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.

As a new player since 1 year, there's something I came to realize about W40k : the necessity of vehicules in game, their low-point value in game, and finally, their high cost value money-wise outside of the game. Seriously, let's take this exemple : I make a simple 1k points list for World Eaters (let's use the price of GW online store). It come to114.50 US for Kharn and 2 Zerkers box (to make 3 squad of 8). Now let's add 3 Rhinos. The total price is 233.00 US, which is a little more than the double ! Seriously, how is it that vehicules which are so damn low on points cost so much ? Just 3 rhinos are already by themselves costly ! No wonder everyone play BA DoA and GK termies. Should GW lower their prices on vehicules or should they make them less important game-wise (example : making them point heavy or more easy to shoot than infantry) ? What's your opinion on this matter ?

Vehicles need to carry more risk to the occupants.

In 4th edition transports were death boxes, they were really easy to kill and you lost most of the guys if it blew up. this made tanks not so great so a lot of people did not use them.

Of course everyone wondered why armies in the year 40,000 were walking everywhere. It made no sense. At the same time GW was upset that no one was buying their expensive vehichle box sets, so out comes 5th edition, and it's largely all about mech.

Overall the gameplay is better with vehichles, it is more expensive, but there are still viable foot lists so you havve options. the hobby is expensive with large start up costs. it's just the way it is.

Pony_law wrote:In 4th edition transports were death boxes, they were really easy to kill and you lost most of the guys if it blew up. this made tanks not so great so a lot of people did not use them.

Of course everyone wondered why armies in the year 40,000 were walking everywhere. It made no sense. At the same time GW was upset that no one was buying their expensive vehichle box sets, so out comes 5th edition, and it's largely all about mech.

Overall the gameplay is better with vehichles, it is more expensive, but there are still viable foot lists so you havve options. the hobby is expensive with large start up costs. it's just the way it is.

Which army have still viable foot list (except GK and BA) ? Just out of curiosity.

Anyone who complains about vehicles is usually frustrated that their super-1337 4th ed. army can't handle 5 rhinos, 2 predators and a rifleman. They're fine in-game, really. bring more missile launchers, tesla destructors, bolt of tzeentch, whatever S7-8 stuff you can spam.

SnaleKing wrote:Anyone who complains about vehicles is usually frustrated that their super-1337 4th ed. army can't handle 5 rhinos, 2 predators and a rifleman. They're fine in-game, really. bring more missile launchers, tesla destructors, bolt of tzeentch, whatever S7-8 stuff you can spam.

I respectfully request you to re-read the thread. No one is stating they can't handle the transports, only that they hurt the metagame and tend to create less enjoyable games.

Would you rather play a battle with troops all over the field, and all that elite, heavy support and fast attack all around, or a game where each player deploys around 7 razorbacks and a few other things.

Course demons don't have transports, and they get their bums red having to deal with them.

Well, I don't have a problem with vehicles in and of themselves, I just have a problem with "transporthammer", where literally everything is shoved into a metal box all game and thats it. That get's boring to me. Some lists aren't so bad, like Ork battlewagon lists and IG tank lines, but seeing nothing but army after army of space marines with nothing but 7 rhinos/razorbacks with their respective occupants gets boring. The "leafblower" style of playing isn't much better, but that's mainly due to everyone and their brother thinking that's the only way you can play IG and win.

This may be due to the fact that most of the people at my store have marine armies though, so I'm definitely biased.

Long story short, I hate staring at nothing but rhinos all friggin day.

juraigamer wrote:Vehicles need to carry more risk to the occupants.

^This, at the very least it might make soft armies leave them so at least they won't all die when it blows up.

I don't think the problem is with the vehicles themselves but more with the vehicle rules.

There should be more risk for the units inside.

juraigamer wrote:Vehicles need to carry more risk to the occupants.

I agree with that. It's to ridiculous for Berzerkers to be in a vehicle that just exploded and maybe lose only like two guys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrMoustaffa wrote:Well, I don't have a problem with vehicles in and of themselves, I just have a problem with "transporthammer", where literally everything is shoved into a metal box all game and thats it. That get's boring to me. Some lists aren't so bad, like Ork battlewagon lists and IG tank lines, but seeing nothing but army after army of space marines with nothing but 7 rhinos/razorbacks with their respective occupants gets boring. The "leafblower" style of playing isn't much better, but that's mainly due to everyone and their brother thinking that's the only way you can play IG and win.

This may be due to the fact that most of the people at my store have marine armies though, so I'm definitely biased.

Long story short, I hate staring at nothing but rhinos all friggin day.

The other problem is that it causes the whole army to move up fast as ****. It's like Chaos Space Marines just became Tyranids or something like that.

Transports are too cheap, but I'd say heavy vehicles aren't potent enough, specifically blast vehicles. They either need to be more accurate or deny cover saves.

Direct ordanance in the current rules is nearly always a waste of points. You have a large potential damage but it's mathematically pretty weak. More often than not they will fail to justify their points cost by a large margin.

I'm sure there are exceptions though. The Demolisher makes up for it somewhat by having such a high strength. ID and wound eveything on 2s, penetrating LRs on 5s and 6s is sweet. But that's all it has, it's still rubbish at killing MEQ or hordes, as are most blast vehicles.

Vehicles speed up the game immensely - try playing an all-foot game in less than 3 hours.

It is not he value of the vehicle in points that makes this edition seems silly.

I think most people have the problem pegged already.

They are just to useful.

Heres a few ideas to tone them down for everyone.

1. If they made TRANSPORTS move 6" then D6 Extra that would help slow them down just a tad. BloodAngels and Orks can roll 2D6 and choose the highest D6.

2. Vehicles fail a difficult terrain test on a 5+. A slight more risk of damaging the vehicle if barreling over terrain.

3. All occupants take a Str 4 Auto hit if the vehicle explodes. Saves are granted on a 5+ regardless of armour value. Str3 against Open topped 4+ regardless of Armour value.


4. Units within a vehicle do not count for holding an objective. The unit must be outside to guard or maintain it.

These I think are subtle enough not to break the game mechanics.. but still make people think a litte more than usual.

^^^^^^

Those would certainly hit Eldar hard if the codex isn't modified

It'd hit IG hard as well, but I think it would hit marines really hard, and that may or may not be a good thing. For a guard player, the rules you give make it where his guys are more likely to survive inside an exploding vehicle than to take their chances outside (we would get an armor save, as opposed to almost never getting it outside), so they probably wouldn't change their playstyle of bringing tons of transports, same thing for orks. Space marines, on the other hand, are getting a WORSE save, so they'd be more likely to hoof it.

While I think those potential rules are a good start, they're biased in a way that makes them better for some armies than others. Not saying you did that intentionally, just what i'm noticing. I do agree however, when a chimera EXPLODES and I rarely loose more than 3 guys, something isn't right with the rules

Transporthammer is so fething boring after the first three games, let alone an entire gakking edition!

$$$-wise I think vehicles are about right. Rules-wise they're a huge mess... Transports are too damn cheap for their overall effectiveness, being able to still count as scoring while sitting safely inside your metal bawkes is plain idiotic, and mainline battle tanks are just poop.
Add to this mess that some armies don't have ready access to 'oodles of accurate S7/8+ ap1 firepower, and some games turn into a plain rock/paper/scissors result. (Daemons, Orks & 'Nids really hate dealing with transports at range!)

Overall I'm hoping that 6th ed;
a) makes transports a bit more dangerous for their passengers. Nothing insane like 4th, but at least make players think twice before just sitting inside rhinos all game and popping some melta shots on the fly all game.

b) NO MORE SCORING FROM INSIDE YER DAMN BAWKES!!! Dumbest thing ever imho.

c) bring 'defensive weapons' back upto S5 as the very least! Now battle tanks can keep up and keep firing alongside the transports, so it's a bit eaiser to chase them down. (especially for getting side shots on the squisher armour values!)

d) perhaps bring the cost of transports like the rhino & razorback up by 5-10pts each. Even at 45 or 50pts before upgrades, that's a decent buy for a tactical squad to get from point 'A' to point 'B'.
BA's just need their transports completely re-costed because they're waaaaaay too cheap for their added benifits. (especially the sheer stupidity of being able to take 5-man assault squads w/out jump packs, add a meltagun and get a 'free' twin asscan/las+plasma/twin-lascannon option to top it off)

Just my 2 cents worth.

Khornate25 wrote:

Pony_law wrote:In 4th edition transports were death boxes, they were really easy to kill and you lost most of the guys if it blew up. this made tanks not so great so a lot of people did not use them.

Of course everyone wondered why armies in the year 40,000 were walking everywhere. It made no sense. At the same time GW was upset that no one was buying their expensive vehichle box sets, so out comes 5th edition, and it's largely all about mech.

Overall the gameplay is better with vehichles, it is more expensive, but there are still viable foot lists so you havve options. the hobby is expensive with large start up costs. it's just the way it is.

Which army have still viable foot list (except GK and BA) ? Just out of curiosity.

IG
Tau
Orks
hard to manage, and you have to be creative, but Eldar.

However, 2 and 4 i agree with wholeheartedly. Those affect all forces equally, and would be fair for everyone. However, number 1 would essentially be giving lumbering behemoth (the leman russ movement rule, minus the whole ordnance bit) to every vehicle in the game, which would buff the leman russ quite a bit. And as an IG player, i can safely say the last thing that tank needs is a buff, its scary enough as is.

Edit: I'm talking to Millisim by the way

People are talking about how expensive vehicles are $$$ wise, and they are somewhat costly, but they're HUGE compared to the infantry, and they aren't really that over expensive.

Tau Piranha: 30CAD
Tau Battlesuit: 29.75 CAD

A WHOLE QUARTER DIFFERENCE?!?!

Points to money ratio is much in favour of the piranhas.
Also, land-raider points to money ratio is comparable to that of a tac squad SOOOOOOO.

I greatly dislike the idea that scoring units inside transports would need to be outside them. Eldar are neither numerous enough nor robust enough to weather damage whilst on an objective, whereas marines most definately are; what you're essentially suggesting is that squishy armies make themselves prone to fire from armies that can take a beating.

How can Eldar really compete if their troops are forced to be in the open? Guardians can get 20 models per squad, but add in that EML platform and the Conceal or Embolded Warlock you need, and it's costing you 210-220pts for a T3 Ld8 squad with a majority save of 5+ and only a single weapon with greater than 12" range, that misses half of the time.

Jetbikes aren't amazing for objective camping.

Rangers are okay thanks to essentially having Stealth, or Stealth+ if upgraded to Pathfinders, but each Pathfinder costs 24pts and pretty much dies if touched by a flamer or anything that ignores cover, since most of it will ignore the 5+ AS anyway.

Dire Avengers get a maximum of 10 models, with a range of 18".

You've also got to consider Dark Eldar, who are the same but lack even Rangers. Warriors are essentially Guardians but with better BS, longer range and a better Ld with a Sybarite, and Wyches are wasted sitting on an objective.

Then you have Tau, who can get lots of Kroot, but they're BS3 and only T3 Ld7, with no armour save. FWs get a maximum of 12, and get Ld8 if they have a Shas'Ui. They can regroup if he has a bonding knife, but they're still T3 and relatively expensive, with no way of defending against units that get close.

Orks are okay, since they're Fearless in numbers, and T4, but flamers will still bugger them sideways; however, Nobs can be taken as troops with a Warboss, and they're tough enough to hold an objective, but you're wasting their potential.

Necrons seem okay thanks to Immortal spam and the fact that they can just stand up again and again, and also T4 Ld10 across the board.

The vast majority of Imperial armies are fine, since they're T4 with Ld9 thanks to mandatory sergeants, ATSKNF allowing them to avoid running off the board from a bad round of shooting, plus 3+ saves everywhere and a range of weaponry that allows them to shoot at units they would otherwise be out of range against; no idea about SoB though.

IG seem alright because of huge squad sizes, Ld9 Commissars, summary execution, stubborn, and Get Back Into the Fight!

It would be exceedingly hard to balance such a mechanic when there's a large divide, with "Armies that can survive outside transports" on one side, and "Armies which cannot survive outside transports" on the other.

There's also the fact that players could simply hide until the end of the game, and spill the troops out then, which pretty much renders the change absolutely pointless, and gives a huge advantage to the player going second; not only does he get the last turn for objective grabbing, he can also stay inside his transports longer than you can.

Spamming of any kind is problematic for the game, be it vehicles or units. One notices the issue with transports more due to most squads in a codex having access to just one transport option and that option is undercosted for what you get.

Foot slogging lists can be viable, but it is generally an up hill battle when facing against a heavily meched opponent. Increases in game point sizes and a decrease in unit costs also make foot slog lists more difficult to play in the typical tournament style 2 to 3 hour time frame. Those who say bring more s7/s8 to the field.. I ask how can I do that when at least 25% of the codex/codices have little to nothing in reliable mid to long range s7/s8 firepower that can be spammed? As a Sister of Battle player my only competitive way to play is multiple small elite/fast attack with Immolator/Rhinos galore. Woe to me if my opponent is fielding a like army because I may be able to pop the enemy transports, but no way can my ladies survive the retribution aimed at me due to having to get so close. Things get even worse when using such a method gives me a greater KP total than IG..

I would prefer if they return to an earlier method of point costing in the codex. Bring the base price of transports/units up to help mitigate the MSU/transport spam that is prevalent and make upgrades cheaper. As things stand some options (both wargear and units) are a no brainer. Be it a no brainer for 'not worth it' or a no brainer for 'must have'.

Khornate25 wrote:

Pony_law wrote:In 4th edition transports were death boxes, they were really easy to kill and you lost most of the guys if it blew up. this made tanks not so great so a lot of people did not use them.

Of course everyone wondered why armies in the year 40,000 were walking everywhere. It made no sense. At the same time GW was upset that no one was buying their expensive vehichle box sets, so out comes 5th edition, and it's largely all about mech.

Overall the gameplay is better with vehichles, it is more expensive, but there are still viable foot lists so you havve options. the hobby is expensive with large start up costs. it's just the way it is.

Which army have still viable foot list (except GK and BA) ? Just out of curiosity.

Dark Eldar have several brutal and almost broken footlists. IG can put down some severe hurt with a blob army supported by heavy weapons. Space Wolves can also do some serious damage with an all foot army.

Vehicles seem broken until you run into a well built/played foot army.

Although I will agree that a few vehicles can come off and downright broken the first time you fight them - Vendettas and Razorwings being two big names of hated flyers. Vendettas probably being the most hated thing in the game.

Necron transports are expensive, one ghost ark is 10 points more expensive then three rhinos and our night scythe is just 5 points cheaper (115 and 100 respectively.) For what they do though I'd say they are worth the cost whenever I use them.

Not sure about the idea of can't score when in a vehicle, I'd say Something along the lines that a transport with troops has to be in 2" / 1" instead of 3" to contest / control an objective unless it is open topped. This is so objectives inside buildings unless it is in the ground floor can't be contested by guys hiding in a transport.

Maybe add something like a -1 to all save throws for guys inside an exploding vehicle (not open topped) to a maximum of 6+, This way your 2+/2++ with 3+ feel no pain has to roll 3+/3++ or 4+ for FnP, but orks still get their chance at 6+ saves

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 don't really give a toss about the vehicle spamming that is so common these days. I think of it as a challenge to deal with.

I voted GW should lower the prices of vehicles simply because I'm a cheapskate

Really, It's a few armies that I care about for being too vehicle spammy; to be specific: IG. I like how vehicles are atm, its just that IG's vehicles were poorly thought out.

Khornate25 wrote:

Pony_law wrote:In 4th edition transports were death boxes, they were really easy to kill and you lost most of the guys if it blew up. this made tanks not so great so a lot of people did not use them.

Of course everyone wondered why armies in the year 40,000 were walking everywhere. It made no sense. At the same time GW was upset that no one was buying their expensive vehichle box sets, so out comes 5th edition, and it's largely all about mech.

Overall the gameplay is better with vehichles, it is more expensive, but there are still viable foot lists so you havve options. the hobby is expensive with large start up costs. it's just the way it is.

Which army have still viable foot list (except GK and BA) ? Just out of curiosity.

orks if you dont mind playing longer games lol and nids obviously

juraigamer wrote:

SnaleKing wrote:Anyone who complains about vehicles is usually frustrated that their super-1337 4th ed. army can't handle 5 rhinos, 2 predators and a rifleman. They're fine in-game, really. bring more missile launchers, tesla destructors, bolt of tzeentch, whatever S7-8 stuff you can spam.

I respectfully request you to re-read the thread. No one is stating they can't handle the transports, only that they hurt the metagame and tend to create less enjoyable games.

Would you rather play a battle with troops all over the field, and all that elite, heavy support and fast attack all around, or a game where each player deploys around 7 razorbacks and a few other things.

Course demons don't have transports, and they get their bums red having to deal with them.

Oh, I didn't say anyone was saying they couldn't handle them: I was explaining why vehicle "spam" isn't bad for the game.

I like to play against mech spam. I lovelovelove the challenge, rather than just eating all my opponent's delicious infantry. Anytime I see a foot list with only 1-2 vehicles (surprisingly common), I kind of sigh to myself. "Another guy who couldn't afford 6 rhinos. This'll be over quick."

Mech spam armies? NOW we're talking! Tzeentch chariots, GO! Bolt of tzeentch love for everyone!

I like playing games where my opponent challenges me, and only vehicle/transport heavy armies can do that.

The main problem with transports IMO is that in 5E meta lists, transports are not really used as transportation vehicles anymore but rather as additional heavy support choices (which allows one to make super-mech lists). This in turn has shifted the game dynamic to a more vehicle central game.

Personally I think the core vehicle rules need to be overhauled to make them less effective. The spearhead supplement rules could also be re-adjusted (with alternate vehicle rules) to allow for mech based games if people still desire them.

Make them less useful but same price.