MOAR DAKKA!

If splinter weapons wounded T4 on 2+, Kabalite warriors would kill more than their points of MEQ at close range in a single turn. Sounds a bit strong.
And against something like orks, it would get completly retarded with 10 kabalite warriors killing 11 orks in one round.
And we haven't got the Splinter Racks !

Mppqlmd wrote:

If splinter weapons wounded T4 on 2+, Kabalite warriors would kill more than their points of MEQ at close range in a single turn. Sounds a bit strong.

And against something like orks, it would get completly retarded with 10 kabalite warriors killing 11 orks in one round.
And we haven't got the Splinter Racks !

Not sure where you're getting your figures from here? A Splinter Rifle in Rapid Fire range does 0.37 wounds vs MEQ, ie you'd need 3 of them (21 points) to kill 1 Marine (13 points). Against Orks, the 7 point Kabalite does 0.93 wounds against a 6 point Ork. It really doesn't seem too far from being quite well balanced, especially given what that Ork would do to a Kabalite in close combat.

The problem is you don't have to shoot at the cheapest target everytime.
6 and 13 points are the very minimum price for orks and marines. Against anything else, the efficiency skyrockets.
I consider a unit that can reliably ( without a glorious luck moment or outplay) make up for its cost in one turn to be OP (or at least extremely strong), especially at range. If those kabalites were to shoot at, say, ork burnas, each 7 points Kabalite Warrior will kill a 14 points Burna, while being inside the safety of a boat.
I like your idea, and i think it fits what poison should be very well, but it sounds (to my ears) more reasonnable and balanced to wound T3 on 2+ and T4 on 3+ (which is still superior to bolter fire).

I get your point, but with the lack of AP, wounding MEQ on a 3+ still feels a bit underwhelming. It's a fine balancing act to get a weapon that works well against Hordes without being OP against other targets.

Another option would be to split the Splinter Weapons into different intensity of poison.
Maybe the Splinter rifle would wound T4 on 3+, and the splinter cannon could wound them on 2+ ?

But i enjoy the fact that you suggest something that fits my vision of poison weaponry so well.

Mppqlmd wrote:

Another option would be to split the Splinter Weapons into different intensity of poison.
Maybe the Splinter rifle would wound T4 on 3+, and the splinter cannon could wound them on 2+ ?

But i enjoy the fact that you suggest something that fits my vision of poison weaponry so well.

That's not a bad idea. Essentially the x figure in the rule could vary between weapons. Splinter Rifles could be 10 and Cannons could be 12 (for example).

Quote :

That's not a bad idea. Essentially the x figure in the rule could vary between weapons. Splinter Rifles could be 10 and Cannons could be 12 (for example).

I don't mean to be blunt, but why not just use a strength value if Splinter Weaponry will wound different stuff differently?

Count Adhemar wrote:

Imateria wrote:

How about we fix the weapons we have got first before inventing new ones?

To be clear, my ideas were to replace the existing rules for splinter weapons.

I missed your previous post, I like that change to poison weapons.

I'm going to move this discussion to Rules Development, as I think the thread has moved more in that direction.

What we really need to decide is are we a horde army or an elite army? Because our current warriors would make an above average horde unit and price dropped wyches who can use numbers as a defense would be quite workable despite lack of individual killing power.

The problem is that we are currently in the middle ground. We aren't cheap enough to be a horde, though we have the individual fragility of a horde. We aren't powerful enough to be an elite army, despite some of our units (reavers) being priced like one.

We have the strengths of neither and the weaknesses of both. Individual frailty of a horde, high price tag of an elite army. We need to pick one.

I vote Elite. Our dependence on transports and our lore do not support a horde army.

We have the numbers of a horde (compare points for orks and DE, it's not THAT different), and the precision/weapons of an elite army.

If you don't feel that DE are elite (in the current rules), i encourage you to play some orks for a while, and see what shooting crappy weapons with crappy BS implies.

Our basic kabalites might be comparible with orks, the rest is not.

For 27 points they have their heavy flashgits, 17 for a loota (trueborn with big gun is 31, scourges even more)
14 for a burna boy (trueborn with shredder is 19, medusa is 28)
8 for a stormboy (14-34 for a scourge and 17 for a hellion)
17 for a nob (ur ghul, clawed fiends, lhamean all around 30, and goes up to 44 for the sslyth) Now here I must say nobs can be kitted out quite expensive as well.

Yes our normal kabalites are similar to ork boys,
But our other troop choices are more expensive (wracks 11 wyches 9) while theirs are cheaper (gretchen 3)
Our fast attacks are much more expensive (with the exception of warbikes, which are similarly priced)
Our multi wound models are slightly more expensive (or much more expensive if you do not give expensive equipment to them).

But I agree we also shoot better then orks and are more mobile then orks. But orks also feel quite elite to me once they get into combat. They outfight most of our units even if we hit on 2+.