Games Workshop instead added the hull point mechanic, making vehicles get destroyed by an additional method and when that obviously failed they simply turned them into giant rolling meat sacks for simplicity's sake. Some really like this, but I can't fathom why.
Yeah, that was one of the single most boneheaded things GW
ever did. It didn't work terribly well, added another stat to print and track and record, and just frustrated gameplay.
Da Boss wrote:
In the unlikely event I play 4e again (not because it's bad, just because I'm being realistic about the prospect) I'm going to get rid of the disembark on a penetrating hit rule. I think that mostly solves the problems with transports in 4e. Being entangled after a destroyed result is mostly fine I reckon.
5e just swung it too far the other way, getting rid of all the negative rules AND dropping the price of transports across the board.
This mirror is my thoughts as well. When I play 4th edition, we do take out the entanglement rules. Solves a lot of problems. I also feel that transports need to be based around 50 point rhino. If it's better than a rhino it should cost more than 50 points. If it's not better than a rhino it can be a little cheaper. However having said that transport should probably be in the range of 35 to 70 points. Any more than that and they almost get too expensive to use or worse have so much war gear on them that they become main battle tanks.
Yeah, the entanglement rules and auto-disembarks really cripple anything that can't force glances, and a lot of them just across the board needed a price cut.
I don't know where this "kill every time you got a hit" thing came in 4th.
In 4th, a Lascannon hitting a Chimera had a roughly 28% chance of destroying a Chimera with a single hit; in 5th it dropped to 17% (11% survivability increase in 5th).
Vs a Leman Russ:
11% to be killed by a Lascannon hit in 4th
6% to be killed by a Lascannon hit in 5th
(5% survivability increase)
This illustrates that in 4th, the ARMOR of a vehicle was more important to its survival than the DAMAGE MODEL, while in 5th, the DAMAGE MODEL tended to even out most vehicles (lighter armored vehicles got stronger relative to more heavily armored vehicles).
The effect of this can be seen in 5th easily, where transports dominated but main battle tanks really didn't.
4th is better IMHO
precisely because "do I choose a Leman Russ or a Chimera full of Veterans" isn't automatically won by the mechanized infantry every single time.
I'd submit that both vehicles being functionally terrible isn't a great proof that the edition worked better.
Both vehicles were were competitively poor and saw practically no use in typical 4E Guard tournament lists, particularly anything that placed (though few guard lists did in that edition), especially as AC
's were banned from tournament play through most of the lifespan of the edition. On top of the vehicle damage table issues, the Russ tanks could only choose to shoot their turret weapon, or their other guns, not both, and the main guns just weren't that effective against anything but clumped up infantry in the open. They were garbage anti-tank or anti-monster, one S8 shot with 2d6
pick-highest pen *if* the center hole of the blast remained over the hull of the target and suffered movement penalties, was not great next to S10 AP1 BS4 Railguns or Prism Cannons, the tradeoff for AP3 instead of AP4 on the large blast option just was not worth it. You could go for S10 with a Demolisher making it far more functional at AT
, at a massively reduced range and some increased cost. Unless you caught a Space Marine squad clumped up in the open with a juice Hit on the scatter dice, a Russ tank almost never earned its investment back bar excessively rare rolls.
Neither vehicle really *functioned*, the Chimera was crippled by the Transport rules and its excessive cost, while the Russ tank was crippled by the Ordnance rules and paying out the nose for AP3, particularly next to most contemporaries. These genuinely were two of the most underperforming units in the entire edition.
If you were to pick any edition of 40k
, I literally can't think of one that would be worse for these two units specifically than 4th if you wanted to run them competitively in my experience.
with 5E, the big reason to take the Mechvets over the Russ was because the Russ couldn't score, and still wasn't particularly good AT
, but other than that they're not exactly exclusionary options, taking lots of both is on the table.