T should go up more.

[Captain Idaho]

I've been saying similar for a while, at least 8th edition possibly before. If the stats had a greater range then the game could have the variance between races and armies without needing dozens of special rules for each army.

I totally agree with the concept. T6 Space Marines, T5 Orks, T3 Guardmen... then a S5 bolter is very good at killing humans, ok at killing Orks and poor at killing Marines.

Lascannons could be S14, Dreadnoughts T10... there's plenty of scope here.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

27 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

I've been saying similar for a while, at least 8th edition possibly before. If the stats had a greater range then the game could have the variance between races and armies without needing dozens of special rules for each army.

I totally agree with the concept. T6 Space Marines, T5 Orks, T3 Guardmen... then a S5 bolter is very good at killing humans, ok at killing Orks and poor at killing Marines.

Lascannons could be S14, Dreadnoughts T10... there's plenty of scope here.

Personally I’d either leave lascannons at S9 or move them to S10 at most. At least for infantry portable lascannons. 
It can be argued vehicle mounted weapons are able to draw from a more powerful battery, so maybe S11 or 12 out of 14.

I think the only weapons that should be S14+ should be the main weapons of super heavies and what not, with S maxing out at 16

[Captain Idaho]

In my example of an expansion on the stats in game a Dreadnought is T10, so a S9 Lascannon might struggle to even wound the thing and T6 Marines would be wounded on a 2+ (if this scenario kept the wounding system).

With a wider variance between Toughness values we could see a more modest use of the wounds and damage values, since it would be harder to wound some units with certain weapons.

It would all have to be factored in.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Captain Idaho said:

In my example of an expansion on the stats in game a Dreadnought is T10, so a S9 Lascannon might struggle to even wound the thing and T6 Marines would be wounded on a 2+ (if this scenario kept the wounding system).

With a wider variance between Toughness values we could see a more modest use of the wounds and damage values, since it would be harder to wound some units with certain weapons.

It would all have to be factored in.

Yep.

wounds and saves and all that can help make even more variance between vehicles.

like a Leman Russ and a pred could both be T8, but the more rudimentary but rugged Russ could have only a 3+ Save, but 15-18 wounds, while the predator would get a 2+ save with 12-15 wounds, and negate 1 point of AP.

That way there’s a representation of how marines have better protection, but their vehicles may be a bit more finicky and over engineered like nazi tanks were compared to allied tanks

 

id make the standard MBT T9 with vehicles that are notable stand outs in that role as T10. Some niche, specialist vehicles could then be 11, with super heavies sitting at 12-14.

 

so some examples

invader T6

possessed T5 maybe T6?

scout sentinel T6

armored sentinel T7

chimera/taurox T7

Guilliman T7 or T8

Russ T9

Predator T9

Rogal Dorn Tank 10

malcador T11 or T12

Baneblade T14

Edited July 1, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Captain Idaho]

I think we agree in principle, just have to sort the balancing and finer details. 

[jarms48]

On 7/2/2022 at 4:34 AM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

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?

 

This actually makes sense. It's not a tank, it's essentially an MRAP. Which only has about 1 inch (25.4mm) of armour protection. Which is basically only enough to stop small arms, shrapnel, nearby explosives (IEDs), and heavy machine guns. That's it. 

 

The Chimera is the true IFV. 

Edited July 6, 2022 by jarms48

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, jarms48 said:

 

This actually makes sense. It's not a tank, it's essentially an MRAP. Which only has about 1 inch (25.4mm) of armour protection. Which is basically only enough to stop small arms, shrapnel, nearby explosives (IEDs), and heavy machine guns. That's it. 

 

The Chimera is the true IFV. 

Yet it’s only 1T tougher than a dune buggy…which has no armor…

that being said I’ve not seen any lore depicting how much armor they actually have.

the prime is also armed similarly to a Bradley or BTR, maybe even a stryker depending on how big that cannon is in the lore.

 

the chimera is clearly just a BMP. The BMP3 has roughly 35mm of armor, the BMP1 has 6-33mm of armor, meaning they have roughly the same level of protection as the inspiration for the taurox.

hell most IFVs aren’t armored to protect against more than HMGs including the Stryker.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Slave to Darkness]

1 hour ago, jarms48 said:

 

This actually makes sense. It's not a tank, it's essentially an MRAP. Which only has about 1 inch (25.4mm) of armour protection. Which is basically only enough to stop small arms, shrapnel, nearby explosives (IEDs), and heavy machine guns. That's it. 

 

The Chimera is the true IFV. 

Also depends on what material its made out of, Wood? Steel? Adamantium? Unobtanium? 1 inch in real world materials doesnt sound like a lot, but who knows what other metals they have in the 41st millennium. The fact you said its basically only useful for certain munitions whilst giving the same protection as a glorified electric go-cart just shows that GW seriously needs to rework some rules. Tbh they need to think less about quick cash injections and think more about making a good product to start with.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Slave to Darkness
Forgot how to English.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

54 minutes ago, Slave to Darkness said:

Also depends on what material its made out of, Wood? Steel? Adamantium? Unobtanium? 1 inch in real world materials doesnt sound like a lot, but who knows what other metals they have in the 41st millennium. The fact you said its basically only useful for certain munitions whilst giving the same protection as a glorified electric go-cart just shows that GW seriously needs to rework some rules. Tbh they need to think less about quick cash injections and think more about making a good product to start with.

Yeah reworking rules is kinda the whole point of this thread lol

[Schlitzaf]

All I see this thread is “Go Play Horus Heresy” tbf

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

14 minutes ago, Schlitzaf said:

All I see this thread is “Go Play Horus Heresy” tbf

Yes I should have to spend an assload of money to play a new game instead of GW just fixing the colossal cow flop they made for the game I already play and have already spent an assload of money on…

[Interrogator Stobz]

That other GW games are so well done... HH, AT, KT does support the premise of how bad 40k really is. 

[Slave to Darkness]

8 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Yeah reworking rules is kinda the whole point of this thread lol

Tbh I think reworking isnt really the word to use, Id say scrap it and start from scratch, cant be any worse than the hot mess it is now. I have pretty much given up on 40k at the moment as I have no idea whats goin on with all the Faq's, balance dataslates, rules spread across multiple books etc etc. 

[Cpt.Danjou]

Me and my friends has said for years that the biggest problem 40k has is that it is based on a d6 system, if it changed to a d10 or even a d12, some problems would go away, I am no fan of regular firearms taking down tanks with a the automatic wound on +6, but if there was a rule that said "a firearm with no ap can't penetrate a unit with the special rule "Tank"" Or something similar. 

With the current system I would have  nor problem with some units go up in Toughness even above T10, but the small arms problem wounding on 6+ would not go away.

Cpt.Danjou

[Antarius]

On 7/7/2022 at 12:25 PM, Slave to Darkness said:

Tbh I think reworking isnt really the word to use, Id say scrap it and start from scratch, cant be any worse than the hot mess it is now. I have pretty much given up on 40k at the moment as I have no idea whats goin on with all the Faq's, balance dataslates, rules spread across multiple books etc etc. 

Yeah. I mean, one thing is that I simply have too many games I'd like to play and not enough time, but the main thing that's caused me to give up on actually playing 40K is that it's simply too overwhelming, as well as just not being worth it at the end of the day. I know I sound like I'm just old and bitter, but I really think it's a sad state of affairs that the game is such a shambles, because I very much like how GW seems pretty dedicated to actually putting out all the codexes, adjusting points values etc., so if only the core game was good...

[jarms48]

On 7/7/2022 at 12:18 PM, Schlitzaf said:

All I see this thread is “Go Play Horus Heresy” tbf

Tell that to the thousands of xeno players with no representation in that game at all. Or the thousands of players who enjoy the setting of 40k and think HH should have remained a mystery. 

[Valkyrion]

Maybe vehicles and monsters of T7 or higher should be immune to 'to wound' modifiers.  That immediately stops S6 from wounding on 4's, S7 on 3's and S8 on 2's. 

One line in the next edition rule book that massively increases survivability and doesn't invalidate old datasheets or necessitate new datasheets. 

[Dr. Clock]

The occasional dial up to more T9 is a good change, but as soon as you start into T10 territory, most factions start to need a new class of weapon to do anything reliable.

I'm already a bit concerned about Sisters playing into 'a T9 spam list' even though I guess it'll give them a whole new important use for Fate dice at 5s I guess?

The main issue here isn't one or two units, it's the potential that a list could be entirely or mostly composed of such a unit at some point, so this is a place where one needs to tread a bit lighter than may be obvious.

I do think that GW started with a reasonable 'tank = T8 and 10+nW' profile and spent the last edition ironing out and differentiating according to wounds, and added in '-1 dmg' categories for dreads and... mining trucks, but in so doing left the actual T and Sv characteristics pretty consistent and predictable.

So on that note, yes... I think some things would be alot more interesting at T9 but with the same W characteristic as their T8 comparators instead of 'just more wounds as well' which is how that works out now. At the point that only the cream of the crop ranged weaponry can wound half the time, we need to make sure that we don't also double the number of shots that must get through from sheer W.

That's to say that I think it's proper to note if higher T and W stats come together with Sv and AoC in too many cases, the game just becomes a shadowsword duel in a hurry, and as much as that'll speed up tournament games, it's not where 40k is or should be aiming.

So yeah - T9 feel kind of reasonable in these these days of mortals, contempt, and auto-wounds in from shooting, so I'm good with it on about one Codex Heavy Support unit per faction, or maybe 2 in the case of 'double factions' like... Primaris and oldmarines get Landraider and Repulsor. Lords of War also, sure - one or two per faction.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Dr. Clock said:

The occasional dial up to more T9 is a good change, but as soon as you start into T10 territory, most factions start to need a new class of weapon to do anything reliable.

I'm already a bit concerned about Sisters playing into 'a T9 spam list' even though I guess it'll give them a whole new important use for Fate dice at 5s I guess?

The main issue here isn't one or two units, it's the potential that a list could be entirely or mostly composed of such a unit at some point, so this is a place where one needs to tread a bit lighter than may be obvious.

I do think that GW started with a reasonable 'tank = T8 and 10+nW' profile and spent the last edition ironing out and differentiating according to wounds, and added in '-1 dmg' categories for dreads and... mining trucks, but in so doing left the actual T and Sv characteristics pretty consistent and predictable.

So on that note, yes... I think some things would be alot more interesting at T9 but with the same W characteristic as their T8 comparators instead of 'just more wounds as well' which is how that works out now. At the point that only the cream of the crop ranged weaponry can wound half the time, we need to make sure that we don't also double the number of shots that must get through from sheer W.

That's to say that I think it's proper to note if higher T and W stats come together with Sv and AoC in too many cases, the game just becomes a shadowsword duel in a hurry, and as much as that'll speed up tournament games, it's not where 40k is or should be aiming.

So yeah - T9 feel kind of reasonable in these these days of mortals, contempt, and auto-wounds in from shooting, so I'm good with it on about one Codex Heavy Support unit per faction, or maybe 2 in the case of 'double factions' like... Primaris and oldmarines get Landraider and Repulsor. Lords of War also, sure - one or two per faction.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

 

 

look this idea that raising the T ceiling beyond 9 would some how break the game is nonsense pure and simple. in previous editions vehicles had AV which was the vehicle version of T, and that definitely went up to 12 at least, but i think super heavies went up to 14, and yet all factions were capable of dealing with it.

if T9 is ok, then great, because thats about where i'm proposing most of the battle tank type vehicles end up, anything T11+ would be super heavies, which are limited by the detachment system, and prohibitively expensive points wise, so spamming them wouldnt be much of a problem...great you've got 3 baneblades in your 2k list that don't get the benefit of cover, while i have a load of AT weapons on my infantry and medium/heavy armor that do get the benefit of cover....

[MegaVolt87]

I see arguments against immunities and higher failures against targets but that sounds like factions that have that potential trouble are poorly designed in the first place if they don't have real AT, but instead mass chip dmg to do AT duty which is stupid. Such high dmg resist units won't be free but actually worth taking. Would be nice for TAC lists to make a comeback instead of the one trick pony builds we have now. Would be nice to see more than dreads, FW dreads and footslog infantry spam from MEQ forces. We are pushing past half a decade where a classic SM/CSM mech list has not been viable and thats a shame in 40k. 

[Schlitzaf]

On 7/10/2022 at 7:39 AM, jarms48 said:

Tell that to the thousands of xeno players with no representation in that game at all. Or the thousands of players who enjoy the setting of 40k and think HH should have remained a mystery. 

I will. Because those xenos have 7th ed codexes they can use if they really want too. And two nothing is saying you have to use the current heresy rules for heresy era games. But frankly every suggestion am I hearing is same tired old trite and often the same incorrect presumptions based on the philosphy not actual math. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

12 hours ago, Schlitzaf said:

I will. Because those xenos have 7th ed codexes they can use if they really want too. And two nothing is saying you have to use the current heresy rules for heresy era games. But frankly every suggestion am I hearing is same tired old trite and often the same incorrect presumptions based on the philosphy not actual math. 

And do all current units and weapons included in those 7th Ed codexes?