38926
Post by: Exergy
So every once and a while I get tired of the mech meta and want to remember the days when you didnt have to start everything in iron boxes. Maybe you just dont want to carry around all those extra cases for your 10+ vehicles.(my figs take 1 case my vehicles take 2 cases)
obviously this would be for tailored lists of a sort. I understand that competitiveness will change, this is not about making totally competitive rules.
so in a friendly game what would you propose?
No transports, other vehicles are ok
No transports, 1 vehicle, and as many walkers as you like
No transports, 1 vehicle and 1 walker
No Vehicles except for walkers
NO Vehicles.
You cannot restrict vehicles at all, all armies NEED them.
Why do you think that would be the fairest rule for all armies and which armies do you think would suffer the most under those specific rules.
Also under which rules might you be interested in playing?
Obviously nids have no vehicles, so they are the same however you run it. Necrons only have 1 type of vehicle, and anyone taking 3 monolyths in a small game is a tad beardy already.
36588
Post by: Footsloggin
No vehicles would be the best way to stop vehicles. Though many armies hinge on them, so nerfing them would be the more sensable thing.
41879
Post by: Sabet
But what about the guard. They can't do jack gak without their tanks
33495
Post by: infinite_array
The problem with restricting vehicles is that is completely changes the game.
Say I'm a Dark Eldar player. How am I supposed to get from point A to point B, while murdering everything that gets in my way as cruelly and violently as possible, without my Raiders, Venoms, and Ravagers?
As for the Imperial Guard, you might as well shelf them. Without their vehicles, they're simply T 3 humans wearing cardboard. Removing vehicles from the game is simply going to put a prevalence on MEQ armies, since everyone's going to want to try and get the best save possible.
Here's an idea - instead of removing Vehicles, change them! Make it easier for, say, a meltagun or a lascannon to blow up a tank, as opposed to a missile launcher.
37404
Post by: Jordan
Personally, I'm a fan of the "33" armor rule, wherein you add the Front Side (adding it only once) and Rear armor values together. If the combined armor value is 33 or less, then you can take the vehicle. If not, then you cant. This restricts the game to transports and light walkers only. Coupled with rules about no ordnance allowed, no 2+ saves, and a 500 point restriction, this makes for a great game for newer players or people gearing up with a new army.
Otherwise, though, I think the game has become so vehicle-centric, and some armies (Guard) are reliant on their metal boxes for any sort of protection. Without it, they'd get chewed to crap.
33495
Post by: infinite_array
Jordan wrote:Personally, I'm a fan of the "33" armor rule, wherein you add the Front Side (adding it only once) and Rear armor values together. If the combined armor value is 33 or less, then you can take the vehicle. If not, then you cant. This restricts the game to transports and light walkers only. Coupled with rules about no ordnance allowed, no 2+ saves, and a 500 point restriction, this makes for a great game for newer players or people gearing up with a new army.
Otherwise, though, I think the game has become so vehicle-centric, and some armies (Guard) are reliant on their metal boxes for any sort of protection. Without it, they'd get chewed to crap.
Unless, of course, you're a Dark Eldar player. Ravagers, Voidravens, Razorwings - they'd tear everyone to shreds.
29408
Post by: Melissia
So what about monstrous creatures? Artillery that isn't a vehicle? Imperial Guard, whom relies on vehicles? And this owuld basically give a large advantage to fast assaulty armies.
37404
Post by: Jordan
Obviously, it's not a perfect system. The rule set is limited to 500 points, the biggest limiting factor. I think there was also a rule about a 2 wound maximum.
Here's the rule set:
http://pitoftheoni.blogspot.com/2008/09/combat-patrol-in-5th-edition.html
Check it out, decide for yourselves if it's worth a try. I've used to to great effect at my local club for new players and the occasional break from bigger games.
38926
Post by: Exergy
Sabet wrote:But what about the guard. They can't do jack gak without their tanks
what do you mean guard cant do jack without their tanks? Footy guard can be nasty. at 1000 points you could be talking 150 guardsmen with a lot of heavy weapons.
Also one of the options I posted was just no transports. Other vehicles, like LRBTs would be fine. Automatically Appended Next Post: Jordan wrote:Personally, I'm a fan of the "33" armor rule, wherein you add the Front Side (adding it only once) and Rear armor values together. If the combined armor value is 33 or less, then you can take the vehicle. If not, then you cant. This restricts the game to transports and light walkers only. Coupled with rules about no ordnance allowed, no 2+ saves, and a 500 point restriction, this makes for a great game for newer players or people gearing up with a new army.
I think your 33 rule gives too much of an advantage to armies that have light transports. SM, DE, Guard, and Orks are fine. Tau and eldar get screwed.
37404
Post by: Jordan
Tau Devilfish are 12 11 10, aren't they? They'd be fine under the 33 armor rule. And of course Eldar get the shaft, but they're into that kind of thing. At least they were. 
Everything I mentioned was for low-points games and there a bunch of other restrictions. Personally, if we're gonna go no vehicles, I'm also thinking no Monsterous Creatures as well. Get rid of the power houses in every army and make it an infantry-only slap fight. Thoughts?
29408
Post by: Melissia
Exergy wrote:Sabet wrote:But what about the guard. They can't do jack gak without their tanks
what do you mean guard cant do jack without their tanks? Footy guard can be nasty. at 1000 points you could be talking 150 guardsmen with a lot of heavy weapons.
Whiiiiiiiiich are basically just fodder for blast templates and assaults.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Melissia wrote:Exergy wrote:Sabet wrote:But what about the guard. They can't do jack gak without their tanks
what do you mean guard cant do jack without their tanks? Footy guard can be nasty. at 1000 points you could be talking 150 guardsmen with a lot of heavy weapons.
Whiiiiiiiiich are basically just fodder for blast templates and assaults.
Melissa's right on this one, I'm afraid.
150 Guardsmen < 20 Berzerkers, played right.
29408
Post by: Melissia
They're also just fodder for longfang missile spam too, and flamer spam, and yada yada ya.
256
Post by: Oaka
Exergy wrote:So every once and a while I get tired of the mech meta and want to remember the days when you didnt have to start everything in iron boxes. Maybe you just dont want to carry around all those extra cases for your 10+ vehicles.(my figs take 1 case my vehicles take 2 cases)
How about each player is only allowed to bring one case of models to the game? 
29408
Post by: Melissia
So why should tyranids be allowed monstrous creatures, but Guard isn't allowed a sentinel?
22054
Post by: Bloodhorror
Add all the armour you plan to field together.
if the total is Less than 60. Go for it.
If its more. Drop Something.
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
I'd agree with the nerfing vehicles rule. Some armies manage fine without them (mostly marines) while the 33 rule would make other armies unplayable (Eldar would be left with only Wraithwalling). How about simply changing glancing hits to do -1 instead of -2? That is, short of making all vehicles from a 5th edition 25% more expensive, of course.
Oaka wrote:Exergy wrote:So every once and a while I get tired of the mech meta and want to remember the days when you didnt have to start everything in iron boxes. Maybe you just dont want to carry around all those extra cases for your 10+ vehicles.(my figs take 1 case my vehicles take 2 cases)
How about each player is only allowed to bring one case of models to the game?
Then you get players who take every opportunity they can to compensate for other stuff and have oversized cases. (Or in the case of one of my friends, happen to live at the place where the wargaming takes place).
29408
Post by: Melissia
Changing glancing to -1 would make tau able to destroy a rhino from the front with their basic weapon, amongst other things... I'm rather iffy about that idea.
Hell you'd see autocannons destroying predators too, and Exorcists could destroy EVERYThING with a greatly improved chance...
39296
Post by: gpfunk
To be honest, why were transports the ones you decided to not have regardless of anything? I think that if you wanted to balance vehicles, you should limit it to only transports. I only use them to increase the movement of my infantry anyway. And I mean light transports. Like your basic chimera, rhino, trukk, etc. I'd be fine with that. All in all though. I find that vehicles are a necessary evil.
40490
Post by: HAZZER
I voted for: You cannot restrict vehicles at all, all armies NEED them.
29914
Post by: martin74
quit your crying and just play the game the ways the rules are for now.
THE FIRST COMMENT IS RUDE. THE SECOND SEEMS A BIT SILLY, GIVEN THAT THIS IS THE PROPOSED RULES FORUM.
Please keep your comments polite, and kindly bear in mind what forum you're in.
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
Melissia, honestly vehicles are running a bit rampant. If something becomes so necessary it becomes mandatory, it's time to review whether or not this is a design intention or not. Personally, I feel 5th edition has lowered the price on transports a little too much and made them a little too robust.
martin74 wrote:quit your crying and just play the game the ways the rules are for now.
With that attitude, you probably should stay away from the "Proposed Rules" forum. It's for your own good.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Mahtamori wrote:Melissia, honestly vehicles are running a bit rampant.
No they aren't.
Vehicles are only necessary for some armies. Which is why removing them is a bad idea, because it'd benefit those armies which do not rely on them more. For an army whose playstyle is tied to vehicles-- such as Guard, Sisters, and Dark Eldar-- this would be a disastrously bad rule. For Orks, Tyranids, Space Marines, etc, whom have excellent non-vehicle options, it'd be a great thing.
41945
Post by: InquisitorVaron
Vehicles are fine the way they are it makes the game fair. Everything has at least one unit that can take out a tank from range and CC.
Put it this way. They're counter balanced.
Rhino 55. Terminator with Chain Fist 47P
More often than not the thing that is killing the tank is cheaper and the Tank doesn't make its points back. So its fair.
37700
Post by: Ascalam
For Necrons the 33 pt thing and no vehicles at all are the same thing.
I'm fine with there being vehicles everywhere, but i do think that if you are inside a vehicle that explodes you should be autokilled, not hit with a no ap laspistol/slugga shot
29408
Post by: Melissia
So basically you think that transports should be entirely removed from the game?
20738
Post by: The Acolyte
The game is designed for vehicles and thats why anti tank weapons was invented. Its just not the same without vehicles so I don't think they shoudl be limited in games. Im games that are below 1000pts I think vehicles such as Land Raiders shouldn't be allowed. If you hate playing again cehicles just take more anti tank weapons. Then play against my guard mas and kill a whole guardsman with your melta shot  .
24865
Post by: DiRT52
It balances out each army The nids have alot of mc with a lot of wounds just imagine an IG army with no leman russes
43554
Post by: earth-star
Mahtamori wrote:Melissia, honestly vehicles are running a bit rampant. If something becomes so necessary it becomes mandatory, it's time to review whether or not this is a design intention or not. Personally, I feel 5th edition has lowered the price on transports a little too much and made them a little too robust.
martin74 wrote:quit your crying and just play the game the ways the rules are for now.
With that attitude, you probably should stay away from the "Proposed Rules" forum. It's for your own good.
>vehicles running rampant
>vehicles too robust
>implying skimmers are robust
>implying rhinos are as strong as land raiders
>implying that limiting the vehicles will make your tyranids stronger
>implying MC won't be limited
Golden rule of 40k: IT IS WHAT IT IS
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
Whoa, there, those implications are figments of your own imagination.
Skimmers are robust - some of them are, some aren't. There's a world of difference between a geared up Wave Serpent and a Vyper. The Vyper is on the other side of the scale, so weak it's doubtful it's worth taking.
Rhinos are as strong as Land Raiders - objectively, not anywhere close. The implication is not there. A Land Raider is more fine than a Rhino in my eyes since it's a high point investment leaving it open to melta weapons. It's the low cost dedicated transports that I feel are out of whack.
My Tyranids - I play Mechdar exclusively. My transports, when compared to newer armies, cost a premium, but are still very good. There is no open-topped or assault ramp options, though, which means that melee squads in them are a waste of effort.
MC won't be limited - Where'd this come from?
So, to sum it up, earth-star, your implications are far off. There's only one implication I wish to hint at with my post:
I think dedicated transports in newer codexes are too cheap.
(Also, 3rd and 4th editions had a slightly more dangerous glancing table, if I recall correctly, but don't quote me on it)
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Let us be honest with each other.
The game wasn't designed for vehicles in the numbers that SM and IG armies can put on tabletop because they are so cheap, and effective at letting the troops shoot from inside.
20738
Post by: The Acolyte
Mahtamori wrote:
So, to sum it up, earth-star, your implications are far off. There's only one implication I wish to hint at with my post:
I think dedicated transports in newer codexes are too cheap.
(Also, 3rd and 4th editions had a slightly more dangerous glancing table, if I recall correctly, but don't quote me on it)
Agreed. Transports are far too cheap as they offer much better protection to the sqad inside than their points show. Admitadly they cant mount great weapons on them, but that isn't their primary purpose.
38926
Post by: Exergy
Melissia wrote:So basically you think that transports should be entirely removed from the game?
not at all. Do you bother to read anything other than the topic of my thread?
I love vehicles, I use them all the time. I just find it rather repetative so I was thinking of an optional friendly rule that you could use in 1% of your friendly games to maybe make the game more interesting.
I play DE mostly, which you say are hurt a lot by lack of vehciles. I would be happy to play a friendly game against SM or Ork(which you think are strong without transports) with these rules. Not saying I want to play them every day but for a change I dont see why not.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Exergy wrote:not at all. Do you bother to read anything other than the topic of my thread?
I don't care what you said. There being no use for transports is exactly the result of the rule you posted.
It would not make it more interesting, it'd just make it kinda stupid because if you DARE get into a transport I will wipe out your squad lickity split. So you never will.
20738
Post by: The Acolyte
Exergy wrote:Melissia wrote:So basically you think that transports should be entirely removed from the game?
not at all. Do you bother to read anything other than the topic of my thread?
I love vehicles, I use them all the time. I just find it rather repetative so I was thinking of an optional friendly rule that you could use in 1% of your friendly games to maybe make the game more interesting.
I play DE mostly, which you say are hurt a lot by lack of vehciles. I would be happy to play a friendly game against SM or Ork(which you think are strong without transports) with these rules. Not saying I want to play them every day but for a change I dont see why not.
Maybe make games more fun if they are less than 1000 pts but after that vehicles make the game what it is. Without vehicles mass infantry just isnt the same
29408
Post by: Melissia
Oh and here is what I was responding to when I suggested the poster wanted transports removed: Ascalam wrote:For Necrons the 33 pt thing and no vehicles at all are the same thing.
I'm fine with there being vehicles everywhere, but i do think that if you are inside a vehicle that explodes you should be autokilled, not hit with a no ap laspistol/slugga shot
20738
Post by: The Acolyte
Melissia wrote:Oh and here is what I was responding to when I suggested the poster wanted transports removed: Ascalam wrote:For Necrons the 33 pt thing and no vehicles at all are the same thing.
I'm fine with there being vehicles everywhere, but i do think that if you are inside a vehicle that explodes you should be autokilled, not hit with a no ap laspistol/slugga shot
I've thought that before to. Sometime me and a friend play. You take an armour save for every model and if you fail you are instand deathed unless eternal warrior. Representing being prtected by explosion by armour.
Maybe could take an initiative test and if you fail you take a wound representing getting out fast enough.
42784
Post by: Xarian
If you're limited to 500 points, I think a "one vehicle per game" rule would be fine, but you may want to make an exception for vehicle squadrons of light vehicles (like war buggies or vypers)
29408
Post by: Melissia
And have hte same exact limitations on monstrous creatures as you do on vehicles.
Otherwise I'd suggest you just want to stomp people with your little MCs instead of playing a fair game 
37700
Post by: Ascalam
Melissia wrote:Oh and here is what I was responding to when I suggested the poster wanted transports removed: Ascalam wrote:For Necrons the 33 pt thing and no vehicles at all are the same thing.
I'm fine with there being vehicles everywhere, but i do think that if you are inside a vehicle that explodes you should be autokilled, not hit with a no ap laspistol/slugga shot
Thankyou for clarifying that I wasn't sure who you were going off on
I am fine with transports being in the game. (see quote) but i do think that if you are caught in an enclosed metal box that is then set on fire and/or blown up the consequences should be more severe.
'So basically you think that transports should be entirely removed from the game? '
No. I feel that the transported crew should be, should their metal box suffer a catastrophic detonation, not come walking out if it banging the flames out on their shirts.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Which would effectively remove transports from the game.
37700
Post by: Ascalam
Not really. It would encourage you to use footsloggers a bit more, or at least not to camp EVERYTHING inside vehicles.
The element of risk in using the vehicles would help balance out the low points cost.
For my orks it wouldn't make much difference, given that they have t-shirt save
41688
Post by: Grenat
If it's a proposed rule, I suppose you want to use it for some kind of friendly game.
If so, why bothering about a very strict and restrictive rule ?
You can agree with your opponent to try something different with only one vehicule by army or so. Or even small games of full-infantry skirmish like.
Imho, a little common sense and good spirit are often a better choice than new rules.
20738
Post by: The Acolyte
Grenat wrote:If it's a proposed rule, I suppose you want to use it for some kind of friendly game.
If so, why bothering about a very strict and restrictive rule ?
You can agree with your opponent to try something different with only one vehicule by army or so. Or even small games of full-infantry skirmish like.
Imho, a little common sense and good spirit are often a better choice than new rules.
Good spirit answers everything, best respose the the question all day
43554
Post by: earth-star
Mahtamori wrote:Whoa, there, those implications are figments of your own imagination.
Skimmers are robust - some of them are, some aren't. There's a world of difference between a geared up Wave Serpent and a Vyper. The Vyper is on the other side of the scale, so weak it's doubtful it's worth taking.
Rhinos are as strong as Land Raiders - objectively, not anywhere close. The implication is not there. A Land Raider is more fine than a Rhino in my eyes since it's a high point investment leaving it open to melta weapons. It's the low cost dedicated transports that I feel are out of whack.
My Tyranids - I play Mechdar exclusively. My transports, when compared to newer armies, cost a premium, but are still very good. There is no open-topped or assault ramp options, though, which means that melee squads in them are a waste of effort.
MC won't be limited - Where'd this come from?
So, to sum it up, earth-star, your implications are far off. There's only one implication I wish to hint at with my post:
I think dedicated transports in newer codexes are too cheap.
(Also, 3rd and 4th editions had a slightly more dangerous glancing table, if I recall correctly, but don't quote me on it)
Ok, first off, you forgot the golden rule of 40k, IT IS WHAT IT IS! If you don't like a rule, deal with it or stop playing
>your implications are far off.
It's called being snarky.
>low cost of DT is whack.
Well, look at your weapons list, there's at least one anti-tank weapon in every army.
>a land raider is more fine than a rhino.
Depends on who shoots who first with what weapons, and the result of the roll
>DT in newer codexes are too cheap
They can also be taken down easily, you should know this, playing mechdar,
41554
Post by: Your Friend Doctor Robert
My Space Marine Army is heavily reliant on vehicles; Rhinos and Razorbacks to get around, Predators and Vindicators when something really needs killing, Land Raiders to take on the really monstrous things and the occasional Land Raider Wall.
Besides, if you take vehicles out, you'd have to make the game way longer, since the first few turns would just be spent running.
43554
Post by: earth-star
Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:My Space Marine Army is heavily reliant on vehicles; Rhinos and Razorbacks to get around, Predators and Vindicators when something really needs killing, Land Raiders to take on the really monstrous things and the occasional Land Raider Wall.
Besides, if you take vehicles out, you'd have to make the game way longer, since the first few turns would just be spent running.
Same for my blood angels. To be honest, if vehicles were limited, that'd take a lot of fun out of the game
20738
Post by: The Acolyte
As an example if vehhicles were removed my guard mass would become very hard to kill. Most armies wouldn't be able to take templetes to kill enough guardsmen per turn. Also I have 6 lascannon teams. 6 missile launchers. 6 heavy bolters. So even without vehicles my army has alot of big guns.
Vehicles are a requirement for most armies. You would really struggle to kill my 120 guardsmen with just infantry.
37700
Post by: Ascalam
Tell that to the 180+ orks or several hundred nids
14932
Post by: Norade
Kilkrazy wrote:Let us be honest with each other.
The game wasn't designed for vehicles in the numbers that SM and IG armies can put on tabletop because they are so cheap, and effective at letting the troops shoot from inside.
Care to back that statement up with some actual facts?
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
earth-star wrote:Mahtamori wrote:Whoa, there, those implications are figments of your own imagination.
Skimmers are robust - some of them are, some aren't. There's a world of difference between a geared up Wave Serpent and a Vyper. The Vyper is on the other side of the scale, so weak it's doubtful it's worth taking.
Rhinos are as strong as Land Raiders - objectively, not anywhere close. The implication is not there. A Land Raider is more fine than a Rhino in my eyes since it's a high point investment leaving it open to melta weapons. It's the low cost dedicated transports that I feel are out of whack.
My Tyranids - I play Mechdar exclusively. My transports, when compared to newer armies, cost a premium, but are still very good. There is no open-topped or assault ramp options, though, which means that melee squads in them are a waste of effort.
MC won't be limited - Where'd this come from?
So, to sum it up, earth-star, your implications are far off. There's only one implication I wish to hint at with my post:
I think dedicated transports in newer codexes are too cheap.
(Also, 3rd and 4th editions had a slightly more dangerous glancing table, if I recall correctly, but don't quote me on it)
Ok, first off, you forgot the golden rule of 40k, IT IS WHAT IT IS! If you don't like a rule, deal with it or stop playing
>your implications are far off.
It's called being snarky.
>low cost of DT is whack.
Well, look at your weapons list, there's at least one anti-tank weapon in every army.
>a land raider is more fine than a rhino.
Depends on who shoots who first with what weapons, and the result of the roll
>DT in newer codexes are too cheap
They can also be taken down easily, you should know this, playing mechdar,
This is really not a discussion for this thread.
1. If you're being snarky, then you should think twice before posting.
2. I'm looking at my list. They cost more on BS3 than the closest equivalent weapon for Marines on their BS4. And the Marine weapon performs better on AV13 and below at longer range. And it's not even considered a worthwhile weapon for them.
3. A Land Raider is significantly more investment on a smaller space, preventing more HS slots. A DT doesn't take up a slot, and can thus be spammed with the squads.
4. Eldar isn't a new codex, the transports have a performance issue for their points, but they are the best option for competitive list for Eldar.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ascalam wrote:Not really. It would encourage you to use footsloggers a bit more
No it wouldn't. It would encourage you to always footslog because if you don't you lose your entire squad from an errant autocannon round which apparently is capable of doing ten SD AP1 wounds to anyone in transports.
If you DARED to use trasnports against me with these rules I would win every single game.
37700
Post by: Ascalam
I think you are over-reacting a tad. Fond of spammed transports?
I would point out that my two main armies are Necrons and Green tide orks. Necrons don't HAVE any transports.
Also the instadeath would only apply if you actually blew the transport up. Any other result would be the same as usual. If you could guarantee an explodes result with every shot i would take your assertion that you would autowin seriously, but you can't.
If you want to disagree with my point of view, that's fine by me. Your POV is no more 'fact' than mine
I personally would relish the realism of using transports for their intended purpose (moving troops swiftly to another part of the battlefield and then deploying them) with the possibility of them going boom and losing a unit if the enemy brought some big guns to bear. I find the current fad of camping every unit in a transport and them camping that transport on an objective to be deeply irritating. I'm not saying it doesn't work, but being nicely untouchable inside a metal box until such time as it suddenly vanishes in a roiling fireball, from which the majority of the unit tends to walk unscathed doesn't quite ring true for me.
That element of risk in using the transport makes the game a bit more tactical. I've tried using it as a houserule, and it made for a more exciting game for my local crowd. Not something we'd necessarily do every time, but very cinematic. It makes you think about the relative worth of disgorging your cargo behind a wall to take cover or trying to reach the next strategically important place, knowing that you could all die during the time your transport travels exposed. It also makes you a lot more cagey about where you position your transports (which reduces tactics like putting a vindicator behind a rhino wall with a firing space, and filling those rhinos with long fangs...).
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ascalam wrote:I think you are over-reacting a tad.
I think I understand the balance of the game.
The element of risk doesn't make it more tactical, it makes them worthless. Why should I put terminators in a land raider? They'll just get blown up with no saves allowed, and Sod's Law says that it'll be by the first lascannon/railgun/melta that hits before they have a chance to get into their ideal striking range and disembark. Why should I bother putting any of my models on the board on turn one? They'll just get blown up before my sisters have a chance to disembark or use smoke. Why should I bother using mechanized guard? I have better things to spend my points and time on than a unit that's just gonna get wiped out from a side shot by a plasmagun.
42203
Post by: Lord Magnus
I think that Mellisia's "overreacting" is really the truth, if eldar or SoB got blown up by using transports, they wouldn't really have any more viable options in competitive play
8620
Post by: DAaddict
If you remember the old days. Vehicles were death traps except for skimmers that were almost impossible to kill (esp a glance-only hit on a holofield protected falcon). You got pinned and knocked out of the fight for 1/3 of the time.
To the plus side, the glance chart is gone with its chance for a kill as is the general ineffectiveness of all but melta weapons.
The biggest change IMO is the relative safety of a vehicle - due to the new charts - combined with the discounted cost of vehicles. To my mind any vehicle that add survivability to a unit and costs less than 100% of the cost of the squad is a steal. Thus given the money, I will take 5 squads in rhinos before I would take 6 squads in none.
If you want to experiment, double the cost of any transport with perhaps the exception of a land raider. Now at least you are approaching a point where a transport is not worth it.
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
Well, DAaddict, blanket changing isn't good, either. Some armies don't pay a whole lot for theirs, while others do. I don't have the codices concerned, but I'm fairly certain that BA Rhinos are a fair bit less expensive than BT Rhinos (at the same time as being better, to boot).
Why do I use an example I'm not certain of? Those two armies would marvellously illustrate the point since we'd be dealing with essentially the same vehicle.
37700
Post by: Ascalam
Melissia wrote:Ascalam wrote:I think you are over-reacting a tad.
I think I understand the balance of the game.
The element of risk doesn't make it more tactical, it makes them worthless. Why should I put terminators in a land raider? They'll just get blown up with no saves allowed, and Sod's Law says that it'll be by the first lascannon/railgun/melta that hits before they have a chance to get into their ideal striking range and disembark. Why should I bother putting any of my models on the board on turn one? They'll just get blown up before my sisters have a chance to disembark or use smoke. Why should I bother using mechanized guard? I have better things to spend my points and time on than a unit that's just gonna get wiped out from a side shot by a plasmagun.
Ever been trapped in a burning vehicle, Mel? I have.
The odds of someone surviving a fuel explosion are practically zero, no matter what you might happen to be wearing.
Vehicles shouldn't be a get out of death free card. I also understand the balance of the game quite well. It gets very very unbalanced when, for example, everyone is camped inside vehicles that you need major league artillery to break open ( LR i'm looking at you especially) , possibly shooting the hell out of you in complete safety (as they 'don't exist) until they leave or are forcibly ejected from the vehicle. Even when they are forcibly ejected they are hit with about the force of a thrown teddy bear
Why should you use transports? Because you want them to get from point A to point B faster, in some measure of safety (as the vehicle will probably bounce anything but dedicated AT weapons, and in the case of a LR even them, unless someone gets lucky with a S 9 or better weapon. Even if it does take damage it will likely not explode from it, and the squad inside will still be perfectly safe until someone deals it a nice solid hit to the fuel tanks.
Should you accept that someone might target and blow up your pretty box on wheels? Yes. Them's the risks of riding in it.
I'm not advocating that GW should change it's rule. I'm saying that it makes for a far tenser and more interesting game if you don't assume that your unit is safe and sound in a rolling, impenetrable bunker, and even if it does get blown to smithereens they will be just fine.
An example- Fire a ground to air missile at an aircraft carrying troops to the front lines, like the Valk or SR. Do you think anyone is getting out of that one alive if the vehicle explodes going Mach 1, or spirals down out of the sky in a fiery explosion?
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ascalam wrote:The odds of someone surviving a fuel explosion are practically zero
Unless that vehicle is specifically designed to withstand such a thing with crew intact. Modern civilian cars are not. Military vehicles are.
Ascalam wrote:Vehicles shouldn't be a get out of death free card.
They aren't.
Ascalam wrote:(LR i'm looking at you especially)
Doesn't need major league artillery to break open.
Ascalam wrote:possibly shooting the hell out of you in complete safety
Until you open up their transports for them, in which case half the time they'll take extra wounds and be available to assault afterwards if you did it in the shooting phase.
Ascalam wrote:Even when they are forcibly ejected they are hit with about the force of a thrown teddy bear
A thrown teddy bear isn't able to disembody limbs.
Ascalam wrote:Why should you use transports? Because you want them to get from point A to point B faster
You can do that without using transports in most armies.
Ascalam wrote: in some measure of safety
There is no measure of safety in transports using your rules.
Ascalam wrote:Even if it does take damage it will likely not explode from it
Sod's law says otherwise.
37700
Post by: Ascalam
Melissia wrote:Ascalam wrote:The odds of someone surviving a fuel explosion are practically zero
Unless that vehicle is specifically designed to withstand such a thing with crew intact. Modern civilian cars are not. Military vehicles are.
**Military vehicles can still explode. A fuel explosion was just one of the possibilities that came to mind. Several hundred pounds of HE to the crew compartment would do the same job.**
Ascalam wrote:Vehicles shouldn't be a get out of death free card.
They aren't.
**If you're wearing armour they pretty much are, doubly so if you are T 4- 10 marines in a rhino, half are wounded by the explosion, 2 in six fail the armour save on average (rough an nasty math) = 1, possibly 2 deaths from their enclosed metal box becoming a fireball. Terminators are damn near immune. **
Ascalam wrote:(LR i'm looking at you especially)
Doesn't need major league artillery to break open.
**S 9 or don't bother. S8 can eventually glance it down, but it takes a while. if you don't consider S9 to be powerful what is? **
Ascalam wrote:possibly shooting the hell out of you in complete safety
Until you open up their transports for them, in which case half the time they'll take extra wounds and be available to assault afterwards if you did it in the shooting phase.
**Which isn't all that easy- you need some decent Strength guns to open anything better than AV10 (unless you are a lucky roller with S 5). If there are T3 folks in there with 4+ armour you might wipe half the unit. If they are marines (for example) you might kill one or two (see above). They will be available to assault, but you'd have to have been knocking on the hull to be in assault range anyway **
Ascalam wrote:Even when they are forcibly ejected they are hit with about the force of a thrown teddy bear
A thrown teddy bear isn't able to disembody limbs.
**Depends on the teddy. **
Ascalam wrote:Why should you use transports? Because you want them to get from point A to point B faster
You can do that without using transports in most armies.
**Faster than walking? How are you moving your troops from point A to point B (the unit we were going to put in a transport, here) without transports faster tyhan by walking, in most armies?**
Ascalam wrote: in some measure of safety
There is no measure of safety in transports using your rules.
**So 1-5 on the damage table don't exist for you? I want a copy of your book when i'm shooting up vehicles.  **
Ascalam wrote:Even if it does take damage it will likely not explode from it
Sod's law says otherwise.
**Sod's law is as sod's law does. If i'm lucky i'll get to blow up one or two vehicles in a game. Most get wrecked or immobilized. Against Eldar (holofields ) not even that. There is an element of chance in playing the game, and sometimes the dice gods don't smile. **
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ascalam wrote:If you're wearing armour they pretty much are, doubly so if you are T 4- 10 marines in a rhino, half are wounded by the explosion, 2 in six fail the armour save on average (rough an nasty math) = 1, possibly 2 deaths from their enclosed metal box becoming a fireball. Terminators are damn near immune.
Wait, you mean someone that's basically wearing a walking tank battlesuit while riding in a more traditional tracked tank APC has a roughly 1/5 chance of dying from the outer tank exploding? That's pretty bad odds for the double tank rider!
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
Turn all vehicles into monstrous creatures. They are durable but still killable.
That or make it easier to kill vehicles. Having to roll a 5 or 6 on a pen sucks.
8620
Post by: DAaddict
Take 1 manticore and a rhino with 10 troops inside or 1 manticore with 10 marines standing in cover. Chances are when targeted by the average two S10 templates a rhino will survive while the troops will suffer the consequenses. Even if the rhino does blow up, the chances of actually killing a marine is low.
The truly cheap transport is reserved for marines and to a lesser extent the IG and dark eldar. Dark eldar pay for theirs with paper thin armor and open topped +1 to the result goodness. A rhino at 35 points is a total joke when you even look at a minimum 5-man troop squad. You could go the survival route with 6 troops of 5 men in rhinoes - all capable of holding an objective and still have over 1000 points of killiness spread throughout your army to pound them into submission.
The Tau and Eldar pay (or overpay in relation to IG & SM) for their transports.
Now I am on the you cannot restrict transports as some armies need them but the regret I have is that they have made it an idiot's choice to not field marines in rhinos.
36809
Post by: loota boy
I didn't vote beacuse this thread is silly. tanks are part of war. Getting rid of them would be very silly. Transports just need a slght cost increase, and wrecks and explosions just need to be more taxing. That is all.
37700
Post by: Ascalam
Melissia wrote:Ascalam wrote:If you're wearing armour they pretty much are, doubly so if you are T 4- 10 marines in a rhino, half are wounded by the explosion, 2 in six fail the armour save on average (rough an nasty math) = 1, possibly 2 deaths from their enclosed metal box becoming a fireball. Terminators are damn near immune.
Wait, you mean someone that's basically wearing a walking tank battlesuit while riding in a more traditional tracked tank APC has a roughly 1/5 chance of dying from the outer tank exploding? That's pretty bad odds for the double tank rider!
Actually it's ridiculously good odds. What you are failing to take into account is that the enemy weapons keep pace with the walking battlesuits for penetrating power.
The fluff on the tau railgun, for example describes it as punching a pist-sized hole through the tank, and then everyone inside being sucked through the hole as slurry. Not so much in game.
If a tank gets obliterated by a leman russ ( the plasma cannon one) the crew (who would normally get no armour save) walk out of the plasmaball unharmed?
If a trygon comes up under a rhino and eats it they open a door in it's gut and walk out when ?
If a Carnifex punched it's scythes through the hull like butter and does it's impression of a mixmaster no-one gets cut in half?
Power armour isn't a tank. It's futuristic plate armour that boosts your strength and has some nifty computer/hud support. It is very protective, but less than a tank's armour plating? I don't think so. A power armoured guy with T4 has a 50/50 chance of being wounded, then a 33% chance of taking that wound (approximately)
Terminator armour is a walking tank (to a degree- the armour's thinner than most imperial tanks) but it has a rather better than 1 in 5 chance of surviving.
50/50 it gets wounded, if it does then a 1 in 6 chance of it actually taking that wound.
Damn good odds for sitting in a crater that just melted adamantium and shattered ceramite
29408
Post by: Melissia
No it's not. The guy is wearing enough armor to stop a cannon round. A bit of fire isn't gonna penetrate that reliably.
Just because a land raider explodes doesn't mean that the fire's hot enough to melt the metal. Vehicles aren't designed to take explosive stress from the inside.
37700
Post by: Ascalam
How about a bit of plasma? Hypervelocity sharp-edged hunks of adamantium? 30 odd tons of hull structure collapsing on them? By comparison a cannon round is pretty small beer.
While we're on the subject of explosions Hydrostatic shock, kinetic torsion, enough brissance to punt you into confetti heading for outer orbit ? :0) If something is meant to move or rotate (like the joints in a set of power armour, say, then it can be rotated clean off by an explosion. If something is meant to tilt or slide it will (such as triggers - ricochets are a kicker) and if something is meant to pull free (like pins on grenades- thus kablowie, thus death) they will.
Land raiders (judging from the disassembled one on my desk, noting the structural lines and weld/seam points) would be more likely to focus the blast inwards. The doors are side-sliders, so would likely not blow out. The assault hatch might, but it's on some huge hydraulics. The roof,walls and floor are thick and sturdy enough that if the explosion wasn't enough to melt them the force would reflect. Whoever is inside would be chunky salsa.
Assuming that the raider wasn't ripped apart by the explosion (and the force inside the tank to do this would be extreme enough to pulp anyone inside) the force would reflect back from the buckled hull, further pressurizing the hull.
Armour plating does you jack when surrounded by enough pressure, especially if it hasn't been designed to take an even, massive and sudden pressure without warning. Deep sea submersibles have issues with going below a certain depth, and it's not that terribly deep (and they are actually designed for it)..
Even assuming that the explosion flung you all miraculously clear, with totally undamaged armour and equipment stull hung on your body rather than all over the battlefield, and without your ammunition cooking off fire is no joke.
A bit of fire won't penetrate armour plating. A LOT of very hot fire (like from a reactor cookoff or ammuntion going up) will. The explosion would also include said ammo (if it went, which seems likely), and a concussive shockwave that does unpleasant things to gear and bones alike.
However in the interests of fluid gaming this is reduced to 'tin box go boom!'. My objection is when the sardines in the tin box are barely affected by it
I used to blow things up for a living. Great pay, but the long term health plan sucks..
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ascalam wrote:How about a bit of plasma? Hypervelocity sharp-edged hunks of adamantium? 30 odd tons of hull structure collapsing on them?
1: Unlikely, as the vehicles have safeguards to prevent that. It's why vehicles can fire plasma weapons without danger unlike infantry.
2: While dangerous sure, it's still really only worth an S3, at most an S4.
3: Please, power armor has been stepped on by far heavier than merely THAT and survived to tell the tale. Nevermind terminator armor.
All in all, your suggestion is still rather inane.
37700
Post by: Ascalam
1/. Until the plasma container is breached. Then you're sharing storage space with a small sun. Plasma weaponry has been heavily touted in the fluff as being unstable as hell anyway. The reason vehicles don't get hot is that hey can mount heat sinks, unlike infantry. It does jack if the canisters breach.
2/. S4 is an ork running up to you and punching you in the face. Powerful, sure, but hardly exploding-vehicle powerful.
Unless that ork is going at about mach 15 (stormboy?) that's a good bit more than S4.
3/. When? Barring the rabid marine fanwank that is most of the BL books? I can only think of one occasion where someone in power armour was under 30 tons (of a shifting material, not a solid wall) and that was Mephiston getting buried under buildings so often he made it a hobby .
Even if the marines survived being trapped under 30+ tons of bulkhead they're going nowhere, as even ward wouldn't argue that a marine can deadlift 30 tons....at least so far.
And your grasp of explosive theory is negligible
If you don't like my suggestion feel free (i really don't mind ) , but don't try to argue that stepping calmly out of a detonating vehicle mainly unwounded is realistic.
40K isn't realistic. It's fantasy. I know this.
I like mine to be a bit grittier (like having physics work, when the situation calls for it ) than you apparently do.
14932
Post by: Norade
Ascalam wrote:1/. Until the plasma container is breached. Then you're sharing storage space with a small sun. Plasma weaponry has been heavily touted in the fluff as being unstable as hell anyway. The reason vehicles don't get hot is that hey can mount heat sinks, unlike infantry. It does jack if the canisters breach.
Except that even termies shrug off plasma from time to time and that is without the extra armor that a vehicle would have between them and an exploding plasma canister. You also seem to assume that these plasma containers aren't designed to vent their load even after taking horrific damage. This is the way modern tanks work with blowout panels that help channel the pressure wave from explosives up and out the top of the tank to aid the crew's survival.
2/. S4 is an ork running up to you and punching you in the face. Powerful, sure, but hardly exploding-vehicle powerful.
Unless that ork is going at about mach 15 (stormboy?) that's a good bit more than S4.
S4 is also a fully automatic RPG launcher, aka. a bolter so you have a fair bit fitting under the S4 heading.
3/. When? Barring the rabid marine fanwank that is most of the BL books? I can only think of one occasion where someone in power armour was under 30 tons (of a shifting material, not a solid wall) and that was Mephiston getting buried under buildings so often he made it a hobby .
Even if the marines survived being trapped under 30+ tons of bulkhead they're going nowhere, as even ward wouldn't argue that a marine can deadlift 30 tons....at least so far.
Ignoring the bits where space marines get stepped on by Dreadnoughts and aren't instantly killed, or where Grimaldus survives a church falling on him, or any of the other fluff examples that you're willfully ignoring to make this point.
And your grasp of explosive theory is negligible
If you don't like my suggestion feel free (i really don't mind ) , but don't try to argue that stepping calmly out of a detonating vehicle mainly unwounded is realistic.
40K isn't realistic. It's fantasy. I know this.
I like mine to be a bit grittier (like having physics work, when the situation calls for it ) than you apparently do.
You're ignoring the fact that SM armor is made of the same stuff as they build their tanks out of and that TDA is even tougher still. You also ignore the fact that modern forces have survived exploding vehicles before, mainly by getting out before the vehicle goes up, and that not every exploded result means that the crew was inside when the explosion happened. If you really wanted to make the rules better you could replace the current system with an initiative test with +2 for open topped and +1 for assault vehicles. Models that fail take a hit equal to the weapon that nailed the vehicle. This would open the game up to buying safety systems to improve your passengers survival odds.
37700
Post by: Ascalam
Norade wrote:Ascalam wrote:1/. Until the plasma container is breached. Then you're sharing storage space with a small sun. Plasma weaponry has been heavily touted in the fluff as being unstable as hell anyway. The reason vehicles don't get hot is that hey can mount heat sinks, unlike infantry. It does jack if the canisters breach.
Except that even termies shrug off plasma from time to time and that is without the extra armor that a vehicle would have between them and an exploding plasma canister. You also seem to assume that these plasma containers aren't designed to vent their load even after taking horrific damage. This is the way modern tanks work with blowout panels that help channel the pressure wave from explosives up and out the top of the tank to aid the crew's survival.
The only reason Termies get to is the forcefield generators in their armour (5+ inv). The regular armour does jack against plasma. Plasma is literally as hot as the sun, which is why it punches through terminator armour like a hot cliche through butter. The tanks are not designed to survive solar temperatures, so they will melt.
Judging from the way they tend to vent boiling coolant all over their operators in the man-carried versions i'd imagine crew safety is not among the imperium's concerns. Plasma is held in a magnetic field box, generated by a power source. If this box is breached (even slightly) the plasma explodes out wherever the breach happens and reacts catastrophically with the environment outside the 'box'. If they 'vent their load' thus kablowie, thus death. The get's hot rule represents a coolant overheat, not a true plasma vent. If the vehicle gets blown up there is no coolant (it needs pumps and pumps need energy) and no magnetic field containment (no power) thus boom. Plasma is not something anyone sane wants to be anywhere near.
2/. S4 is an ork running up to you and punching you in the face. Powerful, sure, but hardly exploding-vehicle powerful.
Unless that ork is going at about mach 15 (stormboy?) that's a good bit more than S4.
S4 is also a fully automatic RPG launcher, aka. a bolter so you have a fair bit fitting under the S4 heading.
Firing a relatively small bullet (minirocket) that can be stopped by relatively light armour. Not really in the same class.
3/. When? Barring the rabid marine fanwank that is most of the BL books? I can only think of one occasion where someone in power armour was under 30 tons (of a shifting material, not a solid wall) and that was Mephiston getting buried under buildings so often he made it a hobby .
Even if the marines survived being trapped under 30+ tons of bulkhead they're going nowhere, as even ward wouldn't argue that a marine can deadlift 30 tons....at least so far.
Ignoring the bits where space marines get stepped on by Dreadnoughts and aren't instantly killed, or where Grimaldus survives a church falling on him, or any of the other fluff examples that you're willfully ignoring to make this point.
Or haven't read yet I'm not a fluff encyclopedia (yet). Dreads probably weigh a tad less than a land raider (or even half of one). When does someone get stepped on by a dread? I'm curious now
Church falling- = heavy pile o bricks, not a solid 30 ton block. (30 ton is not a defiitive weight.. likely Landraiders are far heavier ) Getting out from a pile of bricks is easier than from under a solid slab. There are vanilla humans in this world who have survived having buildings fall on them, so the feat isn't THAT impressive.
And your grasp of explosive theory is negligible
If you don't like my suggestion feel free (i really don't mind ) , but don't try to argue that stepping calmly out of a detonating vehicle mainly unwounded is realistic.
40K isn't realistic. It's fantasy. I know this.
I like mine to be a bit grittier (like having physics work, when the situation calls for it ) than you apparently do.
You're ignoring the fact that SM armor is made of the same stuff as they build their tanks out of and that TDA is even tougher still. You also ignore the fact that modern forces have survived exploding vehicles before, mainly by getting out before the vehicle goes up, and that not every exploded result means that the crew was inside when the explosion happened. If you really wanted to make the rules better you could replace the current system with an initiative test with +2 for open topped and +1 for assault vehicles. Models that fail take a hit equal to the weapon that nailed the vehicle. This would open the game up to buying safety systems to improve your passengers survival odds.
But both are far thinner than the tank armour in question. I'm not ignoring it.
True. However we are assuming the situation that a missile comes streaking across a battlefield while they are en route to somewhere (as they haven't disembarked) and hits before they have a chance to throw themselves clear. If we allow for them to have seen the supersonic missile launch, and bail out the current rules fit a bit better, but that is making a pretty huge assumption that everyone in a vehicle is hopped up on speed and precognitive.
Interesting idea on the initiative test. Might playtest that a bit. It will leave my orks being even slower to exit a vehicle than Master Chief, but hey..
42641
Post by: crocodoom
Every Race needs vehicles
Eg.
SM, lots, but mainly rhino
Orks, Looted tank, stompa, things like that. ( Dont forget da fighta bombas!! 
Eldar, Fire Prism
CSM, Rhinos are essential
IG, Vehicles make up half their army
Tau, Barracuda, Drone Harminger
Necron, Destroyer, monolith
DE, ( Sorry dont know much about them, edit this soon )
SoB, Excorcist
Tyranid, Carnifex I guess, but its more of a monstrous
14932
Post by: Norade
The only reason Termies get to is the forcefield generators in their armour (5+ inv). The regular armour does jack against plasma. Plasma is literally as hot as the sun, which is why it punches through terminator armour like a hot cliche through butter. The tanks are not designed to survive solar temperatures, so they will melt.
Judging from the way they tend to vent boiling coolant all over their operators in the man-carried versions i'd imagine crew safety is not among the imperium's concerns. Plasma is held in a magnetic field box, generated by a power source. If this box is breached (even slightly) the plasma explodes out wherever the breach happens and reacts catastrophically with the environment outside the 'box'. If they 'vent their load' thus kablowie, thus death. The get's hot rule represents a coolant overheat, not a true plasma vent. If the vehicle gets blown up there is no coolant (it needs pumps and pumps need energy) and no magnetic field containment (no power) thus boom. Plasma is not something anyone sane wants to be anywhere near.
Yes, so explain why that save doesn't work when the vehicle explodes when it even works versus Strength D weapons? You also ignore the fact that you can make sure that when power is shut off plasma vents out whichever side you want by simply making one side with a hatch atop it that will vent it straight up. You also seem to assume that you have a large volume of plasma ready to explode when it's far better to create plasma on demand by feeding gas or liquid into an intense heat source. Not to mention that without a containment method the Plasma will be incredibly diffuse and you'll be seeing less dense steam.
Firing a relatively small bullet (minirocket) that can be stopped by relatively light armour. Not really in the same class.
I assume you have the math to show the power of a bolter right? Well, thankfully I have and to get an average based on explosive power and not purely off of fluff.
Calculation wrote:Bolter: This weapons is unique and unlike with the AK-47 we have little to go by for real life comparisons so we must turn to the books and see what feats they have done to determine what data to use for them. What we do know is that they commonly blow head sized holes in unarmored people and have depleted uranium tips to aid in penetration, they are fired in 4 round bursts, and based on the cross section sections seen in 'Imperial Armour Volume 2: Space Marines and Forces of the Inquisition 2nd edition' can hold between 10 and 25 grams of explosive. Using a high explosive such as ONC, the best we can currently produce, that would give us a value of between 113,000 - 283,000 joules per round and 452,000 and 1,132,000 joules for a full burst. However we know that 40k has much more powerful explosives as evidenced by coin sized hand grenades being used by space marines in some fluff. Thus we must up our numbers by the average of 7.26 grams (coin sized explosive) and 180 grams (modern hand grenade) meaning that bolter shells are going to be between 2 and 24 times more powerful than modern explosives. This leaves us with a final value per bolt of 226,000 joules at the low end and 6,792,000 joules at the high end, averaging again to be fair, this leaves us with 3,500,000 joules per bolt meaning they are able to vaporize 110 mL of water and cause a fair bit more explosive damage.
For comparison to the bolter shell math a modern hand grenade releases 740,000 joules of explosive force.
So saying that shrugging a bolter round is trivial isn't really on the mark. We also know from fluff that bolter rounds do punch through and kill people in carapace armor just as they do on the tabletop.
Or haven't read yet I'm not a fluff encyclopedia (yet). Dreads probably weigh a tad less than a land raider (or even half of one). When does someone get stepped on by a dread? I'm curious now
Church falling- = heavy pile o bricks, not a solid 30 ton block. (30 ton is not a defiitive weight.. likely Landraiders are far heavier ) Getting out from a pile of bricks is easier than from under a solid slab. There are vanilla humans in this world who have survived having buildings fall on them, so the feat isn't THAT impressive.
I'm drawing a blank on the name of the book, so I'll get back to you when I can find it.
But both are far thinner than the tank armour in question. I'm not ignoring it.
True. However we are assuming the situation that a missile comes streaking across a battlefield while they are en route to somewhere (as they haven't disembarked) and hits before they have a chance to throw themselves clear. If we allow for them to have seen the supersonic missile launch, and bail out the current rules fit a bit better, but that is making a pretty huge assumption that everyone in a vehicle is hopped up on speed and precognitive.
Interesting idea on the initiative test. Might playtest that a bit. It will leave my orks being even slower to exit a vehicle than Master Chief, but hey..
You're ignoring early warning systems that even modern tanks have and the fact that at least in some cases the forces in question are precognitive and likely on speed. Also, don't bring MC up, I have many posts proving that he's not all that versus modern weapons let alone 40k doom guns.
42203
Post by: Lord Magnus
A discussion about whether or not we should use vehicles on the tabletop has turned into a debate on the safety of the passengers in an exploding transport. We are also trying to apply REAL LIFE to 40K which is not practical. Don't compare 40k to today, its a whole different animal.
37700
Post by: Ascalam
Norade wrote:The only reason Termies get to is the forcefield generators in their armour (5+ inv). The regular armour does jack against plasma. Plasma is literally as hot as the sun, which is why it punches through terminator armour like a hot cliche through butter. The tanks are not designed to survive solar temperatures, so they will melt.
Judging from the way they tend to vent boiling coolant all over their operators in the man-carried versions i'd imagine crew safety is not among the imperium's concerns. Plasma is held in a magnetic field box, generated by a power source. If this box is breached (even slightly) the plasma explodes out wherever the breach happens and reacts catastrophically with the environment outside the 'box'. If they 'vent their load' thus kablowie, thus death. The get's hot rule represents a coolant overheat, not a true plasma vent. If the vehicle gets blown up there is no coolant (it needs pumps and pumps need energy) and no magnetic field containment (no power) thus boom. Plasma is not something anyone sane wants to be anywhere near.
Yes, so explain why that save doesn't work when the vehicle explodes when it even works versus Strength D weapons? You also ignore the fact that you can make sure that when power is shut off plasma vents out whichever side you want by simply making one side with a hatch atop it that will vent it straight up. You also seem to assume that you have a large volume of plasma ready to explode when it's far better to create plasma on demand by feeding gas or liquid into an intense heat source. Not to mention that without a containment method the Plasma will be incredibly diffuse and you'll be seeing less dense steam.
*shrug* Not fussed. You could allow inv saves if present. Mind you that said i think a man portable forcefield working agaisnt titan/oribital weponry is a bit silly.
I assume the volume of plasma based on fluff about the plasma canisters exploding like small suns (without necessarily being exposed to massive heat on impact. Da Rippa fires them as ammo from an ogryn ripper gun, which is effectively a rotary grenade launcher that normally fires solids.
Firing a relatively small bullet (minirocket) that can be stopped by relatively light armour. Not really in the same class.
I assume you have the math to show the power of a bolter right? Well, thankfully I have and to get an average based on explosive power and not purely off of fluff.
Calculation wrote:Bolter: This weapons is unique and unlike with the AK-47 we have little to go by for real life comparisons so we must turn to the books and see what feats they have done to determine what data to use for them. What we do know is that they commonly blow head sized holes in unarmored people and have depleted uranium tips to aid in penetration, they are fired in 4 round bursts, and based on the cross section sections seen in 'Imperial Armour Volume 2: Space Marines and Forces of the Inquisition 2nd edition' can hold between 10 and 25 grams of explosive. Using a high explosive such as ONC, the best we can currently produce, that would give us a value of between 113,000 - 283,000 joules per round and 452,000 and 1,132,000 joules for a full burst. However we know that 40k has much more powerful explosives as evidenced by coin sized hand grenades being used by space marines in some fluff. Thus we must up our numbers by the average of 7.26 grams (coin sized explosive) and 180 grams (modern hand grenade) meaning that bolter shells are going to be between 2 and 24 times more powerful than modern explosives. This leaves us with a final value per bolt of 226,000 joules at the low end and 6,792,000 joules at the high end, averaging again to be fair, this leaves us with 3,500,000 joules per bolt meaning they are able to vaporize 110 mL of water and cause a fair bit more explosive damage.
For comparison to the bolter shell math a modern hand grenade releases 740,000 joules of explosive force.
So saying that shrugging a bolter round is trivial isn't really on the mark. We also know from fluff that bolter rounds do punch through and kill people in carapace armor just as they do on the tabletop.
That they do. It can be stopped by carapace though, and often will (50/50). Also bear in mind that rockets don't deliver all their energy at the barrel. They need time to build speed. (also that i doubt GW actually maths real explosives for their fluff effects. An charging ork fist (same strength) should be autokilling guard too by your math, hitting like tnt. It doesn't, in the fluff. Tau rifles should be hitting so hard that people are blasted off their feet by the energy exchange, as they're even higher strength. The guy who gets used as a footrug by a dread ought to be dead, but as a SM he's plot armoured.
Or haven't read yet I'm not a fluff encyclopedia (yet). Dreads probably weigh a tad less than a land raider (or even half of one). When does someone get stepped on by a dread? I'm curious now
Church falling- = heavy pile o bricks, not a solid 30 ton block. (30 ton is not a defiitive weight.. likely Landraiders are far heavier ) Getting out from a pile of bricks is easier than from under a solid slab. There are vanilla humans in this world who have survived having buildings fall on them, so the feat isn't THAT impressive.
I'm drawing a blank on the name of the book, so I'll get back to you when I can find it.
Cool. Sounds interesting.
But both are far thinner than the tank armour in question. I'm not ignoring it.
True. However we are assuming the situation that a missile comes streaking across a battlefield while they are en route to somewhere (as they haven't disembarked) and hits before they have a chance to throw themselves clear. If we allow for them to have seen the supersonic missile launch, and bail out the current rules fit a bit better, but that is making a pretty huge assumption that everyone in a vehicle is hopped up on speed and precognitive.
Interesting idea on the initiative test. Might playtest that a bit. It will leave my orks being even slower to exit a vehicle than Master Chief, but hey..
You're ignoring early warning systems that even modern tanks have and the fact that at least in some cases the forces in question are precognitive and likely on speed. Also, don't bring MC up, I have many posts proving that he's not all that versus modern weapons let alone 40k doom guns.
I'm aware of the 'panic button' that denotes a lockon. Trust me, an APC that has been locked and is moving at speed (ie not stationary) would not have time to bail troops. They would stay in, and hope for the armour to save them, or try to bail, but likely not make it.
True.. The Dark Eldar come to mind on that...
I mentioned MC for his lamentable inability to throw himself from a vehicle before a missile hits from the other end of a map. His fluff/books/action figure matter little to me
41554
Post by: Your Friend Doctor Robert
Norade wrote: 3/. When? Barring the rabid marine fanwank that is most of the BL books? I can only think of one occasion where someone in power armour was under 30 tons (of a shifting material, not a solid wall) and that was Mephiston getting buried under buildings so often he made it a hobby . Even if the marines survived being trapped under 30+ tons of bulkhead they're going nowhere, as even ward wouldn't argue that a marine can deadlift 30 tons....at least so far.
Ignoring the bits where space marines get stepped on by Dreadnoughts and aren't instantly killed, or where Grimaldus survives a church falling on him, or any of the other fluff examples that you're willfully ignoring to make this point.
People survive being buried by tons of stuff all the time. Every major earthquake they spend the first few days just digging people up. In any case we're off topic. I do like the idea of problems with vehicle mounted Plasma weapons. Coolant Breach: Whenever a weapon with Gets Hot is removed from a vehicle by a Weapon Destroyed result(or similar) the vehicle automatically takes a single hit against Rear armor from that weapon.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Norade wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Let us be honest with each other.
The game wasn't designed for vehicles in the numbers that SM and IG armies can put on tabletop because they are so cheap, and effective at letting the troops shoot from inside.
Care to back that statement up with some actual facts?
The IG Codex.
The SM Codexes.
Everyone else's codexes.
The number of SM and IG codex armies seen at tournaments in vehicles.
Everyones' complaints about vehicles.
14932
Post by: Norade
Kilkrazy wrote:Norade wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Let us be honest with each other.
The game wasn't designed for vehicles in the numbers that SM and IG armies can put on tabletop because they are so cheap, and effective at letting the troops shoot from inside.
Care to back that statement up with some actual facts?
The IG Codex.
The SM Codexes.
Everyone else's codexes.
The number of SM and IG codex armies seen at tournaments in vehicles.
Everyones' complaints about vehicles.
None of this proves that the game wasn't designed around a large number of transports and it in fact goes to show that the designers likely wanted people to use transports more often by making them so cost effective. You'll also notice that not everybody has complaints about vehicles, some are just louder than others. The fact of the matter is, people buying rhinos for armies that in previous editions played on foot makes GW a ton of money and they enjoy it. Next edition they may go back to foot hordes being great and force people to buy more models that way.
8620
Post by: DAaddict
Norade wrote: None of this proves that the game wasn't designed around a large number of transports and it in fact goes to show that the designers likely wanted people to use transports more often by making them so cost effective. You'll also notice that not everybody has complaints about vehicles, some are just louder than others. The fact of the matter is, people buying rhinos for armies that in previous editions played on foot makes GW a ton of money and they enjoy it. Next edition they may go back to foot hordes being great and force people to buy more models that way.
It just hits some of us as very ham-handed to lower the cost of vehicles @ 33 %, modify the vehicle charts to make vehicles about 50% more survivable and then remove the minuses of being in a penetrated vehicle. It is just a big change from 4th edition.
Agreed it is primarily a sales ploy as every marine can afford to field at least one more rhino and squad inside so it improves sales by about $60 per marine player. I am just wincing thinking of the tau codex dropping the cost of fish by about 30 points and eldar etc to bring them in line with the reduced costs of rhinos, chimera and predators.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The cost of vehicles was only reduced for some vehicles and armies, mainly the IoM army transports.
It certainly didn't change Ork, Tau, Eldar, and Necron vehicle costs because these were all assigned under earlier edition rules, while Tyranids don't have vehicles at all.
The game is also supposedly designed around points costs providing balance, and this clearly isn't true. So it's wrong to claim the game is correctly designed.
14932
Post by: Norade
Kilkrazy wrote:The cost of vehicles was only reduced for some vehicles and armies, mainly the IoM army transports.
It certainly didn't change Ork, Tau, Eldar, and Necron vehicle costs because these were all assigned under earlier edition rules, while Tyranids don't have vehicles at all.
The game is also supposedly designed around points costs providing balance, and this clearly isn't true. So it's wrong to claim the game is correctly designed.
It's wrong to say that a new codex is balanced versus the old when old ones will be updated in due time (or not for Necrons).
29408
Post by: Melissia
Actually, Necrons are next.
14932
Post by: Norade
Melissia wrote:Actually, Necrons are next.
I know, I was referring to the timely part.
8620
Post by: DAaddict
Kilkrazy wrote:The cost of vehicles was only reduced for some vehicles and armies, mainly the IoM army transports.
It certainly didn't change Ork, Tau, Eldar, and Necron vehicle costs because these were all assigned under earlier edition rules, while Tyranids don't have vehicles at all.
The game is also supposedly designed around points costs providing balance, and this clearly isn't true. So it's wrong to claim the game is correctly designed.
Agreed it is IoM. I don't know about you but the opponents I see are at least 50% IoM. Also the reason none of the races have seen a reduction in cost... as I recall
it has been Deamons and Tyrannid to go with BA, SW, and GK so the fact that they have seen no decrease is a moot point.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Norade wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:The cost of vehicles was only reduced for some vehicles and armies, mainly the IoM army transports.
It certainly didn't change Ork, Tau, Eldar, and Necron vehicle costs because these were all assigned under earlier edition rules, while Tyranids don't have vehicles at all.
The game is also supposedly designed around points costs providing balance, and this clearly isn't true. So it's wrong to claim the game is correctly designed.
It's wrong to say that a new codex is balanced versus the old when old ones will be updated in due time (or not for Necrons).
The game rules state early on that forces are balanced by points costs. That clearly isn't true.
Various codexes are now years out of date. It's very noticeable that Imperial codexes published in 5th edition have cheap, effective transport vehicles. It's no use if the out of date Xeno books get updated shortly before a new edition outdates them.
Why should users accept that situation as right and proper?
14932
Post by: Norade
Kilkrazy wrote:Norade wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:The cost of vehicles was only reduced for some vehicles and armies, mainly the IoM army transports.
It certainly didn't change Ork, Tau, Eldar, and Necron vehicle costs because these were all assigned under earlier edition rules, while Tyranids don't have vehicles at all.
The game is also supposedly designed around points costs providing balance, and this clearly isn't true. So it's wrong to claim the game is correctly designed.
It's wrong to say that a new codex is balanced versus the old when old ones will be updated in due time (or not for Necrons).
The game rules state early on that forces are balanced by points costs. That clearly isn't true.
Various codexes are now years out of date. It's very noticeable that Imperial codexes published in 5th edition have cheap, effective transport vehicles. It's no use if the out of date Xeno books get updated shortly before a new edition outdates them.
Why should users accept that situation as right and proper?
That's always been the way of things and a blanket ban on vehicles is frankly not the way to go about fixing things. While some lists have worse vehicle costs than others things like the Monolith may not be cheaper but they require S9 or higher to kill now and the Eldar and Tau still got the vehicle toughness upgrade.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I don't advocate a blanket ban on vehicles.
Also, it wasn't always the way of things in first to third editions, or in other SF games. The lack of timely and balanced Codex updates started with GW during 3rd edition.
14932
Post by: Norade
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't advocate a blanket ban on vehicles.
Also, it wasn't always the way of things in first to third editions, or in other SF games. The lack of timely and balanced Codex updates started with GW during 3rd edition.
I'd totally agree that they should have balanced Codex updates that ensure that all armies are updated at least once an edition just to keep things fair.
42033
Post by: Ysclyth
I know that transports are quite cheap and I do believe they could use some tweaking, especially for some of those high toughness armies. But as a DE player, I consider making explosions more deadly to hurt to no end. Considering transports are open topped skimmers, the relative ease with which you can destroy the vehicle, the low toughness, and armor save values on most of the units in the vehicle. I can expect making explosions very costly to DE.
But, I have no problem with restricting vehicles that have armor that add up to over 33, or turning vehicles into MCs. Both those options make me very happy.
14932
Post by: Norade
Why does everybody think this stupid idea of limiting armor values for transports is such a great idea? Necrons would be even worse with it and if the idea is to balance older with new then you already fail with this change. Not to mention that while I'm sure a DE player would love the enemy to have vehicles that are only marginally more powerful than they have forcing the enemy not to have predators or dreadnoughts is frankly slowed in anything resembling a fair game. It also does nothing to stop the main issue which is transport spam.
The best idea to make transports more risky is to have a simple initiative test on a D6 for explodes results; with bonuses for open topped and assault transports. Anything that fails gets nothing but an invulnerable save and multiwound models are just considered tough enough to pull themselves from the wreckage. Wrecked results are treated the same as they are now with 1d6 4 wounds inflicted on the squad bailing out. Transports are still good, but not so powerful as before.
41268
Post by: Deepeyes
I don't think most vehicles are an issue as they are restricted by the FOC. The problem comes from dedicated transports. I personally think they should be restricted by an updated FOC. Maybe 3 (like heavy support). Also changing the rules so they have to be out of their transport to capture objectives might help.
37827
Post by: Eyesedragon
I have a simple solution for all the whining ....go play warhammer( or another game) 40k is all about vehicles period...
37700
Post by: Ascalam
The Nids might argue with you on that.
Say MC's and vehicles and i'd probably agree
Big impressive and tough stuff that romps through the other side until killed by something equally badass..
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
several armies would be rather screwed without vehicles, especially with restricted transports. Eldar, Tau and Dark Eldar especially. Vehicles are a part of Warhammer 40,000, and armies are designed around their inclusion. Restricting them in the way that is proposed would lead for a far greater imbalance than the purported problem that is trying to be solved, and result in far less fun games than one would think once the whole "oh yay no vehicles" mentality wears off.
11920
Post by: Avrik_Shasla
I understand the hatred here for vehicles because of that IG list, but I've got a simple solution.
Stop playing Warhammer 40k, that's what I did. The most recent codex's have turned 40k a very unbalanced game.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Avrik_Shasla wrote:I understand the hatred here for vehicles because of that IG list, but I've got a simple solution.
Stop playing Warhammer 40k, that's what I did. The most recent codex's have turned 40k a very unbalanced game.
40k is no more imbalanced now than it has been in the past, in fact it's probably better now than in previous editions (though that's not saying much). It's just that different armies are on top now than were on top 2/3/4/5 years ago. We certainly don't have anything like the ridiculousness of 4E Eldar, 3E Blood Angels or anything as abuseable as CSM 3.5 was during its time, and nothing like 2E Eldar and Space Wolves (though admittedly the current SW book is a wee bit overboard).
44185
Post by: CountDeath
Maybe to lessen vehicles an idea would be to limit an army to a certain armour value rating.
This idea is used in some local tournaments I've seen.
43032
Post by: King Pariah
personally, I've never cared how many vehicles are brought onto the field by my opponents. I play crons and my heavy destroyers tend to chew them up pretty good. I also have (soon will be had) a Monolith but I rarely play it.
39444
Post by: gr1m_dan
It's definitely a tough point to call really...
I'm not a vehicle spammer with Tau but with my Sisters I NEED to spam Rhinos as much as possible to get my darlings in to the face of the op. Without them I would be pretty much screwed.
However I have seen battles in Warhammer World were on a standard table the amount of tanks taken by some armies just looks too cluttered and even end up getting in the way of each other.
I play Tau and Sisters so anti-tank isn't really a problem. It's always funny shooting Rhinos with a Railgun (Yes, I know that's what missile pods are for but sometimes you don't have anything else to shoot at!)
42033
Post by: Ysclyth
Eyesedragon wrote:I have a simple solution for all the whining ....go play warhammer( or another game) 40k is all about vehicles period...
I would disagree that 40k should be "all about vehicles" I think it should be integral in the strategy of the game. I also think that perhaps making them costly to use either in risk or in points would render more armies that don't have EVERYTHING in a transport.
8620
Post by: DAaddict
The problem is purely with IoM. Surely a Tau or Eldar can mech up but at 100+ points per vehicle, plus 100+ per troop you are at most going to be facing 9 vehicles in 1850. IoM on the other hand can spam razorbacks or rhinos or even chimeras to put anyone else to shame. It is the 35 pt rhino or the 75 pt razorback that is the core problem.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Vaktathi wrote:Avrik_Shasla wrote:I understand the hatred here for vehicles because of that IG list, but I've got a simple solution.
Stop playing Warhammer 40k, that's what I did. The most recent codex's have turned 40k a very unbalanced game.
40k is no more imbalanced now than it has been in the past, in fact it's probably better now than in previous editions (though that's not saying much). It's just that different armies are on top now than were on top 2/3/4/5 years ago. We certainly don't have anything like the ridiculousness of 4E Eldar, 3E Blood Angels or anything as abuseable as CSM 3.5 was during its time, and nothing like 2E Eldar and Space Wolves (though admittedly the current SW book is a wee bit overboard).
Surely balance should mean that no codex is on top.
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Kilkrazy wrote:Vaktathi wrote:Avrik_Shasla wrote:I understand the hatred here for vehicles because of that IG list, but I've got a simple solution.
Stop playing Warhammer 40k, that's what I did. The most recent codex's have turned 40k a very unbalanced game.
40k is no more imbalanced now than it has been in the past, in fact it's probably better now than in previous editions (though that's not saying much). It's just that different armies are on top now than were on top 2/3/4/5 years ago. We certainly don't have anything like the ridiculousness of 4E Eldar, 3E Blood Angels or anything as abuseable as CSM 3.5 was during its time, and nothing like 2E Eldar and Space Wolves (though admittedly the current SW book is a wee bit overboard).
Surely balance should mean that no codex is on top.
I agree, and I wasn't saying it is anything near perfectly balanced, only that it isn't any worse than it has been in the past and is probably actually a little better.
8620
Post by: DAaddict
Vaktathi wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Vaktathi wrote:Avrik_Shasla wrote:I understand the hatred here for vehicles because of that IG list, but I've got a simple solution.
Stop playing Warhammer 40k, that's what I did. The most recent codex's have turned 40k a very unbalanced game.
40k is no more imbalanced now than it has been in the past, in fact it's probably better now than in previous editions (though that's not saying much). It's just that different armies are on top now than were on top 2/3/4/5 years ago. We certainly don't have anything like the ridiculousness of 4E Eldar, 3E Blood Angels or anything as abuseable as CSM 3.5 was during its time, and nothing like 2E Eldar and Space Wolves (though admittedly the current SW book is a wee bit overboard).
Surely balance should mean that no codex is on top.
I agree, and I wasn't saying it is anything near perfectly balanced, only that it isn't any worse than it has been in the past and is probably actually a little better.
The perceived imbalance is a combination of three things:
1. Reduced codex cost of dedicated transports. (e.g. Rhino from 50 to 35 - power razorbacks from 90 to 75)
2. Improved survivability of all vehicles due to the 5th edition charts. (With the exception of skimmers who lost the auto glance if moving.)
3. Reduced rammifications of being in a penetrated vehicle.
All 3 of these changes have made vehicle-based armies superior to on foot despite the fact that it is a reduction in firepower. And even that is a fallacy when you look at the cost of a full 10 man Tac squad versus a 5-man squad and a razorback. People are not stupid and realize that a cheap survivable box that also can block LOS is more valuable than 2 or 3 marines for the same cost.
|
|
