Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

EDIT : An updated version has been uploaded that includes some bug-fixes and a few extra sheets.

There have been so many arguments out there about this. They usually go something like this.

"Vehicles are broken in 6th ! "
"No they're not ! "
"Yes they are ! "

So I decided to do some research into this involving ... MAAAAAAATH ! And now I provide to you - free of charge - the results so that we can all stop arguing about it.

Here are the instructions.

1) Download the file below - its an MS Excel workbook.
2) I promise it's clean, but scan it for viruses if you don't trust me.
3) Open up the sheet labelled "6th Ed Vehicle Damage"
4) Next to the boxes with text in RED, input the necessary data (e.g. Weapon Strength, Shooter's Ballistic Skill, Vehicle's Armor Value etc...)
DO NOT put data in any of the other boxes. They will update automatically. Specifically, you do not need to enter anything into any of the other sheets.
5) Now go to the sheet labelled "5th - 6th Ed Compare Vehicle"

You will see a plot comparing the effectiveness of the chosen weapon against the selected target vehicle. The blue line shows 6th Edition, the red line shows the 5th edition. The percentage shown represents the percent chance that the given number of shots with either "Wreck or Explode" the target. This DOES NOT take into account any other results such as "immobilzed" or "Weapon Destroyed".

Play with it guys and now we can all have a civilized discussion about the rules with a scientific set of data to compare.

Also, if you want to change one of the true / false things, use all caps TRUE or FALSE.

Really nice work. Some time and effort put into this, commendable.

Jink seems to have no effect, but that may be because I use OO.

As for the results:
Shooting doesn't scare me, honestly. Close combat does. Just look at the number for 6 marines in CC with typical vehicle (AV10; 18 attacks now?). Add Hammer of Wrath. Look at what power fist does now.
HPs in CC would be minor change in 5th edition; hitting vehicles on 3+ wouldn't be a big step either. Both of those combined makes vehicles (especially fast ones) tremendously more vulnerable. Depending on the army it's either 'meh' or 'we're doomed'.

Yeah, CC is the real kick in the teeth. Even rolling below average, a tac squad getting into any moving rear-AV10 tank (90% of the vehicels in the game) will on average kill it whether it is a 35pt Rhino or a 200somethingpt kitted Leman Russ tank.

Oh yeah sorry...

I forgot to mention that I didn't finish the Jink / cover save feature.

Also, if you want to change one of the true/false features like, say, "Twin Linked?" then you need to put either TRUE if it is twin linked or FALSE if it is not. Use all caps for those.

As for the results, here are the ones that surprised me. Look at these and tell me what you think.

1) Krak Missiles vs. Rhino.
S8 AP3 vs. AV 11 with 3 HP

Remark: WTF? As long as they're shooting less than 5 missiles, your Rhino is better in 6th ed.

2) Meltagun vs. Land Raider.
S8 AP1 vs. AV 14 with 4 HP, Melta = TRUE

Remark: Still the weapon of choice, but very slightly better in 5th ed.

3) Krak Missiles vs. Land Raider.
S8 AP3 vs. AV 14 with 4 HP

Remark: Yeah the land raider dies when it loses 4 hull points. But just look at how many missiles you have to shoot at it to have a decent chance of making that happen.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:Yeah, CC is the real kick in the teeth. Even rolling below average, a tac squad getting into any moving rear-AV10 tank (90% of the vehicels in the game) will on average kill it whether it is a 35pt Rhino or a 200somethingpt kitted Leman Russ tank.

100% agree. But you know, I still think that the game is a little better now. If my Rhinos survive long enough to get my grey hunters across the table alive, then they've done their job. The trick I think is to know when to disembark. In 5th ed, you just never disembarked unless you wanted to assault or your transport blew up. Now you have to think more carefully - and I like that.

A single melta gun or railgun can blow any vehicle into bits in one shot, the only difference is that glances don't do damage to the vehicle like a normal shot does, they just reduce it's hull points.

Vehicles that can be glanced down need less fear, a glance used to be able to immobilize your ride, now it can't.

The biggest change is melee, that's where vehicles die. They die from shooting only slightly more now, but I'd rather assault a vehicle.

The data does not support your statement,

"They die from shooting only slightly more now."

In some cases, vehicles die from shooting a lot more now. Download the file and look for yourself. Specifically, look at what plasmaguns do to Rhinos now.

Nonsense, penetrating hits kill vehicles better than they used to, by a +1 modifier normally, where as glances that could glance a vehicle down.

Take a rhino, storm bolter and immobilize, + more weapon destroyed or immobilized result. That's the need for 3 glances that get the correct results. Now all you need are 3 glances. Not exactly the biggest change, you still have to get those glances, and unless you're a nercon or nid player, glancing isn't high on your list of how to destroy a vehicle.

I won't even talk about how cover is a 5+ now, but I will say that skimmers are harder to kill in this edition.

To surmise: vehicles die a little faster to shoot these days.

The math hammer fails to take into account a few things that mean long range tanks survive much better.

It is now much easier for tanks to get cover only needing 25% and that cover can be better then before at 3+ if it’s a decent building blocking 25%. Add in that pre measuring often means you can stay outside enemy weapon range at last with long range tanks and you can get games like my last one where the tank never took any damage.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

juraigamer wrote:Nonsense, penetrating hits kill vehicles better than they used to, by a +1 modifier normally, where as glances that could glance a vehicle down.

Take a rhino, storm bolter and immobilize, + more weapon destroyed or immobilized result. That's the need for 3 glances that get the correct results. Now all you need are 3 glances. Not exactly the biggest change, you still have to get those glances, and unless you're a nercon or nid player, glancing isn't high on your list of how to destroy a vehicle.

I won't even talk about how cover is a 5+ now, but I will say that skimmers are harder to kill in this edition.

To surmise: vehicles die a little faster to shoot these days.

There is no difference from before. A rail gun had +1 in old rules and blows up a tank on 4. In the new rules a rail gun has +2 but still only blows up a tank on 4. Unless I missread something cover is not 5+. wargear cover is 5+. Otherwise you use what ever type of cover the tank is behind which can be 3+ or 4+ and that cover is much easyer to get now.

Grugknuckle wrote:
100% agree. But you know, I still think that the game is a little better now. If my Rhinos survive long enough to get my grey hunters across the table alive, then they've done their job. The trick I think is to know when to disembark. In 5th ed, you just never disembarked unless you wanted to assault or your transport blew up. Now you have to think more carefully - and I like that.

This is, I feel, the biggest issue with vehicles. People are judging the rules by 35pt Rhino transports, not realizing that in CC they're identical to anything that isn't a walker, Land Raider or flyer, and against shooting they aren't all that different to the majority of vehicles in the game either.

Macok wrote:Really nice work. Some time and effort put into this, commendable.

Jink seems to have no effect, but that may be because I use OO.

As for the results:
Shooting doesn't scare me, honestly. Close combat does. Just look at the number for 6 marines in CC with typical vehicle (AV10; 18 attacks now?). Add Hammer of Wrath. Look at what power fist does now.
HPs in CC would be minor change in 5th edition; hitting vehicles on 3+ wouldn't be a big step either. Both of those combined makes vehicles (especially fast ones) tremendously more vulnerable. Depending on the army it's either 'meh' or 'we're doomed'.

Hammer of wrath is jump units and bikers only, and at the model's unmodified strength, not including them fists... Also, if you're talking about using them nades, it's only one per assault per marine..

Neither of you actually downloaded the file did you?
EDIT #1: This was directed at Juraigamer and Pottsey - you other guys posted before I could submit this.

EDIT#2: I removed the file from this post and uploaded it to the original post. It's up to revision 3.

Here is an update that includes cover into the calculations. If you want to see the difference cover makes, just give the 6th edition sheet a cover save, but take the cover save away from the 5th edition one.

To give a cover save, put the number needed to save in the "Cover save / Jink" box. So if it's a 5+ cover save, put a 5. If you want no cover save, put a 7.

I took into account ALL of the differences to vehicle damage including the ones you mentioned. The graphs say it all. Try it, you won't be dissapointed. In the worst case, you can use it to figure out what your odds of destroying a vehicle are with the weapons you have.

Grugknuckle wrote:Neither of you actually downloaded the file did you?
EDIT : This was directed at Juraigamer and Pottsey - you other guys posted before I could submit this.

I did run it. When I ran the numbers with the new cover assuming best cover I got 14% chance for 3 railguns to kill a Landraider in 6th. But in 5th 24% unless less than 50% of tank is behind cove then 5th goes up to 43% chance while in 6th you keep cover. So tanks can under situations survive much better in 6th.
Thanks for the spread sheet it’s pretty useful outside of the argument between 5th and 6th. But like I said before the mathhammer does not take into account the new rules which help keep tanks alive in 6th.

I made this spread sheet for 5th edition to help me know how much firepower I would need to have a reasonable chance to destroy a given target. I updated it for 6th ed and put it up here so that the people arguing would have real data to base their decisions on. I got tired of reading broad statements like, "vehicles die a little faster" or "hull points means Land Raiders aren't tough anymore" which are not only misleading, but just plain wrong. I guess I wasn't expecting to get flamed for it.

Some people say "Math hammer doesn't take into account property X." Well let me say something about that. When you're playing the game you have to make decisions like, should I shoot his tank with my lascannons, or should I use them against his terminators. Most people just go with their gut. Math hammer can't take into account which unit is a bigger threat either, but it can help inform your decision. If you know that you have only a 5% chance to harm his land raider, but a 35% chance to kill two terminators, then at least you can make an informed assessment as to which choice is more likely to pay off.

Even people who say they hate math hammer actually use it every time they play. Even basic tactics like, "don't shoot bolters at vehicles with AV 11 or better" are tactics developed entirely because of a simple mathematical computation 4 + 6 = 10 < 11. The spreadsheet is just a logical extension of this type of calculation.

You are not the first person to mathhammer this. Since the new vehicle rules were out, I have been very patiently trying to explain to people why transport spam is not dead, and why Lard Raiders are still worthwhile (or at least, as worthwhile as they were in 5th).

Also, if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say, don't make it an attachment. Most posters don't want their hard drive cluttered up with crap, no matter how brilliant you may think it is.

I think the spreadsheet is good and it confrims what many of us hammered out without a nice spread sheet. Thanks for the tool. I am going to tweak it a little, to put the graph and data entry on the same page. Thanks again.

Testify wrote:
Also, if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say, don't make it an attachment. Most posters don't want their hard drive cluttered up with crap, no matter how brilliant you may think it is.

That's a fair point. But I guess, I thought ..."seeing is believing". Do you know a way to post the graphs as images instead of attachments?

This sounds cool, but I'm one of those "can't download it'll clutter up my shiznit" guys.

Could I trouble you to post a few systematic examples? I'm also new to the game and have yet to play - for us newbies, it's always good to write out examples like I'm 12. (Probably a good idea for anything I'm getting 'splained to the first time!) Like: "weapon X against vehicle A, B and C, comparing 5th and 6th edition chances to destroy is:" Or maybe showing armor values and weapon strength?

As an epidemiologist in real life, I love this sorta stuff...!

The math hammer bit of the game is something that I'm sure will take me awhile to get used to, but is certainly important, so thanks for doing this.

There are ways in various office suites that allow you to turn graphs into images. The most "brute force" way is to take a screenshot and upload it via photobucket or imageshack or somehow.
If you're concenred there might be too much information to put in one go, break them up with spoiler tags.

For example:

Missile Launchers vs AV14:


Melta guns vs AV14:

etc.

You could probably just upload a graph as a screenshot into your gallery, then link it here?

Wrakkar wrote:Hammer of wrath is jump units and bikers only, and at the model's unmodified strength, not including them fists... Also, if you're talking about using them nades, it's only one per assault per marine..

I know about HoW. And base strength is more than enough - that's the thing. Even without it a 6 man TAC squad has just over 50% to kill vehicle in CC. And, as Vaktathi already mentioned, the difference between CCing 35pt vehicle to death is no different than glancing 100-130pt one. Fast, not fast, moved 1", moved 40". CC made a jump from "hooray, I glanced once" to "you are sooooo incredibly lucky I didn't wreck it". For MEQs at least.
Take typical Long Fangs and vanilla TACs for the same price. Have LF shoot and TACs assault a vehicle. Suddenly Wave Serpent is much easier to destroy with basic troops than one of the cheapest and most effective vehicle killers out there.
Grenades (except metlabombs) are currently much worse than normal attacks. At least against rear AV10. You don't need those, just S4 on the charge. And rear AV10 is very, very common and comes with vehicles with price difference of ~70 points base.

Macok wrote:
Fast, not fast, moved 1", moved 40". CC made a jump from "hooray, I glanced once" to "you are sooooo incredibly lucky I didn't wreck it". For MEQs at least. Take typical Long Fangs and vanilla TACs for the same price. Have LF shoot and TACs assault a vehicle. Suddenly Wave Serpent is much easier to destroy with basic troops than one of the cheapest and most effective vehicle killers out there.

The difference of course is that a TAC squad first has to catch the vehicle. In contrast, the vehicle *might* be able to avoid the long fangs for 2-3 turns out of 7 if it's lucky. But even if it does avoid the devastators, it will usually have to sacrifice position to do so. The TAC squad will get one chance to wreck a vehicle in the mid to late game and unless it's very lucky, it will never get to attack two vehicles.

So even though the devastators have a lower % chance to destroy it by shooting, they do exert constant pressure on your opponent. In contrast, the infantry are lethal to vehicles, but have only a limited threat radius.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

pancakeonions wrote:You could probably just upload a graph as a screenshot into your gallery, then link it here?

I could. But with the excell document you can make a graph for each possible weapon / vehicle / cover save combination. If I was to post everyone of those graphs, it would be a wall of graphs that no one would read either. This way, you can make your own. To the people who don't want to "clutter their computers" - that's fine, I get it. But it's your loss. I'm not going to do MORE work just so that you can save an extra 49kb on your hard drive.

Grugknuckle wrote:
I could. But with the excell document you can make a graph for each possible weapon / vehicle / cover save combination. If I was to post everyone of those graphs, it would be a wall of graphs that no one would read either. This way, you can make your own. To the people who don't want to "clutter their computers" - that's fine, I get it. But it's your loss. I'm not going to do MORE work just so that you can save an extra 49kb on your hard drive.

I'll give you a free chocolate bar if you'll let me spit in your mouth.
Seriously, a lot of people really don't like downloading random stuff. I did post above how you could post the graphs in a smooth and presentable style, but you'd rather make everyone go to considerable effort in order to view them.
Protip - if you can't be bothered to go to a small amount of effort, don't expect dozens of complete strangers to go to even more effort on your behalf.

Testify wrote:

Grugknuckle wrote:
I could. But with the excell document you can make a graph for each possible weapon / vehicle / cover save combination. If I was to post everyone of those graphs, it would be a wall of graphs that no one would read either. This way, you can make your own. To the people who don't want to "clutter their computers" - that's fine, I get it. But it's your loss. I'm not going to do MORE work just so that you can save an extra 49kb on your hard drive.

I'll give you a free chocolate bar if you'll let me spit in your mouth.
Seriously, a lot of people really don't like downloading random stuff. I did post above how you could post the graphs in a smooth and presentable style, but you'd rather make everyone go to considerable effort in order to view them.
Protip - if you can't be bothered to go to a small amount of effort, don't expect dozens of complete strangers to go to even more effort on your behalf.

Is the formatting really this important?
If you want to save space, delete the file when you're done.. dear god..

I'll give you a free chocolate bar if you'll let me spit in your mouth.
Seriously, a lot of people really don't like downloading random stuff. I did post above how you could post the graphs in a smooth and presentable style, but you'd rather make everyone go to considerable effort in order to view them.
Protip - if you can't be bothered to go to a small amount of effort, don't expect dozens of complete strangers to go to even more effort on your behalf.

Wow that's pretty offensive.
I offered you something for free and you act as if I spit in your mouth. The file is there. If you don't want it that's ok, but don't get up on your high horse if you're not willing to take it. I don't expect anyone to go to any effort on my behalf. But I went through a lot of effort to make this spreadsheet and I provided it here expecting nothing in return. I went through the effort on your behalf and you're expecting me to do more as if you're somehow entitled to it.

I swear, if you were standing in front of me now, I would choke you until your eye-balls pop out.

Well, I appreciate your effort. Thank you.

spyguyyoda wrote:Well, I appreciate your effort. Thank you.

Thanks for saying so. I appreciate it.

Testify wrote:

Grugknuckle wrote:
I could. But with the excell document you can make a graph for each possible weapon / vehicle / cover save combination. If I was to post everyone of those graphs, it would be a wall of graphs that no one would read either. This way, you can make your own. To the people who don't want to "clutter their computers" - that's fine, I get it. But it's your loss. I'm not going to do MORE work just so that you can save an extra 49kb on your hard drive.

I'll give you a free chocolate bar if you'll let me spit in your mouth.
Seriously, a lot of people really don't like downloading random stuff. I did post above how you could post the graphs in a smooth and presentable style, but you'd rather make everyone go to considerable effort in order to view them.
Protip - if you can't be bothered to go to a small amount of effort, don't expect dozens of complete strangers to go to even more effort on your behalf.

If you equate whenever someone does work for you, for free, to spitting in your mouth, perhaps you should take a step away and just ignore threads like these. Downloading and then deleting a file takes, literally, under a minute. That is in no way "considerable effort".

It just goes to show, even if you offer free ice cream, people will still complain.

Anyways, thanks op for the useful sheet.

Testify wrote:
I'll give you a free chocolate bar if you'll let me spit in your mouth.
Seriously, a lot of people really don't like downloading random stuff. I did post above how you could post the graphs in a smooth and presentable style, but you'd rather make everyone go to considerable effort in order to view them.
Protip - if you can't be bothered to go to a small amount of effort, don't expect dozens of complete strangers to go to even more effort on your behalf.

So...downloading a file is now equatable to spitting in someone's mouth?

Speaking of small amount of effort...delete the file when you're done, it takes 2 seconds, jesus tap dancing raptor christ on a crutch.

Really that much bile over something someone made available and "OH **** you mean I actually have to download a file and open it?" was necessary?

When did hitting "download-open" followed by "right click-delete" take that much effort?

This is why we can't have nice things.

As you mentioned, OP, the work you put in to this sheet already outweighs, by several orders of magnitude, the two mouse clicks required to download and open the document

Solid work, all round, and I am impressed. I'm sure to spend a good amount of time fiddling with numbers, and then being sad at just how quickly a Vendetta goes through anything I have

Oh, and thanks.

Thanks for backing me up guys. I'm glad you like the spread sheet.