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.

DeathReaper wrote:Then you would have to reduce the points on units like Paladins, Terminators, veterans etc.

Why? Marines walking out of their destroyed vehicles is exactly the problem. Guard, Orks, Dark Eldar, Tau and even Eldar take major casualties from having their transports blown up, Marines don't. Razorbacks and rhinos are all over the place because there simply is no drawback. And I wouldn't fear for all those TEQ - a landraider is not easily exploded. It would be better to flat-out kill 1/3 of the unit, rather than a fixed value. 1d3 is ridiculous for an ork or guard transport exploding. Maybe it would be enough to simply disallow armor saves(and thus, FNP) to have all armies have an equal drawback on their transports.

Jidmah wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Then you would have to reduce the points on units like Paladins, Terminators, veterans etc.

Why? Marines walking out of their destroyed vehicles is exactly the problem. Guard, Orks, Dark Eldar, Tau and even Eldar take major casualties from having their transports blown up, Marines don't. Razorbacks and rhinos are all over the place because there simply is no drawback. And I wouldn't fear for all those TEQ - a landraider is not easily exploded. It would be better to flat-out kill 1/3 of the unit, rather than a fixed value. 1d3 is ridiculous for an ork or guard transport exploding. Maybe it would be enough to simply disallow armor saves(and thus, FNP) to have all armies have an equal drawback on their transports.

But then it'd not be an equal drawback in the sense that it'd punish MEQ transports more, as opposed to the current version where it punishes GEQ more.

I don't understand how it's not an equal drawback. Both units takes wounds based on their toughness and number, like they do now. If your toughness is 3, you lose 2/3s of your unit, if your toughness is 4, you lose half, if your toughness is 5, you lose 1/3. Unless you have a multi-wound unit inside, of course.

A chimera would kill 7 guardsmen out of 10 (before: 4)
A wave serpent would kill 7 dire avengers out of 10 (before: 3)
A trukk would kill 4 boyz out 12 (before: 4)
A battlewagon would kill 7 boyz out of 20 (before: 6)
A rhino would kill 5 marines out of 10 (before: 1)
A land raider would kill 3 terminators out of 8 due to invul saves (before: 1)

In any case, the marines come out of their transport with a still functional unit, while T3 armies get nothing but leftovers. I think open topped should go back to S4 explosions to make things more fair, boosting ork casuatlies to 6 and 10.

If it were a flat 1/3:
A chimera would kill 3 guardsmen out of 10 (before: 4)
A wave serpent would kill 3 dire avengers out of 10 (before: 3)
A trukk would kill 4 boyz out 12 (before: 4)
A battlewagon would kill 6 boyz out of 20 (before: 6)
A rhino would kill 3 marines out of 10 (before: 1)
A land raider would kill 3 terminators out of 8 (before: 1)

For some fine tuning I'd say suffer a wound for every three models, only invul saves allowed, to not completely screw over multi-wound models and characters, but I think it gets closer to the way it should be. Also, almost guaranteed losing two terminators from an exploding landraider is risk enough.

In any case, sitting inside a transport would finally become a risk, for marines as well, not just for everyone else.

To clarify, what I posted about was losing 1D3 models or disallowing armour saves. MEQ cost more on a per model basis and also pay more for the 3+ armour save (or 2+ in the case of Terminators). Losing 1D3 Terminators hurts infinitely more than losing 1D3 Boyz.

Simpler, each model in a transport that explodes must make a check against it's toughness or suffer a wound, no armor saves allowed.

T3 armies would lose about 1/2 and T4 armies would lose about 1/3. More importantly there is a decent chance of losing. Special weapons, characters and the like.

TBH I think it would be realistic and cinematic to apply armor to the result but game effects sometimes need to come first.

Also, I think that shaken and stunned results should apply to the passengers if they disembark while the vehicle is still shaken or stunned.

A toughness check is the same as a S3 AP2 hit.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:To clarify, what I posted about was losing 1D3 models or disallowing armour saves. MEQ cost more on a per model basis and also pay more for the 3+ armour save (or 2+ in the case of Terminators). Losing 1D3 Terminators hurts infinitely more than losing 1D3 Boyz.

Disallow armour saves, allow invulnerable saves. No one wants to see termies obliterated by an exploding Land Raider, but MEQ would take the hit.

Except MEQ armies pay more in proportion than GEQ do - 10 point guardian dying half the time vs 18 point tac marine dying 1/3 the time, gives you a death per point of 5 vs 6 - you are already punishing MEQs more than GEQs, and TEQs have it worse: 40 point GKT gives a death cost of 17 points, 3 times that of a guardian.

Very imbalanced, as youve just made vehicles more dangerous when a MEW or TEW than GEQ!

Jidmah wrote:A toughness check is the same as a S3 AP2 hit.

Yes and No. It has the same odds to cause a wound, sure. However as it is a check that each model would make rather than a hit and wound there is no way to use wound allocation rules to prevent it from being taken against a specific model.

That is what makes it scary.

Other cutting down the mechanized thought - melta should always roll 2D6 for penetration, not just at half range.

Joey wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:To clarify, what I posted about was losing 1D3 models or disallowing armour saves. MEQ cost more on a per model basis and also pay more for the 3+ armour save (or 2+ in the case of Terminators). Losing 1D3 Terminators hurts infinitely more than losing 1D3 Boyz.

Disallow armour saves, allow invulnerable saves. No one wants to see termies obliterated by an exploding Land Raider, but MEQ would take the hit.

This actually makes the most sense to me, since Terminators are possibly some of the only guys who would have a decent chance of surviving a vehicle getting blown up around them.

A guardian is T3 though, so he is actually dying 2/3 * 1/2 = 1/3 of the time, while a marine would die1/2*1/3 = 1/6 of the time from an explosion and a terminator 1/2*1/6 = 1/12 of the time. So GKT are actually exactly as expensive as guardians when it comes to survival against explosions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jefffar wrote:

Jidmah wrote:A toughness check is the same as a S3 AP2 hit.

Yes and No. It has the same odds to cause a wound, sure. However as it is a check that each model would make rather than a hit and wound there is no way to use wound allocation rules to prevent it from being taken against a specific model.

That is what makes it scary.

That might actually be a solution. Potentially losing your special guys is a decent drawback for marines.

Other cutting down the mechanized thought - melta should always roll 2D6 for penetration, not just at half range.

How does that help Xenos armies at all?

Jidmah wrote:A guardian is T3 though, so he is actually dying 2/3 * 1/2 = 1/3 of the time, while a marine would die1/2*1/3 = 1/6 of the time from an explosion and a terminator 1/2*1/6 = 1/12 of the time. So GKT are actually exactly as expensive as guardians when it comes to survival against explosions.

Because guardians are over-priced.
A veteran squad will lose 4.4 members on average, or 31 points. A terminator squad of 8 will lose 0.6, or 26.6 points. MEQ will lose 1.6, or 26.6 points.
On top of this, the veterans will have to take a pinning test AND a morale test, assuming there are any alive. MEQ will only have to take the pinning test.
So veterans are more likely to die, and are probably going to be useles after they disembark due to being pinned/fleeing/dead, wheras if marines pass the initial pinning check they'll probably be okay.

Jidmah wrote:

Jefffar wrote:Other cutting down the mechanized thought - melta should always roll 2D6 for penetration, not just at half range.

How does that help Xenos armies at all?

Eldar and Tau both use Melta weapons, not sure on others.

I believe that the current mech meta came about due to vehicles being much harder to glance kill with 5th ed.

As far as time required to play in tournaments, that could be easily solved, but not necessarily cheaply.

Timers. In a 2k tournament, you each get 60 minutes total. When you run out of time, you don't get to do anything. The best way to monitor this is through the use of chess clocks or timers.

imweasel wrote:I believe that the current mech meta came about due to vehicles being much harder to glance kill with 5th ed.

As far as time required to play in tournaments, that could be easily solved, but not necessarily cheaply.

Timers. In a 2k tournament, you each get 60 minutes total. When you run out of time, you don't get to do anything. The best way to monitor this is through the use of chess clocks or timers.

You may as well outright ban horde armies, which I'm sure no one wants.

And the guys playing horde armies run out of time on the third turn while the guy with GK gets to play five or six.

Joey wrote:You may as well outright ban horde armies, which I'm sure no one wants.

Or the horde armies learn somehow to play faster. I don't know what the solution is, but is it equally fair my opponent gets to play 1.5 hours while I get .5?

That doesn't seem 'friendly'.

Jefffar wrote:Eldar and Tau both use Melta weapons, not sure on others.

Eldar have exactly one unit with melta weapons, and all other xenos armies have none outside of some funky HQ options. None of them can field them in vast amounts like the IoM can.

imweasel wrote:

Joey wrote:You may as well outright ban horde armies, which I'm sure no one wants.

Or the horde armies learn somehow to play faster. I don't know what the solution is, but is it equally fair my opponent gets to play 1.5 hours while I get .5?

That doesn't seem 'friendly'.

It's completely fair.
Unless you have the mental attitude of a 4 year old, I don't see why the period of your own special little allotted time is important?
I don't mind waiting for my opponent to move his horde models. It's much less irritating than someone who spends about 2 minutes agonising over the placement of every single unit.

imweasel wrote:

Joey wrote:You may as well outright ban horde armies, which I'm sure no one wants.

Or the horde armies learn somehow to play faster. I don't know what the solution is, but is it equally fair my opponent gets to play 1.5 hours while I get .5?

That doesn't seem 'friendly'.

If you both get your turns done with time to spare I don't see the problem. The problem now though is that there's simply no way to play a horde army in most tournaments, no matter how fast you are. "Get better", which is what you indirectly just said, is not a very friendly attitude either.

Joey wrote:

imweasel wrote:

Joey wrote:You may as well outright ban horde armies, which I'm sure no one wants.

Or the horde armies learn somehow to play faster. I don't know what the solution is, but is it equally fair my opponent gets to play 1.5 hours while I get .5?

That doesn't seem 'friendly'.

It's completely fair.
Unless you have the mental attitude of a 4 year old, I don't see why the period of your own special little allotted time is important?
I don't mind waiting for my opponent to move his horde models. It's much less irritating than someone who spends about 2 minutes agonising over the placement of every single unit.

QFT. I could care less if someone has to move 180 boyz, so long as he's not deliberately dragging it out. It's a legitimate build, and it shouldn't be penalized or stigmatized for being what it is; a lot of fething dudes.

Zambro wrote:Hey guys,

So, the current Meta is mechanised. Lots of Mech IG, Mech Blood Angels, MSU Razorback spam lists around. I want to know, exactly what is it that puts Mechanised lists ahead of infantry lists?

I would also like to know what rules would have to change / be introduced in make Infantry preferable?

Thanks

Mech IG is nothing new I've been doing it for the last 5 years except before this latest codex you used the Grenadiers doctrine which allowed you to take stormtroopers as regular troop selections and could bring dedicated transports. Now you just take veterans and bring an extra special weapons. Same concept.

I Personally run a mechanized force because that is what attracted me to IG in the first place; their vast motor-pool.

I also run MEchanized over infantry because its easier to manage the units and I dont have to paint a ton of guys. I'd rather 30-40 vets and some chimeras over 100 infantry.

imweasel wrote:

Joey wrote:You may as well outright ban horde armies, which I'm sure no one wants.

Or the horde armies learn somehow to play faster. I don't know what the solution is, but is it equally fair my opponent gets to play 1.5 hours while I get .5?

That doesn't seem 'friendly'.

There are no shortcuts allowed in 40k for moving a horde unit, doing it sloppily can and will cost you the game, and there is only so fast you can move a model without knocking over stuff.

In order to move a lot faster, GW would need to legalize shortcuts, like measuring the corner models of a mob and then moving all others per eye-measure. As long as template and blast weapons are as dangerous as they are now, no one in their right mind would ever use regiment basese.

imweasel wrote:I don't know what the solution is.

Don't play in tournaments.

Tournaments have certain limitations (like, say, trying to find enough terrain to have 100 simultaneous games of 40k), that makes them, in my opinion worse games of 40k. Were the 40k rules and codices balanced for fast, terrainless play, that had jumbled up combinations of missions, that would be fine, but because they're not, certain armies are just always going to have an advantage in a world of sloppiness and shortcuts.

Which is why for my competitive fix, I look to league play. When you space the games out over a few months, rather than a few days, you can actually play the game as it was intended to be played and when ranking and cash prizes are on the table, you still certainly play your best.

Jidmah wrote:

Jefffar wrote:Eldar and Tau both use Melta weapons, not sure on others.

Eldar have exactly one unit with melta weapons, and all other xenos armies have none outside of some funky HQ options. None of them can field them in vast amounts like the IoM can.

heat lances

My analysis was on the "toughness check or wound with no armour saves" idea, which is a hideous, hideous imbalance. You've made it so that it is more cost effective to take boyz as marines when ti comes to surviving a vehicle.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Jefffar wrote:Eldar and Tau both use Melta weapons, not sure on others.

Eldar have exactly one unit with melta weapons, and all other xenos armies have none outside of some funky HQ options. None of them can field them in vast amounts like the IoM can.

heat lances

My analysis was on the "toughness check or wound with no armour saves" idea, which is a hideous, hideous imbalance. You've made it so that it is more cost effective to take boyz as marines when ti comes to surviving a vehicle.

Eldar have Fire Dragons. 16ppm with a melta standard on BS4 models. Elite slot.

DE have Heat Lances. 18" range Melta Lance that's only S6. It can be mounted on Jetbikes (1 out of every three, and 34ppm on the ones that get it,) Scourges, 34ppm on Jump Infantry models, 2 out of every 5. Both of those are in FA and severely overcosted compared to other, more survivable options. You can also take a TL Heat Lance on the Talos in Heavy Support, but that is inefficient compared to the Ravager, (though more survivable.) DE don't need Melta weapons in general, as we have cheap and abundant lances to make up for shoddy toughness.

Tau have Fusion Blaster, which are exactly the same as melta weapons in every respect, and can be twinlinked. These are, however, mounted on models with a T4 and 2 wounds, but still suck in CC and are taken in 3 man squads. These also take up an elite slots. You could also put them in Stealth suits, one of every 3 in the squad, but thats less efficient. Additionally there are Piranhas, and they are less efficient still. Any time Tau are using Fusion Blasters at their max effect, you can be sure you are about to lose that squad. This might also be true of Eldar, except that they can often wipe out the contents of a vehicle with other shooting or CC. DE can also jump away (since their effective range is 9" instead of 6") on the jetbikes and be safe, or countercharge or deluge the occupants with fire. Tau have no assault option, and would need to place a rather significant amount of fire dedicated to that location to ensure the safetly of those suits. When one considers the alternative - S10 AP1 (Usually TL) from 72" with the ability to remove cover inherant in the army, FB are a poor substitute. Given how rare our Railguns are, though... Tau use what they can get.

As for Orks or Daemons, I have no idea, but I was fairly certain that Nids have no melta option, given that they rely on MC close combat to get 2d6 AP.

Likely the only thing that would balance things out is a return to a 3rd ed type damage table, increasing the odds of vehicle destruction to previous levels, but leaving the costs of transports low.

imweasel wrote:

Joey wrote:You may as well outright ban horde armies, which I'm sure no one wants.

Or the horde armies learn somehow to play faster. I don't know what the solution is, but is it equally fair my opponent gets to play 1.5 hours while I get .5?

That doesn't seem 'friendly'.

So your solution is lliterally telling horde players "Suck it up, play faster."

Wow.

Chess clock time controls work because each player gets exactly the same stuff, so obviously they get the same times because it isn't going to take either side any longer to move his pieces. If you can play your triple landraider list in 10 min. per turn, then great. It'll take you 1 hr. to play six turns. So the game is exactly the same for you, but you just took the horde players turn and sliced it to bits, without any subtraction to you. So your forcing your opponant to scramble about and not space his minis, trying to get done fast, while you sit and calmly watch him after moving 3-9 tanks and rolling a few handfuls of dice. "Oh, looks like you ran out of time bro.. Shame, i still have 35 min left.."

That doesn't seem very "friendly" to me.

loota boy wrote:

So your solution is lliterally telling horde players "Suck it up, play faster."

Wow.

Chess clock time controls work because each player gets exactly the same stuff, so obviously they get the same times because it isn't going to take either side any longer to move his pieces. If you can play your triple landraider list in 10 min. per turn, then great. It'll take you 1 hr. to play six turns. So the game is exactly the same for you, but you just took the horde players turn and sliced it to bits, without any subtraction to you. So your forcing your opponant to scramble about and not space his minis, trying to get done fast, while you sit and calmly watch him after moving 3-9 tanks and rolling a few handfuls of dice. "Oh, looks like you ran out of time bro.. Shame, i still have 35 min left.."

That doesn't seem very "friendly" to me.

No worse than your solution of "Suck it up, cause I play slower."

Or more accurately:

"Oh, looks like you ran out of time bro because I took 3-4 times more time than you got."

Joey wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Yeah here are some pictures that lend to my argument of the crew being pretty much whacked when a vehicle explodes. Do you know why? See below. When a vehicle explodes everyone inside DIES. Don't give a damn about your space marines' armor. When that much shrapnel is flying they will be toast.

Yes because power armor, which can resist most things, such as shrapnel from a frag missle, the heavy flamer (Which cooks at a higher rate than the standard promethium fuel setup of a standard fuel engine in 40k) Do you know what it takes to directly pierce a space marine armor?

A direct krak missle shot. This is using an Anti-Tank vehicle to get past space marine armor. Unless that missle penetrates and hits a marine, they are not going to DIE that easy!

Power armor is not tissue paper here. They will die at times, some things will get through, but an automatic death from shrapnel and leaking burning fuel? Yeah no. Not to mention this would buff Mech-Guard up to even higher levels.

No, power armour stops weaker projectiles two thirds of the time...yet the chance of them dying in an explosion is one in six. Go figure.
I like the idea of a dangerous terrain check. It a)nerfs marines without killing off guard and b)gives a decent chance of taking out a sargant/special weapon.

I like this idea as well. May need to be tweaked some, but the biggest problem with transports is that they're just free ablative wounds for the units inside, to help keep the sarge and special weapons alive. Nobody uses their regular foot troops, and they'll take wounds on the scrubs every. single. time.

Forcing saves on the special weapons and sergeants in any form is very important if you want to balance out transports. Right now, we can just take the wounds on the regular soldiers (unlesss you rolled REALLY bad). When you force the saves on all units, it makes it scarier. All the sudden it goes from "whoop de doo, lost 3 scrubs" to "oh crap, I could lose my meltaguns".

Maybe alter the dangerous terrain check so that more than a 1 causes a wound? For example, on a 1 or 2 unit takes a wound. obviously there needs to be a tweak to balance it across armies, but right now I think almost anything would be an improvement to what we have now.

Also, to all the guys saying "they've got power armor, only thing that can kill that is anti tank weapons" two things.

1. If that's true, how come we can kill marines with bolters, shootas, chainswords, heck even laspistols? If these guys only died to anti tank weapons, nobody would play anything but space marines. The armor has weak spots, and most of the time these guys dont even seem to bother wearing their helmets, so I'm sure an exploding vehicle can kill at least a few of them.

2. If you just blew up a vehicle, odds are you used an ANTI TANK WEAPON. If that weapon managed to pierce the hull and destroy the vehicle, I'm pretty sure it's hitting a few marines inside as well. Someone mentioned there used to be a special rule for ordnance weapons that on a 6, the vehicle didn't just explode, it killed all the occupants inside, and I think this might be an interesting addition. There are several weapons in the game that are supposed for anti armor but are ordnance blast weapons. Right now, no one will use them because they're more likely to scatter than hit, but if you have a chance of completely killing the unit inside with them I think that'd do a lot to help get them shooting at vehicles again. People would finally have reasons to aim vehicles like vindicators and Leman Russes at vehicles for reasons besides "nothing better to shoot at".

1. If that's true, how come we can kill marines with bolters, shootas, chainswords, heck even laspistols? If these guys only died to anti tank weapons, nobody would play anything but space marines

And if the only type of damage Ignored the armor of the units inside, nobody would take anything but GEQ. They have to be allowed to account for saves or else nobody will use anything but GEQ (And TEQ is right out) as losing 80+ points each time while guard loses like 20-40 points pushes it into anti-meq territory. Aka, not balanced.

2. If you just blew up a vehicle, odds are you used an ANTI TANK WEAPON. If that weapon managed to pierce the hull and destroy the vehicle, I'm pretty sure it's hitting a few marines inside as well.

Depends on the weapon? Krak missle? No, it's force was used on the outer shell.

Ordenence weapons? Yes certainly, those pack far more force than a Krak missle

AP2 and below weapons? Also yes, because those weapons are directly penetrating the vehicle and melting through with their force.