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

To me, the new rules seem to make war walkers awesome. While they've definitely been made more fragile, they are also one of the best ways to exploit the weaknesses that the 'hull point rule' has created.

War walker with 2 shuriken cannons is 40 points, putting out 6 S6 shots each at 24" (or 70 points for 8 S6 shots at 36", although I prefer the budget option). Major transport killer.

They're definitely a glass cannon, but they're a relatively cheap glass cannon (in the scheme of things). Too damaging to ignore, and you're going to have to invest more points to stop them (unless you're using necrons).

I'm not saying that walkers haven't been made weaker. All I'm saying is that if you use them as a 'kamikaze' unit they could have potential.

Yeah, I'll definately be pulling off my scatter lasers and putting Shuriken cannons on my war walkers. They should have 1-2 great rounds if I can move them around properly.

Celtic Strike wrote:People who say eldar didn't get hit with a nerf hammer are exactly the same as white people who insist there is no trouble with racism in this country. Delusional.

OK...welcome to invalidating your own credibility with silly drivel...

All I have to say on the eldar nerfhammer arguement is: Wraithlord as a monstrous creature and no longer a walker. Add in plenty of lance weapons and even enemy land raiders and monoliths are as vulnerable as eldar tanks are...

Skriker

Joey wrote:

Tiger9gamer wrote:I'm guessing my new vindicators might suck now :(

Old rules -
single glancing hit. Rolls a 5, your weapon is destroyed. Seeya!
New rules -
Can take a few hits before being taken out.
So, no.

I can careless about hull points, as well, I use my tank for support. i dont roll around the whole game, shooting out the hatch, I think that was always lame. You take troops, then put them i in armor, then put that armor in a rolling can of armor, so you can be safe. I try to keep to fluff I guess, Now I did enjoy my Chaos Marines and their multi rhinos, only because I tried to speed to the ememy as fast as I can, without taking pot shots, then get into close combat (what a Rhino is for, moving people, not being a tank...it's like a Humvee, not a mobile weapon platform)
But, I can see where people are coming from. I have seen a lot of "well this unit can do this, and this unit can do that" lets cut down to the the basics here. Just because you have a Lascannon on the field it doesnt mean it will be in range, have sight, not be tied up, hit it's target. You can take 5 guys with Meltas, doesnt mean they will live to use them.
On the other side of the coin, taking say..Marines with ML, you pop a tank...then well, next turn you can pop another. So spending points on one unit, and saying "well it only took out 55 points" you forget, thats 55 points a turn. Three, four turns in, it not only took out more points BUT it also slowed you down, took away weapons you brought out. It is more than just points. I might waste time using an over priced unit to take out one HQ, but if you needed that HQ for some grand plan, then I did more than take points from you. It's why when I do use tanks, I target the weapons that can take those tanks out first. That leaves my armor safe to shoot the rest.
As far as hull points. I do think it's sad that i cxan take 4 SoB with Heavy Bolters (not seen the new rules so going with Heavy 3 Str 5) And fire 12 shots, and all I need is a 5 or 6 to take a hull point off a Rhino or the like. Even if it takes more than one turn, since another unit can finish it off. Now troops on footor in a ride can not take a hail of bullets.
A Melta is a Melta, it always wins as long as it hits.

Since im going to have 8 battlewagons that really only need one turn of movement, I think im going to be ok, at the worst ill lose 2 or 3 battlewagons turn one, and then I still have another 3

Meh, I don't think it makes vehicles obsolete, it just makes them more predictable. Many people seem to rant and complain saying that now their vehicles will be gone so quickly, but somehow I recall Leman Russes and Predators being blown up after taking one or two lucky hits.
Sure now it's less likely to have your vehicles take 20 glances and pens and just washing off due to some good luck, but it seems to have gotten better for everybody.
No longer can one dumb glance keep your 200 Point vehicle from firing for an entire turn and no longer can (with much probability) dump 400 points of shooting in a single vehicle and just shake it.
To me, 6th ed just balances things out well.

Fire_for_effect wrote:Meh, I don't think it makes vehicles obsolete, it just makes them more predictable. Many people seem to rant and complain saying that now their vehicles will be gone so quickly, but somehow I recall Leman Russes and Predators being blown up after taking one or two lucky hits.

With dedicated AT guns yes, and that's not likely to change. It's the lighter vehicles, and anything that gets into CC with anything that isn't a Land Raider, that's the issue.

In CC, 90% of units in the game can at least glance 90% of the vehicles in the game. Anything that's a Space Marine is packing Krak Grenades, meaning a bog-standard tac squad of marines is practically assured to kill anything that is rear AV10 (read: anything that isn't a Land Raider, Stormraven, or LR Demolisher) without ever even having to roll for a damage result. (10 attacks, 6.66 hit, 3.33 glances/pen's)

For lighter vehicles, mid strength (often primarily anti-infantry) shooting can cut them down very quickly indeed be it 200pt kitted Falcon of 35pt Rhino, and Necrons can clear a board of a dozen vehicles in just a couple of turns.


What we've basically got is a hamfisted mechanic overlayed on top of another mechanic to bypass it, they just decided that after X hits just call it dead and ignore the actual damage mechanic.

Fire_for_effect wrote:Meh, I don't think it makes vehicles obsolete, it just makes them more predictable. Many people seem to rant and complain saying that now their vehicles will be gone so quickly, but somehow I recall Leman Russes and Predators being blown up after taking one or two lucky hits.
Sure now it's less likely to have your vehicles take 20 glances and pens and just washing off due to some good luck, but it seems to have gotten better for everybody.
No longer can one dumb glance keep your 200 Point vehicle from firing for an entire turn and no longer can (with much probability) dump 400 points of shooting in a single vehicle and just shake it.
To me, 6th ed just balances things out well.

Well put and I agree wholeheartedly. We have all definitely benefited from the roll the 6 to hit and roll a 1 on the penetration table for years now. Yay you tank/walker/what-have-you survives forever. It is great except when you are the one frustratingly failing to destroy a single vehicle with a ton of concentrated railgun or lascannon fire. Last game I played I had a daemon possessed Nurgle Plague Hulk walker walk at my opponent's broadside squad and squash them in hand to hand after 5 turns of him hitting every shot and rolling nothing but 1s on the penetration table. Being daemon possessed that didn't affect my plague hulk and I just walked right up to them and stomped them into the ground. Now if they hit me 3 times my walker will be destroyed. Makes sense. 3 penetrating hits with a rail gun should really get the job done, regardless of the roll on the table. Yes there is still the possibility of a wreck or destroyed result on the 1st or 2nd shot, but the process doesn't go on forever now.

The inclusion of hull point damage on glancing hits now means that more armies have a chance of dealing with that monolith or land raider in the opposing force. Eldar get their lances so hit as if the armor was only 12, but everyone else needs to penetrate that 14. What happens if you don't have anything with a higher strength than 8 in your army? In the past it meant you were completely screwed. Now enough krak missiles fired at a land raider can cause enough glances to eventually destroyed it. Same with the monolith.

Light vehicles have become a little more vulnerable to lighter weapons, but not dramatically so. Most rapid fire weapons still need to roll a 6 to get a glance on many light vehicles and some *still* can't hurt light vehicles, like lasguns.

Skriker

Skriker wrote:

Well put and I agree wholeheartedly. We have all definitely benefited from the roll the 6 to hit and roll a 1 on the penetration table for years now. Yay you tank/walker/what-have-you survives forever. It is great except when you are the one frustratingly failing to destroy a single vehicle with a ton of concentrated railgun or lascannon fire. Last game I played I had a daemon possessed Nurgle Plague Hulk walker walk at my opponent's broadside squad and squash them in hand to hand after 5 turns of him hitting every shot and rolling nothing but 1s on the penetration table. Being daemon possessed that didn't affect my plague hulk and I just walked right up to them and stomped them into the ground. Now if they hit me 3 times my walker will be destroyed. Makes sense. 3 penetrating hits with a rail gun should really get the job done, regardless of the roll on the table. Yes there is still the possibility of a wreck or destroyed result on the 1st or 2nd shot, but the process doesn't go on forever now.

It only went on forever with out-of-the-ordinary poor dice luck. Dump an 80pt squad of fire dragons, a squad of sternguard vets with combi-meltas, a 90pt quad melta CCS, etc and suddenly that Land Raider or Monolith was almost certainly toast.

The inclusion of hull point damage on glancing hits now means that more armies have a chance of dealing with that monolith or land raider in the opposing force. Eldar get their lances so hit as if the armor was only 12, but everyone else needs to penetrate that 14. What happens if you don't have anything with a higher strength than 8 in your army? In the past it meant you were completely screwed.

It means you didn't build an all-comers list and left out a critical capability that you shouldn't have. every army has ways to cover that angle, if you didn't bring it, that's your fault, not something the core rules need to adjust for. No different than if facing a 180 model ork horde and you only brought 30 dudes with nothing but power weapons, plasma/melta guns and no template/RoF weapons.

Now enough krak missiles fired at a land raider can cause enough glances to eventually destroyed it. Same with the monolith.

Those aren't the issue, and it's incredibly unlikely for such to happen, much more likely is a situation like the above, where someone dumps 4-6 meltaguns into them and just stops rolling once they get that 3rd or 4th successful pen roll. What does hurt a lot more is those lighter vehicles.

Light vehicles have become a little more vulnerable to lighter weapons, but not dramatically so. Most rapid fire weapons still need to roll a 6 to get a glance on many light vehicles and some *still* can't hurt light vehicles, like lasguns.

And Scatterlasers, Heavy Bolters, Grenade Launchers, etc have suddenly become terribly effective anti-light vehicle weapons where they really shoudn't be.

Also keep in mind the CC aspect. Between hull points and vehicles never being hit on worse than a 3+ in CC, a tac squad assaulting anything that isn't a Land Raider, Walker or Stormraven has can almost count on killing it simply through hull points, with an average of 3.33 glancing/pen hits inflicted with krak grenades. Get into base contact with vehicle win, rinse, repeat, easymode.

Yeah, vehicles should either have more hull points, or they should recover some of the hull points (or all of them) at the beginning of the turn. When I first read the rumors about hull points, I thought the latter was how they would work.

Vaktathi wrote:

Skriker wrote:Light vehicles have become a little more vulnerable to lighter weapons, but not dramatically so. Most rapid fire weapons still need to roll a 6 to get a glance on many light vehicles and some *still* can't hurt light vehicles, like lasguns.

And Scatterlasers, Heavy Bolters, Grenade Launchers, etc have suddenly become terribly effective anti-light vehicle weapons where they really shoudn't be.

Also keep in mind the CC aspect. Between hull points and vehicles never being hit on worse than a 3+ in CC, a tac squad assaulting anything that isn't a Land Raider, Walker or Stormraven has can almost count on killing it simply through hull points, with an average of 3.33 glancing/pen hits inflicted with krak grenades. Get into base contact with vehicle win, rinse, repeat, easymode.

Yeah, a CC is what really makes Eldar vehicles extremely rubbish in this edition. It is just ridiculously easy to kill them that way. In fact a round of shooting from full unit of Long Fangs (unit widely considered at incredible efficiency / point ratio) has a worse chance of destroying Wave Serpent than the same amount of points in TAC marines has by hitting it with sticks. This is especially stupid considering the difference in cost of serpent and rhino and absolutely no difference in CC resilience. Serpent going for > 40" (with Star Engines) is still 3+ to hit, exactly the same as rhino moving 1". It can move faster than 36" unable-to-be-assauled fliers. That's just bad design.

I don't think HPs are the end of all vehicles. Rhinos and similar are still in. But they did throw already pricey Serpent, Falcon, Piranha way back in competitiveness line.

Skriker wrote:All I have to say on the eldar nerfhammer arguement is: Wraithlord as a monstrous creature and no longer a walker. Add in plenty of lance weapons and even enemy land raiders and monoliths are as vulnerable as eldar tanks are...

Ok, I guess you are just trying to be "funny" right now..?
Wraithlord was never a walker and lance is widely (deservedly) considered a very bad weapon. It is worse than lascannon against anything < 13AV, its pricier and goes on BS3 units. LanceSerpent is 135 points, LanceFalcon is 145. Guardians are currently competing for second worst troops with shooty T3 5+ unit BS3 12" gun while costing more than Ork Boy. Scatter Lasers are still our go-to weapon on Walkers, Vipers and pretty much everything.

Yeah, the problem is that some armies rely on transports to be mobile battle bunkers, others use them as a skateboard. The armies that use them primarily as a skateboard (MEQ's and DE) won't see as many issues. The armies where they were designed and intended as mobile battle bunkers (Eldar, Guard, Tau) are going to really hate this edition. Gun tanks also aren't really going to have a fun time either.

Had they given most vehicles 5 or 6 hull points, it might be a different matter, but it's so pathetically easy to smack on 3 HP's worth of damage that actually killing a vehicle by rolling a destruction result on the damage table is going to be a relatively rare event.

As a DE player who takes lots of vehicles....in the 3 games I played this past weekend, I noticed that my vehicles either stayed in the air on average 1 turn longer, or when they did get pen'd, they exploded more often than not...Which happens when you are open topped getting hit with AP2 weapons.

Cover is easier to get now (25% instead of half concealed), If you have lots of Ruins on the table, you are getting 4+ cover saves, otherwise hugging terrain likely gets you 5+.

I did manage a lucky 'one-shot' kill on a Land Raider,...but all in all, I see lighter vehicles lasting a little longer...while heavy armored vehicles don't last the whole game anymore...

Also, target saturation is also key. I normally have at least 2 Raiders, 3-5 Venoms, and 3 Ravagers flying around in large games. When you present everything at once, your opponent has to prioritize and concentrate fire (if they are smart) or take one or two pot-shots at everything. Where vehicles really benefit from the HP rule.

Where you are gonna see less survivability is when you are used to taking a single Land Raider, a single Falcon, or just a couple of rhinos...then they are gonna become primary targets and go down fairly quickly.

Just keep in mind that one shot explosions are going to be more rare, as glances wont roll on the damage table (doesn't matter how good your AP is), and the table itself only has one destroyed result (6). But spamming lots of medium strength weapons, Auto Cannons, Scatter Lasers, etc. (even Heavy Bolters and Pulse weapons on side armor) will ensure you are at least consistently knocking off those HPs.

Yep, and it killed 40k to me, but what are you going to do, i will not buy additional models to comply with bad rules, had the medium HP been 5 it would may be had been another story, but loossing my transports turn 1 or 2, to the mass S7 plasmaguns that are going to be flooding the gaming tables this edition is just not fun.

I love dreads, to bad save 2 of the BA variants now have neither the tooth or the guns to fulfill any significant role on the battlefield.

xxvaderxx wrote:Yep, and it killed 40k to me, but what are you going to do, i will not buy additional models to comply with bad rules, had the medium HP been 5 it would may be had been another story, but loossing my transports turn 1 or 2, to the mass S7 plasmaguns that are going to be flooding the gaming tables this edition is just not fun.

I love dreads, to bad save 2 of the BA variants now have neither the tooth or the guns to fulfill any significant role on the battlefield.

Who has mass plasmaguns? In 5h almost nobody had them. Also in 5th tanks could get 1 shotted more easily at long range. Now they need to be in mid range to get whittled down. I plan on playing my BA tanks more. It still looks like my flamestorm cannon will be useful.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:Yep, and it killed 40k to me, but what are you going to do, i will not buy additional models to comply with bad rules, had the medium HP been 5 it would may be had been another story, but loossing my transports turn 1 or 2, to the mass S7 plasmaguns that are going to be flooding the gaming tables this edition is just not fun.

I love dreads, to bad save 2 of the BA variants now have neither the tooth or the guns to fulfill any significant role on the battlefield.

Who has mass plasmaguns? In 5h almost nobody had them. Also in 5th tanks could get 1 shotted more easily at long range. Now they need to be in mid range to get whittled down. I plan on playing my BA tanks more. It still looks like my flamestorm cannon will be useful.

It is a lot easier however to kill vehicles through weight of fire. An Autocannon in 5E needed an average of 36 shots at BS3 to kill an AV12 tank (36/2=18hits/6=3pens/3=1wrecked/explodes). Now it just needs an average of 18 shots (18shots/2=9hits/3=3 glances/pen's) with the (admittedly reduced) chance to still insta-kill present on top of that.

Given the utter lack of need to roll on a damage chart really to kill vehicles and reduced cover saves, plasma weapons will likely be more popular in 5th, all those old PG models getting cracked out of their cases from 4E armies.

Vaktathi wrote: It means you didn't build an all-comers list and left out a critical capability that you shouldn't have. every army has ways to cover that angle, if you didn't bring it, that's your fault, not something the core rules need to adjust for. No different than if facing a 180 model ork horde and you only brought 30 dudes with nothing but power weapons, plasma/melta guns and no template/RoF weapons.

Yeah an "all comers" list. Even trying to do that it is impossible to build a perfect "all comers" list. You put in what you can, but you can't put too much of any one thing into the army or you'll be critically short elsehwere so what you end up with is some ability against everything, and having 4-6 meltaguns to take out tanks doesn't exactly fit in a lot of "all comers" list. While all of you special weapons are geared towards anti-tank what are you using to deal with the hordes that can appear? I can get some missile launchers and a couple metlas and still have some other abilities to deal with hordes too, but then if one of the big boys shows up I am screwed unless I can get my couple meltas close enough to do some good and any opponent worth their salt will make that hard for me to do. Just because I have meltas doesn't mean I'll get them within 8".

And Scatterlasers, Heavy Bolters, Grenade Launchers, etc have suddenly become terribly effective anti-light vehicle weapons where they really shoudn't be.

Funny I recall scatterlasters being billed as anti-infantry and light vehicle weapons, same with heavy bolters, so why shouldn't they be effective at that job?

Also keep in mind the CC aspect. Between hull points and vehicles never being hit on worse than a 3+ in CC, a tac squad assaulting anything that isn't a Land Raider, Walker or Stormraven has can almost count on killing it simply through hull points, with an average of 3.33 glancing/pen hits inflicted with krak grenades. Get into base contact with vehicle win, rinse, repeat, easymode.

Historically armored vehicles have *always* been vulnerable to infantry attacks. They are not designed for close in point defense and once infantry get within their fire bubble, can pretty much have their way with the armored vehicle placing grenades and mines into vulnerable places and watching the tank just become a useless hunk of junk. This is why the soviets started piling SMG armed troops on to the backs of their tanks, specifically to deal with the infantry threat.

If you leave your tanks sitting off by themselves and allow your enemy to get his infantry close enough to assault then yep you will probably lose your tank if they have krak grenades. If on the other you you support and protect your armor with your own infantry and keep them from being that vulnerable you aren't going to have to worry as much.

Yes vehicles are more vulnerable now, but they were too invulnerable before. Transports went from never being used to almost constantly being used, and there was a reason for that. Now that near invulnerability has been removed. Of course I'd be bothered if only 1 force had gotten hit with the hull points downgrade, but everyone has to deal with hullpoints now, so everyone is equally as stymied. In reading the first 6th edition battle report in White Dwarf, I didn't see hull points making the vehicles used any less viable.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Macok wrote:Ok, I guess you are just trying to be funny; right now..?
Wraithlord was never a walker and lance is widely (deservedly) considered a very bad weapon. It is worse than lascannon against anything < 13AV, its pricier and goes on BS3 units. LanceSerpent is 135 points, LanceFalcon is 145. Guardians are currently competing for second worst troops with shooty T3 5+ unit BS3 12" gun while costing more than Ork Boy. Scatter Lasers are still our go-to weapon on Walkers, Vipers and pretty much everything.

Yeah I'm just trying to be funny. The wraithlord gets some good buffs from the fact that it is a monstrous creature in the current rules. It especially doesn't suffer from any of the weaknesses that similar units in other armies still face with hull points and armor values that everyone is complaining about. You may consider the lance a bad weapon, but I don't and never have. I used the to great effect when I played Eldar a while back, popping leman russ tanks without breaking a sweat. They also give bonuses on the penetration table so even when shooting a light vehicle have a better chance of destroying them outright over other weapons. Boo hoo eldar are BS-3...still gives you a 50% to hit when you fire the weapons. That is better than ork boyz doing any shooting. Guardians, armed with assault weapons to a man, can also shoot all of their weapons into an enemy unit before a charge. Certainly makes them better than their nearest equivilent, Imperial guard. Just to avoid the "Well rapid fire weapons have longer range now" arguement, the point here is for preparing to assault and you can't assault if you aren't close enough to assault which will usually be within the short range of rapid fire weapons anyway.

And given that people seem to claim that scatter lasers and multi lasers are so much better now because they will decimate light vehicles, I don't see what the problem is on having them on war walkers either. Of course if you can't be bothered to take lance weapons and use one of the biggest anti-armor advantages that the eldar have, that isn't exactly my fault or the fault of the rules either now is it?

Skriker

Vaktathi wrote:
It is a lot easier however to kill vehicles through weight of fire. An Autocannon in 5E needed an average of 36 shots at BS3 to kill an AV12 tank (36/2=18hits/6=3pens/3=1wrecked/explodes). Now it just needs an average of 18 shots (18shots/2=9hits/3=3 glances/pen's) with the (admittedly reduced) chance to still insta-kill present on top of that.

Given the utter lack of need to roll on a damage chart really to kill vehicles and reduced cover saves, plasma weapons will likely be more popular in 5th, all those old PG models getting cracked out of their cases from 4E armies.

Isn't Obscured still 4+ cover save for Vehicles, and easier to get (25%)? Also, in your calculations you negated the chance for killing the vehicle via glancing which also existed in 5th ed, particularly with Open-topped vehicles. Particularly AP1 weapons often easily killed or immobilized Open-Topped vehicles with mere glancing hits.

But yeah, mass glancing, if the army is capable of it, will be pretty killy against vehicles. Lootas will be mega scary in 6th.

Fango wrote:Also, target saturation is also key. I normally have at least 2 Raiders, 3-5 Venoms, and 3 Ravagers flying around in large games. When you present everything at once, your opponent has to prioritize and concentrate fire (if they are smart) or take one or two pot-shots at everything. Where vehicles really benefit from the HP rule.

First off, thanks for the commentary and examples Fango. Nice to get some word on the rules in action instead of just people complaining about how it is going to be.

Single vehicles are definitely at a disadvantage because it allows an opponent to focus all of their fire on that one vehicle. Eldar and DE especially have plenty of vehicles everywhere making for many more targets and making it harder to gang up on just one target. This was seen in the White Dwarf battle report too when both sides had 5+ walkers and vehicles and they still had just as much impact on the game as always.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:It is a lot easier however to kill vehicles through weight of fire. An Autocannon in 5E needed an average of 36 shots at BS3 to kill an AV12 tank (36/2=18hits/6=3pens/3=1wrecked/explodes). Now it just needs an average of 18 shots (18shots/2=9hits/3=3 glances/pen's) with the (admittedly reduced) chance to still insta-kill present on top of that.

Given the utter lack of need to roll on a damage chart really to kill vehicles and reduced cover saves, plasma weapons will likely be more popular in 5th, all those old PG models getting cracked out of their cases from 4E armies.

So you consider it a bad thing that one doesn't have to shoot at the same tank 30+ times just in the hopes of getting it destroyed. It may not be as perfect for the tank owner, but is a lot less annoying and frustrating for the person trying to destroy the tank. In 5e trying to destroy even a lighter AV12 vehicle in your example could often be a wondeful lesson in futility meaning that tank armies either dominated or a player had to stack the deck in their army with tons of anti-tank in the hopes of succeeding if they faced a tank army, but not being as useful against non-tank armies.

Just looking at your example numbers should make it clear why adding the hull points were a good thing. Gone are the days of utterly wasting heavy weapon fire to poor rolls on the penetrating table. Penetrate that tank 3 times and it is wrecked now. I *like* that a lot. I like the fact that a single tank can no longer dominate a fight due to being near impossible to kill, especially when you aren't play MEQ armies with their higher BS for shooting at them. Eldar long had anti-armor advantages and armor defense advantages that made them even harder to destroy, except with the heaviest of weapons. Now even eldar tanks need to use cover and protect themselves and can't just expect to soak up damage with impunity.

Skriker

^What Skriker said. Some people have complained increased randomness of 6th edition, but 5th edition Vehicle damage was very random - often you spent almost entire game trying to kill a Rhino with Railguns, other times you blew up a Land Raider with one shot. It could be very frustrating, and that's one thing where randomness has actually decreased from 5th.

@Skriker

Please stop talking about guardians like they are any good. Nobody is going to believe you. They were bad and have gotten worse. Winning assault with guard it pathetic example.
And as for Eldar vehicles, again, you are completely wrong. First of all NOW they don't need to hug cover. They will get it by just moving and will get not any better from hiding behind others. Totally opposite of what you say.
Eldar mech-spam was not even close to most powerful mech builds out there. (Talking about 5th of course)
And Wraithlord was NEVER a walker and he NEVER had armour. It was Monstrous Creature from the beginning.

"Eldar and DE especially have plenty of vehicles"
What?
100 point (the cheapest) serpent vs 35 rhino?
100 serpent vs 105 chimera WITH troops unit inside?
I have no idea what game are you playing but it's not wh40k.
You have no idea what you are talking about or Eldar players near you are incredible cheaters.

Back on topic.
I really like the idea of HPs. It's just that the execution is bad, especially considering other rules that hit some more than others (like hitting vehicle moving 42" at 3+). Shooting one vehicle forever was dumb, it's good they changed it. But some armies were hit too hard.
I definitely won't quit and still enjoy the game. But that doesn't change the fact that vehicles in my army are overpriced and I am not happy about it.
I know, change your tactics, adapt, blah blah blah.
I'm not happy I have to change A to B. I wanted both to be useful.

Skriker wrote:

So you consider it a bad thing that one doesn't have to shoot at the same tank 30+ times just in the hopes of getting it destroyed.

When it's not a dedicated heavy AT weapon and armies can pack several dozen of them in, I'm ok with that. Notice nobody complaiend about autocannons being ineffective anti-transport weapons in 5th edition.

It may not be as perfect for the tank owner, but is a lot less annoying and frustrating for the person trying to destroy the tank.

Only if they continually rolled like crap and didn't bring heavy AT weaponry.

In 5e trying to destroy even a lighter AV12 vehicle in your example could often be a wondeful lesson in futility meaning that tank armies either dominated or a player had to stack the deck in their army with tons of anti-tank in the hopes of succeeding if they faced a tank army, but not being as useful against non-tank armies.

Autocannons are a wonderful example of why this isn't true, as they are rather dual-purpose weapons able to be taken in large numbers and effective against a wide range of foes, hence why they became more popular than ever before in 5E.

Just looking at your example numbers should make it clear why adding the hull points were a good thing. Gone are the days of utterly wasting heavy weapon fire to poor rolls on the penetrating table.

That's called rolling like crap, you're just as likely to roll nothing but 1's and 2's as you are to roll 5's and 6's, and you can roll all the 1's you want, a single 5 is all you needed. We don't turn around and say a Space Marine dies if he's forced to take 3 armor saves do we? No, if he makes 5/6/7/8 saves it's lucky but not typical, as they can fail the first save just as easily.

Penetrate that tank 3 times and it is wrecked now. I *like* that a lot.

If you like killing tanks to be a paint-by-numbers easymode thing. It basically turns them into a T6-10 3W model with no save (rather just a save against Instant Death) and a complete inability to do anything in CC and is hit at worst on a 3+, and usually reduced to affective T6 in CC even if otherwise stronger. One will notice that even relatively cheap MC's still have 3+ saves.

An AV12 vehicle now is functionally a T8 W3 unit with no save, AV11 a T7 W3 unit with no save. While initially that looks impressive, it's really not.

Hell, rhino's now are as easy to kill as 5 guardsmen in the open with autocannon fire, Ravagers even easier.

I like the fact that a single tank can no longer dominate a fight due to being near impossible to kill,

I never ran into a game where a single tank dominated it. Did you not bring sufficient AT guns?

especially when you aren't play MEQ armies with their higher BS for shooting at them. Eldar long had anti-armor advantages and armor defense advantages that made them even harder to destroy, except with the heaviest of weapons. Now even eldar tanks need to use cover and protect themselves and can't just expect to soak up damage with impunity.

Methinks you didn't play 5E and are remembering 4E. Eldar vehicles cost a lot of points relatively, and in general were most vulnerable to medium strength weapons with high RoF and not the heaviest of weapons, always have been. Eldar vehicle armies didn't exactly dominate anything in 5th ed and were typically considered rather mediocre.

It bears noting that krak grenades, lascannons and heavy bolters are specifically designed to be anti-vehicle weapons, if not precisely anti-tank weapons.

That krak grenade is an anti-armor shaped charge. Blowing up cars, trucks, walkers, dreads, and IFVs is *exactly* what it was built for.

Psienesis wrote:It bears noting that krak grenades, lascannons and heavy bolters are specifically designed to be anti-vehicle weapons, if not precisely anti-tank weapons.

That krak grenade is an anti-armor shaped charge. Blowing up cars, trucks, walkers, dreads, and IFVs is *exactly* what it was built for.

Yeah, and that was fine in 5E, but "hit on rear armor" coupled with autohits or 3+hits and hull points makes them entirely too capable now.


When were HB's anti-vehicle weapons though just out of curiosity? lascannons and krak grenades I won't argue, but HB's have always really primarily been anti-infantry weapons as far as I can remember.

The Heavy Bolter has always been a sort of "general purpose machinegun" for SM/MEQ and generally anyone who deploys them. Described, in-universe, for being equally good at tearing apart infantry and light vehicles, usually crew-served (by the IG, anyway), etc etc. Not exactly a tank-killer, but an armor-piercing explosive round is overkill for most anti-infantry applications.

[quote=MacokPlease stop talking about guardians like they are any good. Nobody is going to believe you. They were bad and have gotten worse. Winning assault with guard it pathetic example.
And as for Eldar vehicles, again, you are completely wrong. First of all NOW they don't need to hug cover. They will get it by just moving and will get not any better from hiding behind others. Totally opposite of what you say.
Eldar mech-spam was not even close to most powerful mech builds out there. (Talking about 5th of course)
And Wraithlord was NEVER a walker and he NEVER had armour. It was Monstrous Creature from the beginning.

I hate to say it, but all this "vehicles are useless" and "they are just dead, as you can reliably take them out..."...

Its kind of like playing a bunch of monstrous creatures.... (except they have a chance to be ID via range).

Seriously, I play nids and other vehicle armies, and nid players have been dealing with the fact that they can get whittled away reliably all along.

I am not saying its exactly the same (as a vehicle can still be taken out with one lucky shot) and while most big nids have more wounds than a vehicle...per points, they have less (you can buy three or four av11/12 transports for the cost of a big MC).

Again, I am not debating here, nor trying to start an argument or anything...I am just pointing out, that basically vehicles have wounds now...and for players who are used to big things with wounds...they will adapt the fastest.

Combine that with the fact that you can't just glance a vehicle and ignore it for a turn (ok, that rhino is stunned, I can move to the next one....) things will not be worse....they will just be different.