think they’ve boxed themselves into a corner with the wound table and toughness to be honest. As the strength of weapons and toughness increases, it’s harder and harder to get to any meaningful breakpoints to differentiate the different weapons and units. For example, firing with an S7 weapon at a T8 target means you could increase the toughness but you wouldn’t actually hit a meaningful break point until you get all the way to T14! Basically it’s hard to add any granularity. This is why there’s so many wound modifying mechanics and effects because that’s the only mechanic they can use to add in that granularity. 
 

I definitely think the T ceiling needs increasing but I think for it to be truly effective it needs to go hand in hand with a revamp of the wound table.

Edited June 25, 2022 by MARK0SIAN

[Valkyrion]

The problem is with modifiers, really. If you can only wound on 6's normally and you get +1 to wound, then you've increased your effectiveness by 100%, and that modifier doesn't care if you are firing at T10 or T20 as long as 6's always wound. 

I liked the limit of not being able to wound targets double your strength from previous editions, but even that would be redundant now things like Fleshborers are S5 and there is no T10, and we'd simply see a proliferation of +1S modifiers instead of +1 to wound. 

I'd toy with the idea of making AP only kick in should the attackers S equal or exceed the targets T, so the chance of wounding remains the same but the chance of surviving that wound increases dramatically. 
 

[Karhedron]

This edition really favours melta for anti-tank duties so a simply way to help any vehicles that really need a survivability boost is to give them T9. I could see Land Raiders justifying that for example. The T8 ceiling seems baffling.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Karhedron said:

This edition really favours melta for anti-tank duties so a simply way to help any vehicles that really need a survivability boost is to give them T9. I could see Land Raiders justifying that for example. The T8 ceiling seems baffling.

That doesn’t seem like enough of a gap between super heavies, heavies, and even medium vehicles to me.

[sairence]

Well, the Chaos Landraider has now gotten T9. So maybe we'll see a move towards it.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

12 minutes ago, sairence said:

Well, the Chaos Landraider has now gotten T9. So maybe we'll see a move towards it.

The new rogal dorn tank and presumably the baneblade will be as well, but I imagine 9 will be the new ceiling for the next 2 editions or so.

[MegaVolt87]

Go back to the old toughness and to hit tables. Its ok for attacks to do nothing and GW has forgotten that. Best AT is chip dmg which is ridiculous. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

39 minutes ago, MegaVolt87 said:

Go back to the old toughness and to hit tables. Its ok for attacks to do nothing and GW has forgotten that. Best AT is chip dmg which is ridiculous. 

Right?

a punisher or hvy onslaught is better at killing vehicles than an autocannon is.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Reviewing my codex, the guard already have a S14 and S16weapon so an argument about S stats on weapons going up doesn’t seem like it’s as valid as if S capped at 10.

S14 AP-4 will still wreck a T14 tank pretty reliably

and 

S16 AP-5 2D6 damage likewise will still be plenty good at dealing with T14 tanks and monsters.

some things just need to be super hard to kill for the majority of weapons, and some weapons just need to wreck heavy armor and below.

[Blurf]

On 6/27/2022 at 7:19 PM, MegaVolt87 said:

Go back to the old toughness and to hit tables. Its ok for attacks to do nothing and GW has forgotten that. Best AT is chip dmg which is ridiculous. 

It wasn't okay for attacks to do nothing. It very explicitly was a huge problem in previous editions. GMCs were basically immune to damage outside of their own D weapons in 7th. Also, the old to hit table was comparative and never resulted in an attack automatically missing. It also only functioned in melee. The old Ballistic Skill system was essentially the same as we have now but offered built in rerolls for the 8 total models that had a BS better than 5 and a gun worth shooting. It was also less intuitive because BS4=Hit on 3s for some strange reason.

Not every army has access to greater than S8 weapons. Sisters of battle have exactly 3 sources of S9, Morvenn Vahl, Paragon Warsuits with hammers, The entirely useless Castigator Battle Cannon. Moving any significant number of vehicles to T9 would make our shooting almost completely useless, while doing absolutely nothing to improve survivability against Tau or Eldar.

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

11 minutes ago, Blurf said:

It wasn't okay for attacks to do nothing. It very explicitly was a huge problem in previous editions. GMCs were basically immune to damage outside of their own D weapons in 7th. Also, the old to hit table was comparative and never resulted in an attack automatically missing. It also only functioned in melee. The old Ballistic Skill system was essentially the same as we have now but offered built in rerolls for the 8 total models that had a BS better than 5 and a gun worth shooting. It was also less intuitive because BS4=Hit on 3s for some strange reason.

Not every army has access to greater than S8 weapons. Sisters of battle have exactly 3 sources of S9, Morvenn Vahl, Paragon Warsuits with hammers, The entirely useless Castigator Battle Cannon. Moving any significant number of vehicles to T9 would make our shooting almost completely useless, while doing absolutely nothing to improve survivability against Tau or Eldar.

 

it 100% is ok for some weapons to do literally nothing against some things. there is absolutely no reason for a lasgun or a flamer to wound a baneblade or landraider.
no matter how many times i shoot an abrams tank with a 5.56 or even a 7.62 round, it will never cause any damage beyond some scratched paint, and while HotE is helpful when it makes sense it, exacerbates the lasgun wounding heavy armor issue, so simply saying it can't wound a T9+ vehicle no matter what would solve that problem completely. the game isn't a simulator, but some of the mechanics need to make sense.
as for some armies having limited  sources of S9, guess what! in a new edition GW can change the S stat of some weapons in those armies! isn't that amazing!
and the castigator battle cannon must not be too useless if it's one of their only weapons that is S9. sounds like killing armor is something it would be pretty useful for.

[Schlitzaf]

There is a thousand reasons for why they could and two that bad game design. The reality of the matter; it make so you end up making functionally unwinnable or unlosable games before dice are even rolled.

What happened was your anti heavy armour got nuked. And then you had armies walking away and you functionally could do nothing. And for the record Punisher and Onslaught are not better anti tank than their points equivalent of anti heavy armour. Please stop sprouting incorrect presumptions. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Schlitzaf said:

There is a thousand reasons for why they could and two that bad game design. The reality of the matter; it make so you end up making functionally unwinnable or unlosable games before dice are even rolled.

What happened was your anti heavy armour got nuked. And then you had armies walking away and you functionally could do nothing. And for the record Punisher and Onslaught are not better anti tank than their points equivalent of anti heavy armour. Please stop sprouting incorrect presumptions. 

If your anti-armor is getting ‘nuked’ then you’re poorly positioning your units.

weird how on one hand people claim chip damage from things like lasguns isn’t a big enough deal to make any difference, yet it makes a big enough difference that making it so they can’t damage heavy armor will make the game unbalanced.

 

build a balanced army, position and play that army well, and you won’t have a problem.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

BB guns that automatically wound on a roll of 6 to hit damaging high armor is just ludicrous. They did a horrid job converting tanks over to 8th edition. Hopefully the chaos landraider is a sign of things to come.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Black Blow Fly

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

As an example I try to focus on weapons that are well rounded in my marine army, so I have a lot of plasma. Dual plamsa tac squad.

plasma inceptors

i switch between assault cannons and plasma on my Raven along with dual missiles.

though I do have a thunderstrike ready to be built and painted to give me some dedicated AT at some point 

 

for my guard I have a lot of autocannons, heavy bolters, and spread out lascannons on my russes, spice up my vets with a melta, and I have a decent balance of AT, and AI, and no single unit being destroyed makes big difference in my over all fire power.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[chapter master 454]

Kind of feel like the new system needs a little bit of housework done to it with knowledge of the now applied to it for 10th edition moving forward.

Firstly, a lot of anti-tank guns just sucked purely because GW thought D6 damage was a lot and that 2D was not. They also thought that having D6 shots on  weapon with D6 damage was insane...it isn't.
We have now been seeing GW fix this by actually considering the idea that anti-tank weapons should have high damage values with the variance being additional, not sole result. This has positively impacted anti-tank weapons however I think this area would help make it so anti-infantry weapons aren't so great against tanks.
 

As a rather out there person in terms of my opinion on design (or it feels like it sometimes) there are several things I would say:
Armour of Contempt is interestingly positive as a universal mechanic for Imperial based units, that includes ones fielded by chaos. This gives that faction a rather distinct identity across the game as brute, but beginner friendly. It means you can have high AP be a thing yet still have tanks that are able to soak it better than others. Means Imperial based tanks now have something to offer, they may not be the most damaging but they take hits like a champ! Similarly it applying to power armoured infantry now feels mechanically fitting, this is the finest armour in the faction and matches the description many give it: "Basically a super human wearing a tanks worth of armour".
I feel the game right now needs a "soft" bible in the design team for weapons. Basically, if a weapon is designated as "Anti-infantry" that would come with design documents that state what it can and can't have, such as not being allowed to be a high strength, nothing higher than 5-6 (and 6 is pushing it). The "Standard issue" of any army should NOT be excessive, I look are S5 fleshborers as a bit of an overstep. To me, no standard issue gun should be S5 unless the faction is special for it (Tau notably have this as part of their identity. Their basic trooper reflects their army's ethos).
Blast needs to be adjusted and made per die, and also changed to counting units of 5 or more, then 10 or more. Far too many people can skirt blast as a handy extra without much penalty, this would help make that a lot harder and make blast feel like they should: Good to start with, bad to finish with.
Finally Toughness and armour saves need looked at, wounds to me feel like they are starting to be where they should be. To me, a light tank is T6-7 with 4+ save. Medium is T7-8 with 3+. Heavy is T9 with a 2+ or 3+, Super heavies imo should most certainly be T10 and higher. This would also need seen to monsters who I feel should have benefits in other areas with lower overall toughness and armour saves. 

Those are my 2 cents.

[Emperor Ming]

No No No

Because if one stat goes up then weapons will need to creep then and we are already almost there anyway

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, chapter master 454 said:

Kind of feel like the new system needs a little bit of housework done to it with knowledge of the now applied to it for 10th edition moving forward.

Firstly, a lot of anti-tank guns just sucked purely because GW thought D6 damage was a lot and that 2D was not. They also thought that having D6 shots on  weapon with D6 damage was insane...it isn't.
We have now been seeing GW fix this by actually considering the idea that anti-tank weapons should have high damage values with the variance being additional, not sole result. This has positively impacted anti-tank weapons however I think this area would help make it so anti-infantry weapons aren't so great against tanks.
 

As a rather out there person in terms of my opinion on design (or it feels like it sometimes) there are several things I would say:
Armour of Contempt is interestingly positive as a universal mechanic for Imperial based units, that includes ones fielded by chaos. This gives that faction a rather distinct identity across the game as brute, but beginner friendly. It means you can have high AP be a thing yet still have tanks that are able to soak it better than others. Means Imperial based tanks now have something to offer, they may not be the most damaging but they take hits like a champ! Similarly it applying to power armoured infantry now feels mechanically fitting, this is the finest armour in the faction and matches the description many give it: "Basically a super human wearing a tanks worth of armour".
I feel the game right now needs a "soft" bible in the design team for weapons. Basically, if a weapon is designated as "Anti-infantry" that would come with design documents that state what it can and can't have, such as not being allowed to be a high strength, nothing higher than 5-6 (and 6 is pushing it). The "Standard issue" of any army should NOT be excessive, I look are S5 fleshborers as a bit of an overstep. To me, no standard issue gun should be S5 unless the faction is special for it (Tau notably have this as part of their identity. Their basic trooper reflects their army's ethos).
Blast needs to be adjusted and made per die, and also changed to counting units of 5 or more, then 10 or more. Far too many people can skirt blast as a handy extra without much penalty, this would help make that a lot harder and make blast feel like they should: Good to start with, bad to finish with.
Finally Toughness and armour saves need looked at, wounds to me feel like they are starting to be where they should be. To me, a light tank is T6-7 with 4+ save. Medium is T7-8 with 3+. Heavy is T9 with a 2+ or 3+, Super heavies imo should most certainly be T10 and higher. This would also need seen to monsters who I feel should have benefits in other areas with lower overall toughness and armour saves. 

Those are my 2 cents.

I agree 100% with your last paragraph.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

23 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

No No No

Because if one stat goes up then weapons will need to creep then and we are already almost there anyway

 

It’s happening anyway so why not boost T to increase offset that?

[jarms48]

The highest I would go is T10. No more than that. For example:

 

T9:

- Landraiders

- Titanic Monsters and Vehicles. For example: Monolith, Baneblade, Dominus-class Knights.

 

T10:

- Large Fortifications. For example: Fortress of Redemption.

- Warlord Titan

 

T10 should be rare. T9 would be fine as the common toughness characteristic on titanic models. Though for Imperial Knights I would only give it to the largest classes.  

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

8 hours ago, jarms48 said:

The highest I would go is T10. No more than that. For example:

 

T9:

- Landraiders

- Titanic Monsters and Vehicles. For example: Monolith, Baneblade, Dominus-class Knights.

 

T10:

- Large Fortifications. For example: Fortress of Redemption.

- Warlord Titan

 

T10 should be rare. T9 would be fine as the common toughness characteristic on titanic models. Though for Imperial Knights I would only give it to the largest classes.  

That doesn’t really change or solve the issues we currently have though…

[Xenith]

16 hours ago, chapter master 454 said:

Armour of Contempt is interestingly positive as a universal mechanic for Imperial based units, that includes ones fielded by chaos. This gives that faction a rather distinct identity across the game as brute, but beginner friendly. It means you can have high AP be a thing yet still have tanks that are able to soak it better than others. Means Imperial based tanks now have something to offer, they may not be the most damaging but they take hits like a champ! Similarly it applying to power armoured infantry now feels mechanically fitting, this is the finest armour in the faction and matches the description many give it: "Basically a super human wearing a tanks worth of armour".

This is what marines were always meant to be, I recall - lower damage output than other armies, but tough as hell, and less punishing if you made mistakes. I remember in 3rd ed when the main strength of marines was, in fact, their power armour. AP3 or lower was very limited in the game, and tended to be low shot anti tank weapons. 

[sairence]

One reason I like AoC as a mechanic is because it's a different way of addressing survivability without giving everyone and their mum an invun save.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

i think this kind of sums things up well on why there needs to be more granularity in toughness.

gravis armored infantry T5, invader ATV T5. 
Taurox T6.
a taurox, an armored personnel carrier/infantry fighting vehicle is only slightly tougher than a dune buggy, and the same T as an armored sentinel? really?