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.

Was wondering if anyone has done the math on it. If tanks are actually "statistically" easier to kill. I know that hull points make glancing a tank to death easier, but at the same token before a single glance could have killed a tank whereas it takes a minimum of three now. It would seem the penetrating table is also a bit tougher as well, aside from ap1/2 giving the +2/1

 Mafty wrote:
Was wondering if anyone has done the math on it. If tanks are actually "statistically" easier to kill. I know that hull points make glancing a tank to death easier, but at the same token before a single glance could have killed a tank whereas it takes a minimum of three now. It would seem the penetrating table is also a bit tougher as well, aside from ap1/2 giving the +2/1

Too many variables for a broad question like that.
The biggest thing that makes tanks easier to kill is how easy it is to hit them in melee. No more 4+/6+ to hit. Tanks are either WS0 (auto hit) or WS1 (hit on a 3+). The swing from being hit on 6+ to hit on 3+ is huge. Huge enough that guardsmen with krak grenades do horrible things to tanks who stray too close.
Cover saves being worse also makes tanks a bit easier to take out then before, but again, it will depend on range, strength of shot, AP of the shot, and so on.

-Matt

It also depends on what kind of scope you're looking at.

If the question is "are tanks less likely to be on the board at the end of the game?" then then answer is a slight yes. If the question is "am I more or less likely to kill a tank with this round of shooting?" the answer is a slight yes for light vehicles, and a slight no for everything else.

In general, vehicles have gotten a little less durable, and a little more killy (not being shaken by glances, etc.).

Tanks are less durable than before.
2HP vehicles are roughly 1/3 as durable (takes 1/3 shots it did in 5th to take it out).
3HP vehicles are roughly 1/2.
4HP roughly 2/3

However, while on the field, they tend to remain functional for longer while they survive, as opposed to keep being disabled but not destroyed.

I love trukks

Ovion wrote:Tanks are less durable than before.
2HP vehicles are roughly 1/3 as durable (takes 1/3 shots it did in 5th to take it out).
3HP vehicles are roughly 1/2.
4HP roughly 2/3

But you're only looking at HP.

Missile launchers, for example, have half the chance they used to of killing a vehicle in a single shot. Also, squadrons went from a big liability to survivability to a big bonus.

My experience with my rhinos has been pretty bad so far. Usually by turn 2, they have exploded from plasma or lascannon shots. I would much rather they just get wrecked, but they usually don't even last up to their 3 HP. By the luck of the dice, they usually exploded and do some damage to the crew inside (berzerkers or plague marines).

 Mafty wrote:
Was wondering if anyone has done the math on it. If tanks are actually "statistically" easier to kill. I know that hull points make glancing a tank to death easier, but at the same token before a single glance could have killed a tank

glances couldn't kill tanks before, at least not in 5th.

Overall, vehicles have become significantly easier to destroy, with the average number of shots drastically reduced.

For non Ap1/2 weapons, the chance to destroy a vehicle on any one hit (provided the vehicle is not on its final HP) is reduced by half, but more than compensated for by the maximum number of hits a vehicle can take as a result of HP's. Autocannons against AV12 for example previously required an average of 18 hits to destroy an AV12 vehicle, now that average has been reduced to 7.2 hits between the overlapping HP and Explodes kill results. Missile Launchers required 9 hits, now they only require an average of 5-6 hits.

Then of course we have CC where because of the changes in the to-hit rolls and HP's, it's easier for a charging Tac squad to kill a moving Leman Russ or a flat out moving Falcon than it is to kill 2 basic Marines.

Cover is easier to get now, but it wasn't stupendously hard in 5th, and most cover values are 5+ now instead of 4+.


So yes, overall, tanks became drastically easier to kill statistically.

I also think the issue is a lot are still playing vehicles like they are still in 5th where a Rhino had a chance of charging across the battle field. The couple of “Rhino Rush” armies is have faced in 6th just charged hoping that they would be lucky enough to survive until turn two. The same thing with Armor and Dreads; everyone is still running around like they are driving around like they are in Tiger Tanks on the Russian Steppes. Everyone should be running around like they are in Sherman Tanks it in the Hedge Rows.

My big example is I run with my Space Wolves footslogger list a 3 Land Speeder Typhoon Squadron with Heavy Bolters and more times than not they survive the game. Part of this is how Damage is now allocated and the fact I never cross into No-Man’s Land. And the second I never move them so I don’t have some sort of blocking cover from most of my enemy. With Tanks and APCs I try to deploy them in good cover, and when not in cover I pop smoke.
With my Dreadnoughts [including Björn] I’ve stopped loading them with Assault Cannons and Multi-Meltas or run from cover to cover, I have even had a Helbrute make into Assault Range.

Oh, I forgot about cover.

Yeah, it got worse, depending (although you can now take ADLs), but it's MUCH easier to get now.

25% means that you can claim cover from intervening infantry models, and, well, practically everywhere. It was much more difficult to get cover saves back in the day.

It was harder than it is now, but it wasn't exactly a rare thing, that was often one of the most frequent complaints about 5th was "all cover all the time" which they mitigated in 6th by reducing much of it to 5+ instead of 4+. So yeah, cover is super easy to get, but it wasn't exactly hard to get in 5th either.

On average against most weapons in 6th, a vehicle would need an alternating 3+/4+ cover save to match its same average survivability in the open under 5th.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Mafty wrote:
Was wondering if anyone has done the math on it. If tanks are actually "statistically" easier to kill. I know that hull points make glancing a tank to death easier, but at the same token before a single glance could have killed a tank

glances couldn't kill tanks before, at least not in 5th.

Overall, vehicles have become significantly easier to destroy, with the average number of shots drastically reduced.

For non Ap1/2 weapons, the chance to destroy a vehicle on any one hit (provided the vehicle is not on its final HP) is reduced by half, but more than compensated for by the maximum number of hits a vehicle can take as a result of HP's. Autocannons against AV12 for example previously required an average of 18 hits to destroy an AV12 vehicle, now that average has been reduced to 7.2 hits between the overlapping HP and Explodes kill results. Missile Launchers required 9 hits, now they only require an average of 5-6 hits.

Then of course we have CC where because of the changes in the to-hit rolls and HP's, it's easier for a charging Tac squad to kill a moving Leman Russ or a flat out moving Falcon than it is to kill 2 basic Marines.

Cover is easier to get now, but it wasn't stupendously hard in 5th, and most cover values are 5+ now instead of 4+.


So yes, overall, tanks became drastically easier to kill statistically.

You could wreck on a glance before, as long as you had ap1.

Mafty wrote:

You could wreck on a glance before, as long as you had ap1.

True enough I guess, but were usually from weapons that are many times more likely to penetrate and kill easily on a penetrating hit. Open-topped vehicles too, but they're usually also relatively low AV vehicles that die very easily anyway.

You could wreck on a glance if all weapons were destroyed and it was immobilized. Very rare, but I saw it happen a few times.

Vehicles die faster, but they get to do a whole lot more than they ever did in 5th.

I've had russes in 5th that would last all game and only shoot once.

In 6th, I've had russes live 3 to 4 turns, but get to fire every single turn.

My opponents hate the latter much more than the former.

In 6ed, I know that all my tanks will die at the end of turn 3. I dont care if they die. I use them now like cannon balls or moving cover saves.

Actually my auto/las preds still usually last the whole game. Obviously, Tau smoke them, but many players are too cheap to purchase weapons to engage AV 13 at long ranges. They usually survive vs DE because the dark lances go to more immediate threats and I wreck all their skimmers and the auto/las gets off scot free

Vehicles are easier to kill, however they are harder to stop.

That Landraider barreling down on your line full of Terminators is now much harder to stop before it gets to your lines. Before you could get a glance and immobilize it. Now a glance just strips a hull point and it keeps on coming.

So for killing a vehicle it is viable to glance it to death. But no more stunlocking a shooty vehicle with a glance for a turn.

My Necron Vehicles got a whole lot more survivable, thanks to no Vehicle damage Chart on Glances, and Jink Saves.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Vehicles are easier to kill, however they are harder to stop.

That Landraider barreling down on your line full of Terminators is now much harder to stop before it gets to your lines. Before you could get a glance and immobilize it. Now a glance just strips a hull point and it keeps on coming.

So for killing a vehicle it is viable to glance it to death. But no more stunlocking a shooty vehicle with a glance for a turn.

This is true...Only the pen rolls can "stop" a vehicle. And its only 2/6 chances to stop the vehicle (stun/immob)

 Grey Templar wrote:
Vehicles are easier to kill, however they are harder to stop.

That Landraider barreling down on your line full of Terminators is now much harder to stop before it gets to your lines. Before you could get a glance and immobilize it. Now a glance just strips a hull point and it keeps on coming.

So for killing a vehicle it is viable to glance it to death. But no more stunlocking a shooty vehicle with a glance for a turn.

This man speaks the truth.

much easier to kill. Statistically vehicles could take 5 glances or pens earlier on average whilst now they are to an average of 3

Tanks are easier to kill with glances, but they're unphased by them as well. Kind of a tough trade off. Great if you run Land Raiders, terrible if you're not Marines.

 Stormrider wrote:
Tanks are easier to kill with glances, but they're unphased by them as well. Kind of a tough trade off. Great if you run Land Raiders, amazing if you're not Marines.

Pretty sure Imperial Guard and orks like the changes. I know I do at least.

Only complaint ork players have is that battlewagons explode at S4 now even with being open topped, which sucks quite a bit.

Only armies that seem to really hate the change are armies that relied on very fragile transports, like DE and any army that relied on a rhino rush/pillbox method.

I think its quite psychological for example your facing a land raider and you have 3 missile launchers and a lascannon in speperate squads in 5th you would shoot the Lcannon at it and use the missiles elsewhere as they would be wasted because you cant kil it however in 6th you would be tempted to fire all 4 wepons at the landraider in the hope that you can strip its hull points down its made people less fearful of nasty vehicles like landraiders leman russes battlewagons etc

MrMoustaffa wrote:Only armies that seem to really hate the change are armies that relied on very fragile transports, like DE and any army that relied on a rhino rush/pillbox method.

Yeah, I've noticed this.

6th ed vehicle rules come around, and everybody's still doing mech, just like before, but their vehicle choices change a bit. Instead of running as many razorbacks, they're now cutting down on them in favor of more predators. Mech guard went from 2 vet squads in chimeras and two in vendettas to 1 in chimeras and three in vendettas. I've also started to see land raiders a bit more. In any case, mech lists weren't seriously hurt by the hull points change, you just need to do things a touch differently now.

I'll certainly agree about DE though. They were my number 1 nemesis in 4th ed. I'd always have to build an army list, and then rebuild it to make sure it could handle DE skimmer spam. Nowadays, less so. A couple of tournaments ago at my local store, I brought the correct number of hydras for handling DE, and it turned out to be hilarious overkill now in 6th ed. Apparently this was so generally true that the DE player switched over to grey knights after that league.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Stormrider wrote:
Tanks are easier to kill with glances, but they're unphased by them as well. Kind of a tough trade off. Great if you run Land Raiders, amazing if you're not Marines.

Pretty sure Imperial Guard and orks like the changes. I know I do at least.

Only complaint ork players have is that battlewagons explode at S4 now even with being open topped, which sucks quite a bit.

Only armies that seem to really hate the change are armies that relied on very fragile transports, like DE and any army that relied on a rhino rush/pillbox method.

I was trying to refer strictly to transports and I should have been more clear. IG certainly love this for Russes/Artillery

Fragile transport armies are more fragile now because their vehicles were still flimsy, but now they're more mobile. But they always had to be mobile to avoid being smoked by small arms.

Medium transport armies like IG, SM, Eldar don't really care about the changes as their vehicles can't be stunned by glances, but the vehicles can die much quicker. So is the trade for more mobility, but less durability worth it? I kinda think no only because IG are so damn squishy when not in a vehicle, same goes for Eldar. Space Marines can handle this, especially since Rhinos have 3 HP and are only AV11, that was a gift.

Heavy Transports love these as they can keep moving, but hate them as their biggest vehicles (and shot magnets) can be killed quite "cheaply" (literally glanced to death).

Orks definitely took it in the shorts with Open topped transports meting out S4. That is killer for Boyz and Eldar (this is especially true for Eldar, Lord knows they don't need bolter strength hits from vehicle explosions).

To be perfectly honest, all the mech IG players at my store are indifferent. The same stuff that killed chimeras in 5th kills them in 6th. We have no illusions that the things are invincible. That's why they're only 55pts. We take more of them now, but that's the only change I've seen. One player mentioned that he felt his mech list was STRONGER in 6th. Now he can murder things through tank shocks by boxing them in, destroying the entire unit. His leman russes can't be stunlocked anymore. Immobilized results let him be more efficient with his squadrons shooting, etc. Also add in that many people are taking less dedicated anti tank in my area, because "hey, tanks got worse and all I gotta do is glance them to death. No stupid IG player is going to bring 12 chimeras and a handful of leman russes." He then proceeds to crush them because they didn't prepare to deal with that much armor. Maybe that's just a local meta thing, but mech guard players in my area have been wrecking other armies pretty easily due to these very reasons.

We only really cared about being able to move or shoot, and since glances stop neither of those anymore, we love it. Most things people take to kill our chimeras now plan on doing it through hullpoints, so now we get more turns of moving and firing, instead of a clever opponent just glancing each vehicle once every turn and shutting down our entire firing line.

As much as I don't want to trample on anyone, it really feels like glances are being over-emphasized as to their occurrence in 5th relative to penetrating hits and their effect on disabling vehicles (tanks sitting on the table for a majority shaken/stunned as a result of glancing hits and *nobody* manages penetrates?), and as if opponents just leave tank hunting to glancing stuff to death (without managing to do it fast enough to kill them before they can be useful...) in 6th from the way some of these examples read, which is really...very odd from any statistical standpoint, like as if it were more routine for tanks to take a single glance each turn than anything else.

 Vaktathi wrote:
like as if it were more routine for tanks to take a single glance each turn than anything else.

It really was, in a lot of cases. Because 5th was so dominated by transport spam the most common anti-tank weapons were mid-strength guns like ACs, multilasers, etc, that have very high volume of fire but very low chances of getting a penetrating hit. So you'd shoot your multilaser at a Razorback and as soon as you got a "shaken" result, which was often just a single glance, you'd move on to the next tank and just leave the first one to sit there uselessly until it was time to repeat the process next turn. Meanwhile penetrating hits only had a 33% chance of destroying a tank, so there were a lot of times where you'd get penetrating hits but roll badly and do no more damage than a glance. End result: vehicles often spent the entire game shaken/stunned into useless paperweights, but never took that final "destroyed" result.