Unit Balancing

Warhammer Open Beta

Moderators: Slitherine Core, BA Moderators, WH40K Armageddon moderators

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Unit Balancing

Post by Kerensky » Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:44 am

Tracking unit and weapon changes:

November 10th:

All units now have proper cost for experience purposes
Add rough riders to purchase list
Add basic leman russ to purchase list
Added three gunships to each imperial and space marine faction
Changed third heavy bolter weapon on leman russ tanks
Gave wyvern mortar weapon indirect fire trait
Reduce rate of fire for rattler cannon by about half
Reduced effectiveness of gorgon weaponry
Krusha cannon 80% penetration rating reduced
Increased accuracy for all leman russ units
Lascannon gain armor penetration at a slight loss of power
kill krusha defense down
beast units (such as squiggoth) defense down

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Kerensky » Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:32 am

Considering how many weapon systems the Land Raider type units are packing... strongly considering lowering their maximum unit count from 7 to 5... or maybe even 4.

Galdred
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:43 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Galdred » Tue Nov 11, 2014 8:31 am

Kerensky wrote:Considering how many weapon systems the Land Raider type units are packing... strongly considering lowering their maximum unit count from 7 to 5... or maybe even 4.
I think not having too many different unit strength would be more confusing than anything else. lowering it to 5 would be better then (to make it on par with guard armored formations.

The volcano cannon is pathetic (well, maybe not, but it is outperformed by many other weapons in its role)
StormBlade vs ShadowSword :
I tink the bulky on the volcano cannon is too bad, both fluff wise and balance wise :
I rolled Stormblade vs Shadowsword in the simulator :
When stormblade (Strength 2) attacks Shadowsword(St2), range 4, it inflicts 3 damage on average, without retaliation
Shadowsword then fire during its turn for 2 damages, and takes 3 in return.
So basically, the Shadowsword deals 2 damages per turn, and takes 6.
That hardly seems balanced, for a weapon that is supposed to be a Superheavy and Titan killer.
(However, there are more situations where the StormBlade is outright killed than the reverse, but the average damage is in favor of the StormBlade).

I think bulky is undeserved there, as the volcano cannon is already on the weak side compared to other titan weapons. Fluffwise, is makes no sense either as the volcano is an anti orbital gun(so it is mostly like the 88 Flak), and is used as AA/AT on the Imperator titans.
Maybe a new trait with retaliation only against superheavies and Titans would work better than bulky, which makes more sense for artillery guns than dedicated anti super heavy tank weapons.

The shadowsword also performs worse against a Reaver Titan than the Stormblade.

At the very least, the volcano cannon needs a longer range to give it a purpose (I think it is currently inferior to every other titan weapons but it is hard to test. I will try to swap titan loadouts later. Note that in epic Armageddon, the Plasma Blastgun can only fire every other turn, and the volcano cannon outranges every other titan weapons, while the plasm blastgun has a shorter range than the other titan weapons (90 for Volcano, 60 for most titan weapons, 45 for plasma blastgun), and can only fire every other turn.

Edit : ran a test with Volcano reaver(3*volcano cannon) against regular reaver :
Predictions :
Reaver attacks volcano reaver(range 4) : average damage = 4
Volcano reaver attacks regular Reaver (range 4):average damage = 6, retaliation = 3
total 7 for the regular reaver, 6 for the volcano reaver.
So basically, the specialized anti titan weapon fares worse than with a selection of all rounders weapons in Titan vs Titan combat(and given it has a single shot, it fares much much worse against vehicles and infantry).
On a side note, I would like to be able to chose Titan weapon loadout at the time of purchase.

I think the AP value of non specialized Anti Titan weapon(gatling blaster, laser destructor) mounted on titan, and maybe of non specialized super heavy weapons is too high. One of the main problems of the Volcano is that its strength and AP are overkill : It has the best single shot strength of the Imperium with 150 damage AP 50, but it is overkill, as 90 damage AP 50 is good enough to reliably pierce through every armor in the game, so it basically pays heavily (single shot, against double shot for the plasma blastgun, triple for the laser blaster, and quad for the Gatling Blaster, and bulky to salt the wound) for raw power that serves no purpose given the armor levels in the game.
Edit : I tested a volcano cannon against a modified Reaver with Armor 200, and at least, it eventually was able to outperform the laser blastgun (twice more damage). But even against Armor 140, the laser blaster outperforms the volcano acording to the simulator ( The break even point seems to be 147 armor, where the volcano start outperforming the laser blaster).

Suggestions:
drop bulky from direct fire weapons(it makes thinngs even worse to balance).
increase volcano range to 6
decrease plasma blastgun range to 3
tone down AP of other titan weapons(except plasma blastgun and volcano).
increase shots or damage to make up for it.
The idea would be to have :
Volcano = long ranfe anti titan/super heavies
plasma blastgun = short range anti titan
laser blastgun = medium range anti tank
gatling = medium range anti light tanks and infantry
vulcan MB = short range anti infantry
Last edited by Galdred on Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:42 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Galdred
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:43 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Galdred » Tue Nov 11, 2014 6:41 pm

Further titan weapon testing. Why bulky titan and superheavy weapons suck

I tested a 3*Laser Blaster Reaver vs a 3* volcano Reaver(3 volcano = 6 hits predicted, 3 laser blasters = 9 hits predicted, and it can retaliate) , and it looks like the Blaster Reaver comes on top too, while it is much much better at clearing formation of lighter tanks.

This illustrates another serious problem with bulky weapons on Titans or superheavy :
The bulky is a terrible drawback in Titan/superheavy vs Titan/superheavy combat, and the bulky weapons themselves sure do not make up for it(volcano is not better than Laser Blaster in the first place).
Making more weapons bulky won't really solve the problem, as it will just make the next non bulky weapon the better choice (I mean, I'm all for removing retaliation in Armageddon 2, but I don't think these maps and this AI would work well without it) :
Retaliation is such a big think that not having it on a frontline unit would make me autopass unless the weapon firepower is miles ahead the non bulky weapons(if the laser Blaster and Plasma Blaster end up being bulky too, that will just make Baneblade the only viable super heavy).

Ogryns are bad
Well, maybe not, but they are outperformed by Steel Legion Company command in every situation.
Steel Legion Company Command seems to perform better than ogryns against armored targets (which is expected with their power swords), but they also seem better against softer targets.
According to the simulator :
Fresh Steel Legion Company Command vs Ogryns in assault would take 7 Casualties and inflict 11.
They also seem to perform better against ork slugga boys, BA Sanguinary squad, and Hive militia(they take less casualties relative to squad strength, and inflict more).
On top of that, they are not useless at range, are cheaper, and faster. Something needs to be done for those poor Ogryns (my in campaign results support these tests, and are the reason I ran these in the first place : My Company command squads have been invaluable to finish opponents by assaulting them, while my Ogryn veterans keep ending battles with 3-5 Ogryns left. Their only advantage is that they give more Gorgons, so they end up with more firepower in Gorgon form.)
I think it would make sense fluff wise and balance wise to give them 2 hitpoints instead of 1.

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Kerensky » Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:31 am

Some changes I'm putting forward moving ahead:

Significantly reduced the bonus avoidance given to units in cover. Range of defense moved from 25%-75% down to 20%-50%
Reduced excessive rate of fire of weapons previously designed to be anti-infantry that compensated for above mentioned avoidance by having very high rate of fire (Vulcan Mega Bolter went from 10 RoF to 6 for example)

Improved accuracy on sniper
Improve rate of fire on lightning claw
Improve Blood Angel death squad general stats to compensate for weaponry allotment
Increase rate of fire for most mortar units
Unit count for land raiders reduced to base 4
Bale eye RoF reduced to 1

Doubled rate of fire on ogyrn ripper gun
Boosted general stats of veteran ogryn unit
Increased price of ogryn and veteran ogryn

Volcano cannon increased to 5 range
Volcano cannon increased rate of fire from 1 to 2 to match plasma blastgun

Minor reduction in base accuracy of units with volcano cannons to compensate

Plasma blastgun refuced to 3 range
Plasma blastgun penetration reduced to 40

Temporarily removed bulky from all direct fire weapons pending testing

Gatling blaster reduced to range 3
Gatling blaster reduced to 50 power and 0 penetration, but rate of fire increased to 7

Laster blaster reduced to 90 power and 20 penetration, but rate of fire increased to 4

Apocalypse missile rate of fire increased to 5

Ork gargant and some very heavy weaponry such as Skullhamma Kannon also given adjustments to rate of fire and base accuracy.

Galdred
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:43 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Galdred » Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:45 am

multi melta vs heavy bolter support
multi melta
range 0-2
strength 40
AP 0
shots 3

heavy bolter support
range 0-3
strength 30
AP0
Shots 4

So basically, Space Marines with multi melta trade 1 range and 1 shot for a paltry 10 strength increase : HB devastators vs MM devastators at range 2 results in both taking similar casualties. So basically, there may be a few situations where you prefer ST40 3 shots over ST30 4 shots, but certainly not to the point of trading 3 range for 2 on a support weapon.
I think in the TT, multi melta is much better at roasting troops and vehicles(at least it was in Chaos Gate).

Galdred
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:43 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Galdred » Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:59 am

Kerensky wrote:Some changes I'm putting forward moving ahead:

Significantly reduced the bonus avoidance given to units in cover. Range of defense moved from 25%-75% down to 20%-50%
Reduced excessive rate of fire of weapons previously designed to be anti-infantry that compensated for above mentioned avoidance by having very high rate of fire (Vulcan Mega Bolter went from 10 RoF to 6 for example)
Wow, that will make quite a big change on the balance of everything. :)
Kerensky wrote: Improved accuracy on sniper
Improve rate of fire on lightning claw
Improve Blood Angel death squad general stats to compensate for weaponry allotment
Increase rate of fire for most mortar units
Unit count for land raiders reduced to base 4
Bale eye RoF reduced to 1
This all sounds good to me, especially the LC. But wouldn't LR count = 5 allow them to work as transports too if the transport options ever get changed on terminators?
Kerensky wrote: Doubled rate of fire on ogyrn ripper gun
Boosted general stats of veteran ogryn unit
Increased price of ogryn and veteran ogryn
Sounds good :)
Kerensky wrote: Volcano cannon increased to 5 range
Volcano cannon increased rate of fire from 1 to 2 to match plasma blastgun

Minor reduction in base accuracy of units with volcano cannons to compensate

Plasma blastgun refuced to 3 range
Plasma blastgun penetration reduced to 40
Temporarily removed bulky from all direct fire weapons pending testing

Gatling blaster reduced to range 3
Gatling blaster reduced to 50 power and 0 penetration, but rate of fire increased to 7

Laster blaster reduced to 90 power and 20 penetration, but rate of fire increased to 4

Apocalypse missile rate of fire increased to 5

Ork gargant and some very heavy weaponry such as Skullhamma Kannon also given adjustments to rate of fire and base accuracy.
Overall, I quite like these changes, but won't that make the Plasm Blastgun too weak compared to Volcano now(RoF 2 seems a bit too good now on the volcano)? They are supposed to both be roughly equivalent (as you can swap them on a titan, or to turn a Shadowsword in StormBlade).
Same for Vulcan mega Bolter(reduced to 6) vs Gatling Blaster.

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Kerensky » Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:50 am

Multi melta, being a melta type weapon, gained 30% penetration up from 0.

As for Plasma Blastgun and Volcano cannon, the PB already had a RoF of 2, rather than bring it to 1 I think it's better to try moving the Volcano up to 2. We'll see how it tests out, but better a unit with a Volcano Cannon be overpowered than underpowered, as an overpowered unit can still be brought in line through other means, such as price.

Galdred
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:43 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Galdred » Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:58 am

Kerensky wrote:Multi melta, being a melta type weapon, gained 30% penetration up from 0.

As for Plasma Blastgun and Volcano cannon, the PB already had a RoF of 2, rather than bring it to 1 I think it's better to try moving the Volcano up to 2. We'll see how it tests out, but better a unit with a Volcano Cannon be overpowered than underpowered, as an overpowered unit can still be brought in line through other means, such as price.
Indeed, but my point was only that with an increase in range, the removal of the bulky trait(and the nerf of the other alternatives), I think the volcano cannon has a niche now, so it is possible RoF 1 is good enough (what would be better though, would be to have it have a trait to deal increased damage to a single target).
If it outranges Plasma blastgun by 2, there are now many more situations where you would prefer a volcano(Plasma BlastGun is currently better than volcano against super heavy, but volcano is a bit better against titans, especially if its range allows it to avoid return fire).

vadersson
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by vadersson » Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:46 pm

Kerensky wrote:Multi melta, being a melta type weapon, gained 30% penetration up from 0.

As for Plasma Blastgun and Volcano cannon, the PB already had a RoF of 2, rather than bring it to 1 I think it's better to try moving the Volcano up to 2. We'll see how it tests out, but better a unit with a Volcano Cannon be overpowered than underpowered, as an overpowered unit can still be brought in line through other means, such as price.
Thank goodness. The Melta weapons are the premeire anti-armor weapon in Warhammer. They should really have the highest penetration value but a realitively short range. Based on the data file I am working from, the Melta Cannon has 50 AP while all the others have only 0. I think it might be best to give them all 50 as that is more realistic. The range of 2 is fine for all of them except the Meltagun. It really should be range 1, especially if you up the pen. (An argument could be made that all the meltas should only be range 1 since their best penetration is at half range.) Not sure why the Multi-Melta is 3 shots however. They are actually only a Heavy 1 weapon in 40K. I would recommend dropping them to RoF 1 with 50 pen, and 60 strength at range 2. The Meltagun should be RoF 1, 50 pen, 40 str, and range 1. (Actaually I am not sure how strength is used in the game as all Melta weapons in 40K are a uniform 8 strength, so I would expect them to all be the same strength here...)

As for the PB vs VC discussion I would just add that per 40K they differences are:
Range:
PB 72" VC 120"
PB S8 VC SD
PB 2 shots VC 1 shot

Based on this Range 3 is way too short, I would go at least 4 for the PB and maybe 6 for the VC. The strengths are good I think, but really the RoF should stay different.

Just my data mine in action. :)

Thanks,
Duncan
The Warhammer 40K games all need more T'au Empire units.

Galdred
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:43 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Galdred » Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:34 pm

vadersson wrote: Based on this Range 3 is way too short, I would go at least 4 for the PB and maybe 6 for the VC. The strengths are good I think, but really the RoF should stay different.

Just my data mine in action. :)

Thanks,
Duncan
I agree about this(range 4 and 6 sounds good. RoF 1 for volcano sounds good with range 6), Plasma Blastgun is inferior to volcano even with RoF 1 in Titan vs Titan already ( the issue was with the bulky characteristics, and in superheavy vs superheavy, as their weaker armor is easily torn apart by the plasma blastgun). If laser blaster and Gatling get nerfed against heavy armors, then volcano becomes the best choice in anti titan weaponry, even with RoF 1.

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Kerensky » Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:54 pm

Range might sound good on paper, but it is an extremely dangerous stat to inflate.

1. Extending range suffers from snowballing accuracy penalties. These huge weapons already are mounted on low count units, and the less accurate they are, especially considering the potential terrain modifiers you will be firing across in real combat situations, the more ineffective players will interpret them to be.
2. Extending range puts other weapons out of range. This also leads to units appearing far less effective than they actually are. You can shoot a Marcharius with its 2 Battle cannon at range 3, but it seems to be pitifully ineffective against infantry in cover at this range. Moving to range 1 and 2 to bring the Heavy Stubbers and Heavy Bolters into play makes a world of difference. This is a very important concept, but one that new players will not automatically be aware of and it must be taught.
3. As a rule, even though we do have lots of range combat in this game model, we do prefer to discourage range combat quite a bit. Sniping enemy vehicles from long range with accurate and deadly fire performed from total safety (6 range is definitely total safety) is something we especially are gearing to avoid.

Other suggestions sound pretty reasonable though, I will definitely give them a look.

vadersson
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by vadersson » Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:27 pm

Ok, looks like a good place for my range discussion. :)

I did some data mining with the weapons spreadsheet and my 40K info. I don't have every weapon in there, but here is what I found.

I used a sliding scale for range.
Melee, 8" = 0
12", 18", Template = 1
24" = 2
36, 48" = 3
60", 72" = 4
96", 120" = 5
180", 240" = 6
360", Unlimited = 7
7 was the hard max currently in the file. This also seemed to line up pretty well. (86 of 175 match using this algorithm. Another 46 are withing 1 range category different. 75.4% correspondence.)

The worst range offenders were:
1. Grotzookas - 18" range in 40K, range 4 here. Seems like this really should be looked at.
2. Whirlwind mutiple Missile Launcher - 48", range 5
3. Dakkaguns - 18", range 3
4. Kustom Mega Blasta - 24", range 4
5. Rattler Kannon - 24", range 5
6. Hyperios Missile Launcher - 48", range 5
7. Supa-kannon - 60", range 6

Two other minor things too:
A. Lifta-Droppa has a range of 1 here and 48" in 40K. But it is a bit of an odd case, so maybe no so important.
B. Assault Cannon - One line of assault cannons have a range of 0. I don't think that is right.

So for the most part, some weapons have too much range. This may have been a game balance decision to give Orks some more range. However, based purely on 40K, they are pretty inaccurate for ranges.

If anyone wants to know all the 46 systems that are off by 1 category I can tell you. (the one that bothers me the most is that Heavy Bolters have some at range 3 and some at range 2.) I would prefer that the game used a direct interpretation, but I totally understand game balance issues. (O.C.D...)

Thanks,
Duncan
The Warhammer 40K games all need more T'au Empire units.

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Kerensky » Wed Nov 12, 2014 8:00 pm

Any mistakes that were made should be fixed, and pointing out these items is very helpful and important.

Anything that is intentional though I'll explain. The 'Support' version of some weapons is something that was especially intentional. There are simply too many units with a secondary heavy bolter that would be far too good with support heavy bolter stats, and the support team has a very special and very critical role of jumping in and providing their attack to engagements that do not directly involve them. This demanded a separate weapon with different stats that can be balanced and re-balanced independently without affecting dozens of other units.

vadersson
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by vadersson » Wed Nov 12, 2014 8:25 pm

Interesting. The line entry for Heavy Bolter and Heavy Bolter Support both are range 3. However the line entries that start with [number] Heavy Bolters are range 2. So that is correct then from what you are saying. Hmm, not sure I totally agree, but I understand balance considerations must be made.

Thanks,
Duncan
The Warhammer 40K games all need more T'au Empire units.

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Kerensky » Wed Nov 12, 2014 9:28 pm

It might be okay to bring Heavy Bolter and multi-linked Heavy Bolters to range 3 like their 36" calls for. I'll investigate. Heavy Bolter Support though, this I have a death grip on for the simple fact that it behaves in a fashion that no other 'Heavy Bolter' behaves in. Look at it this way, imagine if every kind of Heavy Bolter had the ability to provide supporting fire. Given the game's retaliation system, I can't even begin to imagine that level of imbalance.

vadersson
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by vadersson » Wed Nov 12, 2014 9:31 pm

So true! I agree that the support one is different. However, the data files only have a couple of differences. The HBS has RoF 4 and AS of 30. The regular HBs are all AS 40 with RoF 2 for the single gun with it adding 1 per gun for multi-gun groups.

Speaking of RoF, a Heavy Bolter is normally Heavy 3. Why the Rof numbers? Adding only 1 per additional bolter seems light.
The Warhammer 40K games all need more T'au Empire units.

Galdred
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:43 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Galdred » Thu Nov 13, 2014 3:36 pm

Kerensky wrote:Considering how many weapon systems the Land Raider type units are packing... strongly considering lowering their maximum unit count from 7 to 5... or maybe even 4.
There is an error in the Land Raider Helios unit definition (both Helios and Helios Hyperion) : It should have 2*twin linked Lascannons + Helios Missile launcher, so 4 lasers + missiles, not 2 times 4 lasers + missiles.
It is the Land Raider Terminus Ultra that comes packed with 8 Lascannons.

Galdred
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:43 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Galdred » Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:56 pm

Another issue is that the Baneblade is missing its 2 lascannons. Granted, it might be a problem to fit a fourth weapon in the UI.

Galdred
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:43 am

Re: Unit Balancing

Post by Galdred » Thu Nov 13, 2014 6:12 pm

Kerensky wrote:Range might sound good on paper, but it is an extremely dangerous stat to inflate.

1. Extending range suffers from snowballing accuracy penalties. These huge weapons already are mounted on low count units, and the less accurate they are, especially considering the potential terrain modifiers you will be firing across in real combat situations, the more ineffective players will interpret them to be.
2. Extending range puts other weapons out of range. This also leads to units appearing far less effective than they actually are. You can shoot a Marcharius with its 2 Battle cannon at range 3, but it seems to be pitifully ineffective against infantry in cover at this range. Moving to range 1 and 2 to bring the Heavy Stubbers and Heavy Bolters into play makes a world of difference. This is a very important concept, but one that new players will not automatically be aware of and it must be taught.
3. As a rule, even though we do have lots of range combat in this game model, we do prefer to discourage range combat quite a bit. Sniping enemy vehicles from long range with accurate and deadly fire performed from total safety (6 range is definitely total safety) is something we especially are gearing to avoid.

Other suggestions sound pretty reasonable though, I will definitely give them a look.
Good points.
Concerning point 1 why not give some weapon a different acc/hex value? They all use -10%/hex atm. That would make it easier to have weapons that are better at long range without being impervious to retaliations.
Last edited by Galdred on Thu Nov 13, 2014 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Warhammer Open Beta”