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.

Martel732 wrote:
Your screens won't last vs real assault units.

Of course it won't. But who said it's meant to? You want your guardsmen to A.get wiped out the turn they charge so that you can punish the enemy in your shooting phase or B. Tarpit the enemy as long as possible, praying that combat ends during your opponent's player turn.

In any case, I don't see it as either unreasonable or unfluffy that a squad of spacemarines could cripple a leman russ in close quarters.

CplPunishment wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Your screens won't last vs real assault units.

Of course it won't. But who said it's meant to? You want your guardsmen to A.get wiped out the turn they charge so that you can punish the enemy in your shooting phase or B. Tarpit the enemy as long as possible, praying that combat ends during your opponent's player turn.

In any case, I don't see it as either unreasonable or unfluffy that a squad of spacemarines could cripple a leman russ in close quarters.

I agree in general. However, Russes can't cause enough damage vs TWC or Wraiths for one turn to be sufficient.

 Vaktathi wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The rear armor is a problem, as it makes them absurdly easy to kill through assault for an MBT, and as an AV14 Heavy slow moving battle tank, it shouldnt be as easy to kill as a 35pt Rhino or 50pt Taurox, both of which can avoid assaults far easier with speed if they so desire.

I have no idea what your local meta is like, but how dozens of point blank S4 attacks are being dealt to your russes frequently enough for you to rage about it is beyond me. If you are having this issue, you need to adapt and keep enemy troops away from your mbts. If you are taking Russes and having this issue, you need to be screening for them with expendable units like guardsmen.

It's not just S4 thats the issue. A single powerfist and a krak grenade are usually sufficient to kill a Russ in CC, and doesnt exactly take a Napoleon to achieve that kind of an assault by any means.

In the age of 7E, bubblewrap has...very little effectiveness against many forces and can be easily workee around, particularly with so many safe and effective ways to enter into and IG players backfield. It is exceedingly easy to work around bubblewrap, and there's a reason Russ tanks arent generally big components of competitive IG armies (and why IG armies arent generally competitive anyway).

And, not every IG build is going to have gobs of expendable guardsmen, nor should they be required to just to keep Russ tanks alive, just as Space Marines should not have to field Scouts or Terminators in every army.

So your problem is that your tanks are being destroyed by upgrades that were created to damage hard targets?
I don't think the rear armor should be buffed, I think attacks should be allocated against the armor facing being attacked.

CplPunishment wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The rear armor is a problem, as it makes them absurdly easy to kill through assault for an MBT, and as an AV14 Heavy slow moving battle tank, it shouldnt be as easy to kill as a 35pt Rhino or 50pt Taurox, both of which can avoid assaults far easier with speed if they so desire.

I have no idea what your local meta is like, but how dozens of point blank S4 attacks are being dealt to your russes frequently enough for you to rage about it is beyond me. If you are having this issue, you need to adapt and keep enemy troops away from your mbts. If you are taking Russes and having this issue, you need to be screening for them with expendable units like guardsmen.

It's not just S4 thats the issue. A single powerfist and a krak grenade are usually sufficient to kill a Russ in CC, and doesnt exactly take a Napoleon to achieve that kind of an assault by any means.

In the age of 7E, bubblewrap has...very little effectiveness against many forces and can be easily workee around, particularly with so many safe and effective ways to enter into and IG players backfield. It is exceedingly easy to work around bubblewrap, and there's a reason Russ tanks arent generally big components of competitive IG armies (and why IG armies arent generally competitive anyway).

And, not every IG build is going to have gobs of expendable guardsmen, nor should they be required to just to keep Russ tanks alive, just as Space Marines should not have to field Scouts or Terminators in every army.

So your problem is that your tanks are being destroyed by upgrades that were created to damage hard targets?

The point is that it is trivially easy to do so for a heavy battle tank. Even units not designed for that have a trivially easy time of accomplishing that like Necron Wraiths.

It's an issue with vehicles in general, but particularly sore with Russ tanks, again considering they were originally envisioned and portrayed with armor equal or superior to Land Raiders and never really adjusted after GW arbitrarily just made *everything* rear AV10 with 3E, it's an awkward remnant of a design choice made 19 years and 5 editions ago that GW just has never really payed attention to.

I don't think the rear armor should be buffed, I think attacks should be allocated against the armor facing being attacked.

That would help in regard to CC attacks, for sure, and would be a good across the board vehicle fix, but there's still a good case for Russ tanks to have more rear armor than a Trukk or Rhino. With something like a Falcon or Fire Prism or Predator or Hammerhead you can justify the rear AV10 because they share hulls with lighter APC's and have actual hatches back there, but Russ tanks do not.

The big thing is that 40k has vehicles somewhat bass ackwards in many respects. Tanks are supposed to be the front of the line, the tip of the spear and mobile firepower, but they end up often just end up being relocatable bunkers that need infantry screening to prevent physical assault instead of being the shield for the infantry.

AV 10 rear is stupid for the Russ. Nothing has lower than AV 10. Scout sentinels have AV 10 rear. Ork Trucks have AV 10 rear. A 35 point Rhino has AV 10 rear. Jmo, should be 14/13/12.

CplPunishment wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The rear armor is a problem, as it makes them absurdly easy to kill through assault for an MBT, and as an AV14 Heavy slow moving battle tank, it shouldnt be as easy to kill as a 35pt Rhino or 50pt Taurox, both of which can avoid assaults far easier with speed if they so desire.

I have no idea what your local meta is like, but how dozens of point blank S4 attacks are being dealt to your russes frequently enough for you to rage about it is beyond me. If you are having this issue, you need to adapt and keep enemy troops away from your mbts. If you are taking Russes and having this issue, you need to be screening for them with expendable units like guardsmen.

A standard squad of ten Tacticals with a power fist charge a LRBT:

16 S4 attacks

1 S6 attack

3 S8 attacks

Assume the russ has moved.

We get a grand total of 4.2 HP being dealt ([16/3X2 = 10.2/6= 1.7] + [1/3X2/2 = .5] + 3/3X2= 2/6X5 = 2] two of which are definite penetrating hits at AP2. The Russ is dead, but assuming it is not and somehow manages to miraculously survive it gets to trundle backwards 6" and attempt to kill the unit which, if it cannot, will just charge it again in the next turn and finish the job.

Now, note that 1.7 (on average) HP has been dealt by the Marines themselves just clubbing at the back of the tank with their fists/bolter butts/knives/whatever. No specialised AT weapons, just basic unarmed attacks. If the unit (assuming Sarge with a Bolter and no other weapon upgrades) just stood and rapid fired at the rear armour they would do, on average, 2HP's worth of damage or 1/3rd of the Leman Russ's "wounds". With their basic assault rifles. If they have a Melta or a Plasma weapon then you might as well remove the tank now.

Now you ask, how do I get my Marines there though? Well, it just so happens that Marines have one of the best "get wherever I want to be" transports available in-game in the form of the Drop Pod which allows you to basically place a unit anywhere on the board with no fears of mishap. And of course if you are drop podding in units behind the enemies lines they are very rarely going to be just bog standard tacticals.

So yes, the LRBT, the MBT of the 40K universe does need rear armour 11.

Drop pods are overrated, especially against good players. There should be nowhere for a marine player to land even close to anything the ig doesn't want him close to. Plus you have at least a turn to shoot marines to death. Not that scary for rational players.

Drop pods are plenty scary and effective vs IG, and can be gimmicked to great effect with respect to landing zones. They may not always be able to get into perfect position, and there are countermeasures, but against an IG army theyre very powerful indeed because you also take away the part of the game IG are best at, blasting stuff advancing from across the board.

 master of ordinance wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The rear armor is a problem, as it makes them absurdly easy to kill through assault for an MBT, and as an AV14 Heavy slow moving battle tank, it shouldnt be as easy to kill as a 35pt Rhino or 50pt Taurox, both of which can avoid assaults far easier with speed if they so desire.

I have no idea what your local meta is like, but how dozens of point blank S4 attacks are being dealt to your russes frequently enough for you to rage about it is beyond me. If you are having this issue, you need to adapt and keep enemy troops away from your mbts. If you are taking Russes and having this issue, you need to be screening for them with expendable units like guardsmen.

A standard squad of ten Tacticals with a power fist charge a LRBT:

16 S4 attacks

1 S6 attack

3 S8 attacks

Assume the russ has moved.

We get a grand total of 4.2 HP being dealt ([16/3X2 = 10.2/6= 1.7] + [1/3X2/2 = .5] + 3/3X2= 2/6X5 = 2] two of which are definite penetrating hits at AP2. The Russ is dead, but assuming it is not and somehow manages to miraculously survive it gets to trundle backwards 6" and attempt to kill the unit which, if it cannot, will just charge it again in the next turn and finish the job.

Now, note that 1.7 (on average) HP has been dealt by the Marines themselves just clubbing at the back of the tank with their fists/bolter butts/knives/whatever. No specialised AT weapons, just basic unarmed attacks. If the unit (assuming Sarge with a Bolter and no other weapon upgrades) just stood and rapid fired at the rear armour they would do, on average, 2HP's worth of damage or 1/3rd of the Leman Russ's "wounds". With their basic assault rifles. If they have a Melta or a Plasma weapon then you might as well remove the tank now.

Now you ask, how do I get my Marines there though? Well, it just so happens that Marines have one of the best "get wherever I want to be" transports available in-game in the form of the Drop Pod which allows you to basically place a unit anywhere on the board with no fears of mishap. And of course if you are drop podding in units behind the enemies lines they are very rarely going to be just bog standard tacticals.

So yes, the LRBT, the MBT of the 40K universe does need rear armour 11.

Or...

And this might just be a crazy idea that benefits everyone rather than trying to hamfist 10+ improvements into a single unit....

Have assaults striking the side armour of a vehicle rather than the rear armour?

Because hey, that's an idea.

In fact, let's take it further. Let's have Universal buffs that will positively benefit the Russ and others.

- Heavy Vehicles can fire Ordnance as well as other weapons with no negative effect.
- Heavy Vehicles have HP 4 as base.
- Heavy Vehicles get a 'rugged construction' rule similar to the Goliath (basically on a 4+ they ignore Shaken, Stunned, Immobilised but still lose the HP) - this represents their relentless - advance and puts them in that middle ground between Super-heavy and normal vehicles.
- Assaults on vehicles strike the side armour rather than the rear armour unless the vehicle is immobilised - you can safely assume the pilot of the vehicle will be turning and pivoting to protect the rear for the most part, threatening to run over attackers trying to get round.

Adding the Heavy class to certain other vehicles may benefit as well.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Drop pods are plenty scary and effective vs IG, and can be gimmicked to great effect with respect to landing zones. They may not always be able to get into perfect position, and there are countermeasures, but against an IG army theyre very powerful indeed because you also take away the part of the game IG are best at, blasting stuff advancing from across the board.

I can see that, but fortunately for the IG, the meta keeps pod spam more or less in check. The moral of the story is don't let there be a "behind" against a pod list. Make them drop into a kill zone, and then kill them.

Does assault really need to be further nerfed?

Well if we're talking about giving the LR AV 12 on the back, its a nerf to both.

Otherwise, yeah that'd be nice, but then again I think my stance on assault is well known at this point.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Does assault really need to be further nerfed?

Is "assault" as a meta concept going to be terribly harmed by making a Russ tank more survivable than a Trukk? No. Could the Russ tank use the extra utility some resiliency to assault would provide within the context of the IG army? Yes.

Yeah, it's kinda lame that it's as vulnerable as a trukk lol.

Why is it that every time a Guard player suggests an update to a pre-existing Guard unit, their BS invariably gets upped from from 3? Why do IG players have such massive penis-envy when it comes to the ballistic skill of Marines and Eldar?

In any case, a short-term bandaid for fixing the Russ is allowing them to fire all their secondary weapons at full BS in addition to ordnance, and a normalization of the point costs between the Russ variants. All Russ should be costed within ~30 points of each other., with the cheapest sitting around 140 or so.

Long-term, the only way to fix vehicles in a meaningful way is to lower the damage-creep that's been ongoing since 5th. That's a much taller order.

EDIT- I really like the idea of melee hits being allocated to the armor-facing that the unit is actually in base contact with. It's not a perfect solution but it's elegant and intuitive.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Why is it that every time a Guard player suggests an update to a pre-existing Guard unit, their BS invariably gets upped from from 3? Why do IG players have such massive penis-envy when it comes to the ballistic skill of Marines and Eldar?

Well, until relatively recently, Eldar were also mostly BS3, being BS4 is actually rather new for Eldar.

That said, there are issues with bloat in the game (again, see Eldar going form BS3 to BS4 and in many cases now BS5 and half their weapons are twin linked anyway) as well as issues with the way many IG weapons work that make BS3 unreasonably crippling for the way some units, particularly certain Russ variants, are set up. The Leman Russ Vanquisher for example. A single BS3 AP2 (so no AP1 bonus) 72" range meltagun for...135pts. Woooo! It's really the prime candidate for most of that focus.

More to the point, when you're running with a D6 system and 95% of the game is using only 33% of that stat-band (most everything is a 3 or 4) and 17% of that stat band is effectively an auto-fail (1's), it doesn't leave much room to maneuver to make changes to units.

That said, I'm not terribly in favor of making Russ tanks BS4 straight out (as opposed to offering things like reroll-allowing coax heavy stubbers and the like), but making stuff BS4 is often an easy, straightforward, and simple solution to a lot of issues with these units.

EDIT- I really like the idea of melee hits being allocated to the armor-facing that the unit is actually in base contact with. It's not a perfect solution but it's elegant and intuitive.

That's the way it worked in 3E and 4E when they decided tanks needed to be hit on rear armor for some reason.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Does assault really need to be further nerfed?

Looking at how the armies develop, assault in turn 2 is easy for dedicated cc units and some can do it on turn 1, for me it is a yes.

Not everyone wants to play an assault army, some want to play a shooty one and of those not everyone can play Tau.

That said Vaktathi is right.
With that change only basic units without equipment are no longer able to chew threw the armor of a battle tank.
They still wreak havoc to any other unit of the IG.

Both proposals, hitting vehicle always on their sides or hitting on the appropriate facing, at least for mobile vehicles are better rules than the actual one.

Luke_Prowler wrote:Does assault really need to be further nerfed?

How are we nerfing assault? We are merely stopping a heavy tank from being punched/rapid fired to death by basic infantry.

Martel732 wrote:Yeah, it's kinda lame that it's as vulnerable as a trukk lol.

Agreed

BlaxicanX wrote:Why is it that every time a Guard player suggests an update to a pre-existing Guard unit, their BS invariably gets upped from from 3? Why do IG players have such massive penis-envy when it comes to the ballistic skill of Marines and Eldar?

In any case, a short-term bandaid for fixing the Russ is allowing them to fire all their secondary weapons at full BS in addition to ordnance, and a normalization of the point costs between the Russ variants. All Russ should be costed within ~30 points of each other., with the cheapest sitting around 140 or so.

Long-term, the only way to fix vehicles in a meaningful way is to lower the damage-creep that's been ongoing since 5th. That's a much taller order.

EDIT- I really like the idea of melee hits being allocated to the armor-facing that the unit is actually in base contact with. It's not a perfect solution but it's elegant and intuitive.

140 points would still be too much for many of the chassis that we have today - hell the vanilla russ is only worth about 135.
Additionally I would also like to point out that we can have Veteran infantry sections with BS4, so how come we cannot have veteran tank crews with BS4?

It's my first dakkaversary today.

Anyway, I'm not so keen on IG tanks getting BS increases outside of formations myself. Maybe +1 BS if the squadron is 3 tanks strong? This can be combined with the Emperors Fist tank company formation. BS 5 Leman Russ tanks!

I was thinking though. If it was changed so that ordnance weapons don't hinder the other weapons, can a points decrease be justified? What if the rear armour was increased as well? Can we justify slashing the cost whilst making it better?

Also, I accept that five tank squadrons are a bit much.

While I don't think 11 is totally unreasonable, 12 is right out. 12 would fit the demolisher variants, but is way too much for the standard Russ. If it does recieve this buff, it will need to be reflected in the points cost.

What I would like to see for Heavy tanks:
4HP
Move at combat speed and fire all weapons at full BS (even when firing ordnance)
Move at cruising speed and recieve a negative modifier to BS (-1 for every 3 inches past combat speed?)

For all vehicles:
Allocate close combat attacks against the armor facing that corresponds to the quadrant the model is in. Models that straddle quadrants choose.

As a guard player, I want to see the Russ's rules reflect it's glorious capabilities, but I do not want it to become over-powered.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The problem with that is you'd need to tone down some of the overpowered vehicles for things like eldar if you were to just generally fix vehicles.

Well, they should probably do that either way, and some changes to the core vehicle mechanics that don't make Skimmers flat out better than non-skimmers "just because" should probably be incorporated into that.

There are no overpowered vehicles in the Craftworlds codex, that's just a myth from the imperial echo chamber.

Vehicles need to be fixed big time though, they need Overwatch and that auto-hit rear armor on (fast) moving vehicles must go, it just makes vehicles so weak to assault anything will wreck them.

Skimmers should be improved so that instead of "getting a free cover save in exchange for all their damage output", they are actually comparable to high AV IoM tanks.

Some vehicles need vast improvements (Dark Eldar AV values + point cost), some need just a slight reduction in point costs (Imperial Guard Russes).

And if Imperial Guard players are afraid of drop pods podding in their back... just think how it must be for armies where the cheapest dude is 8 fething points and cannot be made fearless... seriously, some IG players have no idea how hard it is for other factions to deal with drop pods.
Hell, you cover all your deployment zone at 1000 points easily, how can you even have units in the back of your tanks unless you have already lost the game?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
It's my first dakkaversary today.

Anyway, I'm not so keen on IG tanks getting BS increases outside of formations myself. Maybe +1 BS if the squadron is 3 tanks strong? This can be combined with the Emperors Fist tank company formation. BS 5 Leman Russ tanks!

I was thinking though. If it was changed so that ordnance weapons don't hinder the other weapons, can a points decrease be justified? What if the rear armour was increased as well? Can we justify slashing the cost whilst making it better?

Also, I accept that five tank squadrons are a bit much.

I agree with your sentiments on questioning the need for a post-buff price slash. It should probably be one or the other.

Hence why I'm thinking assault needs to be on side armour (unless the vehicle is immobilised).

It used to be on the facing but they changed that in 6th to try and buff assault a bit and make it a bit more risky for vehicles.

Side armour? Traditionally weaker than front but still stronger than rear so shows the vehicle having some ability to fight back (be it by turning and pivoting to make the rear less accessible).

Rear armour of the Russ would still be 10 - still vulnerable should something get behind it - but again, that's also why I figured that the Rugged construction rule from the Goliath would make sense on heavy vehicles - especially if they proliferated it as a type. 4+ to ignore shaken, stunned or immobilised result - still lose the HP but ignore the result which does a lot.

I will say autohitting fast vehicles and skimmers strikes me as bullgak to say the least. They don't need to be buffed back to 'Only 6s' but need something at least to show the fact that they're not literally sitting on the ground.

With regards to Dark Eldar AV values? No - they're fragile. They're meant to be - a points reduction however would not go amiss.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Why is it that every time a Guard player suggests an update to a pre-existing Guard unit, their BS invariably gets upped from from 3? Why do IG players have such massive penis-envy when it comes to the ballistic skill of Marines and Eldar?

Very little suggested, aside from Leman Russes, has been for BS4 at no cost. "Veteran Tank Crews" were a thing that has existed before and would be a welcome return.

In any case, a short-term bandaid for fixing the Russ is allowing them to fire all their secondary weapons at full BS in addition to ordnance, and a normalization of the point costs between the Russ variants. All Russ should be costed within ~30 points of each other., with the cheapest sitting around 140 or so.

That will fix nothing until Sponson Weapon points costs are fixed as well, or made free.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
It's my first dakkaversary today.

Anyway, I'm not so keen on IG tanks getting BS increases outside of formations myself. Maybe +1 BS if the squadron is 3 tanks strong? This can be combined with the Emperors Fist tank company formation. BS 5 Leman Russ tanks!

I was thinking though. If it was changed so that ordnance weapons don't hinder the other weapons, can a points decrease be justified?

Yes. Because it will make it so that people will actually buy sponson weapons.

What if the rear armour was increased as well? Can we justify slashing the cost whilst making it better?

Sure.

It's called "Get over it assault armies".

Also, I accept that five tank squadrons are a bit much.

Eh. With how squadrons work, it's fine.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
Hence why I'm thinking assault needs to be on side armour (unless the vehicle is immobilised).

It used to be on the facing but they changed that in 6th to try and buff assault a bit and make it a bit more risky for vehicles.

Side armour? Traditionally weaker than front but still stronger than rear so shows the vehicle having some ability to fight back (be it by turning and pivoting to make the rear less accessible).

Rear armour of the Russ would still be 10 - still vulnerable should something get behind it - but again, that's also why I figured that the Rugged construction rule from the Goliath would make sense on heavy vehicles - especially if they proliferated it as a type. 4+ to ignore shaken, stunned or immobilised result - still lose the HP but ignore the result which does a lot.

I will say autohitting fast vehicles and skimmers strikes me as bullgak to say the least. They don't need to be buffed back to 'Only 6s' but need something at least to show the fact that they're not literally sitting on the ground.

With regards to Dark Eldar AV values? No - they're fragile. They're meant to be - a points reduction however would not go amiss.

Assaults needs to go back to where it was, i.e. hitting the facing you charged, and that's it.

With regards to Dark Eldar, you have no fething idea what it means to have AV10 on a vehicle, it's unplayable these days.

morgoth wrote:

Skimmers should be improved so that instead of "getting a free cover save in exchange for all their damage output", they are actually comparable to high AV IoM tanks.

Hrm, skimmers have had a marked advantage over non-skimmers in every edition except 5th, and have a gigantic edge in viability over non-skimmer vehicles now, the only non-skimmer vehicle heavy armies you see in competitive play are those that are either superheavies or get their vehicles for free, while armies like Tau, Necrons and Eldar can and do function very effectively as mechanized and tank heavy forces at the highest levels of competitive play, and, in most cases, aren't at any AV disadvantage except in the case of main battle tanks, their APC's, IFV's, medium tanks and utility vehicles are equal to or exceed the AV of their tracked counterparts, while skimmer army main battle tanks are generally much more mobile and more capable generalist units than Russ tanks (e.g. a Fire Prism does in one package what the Russ breaks out into two or three different variants, same with the Tau Hammerhead) which would be fine if AV meant something, but on-demand cover saves make a huge difference there and the number of weapons that simply don't care about AV (Gauss, D, Grav, Haywire, etc) has exploded over the last several years in availability and commonality as has the ability to bypass high frontal armor (side and rear armor on Imperial & Ork vehicles is generally equal to or worse than armies like Necrons, Eldar and Tau) through various special rules or deployment methods. High AV isn't winning many games.

And if Imperial Guard players are afraid of drop pods podding in their back... just think how it must be for armies where the cheapest dude is 8 fething points and cannot be made fearless... seriously, some IG players have no idea how hard it is for other factions to deal with drop pods.

While Drop Pods can prove issues for amny armies, Eldar have useful and functional psychic powers relative to IG, way more mobility, and notably more effective reaction firepower (hard to deal with a drop pod of Space Marines at point blank range with a battlecannon without potentially scattering back on your own dudes for example vs a gaggle of scatterlasers) and that actually have somewhat capable CC answers if they so choose. It's not just about the cost of basic infantry, Eldar aren't exactly crippled by expensive basic infantry, and cheap infantry aren't exactly winning IG many games or preventing drop pod armies from being powerfully effective.

Keep in mind, some of us play many armies, hell at this point Eldar are probably the army I've got more of than any army but IG.

morgoth wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The problem with that is you'd need to tone down some of the overpowered vehicles for things like eldar if you were to just generally fix vehicles.

Well, they should probably do that either way, and some changes to the core vehicle mechanics that don't make Skimmers flat out better than non-skimmers "just because" should probably be incorporated into that.

There are no overpowered vehicles in the Craftworlds codex, that's just a myth from the imperial echo chamber.

Vehicles need to be fixed big time though, they need Overwatch and that auto-hit rear armor on (fast) moving vehicles must go, it just makes vehicles so weak to assault anything will wreck them.

Skimmers should be improved so that instead of "getting a free cover save in exchange for all their damage output", they are actually comparable to high AV IoM tanks.

Some vehicles need vast improvements (Dark Eldar AV values + point cost), some need just a slight reduction in point costs (Imperial Guard Russes).

And if Imperial Guard players are afraid of drop pods podding in their back... just think how it must be for armies where the cheapest dude is 8 fething points and cannot be made fearless... seriously, some IG players have no idea how hard it is for other factions to deal with drop pods.
Hell, you cover all your deployment zone at 1000 points easily, how can you even have units in the back of your tanks unless you have already lost the game?

Is this really an Eldar player whining about his army being underpowered? Please tell me I am hallucinating?

 master of ordinance wrote:
Is this really an Eldar player whining about his army being underpowered? Please tell me I am hallucinating?

I don't think you are... truly 2017 is the year of the alternative facts.

 Melissia wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Is this really an Eldar player whining about his army being underpowered? Please tell me I am hallucinating?

I don't think you are... truly 2017 is the year of the alternative facts.

#makeEldargreatagain

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Is this really an Eldar player whining about his army being underpowered? Please tell me I am hallucinating?

I don't think you are... truly 2017 is the year of the alternative facts.

#makeEldargreatagain

Build a Wall, Keep those dirty humans out of our beautiful craftworlds