9th Ed. Wishlist?

[jarms48]

Why would a 4rd clip provide more shots than a drum magazine with presumably 4+ rounds per magazine?

1) It’s not a clip. It’s a highly advanced auto loading tray. Complete with recoil dampers, electronic sighting, and rangefinders.

2) How many shots weapons have is an abstraction. Why is a lasgun only Rapid Fire 1 when it can potentially fire up to 150 lasbolts in rapid succession? Why are belt feed Heavy Bolters only Heavy 3? The Type characteristic of weapons has always been a balancing mechanism.

3) It’s doctrine. A Salamanders autocannon is designed to rapidly dump the 4 autocannon rounds before retreating. It’s a target of opportunity weapon.

Edited May 14, 2021 by jarms48

[OldWherewolf]

I'm debating on another idea:  "Fix Bayonets!" makes a charging unit fight last (e.g. with the charge, that means they fight normally).

 

Normally, this would be very strong for melee armies, but we're guard, and guardsmen don't do much.  13 (assuming sgt has the free chainsword) S3 AP0 D1 Attacks against a MEQ does .5 wounds, but 1.5 against T3/5+.  Add in the overwatch, and we're up to 2.6 wounds.

 

In and of itself, it's not much, but this presents a choice, FRFSRF+overwatch or FB!+overwatch.  They key thing is that we get to activate first, meaning we get either additional movement, or can reposition models to our advantage.

 

Then you place FB! on a unit of Bullgryns...

 

Also, I'm not entirely sold on my idea of a single tank type with different rounds, I'm looking for a way to make all of them viable.  Another option would be to pay CP to swap them out, but the points cost and basic effectiveness would have to be similar, but be more effective against certain types of units:

• Basilisk:  MEQ (3+ armor), Maybe 8 shots S9 D3 AP-3 shots (against MEQ this is 3.9 wounds)
• Manticore: 12 shots, S10, AP-2, good against everything because of S10, but AP-2 means this could be better against terminators and T5
• Wyvern: 24 shots, S4 AP-1 D1 re-rolling wounds makes this a horde killer

They all have the same potential damage out put (24 wounds), but specialize against certain unit types, and present a flexible choice when making a list.

[USNCenturion]

The Salamander seems like an odd thing to have such hatred against, especially as it’s already pretty much gone from active rosters. As Jarms said it does have a role to fill, and has been in the imperial armory for a while. Plus, think of all the almost redundant artillery vehicles that shared similar roles even before the wyvern came along. There are real world examples of redundancy too... At this point you’re just railing on a model that other people enjoy and that you don’t have to use at all.

 

I also agree “fix bayonets” should be, well, fixed to do something in the next codex.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

The Salamander seems like an odd thing to have such hatred against, especially as it’s already pretty much gone from active rosters. As Jarms said it does have a role to fill, and has been in the imperial armory for a while. Plus, think of all the almost redundant artillery vehicles that shared similar roles even before the wyvern came along. There are real world examples of redundancy too... At this point you’re just railing on a model that other people enjoy and that you don’t have to use at all.

 

I also agree “fix bayonets” should be, well, fixed to do something in the next codex.

not railing.

Stated my opinion on the unit and what I would like to replace it, was asked about that opinion, and gave an answer. That's all.

[USNCenturion]

“I know salamander is in legends but I want it completely gone. I hate it.” Lol that’s railing. For all intents and purposes it is gone should you so choose. For others who want it, it’s there. It’s fine that’s your opinion, I was just stating I thought it an odd opinion.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

“I know salamander is in legends but I want it completely gone. I hate it.” Lol that’s railing. For all intents and purposes it is gone should you so choose. For others who want it, it’s there. It’s fine that’s your opinion, I was just stating I thought it an odd opinion.

and as long as its in legends it's unlikely to be directly replaced by the sort of vehicle I think would make more sense for its role, that's why I want it gone completely, which is a sentiment I believe I voiced in that same post.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

also I'd like to see the exterminator get some love.

Even if it's some thing as niche as exploding 6s when shooting at fliers.

[jarms48]

also I'd like to see the exterminator get some love.

Even if it's some thing as niche as exploding 6s when shooting at fliers.

 

The Exterminator just needs more shots. In 7th edition it was Heavy 4 twin-linked. In the transition to 8th, all twin-linked weapons had their shots doubled. Except for the Exterminator for some reason. 

 

So, with the current Exterminators points cost (being more expensive than a Battle Tank or Demolisher) it should get its long overdue Heavy 8. 

 

That would let it actually fill the niche of being a light vehicle or meq killer. 

Edited May 16, 2021 by jarms48

[USNCenturion]

also I'd like to see the exterminator get some love.

Even if it's some thing as niche as exploding 6s when shooting at fliers.

I can agree with that frater.

 

Maybe they considered grinding advance when they didn’t double the shots? It definitely needs something, as does the Eradicator and Vanquisher. For the love of Pete the Vanquisher needs some love.

[jarms48]

 

also I'd like to see the exterminator get some love.

Even if it's some thing as niche as exploding 6s when shooting at fliers.

I can agree with that frater.

 

Maybe they considered grinding advance when they didn’t double the shots? It definitely needs something, as does the Eradicator and Vanquisher. For the love of Pete the Vanquisher needs some love.

 

Just seems strange considering the Annihilator variant became Heavy 2 with 4 shots on Grinding Advance, then the Punisher got 40 shots on Grinding Advance. 

[domsto]

Almost all Leman Russ Varients except Demolisher,Punisher and Executioner Plasma Cannon need some Love

I never pick the Nova Cannon or Exterminator Autocannon

 

My Suggestion would be:

 

Vanquisher

72" Heavy D3 S14/-4/D3+3 against Vehicale 6 Damage(Yes i know that the Vanquisher already got the new Statline in the FW Book, but even this new statline is pretty bad, so a new new Statline is needed)

 

Exterminator Autocannon

48" Heavy 8 S7/-2/2

 

Eradicator Nova Cannon

36" Heavy D6 S6/-2/2 ignores Cover, a hit enemy must halfe Movement,advanceroll and Chargeroll

 

Battlecannon

72" Heavy D6 S8/-2/2 or even Damge 3

or

HE-Shell

72" Heavy D6+3 S6/-2/1

AP-Shell

72" heavy D3 S10/-3/3

As the Battlecannon is the allround Varient it could be cool if the Rules represent this. But this would make the outer Varients even more unlikly to take

 

on a sidenote i would love to see all the D6 Shots Profils changed to D3+3, but this is highly unlikely as GW extra introduced the Blast Rule to fix this selfmade Issue.

[bristlybadger]

The new Macharius (twin) Vanquisher is Heavy 2 S16 Ap-4 D9 BTW, with +1 to hit vehicles and monsters. That's exactly what I'd want for our Leman vanquishers. Single shot, 2+ to hit, incredibly high payoff.

If we stay on BS4+ on tanks though... Yuck.

[domsto]

The new Macharius (twin) Vanquisher is Heavy 2 S16 Ap-4 D9 BTW, with +1 to hit vehicles and monsters. That's exactly what I'd want for our Leman vanquishers. Single shot, 2+ to hit, incredibly high payoff.

If we stay on BS4+ on tanks though... Yuck.

Yeah i know

But as the Macharius remaind on BS 4+ so will our Leman Russ Tanks.

Thats why i think more shots are better, the best profil can't help you if you miss most of the time.

[jarms48]

The new Macharius (twin) Vanquisher is Heavy 2 S16 Ap-4 D9 BTW, with +1 to hit vehicles and monsters. That's exactly what I'd want for our Leman vanquishers. Single shot, 2+ to hit, incredibly high payoff.

If we stay on BS4+ on tanks though... Yuck.

 

There's several things wrong with that profile:

1) FW is suggesting that a Vanquisher cannon is as powerful as a Volcano cannon. 

2) FW is suggesting that a Vanquisher cannon is more powerful than a Quake cannon. Which is S14, damage D6. 

3) It's still not good. Against anything with a 2+ save, an Invul save, a FNP type save, a -1 to Hit, or some kind of only wound on 4/5/6 the chances of actually doing damage is less than 1. Sure when you actually do damage you'll hit like a train, but the question when. It's just not reliable.

4) A Demolisher cannon is still better and more reliable. On average a Demolisher cannon will have 7 shots, with an average damage potential of 24.5. Things like Gunnery Experts, Tank Commanders, etc just make it better. 

 

Domsto is absolutely right. More shots is better. Personally, I'd just make it similar to the Ad-Mech Neutron laser. Except instead of 48 inch range you get 72, but to balance it out the Vanquisher only gets AP-3 instead of AP-4. 

Edited May 17, 2021 by jarms48

[bristlybadger]

Fair points, guys!

 

I hadn't even thought to compare it to the super-heavy weapons like Volcanos. That's ridiculous of them then, haha.

 

Yeah, being a guard player I keep forgetting about all the invul saves out there. If a Vanq had 2+ to hit, effectively, minuses to hit wouldn't be too crazy, and would be fairly fluffy at least - the anti tank thing shoots slow things, not flying raiders.

 

The range of things vs the small table means that a Demolisher is barely at a disadvantage and just shoots more, heavier, harder, like you say. Guess they could make the chassis much cheaper and the good guns much more expensive as one way of trying to balance it..

[Shamansky]

Fair points, guys!

 the anti tank thing shoots slow things, not flying raiders.

 

That's only half true. Shaped charge rounds are slow. But long rod penetrators of saboted rounds fly very fast.

[bristlybadger]

Sure, but the Leman Russ is a fat, lumbering, kinda siege-y tank. I'd not picture it as a thing that would readily shoot at zooming flyers :)

[Shamansky]

That depends on the crew's skill

[bristlybadger]

Ok, if the tank had ammo that it currently does not have in rules, and the crew was much better than the 4+ would suggest, and we wanted the tank to fulfill both anti-tank and anti-air roles, then it's a tank that in-game would be a good choice for shooting super fast Eldar mini flyers, agreed!

[Shamansky]

If i recall correctly destroying a super-sonic chaos flyer with an Exterminator turret weapon  was decsribed in Abnet's 'Double Eagle'

[USNCenturion]

Sure, but the Leman Russ is a fat, lumbering, kinda siege-y tank. I'd not picture it as a thing that would readily shoot at zooming flyers :)

You’d be surprised what ballistics can achieve.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Sure, but the Leman Russ is a fat, lumbering, kinda siege-y tank. I'd not picture it as a thing that would readily shoot at zooming flyers :)

where are you getting that from?

The exterminator in particular is noted as being a faster model used for AA work...

[sitnam]

 

Sure, but the Leman Russ is a fat, lumbering, kinda siege-y tank. I'd not picture it as a thing that would readily shoot at zooming flyers :)

where are you getting that from?

The exterminator in particular is noted as being a faster model used for AA work...

40k also includes a ton of low flying threats we don’t have in real life. Skimmers, winged infantry, and what amounts to basically dragons some rapid fire auto cannons would work great against those type of threats

[bristlybadger]

 

Sure, but the Leman Russ is a fat, lumbering, kinda siege-y tank. I'd not picture it as a thing that would readily shoot at zooming flyers

where are you getting that from?

The exterminator in particular is noted as being a faster model used for AA work...

 

Right here:

 

Imperial Armour 1, 2nd edition, page 16-17:

"The Leman Russ is not a sophisticated vehicle and contains little in the way of advanced targeting or control systems"

"Although it is a slow, lumbering vehicle..."

"In particular by surrendering its anti-tank effectiveness for increased anti-infantry firewpoer, the Exterminator..."

"its rapid firing weapons, for example, are often used as a stopgap measure for anti-aircraft defence. Whilst lacking the elevation and advanced targeters to fulfil this role effectively, when needed tank commanders have used Exterminators to throw up a wall of fire against enemy air attacks with some success. Most commanders would still look to Hydras..."

 

My fault was apparently in mentioning that the Vanquisher anti-tank option might not be everyones first choice for anti-air, and then a horde of "actually" people came running in a huff.

Edited May 18, 2021 by bristlybadger

[Shamansky]

My bad sorry. Again my 'real world' knowlege led to confusion.