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.

Brother SRM wrote:I think with a lot of things in the game the balance lies between what we had in 4th and what he have now. I largely like the vehicles rules, simplistic as they may be, but having your transport explode should be a little more dangerous to the people inside than some bolter fire.

I think that is because they do not want IG infantry squads being wiped from the table instantly, and because they do not want 1 shot to be enough to destroy an entire squadron of vehicles.

We need more vehicles, not less! This is 40k, not fantasy. Walkers and Vehicles are the exciting and cool thing about this game system..

Armies like razorspam are more realistic and unified looking than those horrible half mech half foot lists of 3rd and 4th edition.

I wouldn't mind Mech Spam as much if thier wasn't so much hype of the melta to counter them. Maybe in the next edition they'll actually give tanks that are designed to hunt tanks that extra +1 on the Penetration Chart from their turreted weapon.


And it's not really the vehicles that are the problem, it's the counters and the mentality of the players with the counters.

Everything gets shoved through the 'Can it kill a vehicle' filter way too often, even the units that aren't designed to kill them, and are immediately discarded if it can't meet the lofty theory-hammer requirements.

I guess I'm just annoyed. That's why I don't post any IG lists on Dakka anymore becuase I'll get the 'Don't take that, Melta's are better' or 'Vendetta can do that in spades' crap.

Something needs to change up the blandness a bit, especially in the counter department.

Vehicles are great, and should be a focus of 40k, with a few changes:

- Transports should function as transports, not scoring gunboats. Give points each turn for holding an objective and make the troops have to get out of the box to do it.
- It should be easier for a WS 9 unit to hit a moving vehicle in CC than a WS 2 unit.
- A vehicle explodes into flaming shards and leaves a smoking crater in the ground, and the passengers are hit with the 40k equivilant of a stubbed toe? Really?

Maelstrom808 wrote:Vehicles are great, and should be a focus of 40k, with a few changes:

- Transports should function as transports, not scoring gunboats. Give points each turn for holding an objective and make the troops have to get out of the box to do it.
- It should be easier for a WS 9 unit to hit a moving vehicle in CC than a WS 2 unit.
- A vehicle explodes into flaming shards and leaves a smoking crater in the ground, and the passengers are hit with the 40k equivilant of a stubbed toe? Really?

@ your first point, this is not a good idea.

Any non-meq army would just instantly and irrecoverably be a massive fail. Guardsmen getting out of their vehicle? great, they'll get wrecked by shooting right away. Same for firewarriors, pathfinders, eldar etc.

I don't agree. My campaign group has always made it where the men must get out to hold objectives. Our guard and tau players have never had a problem. A objective/building/town is never held unless boots are on the ground. Adapt and over come.

Maelstrom808 wrote:- It should be easier for a WS 9 unit to hit a moving vehicle in CC than a WS 2 unit.

I'm not so sure, since WS represents skill in opposed close combat, not necessarily the ability to attach AT grenades to a moving vehicle. Naturally this is less the case with things like power fists, but the enforced low initiative represents the difficulty of moving that weapon quickly, so by rights it should be extra hard for them to swing in time. Perhaps a more realistic approach would be to pass an initiative test to hit vehicles moving over a certain speed.

Why yes, I do play Dark Eldar, why do you ask?

I have said on occasion that ap 1 hits that destroy a vehicle need to cause the explosion to be +1 STR, but that would just cause more melta spam... so it's not the best fix.

Je suis2 au hazard wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:Vehicles are great, and should be a focus of 40k, with a few changes:

- Transports should function as transports, not scoring gunboats. Give points each turn for holding an objective and make the troops have to get out of the box to do it.
- It should be easier for a WS 9 unit to hit a moving vehicle in CC than a WS 2 unit.
- A vehicle explodes into flaming shards and leaves a smoking crater in the ground, and the passengers are hit with the 40k equivilant of a stubbed toe? Really?

@ your first point, this is not a good idea.

Any non-meq army would just instantly and irrecoverably be a massive fail. Guardsmen getting out of their vehicle? great, they'll get wrecked by shooting right away. Same for firewarriors, pathfinders, eldar etc.

Actually, my group play tested this quite a bit and it worked quite nicely. You have to pay a little more attention to how you place your objectives and defend them, but there are plenty of ways to keep non-meq troops safe on an objective.

htj wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:- It should be easier for a WS 9 unit to hit a moving vehicle in CC than a WS 2 unit.

I'm not so sure, since WS represents skill in opposed close combat, not necessarily the ability to attach AT grenades to a moving vehicle. Naturally this is less the case with things like power fists, but the enforced low initiative represents the difficulty of moving that weapon quickly, so by rights it should be extra hard for them to swing in time. Perhaps a more realistic approach would be to pass an initiative test to hit vehicles moving over a certain speed.

Why yes, I do play Dark Eldar, why do you ask?

I could see that working as well. I just think the flat auto/4+/6+ is a very poor system.

GW made a solution to slow armies too. It's called deep strike. Only the thing is, games not allowing this rule means tyranid players (that have no other means of transport.) have to pay for it.
And if you wanted to make a brood tougher by enlargening it have fun walking it accross the battle feild.

kshaw2000 wrote:GW made a solution to slow armies too. It's called deep strike. Only the thing is, games not allowing this rule means tyranid players (that have no other means of transport.) have to pay for it.
And if you wanted to make a brood tougher by enlargening it have fun walking it accross the battle feild.

Trying to validate deep striking with Tyranids is a really bad example. Maybe Drop Podding Dreadnoughts or Sternguard or... Anything really in the Space Marine Codex... Sigh... R.I.P Harkoni Warhawks...

Like a lot of the above people I think that transports:
* should be more expensive point-wise so that you actually make a proper choice between enough bodies and their metal boxes to carry them in. Some armies just have them as auto-include.
* should hurt more when they explode
* all be fast and have assault ramps to compensate.

In short, every army should have access to transports to make delivery of troops fast and useful, but it should have big risks to compensate. Your transport blowing up when you are rushing at the enemy should result in more than a few scratches.

I'm not so sure, since WS represents skill in opposed close combat, not necessarily the ability to attach AT grenades to a moving vehicle. Naturally this is less the case with things like power fists, but the enforced low initiative represents the difficulty of moving that weapon quickly, so by rights it should be extra hard for them to swing in time. Perhaps a more realistic approach would be to pass an initiative test to hit vehicles moving over a certain speed.

A khorne bloodthirster should realistically be able to grab that thing, and fling it..Of course It'd still be able to knock it hard on an I test too.

My main problem is, I want to play chaos daemons, but the meched up 5th edition is absolutely HORRIBLE for CD. I don't want to play 4 heralds with 3 tzeentch princes over everything else, since my MC's can keep up, but cant hit the vehicles, nor can even the elite stuff that can hit it hard do much against things that move.

I'm not so sure, since WS represents skill in opposed close combat, not necessarily the ability to attach AT grenades to a moving vehicle. Naturally this is less the case with things like power fists, but the enforced low initiative represents the difficulty of moving that weapon quickly, so by rights it should be extra hard for them to swing in time. Perhaps a more realistic approach would be to pass an initiative test to hit vehicles moving over a certain speed.

A space Marine should be more likely to hit a vehicle than a conscript.

Je suis2 au hazard wrote:

I'm not so sure, since WS represents skill in opposed close combat, not necessarily the ability to attach AT grenades to a moving vehicle. Naturally this is less the case with things like power fists, but the enforced low initiative represents the difficulty of moving that weapon quickly, so by rights it should be extra hard for them to swing in time. Perhaps a more realistic approach would be to pass an initiative test to hit vehicles moving over a certain speed.

A space Marine should be more likely to hit a vehicle than a conscript.

This would still work, as the Space Marine has a higher initiative than the conscript.

Vehicles and transports I think are fine in terms of cost/survivability right now, though the vehicle rules in general could use an overhaul. The bigger issue is that infantry, unlike every other game out there, doesn't have any mechanics for hiding, digging in, spotting, etc. they can just move/shoot/assault and that's it.

I like that the option for competitive vehicle spam is there now, options are never a bad thing.

I just think it needs to be balanced out in the rules by giving larger-sized squads some benefit of their own.

Perhaps a bonus to morale checks in combat resolution equal to how many models you outnumber the opponent by? It should only apply against models with the same or smaller base size though, and never against monstrous creatures or vehicles.

Or the ability to shoot at 1 target per 5 models in a squad? You'd still have to maintain coherency within the squad, so your targets couldn't be too far apart, and the ability would of course be lost when you start taking casualties.

htj wrote:

Je suis2 au hazard wrote:

I'm not so sure, since WS represents skill in opposed close combat, not necessarily the ability to attach AT grenades to a moving vehicle. Naturally this is less the case with things like power fists, but the enforced low initiative represents the difficulty of moving that weapon quickly, so by rights it should be extra hard for them to swing in time. Perhaps a more realistic approach would be to pass an initiative test to hit vehicles moving over a certain speed.

A space Marine should be more likely to hit a vehicle than a conscript.

This would still work, as the Space Marine has a higher initiative than the conscript.

Alright then, a kroot should be more likely to hit a vehicle than a guardsmen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:Vehicles and transports I think are fine in terms of cost/survivability right now, though the vehicle rules in general could use an overhaul. The bigger issue is that infantry, unlike every other game out there, doesn't have any mechanics for hiding, digging in, spotting, etc. they can just move/shoot/assault and that's it.

Well digging in=g2g

I like vehicles a lot, but I think they'd be a lot more balanced if they just made two changes:

- A unit cannot hold or contest an objective whilst they are inside a vehicle.

- Change Vehicle Destroyed: Explodes to Auto hit, S5 AP- Rending (Still having the -1S for open topped ect).


I think this would reasonable a reasonable risk:reward taking the current point costs and benefits into account.

Transports and tanks give a number of advantages to the game and GW.

Faster Gameplay.
Instead of placing down 60+ marines, your placing down 5 rhinos/razorbacks. This means that deployment is considerably faster, and the first few turns where your just moving a truuk, or serpent are faster as your moving just one model.

This means that its possible to have a game done in 2 hours. Its simply a matter of moving models. If an ork player has 3 battlewagons and 6 truuks, they can move thier army in 9 different motions of picking up thier arm and putting it down. In comparison, a 180+ green tide list takes 20* as long to do the same thing.


More Sales.
GW is in business to sell models. When they made transports exceptionally effective and exceptional cheap (in game terms, not $$$ terms) it increased their sales. Now when you buy a unit of marines, GW expects you to fork out money for a rhino/razorback.

I would be very surprised to see GW regress to earlier editions where vehicles were ineffective, thus causing less models to be sold. If anything thier going to be more progressive in their model selling by making expensive models more effective (ie, vendetta)


Unique Feel.
Do you know what the big difference is when you walk by a warmachine table and a warhammer table? The warhammer table is covered in tanks. The warmachine has infantry and some walkers.
The vehicles in 40k provide that epic, unique feel that other games cannot provide. When you walk by a warhammer table, you see this battle with tanks, infantry, fliers and walkers. Reducing the effect of this makes the game of 40k much less cool.

Je suis2 au hazard wrote:Alright then, a kroot should be more likely to hit a vehicle than a guardsmen.

Why's that? A guardsman is an extensively trained soldier, they would be quite good at attaching a grenade to a moving vehicle. Successfully and effectively striking a vehicle that's moving at speed is a different ability than tackling an enemy combat in melee. It would be more reliant on speed of movement and quickness of reaction than skill in melee combat, and there is a stat for that - being initiative. We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
Well digging in=g2g

really, it's diving for full concealment within cover more than anything else. It's not really digging in or actively going to ground.

For instance, in Flames of War, when Infantry Dig In, they are then considered in bulletproof cover. Functionally what that means is that weapons have to pass a firepower test to hurt them, the closest thing to relate to 40k would mean that they'd basically have to roll equal to or higher on their AP to inflict a wound. When they go to ground, they are at -1 to hit. This all means that dug in infantry in Flames of War is a nightmare to dislodge from a position. While mechanized troops have lots of maneuverability and firepower and whatnot, trying to remove dug-in infantry out of a woods where they've stuck in is one of the hardest things in the game to do, you generally have to try and clear them out in bloody and costly assaults.

40k has no equivalent, cover saves aren't really the same thing, and thus mechanized infantry of course have a great advantage.

Vaktathi wrote:

Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
Well digging in=g2g

really, it's diving for full concealment within cover more than anything else. It's not really digging in or actively going to ground.

For instance, in Flames of War, when Infantry Dig In, they are then considered in bulletproof cover. Functionally what that means is that weapons have to pass a firepower test to hurt them, the closest thing to relate to 40k would mean that they'd basically have to roll equal to or higher on their AP to inflict a wound. When they go to ground, they are at -1 to hit. This all means that dug in infantry in Flames of War is a nightmare to dislodge from a position. While mechanized troops have lots of maneuverability and firepower and whatnot, trying to remove dug-in infantry out of a woods where they've stuck in is one of the hardest things in the game to do, you generally have to try and clear them out in bloody and costly assaults.

40k has no equivalent, cover saves aren't really the same thing, and thus mechanized infantry of course have a great advantage.

Well g2g in cover works differently, but has a similar effect: shooting is very, very ineffective for dislodging them, with cover ignoring blasts, flamer and assaults being preferrable, at the cost of not being able to shoot while doing so. Kroot g2g in forest is especially nasty, with up to 35 models with 2+ saves

I voted to make them cheaper price wise, more useful, and more expensive points wise

Personally I think they are just fine as they are. Most vehicles can die very easily. When I play Guard or Sisters I expect to lose most or all my vehicles in game unless I get lucky with my Shield of Faith saves on my Sisters. Vehicles die so easily in hth its not even funny. I don't really see a problem. When my Sisters or Guard have a vehicle blow up they typically lose enough models, being T 3 and in a close topped ride means I take wounds at S 4. So I am looking at saving 6 wounds for a squad of 10 so I am typcially losing some models and making a pinning test. The only change I would make is make that exploded crater dangerous as well as difficult just like a wreck.

I think the real issue was the total knee jerk reaction to 4th ed death boxes that has lead to carhammer 40k: hide in the metal box edition (aka 5th edition). Combine this with the ability to find a 4+ cover save and transports get a little OOT. I don't want to see mech get completely boned over in 6th edition but I want to see it toned down. In this edition if you are not bringing a mech army you may as well almost not play and that is not fun. I want to see a mix of different armies on the table. I want to walk into a game store and see a mech army, a foot army, a hybrid army, a jumper army, etc. Not just mech.

I agree with the other posters that troops in a vehicle should not count as scoring. I don't think it would cripple the more fragile units out there, you can still park your vehicle in front of the objective, then get out of LOS behind it. Now you're safe...until the outflankers and deepstrikers come in. This is where objective placement will come into play.

Put objectives where it's dangerous to deep strike, or make sure there is terrain where outflankers might show up, or put yourself in the center of the table, etc.

This way people can still use their vehicles, but those of us without them (Daemons, Tyranids) will have something to eat without being forced to take our relatively few str 8+ options. I hate having to take 6 hive guard every list...I should be able to diversify more than that.

Vaktathi wrote:

Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
Well digging in=g2g

really, it's diving for full concealment within cover more than anything else. It's not really digging in or actively going to ground.

For instance, in Flames of War, when Infantry Dig In, they are then considered in bulletproof cover. Functionally what that means is that weapons have to pass a firepower test to hurt them, the closest thing to relate to 40k would mean that they'd basically have to roll equal to or higher on their AP to inflict a wound. When they go to ground, they are at -1 to hit. This all means that dug in infantry in Flames of War is a nightmare to dislodge from a position. While mechanized troops have lots of maneuverability and firepower and whatnot, trying to remove dug-in infantry out of a woods where they've stuck in is one of the hardest things in the game to do, you generally have to try and clear them out in bloody and costly assaults.

40k has no equivalent, cover saves aren't really the same thing, and thus mechanized infantry of course have a great advantage.

Holy cow... I really like the sound of this.

htj wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

Je suis2 au hazard wrote:
Well digging in=g2g

really, it's diving for full concealment within cover more than anything else. It's not really digging in or actively going to ground.

For instance, in Flames of War, when Infantry Dig In, they are then considered in bulletproof cover. Functionally what that means is that weapons have to pass a firepower test to hurt them, the closest thing to relate to 40k would mean that they'd basically have to roll equal to or higher on their AP to inflict a wound. When they go to ground, they are at -1 to hit. This all means that dug in infantry in Flames of War is a nightmare to dislodge from a position. While mechanized troops have lots of maneuverability and firepower and whatnot, trying to remove dug-in infantry out of a woods where they've stuck in is one of the hardest things in the game to do, you generally have to try and clear them out in bloody and costly assaults.

40k has no equivalent, cover saves aren't really the same thing, and thus mechanized infantry of course have a great advantage.

Holy cow... I really like the sound of this.

But if we pepper the entire game with mechanics like those, it will eventually return to that dark time called second edition, where games never finished, ever. Somewhere, there is a gamer still stuck in turn 2 of a second edition game, who shall not know victory until his game finishes in 8ed.

Je suis2 au hazard wrote:But if we pepper the entire game with mechanics like those, it will eventually return to that dark time called second edition, where games never finished, ever. Somewhere, there is a gamer still stuck in turn 2 of a second edition game, who shall not know victory until his game finishes in 8ed.

Yes and no. I think there's a balanced ground between the super streamlined 3rd ed. and the characterful madness that was 2nd ed., something that's been worked towards in 4th and 5th. Infantry at the moment are very basic and very vulnerable. I'd like to see them become more integral to the gameplay. Reducing down some of the more time consuming elements, such as (IMHO) TLoS and replacing them with more abstract, faster systems would allow for this kind of mechanic to be integrated with less slowdown to play time.