the whole vehicle damage situation...... :(

Quote :

Also, Dark Lances are worse than Lascannons 90% of the time, and (on infantry models) impare the movement of what is supposed to be a very mobile army.

New rules will surely give boost to a Land Raider, Predator and Leman Russ. Dont forget Lances yet.

doomseer11b wrote:

REAVERS caltrops and bladevanes can only hit infantry models, sadly they cannot use this attack against models with an AV.

That's a shame.

Is that in their rules, or was if faqd?

Azdrubael wrote:

New rules will surely give boost to a Land Raider, Predator and Leman Russ. Dont forget Lances yet.

Here's the trouble - even if those vehicles do get a boost... that's all of 3 vehicles. What about all the other vehicles? And, unless predators get AV14, lances will be no better off against them than lascannons. Also, if they were going to get a boost, wouldn't it have been in their very recent codices? I thought both the SM one and the IG one were updated very recently.   

Regardless, penetrating a vehicle on a 5+, and then exploding it on a 6+ is not (and never will be) good for an expensive, one-shot weapon. Yes, we can hurt land raiders, but the problem is that they can't hurt them reliably. And, for that "benefit" we are forced to sacrifice:
- Strength from Dark Lances (making them inferior against low-AV vehicles)
- Twin-Linked
- Any anti-vehicle weapons with multiple shots
- Meltas on our troops and elites

Honestly, I just don't think Dark Lances are worth it.

Quote :

- Strength from Dark Lances (making them inferior against low-AV vehicles)
- Twin-Linked
- Any anti-vehicle weapons with multiple shots
- Meltas on our troops and elites

They are however 36 range on skimmer platform that is able to move 12 and fire. That is what imperials dont have.

I'm not saying they are hot. But, im saying they are still N1 turn 1 AV, no way around it. No amount of haywiring, blasters will help if you need to bring down one crucial transport turn 1.

Explode is not the only damage result, all the rest matters as well, especially immoblised and weapon destroyed. Sometimes even crew shaken is worth gold, for your more killy units to actually survive and do their job.

Azdrubael wrote:

They are however 36 range on skimmer platform that is able to move 12 and fire. That is what imperials dont have.

Yes, but what Imperials do have is a *much* better selection of weapons. In addition, they have access to several weapons that have a range of 48". Also, they have drop pods, which allow them to deliver highly-accurate meltagunners to vehicles in the enemy deployment zone - even on their first turn. Somehow, I don't think many marine players will be crying about not having access to Dark Lances.

Azdrubael wrote:

I'm not saying they are hot. But, im saying they are still N1 turn 1 AV, no way around it. No amount of haywiring, blasters will help if you need to bring down one crucial transport turn 1.

Yeah, they're the best we have... problem is that isn't saying much - especially since they're basically all we have.

Azdrubael wrote:

Explode is not the only damage result, all the rest matters as well, especially immoblised and weapon destroyed. Sometimes even crew shaken is worth gold, for your more killy units to actually survive and do their job.

The other results can be useful, but a) they're very unreliable - too often you'll end up immobilising a firing platform, or knocking the bolter off a transport. b) many vehicles can negate or partially negate their effects - e.g. there are various mechanisms for ignoring crew shaken/stunned, or turning stunned to shaken - and also many vehicles that don't really care about snapshotting (Annihilation Barges come to mind, and also Psyfulman Dreads to a lesser extent).

Here's the thing - dark lances would be tolerable if we had a decent selection of other weapons to back them up. If we had things like scatter lasers to aim for transports, then at least we could concentrate our dark lances on heavier vehicles. Similarly, if we had more access to meltas, then we'd at least have a reliable way to destroy a particularly-dangerous vehicle - even if it meant getting close.

Speaking as a marine player, I'd just about give my left nut for Dark Lances.

I agree that the Dark Lance isn't perfect, but it IS pretty good. We've established all the ways it ISN'T the paragon of weaponhood, but it's cheaper than a lascannon, stronger than a plasma gun, has MUCH better range than a melta, and has better AP than krak missiles.

People often tout the missile launcher as a "good" swing weapon. The Dark Lance is far more comfortable shooting at any target. It's capable of damaging virtually every unit in the game, and is bringing something useful to the table in almost all firing situations.

It's too expensive to buy for warriors/trueborns, but as the default weapon on our Raiders and Ravagers, I think it's the bee's knees.

Jimsolo wrote:

I agree that the Dark Lance isn't perfect, but it IS pretty good.  We've established all the ways it ISN'T the paragon of weaponhood, but it's cheaper than a lascannon,

Eh?

A Tactical squad pays 20pts for a lascannon, a warrior squad pays 25pts for a Dark Lance.

Jimsolo wrote:

stronger than a plasma gun

But lacks the ability to fire twice, and also can't be fired by troops on the move.

Jimsolo wrote:

has MUCH better range than a melta

So do a lot of other weapons, to be fair.

Jimsolo wrote:

People often tout the missile launcher as a "good" swing weapon.

What's a 'swing' weapon?

In any case, I thought missiles were used mainly for their cheapness, rather than their effectiveness? And, in 7th, I don't think I've heard anyone touting the effectiveness of missiles.

Jimsolo wrote:

The Dark Lance is far more comfortable shooting at any target. It's capable of damaging virtually every unit in the game, and is bringing something useful to the table in almost all firing situations.

Ok, you've said how Dark Lances are supposedly superior to missiles, lascannons, meltas and plasma. So, let me ask you this - would you trade all of those, along with multi-meltas, assault cannons and autocannons, for access to Dark Lances and Blasters?

Sorry, I was only considering Dark lances on vehicles for points cost. I don't know anyone who does-or would-take them in warrior/trueborn squads.

Sorry again, I thought 'swing weapon' would be self-evident. It's a weapon that brings something to the table no matter what you shoot it at. Missile launchers, plasma guns, and autocannons are all supposedly swing weapons, although they usually have pretty miserable performance on the field.

I would GLADLY--in a heartbeat--trade missile launchers out of the SM codex for Dark Lances.

You look at all the negatives Dark Lances have, but for all that, they have advantages too. That's all I'm saying. I'll repeat, they aren't the perfect weapon, but we can't just compare them to a lascannon and say, "Oh the Dark Lance has a lower strength and range so it's worse," or to a plasma weapon and say "oh, one less shot, that makes it the inferior gun."

I apologize for any confusion about the Dark Lance bearers, incidentally. If I'm talking about them, I'm only considering Raiders, Ravagers, or Razorwings as the wielders. ANY anti-vehicle weapon is a waste of space in a warrior squad, and a trueborn squad seems like they'd unequivocally be better off either with blasters (for short range/mounted work) or weapon emplacements (if they're a small squad intended to operate at a distance).

Maybe it's a difference between our local metas, but I place a premium on the lance rule. I face more Russes, Land Raiders, and Monoliths than I can shake a stick at, and if I'm not bringing lance, melta, or both, I'm probably going home a sad little Who.

Really, the only thing I think we lack is a good "medium-high strength, high rate of fire" weapon, like an assault cannon, scatter laser, or multilaser.

On THAT point, I could not agree more.

Jimsolo wrote:

Sorry, I was only considering Dark lances on vehicles for points cost. I don't know anyone who does-or would-take them in warrior/trueborn squads.

Ah, I see.

I have seen some people take them on trueborn in venoms - to create firing-platforms. I've also seen people take squads of 20 warriors with 2 dark lances. But, I've no idea how common or effective either of those units are.

Jimsolo wrote:

Sorry again, I thought 'swing weapon' would be self-evident. It's a weapon that brings something to the table no matter what you shoot it at. Missile launchers, plasma guns, and autocannons are all supposedly swing weapons, although they usually have pretty miserable performance on the field.

Ah.

I guess your mileage may vary - I rarely see plasmaguns do badly. Missile weapons are a bit more hit and miss, and suffered in this edition with the new vehicle damage chart. Autocannons I don't see much - save for Psyfulman dreads, which tend to do very well (though their autocannons are S8 - so they might not count).

Jimsolo wrote:

I would GLADLY--in a heartbeat--trade missile launchers out of the SM codex for Dark Lances.

But would you trade the other weapons as well?

Jimsolo wrote:

You look at all the negatives Dark Lances have, but for all that, they have advantages too. That's all I'm saying. I'll repeat, they aren't the perfect weapon, but we can't just compare them to a lascannon and say, "Oh the Dark Lance has a lower strength and range so it's worse," or to a plasma weapon and say "oh, one less shot, that makes it the inferior gun."

I didn't say they were inferior to plasmaguns - I was just pointing out that there would be good reasons to take plasmaguns over darklances, had we access to both.

With regard to Lascannons... I think you can say that the dark lance is worse. Literally its only advantage is that it can penetrate AV14 more easily. Of course, if they were in the same book, cost might be an important factor.

Jimsolo wrote:

I apologize for any confusion about the Dark Lance bearers, incidentally. If I'm talking about them, I'm only considering Raiders, Ravagers, or Razorwings as the wielders. ANY anti-vehicle weapon is a waste of space in a warrior squad, and a trueborn squad seems like they'd unequivocally be better off either with blasters (for short range/mounted work) or weapon emplacements (if they're a small squad intended to operate at a distance).

I agree that trueborn and warriors tend to be better off with blasters, though that's part of the issue - rather than being able to access meltaguns (which have an excellent chance to penetrate vehicles, and are twice as likely to explode them as a dark lance), they can only get short-range dark lances.

Jimsolo wrote:

Maybe it's a difference between our local metas, but I place a premium on the lance rule. I face more Russes, Land Raiders, and Monoliths than I can shake a stick at, and if I'm not bringing lance, melta, or both, I'm probably going home a sad little Who.

Well, I've certainly faced lists with quite a few russes. Hell, a while back I was playing against a 600pt list with 2 of the sodding things. Land raiders are a bit more infrequent, though I occasionally see lists with 2. Anyway, here's my problem - Dark Lances just weren't helpful against them. Yes, they *can* hurt AV14, but they're not efficient at doing so and can't reliably destroy vehicles with penetrating hits.

It gets even worse if you're facing spammed transports, dreads or other cheap vehicles.

I mean, consider an AV12 dreadnaught with 3 HPs. It will take an average of 27 shots to explode it, or 9 to destroy it via hull points. So, if you want one dreadnaught dead, that's an entire Heavy Support allowance - 3 Ravagers - firing at it. And, if the dreadnaught has 4+ cover, then those 3 Ravagers will need to spend 2 turns doing nothing except shooting that dreadnaught. I just find it hard to look at a weapon like this as good.


But, let me clarify what I'm saying - I don't think Dark Lances are bad per se. I certainly don't consider them a great weapon, but they do have useful features. AP2 means they at least have a chance at exploding a closed-top vehicle, and also makes them useful against units with 2+ saves. Likewise, whilst they're pretty inefficient, Lance at least means they'll always have a tolerable chance to penetrate high-AV vehicles.

Here's the problem though - Dark Lances can't be held to usual standards. They're not just one rung of our anti-vehicle weapons - but rather the entire ladder. That's the issue. If we had a full selection of anti-vehicle weapons, then I'd have no problem with Dark Lances. But, for a weapon that's supposed to be the be-all and end-all of our anti-tank capacity, it just doesn't hold up.

I'll be honest, I do most of my vehicle destruction anymore in melee.

Have you considered adding in any fortifications to bridge this gap?

I disagree whole-heartedly in saying that its a waste to bring S8 AP2 weaponry in a warrior squad. One of my more successful builds was 5 warriors with a blaster x 5 in venoms. Thats 5 either tank busting shots or instant death shots for a lot of enemies. couple that with 1 or 2 ravagers and you have a decent 6th edition list..... unfortunately it doesnt work that way with 6.5.... eeegghhheemmm... 7th edition. sorry had a frog in my throat. now a build like that seems pretty useless.

A.D.D. moment of the day: caltrops instant kills scarabs.... played a game the other day and it dawned on me. I killed an entire full squad with one bladevane attack. (little rainbow, THE MORE YA KNOW)

Armored vehicles should be no push over to kill.

Something that 40K is often criticized for is that it is LESS a simulation and MORE a fantasy. Games like Flames of War strive hard to be a simulation. 40K has not been as dedicated to that idea because it already deals in a fantasy arena of what if's.

But 7E has made an attempt to bring it closer in line and the fact it, rarely is one gun truly going to be enough to take anything down in modern warfare that isn't already tank mounted. We've gotten pretty used to walking up to something with a gun no bigger than the IG Lasgun and nlowing LAND RAIDERS to kingdom come.

Now... While I appreciate that we need to have answers in the game, I also think that if someone brings a tank they should be a LOT more concerned with vehicle rounds and the future versions of PaK40's than they should a gun the size of a Lasgun.

And even tank mounted weapons can fail to hit their targets or careen off the sloped armor of the future.

So I think overall a change to vehicle survivability was in order. I think when the hardbound Dark eldar codex comes along, the prices will probably be amended. so until then just go find the cheese.

doomseer11b wrote:

I disagree whole-heartedly in saying that its a waste to bring S8 AP2 weaponry in a warrior squad.

I agree with this statement. It's only a waste if the S8 AP2 weapon can't be fired on the move. Like a Dark Lance. Blasters are an entirely different kettle of fish.

doomseer11b wrote:

I disagree whole-heartedly in saying that its a waste to bring S8 AP2 weaponry in a warrior squad.

I agree.

Personally, I'd buy more dedicated lance units (Ravagers, Blasterborn) before I started adding blasters to squads (mainly because a single blaster is not very effective, and means the rest of the squad are doing nothing against a vehicle).

But, if you have the points, blasters do make for useful inclusions. Since we lack the standard Krak grenades that marines get, it's useful for a squad to have some way to damage a vehicle. Also, having a weapon that can ID a character or kill a TEQ is frequently useful to have.

The main annoyances are a) blasters are overcosted by about 5pts at the moment, which really starts to add up, and b) for some reason, 10-man warrior squads can't double up on special weapons.

doomseer11b wrote:

I disagree whole-heartedly in saying that its a waste to bring S8 AP2 weaponry in a warrior squad.  One of my more successful builds was 5 warriors with a blaster x 5 in venoms.

I think what he's getting at is that you are firing one AT shot and x number of AI shots at the same target. If you're firing a blaster at infantry then a lot of its power is going to waste. If you're firing splinter weapons at vehicles then all of their power is wasted.

If you have the points though, it can be useful to have a blaster around. Especially now with the firing rules, you can declare the blaster to fire last, and hopefully thin out the squad enough with other weapons to pick off a priority target with it. There also may be times when you need to pick off an armoured target because you can't do anything else/said armour target NEEDS to die.

Of course, I'd still rather run a dedicated blaster-trueborn squad than a sprinkling of blasters, but I can see a place for them. The smaller the squad, the greater the usefulness of the blaster as it minimises the wasted splinter rifles. I'd take them in 5 man warrior squads in a venom, but rarely in 10 man warrior squads in a raider.

Panic_Puppet wrote:

If you have the points though, it can be useful to have a blaster around. Especially now with the firing rules, you can declare the blaster to fire last, and hopefully thin out the squad enough with other weapons to pick off a priority target with it. There also may be times when you need to pick off an armoured target because you can't do anything else/said armour target NEEDS to die.

Am I right in thinking that if you use the blaster to destroy a transport, the rest of the warriors in the unit can fire their splinter weapons at its occupants?

The Shredder wrote:

Panic_Puppet wrote:

If you have the points though, it can be useful to have a blaster around. Especially now with the firing rules, you can declare the blaster to fire last, and hopefully thin out the squad enough with other weapons to pick off a priority target with it. There also may be times when you need to pick off an armoured target because you can't do anything else/said armour target NEEDS to die.

Am I right in thinking that if you use the blaster to destroy a transport, the rest of the warriors in the unit can fire their splinter weapons at its occupants?

No. It's still the same as previous editions in that respect. The whole unit still fires at the same target. You just resolve each weapon type one at a time.

I understand completely that having a blaster in a splinter rifle squad doesn't always jive well.  However, in 6th I needed some way to pack a cheap punch to the face of a tank.  It's a 15 point upgrade so it's cheap.  It Insta-kills most space marine IC.  It's WAS a nice little technique to up your AT if you were lacking.  

This is all a moot point now lol, 7th has left our blasters and lances somewhat inferior now.  HWG Wyches all day now.  But I've always like assault more than shooting anyway.  More strategy involved

EDIT:

I'm going to contradict myself here and if y'all don't mind throw some thoughts my way. Maybe lances wouldn't be so bad after all. They stun easier now, and if we have an opponent that is skimmer reliant, we could force them to jink/ snapshot without actually doing any damage to it. I forgot that you have to announce the jink before the shooting. What's y'all's thoughts?

doomseer11b wrote:

 It's a 15 point upgrade so it's cheap.

That's debatable, really.

Meltas are, what, 5-10pts? Even a 5pt difference starts to add up quite quickly.

doomseer11b wrote:

Maybe lances wouldn't be so bad after all. They stun easier now, and if we have an opponent that is skimmer reliant, we could force them to jink/ snapshot without actually doing any damage to it. I forgot that you have to announce the jink before the shooting. What's y'all's thoughts?

No, they're still pretty awful weapons. If stunning or forcing jink saves is what you're aiming for, then you'd really want weapons that are either twin-linked or fire multiple-shots (or both). Dark Lances are too expensive to serve only as stunning-weapons.

In 6th, I'd say the main problem was that we had little else to back them up - virtually all our anti-vehicle guns are just variations on dark lances. But, a least Dark Lances were still tolerable - and had a 1/3 chance of destroying any vehicle they penetrated.

Now in 7th, the problem is that Dark Lances aren't good weapons. They're just horribly inefficient at their job, and in desperate need of a buff. And, this is where our lack of other weapons becomes crippling. With marines, if one or two weapons are made worse by a new edition, they have plenty of others to choose from. However, with us, about 90% of our anti-vehicle weapons are dark lances or blasters (i.e. mini-dark lances) - so, if dark lances get made worse, that's 90% of our anti-vehicle guns nerfed.

Also, I'm well aware that I've harped on about this quite a lot already, so I'll try to reign it in.   

Count Adhemar wrote:

doomseer11b wrote:

I disagree whole-heartedly in saying that its a waste to bring S8 AP2 weaponry in a warrior squad.  One of my more successful builds was 5 warriors with a blaster x 5 in venoms.

I think what he's getting at is that you are firing one AT shot and x number of AI shots at the same target. If you're firing a blaster at infantry then a lot of its power is going to waste. If you're firing splinter weapons at vehicles then all of their power is wasted.

That was pretty much the gist.

If you've got a Trueborn squad of dedicated lances, it's a little different story. Blasters? Completely different story.

Considering the new vehicle rules, do you think it's worth considering squads of 3 trueborn with 2 dark lances in venoms at the back of the field?

Depending on terrain, they can have a good arc of fire, and their vehicle can still jink if it remains stationary (so they should be tricky to take down - at least in the early game).

On the other hand, they have half the shots of a squad of 4 trueborn with blasters - and you really need every shot you can get these days.

Any thoughts?

The Shredder wrote:

Considering the new vehicle rules, do you think it's worth considering squads of 3 trueborn with 2 dark lances in venoms at the back of the field?

They can only snapshot, when the venom is moving, can't they?

Zenotaph wrote:

They can only snapshot, when the venom is moving, can't they?

The point was, since vehicles can claim a jink save while stationary, the venom wouldn't be moving.

Then, do you really need the venom? Let the warriors stay in some good cover, would work too, I think.