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.

Coming from the glorious days of the 3rd edition (I miss my initiative 3 Salamanders), vehicles from my perspective are actually more survivable, barring melta deep strike (deep strike used to require opponent's consent, thanks GW). My question is, what made vehicles so good in 5th edition? I ask only because there's no way I'm shelling out for the old rule book just to take a peek, and also I'd like to hear other players' perspectives on how vehicle rules have changed.

Vehicles were good in 5th because the penalty for being in them when they exploded/died was minimal. They were mobile bunkers that the unit could sit in all day, the unit only had to leave when they were destroyed. That and they carried guns. Guns usually quite capable at destroying vehicles.

A vehicle could also take an inordinate amount of fire before being destroyed. For all intents and purposes, glancing the vehicle to death was not possible (barring necrons of course). You had to destroy every weapon on the vehicle, plus immobilize it and then get another glance/pen and roll again to "glance it" to death. And all that includes not rolling 1s and 2s on the damage chart.

Two words - hull points.

 Jeeves wrote:
Coming from the glorious days of the 3rd edition (I miss my initiative 3 Salamanders), vehicles from my perspective are actually more survivable, barring melta deep strike (deep strike used to require opponent's consent, thanks GW). My question is, what made vehicles so good in 5th edition? I ask only because there's no way I'm shelling out for the old rule book just to take a peek, and also I'd like to hear other players' perspectives on how vehicle rules have changed.

Technically deep strike still requires opponent's consent, since some times they will helpfully remove the unit for you if they don't like where it landed

I don't find hull points resulting in my vehicles dying any quicker. Most of them suffer an explode result or there are so many hits fromGauss weapons that all the weapons would be gone and the vehicle immobilized under the old system anyway.

Instead what I have found is my vehicles are spending less time unable to act and more time doing damage.

I find vehicles useless now and no way to run them affectively

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
Two words - hull points.

Darn, I had two guesses and they were both wrong.

Leaf Blower
Baal Predators

 Jeeves wrote:
Coming from the glorious days of the 3rd edition (I miss my initiative 3 Salamanders), vehicles from my perspective are actually more survivable, barring melta deep strike (deep strike used to require opponent's consent, thanks GW). My question is, what made vehicles so good in 5th edition? I ask only because there's no way I'm shelling out for the old rule book just to take a peek, and also I'd like to hear other players' perspectives on how vehicle rules have changed.

5E: No HP's, vehicles hit in assaults on 4+ if they moved at all and 6+ if they moved over 6", smoke launcher save was 4+, vehicles could contest objectives, transports with scoring units could hold objectives.


HP's are really the biggest difference though in terms of raw vehicle survivability. Basically think of 5E vehicles as a W1 unit with a 3+ invul save, 1+ against wounds that just meet the minimum required to wound, but any successful save caused it to be disabled or lose permanent effectiveness. In 6E, vehicles are now typically W3, but now they don't get a save, and can still be Insta-Killed the same way they could under the previous rules.

TL;DR two overlapping kill systems, much easier to hit in assaults, significantly less objective utility.

 Vaktathi wrote:
transports with scoring units could hold objectives.

This, this needed to go. It now makes zero sense in realistic terms but had to happen for game mechanics.

Jefffar wrote:
I don't find hull points resulting in my vehicles dying any quicker. Most of them suffer an explode result or there are so many hits fromGauss weapons that all the weapons would be gone and the vehicle immobilized under the old system anyway.

Instead what I have found is my vehicles are spending less time unable to act and more time doing damage.

Basically this. I didn't run vehicles much in 5th, but when I did and when I went against them, a few good Stuns meant they and any passengers were doing nothing. I'd rather have a Predator/Russ/Whatever spend 3 turns on the board shooting at full capacity than 5 turns being stun-locked. Gauss still kills them, and light vehicles are a little easier to kill with mid-S weapons, but are more likely to keep shooting at full capacity than before. Also, AV14 (and 13 to a certain extent) got significantly better, as whereas before 1 S8 glance could put the tank out of action, you now need 3/4 to glances to do anything meaningful, so my Russ/Predator/Vindicator can keep firing until it's blown away.

 Paradigm wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
I don't find hull points resulting in my vehicles dying any quicker. Most of them suffer an explode result or there are so many hits fromGauss weapons that all the weapons would be gone and the vehicle immobilized under the old system anyway.

Instead what I have found is my vehicles are spending less time unable to act and more time doing damage.

Basically this. I didn't run vehicles much in 5th, but when I did and when I went against them, a few good Stuns meant they and any passengers were doing nothing. I'd rather have a Predator/Russ/Whatever spend 3 turns on the board shooting at full capacity than 5 turns being stun-locked. G

The only reason this should be true is if the tanks were suffering primarily glancing hits (pens can still stunlock a tank) which is generally improbable. In most cases, this is not how it usually goes, as glances are at least on par with pens in most cases except desperation fire, while real AT guns pen more than they glance. The above example depends almost entirely on simply suffering one glancing hit each turn, not including penetrating hits or multiple glances/pens.

Under 6E, yes, your tanks should be stunlocked less, but not as much as it's being made out to be, while they also should be dying much faster.

Ok, scoring transports needed to go. But I think hull points are a fair trade for removing the old penetrating hit table. 4 or higher was vehicle destroyed, 6 meant all passengers in a vehicle were killed, I don't remember if ap2 gave any modifiers. Instead now a single financing hit can't destroy a vehicle and it takes ap2 or 1 to really make it easy.

Also an immobilized skimmer was destroyed, so in that sense vehicles are more survivable.

The problem I do have is that all assaults against vehicles use rear armour, and bearing in mind even tactical squads come with krak grenades, I agree vehicle are much easier to destroy in assault. However with some infantry support to protect from assault, this could be mitigated with defensive tactics. I especially like the Rules of Engagement WW2 rules- in that game vehicles can't even go near buildings without infantry support, so these assault rules, while problematic, lean more towards realism.

I think there is a definite difference of opinion between people who played 5th and those who come straight from 3rd. To the former, vehicles are now paper thin, to the latter it's not such a problem. 5th vehicle rules do sound pretty ridiculous, I'm glad I missed it.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
I don't find hull points resulting in my vehicles dying any quicker. Most of them suffer an explode result or there are so many hits fromGauss weapons that all the weapons would be gone and the vehicle immobilized under the old system anyway.

Instead what I have found is my vehicles are spending less time unable to act and more time doing damage.

Basically this. I didn't run vehicles much in 5th, but when I did and when I went against them, a few good Stuns meant they and any passengers were doing nothing. I'd rather have a Predator/Russ/Whatever spend 3 turns on the board shooting at full capacity than 5 turns being stun-locked.

The only reason this should be true is if the tanks were suffering primarily glancing hits (pens can still stunlock a tank) which is generally improbable. In most cases, this is not how it usually goes, as glances are at least on par with pens in most cases except desperation fire, while real AT guns pen more than they glance. The above example depends almost entirely on simply suffering one glancing hit each turn, not including penetrating hits or multiple glances/pens.

Under 6E, yes, your tanks should be stunlocked less, but not as much as it's being made out to be, while they also should be dying much faster.

To be honest, I do find glances happen more often than stuns. Maybe there's just a lack of very heavy AT in my local meta, but I tend to find HP a far more common cause of death than explosions for my light vehicles, and explosions more common for my heavy vehicles. Which really, I don't mind. I figure if I get 1-2 turns out of a Rhino before it goes boom (usually from HP), then it's done its job as the marines inside are usually in effective range by then. And as stated above, I'll happily take less turns with a heavy vehicle so long as I'm shooting on all of them. So while I can be stun-locked, it happens far less, and that, to me, makes tanks far more useful than the 150+ point paperweights they were fare more often reduced to in 5th.

 Jeeves wrote:
Ok, scoring transports needed to go. But I think hull points are a fair trade for removing the old penetrating hit table. 4 or higher was vehicle destroyed, 6 meant all passengers in a vehicle were killed, I don't remember if ap2 gave any modifiers.

AP1 and AP2 did not give any modifiers, AP1 just turned glances into pen's.

Instead now a single glancing hit can't destroy a vehicle

While true, you needed a 6 to do it in 3E, meaning you needed an average of 6 glances to average 1 destroyed result (could happen on the first glance, may not happen until the 14th glance), while now 3 will guarantee a kill.

Also an immobilized skimmer was destroyed, so in that sense vehicles are more survivable.

Only if they moved over 6" to get their automatic "glance only", which meant you could only kill them on a 6. Skimmers were very resilient in 3E and 4E, especially the AV12+ ones.

The problem I do have is that all assaults against vehicles use rear armour, and bearing in mind even tactical squads come with krak grenades, I agree vehicle are much easier to destroy in assault. However with some infantry support to protect from assault, this could be mitigated with defensive tactics. I especially like the Rules of Engagement WW2 rules- in that game vehicles can't even go near buildings without infantry support, so these assault rules, while problematic, lean more towards realism.

The problem is that infantry support should be about pinning enemy troops down, creating kill lanes, defensive fire, etc such that it makes it suicidal to run up to the tank with an AT grenade, but in 40k such support basically boils down to physically body-blocking the tank with infantry.

I think there is a definite difference of opinion between people who played 5th and those who come straight from 3rd. To the former, vehicles are now paper thin, to the latter it's not such a problem. 5th vehicle rules do sound pretty ridiculous, I'm glad I missed it.

The vehicle rules in 5th weren't really a problem, in fact it was the only edition where you saw tracked vehicles used en-masse effectively, aside from isolated instances like 3E Rhino Rush. Nobody complained about things like Leman Russ tanks, Land Raiders, Hellhounds, Predators, Hammerheads, Fire Prisms, Looted Wagons, etc in 5E. The problem people had was with super cheap 35pt transports, and the fact that the game has no alternative mechanisms like digging in, spotting for heavy weapons, etc.

Oh yeah, transports with proportionally high firepower (i.e. Razorbacks) were something of a problem.

 ductvader wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
transports with scoring units could hold objectives.

This, this needed to go. It now makes zero sense in realistic terms but had to happen for game mechanics.

Having spoken to people who've served in live combat situations - actually, armoured vehicles are very good at securing objectives. Very very good. And they don't need to transport infantry to do it. I'd say a Baneblade is probably the poster child for what a scoring unit is while the Imperator class titan is it's overweight father. No one wants to be anywhere close to those things.

 Mahtamori wrote:
Oh yeah, transports with proportionally high firepower (i.e. Razorbacks) were something of a problem.

 ductvader wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
transports with scoring units could hold objectives.

This, this needed to go. It now makes zero sense in realistic terms but had to happen for game mechanics.

Having spoken to people who've served in live combat situations - actually, armoured vehicles are very good at securing objectives. Very very good. And they don't need to transport infantry to do it. I'd say a Baneblade is probably the poster child for what a scoring unit is while the Imperator class titan is it's overweight father. No one wants to be anywhere close to those things.

I meant, it made zero sense that it left the game, but needed to happen for game mechanics to even out.

Yeah, I think the introduction of Hull Points is the worst part about 6th edition. It has made vehicles too fragile and introduced tactics that have made a lot of heavy weapons obsolete.

The example I will give here is Rhinos. They can be glanced to death by bolters. You would think the Imperium of Man would build an armored vehicle capable of withstanding one of the mainstays of their armory. I mean, I know their engineers have issues with science, but they build spaceships that can survive in a vacuum - they can make an APC that can withstand some of the lower powered weapons of the universe.

Lascannons used to be the way you dealt with vehicles. You still see them for shooting up things like Land Raiders, but not so much anymore. A friend gave me 8 lascannons he doesn't need anymore in exchange for 10 cultists. That's what they are worth in the mind of a player, they are lower in importance than the cheapest unit in an army.

I don't like it. Hull points have cheapened too many things.

ductvader wrote:I meant, it made zero sense that it left the game, but needed to happen for game mechanics to even out.

So you did. Sorry, I managed to fail reading a single sentence reply properly. Maybe it's bedtime for me

techsoldaten wrote:Yeah, I think the introduction of Hull Points is the worst part about 6th edition. It has made vehicles too fragile and introduced tactics that have made a lot of heavy weapons obsolete.

The example I will give here is Rhinos. They can be glanced to death by bolters. You would think the Imperium of Man would build an armored vehicle capable of withstanding one of the mainstays of their armory. I mean, I know their engineers have issues with science, but they build spaceships that can survive in a vacuum - they can make an APC that can withstand some of the lower powered weapons of the universe.

Lascannons used to be the way you dealt with vehicles. You still see them for shooting up things like Land Raiders, but not so much anymore. A friend gave me 8 lascannons he doesn't need anymore in exchange for 10 cultists. That's what they are worth in the mind of a player, they are lower in importance than the cheapest unit in an army.

I don't like it. Hull points have cheapened too many things.

"You would think" is a weak argument in the world of 40k. In 40k stuff work because the authors say they work, not because the technology they ascribe to certain armies is accurate. Armies consistently put people in transports which can be damaged by heavy machineguns in real life. They can put each and all inside transports that are impervious to heavy machineguns, but those things are a bit expensive and impractical. Also, Space Marines have severe limitations set to them so that they can not usurp power - they're actually designed to be able to be stopped by the Imperial Guard.

My experience so far is that in ranged combat, Hull Points is a saviour since it means there's a foreseeable end to a transport. It would be interesting if vehicles got armour saves to decrease the effectiveness of light arms, but hull points is really a must for anything AV11/11/* or better. For melee it's a different story. Anything except AV14/14/14 goes *poof* as soon as an infantry unit touches melee, which is just insane.

Mahtamori wrote:
My experience so far is that in ranged combat, Hull Points is a saviour since it means there's a foreseeable end to a transport. It would be interesting if vehicles got armour saves to decrease the effectiveness of light arms, but hull points is really a must for anything AV11/11/* or better. For melee it's a different story. Anything except AV14/14/14 goes *poof* as soon as an infantry unit touches melee, which is just insane.

Wouldn't it just have been better to adjust the small vehicles points/mechanics then? Had they brought Rhino's back up to 50pts, adding an extra 60-75pts to most 5E MEQ armies to shave off their total, would have forced some tougher choices in there.

Also, lets not forget, not everything in the AV10-12 range is a cheap transport, there's a good number of gun tanks and light attack vehicles that get stuck with mechanics meant for transports, stuff like Vypers, Hellhounds, Ravagers, Sentinels, etc.


The unfortunate response we're now seeing is a return to the 4E days of invinciskimmerspam, where we've got Skimmers running around with 4+/3+ cover saves in the open and proving very frustrating to crack, while the tracked tanks are increasingly left on the shelf.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The above example depends almost entirely on simply suffering one glancing hit each turn, not including penetrating hits or multiple glances/pens.

But that's exactly what happened. You put one hit on each tank and moved on.

But that also tells me that a save mechanic works to some effect. Imagine if your Rhinos got a 4+ save against Scatter Lasers and Bolters.
What was frustrating prior to hull points was that a vehicle could be extremely frustrating to destroy when all you could achieve was glancing hits. Some vehicles with very high AV were also immune to some of the glancing hit results.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The above example depends almost entirely on simply suffering one glancing hit each turn, not including penetrating hits or multiple glances/pens.

But that's exactly what happened. You put one hit on each tank and moved on.

That's what you hoped to do if you had stretched AT assets.


I never really found this to be something that happened often unless you brought few enough tanks that the enemy could target all or most of them, but more than what they could concentrate on to ensure destruction. Otherwise they'd just focus on killing everything (in the case of having only a few tanks) or killing specific tanks (in the case of having many). More often an opponent would concentrate on several to destroy and then work to the next targets, leaving a tank stunned only if they needed to put firepower elsewhere. Often as not they'd overkill the tank (oh look it pen'd all 3 times and it exploded twice) or did nothing, since AT firepower often is over or under concentrated.

Having played tank heavy armies for multiple editions, I don't recall having my tank fleet routinely sitting there stunlocked across the board. One or two vehicles, yeah, it happened. It also happened that they'd do nothing or kill it right off the bat. A stunned/shaken tank was also something that an opponent would still have to deal with the next turn instead of just being dead, they had to keep putting firepower into it.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The above example depends almost entirely on simply suffering one glancing hit each turn, not including penetrating hits or multiple glances/pens.

But that's exactly what happened. You put one hit on each tank and moved on.

That's what you hoped to do if you had stretched AT assets.


I never really found this to be something that happened often unless you brought few enough tanks that the enemy could target all or most of them, but more than what they could concentrate on to ensure destruction. Otherwise they'd just focus on killing everything (in the case of having only a few tanks) or killing specific tanks (in the case of having many). More often an opponent would concentrate on several to destroy and then work to the next targets, leaving a tank stunned only if they needed to put firepower elsewhere. Often as not they'd overkill the tank (oh look it pen'd all 3 times and it exploded twice) or did nothing, since AT firepower often is over or under concentrated.

Having played tank heavy armies for multiple editions, I don't recall having my tank fleet routinely sitting there stunlocked across the board. One or two vehicles, yeah, it happened. It also happened that they'd do nothing or kill it right off the bat. A stunned/shaken tank was also something that an opponent would still have to deal with the next turn instead of just being dead, they had to keep putting firepower into it.

Think the only time I really saw what he spoke of is if you regularly fought Dark Eldar Skimmer armies.

Couldn´t you charge from stationary vehicles too?
This bothers me in this edition since SM have just 2 assault vehicles...

I agree that vehicles are better now than they used to be.

Vaktathi wrote:vehicles could contest objectives, transports with scoring units could hold objectives.

These two things being the only real exception. The first was a curious loss, but the second was badly needed. Being able to park an indestructable land raider on an objective and just have it for the entire game was bad, and the requirement for infantry to actually get out for at least a turn was a good one.

The rest of complaints fall into the categories of pointless (so what if vehicles can be hit more easily in close combat if close combat itself is basically dead?), or they're people complaining about weaknesses that were part of a trade-off that actually made vehicles better over all, not worse (like gaining hull points but losing stun-locking and a more generous vehicle penetration).

When I look at vehicles compared to 5th, I see gunboats that can no longer be stunlocked, a general 6th ed boost to long-range shooting, and only need 25% obscurement to get MUCH better cover saves. I see transports that can't be stunlocked and for once, FINALLY can move infantry faster than they could have moved on foot, and, thanks to other 6th ed rules, more usefulness to their protective qualities.

Vehicles were borderline overpowered before, and 6th ed sealed the deal. With the exception of MC-heavy lists, mech lists of one form or another are pretty universally the strongest.

 Ailaros wrote:
I agree that vehicles are better now than they used to be.

Vaktathi wrote:vehicles could contest objectives, transports with scoring units could hold objectives.

These two things being the only real exception. The first was a curious loss, but the second was badly needed. Being able to park an indestructable land raider on an objective and just have it for the entire game was bad, and the requirement for infantry to actually get out for at least a turn was a good one.

The rest of complaints fall into the categories of pointless (so what if vehicles can be hit more easily in close combat if close combat itself is basically dead?), or they're people complaining about weaknesses that were part of a trade-off that actually made vehicles better over all, not worse (like gaining hull points but losing stun-locking and a more generous vehicle penetration).

When I look at vehicles compared to 5th, I see gunboats that can no longer be stunlocked, a general 6th ed boost to long-range shooting, and only need 25% obscurement to get MUCH better cover saves. I see transports that can't be stunlocked and for once, FINALLY can move infantry faster than they could have moved on foot, and, thanks to other 6th ed rules, more usefulness to their protective qualities.

Vehicles were borderline overpowered before, and 6th ed sealed the deal. With the exception of MC-heavy lists, mech lists of one form or another are pretty universally the strongest.

Ailaros took the words directly out of my head and typed them onto a computer. (He added some silliness about not liking being able to park on an objective and claim it from inside the vehicle, but that's okay. )

I think vehicles have wound up in an equal, if not a better, position in this edition. I still default to always running transported lists, and ever since giving up footslogging so long ago, my game has improved immensely.

Okay here comes the hate so shields up!

I personally like hull points the idea that over time a tanks armor is going to wear down over time as it takes damage. To be honest hull points have made no real difference in my play experience my vehicles still die on the same turns or in the same ways they did in 5th ed. I also enjoy how infantry has become more of a focus in 6th edition for two reasons. One it makes battle feel more fluffy. Two I just really ejoy infantry I've ran 4 squads of 12 fire warriors the entire time I've played Tau.

 Ailaros wrote:

These two things being the only real exception. The first was a curious loss, but the second was badly needed. Being able to park an indestructable land raider

How often were Land Raiders in 5E indestructible with the amount of melta thrown around? Not often. A quick forum search of 5E era threads will confirm that rather quickly.

on an objective and just have it for the entire game was bad, and the requirement for infantry to actually get out for at least a turn was a good one.

It just means you have to give an opponent an extra turn to baleflamer your scoring units that you didn't have to before.

The rest of complaints fall into the categories of pointless (so what if vehicles can be hit more easily in close combat if close combat itself is basically dead?)

Close combat isn't dead, you just can't run an entirely CC army anymore. Vehicles also don't get Overwatch so assault units don't have to worry about that bucket of suck. It's also not just that vehicles are hit easier, it's the double-whammy of being hit easier and HP's combined, meaning an SM tac squad can be more assured of killing a moving Leman Russ tank or flat out jetting Holofield Falcon in an assault than they can be of killing 2 enemy marines.

or they're people complaining about weaknesses that were part of a trade-off that actually made vehicles better over all, not worse (like gaining hull points but losing stun-locking and a more generous vehicle penetration).

That's the debate we're having. I for instance clearly don't think they're better off overall. Unless you *really* skew the odds and assume a whole lot more glancing hits than you really should be getting, on average most tanks are getting less rounds of fire in and die a whole lot earlier than living with the chance of stun-locking, which can still happen.

Actually, lets do some math.

Lets take an Autocannon, Krak Missile, and a Lascannon against AV12. The AC will pen as often as it glances,, the Krak will pen twice as often as it glances,the LC will pen thrice as often as it glances.

5E Autocannon vs AV12.
Average number of hits to destroy: 18

6E Autocannon vs AV12:
Average number of hits to destroy via HP: 9
Average number of hits to destroy via explodes: 36
(keep in mind the above two overlap)

5E Krak Missile vs AV12
Average number of hits to destroy: 9

6E Krak Missile vs AV12
Average number of hits to destroy via HP: 6
Average number of hits to destroy via explodes: 18
(keep in mind the above two overlap)

5E Lascannon vs AV12
Average number of hits to destroy: 6

6E Lascannon vs AV12
Average number of hits to destroy via HP: 4.5
Average number of hits to destroy via explodes: 6
(keep in mind the above two overlap)

Now, looking just at the HP's, we're seeing drastic drops in average firepower required to destroy, from 33 to 50%. That's not even getting into the fact that this still overlaps with the penetrating hit kill mechanic, meaning average lifespan is even less.

What you're trading off is not being stunlocked for, at most, 2 turns assuming 3 HP's and a single glancing hit a turn. If you're taking multiple hits or penetrating hits, any advantage is gone.

When I look at vehicles compared to 5th, I see gunboats that can no longer be stunlocked

Do penetrating hits never happen? How often do you glance more than you pen with something other than desperation fire? Tanks can still be stunlocked, just not as often. The trade off is they die significantly faster, at a rate out of proportion with no longer being shaken/stunned on glances.

a general 6th ed boost to long-range shooting, and only need 25% obscurement to get MUCH better cover saves

Average cover save went down to 5+ from 4+, unless you're getting wargear bonuses (which admittedly some are) cover should generally even out. Tracked tanks generally end up with weaker cover saves, skimmers with much better cover saves.

. I see transports that can't be stunlocked and for once

Except they can still be stunned on a penetrating hit, and often require half the firepower to kill (or less) than they did previously. The only instance in which they'll end up ahead is if they take a single glancing hit for two turns in a row and don't take a third glance/pen. That's it.

FINALLY can move infantry faster than they could have moved on foot

The usefulness of which has been massively neutered by their lower average lifespan, drastically less useful transport rules, and complete inability to interact with mission objectives except as fodder for First Blood.

and, thanks to other 6th ed rules, more usefulness to their protective qualities.

In what way?

Vehicles were borderline overpowered before, and 6th ed sealed the deal.

Cheap transports were overpowered. Not vehicles in general. Find me a 5E thread complaining about Land Raiders, Hammerheads, Vypers, Ravagers, Hellhounds, Leman Russ Tanks, Fire Prism's, etc. It was all about cheap transports.

 DarkWind wrote:
Okay here comes the hate so shields up!

I personally like hull points the idea that over time a tanks armor is going to wear down over time as it takes damage.

Except tanks don't really work that way, they keep trucking until something vital gets hit or the crew decide it's too dangerous to stick around (usually because it's been immobilized).

To be honest hull points have made no real difference in my play experience my vehicles still die on the same turns or in the same ways they did in 5th ed. I also enjoy how infantry has become more of a focus in 6th edition for two reasons. One it makes battle feel more fluffy. Two I just really ejoy infantry I've ran 4 squads of 12 fire warriors the entire time I've played Tau.

Tau are one of the two armies that have relatively simliar 5E levels of vehicle survivability (at least against shooting) between the new skimmer rules and Disruption pods, being able to sport a 4+ cover save in the open and still fire is pretty sweet.

Either transports were able to do a good job keeping their troops from getting killed, in which case their loss of scoring without getting out was a necessity, or they didn't, in which case, their loss of scoring wasn't a real loss.

In any case, the return to vehicles being able to be glanced to death (this only wasn't possible in a single rules edition) is balanced against a lot of gains. You can dismiss the fact that it IS harder to shut down tanks without destroying them because "they're flimsier", and you can dismiss the fact that transports do move more quickly because "they're flimsier", and you can dismiss the fact that they get cover saves more easily because "they're flimsier", and you can dismiss that their shooting was improved because "they're flimsier", and you can dismiss the added survivability to squadrons thanks to much better rules because "they're flimsier", and you can dismiss transports firing overwatch because "they're flimsier", and you can ignore the 48 rules that made close combat worse and thus not likely to ever happen to tanks because "they're flimsier", and that that vehicles can now fire more weapons on the move because "they're flimsier", or that the vehicle pen chart is more generous to vehicles because "they're flimsier", and that glancing hits no longer cause system damage (or shaken or stunned results) because "they're flimsier", or that vehicle destroyed results are randomized because "they're flimsier", or that units inside a transport can now target different units than their transport because "they're flimsier", and you can ignore all of the structural advantages to vehicles like allowing you to basically (or literally) ignore terrain for the purposes of movement, and the fact that there are whole swaths of weapons that can't even hurt them because "they're flimsier".

You can say what you want, but solipsistic nerdrage about hull points wasn't useful 20 months ago, and it's still not useful now. Vehicles have changed, and for the better. The inability after years of play to realise that hull points didn't cause tanks to fall apart like soggy cardboard doesn't change that.


---

Also, consider this as an example:

Let's say that you play a game where your opponent puts down 6 vehicles, and you put down 6 units that are guaranteed to put down exactly one glancing hit per turn. In 5th edition, the game would have started with you putting a glancing hit on each of his vehicles, shutting them down that turn (with shaken or stunned results) or possibly the entire game (like a weapon destroyed or immobilized result on a vindicator). For the rest of the game, your opponent does nothing as he slowly starts losing vehicles to stacked immobilized/weapon destroyed results. The end result is a comprehensive victory with no losses and with some amount of your opponent's stuff dead.

Now move that to 6th edition. In this case, you use your 6 glances to strip 6 hull points, and kill two vehicles. The other 4 vehicles are fine, and they turn their righteous anger at your guns killing some number of them. That means you're not killing 2 vehicles next turn, which means your opponent has relatively more to shoot you with than the previous turn. The vehicle player still loses a few vehicles, but the non-vehicle player loses everything, and the person with the tanks won.

That's a colossal difference. Replacing "one and done" glancing with hull points with hull points makes it so that vehicles can actually do their jobs, which means that they can break out of their old constraints and be properly useful, especially earlier in the game.

 tommse wrote:
Couldn´t you charge from stationary vehicles too?
This bothers me in this edition since SM have just 2 assault vehicles...

Yes, you could assault from stationary vehicles.
And, that's why you will never see Eldar Banshees ever again. We have 0 assault vehicles, and at least 3 cc-only units.

Hull points are too few for most vehicles.
If just 3 small-arms hits on a Rhino's rear kill it, or just 2 to a war walker on any side, there's little point fielding them.
First-blood is too often given for popping a vehicle.