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.

Ahhh, makes sense.

Frankly i'll be glad if vehicles take a back seat this edition.

We might actually see troops somewhere other than the side of the table 'they're embarked' section..

I don't particularly care if my vehicles get nerfed along with them, because as a whole mine aren't that great anyway

Ascalam wrote:Frankly i'll be glad if vehicles take a back seat this edition.

We might actually see troops somewhere other than the side of the table 'they're embarked' section..

I don't particularly care if my vehicles get nerfed along with them, because as a whole mine aren't that great anyway

I really would not, I've always like playing with tanks, and if they're too flimsy to use, then they're not fun. There wasn't anything wrong with vehicle survivability in 5th, there just wasn't any reason not to take transports, and until GW starts allowing infantry to take a more diverse array of actions (e.g. digging in a-la Flames of War, spotting for heavy weapons/artillery/orbital strikes/etc, creating/clearing obstacles and minefields, etc) that impact the battle, transports are always going to be preferable to not having one, unless they make them deathtraps like they were in 4th, and that really doesn't solve anything.

5th was the first edition that non-skimmer armies got transports useful as something other than mobile terrain (or one turn assault skateboards in the case of 3E rhino-rush lists), once non-skimmer armies had good transports then seemingly all hell broke loose despite Eldar, Tau, and DE armies typically being very heavily mechanized all through 3E and 4E.

Great White wrote:If pens take hull popints then how can you be one shotted?

Because you still roll on the damage table as normal, and then it takes a hull point too.

Don't you all think you're over-reacting just a bit?
Let's say the razorback spam is across the table from me.
I do some shooting and score a total of 6 glancing hits.
Being perfectly average, I roll 1,2,3,4,5 and 6.
In 5th edition, that's 1 with no gun, 1 that can't move, 3 that can't shoot, and 1 that can't move or shoot.
In 6th edition, I'd just destory 2 razorbacks.
So, you're all honestly thinking that 2 dead razorbacks vs 6 gimped spells the end of mech?

In 5th edition, my opponent would shoot back with 1 of 6 razorbacks (the immobilized one), in 6th, he shoots back with 4 of them.

I don't see how this is anything but a healthy boost to vehicles.

-Matt

Vaktathi wrote:

Ascalam wrote:Frankly i'll be glad if vehicles take a back seat this edition.

We might actually see troops somewhere other than the side of the table 'they're embarked' section..

I don't particularly care if my vehicles get nerfed along with them, because as a whole mine aren't that great anyway

I really would not, I've always like playing with tanks, and if they're too flimsy to use, then they're not fun. There wasn't anything wrong with vehicle survivability in 5th, there just wasn't any reason not to take transports, and until GW starts allowing infantry to take a more diverse array of actions (e.g. digging in a-la Flames of War, spotting for heavy weapons/artillery/orbital strikes/etc, creating/clearing obstacles and minefields, etc) that impact the battle, transports are always going to be preferable to not having one, unless they make them deathtraps like they were in 4th, and that really doesn't solve anything.

5th was the first edition that non-skimmer armies got transports useful as something other than mobile terrain (or one turn assault skateboards in the case of 3E rhino-rush lists), once non-skimmer armies had good transports then seemingly all hell broke loose despite Eldar, Tau, and DE armies typically being very heavily mechanized all through 3E and 4E.

Great White wrote:If pens take hull popints then how can you be one shotted?

Because you still roll on the damage table as normal, and then it takes a hull point too.

Yeah, but you play Guard . Vehicles EVERYWHERE

My DE and Ork vehicles fall over in a stiff breeze in 5th, and will still do so in 6th.

Each to their own, i suppose, but i got tired of going whole games without seeing a single infantry model being placed by an opponent..

Good thing for me that I hate using Devilfish.

My Hammerheads however will be much more difficult to protect in matches versus Nids though.

Get some aggressive Hiveguard and bye-bye goes S6 templates.

I was under the impression that glancing hits could still shake etc.

Ascalam wrote:


Yeah, but you play Guard . Vehicles EVERYWHERE

Two actually.

However, to be fair I also play CSM's, Eldar, Tau, and have 1000-1500pt Grey Knight, Tyranid, and SoB armies.

My DE and Ork vehicles fall over in a stiff breeze in 5th, and will still do so in 6th.

Each to their own, i suppose, but i got tired of going whole games without seeing a single infantry model being placed by an opponent..

I can understand that, though, as I said, there are other ways of accomplishing that.

Over at bols someone who "managed to get their hands on the book early" posted this about vehicles. Looks like no more moving 12" dropping the melta boys off and shooting. And it appears you have to snapfire when moving. If all this is true vehicles get an 18" (12+6) range of movement but that's the only plus so far.

Vehicles
- Vehicles are now limited to move at the maximum of 12" in the Movement Phase (though it can move further in the Shooting Phase if desired)
- Vehicles can opt to move "Flat Out" in the Shooting Phase, adding an extra 6".
- Vehicles movement and weapons. Defensive and Primary Weapons are gone. You can fire all of your weapons at most of the time. But moving faster will result in less weapon fired at basic BS, the rest will be fired at BS1 (Snap Fire)
- Fast Skimmer moving Flat Out can be more lethal (fire more weapons than in 5th and moving faster [12" Normal + 18" Flat Out])
- Skimmer got a cover save called Jink, basically 5+ cover save and improved to 4+ if going Flat Out.
- Vehicles count as WS0 (auto-hit) if stationary and WS1 (3+ hit) if moved. No idea on how Fast or Skimmer will have bonus, as cover aren't used in Assault.
- Flyers are now in, with its own rules.
- Flyers can move very fast and is hard to target (6 only to hit) unless the shooter has Skystrike rules that allow them to shoot flyer at normal BS.
- When moving fast (called "Zooming") Flyers cannot move less than 12" and cannot disembark any models.

Vehicle and Damage
- New Vehicle Damage Chart, one to rule them all. 1-2 being Shaken, 3 Stunned, 4 and 5 Weapon Destroyed and Immobilised, and 6 Explodes! You only roll the table if the shot penetrate the Armour. Wrecks occur only from taking certain amount of Glancing Hits.
- AP 2 weapons add +1 to the chart, while AP1 adds +2.
- AP"-" is no longer -1 on the table.
- Open-Topped is +1 as well.
- No more "Half Strength if the center hole is off", you always use full strength for any blast that hits the vehicle.
- Hull Points - a new style "wound" for vehicles. Any Glancing Hits removes 1 Hull Point, Penetrate Hit removes 1 Hull Point as well as rolling on the Damage Chart above. If reduced to 0 HP, the vehicle becomes Wreck.
- Vehicles has 3 or 4 HP, notable 4 HP vehicles are Ghost Ark, Land Raider, and Monolith. Details can be found in the rulebook appendix. (Bloodwing stated that some player propose that the formula for Hull Points is Front + Side(once) + Rear divide by 3. Fractions rounding down - this seems to be true.

Vehicle and Passenger
- Passenger can only disembark if vehicle move 0-6".
- Disembarking rules changes, you now place models in base contact with the access point and move up to 6" - this is the furthest distance the unit may move.
- Embarking is pretty much the same.
- Unit count as moving if the vehicle moved 0.1-6", and can only "Snap Fire" if the vehicle move 6.01 - 12"
- Open-topped transport rules are the same (access points and fire points)
- Exploding Flyer that has "zoomed" will result in a S10 no armour save on its passenger. And some sort of S6 Large Blast at any unit under the point the vehicle goes on flame.

...So all those trashy auto glance powers and equipment (Tau, SM psykers) just became "gold Jerry! Gold!"

Snapfire when moving is for heavy weapons or for embarked inside vehicles with fire points, no? The difference is that meltavets and Fire Dragons lost about 2" positional range.

Lobukia wrote:...So all those trashy auto glance powers and equipment (Tau, SM psykers) just became "gold Jerry! Gold!"

Swooping Hawk haywire grenades hitting on a 3+, glancing on a 2+...

mercury14 wrote:

Lobukia wrote:...So all those trashy auto glance powers and equipment (Tau, SM psykers) just became "gold Jerry! Gold!"

Swooping Hawk haywire grenades hitting on a 3+, glancing on a 2+...

And this is the sort of thing you can expect to be FAQ'd on release as well. IIRC, part of this release is heavy FAQing of existing codices.

-Loki- wrote:

mercury14 wrote:

Lobukia wrote:...So all those trashy auto glance powers and equipment (Tau, SM psykers) just became "gold Jerry! Gold!"

Swooping Hawk haywire grenades hitting on a 3+, glancing on a 2+...

And this is the sort of thing you can expect to be FAQ'd on release as well. IIRC, part of this release is heavy FAQing of existing codices.

Yeah better nerf this quick before there's a reason to ever use a 'Hawk! Gotta keep these suckers useless and unplayable!

All vehicles are faster now, have more mobile shooting, skimmers all get a natural 5+ cover save, a glance will still let you move, shoot, etc. Not a bad trade. Also don't forget that str 6 weapons mounted on vehicles are vulnerable to the same fire in return and infantry anti tank will have to be careful with new wound allocation.

For example my melta guy, instead of being upfront to get the metla in to 6" asap will now be in the middle/back of the squad, making it just a tad bit harder to get in that range.

Vehicles are not exactly phased out with this edition.

Main battle tanks with FAV13/14 will still be quite potent since the damage chart is now -1, and glancing shots do not stop them from shooting. They can move faster while still firing all of their weapons. The only possible disappointment is the lack of changes to the squadron rules.

Fliers/Skimmers will also be efficacious due to their speed/difficulty hitting them.

What this really hits are the slew of cheap, difficult to destroy transports. These now aren't the pillbox bunkers they used to be, but they still have their uses in getting your infantry to the various primary/secondary objectives, as well as blocking enemy routes/creating terrain to hide behind when they blow up.

Now, this is only theory, but it seems like the vehicle changes improve heavy tanks and skimmers/fliers, while relegating transports to a support role. This seems like a huge improvement over the previous edition, where the transports could basically win the game for you. I'll be glad for no more razorback spam or IG parking lots.

Plus, this makes footslogging lists viable again. All in all, I think it's about as balanced as GW can get.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Not to be overly snarky, but this is one of the many reasons why I still play play games of 4th Edition with my buddy. Vehicles were neither the kings of the battlefield(thought they were plenty good), nor were they overly nerfed the other way like it sounds like they are going to be now.

You realize by now that Tri-Falcon Eldar were the GK of that generation right? They were indeed the King of the battlefield, alongside Fish of Fury.

Which is why 5th Ed Eldar players are always whining about SW and GK being overpowered.

Actually almost everyone whines about GK being over powered...except Gk players

SW are strong, and against some armies a touch much.

I think the big effect of hull points is to make Flyers the new king. We haven't been able to digest the new rules for flyers yet, but we DO know that when shooting at flyers, you need a 6 to hit unless you're an AA unit.

This makes perfect sense to me as it seems that GW wants all of us MEQ players who already own 10 - 12 SM vehicles (Rhinos, Razorbacks, Predators, Land Raiders) to now buy a bunch of Storm Talons and Storm Ravens. That is a standard "new rules edition" tactic - Let's nerf all of the models that they already own and make the new model kits bad-ass.

Again, only transports are "nerfed", in that they don't dominate the game anymore but still have their uses. Yeah, they aren't tough to kill, but they are also 50 points or less. This stops people buying the minimum amount of bodies just to buy more razorbacks.

Jayden63 wrote:Through dedicated fire (not split fire) missile launcher long fangs should drop one AV12, 3 hull point vehicle per turn. Add in a cyclone missile launcher WG and its almost certain to happen.

Ummm...they should *already* be able to do that as is without hull points.

I've always found vehicles rather useless against those armies that are prepared for them. All adding hull points means is that armies that aren't full of lots of meltas or lascannons will now have a chance against fully armored opponents at lower points values. That is all this means. Against opponents with lots of heavy weapons or meltas, vehicles are just as vulnerable as they ever have been.

The dice are a fickle tool and people will not *always* get the perfect rolls that will wipe out a fully armored opponent in one turn with non-heavy weapons. Such a situation will be *very* rare.

Skriker

Ascalam wrote:Actually almost everyone whines about GK being over powered...except Gk players

SW are strong, and against some armies a touch much.

This argument belongs somewhere else, but....I'm going to take the bait anyway.

I'll admit that Jaws of the World Wolf is too easy to abuse. Especially when you can snipe monstrous creatures with it, Jaws feels a little unfair to Tyranids.

An argument could be made that Grey Hunters should probably cost 19 or 20 points each instead of 18 - just because they have "counterattack" otherwise, they are identical to tactical marines. So I have no sympathy for people who complain that GH are overpowered. Yeah, they're good, but not overpowered.

Long Fangs are also good, but really not that much better than a vanilla devastator squad. Sure they can split fire, but they almost never do. The only real advantage over devastator marines is that *some* of their weapon options are cheaper - but not significantly IIRC. Vanilla marines can also do missile launcher spam - just like SW - except they can add meat sheilds to their devastator squads. Long Fangs cant.

Also...vanilla marines have access to all kinds of stuff that SW don't. So I think it balances out. I've seen some pretty tough vanilla space marine lists, but no one is calling them overpowered.

Omegus wrote:Again, only transports are "nerfed",

There are a rather large number of non-transport, non-AV14 vehicles in the game that get hit just as hard (pretty much everything IG have outside of Russ tanks, all Eldar vehicles, etc), and a lot of armies (read: guys that don't have MEQ statlines and can't take 30 strong infantry units, or where taking such infantry units makes for an entirely different army) really rely on those transports to live rather than just being 1 turn skateboards like MEQ armies.


Trying to run Dreadnoughts, Hellhounds, Ravagers, Fire Prisms, effectively is not going to be fun in 6E, and (if I'm remembering the CC changes right), tanks will disappear even faster in CC than they have before thanks to hull points coupled with being hit in CC on a 3+ if moving.

Grugknuckle wrote:

Ascalam wrote:Actually almost everyone whines about GK being over powered...except Gk players

SW are strong, and against some armies a touch much.

This argument belongs somewhere else, but....I'm going to take the bait anyway.


An argument could be made that Grey Hunters should probably cost 19 or 20 points each instead of 18 - just because they have "counterattack" otherwise, they are identical to tactical marines. So I have no sympathy for people who complain that GH are overpowered. Yeah, they're good, but not overpowered.

Counterattack, Acute Senses, and that all important CCW that tac marines don't get, for *15* points.

Long Fangs are also good, but really not that much better than a vanilla devastator squad. Sure they can split fire, but they almost never do. The only real advantage over devastator marines is that *some* of their weapon options are cheaper - but not significantly IIRC. Vanilla marines can also do missile launcher spam - just like SW - except they can add meat sheilds to their devastator squads. Long Fangs cant.

Long Fangs can get 5 weapons for 140pts with 6 dudes. It costs Vanillla Marines 180pts for 4 heavy weapons with 5 dudes. That's a significant difference, especially for min/max alpha strike armies.

Omegus wrote:Now, this is only theory, but it seems like the vehicle changes improve heavy tanks and skimmers/fliers, while relegating transports to a support role. This seems like a huge improvement over the previous edition, where the transports could basically win the game for you. I'll be glad for no more razorback spam or IG parking lots.

Plus, this makes footslogging lists viable again. All in all, I think it's about as balanced as GW can get.

Very good breakdown Omegus and pretty spot on IMHO.

Skriker

Omegus wrote:Again, only transports are "nerfed", in that they don't dominate the game anymore but still have their uses. Yeah, they aren't tough to kill, but they are also 50 points or less. This stops people buying the minimum amount of bodies just to buy more razorbacks.

Agreed. It also stops people from driving around in their rhinos for 6 turns and never disembarking. Plus, even though 4 glances kills a Land Raider, it's pretty difficult to get 4 glances on a land raider by shooting it. Just keep your LR's out of close combat - a couple of powerfists or a squad with meltabombs could easily wreck a landraider in CC.

But you know what? Necrons are going to love this since guass guns are rapid fire and always glance on a 6!

Omegus wrote:Again, only transports are "nerfed", in that they don't dominate the game anymore but still have their uses. Yeah, they aren't tough to kill, but they are also 50 points or less. This stops people buying the minimum amount of bodies just to buy more razorbacks.

I disagree. Eldar rely on their vehicles to survive the game and move on objectives. Now they're reduced to very expensive tanks that will just get wasted with three glances. Eldar transports are 110+ points, not expendable 35 point Rhinos. And Falcon holo-fields are virtually worthless since they no longer apply to glances and they'll still lose a hull point with a pen no matter what. A 5+ cover save isn't going to protect them much.

The alternative in foot-slogging Eldar is also nerfed. T3 plus a mere 5+ cover isn't playable, especially considering that Rapid-Fire is buffed and also out-ranges crappy shuriken weapons.

mercury14 wrote:

Omegus wrote:Again, only transports are "nerfed", in that they don't dominate the game anymore but still have their uses. Yeah, they aren't tough to kill, but they are also 50 points or less. This stops people buying the minimum amount of bodies just to buy more razorbacks.

I disagree. Eldar rely on their vehicles to survive the game and move on objectives. Now they're reduced to very expensive tanks that will just get wasted with three glances. Eldar transports are 110+ points, not expendable 35 point Rhinos. And Falcon holo-fields are virtually worthless since they no longer apply to glances and they'll still lose a hull point with a pen no matter what. A 5+ cover save isn't going to protect them much.

The alternative in foot-slogging Eldar is also nerfed. T3 plus a mere 5+ cover isn't playable, especially considering that Rapid-Fire is buffed and also out-ranges crappy shuriken weapons.

This is the sad part about so many different and unique armies! Not everyone can skip and jump in the field of flowers when things are changed. Poor oldcrons had to wait until the very end of 5th before they got a codex that could compete again. Eldar seem to be taking the hit this edition but at least there are allies to help buff out the weaknesses.

Eldar are indeed hurting, but at this point they will be 2 editions behind, so that's to be expected. They should be getting a new book sometime in the next 18 months or so. I mean, what else is left to update? Chaos, Dark Angels, Tau and Black Templar (and maybe C:SM in there somewhere if DA get a unique codex)?

Omegus wrote:Eldar are indeed hurting, but at this point they will be 2 editions behind, so that's to be expected. They should be getting a new book sometime in the next 18 months or so. I mean, what else is left to update? Chaos, Dark Angels, Tau and Black Templar (and maybe C:SM in there somewhere if DA get a unique codex)?

What are Eldar players supposed to do for the next 18 months?

At least our best units will be really powerful still.... In DE/Tau armies. Expect to see Eldrad in a heap of DE lists.

Omegus wrote:Eldar are indeed hurting, but at this point they will be 2 editions behind, so that's to be expected. They should be getting a new book sometime in the next 18 months or so. I mean, what else is left to update? Chaos, Dark Angels, Tau and Black Templar (and maybe C:SM in there somewhere if DA get a unique codex)?

A new codex isn't going to change the problem that pretty much every vehicle Eldar have fall into the same area as razorbacks and chimeras do when it comes to hull points, as everything they have is AV10-12 and that is highly unlikely to change.

Also...Sisters still need a real update