Something simple to address the vulnerability of vehicles to being glanced to death, does what it says on the tin - ignore every glancing hit beyond the first in a (player) turn. There are some issues here - notably in the assault phase - but I'm not sure that making walkers tough as hell in CC is actually much of a downside. More worrying is going up against a slew of light vehicles, or trying to penetrate a half-dozen OS droppods. Alternatives might be only one glance per phase, or this rule only applying to non Open-Topped vehicles.

So you want to make Necrons and AM even worse at AT?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So you want to make Necrons and AM even worse at AT?

Yes, I feel like the Necron ability to evaporate any vehicle within 24" of a Ghost Ark is probably a little too strong.

So what about AM?

And you made Stompas, Baneblades, and some other Superheavies immortal now.

No, just give vehicles a 4+ vs shooting glances. That largely fixes the problem.

Just no.

You do realise it's not just necrons taking that nerf right?

DE use haywire scourges for anti armour as they don't have anything reliable enough otherwise.


Why do people aim to nerf a certain army without realising it nerfs an already bad army even more?


For some armies you just removed their only reliable ways of hunting armour.

It also leads to an odd situation where one vehicle is better than two (one 4-HP Land Raider takes longer to kill than five 3-HP Predators).

Personally I think just bumping HP/AV up (see: 30k, wherein 4-5HP non-superheavies are commonplace and the Predator-equivalent is 13-12-12, and tanks actually feel like tanks) is a better solution to making vehicles harder to glance out than all these weird sweeping changes to the damage system.

 raverrn wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So you want to make Necrons and AM even worse at AT?

Yes, I feel like the Necron ability to evaporate any vehicle within 24" of a Ghost Ark is probably a little too strong.

Evaporate? Do show the math of the evaporation please. Go ahead. I insist.

Well, assuming it's within 12" and has 10 Warriors inside, that's 30 Gauss Shots at BS 4. 20 hits, and around 3 HP. Now, that is 235 points of AV 13/13/11 Open-Toppedness...

Edit: Oh, 24"? That's only 20 shots if it has its full complement of Warriors. 40/3 hits, 40/18 or 20/9 glances, or just over 2.

So it'll kill a Landspeeder? That doesn't jink.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Well, assuming it's within 12" and has 10 Warriors inside, that's 30 Gauss Shots at BS 4. 20 hits, and around 3 HP. Now, that is 235 points of AV 13/13/11 Open-Toppedness...

Edit: Oh, 24"? That's only 20 shots if it has its full complement of Warriors. 40/3 hits, 40/18 or 20/9 glances, or just over 2.

So it'll kill a Landspeeder? That doesn't jink.

I was more wanting the OP to show the work to make them prove themselves wrong, but oh well.

Outside of Gause do Necrons actually have a ranged weapon that will dent a Land Raider?

Who carex? Land raider is NOT a meta consideration.

No, just NO! Reason being APCs would rule, you won't be able to destroy enough before they unload; I like the upping HP idea, but then there need to be a overhaul on the pts system.

Martel732 wrote:
Who carex? Land raider is NOT a meta consideration.

I carex. Land Raider is a meta consideration when you run it with the Ironwolves detachment, there's scarier things to shoot at when there are TWC and Wulfen sniffing about and raising their legs on red Space Marines...possibly a tad too far that.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Outside of Gause do Necrons actually have a ranged weapon that will dent a Land Raider?

Anything with Heavy Gauss Cannons. That's Heavy Destroyers and Triarch Stalkers.

The Monolith has a Battle Cannon equivalent but nobody cares about that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Outside of Gause do Necrons actually have a ranged weapon that will dent a Land Raider?

Anything with Heavy Gauss Cannons. That's Heavy Destroyers and Triarch Stalkers.

The Monolith has a Battle Cannon equivalent but nobody cares about that.

It would be nice if the land raider was good vs at least a few armies.

I still wouldn't take it. I'd rather rely on Deep Strike for a maybe T3 charge instead of trying to rely on the world's worst speed bump/board decor.

This would change vehicles from being underpowered to incredibly overpowered - Low AV becomes effectively immune to mid-strength firepower that would previously be a counter to it, and High AV becomes immune to tons of things that could previously be relied on to chip it away.

Here's a thing I proposed a while ago to reduce the effectiveness of glances: give vehicles a "save" against glances where the glance only strips a hull point if the attacker rolls ≥ the AP of the weapon . E.g. If an AP4 weapon glances you, it only counts if they can roll a 4+. Mitigates against glances, and has the added bonus of making dedicated high-strength/low-AP weaponry more effective against tanks than just high-RoF, mid-strength guns.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Outside of Gause do Necrons actually have a ranged weapon that will dent a Land Raider?

Anything with Heavy Gauss Cannons. That's Heavy Destroyers and Triarch Stalkers.

The Monolith has a Battle Cannon equivalent but nobody cares about that.

Funny that, bit like the Land Raider in that respect.
Would you bother shelling a Land Raider with your troops if it had a natural 4+ save?

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Outside of Gause do Necrons actually have a ranged weapon that will dent a Land Raider?

Anything with Heavy Gauss Cannons. That's Heavy Destroyers and Triarch Stalkers.

The Monolith has a Battle Cannon equivalent but nobody cares about that.

Funny that, bit like the Land Raider in that respect.
Would you bother shelling a Land Raider with your troops if it had a natural 4+ save?

Depends the situation. If my opponent's eggs were all in that single basket, absolutely. If it is just 5-6 Vanguard or Honour Guard, I'd just let the charge happen and kill them next turn.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Outside of Gause do Necrons actually have a ranged weapon that will dent a Land Raider?

Anything with Heavy Gauss Cannons. That's Heavy Destroyers and Triarch Stalkers.

The Monolith has a Battle Cannon equivalent but nobody cares about that.

Funny that, bit like the Land Raider in that respect.
Would you bother shelling a Land Raider with your troops if it had a natural 4+ save?

Depends the situation. If my opponent's eggs were all in that single basket, absolutely. If it is just 5-6 Vanguard or Honour Guard, I'd just let the charge happen and kill them next turn.

That's a fair response, flexible too.
If you'd said "No" I'd have actually been against the 4+ but since you say "Depends" I'd propose it as an optional, like Extra Armour that actually does something useful, a costed upgrade.
For the record, I load mine with Wulfen. Makes for a properly difficult descision between stopping TWC and stopping a Landraider filled with slobbering death dealers.

Personally I would prefer a save against glances; maybe something like roll equal or under Hull Points on a D6 (6 always fails).

Means most vehicles would have a 50% chance to ignore a glance initially, Land Raiders and such a 66% chance. Super Heavies will be mostly 6's to fail only until they've taken some meaningful damage.

 Haravikk wrote:
Personally I would prefer a save against glances; maybe something like roll equal or under Hull Points on a D6 (6 always fails).

Means most vehicles would have a 50% chance to ignore a glance initially, Land Raiders and such a 66% chance. Super Heavies will be mostly 6's to fail only until they've taken some meaningful damage.

That's actually a really cool idea.
Exalted.

The problem here is battle company with up to 10+ free vehicles in an army. Not only are you dealing with 400+ points of free transports, but now they're harder to kill as well.

This type of rule will just shift the meta back to MSU-mechspam again.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Simple solution would be to increase all vehicles by +1 HP. Makes them tougher to deal with but not game-breakingly good.

 jy2 wrote:
The problem here is battle company with up to 10+ free vehicles in an army. Not only are you dealing with 400+ points of free transports, but now they're harder to kill as well.

This type of rule will just shift the meta back to MSU-mechspam again.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Simple solution would be to increase all vehicles by +1 HP. Makes them tougher to deal with but not game-breakingly good.

MSU mech spam is so much better than the Apoc garbage like Super Heavies and GMCs we have running about at present.

 jy2 wrote:
The problem here is battle company with up to 10+ free vehicles in an army. Not only are you dealing with 400+ points of free transports, but now they're harder to kill as well.

This type of rule will just shift the meta back to MSU-mechspam again.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Simple solution would be to increase all vehicles by +1 HP. Makes them tougher to deal with but not game-breakingly good.

+1HP doesn't really solve the issue, though, because it helps light vehicles with a couple hull points and feth armor a lot more than it helps big ones with good armor plating. I don't want to see 4HP Rhinos, when rhino spam is already super common.

Vehicles may be glanced once per turn means that armies like orks or dark eldar would have no chance to wreck a single vehicle in their shooting phase.

Not everyone has D weapons, melta, grav, ranged s9-10 ap1-2 with bs4... only a few armies can wreck an av14 vehicle from distance.

Why improving SM vehicles while they're still the best army in the current meta with eldar?

AM has some issues but IMHO only because they're too static, they need to change their style of play (maybe 4-5 units in chimeras/taurox and a couple in vendettas) and their tanks are actually very good against at least half of the armies available.

If you like an army with 5+ vehicles that stay where they are the entire game and they only shoot it's your problem if that tactic is not going to repay you.

Playing against a list that is mostly composed by immortal vehicles that do nothing else than shooting would be extremely boring. IMHO AM tanks are tough enough.

 Nazrak wrote:
Here's a thing I proposed a while ago to reduce the effectiveness of glances: give vehicles a "save" against glances where the glance only strips a hull point if the attacker rolls ≥ the AP of the weapon . E.g. If an AP4 weapon glances you, it only counts if they can roll a 4+. Mitigates against glances, and has the added bonus of making dedicated high-strength/low-AP weaponry more effective against tanks than just high-RoF, mid-strength guns.

I like the idea. Would need some rebalancing but idea is nice one.

And no for the OP's idea. GW went to hull points to prevent rhino's that simply refuse to die. Went too far but this would be too far back again(very GW'ish move though...)

 jy2 wrote:
The problem here is battle company with up to 10+ free vehicles in an army.

IMO that's the start and end of that debate; it's simply a bad design decision, so the only real solution is to disallow it.
It doesn't weaken the battle company really, as it's already good without a heap of free stuff since the vast majority of units are already strong, and the formation bonuses are already good, so there's not much need for more bonuses over being able to take a whole detachment of formations.

 Haravikk wrote:
Personally I would prefer a save against glances; maybe something like roll equal or under Hull Points on a D6 (6 always fails).

Means most vehicles would have a 50% chance to ignore a glance initially, Land Raiders and such a 66% chance. Super Heavies will be mostly 6's to fail only until they've taken some meaningful damage.

Is the save on Hull points remaining? Or total/starting hull points? I can see fluff or balance reasons either way.

The more beat-up a vehicle gets, the less resilient it will be. OR plasteel/ceramite armor being what it is, it either stands, or fails catastrophically.

I like the 4+ concept, but I would modify it a little.

Either set it so each Vehicle's different like units, OR:
Tanks get a 4+ Armour Save
Non-Tanks get a 5+ Armour Save

Armour Save allows for certain Weapons to have an advantage they don't normally have (i.e. Krak Missiles) and "lock" in a Glance more easily, while providing a hindrance to light arms (like Warrior spam).

 pumaman1 wrote:

 Haravikk wrote:
Personally I would prefer a save against glances; maybe something like roll equal or under Hull Points on a D6 (6 always fails).

Means most vehicles would have a 50% chance to ignore a glance initially, Land Raiders and such a 66% chance. Super Heavies will be mostly 6's to fail only until they've taken some meaningful damage.

Is the save on Hull points remaining? Or total/starting hull points? I can see fluff or balance reasons either way.

I was thinking HP remaining; so a Super Heavy for example would be largely immune to glancing until it takes a few solid hits from something that can reasonably threaten it, after which its armour is compromised or whatever so glancing to death gets easier and easier. For weaker armies in terms of anti-tank it puts more emphasis on popping the rear armour with melta equivalent weapons before you can Haywire equivalent it to death.

Vehicles already can have a 4+ or 5+ cover save by using terrain or other units, why adding an armor save when every weapon that can hurt them is ap4 or better?

 Blackie wrote:
Vehicles already can have a 4+ or 5+ cover save by using terrain or other units, why adding an armor save when every weapon that can hurt them is ap4 or better?

Multilaser is s6 ap-, melle weapons on rear armor like chainswords can glance on 6's, ap-.

Melta/armorbane would be largely/entirely unaffected. but my firewarriors gunning down front armor of a rhino with s5ap5 so glancing on 6's would at least give the rhino a chance to participate

How about the first Glance a vehicle suffers per phase does not cause it to lose an HP, but causes Shaken instead?
Subsequent Glances in the same phase will strip a HP and may cause Stunned on a further 4+?

This way it is harder to Glance a vehicle to death, but you can "suppress" it easier instead.

Or, ya know, give vehicles Armour Saves. AV does does not adequately represent T & Sv combined like GW wants it to
It more or less just represents T. I like rolling Str + D6 against AV. It should feel different than rolling Str v T on a chart.
But Armour is Armour. Give every vehicle in 40K an Armour save along with it's AV

When 8th ed is released, there should either be a conversion chart for AV, +1 for Tank, -1 for Open-topped = X+ sv. Or just give every actual entry an set Sv, similar to how 6th ed (or was it 5th?) gave each existing vehicle Hull points

-

You guys still aren't taking specific armies into consideration when throwing around these ideas.

 pumaman1 wrote:

but my firewarriors gunning down front armor of a rhino with s5ap5 so glancing on 6's would at least give the rhino a chance to participate

Give that rhino some cover save in order to save some HP.... if vehicles gain armor or invuln saves many armies wouldn't have the slightest chance to wreck them. If a vehicle gets caught in close combat IMHO is ok if it's glanced by rolling 6s hitting the rear.

Maybe it could be fair if the vehicle has a 4+ save but if it passes it has to snap fire next turn, even if it hasn't lost any HP. Making shooty tanks tougher than now would be bad IMHO, many armies still have a lot of issues in wrecking high AV vehicles, not everyone plays eldar, tau necrons or SM.

"not everyone plays eldar, tau necrons or SM."

Vehicles have so many weaknesses that everyone can exploit vehicles in one way or another.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You guys still aren't taking specific armies into consideration when throwing around these ideas.

I think we are more than you think. Those that will have problems with some of these changes already had problems dealing with them before.

Martel732 wrote:


Vehicles have so many weaknesses that everyone can exploit vehicles in one way or another.

Some armies have just 1-2 ways to wreck vehicles actually, some can only hurt them in close combat which means that at least 1-2 turns those vehicles can shoot everything they can without problems. Orks and DE for example don't have those many options, unless they bring tailored lists. But both of them can destroy on average just 1-2 AV12 vehicles in a single turn of shooting, orks have not a chance to wreck a AV14 tank by shooting, even with 3 units of tankbustas. Tyranids can't wreck AV14 in their shooting phase, same for SW. I don't play chaos or daemons and I'm not extremely familiar with them but I doubt they can easily kill a AV13-14 vehicle in the first 1-2 turns. Harlequins have only some haywire and they need to get closer. With the excpetion of the usually 4-5 overpowered armies AV14 is still tough for the majoirty of the factions.

An army with the majority of the list composed by vehicles should have problems, IMHO is totally fair. It's like orks players that still want to field efficiently mobs of 30 boyz on foot in order to bring 90-120 boyz, when it's way better relying on trukk boyz or battlewagons, and they complain about that.

The point is that you can ignore almost any vehicle in the game for multiple turns. It takes squadrons of tanks all game to do what a scat pack does in one turn. And then they all crumble in assault anyway. As opposed to MCs, who own you in assault.

Can't wreck AV 14? Who cares? Your opponent lost the moment they put that land raider on the table. The most ignorable 250 pts in the game. Behold its three crappy Imperial heavy weapons that can't all fire unless it stands still! And it will likely immobilize itself for you! The horror of AV 14!

I guess there's also the Monolith and Warhound. But seriously, other than the Warhound are these good units? Newp.

Yes land raiders are not the most competitive choice available but do SM need another overpowered unit? I don't think so.

And against a lot of armies AM tanks are still quite killy. MCs are hurting you badly? How many armies field those invincible monsters? 2-3 I guess. And that's because of their wargear or special rules, not because they're MCs. Tau big robots are extremely weak when charged. Talos, Cronos, Carnifex, squiggoth are an issue?

A scat pack is one the most broken things in 40k, you should consider something else when making comparisons. I own three armies, quite big or huge ones, and AM still has an average firepower that is way better than everything I can field. I'm not complaining about that because AM is not extremely tough but making all their tanks invincible, mobile and with a great amount of firepower would only create another overpowered army.

Right now is acceptable that AV14 vehicles are not invincible and extremely killy, otherwise half armies couldn't really deal with them.

"Tau big robots are extremely weak when charged"

Actually, they're not. They beat most of the units in my codex in CC.

It's not acceptable that the land raider is hands down the worst unit in my codex. I'd never consider using one at its current point value. Ever.

The gulf that exists between the land raider and "OP" is so huge that I can't imagine what changes it would take to get it there.

"A scat pack is one the most broken things in 40k, you should consider something else when making comparisons"

It's what I have to go up against, so nope.

Mind you, I don't think the OP's suggestion is a good rule. I think that a 4+ save against all glances is a better rule by far. It takes the much of the teeth away from autocannons/scatterlasers and puts it back with actual anti-tank weapons.

That's only because you're probably the typical tournament player that wants to win at any cost, you can't say "It's what I have to go up against" because there are more than twelve different factions, not only eldar. Yes, in tournaments you'll see a lot of them, but 40k is not only winning tournaments. And SM are better than eldar overall, or at least on the same level.

And seriously if you have access to free vehicles, 40+ grav shots in a single turn, conclave librarians, skyhammer, you can't complain about land raiders or Tau MCs being better in close combat against some of your units, because you won't charge with units that are not good in close combat.

They would beat most of the units in you codex but you have tons of good options, many armies can deal with riptides and stormsurges only if they reach them into assault. Orks or DE can handle them in close combat better than SM maybe but SM are way more efficient overall.

The land raider is the worst unit in your codex because many other units in the same book are overpowered. I know it's far from being overpowered but it belongs to an army that spams overpowered units and doesn't need another good (if not overpowered) one.

Every codex has a lot of units that nobody brings, even in friendly games, why do SM should receive other helps?

Try playing tyranids, AM, blood angels, orks, sisters, harlequins or dark eldar and you'll regret complaining about land raiders. Again, eldar are only one of the available factions, there are a lot of different armies in 40k.

Yeah, I'm BA, chief. I don't get any of that crap you listed. I'm BA and I still laugh my ass off when I see LRs.

"many other units in the same book are overpowered"

Find a single overpowered unit in C:BA. I'll give you all the time you need. And it's STILL the worst unit in the codex.

Edit:Ninja'd

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, I'm BA, chief. I don't get any of that crap you listed. I'm BA and I still laugh my ass off when I see LRs.

"many other units in the same book are overpowered"

Find a single overpowered unit in C:BA. I'll give you all the time you need. And it's STILL the worst unit in the codex.

I thought you play SM, my bad. Mostly because you said something about tau being better in close combat than most of your units, while BA close combat units are actually good fighters. BA have a lot of issues, I never heard any BA player that complains about vehicles honestly. But again it's like ork players that want to field 120 boyz while it's not a competitive option and complain about that. Every codex has units that nobody takes.

I think making shooty vehicles more resilient would be bad for a lot of armies, those ones that are currently below mid tiers and don't deserve other hard counters.

I own three armies, and they all have several units that are worse than land raiders. SW for example also have land raiders but, even if they're not competitive choices, there surely are worse things in their codex.

There's where your unfamiliarity with the BA comes in. BA units typically CAN'T beat a Riptide or Stormsurge in CC. Too many layered saves.

Maybe other BA players don't realize how disadvantaged we are not having any magical MCs to power our lists.

Or ... ya know.. radical thinking here... try not worry too much about a non tournament 'forge the narrative' level ruleset being used in tournaments?

I think vehicles have been in the best place they've been in a long long time.

Granted they were obnoxious in 5th, but that's also why they were far more powerful in 5th.

Yeah, I'm not a BA player but riptides and stormsurges are not that good in close combat and you don't really need to kill them, just to tarpit them. If I can deal with them using ork boyz or warbikes I'm sure BA can do it too. I don't have any MCs with orks and SW, I just run some talos/cronos with DE but not everytime. I'd like tons of different things for my armies, but not improving vehicles or relying on overpowered MCs.

Tarpitting them after they have shot the gak out of my list only means that they get to kill one more of my units on their way to victory. That math is completely in the Tau's favor. No reputable Tau player is going to get handled by boyz and warbikes, either.

Of course tau are a very solid army, and riptides among best units in 40k. But they're not invincible, a mid tier army can defeat the best ones actually. Not many chances but it happens, sometimes I actually win against solid lists of tau, daemons or necrons.

Beating the most cheesy SM and eldar list is more difficult. But we're talking about tournament lists, if a tau players brings a good list but not the most competitive one he's far from being invincible.

5 riptides and a stormsurge are extremely tough for example, but not everyone like to play the same list all the time, I won't play 10 times in a row against the same list.

I like playing against competitive armies but with some balance, I hate tournaments, and only play casual games.

If you want to win tournaments with a low-mid tier army it's a different thing, I don't care about winning at any cost. 40k is still a game and in a friendly environment you won't play everytime against the most cheesiest lists.

A reputable tau/eldar/SM player should be able to win even without the most competitive units, otherwise is the list itself that wins games not the player.

How about:

Take the lowest armor value on the vehicle.

AV10 - No saves of any kind allowed against glancing
AV11 - Saves on 6+ against glance
AV12 - Saves on 5+ against glance
AV13 - Saves on 4+ against glance
AV14+ - Saves on 3+ against glance

Glance, cover save (also, Jink), invlun saves, etc, all would be in the same slot. So you wouldn't get a cover save and a glance save, or Bjorn the Fell handed wouldn't get his invuln and the glance save.

This only applies to vehicles, no toughness based units, etc.

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You guys still aren't taking specific armies into consideration when throwing around these ideas.

I think we are more than you think. Those that will have problems with some of these changes already had problems dealing with them before.

Is that true? Take into consideration Necrons, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, and AM for a moment.

How do you fix each one then?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You guys still aren't taking specific armies into consideration when throwing around these ideas.

I think we are more than you think. Those that will have problems with some of these changes already had problems dealing with them before.

Is that true? Take into consideration Necrons, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, and AM for a moment.

How do you fix each one then?

Necrons did not have a problem before. In fact, I think that their ability to abuse Glancing is part of the reason for threads like this. In addition, if an Armour Save, a significant portion of them are AP:4 or better anyway.

Dark Eldar, their ranged Weapons that are used to Wreck Vehicles still tend to have good AP as well. Only the Grenades would suffer. To be fair here, all Grenades took a massive hit with the concept that one "throws" a Grenade in Melee already.

Tyranids AV choices tend to be Smash-based, Lance-Based, or similar. And to be fair here, this codex needs so much work that it would be applied with this concept in play that it really shouldn't be considered in a reason not to consider these concepts.

If it's a problem, give the gauss special rule a penalty to the glancing save or eliminate it altogether. The 4+ vs glances is there to kneecap scatpacks and HYMPs.

Martel732 wrote:
If it's a problem, give the gauss special rule a penalty to the glancing save or eliminate it altogether. The 4+ vs glances is there to kneecap scatpacks and HYMPs.

Then maybe those weapons need to be priced appropriately. Scatterlasers should be 15 on the Bikes for example.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If it's a problem, give the gauss special rule a penalty to the glancing save or eliminate it altogether. The 4+ vs glances is there to kneecap scatpacks and HYMPs.

Then maybe those weapons need to be priced appropriately. Scatterlasers should be 15 on the Bikes for example.

20, really. But we've been over that. It's every bit as good as an assault cannon. Better, really. 15 is still too cheap and they'd still be mindlessly spammed. S6, 4 shots, 36" is insane in 7th ed. Are we going to price bump autocannons because they are better anti-tank than lascannons atm?

 Marmatag wrote:
How about:

Take the lowest armor value on the vehicle.

AV10 - No saves of any kind allowed against glancing
AV11 - Saves on 6+ against glance
AV12 - Saves on 5+ against glance
AV13 - Saves on 4+ against glance
AV14+ - Saves on 3+ against glance

Glance, cover save (also, Jink), invlun saves, etc, all would be in the same slot. So you wouldn't get a cover save and a glance save, or Bjorn the Fell handed wouldn't get his invuln and the glance save.

This only applies to vehicles, no toughness based units, etc.

That doesn't really solve the issue of AV10 being glanced to death by bolter spam, and it completely invalidates armies that can only glance AV 14. Giving monoliths and land raiders a 3+ save pretty much guarantees a good number of armies won't be able to get a single HP off it at range.

I've seen a sort of "movement" save being taken. If a vehicle is stationary, no save, combat speed, 5+, cruising speed, 4+, flat out, 3+. This would simulate how hard these vehicles are to hit. However, I'm not sure what kind of save to make this. Making it a cover save would just make the hell that is 2+ rerollable jink saves even more prevalent, but anything else just wouldn't make sense. It also heavily favors fast vehicles over heavy ones, as the fast vehicles are going to be used more.

In the end, I don't think giving vehicles a save is the solution to this issue.

High AV vehicles aren't a problem at all at the moment, In fact, they're a complete joke between lance, haywire, D, assault, self-immobilization, grav, and melta. But a save breaks them. Okay.

I'm sick of S6/7 being the panacea. It's how Tau and Eldar are face raping everything in the game like it's made of cardboard.

 Charistoph wrote:


Dark Eldar, their ranged Weapons that are used to Wreck Vehicles still tend to have good AP as well. Only the Grenades would suffer. To be fair here, all Grenades took a massive hit with the concept that one "throws" a Grenade in Melee already.

Dark eldar extremely struggle in wrecking vehilcles at range, if you take 3 ravager with 3 dark lances each and a unit of scourges with 4 haywire blasters you have the average to destroy 4 HP but with 500 points of units that are also very very fragile. AV12 is tough as AV14 as their anti tank weapons are all haywire or S8 lance. Typically there are high chances to fail wrecking a rhino in the shooting phase in turn 1 as the scourges start in reserve, and you won't never wreck more than a single vehicle by shooting.

People that complains about their fragile vehicles consider only the most overpowered armies as possible opponent. Only 4 armies can evaporate vehicles very easily, all the remaining ones can do it only in close combat or with more than a round of shooting.

Why giving a save only against glances? Orks don't have a single S9-10 weapon in their codex, only the stompa with its blast which costs 770 points. Dark eldar mostly rely on glancings with haywire weapons. Tyranids?

IMHO the only issue in 40k is the wrong cost of some units, there are some of them that are awfully undercosted and consequently overpowered. Fix them and the entire game would be fixed. Or play with friends and arrange balanced games.

"Why giving a save only against glances?"

Being the whole "glancing out" mechanic is what overpowers high ROF mid-STR weapons.

" consider only the most overpowered armies as possible opponent"

That's typically what I'm up against.

Martel732 wrote:


That's typically what I'm up against.

That's not what the majority of the players are up against. You can also see in the poll "what armies do you play" how many orks, chaos, AM, BA and tyranids are there. Ask your friends to balance your games, it's a game afterall.

About glancings I think their concept is balanced, I mean with a glance you only take a single HP, with a pen you take a HP and also get another bonus. Many vehicles can be wrecked or completely ruined by a single penetrating hit. I may even agree about giving some sort of save against glances but only if the armies that can actually only relying on glancing vehicles could receive some high strenght ranged weapons that are currently lacking.

It seems realistic to me that a high rate of fire with mid strenght weapons can cause more damages than a few high strenght shots.

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


That's typically what I'm up against.

That's not what the majority of the players are up against. You can also see in the poll "what armies do you play" how many orks, chaos, AM, BA and tyranids are there. Ask your friends to balance your games, it's a game afterall.

About glancings I think their concept is balanced, I mean with a glance you only take a single HP, with a pen you take a HP and also get another bonus. Many vehicles can be wrecked or completely ruined by a single penetrating hit. I may even agree about giving some sort of save against glances but only if the armies that can actually only relying on glancing vehicles could receive some high strenght ranged weapons that are currently lacking.

It seems realistic to me that a high rate of fire with mid strenght weapons can cause more damages than a few high strenght shots.

That's not typically how anti-armor weapon work, unless you get to the extreme like a GAU-30.

At any rate, if you keep that mechanic, some weapons need a very substantial price increase.

"Ask your friends to balance your games, it's a game afterall."

They like tournament prep games.

Martel732 wrote:


At any rate, if you keep that mechanic, some weapons need a very substantial price increase.

I 100% agree with that, even with some bonus to make vehicles tougher some units and/or wargear would still remain awfully undercosted and supercheesy and need to receive a raise in their points value.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:


They like tournament prep games.

I understand your complains, I would hate playing in a group like yours. But if you run BA in a super competitive environment you can't expect to compete, even if you get some rules fixed, you can only change army or change group of players.

I think every army should get to compete, having been on both ends of this.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm sick of S6/7 being the panacea. It's how Tau and Eldar are face raping everything in the game like it's made of cardboard.

It's because hull points are really stupid.

On a side note, the GAU-30 isn't very good against MBT's either.

 amanita wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm sick of S6/7 being the panacea. It's how Tau and Eldar are face raping everything in the game like it's made of cardboard.

It's because hull points are really stupid.

On a side note, the GAU-30 isn't very good against MBT's either.

Hull points are good, In previous editions vehicles could literally have every shot penetrate their armour and still survive
It's the fact glances remove Hull points that causes problems that renders the actual anti-tank weapons relatively useless when throwing enough St6/7 will kill a vehicle faster.

I don't see the problem.

Nothing in the game at all actually replicates real life. So "real life" is not an excuse for how things should work on the table.

Vehicles need to suffer damage like everything else. So "glances" or just barely doing enough to wound, is going to be a factor no mater where you set the bar. Even if you took every vehicle and increased each AV by 1 so that the bar was raised to Str 7/8 glancing things to death then vehicles will still get glanced to death. As they should.

Players will always take the path of least resistance to accomplish the broadest effect. In fact, that is more or less always the case with everything. If people are going to bring vehicles then players will bring something to kill them. If the tools to kill vehicles are also useful for killing other things, then they will bring that.

You COULD specialize the weapons farther with special rule stipulations about what can hurt vehicles and what cannot, with anti vehicle weapons being less effective against non vehicles. But then you segregate the units into anti vehicle/anti infantry to the point where you start to attack their anti vehicle units with infantry until he has no way to deal with your vehicles. Versatility is more important in the game play.

It doesn't matter what you change it to. If players have a viable tool to kill them they will get killed. You make them tougher? they become a higher priority target, or they become not worth the investment and get ignored. Models you bring that get ignored means the game design failed someplace.

The problem is that armour value is very analogous to toughness in terms of wounding/penetrating.
However the fact that it's called an 'armour value' instead of 'toughness' procludes vehicles from an inbuilt save, gives them a chance to be crippled or outright killed (with consequences for those around them) in a single hit, and they tend to have fewer hull points (pretty much vehicle wounds) than units of equivalent toughness have wounds.

I don't see why vehicles shouldn't get some kind of save. However I feel it is somewhat flogging a dead horse since this is mentioned in every thread pertaining to vehicles.

Jbz` wrote:

 amanita wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm sick of S6/7 being the panacea. It's how Tau and Eldar are face raping everything in the game like it's made of cardboard.

It's because hull points are really stupid.

On a side note, the GAU-30 isn't very good against MBT's either.

Hull points are good, In previous editions vehicles could literally have every shot penetrate their armour and still survive
It's the fact glances remove Hull points that causes problems that renders the actual anti-tank weapons relatively useless when throwing enough St6/7 will kill a vehicle faster.

No, they're stupid. Just because GW changed the vehicle damage table to make them too resilient doesn't mean more bloat and record keeping was needed to rectify the original problem.

Why does everyone fall into the same trap when GW makes a dumb rule? Instead of fixing or modifying the original better rule people tend to try to fix the stupid new rule that never addressed the problem in the first place?

 amanita wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm sick of S6/7 being the panacea. It's how Tau and Eldar are face raping everything in the game like it's made of cardboard.

It's because hull points are really stupid.

On a side note, the GAU-30 isn't very good against MBT's either.

It is because it kills the crew inside even if it doesn't penetrate. Sorry, meant the GAU-8, which is a 30mm weapon.

Martel732 wrote:

 amanita wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm sick of S6/7 being the panacea. It's how Tau and Eldar are face raping everything in the game like it's made of cardboard.

It's because hull points are really stupid.

On a side note, the GAU-30 isn't very good against MBT's either.

It is because it kills the crew inside even if it doesn't penetrate. Sorry, meant the GAU-8, which is a 30mm weapon.

Well the Gau-8 is having to penetrate the top armour of the tank which is no where near as thick as the front of the tank.

Personally I am, half-heartily, considering if glancing should be removed (I know. I know. Implications this will cause). Isn't a 'real' glancing hit a hit that does not penetrate.

The problem is that even a higher velocity depleted uranium 30mm munition is still trying to penetrate the armor of a vehicle designed to stop 120mm shells. Not very effective, hence the USAF wanting to replace the system. Top armor shots still hit at such an extreme angle they aren't particularly effective either.

Death by a thousand cuts just doesn't work on vehicles.

4th Ed problem: vehicle damage table makes them death traps.
5th Ed problem: radical change to same table makes them too strong.
Proper solution: change table to be a good balance between the two.
GW's solution: give vehicles 'wounds' making vehicles too weak again.
Standard proposed solution: give vehicles more wounds.
Amanita's new solution: bang head against wall.

amanita wrote:No, they're stupid. Just because GW changed the vehicle damage table to make them too resilient doesn't mean more bloat and record keeping was needed to rectify the original problem.

Why does everyone fall into the same trap when GW makes a dumb rule? Instead of fixing or modifying the original better rule people tend to try to fix the stupid new rule that never addressed the problem in the first place?

Hull Points are as stupid as Wounds on a Monstrous Creature, and that is the standard that Vehicles should be held to. Right now, Hull Points are lower than a Monstrous Creature's, and that is partly why Glancing is so effective on Vehicles, but considered, 'meh" on a MC. What is the lowest number of Wounds on an MC? 4, with an average of 6? What is the highest on a Vehicle? 4, with an average of 3?

Think about this, or even try it. Every 2 HP Vehicle now has 4 Wounds, while every 3 HP now has 6 Wounds, and the 4 HP has 7 Wounds.

Now, trade the MCs down to being 2-4 Wounds and and ID chance on a die roll when hit by AP:1 or 2 Weapons.

Now how much fun are MCs?

Martel732 wrote:It is because it kills the crew inside even if it doesn't penetrate. Sorry, meant the GAU-8, which is a 30mm weapon.

How can a weapon that does not penetrate kill crew inside a Vehicle it needs to penetrate to reach? Something had to penetrate as a result of that weapon.

 Charistoph wrote:
What is the lowest number of Wounds on an MC?

Three (Talos/Cronos/Wraithlord/Canoptek Spyder/Kastellan Robot)

"How can a weapon that does not penetrate kill crew inside a Vehicle it needs to penetrate to reach? Something had to penetrate as a result of that weapon."

Think about it. I'll post the answer tomorrow.

 Charistoph wrote:
What is the lowest number of Wounds on an MC? 4, with an average of 6?

Average of 6?
What are all of these 7 or 8+ wound MCs that are pulling the average up that high?

You people when talking about MC and vehicles only consider your own one and your typical opponent not the real average of them.

Vehicles with 3 HP are usually transports, is it fair to compare a trukk, a rhino or a raider to a monstrous creature?

An average of 6 wounds on a monstrous creatures? That's not true, the toughest ones have an average of 6, in the entire game only 4-5 monstrous creatures are really powerful. And that's not because of their MCs status but due to their wargear or psychic powers.

Again MCs are not a problem, overpowered units that cost only 180 or 295 points are. The new celestine and cawl are ten times tougher the nastiest MCs and cost only 200 points, are they ok only because they're part of the imperium? The should cost 400 points each at least.

Giving T to vehicles instead of AV means that S1 poisoned weapons could hurt them. Imagine the typical dark eldar list with 80+ poisoned shots and BS4. Seems to me a way to create another gauss equivalent.

 Blackie wrote:


Giving T to vehicles instead of AV means that S1 poisoned weapons could hurt them. Imagine the typical dark eldar list with 80+ poisoned shots and BS4. Seems to me a way to create another gauss equivalent.

No. It doesn't.

Why do people think this? The poison rule very specifically says it does not work against vehicles. Not AV. Vehicles. Vehicle is a unit type with a bunch of subtypes. If the vehicle type is changed from AV to T the unit type Vehicle still exists and poisoned weapons still don't hurt them.

Read the rules please.

Vehicles with 3 HP are usually transports, is it fair to compare a trukk, a rhino or a raider to a monstrous creature?

Like the Leman Russ, the Hammerhead, the Predator, the Doomsday Ark, and pretty much every other MBT for pretty much ever army that isn't a Land Raider.

Seriously, without 30k, I can't even recall a single non-Super-Heavy vehicle that isn't a Land Raider.

Giving T to vehicles instead of AV means that S1 poisoned weapons could hurt them. Imagine the typical dark eldar list with 80+ poisoned shots and BS4. Seems to me a way to create another gauss equivalent.

Almost every version I've seen of a proposed rule that gives vehicles T instead of AV also gives them immunity to Poison and Fleshbane.

Beating up a strawman isn't nearly as impressive as you'd think.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


Giving T to vehicles instead of AV means that S1 poisoned weapons could hurt them. Imagine the typical dark eldar list with 80+ poisoned shots and BS4. Seems to me a way to create another gauss equivalent.

No. It doesn't.

Why do people think this? The poison rule very specifically says it does not work against vehicles. Not AV. Vehicles. Vehicle is a unit type with a bunch of subtypes. If the vehicle type is changed from AV to T the unit type Vehicle still exists and poisoned weapons still don't hurt them.

Read the rules please.

OK, that's because you're also assuming that the "vehicle" category still remains even abandoning the AV mechanics. I was thinking about wraitknights, riptides and stormsurges which have their T value while being not that different to walkers with AV in their concept, seems like big robots to me, but still affected by poisoned shots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Vehicles with 3 HP are usually transports, is it fair to compare a trukk, a rhino or a raider to a monstrous creature?

Like the Leman Russ, the Hammerhead, the Predator, the Doomsday Ark, and pretty much every other MBT for pretty much ever army that isn't a Land Raider.

These vehicles, which are certainly more armoured than transports, don't seem as tough as any monstrous creature that has more than 3 wounds actually. The higher AV compared to fragile transports is there for a reason.

 Blackie wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


Giving T to vehicles instead of AV means that S1 poisoned weapons could hurt them. Imagine the typical dark eldar list with 80+ poisoned shots and BS4. Seems to me a way to create another gauss equivalent.

No. It doesn't.

Why do people think this? The poison rule very specifically says it does not work against vehicles. Not AV. Vehicles. Vehicle is a unit type with a bunch of subtypes. If the vehicle type is changed from AV to T the unit type Vehicle still exists and poisoned weapons still don't hurt them.

Read the rules please.

OK, that's because you're also assuming that the "vehicle" category still remains even abandoning the AV mechanics. I was thinking about wraitknights, riptides and stormsurges which have their T value while being not that different to walkers with AV in their concept, seems like big robots to me, but still affected by poisoned shots.

At no point in any thread where anyone has proposed changes to vehicles has anyone proposed the removal of the vehicle unit type. I have never seen it. If anyone does going forward that suggestion should be ignored. It's a dumb suggestion.

Wraithknight, riptides, and stormsurges are not vehicle walkers or super heavy vehicle walkers (Like a dreadnaught or a imperial knight). Their unit type is MC or GMC. They SHOULD be vehicle walkers. But they are not. Posion works against them because they are not vehicles.

 Lance845 wrote:


Wraithknight, riptides, and stormsurges are not vehicle walkers or super heavy vehicle walkers (Like a dreadnaught or a imperial knight). Their unit type is MC or GMC. They SHOULD be vehicle walkers. But they are not. Posion works against them because they are not vehicles.

That's exactly what I'm saying, it doesn't seem fair to hurt those nasty units with S1 poisoned, while dreadnoughts are unaffected, but since I don't have many other ways to deal with them I'll take it.

 Blackie wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


Wraithknight, riptides, and stormsurges are not vehicle walkers or super heavy vehicle walkers (Like a dreadnaught or a imperial knight). Their unit type is MC or GMC. They SHOULD be vehicle walkers. But they are not. Posion works against them because they are not vehicles.

That's exactly what I'm saying, it doesn't seem fair to hurt those nasty units with S1 poisoned, while dreadnoughts are unaffected, but since I don't have many other ways to deal with them I'll take it.

My proposed changes from the MC thread. Change those units to vehicle walkers. They should be vehicle walkers. I can see the argument for wraith constructs not being vehicles because they are not piloted. They are the actual living wraithbone bodies animated by the souls of dead eldar. I can see why that would be a MC or GMC. But not the Tau suits. Those are mechs with pilots in them. Not being vehicle walkers is ridiculous.

What if; glancing hits can do any number of hull points per turn, BUT cannot remove the final hull point. i.e. cannot wreck the vehicle completely.

Any idea how difficult it is for some armies to cause penetrating hits against av 12+

 amanita wrote:
No, they're stupid. Just because GW changed the vehicle damage table to make them too resilient doesn't mean more bloat and record keeping was needed to rectify the original problem.

Why does everyone fall into the same trap when GW makes a dumb rule? Instead of fixing or modifying the original better rule people tend to try to fix the stupid new rule that never addressed the problem in the first place?

So without hull points how you fix problem of rhino eating 10 lascannon penetrations and still refusing to die? Which is just stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zustiur wrote:
What if; glancing hits can do any number of hull points per turn, BUT cannot remove the final hull point. i.e. cannot wreck the vehicle completely.

Orks say "no thanks". Basically impossible to destroy land raider from range. Nearly impossible already with best way to deal with those being power klaw charges.

The point of the entire discussion is: why changing some rules? To get a more balanced game.

If vehicles become tougher, especially tanks and not the open topped transports, who's gonna gain some real bonus?

The answer is: Imperium factions. Only them.

So I'm asking you: do we need any other helps to SM? Do we need to put other human factions to mid or top tier livels?

My answer is no, in order to add more variety to the entire game armies like tyranids, orks, dark eldar should be improved. By making vehicles more resilient we would only make those armies even more hard to play.

Yes there are some overpowered units that can wreck vehicles too easily, balance their points value or put some other limitations on them (like allowing grav only to centurions and devastators) and the problem is solved.

There are so many posts here saying only 4 or 5 armies can harm high AV vehicles at range/outside of assault...
Ok let's list them:
Eldar,
Necrons,
Tau,
Space Marines,
Blood Angels,
Space Wolves,
Grey Knights (I think - not too familiar and don't own the dex),
Inquisition,
Mechanicus,
Skitarri,
Chaos Space Marines,
Renegades and Heretics,
Astra Militarum,
Sisters of battle,
Imperial Knights,
Militarum Tempestus,
Deathwatch,
Legion of the Damned.

Let's list the ones that don't have the tools outside of assault:
Orks,
Dark Eldar (only because their AT is very expensive on vulnerable platforms, but could quite easily be in the other list)
Tyranids
Daemons

I'm sure I've forgotten a dex or two, but let's not carry on pretending that only 4 or 5 armies can deal with high AV vehicles outside of assault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also worth noting that aside from DE, the armies from the second list are all assault based armies anyway.

Poly Ranger wrote:

Also worth noting that aside from DE, the armies from the second list are all assault based armies anyway.

I find that an odd thing to say considering 2/3 of their non vehicle units are melee units (at least primarily) and PFP is also tilted more in favour of combat

Poly Ranger wrote:
There are so many posts here saying only 4 or 5 armies can harm high AV vehicles at range/outside of assault...
Ok let's list them:
Eldar,
Necrons,
Tau,
Space Marines,
Blood Angels,
Space Wolves,
Grey Knights (I think - not too familiar and don't own the dex),
Inquisition,
Mechanicus,
Skitarri,
Chaos Space Marines,
Renegades and Heretics,
Astra Militarum,
Sisters of battle,
Imperial Knights,
Militarum Tempestus,
Deathwatch,
Legion of the Damned.

Let's list the ones that don't have the tools outside of assault:
Orks,
Dark Eldar (only because their AT is very expensive on vulnerable platforms, but could quite easily be in the other list)
Tyranids
Daemons

I'm sure I've forgotten a dex or two, but let's not carry on pretending that only 4 or 5 armies can deal with high AV vehicles outside of assault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also worth noting that aside from DE, the armies from the second list are all assault based armies anyway.

I think you are disingenuously reading his post Your list would look more like this to "outsiders"

Space marines (BA, Sw, Gk, DW, LoD, DA etc)
Astra militarum plus allies (AM, Inquisition, SoB, Tempestus)
Mars (Skitarii, mechanicum) With IK somewhere between the above and here. since they can be allied in anywhere.
Eldar
Tau
Necrons
Foregeworld chaos

Eldar and tau max out armor at 13, and Necrons have a landraider bad 14

And if we remove FW from the list, because some people like playing codex 40k/don't have the money/don't have the 10 year+ history to build it up yet then it really even gets more limited.

Poly Ranger wrote:
There are so many posts here saying only 4 or 5 armies can harm high AV vehicles at range/outside of assault...
Ok let's list them:
Eldar,
Necrons,
Tau,
Space Marines,
Blood Angels,
Space Wolves,
Grey Knights (I think - not too familiar and don't own the dex),
Inquisition,
Mechanicus,
Skitarri,
Chaos Space Marines,
Renegades and Heretics,
Astra Militarum,
Sisters of battle,
Imperial Knights,
Militarum Tempestus,
Deathwatch,
Legion of the Damned.

Let's list the ones that don't have the tools outside of assault:
Orks,
Dark Eldar (only because their AT is very expensive on vulnerable platforms, but could quite easily be in the other list)
Tyranids
Daemons

I'm sure I've forgotten a dex or two, but let's not carry on pretending that only 4 or 5 armies can deal with high AV vehicles outside of assault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also worth noting that aside from DE, the armies from the second list are all assault based armies anyway.

Space wolves???? The only ranged anti tank SW have are overpriced units of long fangs or the single melta+combi melta that carry GH coming in drop pods. The stormwolf starts in reserve and only have worthy 2-3 shots. If you play SW with a lot of anti tank you're playing a very weak SW list. SW are mostly wulfen, thunderwolves and infantries in drop pods.

Blood angels don't have that huge amount of firepower that other SM have. Same for sisters and GK.

Many of the "different armies" you listed are actually the same faction repeated more times.

And DE are an assault oriented army as their best units are talos, grotesques and reavers with their rending S6 hammer of wraths.

BA can crack tanks like no one's business though. What they can't crack? MCs.

tneva82 wrote:

 amanita wrote:
No, they're stupid. Just because GW changed the vehicle damage table to make them too resilient doesn't mean more bloat and record keeping was needed to rectify the original problem.

Why does everyone fall into the same trap when GW makes a dumb rule? Instead of fixing or modifying the original better rule people tend to try to fix the stupid new rule that never addressed the problem in the first place?

So without hull points how you fix problem of rhino eating 10 lascannon penetrations and still refusing to die? Which is just stupid.

You believe that's really a thing? In 4th Ed a penetrating hit automatically stunned the crew as well. You don't think it's good enough to paralyze a vehicle for a turn? You want to know what is even more stupid? Shooting the same piece of damaged junk over and over and suddenly it just dies because what? It bled out?

Martel732 wrote:
BA can crack tanks like no one's business though. What they can't crack? MCs.

Plasma guns devastate the average monstrous creature (T6 W4) and they have as much access to them as any other marine army.
Furious charge with a power weapon (or a few) can also seriously hurt them (Typically before they swing back)
Dreadnoughts can typically laugh at most monstrous creatures in combat (Furiosos even more so because armour 13) and with the now official errata have tonnes of attacks that will wound on a 2
Most monstrous creatures are pathetic. There are a few really powerful ones that are the most frequently used because they are actually useful.

tneva82 wrote:

Zustiur wrote:
What if; glancing hits can do any number of hull points per turn, BUT cannot remove the final hull point. i.e. cannot wreck the vehicle completely.

Orks say "no thanks". Basically impossible to destroy land raider from range. Nearly impossible already with best way to deal with those being power klaw charges.

I've suggested this before - the last Hull Point can only be removed with a penetrating hit - with an additional rule that the first Hull Point lost only ever counts as glancing.

This prevents vehicles being one-shotted or glanced to death.

It does raise the issue, as tneva pointed out, that it makes it harder to destroy a vehicle. With AV14 you'd need to have S9 to stand a chance. This is hard for some armies (like Orks) but that's more an issue with those codexes than the general rules. It should take an anti-tank gun to destroy a big-ass tank! If Orks don't have any that's a codex issue.

As with most issues with the game, a single fix isn't enough. Any change needs to consider all the impacts to all aspects of all codexes, and make other changes as necessary. That's why no one fix we suggest is ever enough.

(Although overall I'm not as negative about the game as most people. It's pretty okay if you play with friends )

Jbz` wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
What is the lowest number of Wounds on an MC?

Three (Talos/Cronos/Wraithlord/Canoptek Spyder/Kastellan Robot)

Fair enough. I am not as intimately familiar with Eldar and Martian units, and I often forget the Spyder is an MC when running the list in my mind.

Arson Fire wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
What is the lowest number of Wounds on an MC? 4, with an average of 6?

Average of 6?
What are all of these 7 or 8+ wound MCs that are pulling the average up that high?

Fine, it it is more median then mean. I was more pointing out that the number of MCs that are less than 6 Wounds are fewer than those that are 6 Wounds with all the Tyranid and Daemons out there, and those that are 6 Wounds tend to see more table time that those that are lower. Now, compare that list of the preponderance of 3 HP Vehicles, with a small smattering of 2HP and 4HP Vehicles and you start seeing the actual point.

Poly Ranger wrote:Let's list the ones that don't have the tools outside of assault:
Orks,Dark Eldar (only because their AT is very expensive on vulnerable platforms, but could quite easily be in the other list)
Tyranids

'Nids have the tools, but their platforms tend to be less-effective or not considered at all in favor of other platforms and tools. If all your Elites are being used on Malanthropes/Venomthropes, it doesn't leave a lot of room for Warp-Lance Zoanthropes or Hive Guard, as an example.

Blackie wrote:Space wolves???? The only ranged anti tank SW have are overpriced units of long fangs or the single melta+combi melta that carry GH coming in drop pods. The stormwolf starts in reserve and only have worthy 2-3 shots. If you play SW with a lot of anti tank you're playing a very weak SW list. SW are mostly wulfen, thunderwolves and infantries in drop pods.

Or the same Dreadnoughts and Predators/Vindicators/Land Speeders that are available to all the other Space Marines. This sounds more like tunnel-vision than a lack of options.

Blackie wrote:Blood angels don't have that huge amount of firepower that other SM have. Same for sisters and GK.

And same tunnel-vision with the Blood Angels and Sisters of Battle. Considering the MM Razorback the Sisters have as Dedicated Transports, its not THAT hard to fit them all in.

Outside of the Dreadknight and aforementioned Dreadnoughts, you do have a point outside of their Flyer for Grey Knights. So, still a little tunnel-vision here.

Blackie wrote:Many of the "different armies" you listed are actually the same faction repeated more times.

Says the one who tried to separate Space Wolves from Space Marines.

Jbz` wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
BA can crack tanks like no one's business though. What they can't crack? MCs.

Plasma guns devastate the average monstrous creature (T6 W4) and they have as much access to them as any other marine army.
Furious charge with a power weapon (or a few) can also seriously hurt them (Typically before they swing back)
Dreadnoughts can typically laugh at most monstrous creatures in combat (Furiosos even more so because armour 13) and with the now official errata have tonnes of attacks that will wound on a 2
Most monstrous creatures are pathetic. There are a few really powerful ones that are the most frequently used because they are actually useful.

And yet plasma guns turn off furious charge. There's a lot of little inefficiencies with the BA that add up to MCs being quite trouble some. I don't want to engage in CC because they have free AP2.

 Charistoph wrote:

Arson Fire wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
What is the lowest number of Wounds on an MC? 4, with an average of 6?

Average of 6?
What are all of these 7 or 8+ wound MCs that are pulling the average up that high?

Fine, it it is more median then mean. I was more pointing out that the number of MCs that are less than 6 Wounds are fewer than those that are 6 Wounds with all the Tyranid and Daemons out there, and those that are 6 Wounds tend to see more table time that those that are lower. Now, compare that list of the preponderance of 3 HP Vehicles, with a small smattering of 2HP and 4HP Vehicles and you start seeing the actual point.

Just to put it out there.
Mean: 4.81
Median: 5

I probably missed a couple here and there, but you would need to add another 15 or so 6+ wound MCs to the game to increase that median.
My point is less disagreeing with you, and more saying that you should really stop making up numbers. It undermines your point.

 Charistoph wrote:

Or the same Dreadnoughts and Predators/Vindicators/Land Speeders that are available to all the other Space Marines. This sounds more like tunnel-vision than a lack of options.

And same tunnel-vision with the Blood Angels and Sisters of Battle. Considering the MM Razorback the Sisters have as Dedicated Transports, its not THAT hard to fit them all in.

Outside of the Dreadknight and aforementioned Dreadnoughts, you do have a point outside of their Flyer for Grey Knights. So, still a little tunnel-vision here.

Says the one who tried to separate Space Wolves from Space Marines.

Tunnel vision? If you take predators, vindicators, land speaders, dreadnought you won't win against any mid tier army, simple. Not that I care about, I stay away from tournaments and super competitive environments but if we're talking about competitive lists SW are not SM at all, and those vehicles don't fit them.

SW are actually very different from SM beacuse you mostly see lists with wulfen and thunderwolves deathstars that can be even the entire 100% of the list. SM have nothing of those units. SM spam free vehicles and grav weapons. SW want to kick some ass in close combat. Even the psykers work completely different. You're probably going to see more SW lists without a single SM typucal unit than SW lists with some units that are in common with regular SM, and even if it happens we would talk about a small amount of points.

GK and sisters have little anti tank, the would probably kill one armoured vehicle in a single turn. Blood angels are a close combat oriented army, they can have average firepower but they're not SM, tau, necrons or eldar.

 Blackie wrote:
Tunnel vision? If you take predators, vindicators, land speaders, dreadnought you won't win against any mid tier army, simple. Not that I care about, I stay away from tournaments and super competitive environments but if we're talking about competitive lists SW are not SM at all, and those vehicles don't fit them.

Grav Weapons really aren't much more effective against Vehicles than they are against Monstrous Creatures, so every ranged AT Weapons system you can think of that Codex Marines have, Space Wolves have, except maybe the Flyers.

 Blackie wrote:
SW are actually very different from SM beacuse you mostly see lists with wulfen and thunderwolves deathstars that can be even the entire 100% of the list. SM have nothing of those units. SM spam free vehicles and grav weapons. SW want to kick some ass in close combat. Even the psykers work completely different. You're probably going to see more SW lists without a single SM typucal unit than SW lists with some units that are in common with regular SM, and even if it happens we would talk about a small amount of points.

So... Tunnel Vision it is, and you've just demonstrated what it looks like.

 Blackie wrote:
GK and sisters have little anti tank, the would probably kill one armoured vehicle in a single turn. Blood angels are a close combat oriented army, they can have average firepower but they're not SM, tau, necrons or eldar.

I would say that almost every unit taking a form of Melta is hardly "little", but it is very focused.

And I hate to tell you, Blood Angels still have the same ranged AT options that Codex Marines have. Choosing not to use them is "Tunnel Vision".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arson Fire wrote:
Just to put it out there.
Mean: 4.86
Median: 5

I probably missed a couple here and there, but you would need to add another 15 or so 6+ wound MCs to the game to increase that median.
My point is less disagreeing with you, and more saying that you should really stop making up numbers. It undermines your point.

Not making them up, just misremembering. I honestly thought that the significant majority of Wounds for Tyranid MCs were set at 6.

But we are still looking at 5 Wounds for the average MC versus 3 HP for the average Vehicle. And that's not even considering the fact that a significant portion of Weapons out there also carry an ID possibility for any Vehicle without Special Rules, but just on pure AP versus requiring ID or Force on a Weapon to do the same with most MCs.

Tunnel vision..... we're talking about the possiblity of changing some rules in order to get the game more balanced, to improve in some way those armies that are not even mid tiers.

So fielding SW without their wolfy units is possible, but competitive? Without their best units they suck, now from their currently mid tier status they would become among bottom tiers. Why would I be happy to play SW like any other SM chapter when they lack everyting that makes SM really effective? I also hate how SM tanks look so no way I would buy them, but that's my personal opinion, I collect and play SW only because I love their wolfy models. I don't want to play SM with SW colours, why giving specific codexes to different chapters if they have to play with the same style?

Same for BA, make a shooty list and you won't be rewarded, that army works better in close combat, and still it's not even a mid tier.

Ban all cheesy units and maybe SW players can think about bringing shooty dreads or las predators. Right now SW work only with a lot of close combat units, and that's what it makes them peculiar.

Grav weapons, while being way more effective against MCs, can strip a lot of hull points from vehicles.Typical SM lists have 40+ grav shots in a single turn with BS4.

I asked it before: why should we have to improve imperium factions? Aren't imperium armies/players enough yet?

Are MCs really that scary? Dark eldar, orks, GK, necron and tyranids ones certainly not. Only 4-5 in the entire 40k universe really are, and that's not because of their status or survivabilty (which alse helps them), but because of their firepower or psychic powers. Increase their points value and the entire issue about them would be fixed.

I use to run a lot of vehicles with 2 of my 3 armies and they don't seem an issue to me, there's nothing to be fixed about them IMHO. I'm not interested in defending MCs as I only field cronos and talos, and I also own a huge amount of vehicles (30ish considering all my armies) that I like to play, but you complain about immortal MCs that are screwing the game, so why do we need highlander vehicles?

 Charistoph wrote:

amanita wrote:No, they're stupid. Just because GW changed the vehicle damage table to make them too resilient doesn't mean more bloat and record keeping was needed to rectify the original problem.

Why does everyone fall into the same trap when GW makes a dumb rule? Instead of fixing or modifying the original better rule people tend to try to fix the stupid new rule that never addressed the problem in the first place?

Hull Points are as stupid as Wounds on a Monstrous Creature, and that is the standard that Vehicles should be held to. Right now, Hull Points are lower than a Monstrous Creature's, and that is partly why Glancing is so effective on Vehicles, but considered, 'meh" on a MC. What is the lowest number of Wounds on an MC? 4, with an average of 6? What is the highest on a Vehicle? 4, with an average of 3?

Think about this, or even try it. Every 2 HP Vehicle now has 4 Wounds, while every 3 HP now has 6 Wounds, and the 4 HP has 7 Wounds.

Now, trade the MCs down to being 2-4 Wounds and and ID chance on a die roll when hit by AP:1 or 2 Weapons.

Now how much fun are MCs?

Martel732 wrote:It is because it kills the crew inside even if it doesn't penetrate. Sorry, meant the GAU-8, which is a 30mm weapon.

How can a weapon that does not penetrate kill crew inside a Vehicle it needs to penetrate to reach? Something had to penetrate as a result of that weapon.

The crew gets shaken to death by the impacts whether they pen or not.

Martel732 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

amanita wrote:No, they're stupid. Just because GW changed the vehicle damage table to make them too resilient doesn't mean more bloat and record keeping was needed to rectify the original problem.

Why does everyone fall into the same trap when GW makes a dumb rule? Instead of fixing or modifying the original better rule people tend to try to fix the stupid new rule that never addressed the problem in the first place?

Hull Points are as stupid as Wounds on a Monstrous Creature, and that is the standard that Vehicles should be held to. Right now, Hull Points are lower than a Monstrous Creature's, and that is partly why Glancing is so effective on Vehicles, but considered, 'meh" on a MC. What is the lowest number of Wounds on an MC? 4, with an average of 6? What is the highest on a Vehicle? 4, with an average of 3?

Think about this, or even try it. Every 2 HP Vehicle now has 4 Wounds, while every 3 HP now has 6 Wounds, and the 4 HP has 7 Wounds.

Now, trade the MCs down to being 2-4 Wounds and and ID chance on a die roll when hit by AP:1 or 2 Weapons.

Now how much fun are MCs?

Martel732 wrote:It is because it kills the crew inside even if it doesn't penetrate. Sorry, meant the GAU-8, which is a 30mm weapon.

How can a weapon that does not penetrate kill crew inside a Vehicle it needs to penetrate to reach? Something had to penetrate as a result of that weapon.

The crew gets shaken to death by the impacts whether they pen or not.

There was a doco about tanks a while back - Can't remember which army - made an "Unstoppable" tank, to prove their point they filmed the thing rolling over a cliff, flipping a few times, hitting the bottom and rolling on. What they didn't mention was the crew inside were all unconscious.

 Blackie wrote:
Tunnel vision..... we're talking about the possiblity of changing some rules in order to get the game more balanced, to improve in some way those armies that are not even mid tiers.

So fielding SW without their wolfy units is possible, but competitive? Without their best units they suck, now from their currently mid tier status they would become among bottom tiers. Why would I be happy to play SW like any other SM chapter when they lack everyting that makes SM really effective? I also hate how SM tanks look so no way I would buy them, but that's my personal opinion, I collect and play SW only because I love their wolfy models. I don't want to play SM with SW colours, why giving specific codexes to different chapters if they have to play with the same style?

Same for BA, make a shooty list and you won't be rewarded, that army works better in close combat, and still it's not even a mid tier.

Ban all cheesy units and maybe SW players can think about bringing shooty dreads or las predators. Right now SW work only with a lot of close combat units, and that's what it makes them peculiar.

And yet, you were responding to a statement about not having the tools to do the job. The fact is that you DO have the same tools that are available to C:SM. Same goes for the BA. Not recognizing something exists because you don't like it, or something else is better in other circumstances is tunnel vision.

 Blackie wrote:
Grav weapons, while being way more effective against MCs, can strip a lot of hull points from vehicles.Typical SM lists have 40+ grav shots in a single turn with BS4.

Gauss is reliant on the same roll. It requires more shots, but Necrons don't have to worry about that, they carry them by the Nightscythe and the Monolith. They CAN do something, but it is not reliable at all. 1/6 chance to do ANYTHING. Would you say the same for a 6+ Poison's odds against MCs?

 Blackie wrote:
I asked it before: why should we have to improve imperium factions? Aren't imperium armies/players enough yet?

And you are stating some don't have the tools, ironic.

Let's address the allies issue first. SoB players would have an issue just being described as allies to Guard, as would Inquisition (I own Inq and no guard, well, aside from renegades), and MT players aren't Guard or else they would just take them in an elites slot. All of these are separate dexes and can be discussed as such. Space Marines are a different army to SW, DA and BA with unique units and rules between all so the same applies to them. There are also many Skittari players that don't take Mechanicus and vice versa. Again all are separate dexes.
In fact, suggesting that they can all be allied makes the whole conversation moot anyway as any army in the game can take, for example, an aspect host with Fragons in serpents and Spiders. Either we say anyone can overcome the issues with allies or we discuss what each armies ranged AT capabilities are. You can't apply one logic to some dexes and not to others.
Now let's look at Space Wolves as an example of ranged AT since they have been brought up. Aside from melta on infantry squads and the standard ranged AT guns imperial armies have (yep lascannons are dirt for their points), you have Deredo dreads (sp?), Diemos Vindis, Rapier Quad Mortars, Rapier Laser Destroyers, Javelins, Dual multimelta speeders, Sicarian, to name but a few (and lets not forget access to schism of mars). Not wanting to take such things is completely different to the option not existing. The best players in the list building process ensure they have the tools in a list to deal with any/most situations, and the tools are there. Denying them as options is tunnel vision as mentioned above.

Anybody that thinks Gauss is useful as AT has never used Necrons as an army. It might be nice against super expensive vehicles but it falls apart at the ones that are 150ish and below.

Christoph looks like a troll, I don't even know how to reply. I think SW, BA, DA, GK are different than regular SM, otherwise they wouldn't receive their own codex. They have their style and peculiar units.

Yes we can have some efficient anti tank but if we make a list that relies on that we won't win games, easy. I never said that those options don't exist but we can wreck vehicles in close combat more efficiently and that fits better the theme of the army.

I said that some armies work well without taking specific anti tank weapons, if we change the rules in order to make those vehicles immortal they would be screwed, because they would give up some of their best units in order to bring average ones that are currently not needed. Furthemore if we change the rules in order to make vehicle more resilient many of those anti tank tools would be ineffective or not particularly good for their points, so why force close combat oriented armies to take them?

You seem like a frustrated player that can't field his favourite toys because they're not overpowered. Now if you really want land raiders in you lists and refuse to find an alternative way to play, it's you that have a tunnel vision. If you play an imperium army you'll certainly have tons of different options, many more than other armies.

And land raiders are still extremely tough to half armies at least.

Gauss is nice, grav is extremely broken. IMHO grav spam is the most broken thing in the entire game, as well as formations that allows free transports. And the new celestine.

In conclusion I'd like to add that any imperium army can deal with MCs, change style of play, find new options if you find issues. Only AM has real troubles and that's only because they're very static. SM are way better than tau and daemons and I think their superior to eldar too. A single turn of grav spam can evaporate the wraitknight.

 Blackie wrote:
Christoph looks like a troll, I don't even know how to reply. I think SW, BA, DA, GK are different than regular SM, otherwise they wouldn't receive their own codex. They have their style and peculiar units.

I'm debating on reporting that. Argue against the argument, not the poster.

While they do have their own differences, there are still a lot that is the same between C:SM, BA, DA, and SW. Special and Heavy Weapons (aside from Grav and Helfrost) are the same along with about 85% of platforms of same are the same. Is this not correct?

 Blackie wrote:
Yes we can have some efficient anti tank but if we make a list that relies on that we won't win games, easy. I never said that those options don't exist but we can wreck vehicles in close combat more efficiently and that fits better the theme of the army.

Any army that relies only on efficient Anti-Tank won't win games unless they are going against an Armoured Company or a Knight list. An Imperial Guard force that focuses on only Lascannons and certain Leman Russ builds will fail just as much.

And I was responding to:

Space wolves???? The only ranged anti tank SW have are overpriced units of long fangs or the single melta+combi melta that carry GH coming in drop pods. The stormwolf starts in reserve and only have worthy 2-3 shots. If you play SW with a lot of anti tank you're playing a very weak SW list. SW are mostly wulfen, thunderwolves and infantries in drop pods.

The term "only" is exclusive. With that statement you considered the aforementioned Predators, Vindicators, Razorbacks, Dreadnoughts, Land Speeders, and Terminators with certain Weapon lists as non-existant. I also seem to remember the Space Wolf codex carrying more than Wulfen and Wolf-riders.

One must adapt one's tactics and tools to fit what you are facing, relying on only one thing is what leads one to tunnel-vision.

 Blackie wrote:
I said that some armies work well without taking specific anti tank weapons, if we change the rules in order to make those vehicles immortal they would be screwed, because they would give up some of their best units in order to bring average ones that are currently not needed. Furthemore if we change the rules in order to make vehicle more resilient many of those anti tank tools would be ineffective or not particularly good for their points, so why force close combat oriented armies to take them?

Better question, why worry about Ranged Weapons at all to do the job? Melee AT Weapons do better overall, anyway, at actually killing a Vehicle. Their rate of fire with higher Str is greater and tends to using the AP that will cause them to be Insta-killed as opposed to the "Glancing-to-death" method that most of the "powerful" AV Weapons use.

So, again, the point more is that those that already struggle in an area will still struggle in that area and nothing changes there, and focusing on a stupid aspect of the rules. Glancing a Vehicle to death should not be any more stupid than Wounding a Monstrous Creature to death, but it is more stupid because the Hull Points are lower for Vehicles and they often do not get any Saves against those Glances like a Monstrous Creature might.

 Blackie wrote:
You seem like a frustrated player that can't field his favourite toys because they're not overpowered. Now if you really want land raiders in you lists and refuse to find an alternative way to play, it's you that have a tunnel vision. If you play an imperium army you'll certainly have tons of different options, many more than other armies.

Do not project your own tunnel-vision on me. I am not a frustrated player in this regard. What 40K models I have would not be able to play in anything beyond Kill Team. The FAQ's many stupid rulings took care of that.

Those Land Raiders I may have wanted to field would be for carrying Crusader Marines. That's as Imperium as I have owned. As I have also owned 2 Xenos and 1 Chaos army over time, I try to take things from a higher viewpoint.

 Blackie wrote:
Gauss is nice, grav is extremely broken. IMHO grav spam is the most broken thing in the entire game, as well as formations that allows free transports.

Look up the average Codex Marine army in the Army Lists and count how many Grav shots can be made. Then look up the average Necron army in the Army Lists and count how many Gauss shots can be made.

They both require the same number To Hit with and to auto-glance a Vehicle. Grav just requires a little over half the same number of successes to exceed the other.

 Blackie wrote:
In conclusion I'd like to add that any imperium army can deal with MCs, change style of play, find new options if you find issues. Only AM has real troubles and that's only because they're very static. SM are way better than tau and daemons and I think their superior to eldar too. A single turn of grav spam can evaporate the wraitknight.

And we're talking about Vehicles here, not GMCs, so bringing up how powerful Grav is against Wraithknights is rather pointless.

One thing is, Grav usually has Grav-Amps, allowing a reroll, and Grav immobilizes and does a Hull Point, making them many times more effective than Gauss against anything but superheavies.

 JNAProductions wrote:
One thing is, Grav usually has Grav-Amps, allowing a reroll, and Grav immobilizes and does a Hull Point, making them many times more effective than Gauss against anything but superheavies.

While Gauss has volume of availability.

Interestingly enough, changes to Glancing Hit mechanics won't affect Grav Weapons at all. Grav Weapons do not generate Glancing Hits.

Charistoph, I won't argue about every point you made, I wasn't probably 100% clear when I argued what I thought, that's my fault.

I know that SW (and other armies) have a lot of possible AT options but I don't have a tunnel vision really, I only said that if you want to be competitive you MUST pick only some of the possbile choices available. And that is applied to any codex actually. If you want to play a friendly casual game you can easily take dreads, preds or anything you want with SW but in casual games even a land raider can be effective and doesn't need to be improved. That's what I meant to say in the previous posts.

I don't care about an "high viewpoint", I only care about a more balanced game. If a rule seems stupid but actually keeps the game more balanced is actually clever. So changing the core rules IMHO can be a good idea only if the result of that action is a more balanced game. Not a more realistic one.

Now what armies would take benefits by making vehicles more resilient? AM probably, but SM gladius lists mostly, which still are among of the two current top tiers. Most of the bottom tiers would have even harder times than now.

This is the point of the entire discussion.

You're scared about gauss and MCs? they're only a small part of the game. Take a land raider against orks, dark eldars, harlequins, GK, tyranids, sisters and it would probably perform, even againts good lists. Necrons have those "superscary" gauss shots, but overall SM outperform them about everything. Necrons are a mid tier army currently, relying on gauss doesn't make them overpowered at all. Grav spam SM are.

If you're out of playing I invite you to take a look at some battle reports or to play or assist to games in person. As I said before the only purpose of the idea of changing the rules is only to get a better game overall, and I think that allowing vehicles to be more resilient would make the game even more unbalanced than now.

" Take a land raider against orks, dark eldars, harlequins, GK, tyranids, sisters and it would probably perform,"

It doesn't. It's the worst thing in a list made up of bad things (BA).

Can't speak for the rest of that list, but it doesn't do too badly vs tyranids at least. Mainly because they struggle to kill it efficiently.

A flyrant that costs the same as a land raider redeemer can use its haywire flamer to deal 1 hull point to it per turn. Meaning that flyrant isn't firing its guns at anything else.

About the only other thing which is a serious threat to it at range is drop podded zoanthropes. You're not likely to see those.
Even if you do, they're not exactly the pinnacle of reliability.

Martel,

We all know BA suck. They got the short end of the SM stick. The rest of the game doesn't need to be nerfed so BA feel better. BA need a mild boost to bring them more in line.

In fact, I think all the SM books need to go into a single codex and get the 30k treatment. 1 Book, all the core units. Each chapter gets it's tactics with some unique units that are in addition to or replace the base line units. If Chaos Legions can do it SM can do it.

A big part of the reason BA suck so bad is they didn't get the updates the other chapters have received. That gets fixed when they all get updated at once. BA sucking is not the metric by which the rest of the game should be judged.

 Charistoph wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
One thing is, Grav usually has Grav-Amps, allowing a reroll, and Grav immobilizes and does a Hull Point, making them many times more effective than Gauss against anything but superheavies.

While Gauss has volume of availability.

Interestingly enough, changes to Glancing Hit mechanics won't affect Grav Weapons at all. Grav Weapons do not generate Glancing Hits.

Not by much. A kitted out Tomb Blade squad with 5 members is 110 points. That's S5 AP4 Ignores Cover. Ain't too shabby. That 5-10 TL shots that are Gauss.
5 Marine Bikers with 2 Grav Guns and a Combi-Grav is 135 or 145 points off the top of my head.

I think anyone can tell you which one is going to fare better against the most amount of targets.

Not to mention an immobilise is enough to cripple a lot of vehicles.
MCs suffer no such indignities.

 Lance845 wrote:
Martel,

We all know BA suck. They got the short end of the SM stick. The rest of the game doesn't need to be nerfed so BA feel better. BA need a mild boost to bring them more in line.

In fact, I think all the SM books need to go into a single codex and get the 30k treatment. 1 Book, all the core units. Each chapter gets it's tactics with some unique units that are in addition to or replace the base line units. If Chaos Legions can do it SM can do it.

A big part of the reason BA suck so bad is they didn't get the updates the other chapters have received. That gets fixed when they all get updated at once. BA sucking is not the metric by which the rest of the game should be judged.

Was talking about the land raider. BA sucking is only relevant to demonstrate how mind bogglingly bad the land raider is.

Martel732 wrote:


Was talking about the land raider. BA sucking is only relevant to demonstrate how mind bogglingly bad the land raider is.

Not really, the LR in that case sucks because BA suck. In a non ultra competitive game regular SM and SW can field land raiders, I've seen many times wulfen in a standard land raider that allows them to reach close combat without taking wounds in the process, or arjac shield brothers in a crusader which is a nice formation.

Many armies can't wreck a LR in the shooting phase without a huge amount of luck and the multimelta, assault cannon and las cannons mounted on the big vehicle are good weapons. If it manages to carry its passengers wherever they need to arrive or if it has the possibility to shoot for 2-3 turns before being melted in close combat the LR has done its job. In the SW codex there are several worse choices.

But also in competitive games I've taken units that are considered among the best ones from the armies that I play (only bottom or mid tiers) and sometimes they perform. I've seen ork kommandos and burnaboyz being effective, but also dark eldar incubi, wracks and mandrakes that contributed to score points. Now we all know that the LR is not among the best units in any SM chapter but it's not that stupid thing that does nothing in the entire game and/or it's wrecked turn 1.

It's probably bad played as it's not a vehicle that wins games alone, it needs to have synergy with the rest of the list, and it surely can be an average unit in the hands of an experienced player. In any SM (and specific chapters) general review LR are typically rated with 5,6,7 out of 10, not with 1, 2 or 3. Sometimes you require 10-20 bad losses in order to learn how to play a unit efficiently.

BA have drop pods, stormravens, a lot of badass units with jump packs and dreads among their best units. The LR probably doesn't have synergy with that army, I'm not sure about that as I faced BA as an opponent and never played them, but generally speaking it's not that bad.

Blackie wrote:I don't care about an "high viewpoint", I only care about a more balanced game. If a rule seems stupid but actually keeps the game more balanced is actually clever. So changing the core rules IMHO can be a good idea only if the result of that action is a more balanced game. Not a more realistic one.

The "high viewpoint" is seeing the game from more or all army perspectives, rather than from a single one. When considering many of these options, I try to consider it as a Templar, Chaos Marine, Tau, and Necron player. So a "high viewpoint" is concerned about balance.

Blackie wrote:You're scared about gauss and MCs? they're only a small part of the game. Take a land raider against orks, dark eldars, harlequins, GK, tyranids, sisters and it would probably perform, even againts good lists. Necrons have those "superscary" gauss shots, but overall SM outperform them about everything. Necrons are a mid tier army currently, relying on gauss doesn't make them overpowered at all. Grav spam SM are.

I never said I was scared, only that some fear that Glance-spam makes their Vehicle toys useless. I'm saying that certain things are unbalanced and MCs are the organic equivalent to Vehicles. This is made obvious since the Dreadknight came out and suddenly Monstrous Batlesuits joined them, while pretty close to that Chaos Marines got Walkers and a Flyer that could fit the same bill as well.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Not by much. A kitted out Tomb Blade squad with 5 members is 110 points. That's S5 AP4 Ignores Cover. Ain't too shabby. That 5-10 TL shots that are Gauss.
5 Marine Bikers with 2 Grav Guns and a Combi-Grav is 135 or 145 points off the top of my head.

I think anyone can tell you which one is going to fare better against the most amount of targets.

How much Tesla is taken in Troops vs Gauss? How much can a Ghost Ark put out? If there is an option for Gauss vs something else, Gauss is taken 90% of the time, with Tomb Blades and the Triarch Stalker getting most of those non-Gauss options. It is to this which I indicate that Availibility is higher for Gauss than for Grav.

 Charistoph wrote:

The "high viewpoint" is seeing the game from more or all army perspectives, rather than from a single one. When considering many of these options, I try to consider it as a Templar, Chaos Marine, Tau, and Necron player. So a "high viewpoint" is concerned about balance.

This is where I disagree mostly. I don't think about all armies, only the weakest ones. Making the game more balanced means promoting the bottom tiers to at lest mid tiers levels. With that in mind any change to the core rules should be made thinking about those armies. Chaos, tau and necrons don't need any kind of help, some SM chapters are weaker than others but a huge amount of cheesy SM chapters would be bad overall, with lesser variety of armies played at higher levels. I think several imperium armies are too powerful right now, so if a couple of them are not that's not that huge problem. With the alliances system they can also solve some of their problems.

I'm totally fine with my bottom-mid tier armies and I wouldn't change anything in the core rules (I would only add the complete range in close combat to hit rolls, because it's not acceptable that WS8 models hit on 3s instead of 2s units that have a 4-5 points lower WS, and viceversa it's not fair that WS3 units hit of 5s instead of 6s those skilled close combat models), but if some efforts are made to improve the game IMHO those armies should get attention, and eventual rule changings should be made only with that in mind. For example promoting DA or SW to eldar levels is not making the game more balanced. Letting tyranids, dark eldar or orks reaching DA and SW levels is. Improving armies like sisters, AM or BA would be fine if the process doesn't make other SM chapters that are competitive already better too.

 Blackie wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

The "high viewpoint" is seeing the game from more or all army perspectives, rather than from a single one. When considering many of these options, I try to consider it as a Templar, Chaos Marine, Tau, and Necron player. So a "high viewpoint" is concerned about balance.

This is where I disagree mostly. I don't think about all armies, only the weakest ones. Making the game more balanced means promoting the bottom tiers to at lest mid tiers levels. With that in mind any change to the core rules should be made thinking about those armies.

You are very wrong about this. A balanced game is not about addressing the weakest elements. It's about attacking the problems at their source. If the core rules are creating imbalance issues (like the way vehicle rules and in particular walker rules actively hamper many unit types) then fixing that fixes all those unit types across the entire game. The weaker codexes are not weak because of the core rule books. They are weak because of poor internal and external balance with their codex. Nids don't need any boosts from the base rule book. They need their core rules to make sense without hampering them. Their units to have clear functions and roles that they can actually perform in. And some sense of synergy that allows for more units to work well in tandem.

No proposed change to unit types, wounding, CORE RULES, will balance Nids. Again, the core rules are not what makes them weak. When you consider a change to the core rules, you need to consider how it would impact all armies, because all armies are effected.

 Lance845 wrote:


When you consider a change to the core rules, you need to consider how it would impact all armies, because all armies are effected.

That's what I'm saying, if the change improves mid or top tiers armies and not the weakest ones, IMHO the game was better before. A change in the core rules would obviously affect all armies, but some of them would have benefits and other ones wouldn't. That's why I think that if the the game is unbalanced (and with unbalanced I mean average armies levels, not single units levels) any possible change should be focused to reduce the gap between armies. With the current huge amount of possible combinations of units and wargear every codex would always have some options that are more competitive than other ones. But the average quality of every army should be around the same level IMHO.

I agree that most of the issues about 40k are caused by codex rules and not core ones, but I think that making vehicles stronger would mostly affect positively some armies that don't need improvements.

 Blackie wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


When you consider a change to the core rules, you need to consider how it would impact all armies, because all armies are effected.

That's what I'm saying, if the change improves mid or top tiers armies and not the weakest ones, IMHO the game was better before. A change in the core rules would obviously affect all armies, but some of them would have benefits and other ones wouldn't. That's why I think that if the the game is unbalanced (and with unbalanced I mean average armies levels, not single units levels) any possible change should be focused to reduce the gap between armies. With the current huge amount of possible combinations of units and wargear every codex would always have some options that are more competitive than other ones. But the average quality of every army should be around the same level IMHO.

I agree that most of the issues about 40k are caused by codex rules and not core ones, but I think that making vehicles stronger would mostly affect positively some armies that don't need improvements.

It's not about making vehicles stronger. It's about getting rid of unneeded complexity, removing random rolls on random charts which adds no strategy and is only a detriment to the game play experience, and allowing all unit types to function well on the table. How that impacts any particular army doesn't matter. Those issues need addressing because those issues are actual issues. If vehicles become "tougher" because it's now no longer possible to roll a lucky result on a random chart that causes the vehicle to loose guns or end up just sitting in one spot facing a wall for the rest of the game then so be it. The game itself is better because of it.

I would rather re-balance nids and the other lower tier armies against a set of core rules that actually work than leave the core rules in the gak state they are in just for the sake of not inadvertently improving SM.

That's your opinion, I respect it. I think warhammer40k is a wonderful game and there aren't many issues in the core rules. I love the actual rules about vehicles so in my opinion the game wouldn't be better if tanks lose the chance of being immobilized, get a weapon destroyed or even exploded. I like how this system works and I don't think it needs some changings. A bit of randomness is also vital, otherwise assuming both players having the same experience, the better list would always win.

I usually play with lots of vehicles and I don't think they need different rules. I don't care if my gorkanaut is currently useless, if I am a good player I would find a way to play it efficiently at least against mid tiers lists. I don't care if in a competitive environment many units always stay on the bench, I'd like a game in which orks, sisters and tyranids have same possibilities to win tournaments than eldar or SM. Regardless of the core rules of the game.

In friendly casual games almost every unit can be fielded with success.

In the current meta land raiders, AM tanks and even rhinos are tough to kill for many armies, and they really deal with them only in close combat. Which means that transport tanks like rhinos or LR crusader can do their job, and shooty ones have good chances to make some damage. Vehicles seem to be nerfed only because a couple of armies can deal with them awfully easily. But those armies that spam grav (and even melta) and D shots are overpowered in several perspectives, not only in dealing with AV.

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


Was talking about the land raider. BA sucking is only relevant to demonstrate how mind bogglingly bad the land raider is.

Not really, the LR in that case sucks because BA suck. In a non ultra competitive game regular SM and SW can field land raiders, I've seen many times wulfen in a standard land raider that allows them to reach close combat without taking wounds in the process, or arjac shield brothers in a crusader which is a nice formation.

Many armies can't wreck a LR in the shooting phase without a huge amount of luck and the multimelta, assault cannon and las cannons mounted on the big vehicle are good weapons. If it manages to carry its passengers wherever they need to arrive or if it has the possibility to shoot for 2-3 turns before being melted in close combat the LR has done its job. In the SW codex there are several worse choices.

But also in competitive games I've taken units that are considered among the best ones from the armies that I play (only bottom or mid tiers) and sometimes they perform. I've seen ork kommandos and burnaboyz being effective, but also dark eldar incubi, wracks and mandrakes that contributed to score points. Now we all know that the LR is not among the best units in any SM chapter but it's not that stupid thing that does nothing in the entire game and/or it's wrecked turn 1.

It's probably bad played as it's not a vehicle that wins games alone, it needs to have synergy with the rest of the list, and it surely can be an average unit in the hands of an experienced player. In any SM (and specific chapters) general review LR are typically rated with 5,6,7 out of 10, not with 1, 2 or 3. Sometimes you require 10-20 bad losses in order to learn how to play a unit efficiently.

BA have drop pods, stormravens, a lot of badass units with jump packs and dreads among their best units. The LR probably doesn't have synergy with that army, I'm not sure about that as I faced BA as an opponent and never played them, but generally speaking it's not that bad.

That's the problem. Most of the problems with the LR are not in the controller's hands. You are paying a ton of points for a single assault that may or may not ever happen.

It doesn't matter what you put in the land raider. It still sucks. Badly. I'd much rather face a SW list with a Land Raider in it because they just bought 250 pts of suck.

"BA have drop pods, stormravens, a lot of badass units with jump packs and dreads among their best units"

Sigh. Wrong. Stormravens and jump pack units are garbage. So are most BA dreads.

Martel732 wrote:


It doesn't matter what you put in the land raider. It still sucks. Badly. I'd much rather face a SW list with a Land Raider in it because they just bought 250 pts of suck.

Well I disagree. I always play wulfen on foot because I like playing 5-6 footslogging close combat oriented units and I hate the model of the land raider, but if you face orks with lots of S5 shots (bikes and lobbas) and S8 from tankbustas, which are their typical best shooty units, that land raider would deliver you wulfen wherever they need to be. Otherwise an average turn of ork shooting can cripple them badly. Same against DE, they typically have 70+ poisoned shots at BS4, but very little anti AV 12-14. AM can hurt footslogging wulfen way better than a unit inside a land raider. Tau can wipe out 2x5 wulfen on foot with their average shooting, they are typically better against infantries models and low-mid AV rather than AV14. That vehicle, while is far from being an autoinclude, is not a 1/10 rated unit.

I think if we just used the armor save/AP system it would help with the glanced to death problem.

Give stuff like rhinos a 4+ armor save. Preds/MBTs a 3+, and big stuff like a LR can have a 2+ save. Speeders and light stuff maybe get a 5+

Almost all dedicated AV firepower (melta, LCs, bright lances, etc) is already AP1-2. So if you are bring an anti-tank gun to a tank fight, you will get the same results as you always have. Mid range guns like autocannons still work for cracking open light armor like rhinos, as AP4 still gets the job done.

Scatter lasers get the shaft, but I think we are all OK with that. And frankly still have the weight of fire to put wounds in.

Doesn’t touch grav, which is an issue, and I’d have to read the fine print on haywire.

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


It doesn't matter what you put in the land raider. It still sucks. Badly. I'd much rather face a SW list with a Land Raider in it because they just bought 250 pts of suck.

Well I disagree. I always play wulfen on foot because I like playing 5-6 footslogging close combat oriented units and I hate the model of the land raider, but if you face orks with lots of S5 shots (bikes and lobbas) and S8 from tankbustas, which are their typical best shooty units, that land raider would deliver you wulfen wherever they need to be. Otherwise an average turn of ork shooting can cripple them badly. Same against DE, they typically have 70+ poisoned shots at BS4, but very little anti AV 12-14. AM can hurt footslogging wulfen way better than a unit inside a land raider. Tau can wipe out 2x5 wulfen on foot with their average shooting, they are typically better against infantries models and low-mid AV rather than AV14. That vehicle, while is far from being an autoinclude, is not a 1/10 rated unit.

It's a -1/10 rated unit. I can immobilize itself on any terrain feature, with no option for a dozer blade. So no, it may not be delivering anything anywhere. Without your opponent firing a shot.

Martel732 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


It doesn't matter what you put in the land raider. It still sucks. Badly. I'd much rather face a SW list with a Land Raider in it because they just bought 250 pts of suck.

Well I disagree. I always play wulfen on foot because I like playing 5-6 footslogging close combat oriented units and I hate the model of the land raider, but if you face orks with lots of S5 shots (bikes and lobbas) and S8 from tankbustas, which are their typical best shooty units, that land raider would deliver you wulfen wherever they need to be. Otherwise an average turn of ork shooting can cripple them badly. Same against DE, they typically have 70+ poisoned shots at BS4, but very little anti AV 12-14. AM can hurt footslogging wulfen way better than a unit inside a land raider. Tau can wipe out 2x5 wulfen on foot with their average shooting, they are typically better against infantries models and low-mid AV rather than AV14. That vehicle, while is far from being an autoinclude, is not a 1/10 rated unit.

It's a -1/10 rated unit. I can immobilize itself on any terrain feature, with no option for a dozer blade. So no, it may not be delivering anything anywhere. Without your opponent firing a shot.

Terrain covers only 25% of the table, an immobilized result for the LR can be easily avoided. When I use my open topped vehicles sometimes they get stuck somewhere, but they're mostly AV10 so I must use covers and run them through terrain. A land raider is AV14-14-14 which means that against many lists he should easily survive 1-2 turn of shooting and there's no need to pass dangerous terrains, even if you are forced to pass through terrain there's only 1/6 chance to get stuck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
I think if we just used the armor save/AP system it would help with the glanced to death problem.

Give stuff like rhinos a 4+ armor save. Preds/MBTs a 3+, and big stuff like a LR can have a 2+ save. Speeders and light stuff maybe get a 5+

Almost all dedicated AV firepower (melta, LCs, bright lances, etc) is already AP1-2. So if you are bring an anti-tank gun to a tank fight, you will get the same results as you always have. Mid range guns like autocannons still work for cracking open light armor like rhinos, as AP4 still gets the job done.

Scatter lasers get the shaft, but I think we are all OK with that. And frankly still have the weight of fire to put wounds in.

Doesn’t touch grav, which is an issue, and I’d have to read the fine print on haywire.

That would make Gladius impossible to defeat. Many armies can't defeat those spamming free vehicles SM even with the current rules.

"Terrain covers only 25% of the table"

We typically play with considerably more. There are typically no driving lanes for something as ridiculously massive as the Land Raider.

"many lists he should easily survive 1-2 turn of shooting "

You sure about that? Because a single grav hit, or a single immobilize cripples it to the point of uselessness. So much for your fancy assault unit. Even lowly BA can drop quite a bit of melta right on it.

LOL what Land Raider is surviving 2 turns unless the opponent is literally that bad...

Blackie wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

The "high viewpoint" is seeing the game from more or all army perspectives, rather than from a single one. When considering many of these options, I try to consider it as a Templar, Chaos Marine, Tau, and Necron player. So a "high viewpoint" is concerned about balance.

This is where I disagree mostly. I don't think about all armies, only the weakest ones. Making the game more balanced means promoting the bottom tiers to at lest mid tiers levels. With that in mind any change to the core rules should be made thinking about those armies. Chaos, tau and necrons don't need any kind of help, some SM chapters are weaker than others but a huge amount of cheesy SM chapters would be bad overall, with lesser variety of armies played at higher levels. I think several imperium armies are too powerful right now, so if a couple of them are not that's not that huge problem. With the alliances system they can also solve some of their problems.

You are using Tunnel Vision to view my responses, so you miss the point. Chaos Marines DO need help, but much of it is in the same vein as Tyranids, more internal than issues with what they are given then overall mechanisms. I focus more on them as I simply know them better than I do other armies. This does not mean I ignore all other armies. I consider changes from as many armies as I know the rules and stats for. A "high viewpoint" is stepping away from the tunnel vision of one or two armies' perspectives and looking at balance as an overall whole.

Sometimes, good armies need a slight buff because a rule is damaging and presents a non-sensical dichotomy like the huge divergence of survivability between Vehicles and MCs. If a general rule, this can affect mid to lower tier armies as well. As I pointed out earlier, treat MCs as Vehicles, and see how many MC's see the table then. This shows a huge balance problem.

Blackie wrote:I'm totally fine with my bottom-mid tier armies and I wouldn't change anything in the core rules (I would only add the complete range in close combat to hit rolls, because it's not acceptable that WS8 models hit on 3s instead of 2s units that have a 4-5 points lower WS, and viceversa it's not fair that WS3 units hit of 5s instead of 6s those skilled close combat models), but if some efforts are made to improve the game IMHO those armies should get attention, and eventual rule changings should be made only with that in mind. For example promoting DA or SW to eldar levels is not making the game more balanced. Letting tyranids, dark eldar or orks reaching DA and SW levels is. Improving armies like sisters, AM or BA would be fine if the process doesn't make other SM chapters that are competitive already better too.

And nothing about this thread invalidates the need for low-tier armies like Tyranids to be improved. Tyranids have problems with Vehicles now. Most of these changes (if taken with balance in mind, more Armour Save than Invul Save, for example) will not disimprove them greatly, and would not greatly affect them if they were balanced against current Vehicle rules.

Martel732 wrote:You sure about that? Because a single grav hit, or a single immobilize cripples it to the point of uselessness. So much for your fancy assault unit. Even lowly BA can drop quite a bit of melta right on it.

It can take more than one single grav hit to Immobilize a Vehicle. It's only a 1/6 chance, so usually about 10 hits with my dice.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL what Land Raider is surviving 2 turns unless the opponent is literally that bad...

Those focusing on more immediate threats that are easier to deal with. Kind of like ignoring 3rd Edition Necron Monoliths.

 Charistoph wrote:

Blackie wrote:I don't care about an "high viewpoint", I only care about a more balanced game. If a rule seems stupid but actually keeps the game more balanced is actually clever. So changing the core rules IMHO can be a good idea only if the result of that action is a more balanced game. Not a more realistic one.

The "high viewpoint" is seeing the game from more or all army perspectives, rather than from a single one. When considering many of these options, I try to consider it as a Templar, Chaos Marine, Tau, and Necron player. So a "high viewpoint" is concerned about balance.

Blackie wrote:You're scared about gauss and MCs? they're only a small part of the game. Take a land raider against orks, dark eldars, harlequins, GK, tyranids, sisters and it would probably perform, even againts good lists. Necrons have those "superscary" gauss shots, but overall SM outperform them about everything. Necrons are a mid tier army currently, relying on gauss doesn't make them overpowered at all. Grav spam SM are.

I never said I was scared, only that some fear that Glance-spam makes their Vehicle toys useless. I'm saying that certain things are unbalanced and MCs are the organic equivalent to Vehicles. This is made obvious since the Dreadknight came out and suddenly Monstrous Batlesuits joined them, while pretty close to that Chaos Marines got Walkers and a Flyer that could fit the same bill as well.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Not by much. A kitted out Tomb Blade squad with 5 members is 110 points. That's S5 AP4 Ignores Cover. Ain't too shabby. That 5-10 TL shots that are Gauss.
5 Marine Bikers with 2 Grav Guns and a Combi-Grav is 135 or 145 points off the top of my head.

I think anyone can tell you which one is going to fare better against the most amount of targets.

How much Tesla is taken in Troops vs Gauss? How much can a Ghost Ark put out? If there is an option for Gauss vs something else, Gauss is taken 90% of the time, with Tomb Blades and the Triarch Stalker getting most of those non-Gauss options. It is to this which I indicate that Availibility is higher for Gauss than for Grav.

I'm guessing you don't play Necrons a lot.
10 Warriors and a Ghost Ark is 235 points. That's more than compared to the Bikers I made mention of.

Yeah you're getting a few more Gauss Shots. That's not comparable to stripping a HP and causing immobilized results though and to think it is near is quite frankly unintelligent on your end.

"Those focusing on more immediate threats that are easier to deal with"

I dont' know. It's hard to beat the efficiency of a single immobilize screwing over 500+ pts of stuff. You are necessarily, reducing your table presence by taking a land raider.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I'm guessing you don't play Necrons a lot.
10 Warriors and a Ghost Ark is 235 points. That's more than compared to the Bikers I made mention of.

Yeah you're getting a few more Gauss Shots. That's not comparable to stripping a HP and causing immobilized results though and to think it is near is quite frankly unintelligent on your end.

Tunnel Vision. How many times is an army about just an Ark Phalax versus a squad of Bikers? How many Ark Phalanxes will you be facing against with a Decurion along with the Immortals? How many Bike Squads will you see in a Gladius Strike Force?

Run the numbers, how many Gauss shots can the average Decurion Force at 1850 points? How many Grav Shots can the average Gladius Strike Force provide?

Martel732 wrote:"Those focusing on more immediate threats that are easier to deal with"

I dont' know. It's hard to beat the efficiency of a single immobilize screwing over 500+ pts of stuff. You are necessarily, reducing your table presence by taking a land raider.

And if you armies don't carry tools to Penetrate a Land Raider (or have them on the other side of the board dealing with a more important threat), how do you propose to immobilize a Land Raider? Especially when most of your AV is focused on Glancing a Vehicle to death and not Penetrating a Vehicle like it was in Editions past?

There wont' BE other threats if your opponent paid for a land raider plus cargo.

Also, the land raider will immobilize itself, have no fear.

Martel732 wrote:
There wont' BE other threats if your opponent paid for a land raider plus cargo.

Also, the land raider will immobilize itself, have no fear.

Depends on the army build, really.

 Charistoph wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There wont' BE other threats if your opponent paid for a land raider plus cargo.

Also, the land raider will immobilize itself, have no fear.

Depends on the army build, really.

If you say so. I haven't seen someone who fielded a land raider win in a long, long time. Whether their opponent could penetrate it or not. Fielding one skews the game against you that badly.

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I'm guessing you don't play Necrons a lot.
10 Warriors and a Ghost Ark is 235 points. That's more than compared to the Bikers I made mention of.

Yeah you're getting a few more Gauss Shots. That's not comparable to stripping a HP and causing immobilized results though and to think it is near is quite frankly unintelligent on your end.

Tunnel Vision. How many times is an army about just an Ark Phalax versus a squad of Bikers? How many Ark Phalanxes will you be facing against with a Decurion along with the Immortals? How many Bike Squads will you see in a Gladius Strike Force?

Run the numbers, how many Gauss shots can the average Decurion Force at 1850 points? How many Grav Shots can the average Gladius Strike Force provide?

Martel732 wrote:"Those focusing on more immediate threats that are easier to deal with"

I dont' know. It's hard to beat the efficiency of a single immobilize screwing over 500+ pts of stuff. You are necessarily, reducing your table presence by taking a land raider.

And if you armies don't carry tools to Penetrate a Land Raider (or have them on the other side of the board dealing with a more important threat), how do you propose to immobilize a Land Raider? Especially when most of your AV is focused on Glancing a Vehicle to death and not Penetrating a Vehicle like it was in Editions past?

There's only a few more Gauss Shots compared to the more devastating Grav shots. I showed how many points those were already...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
There's only a few more Gauss Shots compared to the more devastating Grav shots. I showed how many points those were already...

For two units (one of which may or may not be taken) compared to one. Two units which make up the core of an army vs one unit which is usually an auxiliary status when compared to the free Transports Detachment.

Martel732 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


Was talking about the land raider. BA sucking is only relevant to demonstrate how mind bogglingly bad the land raider is.

Not really, the LR in that case sucks because BA suck. In a non ultra competitive game regular SM and SW can field land raiders, I've seen many times wulfen in a standard land raider that allows them to reach close combat without taking wounds in the process, or arjac shield brothers in a crusader which is a nice formation.

Many armies can't wreck a LR in the shooting phase without a huge amount of luck and the multimelta, assault cannon and las cannons mounted on the big vehicle are good weapons. If it manages to carry its passengers wherever they need to arrive or if it has the possibility to shoot for 2-3 turns before being melted in close combat the LR has done its job. In the SW codex there are several worse choices.

But also in competitive games I've taken units that are considered among the best ones from the armies that I play (only bottom or mid tiers) and sometimes they perform. I've seen ork kommandos and burnaboyz being effective, but also dark eldar incubi, wracks and mandrakes that contributed to score points. Now we all know that the LR is not among the best units in any SM chapter but it's not that stupid thing that does nothing in the entire game and/or it's wrecked turn 1.

It's probably bad played as it's not a vehicle that wins games alone, it needs to have synergy with the rest of the list, and it surely can be an average unit in the hands of an experienced player. In any SM (and specific chapters) general review LR are typically rated with 5,6,7 out of 10, not with 1, 2 or 3. Sometimes you require 10-20 bad losses in order to learn how to play a unit efficiently.

BA have drop pods, stormravens, a lot of badass units with jump packs and dreads among their best units. The LR probably doesn't have synergy with that army, I'm not sure about that as I faced BA as an opponent and never played them, but generally speaking it's not that bad.

That's the problem. Most of the problems with the LR are not in the controller's hands. You are paying a ton of points for a single assault that may or may not ever happen.

It doesn't matter what you put in the land raider. It still sucks. Badly. I'd much rather face a SW list with a Land Raider in it because they just bought 250 pts of suck.

"BA have drop pods, stormravens, a lot of badass units with jump packs and dreads among their best units"

Sigh. Wrong. Stormravens and jump pack units are garbage. So are most BA dreads.

That's debatable - SW Land Raiders under the Ironwolves detachment are quite a bit better than regular ones, they move further, they pack what little upgrades Land Raiders have access to for free and drop their target's leadership while tank-shocking, on top of that I chock it full of Axe and Claw Wulfen.
Also, I nab the Redeemer for 240 points.