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.

Seemed like before cheap and resilient (troop based) S8 and above guns were all over the place.

But it seems like GW is moving in a direction where it won't be possible to load up on AT weapons. Las/plas squads are gone in DA, BA, and chaos armies, and likely gone in vanilla marines. Chaos all lascannon preds got more expensive.

Am I off base here?

I hope so. It seems like vehicles are in general squishier than normal squads. Getting one shot by so many things really makes vehicles less exciting in my mind.

No, you're not off base. GW is not at a point to change the rules of the game, but still need to sell vehicles. It appears easier to tweak new codexes to afford more survivability to vehicles.

Just my .02

Now, if they'd ever redo Dark Eldar...

They do seem to be doing so.
Only marines are really remiaining with secure heavy weapons in cheep squads. (I dont count the DE because 10 eldar men are really easy to kill.
If the marine redux that has been hinted at really comes then vehicles will gain a lot.

Ayn Rand's nightmare: The Age of Mediocrity

I think they are trying to remove the multipurpose "does everything well" unit and replace it with specialized units that do one thing well to increase diversity and force people to use underused models.

You're not off base at all. I posted a while back asking if vehicles were going to become tougher with the new codices, and got shouted down pretty quick.

After seeing the new BA and Chaos, however, the access to troop based anti-tank has dwindled beyond usability for those armies. At least BA/DA can take razorbacks.

In the short run, it boosts SM back to the top of the heap, IMO. Access to weapons that do the best against Mech Eldar and Zilla, coupled with the assault cannon that is good against all other targets (while not being bad against Eldar or Nids) I think make space marines more and more the choice for all around tournament play.

At this point, only SM and IG have access to cheap, troop based long range anti-tank. Technically Eldar and DE do as well, but I haven't seen a bright lance platform in years, and DE are very, very rare.

If nothing else, it helps to make IG a little bit more unique, since it's not outshot by chaos any more....

It's been sometime, but I recall GW wanting 4th edition to be more about mid to close range shooting. However, rule wise, it did not translate well as the over abundance of low point, high S weaopns available. How to have the firefights GW intended when nothing could get into the range.

While many people probably enjoy running vehicles, many won't b/c of a. lack of survivability and b. use of Escalation. (however, off topic).

I know many people dislike a lot of the new codex releases, but I personally have enjoyed the games more with 4th edition vs 3rd edition codexes. Hopefully, I'll find a reason to field a Land Raider w/o knowing it'll be toasted on first turn.

But doesn't the lack of low AP weapons also mean that MEq's and Termies get better too?

Posted By The Crawling Chaos on 08/13/2007 11:38 AM
But doesn't the lack of low AP weapons also mean that MEq's and Termies get better too?

Not really, power weapons and low strength ap3 weapons are getting more abundant.  As is the rending rule and equivalents of that.

Posted By Sarigar on 08/13/2007 8:20 AM
No, you're not off base. GW is not at a point to change the rules of the game, but still need to sell vehicles. It appears easier to tweak new codexes to afford more survivability to vehicles.

Just my .02

Now, if they'd ever redo Dark Eldar...

There is a lot of weight to this statement.  Good call!  However, land raiders still get whacked easily enough.  IG can still deliver the small anti-tank via doctrines.  Orks are the last chance, mauleed!  ROKKITS, BABY!  Don't call it a comeback, they were never gone.

 im not seing it that way.

its more like they are moving them around to me. skilled list makers can still get lots of AP1/2 guns as well as AT guns in a list if they know how to build it. it may be more points expensive in certain areas, but it can still be done.

as an example the eldar starcannon got knocked, but the fire prism and dragons in a falcon got bumped up.

as did the platforms that can carry a bright lance.

 

in order to make vehicles more survivable in basic 40K they would have to change the base rules set(like the super-heavy vehicle tables) to make them harder to die to a 1 shot wonder, which would slow down the game.

 

I think they're not so much removing AT as they are making it much harder to get both AT and anti-horde in the same list (e.g. with Chaos, by making all the good AT in Heavies and all the good anti-horde...also in Heavies - unless you like Terminators).

In the case of DA, you can get both anti-horde and AT, but then you're made of tarpaper because you've got nothing but bikes and AV10 vehicles (or super expensive Dev squads).

The problem is - they didn't fix Eldar well enough, and Nids got a massive upgrade in their tankpopping and survivability, and Tau still can do tons of tankpopping and antihorde in the same list, and Crons can do the same. Dark Eldar are similarly pretty uber when it comes down to it.

What they're doing is ushering in an age of marines and chaos sucking ass, if you wanted my earnest opinion.

Wasn't it officially declared that no C:SM redux is being planned? It's more like ushering in an age of every Marine that isn't a recoloured Ultra sucks ass.

Because the strength of the MeQ has always been the incredible combined might of the rhino and the predator.

In 3rd edition, you are correct.

They are indeed making AT weaponry more scare due to lack of options and increased points.

Its how GW fixes things. Vehicles definatly need to be tougher and sell more, so they do this instead of doing it right. Like actually making rules for vehicles that make sense instead of blowing up in a single shot.

Posted By Longshot on 08/14/2007 9:01 AM
What they're doing is ushering in an age of marines and chaos sucking ass, if you wanted my earnest opinion.

I, for one, embrace this new and wonderful age where I can no longer correctly assume that 75% of my opponents will be MEQ's.

I actually like the rules for the vehicles as they are. It makes sense to me. In real life if a tank or truck gets hit by something it is usually unhurt, or completely destroyed. Sure you can blow the treads off of a tank and immobilize it, or an artillery burst can punch a hole in the main gun, but it is very rare that a shot only slows down the top speed, or just weakens the tank (two hits on the same reactive plate aside) Really, if you hit a modern tank with a javelin missile or a tow, it is going to explode spectacularly. However this is rare, as anti-tank weapons are relatively rare compared to rifles and machine guns. This is due to cost, as they are very expensive, and it is rare to see a country with the economic ability to field them in number. The other thing is that they are generally not very good against infantry. Think about it, would you rather be in an infantry firefight, with a tow missile launcher, or a pistol? At least with the handgun you can hide, and move, and have more than one real chance at a shot.

All of this aside. I understand that this is just a game, and has no real corroboration to real life, but still, I can see why they designed it this way.

Now if they would just get rid of holo fields, and I would be a happy camper.

Oh, weird. For a minute there I forgot that a tank had the ability to survive a direct penetrating hit with an anti tank weapon in real life. It just drops 5 miles per hour and the crew shoots a little worse.

Posted By ShumaGorath on 08/14/2007 3:08 PM

Like actually making rules for vehicles that make sense instead of blowing up in a single shot.

Oh, weird. For a minute there I forgot that a tank had the ability to survive a direct penetrating hit with an anti tank weapon in real life. It just drops 5 miles per hour and the crew shoots a little worse.

Likewise, as much as many like vehicles, most see them as something that isnt worth fielding unless it has an overwhelming threat value to outweigh its shoddy survivability.

Be glib all you want mate, the fact remains that something just isnt right in armorland.

How exactly to fix this? Not my job.

But it is quite apparent that simply reducing the amount of AT is a step in the right direction, but still doesnt solve the problem.

Speaking of armored survivability, I posted a set of vehicle damage rules in the Proposed Rules section that I think do a decent job at getting the point across that armored might is supposed to be mighty.

I think with the downgrades in AT firepower that a lot of armies have, it looks like I might have wasted my time.

I still really like H.B.M.C.'s take on vehicle damage though. Glancing Chart rolls of a 1 do nothing, while 6's just roll on the Penetrating Hit Chart instead of killing the vehicle.

CK

Vehicles in "real life" are much, much harder to actually penetrate. Reactive armor, glacis plates, and the like mean your modern battle tank is going to shrug off most shots that hit it.

What's wierd is a man-sized battlesuit that provides better protection against anti-tank weaponry than a tank has (say, a krak missile fired at a Predator vs. a Terminator).

Have you done the math on that? 6 krak missile hits will kill a Terminator, but only result in 1 glancing and 1 penetrating hit on the Predator.

I know what you mean though However I can't see how there's almost any less AT weapons in the game than there was before. What's changed? Vanilla marines still have las/plas squads, and Chaos are still packing mass Obliterators and are just replacing lascannons with blastmasters. It's not like people wouldn't need those lascannons exactly as much as before or more since at tournaments you're bound to run into atleast one tri-Falcon Eldar army or Godzilla Nids. Those AT guns will also prove to be useful against the new dual DP Chaos that either have max Obliterators or max Vindicators. Same old, same old.

As far as armoured survivability goes, supposedly the super-heavy vehicles in 40K Apocalypse are much, much harder to kill than before.

Not really, a 40$ IED can shred a modern tank or apc and kill the ocupants with ease if its constructed correctly and hits well. Its one of the biggest problems in the current war. Reactive armor isn't nearly as useful as it used to be either with newer kinetic delivery anti tank rockets and the prevalence of close range shoulder mounted anti tank weapontry being used. The big pro to being in an armoured shell is your total immunity to conventional weapons. Dedicated anti tank armaments are somewhat few and far between on modern battlefields and aren't easilly utilised (Though thats changing).

40k style tanks seems to act more like ww2 armoured colums, supporting infantry and taking active parts in close range short lived firefights. Which is great because those are the most fun fights to replicate in a game. The problem is in those types of conflicts weaponry capable of bringing down a tank are few and far between and are usually 1 shot affairs. Which in 40k isn't true right now.

If you want tanks to be better in 40k and make more sense increase their point value and armour. Also increase the points value of anti tank weaponry. Give the tank better weapons as well. A chimeras multilaser should be far more powerful considering the size and type of weapon that it is. Same with everything on a land raider.

A tank should be a considerable addition to your force and bring quite a bit of power not just some points filler you use to get good AT weapons. Its a TANK after all.

When you mention being immune to conventional weapons sparked something in me.

Perhaps that is where GW is going wrong with armor is allowing any weapon that has a high enough S to damage a tank. Realistically (Yeah, this is 40K, I know...) a shuriken catapult should not be able to damage a tank unless you stick the barrel in the vision slit and open up on the drivers face.

Perhaps giving a weapon a certain designation (Perhaps something like vehicle penetration strength stat) so that vehicles could become a more frightening option on the field. A weapon that shoots a vehicle that doesn't have the stat, couldn't do anything more than perhaps shake or stun a vehicle.

For example, a lascannon should be one of those weapons that has a normal strength stat and a vehicle penetration stat (VPS). Say strength 9 and VPS of 10. While a bolter should have a strength of 4 and a VPS of 4 and shuriken catapults just be strength 4 and no VPS.

Hmmm...maybe not. GW is trying to take as many variables out of the game as possible. So this wouldn't work for them.

Just flow of thought here, but something defiantly needs to be done rather than just the lame "increase points/decrease options" stance GW is taking here.

The easiest way to do it would be to give them Toughness and Wounds and a saving throw like normal models.

Posted By Da Boss on 08/14/2007 5:18 PM
The easiest way to do it would be to give them Toughness and Wounds and a saving throw like normal models.

Amen to that!

Until GW gives ALL dreadnoughts the same type of stats as the Wraithlord, well, mine won't be coming out to play.

Too easy to kill, not worth the points.

I still think the more interesting design fix is to make it so that long ranged AT weaponry isn't useful against infantry. Sure, you can aim that missile/lascannon at a tank, but hitting a little terminator with it should be so hard as to be only a last resort.

A nice fix would have been to designate some weapons as 'Long Range/High Power' and say they never hit a size 2 or smaller model on better than a 5+. Short ranged AT stuff would still hit normally (say anything with a range of 24" or less), so people would still have a 'short ranged fire fight' option to kill things with good armor saves, but they'd have to get close to do it.

Then let people take as much AT as they like, as now it's not both anti tank and anti-MEQ. And it bones over godzilla lists, which is good for everyone.

But instead, they'll just try to restrict it, but neglect to finish the job, and we'll see more cookie cutter armies.

Posted By mauleed on 08/14/2007 6:50 PM
I still think the more interesting design fix is to make it so that long ranged AT weaponry isn't useful against infantry. Sure, you can aim that missile/lascannon at a tank, but hitting a little terminator with it should be so hard as to be only a last resort.

Shhhhh lads, ye're getting dangerously close to talk of RANGE MODIFIERS here, and that sort of thing just isn't tolerated. (I mean, subtraction? WTF? You mean I can't just look it up?)

I like the idea though, quite a bit. If you did that, I think you could safely get rid of the stupid "Units can't split fire" rule.