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.

But Meltaguns should be killing vehicles. The lethality of anti-tank weapons isn't the issue. They're anti-tank weapons. That's the point!

The problem is they've made melta weapons too good at killing vehicles now. Specifically multi-meltas, which previously only had the benefit of range for their melta rule. Now they have more range, more reliable damage, and have double the shots.

The same thing applies with all these long range D3 + 3 weapons Dark Lances, Ad-Mech Lascannons, etc. That's a minimum of 4 damage.

The problem here is that no-one can seem to agree on how to buff vehicles. A lot of players seem to be against increasing vehicle toughness. I can see why as some factions simply don't have ranged weapons with more than S8. Making it difficult for them. Personally I don't see that as an issue, as many armies now have abilities that either add 1 to wound rolls, allow hit rolls of 6 to auto wound/cause mortal wounds, or re-roll wounds.

Personally I would like to see a decompression of T7 and T8 vehicles. Leave transports with either T6 or T7 but those T7 tanks like Hammerheads, Predators, Fireprisms, etc should 100% go up to T8. Whereas vehicles that are known to be incredibly durable but not very sophisticated (lacking invuls, -1 damage, FNP type save, etc) like a Landraider or Leman Russ should be T9. As well as basically every LoW.



Damn, this is getting long and I've just done the Imperium, but I'm sure you all get the idea. Basically any actual tank unit or non-transport/artillery LoW should go up in toughness. The only vehicle in the game that should have T10 is the Warlord, which you'll never see with T9 basically being the new cap.

Eldenfirefly wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You liking the rule set doesn't answer my question. The table size isn't set as part of the rules.

It does actually. Because the standard missions which many play and use use the standard table size. And I like the standard mission sets too because they do encourage more strategic play as well. Having a bigger table doesn't make much difference if the objectives you are going to fight over are all in the mid board anyway.

Um, the standard missions are all written in a way that you can play them on any table that is at least minimum table size.

Which ironically makes both your and H.B.M.C.'s argument invalid. The distance between a multi-melta and your vehicles is the exact same whether you play on 60x44 or 72x48. The only thing the larger table really does is screw over slow melee and short ranged units, make fast units even better and guarantee that deep striking units have good spots to land.

That's a good point I hadn't considered, at least as far as objectives are concerned. Thanks for pointing that out.

I still maintain though that if the problem is MMs on smaller boards, then the problem is the smaller boards (and the solution to said problem is really obvious then!).

Tyel wrote:
Raiders should probably be T5. Sort of fear they are going to go up and up when that's the easiest "fix" - and opens design space by making them more vulnerable to S5/S6 guns. Even then the only super-combo is that one unit of Trueborn. And I'm not sure they have that much impact on things in the round.

Otherwise its hard to see what open topped does. Orks are not taking advantage of it. GSC are not either.

Harlequins obviously benefit - but then they have so few units its kind of a feature.

Why should raiders be T5? They used to be AV10 while rhinos were AV11. Now rhinos are T7, not T6. So T6 on raiders, and any other light vehicle, sounds about right. T5 is also the value of several infantry models now, it would be too low on a proper vehicle.

They were already fixed with a price hike of ten points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jarms48 wrote:


The problem here is that no-one can seem to agree on how to buff vehicles. A lot of players seem to be against increasing vehicle toughness. I can see why as some factions simply don't have ranged weapons with more than S8. Making it difficult for them. Personally I don't see that as an issue, as many armies now have abilities that either add 1 to wound rolls, allow hit rolls of 6 to auto wound/cause mortal wounds, or re-roll wounds.

I prefer adding more wounds to vehicles, as powerful anti tank weapons wounding vehicles on 5s doesn't feel right, but buffs in T and saves could be ok as well.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's a good point I hadn't considered, at least as far as objectives are concerned. Thanks for pointing that out.

I still maintain though that if the problem is MMs on smaller boards, then the problem is the smaller boards (and the solution to said problem is really obvious then!).

Outside of certain narrative scenarios, the distance between the two armies is always 24". Many vehicles(and monsters) need to be near the front of your deployment zone, either because they are transporting units, have low range or because they want to fight in combat. If you go first, those vehicles have a high interest in not hiding away in the back, but move up the board.
All bikes and vehicles carrying multi-meltas just move forward and hit your vehicle, often from melta-range. Infantry-based multi-meltas can still move 5-6" and then hit them at 24", melta-range is doable starting turn 2.

So anything that's not a long-ranged artillery tank suffers from those super-reliable high damage guns that can be spammed easily on certain infantry and bike units. As you can't hide a landraider, a defiler or an ork buggy in the back and get any value from it, the extra distance you can run from multi-meltas has little impact.

 Blackie wrote:
Why should raiders be T5? They used to be AV10 while rhinos were AV11. Now rhinos are T7, not T6. So T6 on raiders, and any other light vehicle, sounds about right. T5 is also the value of several infantry models now, it would be too low on a proper vehicle.

They were already fixed with a price hike of ten points.

Because they get a 5++.
Reducing things to raiders versus rhino's is somewhat reductive - but the 5++ makes the Raider significantly more protected against dedicated anti-tank shooting (I.E. S8+, AP-3/-4) than T7/3+ models. At the same time a Dark Lance is an excellent weapon, especially with a chapter tactic reroll.

I'd therefore argue (with the aim of expanding design space) that the Raider should be quite a bit more vulnerable to other sorts of guns. But it isn't really - in part I think because there just aren't that many S6/S7 guns in the game. In part because things like Autocannons experience such a drop off versus T8/3+ sort of stats. T5 would make the raider significantly more vulnerable to S5 and S6 shooting. (Possibly too vulnerable, but I think DE remain exceptionally good even post-nerf).

Its a similar story I think with Ork Buggies (although I can be shown to be wrong if wrong). These should be prime targets for things like Autocannons as they are T6, only a 4+ save. But I don't think that's the case - just bring MMs and Lances as you still get excellent returns. So why would you ever bother going into these other sorts of weapons that then perform worse against more conventional vehicle defensive stats?

Basically without more variation, we will end up in a world where all anti-tank is essentially S8+ AP lots, and so the only solution is to give all vehicles a 5++, because that's the protection that works. But just as GW is trying to expand the design space in infantry to encourage a TAC approach to what you bring, presumably they want to do the same for vehicles.

GW is following an approach which doesn't try to limit the efficency of weapons, but tries to give them hard counters, so that spamming a single type of weapon is a bad idea.

This already happened with high RoF D2 weapons. They are still as efficient as they always were, but there are enough -1 damage targets around, that going all in on them is a big risk.

The same should happen with low RoF high damage weapons. We already have the rules that counter them, they simply are not prevalent enough to be a matter of concern:

- Cannot be wound on a roll better than x
- Ignore the first unsaved wound
- Cannot suffer more than x damage from an attack

Those rules already exist. They should be more present. For example, I would really like if ork buggies ignored the first unsaved wound each turn. This way you clearly identify the counter them in high RoF mid damage weapons.

Big demons would look very nice if they couldn't get suffer more than 3 damage from every attack.

And so on.

With regards to those who are suggesting that tanks ignore D1 weapons, given that is never going to happen, would a +1 to saves Vs D1 weapons be a good compromise? Makes most tanks legitimately tougher versus most D1 weapons (few of them have more than ap-1).

Tyel wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Why should raiders be T5? They used to be AV10 while rhinos were AV11. Now rhinos are T7, not T6. So T6 on raiders, and any other light vehicle, sounds about right. T5 is also the value of several infantry models now, it would be too low on a proper vehicle.

They were already fixed with a price hike of ten points.

Because they get a 5++.
Reducing things to raiders versus rhino's is somewhat reductive - but the 5++ makes the Raider significantly more protected against dedicated anti-tank shooting (I.E. S8+, AP-3/-4) than T7/3+ models. At the same time a Dark Lance is an excellent weapon, especially with a chapter tactic reroll.

I'm not convinced. The 5++ is already factored in as the vehicle costs 95 points and not only has -1T compared to rhinos but also a worse base save, so against weapons with AP-1 or AP-2 the 5++ is irrelevant. AP-3 for some armies is a luxury, let alone AP-4. And those who have such weapons won't certainly target rhinos.

Yes, a raider can tank dedicated anti tank shooting better than a rhino but it's also more expensive and more vulnerable to lower S and AP weapons. Not to mention that units that need a raider are extremely squishy and would be terrible without a transport while ALL units that can ride in a rhino are actually good on their own. Raiders or venoms are pretty mandatory for drukhari lists, that's why they need to work. I'm not saying they should be OP (and in fact I don't think they are) but they can't even be mediocre. It would be like making gravis dudes profile mediocre for the game mechanics, SM rely a lot on those and in fact they are excellent, much better than their counterparts from other codexes.

 Jidmah wrote:


So anything that's not a long-ranged artillery tank suffers from those super-reliable high damage guns that can be spammed easily on certain infantry and bike units. As you can't hide a landraider, a defiler or an ork buggy in the back and get any value from it, the extra distance you can run from multi-meltas has little impact.

But that is less a problem of an anti tank gun doing its think the way it should do, and those units being so high cost for some reason, that they can't be spamed. If someone could take 4-5 Land Raiders and sitll have a regular army, the tanks would see play. Target saturation is a thing, no matter if the model is an infantry one or a vehicle.

Not to mention that units that need a raider are extremely squishy and would be terrible without a transport while ALL units that can ride in a rhino are actually good on their own

Go tell that to the csm, GK or 1ksons player. But even the updated regular marines die just as easily, because the meta is based around killing 5 intercessor class models, which happen to be the same units, stat wise, as 5 meq. The problem with raiders or any other open toped flying vehicle is that they make the units inside the opposite of squishy. Any unit of DE can still operate without problems from outside of a raider, something marines can't do
with a rhino, on top of that the whole unit gets a bunch of t5 +5inv -1to hit ablative wounds. And that is on top of a dark lance, re-rolls etc.

 Jidmah wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's a good point I hadn't considered, at least as far as objectives are concerned. Thanks for pointing that out.

I still maintain though that if the problem is MMs on smaller boards, then the problem is the smaller boards (and the solution to said problem is really obvious then!).

Outside of certain narrative scenarios, the distance between the two armies is always 24". Many vehicles(and monsters) need to be near the front of your deployment zone, either because they are transporting units, have low range or because they want to fight in combat. If you go first, those vehicles have a high interest in not hiding away in the back, but move up the board.
All bikes and vehicles carrying multi-meltas just move forward and hit your vehicle, often from melta-range. Infantry-based multi-meltas can still move 5-6" and then hit them at 24", melta-range is doable starting turn 2.

So anything that's not a long-ranged artillery tank suffers from those super-reliable high damage guns that can be spammed easily on certain infantry and bike units. As you can't hide a landraider, a defiler or an ork buggy in the back and get any value from it, the extra distance you can run from multi-meltas has little impact.

And that's the problem. Weapons like multi-meltas should be devastating to tanks, but they're just too damned cheap on certain units. They shouldn't be easy to spam. No shooting unit should be able to get a 80% or better return against its preferred target. And it doesn't help that these units are also highly efficient against other multi-wound units like TEQs, Gravis, medium sized monsters, etc. If it's got 3+ wounds, these are the go to guns. Nothing that efficient should be so cheap.

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


So anything that's not a long-ranged artillery tank suffers from those super-reliable high damage guns that can be spammed easily on certain infantry and bike units. As you can't hide a landraider, a defiler or an ork buggy in the back and get any value from it, the extra distance you can run from multi-meltas has little impact.

But that is less a problem of an anti tank gun doing its think the way it should do, and those units being so high cost for some reason, that they can't be spamed. If someone could take 4-5 Land Raiders and sitll have a regular army, the tanks would see play. Target saturation is a thing, no matter if the model is an infantry one or a vehicle.

Not to mention that units that need a raider are extremely squishy and would be terrible without a transport while ALL units that can ride in a rhino are actually good on their own

Go tell that to the csm, GK or 1ksons player. But even the updated regular marines die just as easily, because the meta is based around killing 5 intercessor class models, which happen to be the same units, stat wise, as 5 meq. The problem with raiders or any other open toped flying vehicle is that they make the units inside the opposite of squishy. Any unit of DE can still operate without problems from outside of a raider, something marines can't do
with a rhino, on top of that the whole unit gets a bunch of t5 +5inv -1to hit ablative wounds. And that is on top of a dark lance, re-rolls etc.

I don't think fighting 4-5 land raiders would be fun to me, just being honest. i don't miss vehicle hammer. i would prefer to nerf anti tank and have more durable tanks with only a few than to see parking lot lists again. mayeb uits that i am mostly an ork player but our anti tank options are basically get in melee and i have flashbacks to 7th where i woudl put down 1850 points of orks across from a guard tank lien and have zero models on the table on turn 2 without ever reaching combat

And playing vs 6 raiders is not fun for me, yet I still have to do it, if I play vs DE. When a unit costs as much as the transport, then unless some serious rules buffing happens, it is better to just take an extra unit. Specially in case of small elite units. And that is before infantry units getting buffs to movment or teleport options.

Besides it shows in what units are being used right now. Not many rhinos, razorbacks or impulsors being run, same with all the primaris versions of land raider and predator tanks.

Have you guys seen the new terrain layouts that GW just put out for their GW organised tournament? It makes vehicles and transports that want to move across the table almost impossilbe.

Based on the amount of area terrain ruins in their terrain layout. Vehicles only have one clear lane across the board. I am not even sure how knights are supposed to play on that kind of table.

Makes ground based transports like Landraiders and transports even worse. flying transports can at least still get across the board, though their landing space is going to be limited.

Any kind of bike based or ground moving vehicle based army is going to have nightmares trying to get across the board based on GW's recommended terrain layouts.

GW obviously wants infantry to be king with those 4 huge square ruins.

Well if your vehicles happen to fly, this is not a problem. It is even an adventage.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
Have you guys seen the new terrain layouts that GW just put out for their GW organised tournament? It makes vehicles and transports that want to move across the table almost impossilbe.

Based on the amount of area terrain ruins in their terrain layout. Vehicles only have one clear lane across the board. I am not even sure how knights are supposed to play on that kind of table.

Makes ground based transports like Landraiders and transports even worse. flying transports can at least still get across the board, though their landing space is going to be limited.

Any kind of bike based or ground moving vehicle based army is going to have nightmares trying to get across the board based on GW's recommended terrain layouts.
GW obviously wants infantry to be king with those 4 huge square ruins.

No. Do you have a picture, or link?

sanguine40k wrote:
With regards to those who are suggesting that tanks ignore D1 weapons, given that is never going to happen, would a +1 to saves Vs D1 weapons be a good compromise? Makes most tanks legitimately tougher versus most D1 weapons (few of them have more than ap-1).

I don't think people are too concerned about D1 weapons. Tanks don't suck because a bolter or lasgun deals a wound after a couple dozen shots to a vehicle. It may not be the most immersive but it has a very small effect on gameplay. Here's some suggestions I've seen in the thread.

All tanks get a 2+ Armor Save
Tanks get a 1+ Armor Save
+1T to MBT & Super Heavy Tanks
+1T to MBT & +2T to Super Heavy Tanks
+4-6 Wounds on Vehicles
+50% Wounds on vehicles
Tanks get -1D just like a Dreadnought
Ignore the First Unsaved Wound each turn
Adjust stats on Multimelta (Shots, Range, Effect, etc.)
Give Melta type units an appropriate cost
Get rid of double tap on Eradicators
Updated Wound table or return to old Wound table

I'll add one more to the list
-Tanks can reroll Armor Saves
This doesn't have much effect on Antitank weapons with high AP, so AT weapons will still be effective but significantly cuts down on the effectiveness of S5-7 D2 weapons with middling AP. This needs to be coupled with improving Wounds otherwise melta proliferation will continue to make Tanks suck.

Some of the above are possible, some of them are unlikely. Here's my top 3 Christmas List for GW, any one of the below would help a lot.

1. Improved Toughness to MBT and Super Heavy Tanks.
2. More wounds, as many as they can spare.
3. Adjust the cost of Melta-type weapons and/or units.

 Blackie wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Raiders should probably be T5. Sort of fear they are going to go up and up when that's the easiest "fix" - and opens design space by making them more vulnerable to S5/S6 guns. Even then the only super-combo is that one unit of Trueborn. And I'm not sure they have that much impact on things in the round.

Otherwise its hard to see what open topped does. Orks are not taking advantage of it. GSC are not either.

Harlequins obviously benefit - but then they have so few units its kind of a feature.

Why should raiders be T5? They used to be AV10 while rhinos were AV11. Now rhinos are T7, not T6. So T6 on raiders, and any other light vehicle, sounds about right. T5 is also the value of several infantry models now, it would be too low on a proper vehicle.

They were already fixed with a price hike of ten points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jarms48 wrote:



The problem here is that no-one can seem to agree on how to buff vehicles. A lot of players seem to be against increasing vehicle toughness. I can see why as some factions simply don't have ranged weapons with more than S8. Making it difficult for them. Personally I don't see that as an issue, as many armies now have abilities that either add 1 to wound rolls, allow hit rolls of 6 to auto wound/cause mortal wounds, or re-roll wounds.

I prefer adding more wounds to vehicles, as powerful anti tank weapons wounding vehicles on 5s doesn't feel right, but buffs in T and saves could be ok as well.

There was no armor value 9 - would be the reason.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Eldenfirefly wrote:
Have you guys seen the new terrain layouts that GW just put out for their GW organised tournament? It makes vehicles and transports that want to move across the table almost impossilbe.

Based on the amount of area terrain ruins in their terrain layout. Vehicles only have one clear lane across the board. I am not even sure how knights are supposed to play on that kind of table.

Makes ground based transports like Landraiders and transports even worse. flying transports can at least still get across the board, though their landing space is going to be limited.

Any kind of bike based or ground moving vehicle based army is going to have nightmares trying to get across the board based on GW's recommended terrain layouts.
GW obviously wants infantry to be king with those 4 huge square ruins.

No. Do you have a picture, or link?

Watch this video by tabletop tactics where they talk about it. They show the recommended terrain layout too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDqiki4_reo&ab_channel=TabletopTactics

All I can say, is that it looks really rough for vehicles like transports or knights that want to try and cross the field of battle. It also nerfs shooting quite significantly. With those four huge square obscuring ruins, there will be very few lanes of fire. Infantry and beasts clearly have the advantage on that kind of board.

Don't forget that Raiders were AV10 open-topped, which made them MUCH more susceptible to damage than a Rhino. They were considerably less durable than AV10 close-topped (like the sides of a Chimera).

A Heavy Bolter could, at best, glance a Rhino.
A heavy bolter could explode a Raider.

Eldenfirefly wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Eldenfirefly wrote:
Have you guys seen the new terrain layouts that GW just put out for their GW organised tournament? It makes vehicles and transports that want to move across the table almost impossilbe.

Based on the amount of area terrain ruins in their terrain layout. Vehicles only have one clear lane across the board. I am not even sure how knights are supposed to play on that kind of table.

Makes ground based transports like Landraiders and transports even worse. flying transports can at least still get across the board, though their landing space is going to be limited.

Any kind of bike based or ground moving vehicle based army is going to have nightmares trying to get across the board based on GW's recommended terrain layouts.
GW obviously wants infantry to be king with those 4 huge square ruins.

No. Do you have a picture, or link?

Watch this video by tabletop tactics where they talk about it. They show the recommended terrain layout too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDqiki4_reo&ab_channel=TabletopTactics

All I can say, is that it looks really rough for vehicles like transports or knights that want to try and cross the field of battle. It also nerfs shooting quite significantly. With those four huge square obscuring ruins, there will be very few lanes of fire. Infantry and beasts clearly have the advantage on that kind of board.

Yeah, that looks like a death trap for any ground based MBTs. I don't even think a SHT could move on TT's example boards. No way is a Baneblade or Fellblade getting down those lanes. It'll be a field day for ignore LOS artillery though.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't forget that Raiders were AV10 open-topped, which made them MUCH more susceptible to damage than a Rhino. They were considerably less durable than AV10 close-topped (like the sides of a Chimera).

A Heavy Bolter could, at best, glance a Rhino.
A heavy bolter could explode a Raider.

Great point. Already been pointed out. Open topped used to have a lot of negative. Which it obviously should to go with the massive positive of having a mobile bunker for glass cannon units. They should just bring shooting ports. It would make a lot of units playable. Back in 5th - Chimeras and vet guardsmen were absolutely brutal.

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


Not to mention that units that need a raider are extremely squishy and would be terrible without a transport while ALL units that can ride in a rhino are actually good on their own

Go tell that to the csm, GK or 1ksons player. But even the updated regular marines die just as easily, because the meta is based around killing 5 intercessor class models, which happen to be the same units, stat wise, as 5 meq. The problem with raiders or any other open toped flying vehicle is that they make the units inside the opposite of squishy. Any unit of DE can still operate without problems from outside of a raider, something marines can't do
with a rhino, on top of that the whole unit gets a bunch of t5 +5inv -1to hit ablative wounds. And that is on top of a dark lance, re-rolls etc.

I'm honestly a bit sick of this argument. You argue against your own point right off the bat. Those Marine units you say "die just as easily" do not in fact "Die just as easily" they die significantly harder than Dark Eldar units or Ork units or basically any other comparable infantry/troop unit. You even answer the question of why that is in your very next statement "the meta is based around killing 5 intercessors". So you are both Right and wrong. The meta is built around killing Marines because congrats, Marines make up between 1/5th and 1/4th of all tournament lists, and that isn't including GK, Custodes or Chaos Marines. Add in those and it goes to 1/3rd or even higher in some events.

A Dark Eldar model with T3 and a 6+ save is not just as durable as a T4 3+ 2 wound Marine. A DE Wyche is 10ppm and isn't remotely close to being as durable as that Marine at 18 or 20ppm. Case and point. To kill 120pts of Wyches you need 27 bolter shots. (27 shots, 18 hits, 12 wounds, 10 dead Wyches) 27 bolter shots kills a grand total of 1.5 Marines for 30ish points of dmg. (27 shots, 18 hits, 9 wounds, 3dmg 1.5 dead Marines)

Even against an Autocannon the wyches die to 21.6 shots, Against those same autocannons, 21.6 shots to a Marine does 4.8 casualties, or at most 90pts. Even against D2 weapons those wyches might not be as durable as a Marine.

regardless, the problem is that tournament goers aren't building their competitive lists to kill Wyches or to kill Orkz, they are building them to kill T4-T5 2 wound 2-3+ save armies because the majority of armies you are likely to play against in most tournaments have something similar to those stats, SM, SoB, Custodes, Grey Knights, Chaos Marines etc. Marine infantry are ridiculously durable for their points cost, you guys are just a victim of your own success.

SemperMortis wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


Not to mention that units that need a raider are extremely squishy and would be terrible without a transport while ALL units that can ride in a rhino are actually good on their own

Go tell that to the csm, GK or 1ksons player. But even the updated regular marines die just as easily, because the meta is based around killing 5 intercessor class models, which happen to be the same units, stat wise, as 5 meq. The problem with raiders or any other open toped flying vehicle is that they make the units inside the opposite of squishy. Any unit of DE can still operate without problems from outside of a raider, something marines can't do
with a rhino, on top of that the whole unit gets a bunch of t5 +5inv -1to hit ablative wounds. And that is on top of a dark lance, re-rolls etc.

I'm honestly a bit sick of this argument. You argue against your own point right off the bat. Those Marine units you say "die just as easily" do not in fact "Die just as easily" they die significantly harder than Dark Eldar units or Ork units or basically any other comparable infantry/troop unit. You even answer the question of why that is in your very next statement "the meta is based around killing 5 intercessors". So you are both Right and wrong. The meta is built around killing Marines because congrats, Marines make up between 1/5th and 1/4th of all tournament lists, and that isn't including GK, Custodes or Chaos Marines. Add in those and it goes to 1/3rd or even higher in some events.

A Dark Eldar model with T3 and a 6+ save is not just as durable as a T4 3+ 2 wound Marine. A DE Wyche is 10ppm and isn't remotely close to being as durable as that Marine at 18 or 20ppm. Case and point. To kill 120pts of Wyches you need 27 bolter shots. (27 shots, 18 hits, 12 wounds, 10 dead Wyches) 27 bolter shots kills a grand total of 1.5 Marines for 30ish points of dmg. (27 shots, 18 hits, 9 wounds, 3dmg 1.5 dead Marines)

Even against an Autocannon the wyches die to 21.6 shots, Against those same autocannons, 21.6 shots to a Marine does 4.8 casualties, or at most 90pts. Even against D2 weapons those wyches might not be as durable as a Marine.

regardless, the problem is that tournament goers aren't building their competitive lists to kill Wyches or to kill Orkz, they are building them to kill T4-T5 2 wound 2-3+ save armies because the majority of armies you are likely to play against in most tournaments have something similar to those stats, SM, SoB, Custodes, Grey Knights, Chaos Marines etc. Marine infantry are ridiculously durable for their points cost, you guys are just a victim of your own success.

I don't think the argument is "it takes the same amount of firepower to kill Marines as Wyches" so much as that you can't play lists that have the firepower to kill Wyches easily but not the firepower to kill Marines easily, so while there is a difference in durability when you're actually on the table the difference looks pretty academic.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


I don't think the argument is "it takes the same amount of firepower to kill Marines as Wyches" so much as that you can't play lists that have the firepower to kill Wyches easily but not the firepower to kill Marines easily, so while there is a difference in durability when you're actually on the table the difference looks pretty academic.

Not at all. If I pop a raider with 10 wyches in it and have a unit of boyz nearby, i feel relatively safe in leaving those wyches to die to my boyz shooting the hell out of them with 40-60 shots (depending on how many shootas i bring). On the flipside of that argument, if I pop a Rhino with 10 Tac Marines in it, I know for a fact that even if I have all shoota boyz (something I don't do) all in range, all with +1 to hit (freeboota) I'm still not going to kill enough of those Marines to make them useless. (60 shots, 35 hits, 17.5 wounds = just shy of 3 dead Marines).

So in actual game terms, it drastically changes strategies and how you will respond to an event like popping a transport. Wyches are not as durable as Marines no matter how you want to look at it, the difference is that you see fewer weapons designed to kill wyches as opposed to Marines because even in a DE dominant meta you are still more likely to run into power armor than you are DE infantry.

SemperMortis wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


I don't think the argument is "it takes the same amount of firepower to kill Marines as Wyches" so much as that you can't play lists that have the firepower to kill Wyches easily but not the firepower to kill Marines easily, so while there is a difference in durability when you're actually on the table the difference looks pretty academic.

Not at all. If I pop a raider with 10 wyches in it and have a unit of boyz nearby, i feel relatively safe in leaving those wyches to die to my boyz shooting the hell out of them with 40-60 shots (depending on how many shootas i bring). On the flipside of that argument, if I pop a Rhino with 10 Tac Marines in it, I know for a fact that even if I have all shoota boyz (something I don't do) all in range, all with +1 to hit (freeboota) I'm still not going to kill enough of those Marines to make them useless. (60 shots, 35 hits, 17.5 wounds = just shy of 3 dead Marines).

So in actual game terms, it drastically changes strategies and how you will respond to an event like popping a transport. Wyches are not as durable as Marines no matter how you want to look at it, the difference is that you see fewer weapons designed to kill wyches as opposed to Marines because even in a DE dominant meta you are still more likely to run into power armor than you are DE infantry.

It will always be that way too. Because as long as Custodians are running around with 2+ t5 and are common - you can not include weapons in your list that don't have AP and that stat is wasted on the majority of DE units and many others. This dyanamic overly punishes the middle ground units like a space marine because all their stats can be ignored with the right weapon - for de khabal type units even if you have the perfect weapon to remove them they didn't pay any significant points to be durable in the first place and the perfect weapon for killing a marine with no save - still gives a custodian a 4++ or unbelievably a 3++ save (balanced). And this has always been the case with marines - they are not durable at all to competitive firepower. The only thing marines have going for them is the proliferation of -1 damage mechanics which helps and hurts them at the same time...why? Because while marines have 2 wounds so their target counter weapon is discouraged - marines best shooting weapons are also...flat 2 damage. Marines can not buy a break.

Because Terminators (a unit with a 2+/5++ or 1+/4++) don't exist in Marine lists. Nor do Bladeguard Veterans, with a 2+/4++. Nope, Marines just completely lack invulnerable saves, absolutely no way to gain them! Whereas you got armies like Orks, who get... A 5++ against ranged attacks only if they are wholly within 9" of an HQ unit. And either Ghaz or a 1/army CP upgrade to give a single model a 4++.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Because Terminators (a unit with a 2+/5++ or 1+/4++) don't exist in Marine lists. Nor do Bladeguard Veterans, with a 2+/4++. Nope, Marines just completely lack invulnerable saves, absolutely no way to gain them! Whereas you got armies like Orks, who get... A 5++ against ranged attacks only if they are wholly within 9" of an HQ unit. And either Ghaz or a 1/army CP upgrade to give a single model a 4++.

HAHA, thanks for that JNAP.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Because Terminators (a unit with a 2+/5++ or 1+/4++) don't exist in Marine lists. Nor do Bladeguard Veterans, with a 2+/4++. Nope, Marines just completely lack invulnerable saves, absolutely no way to gain them! Whereas you got armies like Orks, who get... A 5++ against ranged attacks only if they are wholly within 9" of an HQ unit. And either Ghaz or a 1/army CP upgrade to give a single model a 4++.

Terminators are utter garbage - but I suppose they fit the profile. Matters not though. I am speaking about the meq profile. It is an inherently risky profile because it has 2 very easy to ignore stats a 3+ save and 2 wounds and it just so happens - if you are able to ignore those stats...you are doing pretty well vs anything you are shooting...tanks/elites/and even chaff. Cause even chaff can be expected to be rolling 5+ or 4+ armor saves without AP.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Because Terminators (a unit with a 2+/5++ or 1+/4++) don't exist in Marine lists. Nor do Bladeguard Veterans, with a 2+/4++. Nope, Marines just completely lack invulnerable saves, absolutely no way to gain them! Whereas you got armies like Orks, who get... A 5++ against ranged attacks only if they are wholly within 9" of an HQ unit. And either Ghaz or a 1/army CP upgrade to give a single model a 4++.

Terminators are utter garbage - but I suppose they fit the profile. Matters not though. I am speaking about the meq profile. It is an inherently risky profile because it has 2 very easy to ignore stats a 3+ save and 2 wounds and it just so happens - if you are able to ignore those stats...you are doing pretty well vs anything you are shooting...tanks/elites/and even chaff. Cause even chaff can be expected to be rolling 5+ or 4+ armor saves without AP.

How about Bladeguard? Or vanguard vets? I'm always amazed at you xeno. Your entire army basically doubled its wounds and you still find a way to complain about it.