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.

I'd like to start this discussion by saying that this is not a troll post, and I'd like to keep the flaming down to a minimum. Now, onto my somewhat controversial opinion:

It has come to my attention that most of the 40k community think vehicles are totally overpowered in 5th edition. Being a Guard player that has used tanks extensively in my time with this game, I have to disagree with the prevailing opinion that vehicles are overpowered for the following reasons:

1) Tanks are very easily caught by infantry; this, to me, actually sounds totally ridiculous because vehicles should be able to outrun infantry in almost every situation. The prevalence of fleeting units means that cruising speed is insufficient to escape the clutches of on-foot enemies. Even non fleeting units can, by and large, do a pretty good job of keeping up with vehicles by simply running. One could argue that running precludes the possibility of shooting, but then so does moving at cruising speed with your vehicles.

2) Tanks are always hit on rear armour in close combat. From personal experience, this is the bane of most treadheads. This rule almost makes it totally redundant to include krak grenades or melta bombs, except for when you're taking on a Land Raider. With most vehicles having rear AV10, anything STR4 or higher is posing a risk to a vehicle.

3) It is incredibly easy to stunlock vehicles. Neutralizing vehicles through stunlock is probably one of the easiest things to do in this game. To illustrate my point, let's say you have a squad of 5 long fangs with missile launchers. Let's say you also have a GK Dreadnaught with psybolt ammo autocannons (these examples were chosen because they put out a comparable amount of firepower). It is MUCH easier to silence that Dreadnaught for a turn than it is to dispatch that 5-man long fang squad. Additionally, stunning transports also stuns the squad riding inside, which means no firing points for that turn. This leaves the player with a choice to either leave the relative safety of the transport, or sit tight and contribute absolutely nothing to the game for that turn.

4) Vehicles do not claim cover nearly as easily as infantry. Having to obscure 50% of your hull to claim a cover save is a daunting task on all but the most terrain-heavy gaming boards. I'd like to note that I'm not actually complaining about this, as I personally think it SHOULD be hard for a vehicle to claim a cover save. The point of this is to demonstrate that vehicles are much harder to protect than infantry.

5) Destroyed transport vehicles force pinning checks and can kill easily kill their occupants. I think this point is mostly lost on the 40k community because everyone always thinks about the superior survivability of space marines, but I can assure you that as a Guard player, a STR4 explosion on T3 with a 5+ save is a very messy situation. Additionally, having low leadership is absolutely critical when it comes to passing those pinning and morale checks. Those who want more dire consequences for transport occupants should take a minute to consider the plight of T3 armies that rely on transports like Guard, Eldar, Dark Eldar, and I believe Sisters of Battle (not sure if Sisters are T3 or 4).

I am personally of the opinion that vehicles are fine the way they are, but this is not to say that I believe certain codices are at a serious disadvantage when it comes to dealing with them. I don't think anyone could argue that Tyranids have sufficient capability to deal with vehicles, mostly because their best anti-tank options are crammed into the Elites slot. But this is a CODEX problem, not a 5th edition rules problem, which I think is an important distinction.

What say you, Dakka? Please share your opinions, perhaps one among you can dislodge me from my position.

Game balance...
If you made tanks even tougher mech would simply be a better option.
As it is Mech is already a strong option whilst infantry only lists are left behind almsot all the time. (There are some exceptions but these tend to have something else going for them)

purplefood wrote:Game balance...
If you made tanks even tougher mech would simply be a better option.
As it is Mech is already a strong option whilst infantry only lists are left behind almsot all the time. (There are some exceptions but these tend to have something else going for them)

Oh I was never trying to say tanks should be made tougher, which is why i concluded by saying I thought vehicles are fine the way they currently are in 5th edition.

Yeah i get that. That is why i think they are fine...
I didn't really make that clear though... my bad.

I play tyranids, and find my army a little lacking in good tank killers. My MC's get shot down, my zoanthrope blows itself up and my hive guard misses way too much. I find tanks a liitle unfair, but it might just be my own skill.

Luck seems to play too much of a role in fighting tanks...

I'd actually like to see tanks made tougher, faster, and more representative of actual vehicles, but also much more expensive across the board. I think the game would just work better with larger infantry forces and a vehicle or two as support, not the other way around.

Yeah that'd be nice...
But only if they were more expensive across the board.

Here's my opinion:

You're using weasel words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word) to set up a straw man. Who thinks vehicles are overpowered? Why do they think they are overpowered?

I don't think that vehicles are overpowered, either, but your argument here annoys me.

Addressing your points:

1-4) I've yet to see any complaints about any of this except when they're trolling or they're new players who haven't figured out the game dynamics yet. Most of these things are complete non-issues and are neither over-powered or under-powered, but simply part of the paper-rock-scissors aspect of vehicles.

5) Explosions pose a decent risk to IG, but not to MEQ armies at all. The IG squads are also significantly cheaper, so you're going to have more vehicles overall (quantities are harder to kill in and of themselves).

There are ways to even the dangers for MEQ vs GEQ armies - wounding on a set value instead of using a strength, for example, or denying armor saves.

Your vehicle-mounted guardsmen still have superior mobility. The likelihood of the vehicle exploding is pretty low. Their survivability increases by more than a factor of 2, their speed increases by more than a factor of 2 - the risk of losing the squad before it gets to be useful is *significantly* lower than without the vehicle. That's why "the 40k community" often proposes harsher penalties for destroying transports, especially when they are so cheap points-wise.

And my points:

6) IG vehicles are overly cheap for the amount of offensive power that they have (Russ, Vendetta, Basilisk, etc). They aren't overly powerful or hard to kill - just don't cost enough. Same can be said for the amount of "transport power" that some models have (e.g. Rhino).

7) IG are one of the more popular armies right now, and the most popular playstyles are very vehicle-heavy. For this reason, many people using 'take all comers' lists take a higher-than-usual amount of anti-vehicle weaponry and squads. Your vehicles are going to seem a lot less powerful when facing that than a typical TAC list.

Ask yourself a few questions when making a list:

1) Would my army be better off using 1-2 vehicles?
2) Would my army be better off using a *lot* of vehicles?
3) Would *any* army be better off using a *lot* of vehicles?

Answering 'yes' to #1 is expected - vehicles are commonly used as support and transports on key units in every army.

Answering 'yes' to #2 is unexpected unless you are using armies that are typically vehicle-heavy (IG and DE). If the answer is 'yes' and you're playing an army that is known for both vehicle and infantry tactics (Orks, Eldar) then it's starting to tell you that maybe vehicles are overpowered. If the answer is 'yes' and you're playing an army that is known for heavily infantry tactics (Marines), then it's starting to tell you that, yeah, vehicles are probably overpowered.

Answering 'yes' to #3 is pretty much the definition of something that's overpowered.

At the current state of the game, every army is better off using lots of vehicles (except Tyranids, who don't have any).

If you can come up with an army that's better off not using a ton of transports, for example, I'd like to hear it.

As I see it, there are two main problems with the whole vehicle discussion.

1) Realsim: Yes, obviously it is not a realistic setting, but I expect a modicum of realism from my fantasy. Vehicles in the current edition do not perform realistically under any definition of the word. My guys on foot should not be able to keep pace with your vehicles, and unless the vehicle is Fast, they currently can. If I walk up to a Chimera and punch it in the front, I should, a) hit its front armor, as that's where I'm punching it, and b) not be able to pose a serious threat to it. I don't care if you are a Space Marine, these are armoured vehicles built to withstand gunfire, bring a weapon if you want to hurt a vehicle. It's also pretty ridiculous to think that the vehicle crews are so jumpy and inexperienced that any slight tap on the vehicle will prevent them from shooting their guns or moving, stunlocking is way too easy.

2) This isn't only a core rules issue. To fix this problem, and let's be honest, vehicles are a problem, every codex has to have a simultaneous update. And not just an FAQ. A serious rewriting of every vehicle in the game. And there is no way that will ever happen.

There were some other points I was going to bring up when I started witing this, but I've forgotten what they were somewhere in the meantime, haha.

I just think vehicles should be allowed to move farther and still shoot. Maybe just an additional 3'' ?

Vehicle rules have some issues, mainly the awful squadron rules and the restriction on firing weapons while moving (which is why more and more books since 5th edition are including ways around that).

I would venture that a lot of the spearhead rules will become part of the standard rules in 6th edition.

Xarian wrote:Here's my opinion:

You're using weasel words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word) to set up a straw man. Who thinks vehicles are overpowered? Why do they think they are overpowered?

I don't think that vehicles are overpowered, either, but your argument here annoys me.

Addressing your points:

1-4) I've yet to see any complaints about any of this except when they're trolling or they're new players who haven't figured out the game dynamics yet. Most of these things are complete non-issues and are neither over-powered or under-powered, but simply part of the paper-rock-scissors aspect of vehicles.

5) Explosions pose a decent risk to IG, but not to MEQ armies at all. The IG squads are also significantly cheaper, so you're going to have more vehicles overall (quantities are harder to kill in and of themselves).

There are ways to even the dangers for MEQ vs GEQ armies - wounding on a set value instead of using a strength, for example, or denying armor saves.

Your vehicle-mounted guardsmen still have superior mobility. The likelihood of the vehicle exploding is pretty low. Their survivability increases by more than a factor of 2, their speed increases by more than a factor of 2 - the risk of losing the squad before it gets to be useful is *significantly* lower than without the vehicle. That's why "the 40k community" often proposes harsher penalties for destroying transports, especially when they are so cheap points-wise.

And my points:

6) IG vehicles are overly cheap for the amount of offensive power that they have (Russ, Vendetta, Basilisk, etc). They aren't overly powerful or hard to kill - just don't cost enough. Same can be said for the amount of "transport power" that some models have (e.g. Rhino).

7) IG are one of the more popular armies right now, and the most popular playstyles are very vehicle-heavy. For this reason, many people using 'take all comers' lists take a higher-than-usual amount of anti-vehicle weaponry and squads. Your vehicles are going to seem a lot less powerful when facing that than a typical TAC list.

Ask yourself a few questions when making a list:

1) Would my army be better off using 1-2 vehicles?
2) Would my army be better off using a *lot* of vehicles?
3) Would *any* army be better off using a *lot* of vehicles?

Answering 'yes' to #1 is expected - vehicles are commonly used as support and transports on key units in every army.

Answering 'yes' to #2 is unexpected unless you are using armies that are typically vehicle-heavy (IG and DE). If the answer is 'yes' and you're playing an army that is known for both vehicle and infantry tactics (Orks, Eldar) then it's starting to tell you that maybe vehicles are overpowered. If the answer is 'yes' and you're playing an army that is known for heavily infantry tactics (Marines), then it's starting to tell you that, yeah, vehicles are probably overpowered.

Answering 'yes' to #3 is pretty much the definition of something that's overpowered.

At the current state of the game, every army is better off using lots of vehicles (except Tyranids, who don't have any).

If you can come up with an army that's better off not using a ton of transports, for example, I'd like to hear it.

There's no fabricated straw man, this thread here demonstrates how many people on this very forum think that vehicles are overpowered: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/365786.page

I also know people personally who share the same opinion, am I supposed to supply their names as well?

Your rebuttal of points 1-4 are not really rebutting anything, as the whole point of this thread is to demonstrate that vehicles are perfectly fine the way they are, so thank you for agreeing with me. Additionally, the point about decent risk to IG but not to MEQ is also something I addressed. Making transports more dangerous when they explode unfairly punishes T3 armies, as they already have it pretty rough. I would agree that wounding on a base value overall would be a perfectly fair way to augment the current rules regarding exploding transports.

I also have to reject your statement that mounted Guardsmen have superior mobility. Fleeting troops will catch up with any Chimera, running troops will do a decent job of keeping up with it without actually overtaking it (assuming a 6 is rolled while running, they will move the same distance a Chimera would at cruising speed). I would also argue that the likelihood of destroying a vehicle is not low, you have a 1 in 3 chance of reducing the vehicle to slag on the damage chart. The only point I'll concede to you is that the Guardsmen do have increased survivability, but this is at least somewhat offset by the danger of exploding or getting pinned (not hard with leadership 8).

I'm not going to get into the cost effectiveness of IG vehicles, as that's a different can of worms. I'm talking about the vehicle rules in 5th edition, not the tendency of current codices to provide vehicles for fewer points.

I am a Space Marine player and I really don't find vehicles that OP. But, that being said, I get things like 85 point predators that can shred infantry and 75 point Lasplasbacks that can scare any vehicle in the game... so I might be on the receiving end of a pro-vehicle game unbalance.

While Xarian's questions are cute... the way to tell if something is OP, is just increase its cost and ask yourself it its still worth it to put it in a list... if it is, then keep raising to the point you'd say "no its not worth it"... that's roughly the points that its no longer a balanced unit (well, unfortunately you have to assume you have a competent player answering the question, which might be assuming quite a bit).

I won't get into a discussion of DT or FA tanks, but as for HS tanks you can usually only have 3. On a pen you have a 66% chance able to marginalize the vast majority of them with weapon destruction, immobilization, and destruction. Ap1 weapons still do very well on the glance table.

As a player who doesn't use vehicles, I feel that they were underpowered in 4th. But, with 5th, I feel that vehicles should have either gotten the new damage tables, or the new rules for units in destroyed transports. By getting both, transport vehicles are now too powerful.

I still continue to assault transports thinking that I'm doing the correct thing. "I surrounded it so the unit is destroyed, oh, they're emergency disembarking?""Each model takes a wound on a 4+, oh, it's only strength 3?""At least that unit is now pinned, oh, they can assault next turn?"

There is absolutely no reason not to put your unit in a 35-point transport and race forward at full speed.

Or a 100 pt (minimum) transport for us Eldar players :/

That means nothing to me as I have only ever played against space marines for the past six years. Sometimes, they're even painted differently depending on which codex they decide to use (sometimes).

Really?
That must get tedious...