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.

Nerf tanks a bit.

it seems like in the game, infantry are barely important past objectives, killing other infantry or being vulnerable tank killers.

infantry should be a much larger part of the game IMO. but thats just me.

Bit of a general statement...

Any idea how such a task would be done?

Limit the availability of vehicles in general? There was a time when dedicated transports came out of the vehicle point percentage of an army list.

I think doubling all the weapon ranges would be great too. Rapid fire at 24" instead of 12", IG and SM shooting at a max of 48" with their basic weapons.

Just my two cents.

I'll agree. Mech is king in this edition. One idea me and my friends tossed around was bringing back the split damage tables.

Glance:
1. shaken
2. shaken
3. stunned
4.stunned
5. wep destroyed
6. immobilized.

Pen
1. stunned
2. wep destroyed
3. immobilized
4. wreck
5. explodes (Str 4 hit to all passengers)
6. Explodes (str 4 hit to passengers and str 3 hit to all within D6)

Makes pen hits a bit scarrier without making vehicles useless imo. That and we agreed if a round comes sailing through the hull the crew is probably going to be a bit more than "shaken"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gazelle wrote:
I think doubling all the weapon ranges would be great too. Rapid fire at 24" instead of 12", IG and SM shooting at a max of 48" with their basic weapons.

No this doesn't make infantry better this just makes close combat worthless as you will never get there.

5th edition favors boxes and CC no biggie, adapt and overcome or fall to the side of the mechanized rush

I don't think there is a problem. Vehicles should be tough to destroy.

Maybe just give a game-wise points decrease to all anti-tank weapons... not a lot just a little.

I actually run a mechanized army. and as JD noted, CC and tanks are way to go this edition [I didn't play 4th.]

it kind of seems that if we made tanks slightly less mobile then they'd be slightly nerfed but not as useless as you'd be expecting.

the fact is, 1 LC and 18 bolters that can't move and shoot over 2 LC and 3 HB that can move is just not gonna be preferable. make

my honest opinion. but anyway. mobility is the big dinger for me; theres no point in having bolters other then to hold position. this should change.

Tanks don't need to be nerfed. The damage table needs to be rejiggered so there's more between "scratched the paint" and "nuclear explosion" levels of damage. Damaged drives, damaged optics, what have you.

I agree. My Orks are all mech, all the time now. Footsloggers are doomed to either getting slaughtered or simply not getting where they need to be before the game is over. Two out of the three missions being about objectives is also to blame.

I agree. I is use three to five wave serpents to protect and move my troops.

Maybe different thresholds for glancing and penetrating hits would improve things?

Admittedly, it would make it more complicated, but I think most proposed rules do.

Shas'O Dorian wrote: One idea me and my friends tossed around was bringing back the split damage tables.

Glance:
1. shaken
2. shaken
3. stunned
4.stunned
5. wep destroyed
6. immobilized.

Pen
1. stunned
2. wep destroyed
3. immobilized
4. wreck
5. explodes (Str 4 hit to all passengers)
6. Explodes (str 4 hit to passengers and str 3 hit to all within D6)

Makes pen hits a bit scarrier without making vehicles useless imo. That and we agreed if a round comes sailing through the hull the crew is probably going to be a bit more than "shaken"

I agree with this.

Ok, then tyranids simply rock or suck, depending on vehicles ruling or stinking...

On that matter, wouldn't it be nice to see some kind of parasite organism capable of "looting" vehicles (those within a list or anyone out there) with severe limitations, like stats decrease and add-ons/special rules -(machine spirit) removed?

Yeah, tyranid and AV don't mate (so far) well, but that would be fun to see.

Lord Rogukiel wrote:

Shas'O Dorian wrote: One idea me and my friends tossed around was bringing back the split damage tables.

Glance:
1. shaken
2. shaken
3. stunned
4.stunned
5. wep destroyed
6. immobilized.

Pen
1. stunned
2. wep destroyed
3. immobilized
4. wreck
5. explodes (Str 4 hit to all passengers)
6. Explodes (str 4 hit to passengers and str 3 hit to all within D6)

Makes pen hits a bit scarrier without making vehicles useless imo. That and we agreed if a round comes sailing through the hull the crew is probably going to be a bit more than "shaken"

I agree with this.

Me too. It's more complicated but it makes sense.

Maybe...

1. stunned
2. weap destroyed
3. immobilised
4. wreck it
5. implosion [it only hurts those inside?] - S4 hit to everyone inside [none if the tank is open topped]
6. explosion S4 hit to everyone inside, and S3 to anything within D6" of the tank. [if anyone who's inside an open topped tank counts as being automatically hit by a S3 hit]

it's a little less confusing, and it makes sens of the 'ohnohide' second when inside an open topped vehicle.

The problem isn't that vehicles are too good, or too difficult to destroy, it is that IG and to some extent SM have got easy access to too many, good, cheap vehicles.

Agreed, vehicles should be limited in number, not just spammable: "Throw at the enemy!". Vehicles on the battlefield should be feared, difficult to destroy, but few in number. Not: Slight problem to destroy, massed in number, I mean, Razorback/Vendetta/Valk spam is just all too common...

I actually don't really see a problem with tanks this edition.

Mech has always been around in some for or another ever since I started playing (Rhino rush ect ect) and 90% of the arguments against them can be boiled down (as already mentioned) to players needing to adapt and over come.

Personally, the only thing I would change with them as that stand currently is changing the wording of squadrons so that you can buy 0-3 per slot and then they act like normal independent vehicles.

Please, no.

Sorry, but having 9 heavy support option tanks in an Imperial Guard list being able to split fire? I don't even really want to think about it.

---

As stated earlier in the thread, MEQ is king in 5th edition, there is no doubt about it. Unless you're playing a horde or a drop pod list, the general quickest and strongest way to get your troops into position is via transport, it moves them faster and gives them extra survivability (And in the case of the Imperial Guard, gives them a fair chunk more firepower).

Are infantry lists generally (And I use this statement very loosely, as it's circumstantial and based on the player skill at the end of the day) at a disadvantage against a MEQ list in 5th edition. I would say yes. Is it unsurmountable? No, of course not.

Hopefully, a nice happy balance will be reached with 6th edition.

VenerableBrotherPelinore wrote:Please, no.

Sorry, but having 9 heavy support option tanks in an Imperial Guard list being able to split fire? I don't even really want to think about it.

Respectfully, why not? IG AC lists have been around since.... 2nd? And are not nearly as powerful as people think they are.

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem isn't that vehicles are too good, or too difficult to destroy, it is that IG and to some extent SM have got easy access to too many, good, cheap vehicles.

Yeah, I think that's part of it.

The other element is that either infantry or tanks will typically have the edge, and the best approach will always be to pick whichever is stronger and spam that to the exclusion of the other option. At which point people will complain that one type is overpowered, and argue for a rules change, setting it up so that we soon see people taking nothing but the alternative.

The only ways to actually fix this problem are to restrict the numbers you can take of one type or the other - effectively mandating that every army is to be balanced, but this is a poor solution at best, because people really like flexibility in their army design. The other option is to make the unit types truly unique - right now every unit in the game is measured on the same metric - how tough and how killy is it, and this means the best solution to army design is to pick the toughest, most killy type and take it and nothing but it.

To actually get a natural balance between unit types the game needs for the different unit types to actually be different. This has been attempted, somewhat, with only troops being capable of taking objectives, but it needs to go a lot further. Troops should be best at holding ground, and not so great at advancing through the open to take it. Tanks need to be redesigned as mobile gun platforms, not stationary units that spit out damage the same as any other unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CommissarCandlestick wrote:Me too. It's more complicated but it makes sense.

It isn't more complicated, it's just the same old options shifted with a return to penetrating killing the tank on a 4+, and a -3 for glancing instead of a -2.

Ok, so eve in my opinion this is too complex, but what if there were two separate FO charts, one for infantry and one for vehicles, and the vehicles had less slots. Transports would be purchased (at a limited #) from the vehicle FO chart to hold anybody.

For one thing, dedicated transports need to be a lot more expensive. For 35 points, a rhino's a steal. It not only gives extra mobility, but it adds a huge level of durability to a squad. There's never a question to buy a rhino, it's always an automatic buy. That's the problem.

Captain Solon wrote:Nerf tanks a bit.

it seems like in the game, infantry are barely important past objectives, killing other infantry or being vulnerable tank killers.

infantry should be a much larger part of the game IMO. but thats just me.

Its a tie between this, hit modifiers based on range and proper cover rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fafnir wrote:For one thing, dedicated transports need to be a lot more expensive. For 35 points, a rhino's a steal. It not only gives extra mobility, but it adds a huge level of durability to a squad. There's never a question to buy a rhino, it's always an automatic buy. That's the problem.

I agree.

I think increasing the cost of tanks could offset some of this. By how much, IDK.

We could have percentages like in fantasy and have a maximum percentage of your points total for vehicles including DTs. Maybe something like 30 or 40% for vehicles.

EX:
1500pt army could take 450 (30%) or 600 (40%) maximum in vehicles. So say we have three lasplas razorbacks and two vindis, that would be 5pts over the 30% limit. At 40% you could add a autolas predator to make the total 575pts leaving 25pts for upgrades on the vehicles; that's what, less armour than your average competitive vanilla mech list.

Interesting position wizard. I however disagree with that system for 40k though. If you want the option to go full mech than you should have the option. I just think a simple points increase in tanks will make people consider infantry based armies a bit more.