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.

Martel732 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


As I've said many times, miscosted units are the worst part of the game, not the actual rules. Want supremacy armor? Great! Pay 900+ for it and I won't care.

That's exactly what I think, the only general rule that I would change is to bring more range in close combat rolls, I mean the possibility to hit on a 2+ and 6+. There are some models with WS8 or even more, so if they fight against some WS4 they should be able to hit on a 2+ of course, I don't get why BS is considered different than WS when it comes rolling to hit.

About MCs I think they're not a problem at all. To balance the game we have to cripple SM grav and their free vehicles, eldar D weapons, tau firepower and daemons psychic phase. Increasing some point values can fix the entire game.

I disagree. MCs are a huge problem. Some much more than others.

Well I think most people tend to disagree with that. MCs are not the problem.

In every discussion where people mention that MC are a problem the comparison is always MC vs vehicles and trying to bring MC in line with Vehicle general weaknesses. MC don't need to be knocked down to Vehicles, Vehicles need to be made like everything else. Super Heavys and GMC are a different bag of BC.

Martel732 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" MCs in 40k are often depicted as literally being shot in the guts with lascannons and plasma and continuing to press the attack"

Then pay for it, absurd as it is.

Are wraith knights and carnifex not paying enough points for the ability to not be insta-gibbed by a hammerhead?

Nope. Not at all. Of course, this is beside the point that a hammerhead should cause catastrophic damage with a weapon like that. Not one wound.

Oops. That was meant to be wraith lords*, not knights. I think we're kind of looking at multiple issues here though. Generally speaking, I absolutely do not feel that a single heavy weapon shot should be able to take down an MC. Things like wraith lords and carnifex already struggle to be useful (despite the latter) being considered relatively good compared to most other MCs in its codex. A single lascannon should not be taking down my expensive MCs in a single lucky shot. Which is why they have multiple wounds. Which are theoretically factored into their points cost. Which means they do pay for it. Unless you feel wraith lords are terribly underpriced for what they get and are thus somehow not paying (enough) for their wounds.

The other issue we're addressing here is the hammerhead. While it's true that most heavy weapons should not be one-shotting MCs, the railhead is paying a lot of points for one really impressive shot. A couple editions ago, it was basically the most powerful weapon around outside of apoc. It's expensive, takes up a (previously limited) heavy support slot, and really wants to have some markerlights lighting up targets for it to make sure its shot lands, but there was gravitas to it. Now days, it struggles to do much against vehicles because of hull points, and it struggles to do much to MCs because it doesn't double them out. I don't think it would be unreasonable to make the railhead's shot strength D or at least give it insta-death on 6s or something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


As I've said many times, miscosted units are the worst part of the game, not the actual rules. Want supremacy armor? Great! Pay 900+ for it and I won't care.

That's exactly what I think, the only general rule that I would change is to bring more range in close combat rolls, I mean the possibility to hit on a 2+ and 6+. There are some models with WS8 or even more, so if they fight against some WS4 they should be able to hit on a 2+ of course, I don't get why BS is considered different than WS when it comes rolling to hit.

About MCs I think they're not a problem at all. To balance the game we have to cripple SM grav and their free vehicles, eldar D weapons, tau firepower and daemons psychic phase. Increasing some point values can fix the entire game.

I disagree. MCs are a huge problem. Some much more than others.

Well I think most people tend to disagree with that. MCs are not the problem.

In every discussion where people mention that MC are a problem the comparison is always MC vs vehicles and trying to bring MC in line with Vehicle general weaknesses. MC don't need to be knocked down to Vehicles, Vehicles need to be made like everything else. Super Heavys and GMC are a different bag of BC.

I agree with Lance here. The average MC does a pretty good job of feeling durable and scary without being impossible to kill or otherwise interact with. There are some notable exceptions that are in fact quite problematically powerful. Though the meta might make it feel otherwise, there are more "balanced" (or underpowered) MCs than problematically powerful MCs. Riptides could stand to be tweaked. The wraith knight is just too cheap. Flyrants are maybe too good, but mostly they're just better than other 'nid options. Storm surges are kind of a problem. Magnus has definitely been causing headaches. But these are specific offenders, and they aren't "OP" because of the MC rules. They're OP because of other issues.

Riptides are insanely durable and have answers to most counters to shooty units. Wraith knights are just too cheap. Flyrants are just pretty solid in general, but they're taken all over the place because of internal balance issues within the 'nid codex. Storm Surges are just insanely shooty and surprisingly good at melee. Magnus is... Magnus. None of these issues are directly related to the MC rules themselves.

The only broad change I might like to make to MCs in general is to possibly up their movement to 9". The game has sped up considerably with the proliferation of transports, bikes, the universal ability to run, etc. Letting MCs cross the table just a little faster seems appropriate considering their large size (long legs means big steps) without making them full fledged beasts.

 Lance845 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


As I've said many times, miscosted units are the worst part of the game, not the actual rules. Want supremacy armor? Great! Pay 900+ for it and I won't care.

That's exactly what I think, the only general rule that I would change is to bring more range in close combat rolls, I mean the possibility to hit on a 2+ and 6+. There are some models with WS8 or even more, so if they fight against some WS4 they should be able to hit on a 2+ of course, I don't get why BS is considered different than WS when it comes rolling to hit.

About MCs I think they're not a problem at all. To balance the game we have to cripple SM grav and their free vehicles, eldar D weapons, tau firepower and daemons psychic phase. Increasing some point values can fix the entire game.

I disagree. MCs are a huge problem. Some much more than others.

Well I think most people tend to disagree with that. MCs are not the problem.

In every discussion where people mention that MC are a problem the comparison is always MC vs vehicles and trying to bring MC in line with Vehicle general weaknesses. MC don't need to be knocked down to Vehicles, Vehicles need to be made like everything else. Super Heavys and GMC are a different bag of BC.

No way to suppress them short of death is a huge huge advantage that is continually underplayed. They need a damage table at a minimum. Maybe they can also pick up 9" move.

Do you mean in the same way that every multi wound model that is not a vehicle is not suppressed short of death? And also vehicles that have not had any penetrating wounds?

We need to remove all the damage tables. Less rolling on random gak more actual playing the game.

You want to introduce a AoS style sliding stat line that adjusts based on the number of wounds a model has left? Yes. Agree. Great idea for vehicles and MC and multiwound models in general. But actually EXPANDING one of the worst aspects of vehicle rules to apply to other things is asinine. You are not looking to fix the actual problems in the game, you are looking to expand other problems with the game in an attempt to drag the rest of the game down into some crap mechanics medium that makes everything "fair" because everything has bull gak rules.

Getting rid of vehicles' liabilities works as well.

Martel732 wrote:
Getting rid of vehicles' liabilities works as well.

No, it doesn't work "as well". The other suggestion doesn't work at all. Fixing the actual problems with the game is not the same as expanding the problems to cover everybody. Actual productive (in as much as anything here is "productive") proposed rules attack the problems at the source. The MC unit type is not a problem and any blanket change to MC will, in general, break more things than it fixes.

Vehicle rules ARE a problem because pretty much every single one of them is some kind of exception to the basic mechanics the rest of the game runs on. Tau MC are a problem because besides not actually being MC they have a ridiculous set of tools to work with that make them very powerful. Not the MC unit type... but their own wargear options.

"Let's fix MC!" threads all come from the same 2 places. "Why do my vehicles get penetrated but tau robot suits don't!" and "I got walloped by some MC.... I hate that!". Neither addresses the actual issues by attacking the MC unit type.

I object to the cheapness of all the benefits of the unit type monstrous creature. So yeah, nerfing them works a well. They don't need free ap2 on top of no damage chart on top of never immobilizing themselves on top of having no facing. As currently implemented, i think it is a problem.

TIL that my 170 point Keeper of Secrets should be less durable overall and less killy than a Chapter Master, all while costing more.

Good to know.

 Jackal wrote:
With those 3 changes alone not 1 tyranid MC would be close to use able.
You just removed all AP2 or better from the army, so they now can't deal with 2+ except with 1-3 random attacks. (And warp blast Lance shot)

So a fex averages around 0.64 of a wound against terminators.
Then then kill it easily with return attacks.

So, it's crippled nids.
Riptide and dreadknight however still perform perfectly due to one being a shooter and the other accessing AP2 weapons.

They are slightly easier to kill at the expense of another army.
You just recreated grav all over again lol.

Nah a few Nid Mc's would still be ok Mawocks and tyrants come to mind. Also that would gut the riptide in close comabt with 2+ armor save guys like terminators.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
TIL that my 170 point Keeper of Secrets should be less durable overall and less killy than a Chapter Master, all while costing more.

Good to know.

A CM that can kill a Keeper of Secrets tends to be 200+ points. I mean I am not the best at math but I am pretty sure 170<200.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
TIL that my 170 point Keeper of Secrets should be less durable overall and less killy than a Chapter Master, all while costing more.

Good to know.

Never said that. I think people are just very used to the way MCs work, which hasn't changed much since 3rd, whereas vehicles are at near an all-time low. At least transports aren't death traps. The most viable vehicles are usually the cheapest ones, since they minimize the investment in such terrible models.

As it stands, Riptides can beat nearly any assault unit in my codex by virtue of immortality. That's supposed to be their weakness. But thanks to free AP2, and WS being a garbage-time stat, even DC fall before Riptides in melee. The only realistic thing in my codex vs a Riptide is a force axe. And Tau will murder said force axe long before it can assault. My frickin beatstick chapter master can't even win.

Martel732 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
TIL that my 170 point Keeper of Secrets should be less durable overall and less killy than a Chapter Master, all while costing more.

Good to know.

Never said that. I think people are just very used to the way MCs work, which hasn't changed much since 3rd, whereas vehicles are at near an all-time low. At least transports aren't death traps. The most viable vehicles are usually the cheapest ones, since they minimize the investment in such terrible models.

As it stands, Riptides can beat nearly any assault unit in my codex by virtue of immortality. That's supposed to be their weakness. But thanks to free AP2, and WS being a garbage-time stat, even DC fall before Riptides in melee. The only realistic thing in my codex vs a Riptide is a force axe. And Tau will murder said force axe long before it can assault. My frickin beatstick chapter master can't even win.

I feel you're conflating the issues though. Most MCs are not innately problematic. Wraith lords aren't shaping the meta. You don't hear a lot of complaints about the exocrine or the keeper of secrets. Yes, MCs have certain rules (like AP2) built in, but they theoretically pay for those benefits as part of their base points cost. It doesn't really fit the niche/fluff/role of a keeper of secrets to be incapable of reliably taking on a squad of tac marines because it lacks AP2 (outside of rending). It does make sense for MCs to have things like move through cover because big stompy things can step over obstacles that smaller creatures have to scurry over or around.

While it does make as much sense for an MC to be "shaken" by shots that mess up its aim or "immobilized" by a blast that hurts its legs or to have one of its claws or swords suffer a "weapon destroyed" result, it also nerfs a bunch of units that don't really need nerfing. The aforementioned wraith lord and keeper of secrets are not problematic. Nerfing them won't improve balance. Adding additional damage tables might help nerf the MCs that are problematic, but it would also add unnecessary complication to the game while also units that don't need to be nerfed.

It kind of sounds like you're saying, "My vehicles have glaring weaknesses in the current rules, therefore so should MCs even though that unnecessarily punishes most of them." So instead of making relatively balanced units bad and bad units worse in the name of bringing them in-line with vehicles, wouldn't it make more sense to simplify the rules by modifying or removing the vehicle damage chart, armor facings, etc, and then addressing the actually problematic MCs individually?

Or we can raise costs on a bunch of stuff. But that puts fewer GW models on the table. Although that's how they handled Chimera and Vendetta spam.

Or, conversely, we can make most vehicles much cheaper to reflect their crappiness. 100 pt base leman russ, anyone? Because that's about what it's worth in 7th. Land Raider is 175 tops given how incredibly dysfunctional its entire concept is.

Martel732 wrote:
Or we can raise costs on a bunch of stuff. But that puts fewer GW models on the table. Although that's how they handled Chimera and Vendetta spam.

Or, conversely, we can make most vehicles much cheaper to reflect their crappiness. 100 pt base leman russ, anyone? Because that's about what it's worth in 7th. Land Raider is 175 tops given how incredibly dysfunctional its entire concept is.

I can't speak to exact points costs, but I think both of those options would be better than unnecessarily nerfing a bunch of MCs because we feel bad about the crummyness of most vehicles.

If we want to fix vehicles, we can have (and have had) a discussion about that separately. Swinging the nerf bat at MCs because of durability envy is a very roundabout way of trying to help vehicles.

Martel just doesn't like how his vehicles function so he lashes out at other unit types.

 Lance845 wrote:
Martel just doesn't like how his vehicles function so he lashes out at other unit types.

Vehicles are the usual comparison because they sit in a similar or identical points bracket and when they're misplaced like the Riptide they have a similar role in carrying guns too big to be dragged around by infantry.
It is a problem that tank/transports are more likely to kill their cargo than their targets and I would like to see MCs lash out in a similar way, but I do agree with you that replecating a problem doesn't solve the problem.

Personally I'd like to see GSC confirmed as part of the Tyranid faction or at least confirmed as Battlebrothers. I think they have the potential to change the Meta for the better.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Martel just doesn't like how his vehicles function so he lashes out at other unit types.

Vehicles are the usual comparison because they sit in a similar or identical points bracket and when they're misplaced like the Riptide they have a similar role in carrying guns too big to be dragged around by infantry.
It is a problem that tank/transports are more likely to kill their cargo than their targets and I would like to see MCs lash out in a similar way, but I do agree with you that replecating a problem doesn't solve the problem.

Personally I'd like to see GSC confirmed as part of the Tyranid faction or at least confirmed as Battlebrothers. I think they have the potential to change the Meta for the better.

I don't disagree that vehicle rules are crap. But that means vehicle rules are crap. The way to fix vehicle rules is to fix vehicles not target other unit types.

-Get rid of the vehicle damage chart.

-Introduce one of the best ideas from AoS and have mult wound models degrade their stat line as they loose health. Don't even remove weapons. It's crap to pay for guns and then not be able to use them. Maybe reduce the number of guns they can fire in a turn? Get slower by reducing movement. Maybe reduce your save by 1 as your armors give out.

-Get rid of AV and give vehicles a save and a T value based on their current AV. T based on highest AV (a tank is a tank regardless of what side you are shooting) and Sv based on facing.
AV / T / SV
14 / 10 / 2+
13 / 9 / 3+
12 / 8 / 3+
11 / 7 / 4+
10 / 6 / 4+

So a Land Raider would be T10 Sv 2+/2+/2+ while a dreadnaught would be T7 4+/4+/4+

-Get rid of firing arcs, it should be assumed that the driver/pilot of a vehicle is positioning it while driving to make best use of the vehicles weapony.

-Either make it so vehicles have to fire all weapons at the same target like everyone else or make it so each unit has to fire each weapon at a single target. (i.e. a unit with bolters, a plasma pistol, and a lascanon can choose to fire all it's bolters at one target, the plasma pistol at another, and the lascannon at a 3rd.) Then people can get units with good mixes of weaponry and maximize those weapons effectiveness by shooting those guns at the targets they work best against, just like vehicles can now.

Fixed. Vehicles are now decent units and function like everything else in the game. MC unit type didn't even need to be touched. Now Nids need better internal/external balance so more than 5 of their units are worth a damn.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Martel just doesn't like how his vehicles function so he lashes out at other unit types.

Vehicles are the usual comparison because they sit in a similar or identical points bracket and when they're misplaced like the Riptide they have a similar role in carrying guns too big to be dragged around by infantry.
It is a problem that tank/transports are more likely to kill their cargo than their targets and I would like to see MCs lash out in a similar way, but I do agree with you that replecating a problem doesn't solve the problem.

Personally I'd like to see GSC confirmed as part of the Tyranid faction or at least confirmed as Battlebrothers. I think they have the potential to change the Meta for the better.

I don't disagree that vehicle rules are crap. But that means vehicle rules are crap. The way to fix vehicle rules is to fix vehicles not target other unit types.

-Get rid of the vehicle damage chart.

-Introduce one of the best ideas from AoS and have mult wound models degrade their stat line as they loose health. Don't even remove weapons. It's crap to pay for guns and then not be able to use them. Maybe reduce the number of guns they can fire in a turn? Get slower by reducing movement. Maybe reduce your save by 1 as your armors give out.

-Get rid of AV and give vehicles a save and a T value based on their current AV. T based on highest AV (a tank is a tank regardless of what side you are shooting) and Sv based on facing.
AV / T / SV
14 / 10 / 2+
13 / 9 / 3+
12 / 8 / 3+
11 / 7 / 4+
10 / 6 / 4+

So a Land Raider would be T10 Sv 2+/2+/2+ while a dreadnaught would be T7 4+/4+/4+

-Get rid of firing arcs, it should be assumed that the driver/pilot of a vehicle is positioning it while driving to make best use of the vehicles weapony.

-Either make it so vehicles have to fire all weapons at the same target like everyone else or make it so each unit has to fire each weapon at a single target. (i.e. a unit with bolters, a plasma pistol, and a lascanon can choose to fire all it's bolters at one target, the plasma pistol at another, and the lascannon at a 3rd.) Then people can get units with good mixes of weaponry and maximize those weapons effectiveness by shooting those guns at the targets they work best against, just like vehicles can now.

Fixed. Vehicles are now decent units and function like everything else in the game. MC unit type didn't even need to be touched. Now Nids need better internal/external balance so more than 5 of their units are worth a damn.

I'm not against that.
I like the degradation chart.

-Get rid of AV and give vehicles a save and a T value based on their current AV. T based on highest AV (a tank is a tank regardless of what side you are shooting) and Sv based on facing.
AV / T / SV
14 / 10 / 2+
13 / 9 / 3+
12 / 8 / 3+
11 / 7 / 4+
10 / 6 / 4+

So a Land Raider would be T10 Sv 2+/2+/2+ while a dreadnaught would be T7 4+/4+/4+

I think, by your method, the Dreadnought would be T8 3+/3+/4+, or T9/3+/3+/4+ for Ironclads, wouldn't it?

That would also make Armored Sentinels T8/3+/4+/4+, which seems a bit much.

Might be worth tweaking that to make its T value based on the average (rounding up?) of all facings, to better represent the vehicle's overall durability (and better distinguish between things like Landraiders and Leman Russes), though that might interfere with existing differentiations (like between Dreadnoughts and Ironclad Dreadnoughts)...

Shifting the save-per-AV value would also be a potential choice.

AV / T / SV
14 / 10 / 2+ rerollable
13 / 9 / 2+
12 / 8 / 3+
11 / 7 / 4+
10 / 6 / 5+

Landraider: T10 with 2+/2+/2+ all rerollable
Leman Russ: T9 with 2+/2+/5+ front rerollable
Hammerhead: T8 with 2+/3+/5+
Ironclad: T8 with 2+/3+/5+
Dreadnought: T8 with 3+/3+/5+
Armored Sentinel: T7 with 3+/5+/5+
Sentinel: T6 with 5+/5+/5+

Would Open-Topped reduce the armor save by 1 on all facings?

How would Ramming work, or would that be replaced by something like Hammer of Wrath? How about things like Melta, Armorbane, Haywire, Poison, Fleshbane, etc.?

Edit: I'd rather just get rid of facings entirely, frankly. They seem like they bog the game down more than anything, and put an odd onus/vulnerability on vehicles that by most rights a MC would share (weaker durability against attacks coming from certain angles). The increased need for abstraction seems worth the decrease in complexity to me.

Differentiation between things like an Ironclad and a Dreadnought could be made by individual changes, like an increase in the save to 2+ instead of 3+, or the like.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

-Get rid of AV and give vehicles a save and a T value based on their current AV. T based on highest AV (a tank is a tank regardless of what side you are shooting) and Sv based on facing.
AV / T / SV
14 / 10 / 2+
13 / 9 / 3+
12 / 8 / 3+
11 / 7 / 4+
10 / 6 / 4+

So a Land Raider would be T10 Sv 2+/2+/2+ while a dreadnaught would be T7 4+/4+/4+

I think, by your method, the Dreadnought would be T8 3+/3+/4+, or T9/3+/3+/4+ for Ironclads, wouldn't it?

That would also make Armored Sentinels T8/3+/4+/4+, which seems a bit much.

Might be worth tweaking that to make its T value based on the average (rounding up?) of all facings, to better represent the vehicle's overall durability (and better distinguish between things like Landraiders and Leman Russes), though that might interfere with existing differentiations (like between Dreadnoughts and Ironclad Dreadnoughts)...

Your numbers might be more accurate. I was going off of what I remember from my old roommates armys about a year ago.

Yes, the individual units could use some tweaks, but it's a good general guide line for rough equivalencies. Also, that highest AV = T means roughly the same str of weapons are wounding on roughly the same dice rolls as they would be currently. A str 8 weapon would need a 6 to glance av 14. A str 8 weapon needs a 6+ to wound T10. Str 9 5+ str 10 4+. The weapons stay the same effectiveness. In return for all facings having the same T a weapon 1 step weaker can also wound on a 6+ (str 7 vs T10). It's pretty well balanced.

Would Open-Topped reduce the armor save by 1 on all facings?

Sure! or reduce T by 1.

How would Ramming work, or would that be replaced by something like Hammer of Wrath?

Why not? Hammer of wrath is already a ram by a big ass model. Base the str of the HoW on the T value of any vehicle that doesn't have a Str and Dozer blades and the like can be +1 str to rams.

Toughness of front facing used in place of a Strength stat. Not without merit.

 Lance845 wrote:

Your numbers might be more accurate. I was going off of what I remember from my old roommates armys about a year ago.

Yes, the individual units could use some tweaks, but it's a good general guide line for rough equivalencies. Also, that highest AV = T means roughly the same str of weapons are wounding on roughly the same dice rolls as they would be currently. A str 8 weapon would need a 6 to glance av 14. A str 8 weapon needs a 6+ to wound T10. Str 9 5+ str 10 4+. The weapons stay the same effectiveness. In return for all facings having the same T a weapon 1 step weaker can also wound on a 6+ (str 7 vs T10). It's pretty well balanced.

True, I'd forgotten about the increased vulnerability to weapons one strength lower. While that also means an increased durability against higher strength weapons (what used to auto-"wound" AV10 now only wounds on a 2+), I think most vehicles become overall more vulnerable as a result of the direct translation change.

Land Speeders become interesting.
Thunderwolves with ranged weaponry.

 Lance845 wrote:

Would Open-Topped reduce the armor save by 1 on all facings?

Sure! or reduce T by 1.

I suppose either method could work, fluffwise. Reducing T would at least somewhat correspond with vulnerability to ID (though that would only really be applicable for AV10 or lower - it would allow Hammerheads to ID Raiders, for instance).

 Unusual Suspect wrote:


Shifting the save-per-AV value would also be a potential choice.

AV / T / SV
14 / 10 / 2+ rerollable
13 / 9 / 2+
12 / 8 / 3+
11 / 7 / 4+
10 / 6 / 5+

Landraider: T10 with 2+/2+/2+ all rerollable
Leman Russ: T9 with 2+/2+/5+ front rerollable
Hammerhead: T8 with 2+/3+/5+
Ironclad: T8 with 2+/3+/5+
Dreadnought: T8 with 3+/3+/5+
Armored Sentinel: T7 with 3+/5+/5+
Sentinel: T6 with 5+/5+/5+

If by rerollable you mean 2+ 6+ I can start to agree with this. But a 2+ rerollable is bull gak and shouldn't exist in the game at all. In my opinion just about every instance of rerollable in the game should be changed to function like +1 BS. A 3+ becomes 2+ A 2+ can reroll to succeed on a 6+. etc etc... It would fix a ton of the total Bull Crap shenanigans in the current meta.

Edit: I'd rather just get rid of facings entirely, frankly. They seem like they bog the game down more than anything, and put an odd onus/vulnerability on vehicles that by most rights a MC would share (weaker durability against attacks coming from certain angles). The increased need for abstraction seems worth the decrease in complexity to me.

Differentiation between things like an Ironclad and a Dreadnought could be made by individual changes, like an increase in the save to 2+ instead of 3+, or the like.

I don't have a problem with that either. But it also needs to come with a general decrease in T/Sv values on vehicles to bring them better in line with the rest of the models in the game. There is a lot more AV 13 in the game because they have Av 10/11 on the rear to make up for it then there is T9. In the saves are not getting weaker and vehicles just have 1T and 1 Sv like other models then I would reduce all their T values on my chart by 1 as a general rule with further -1s for open topped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Your numbers might be more accurate. I was going off of what I remember from my old roommates armys about a year ago.

Yes, the individual units could use some tweaks, but it's a good general guide line for rough equivalencies. Also, that highest AV = T means roughly the same str of weapons are wounding on roughly the same dice rolls as they would be currently. A str 8 weapon would need a 6 to glance av 14. A str 8 weapon needs a 6+ to wound T10. Str 9 5+ str 10 4+. The weapons stay the same effectiveness. In return for all facings having the same T a weapon 1 step weaker can also wound on a 6+ (str 7 vs T10). It's pretty well balanced.

True, I'd forgotten about the increased vulnerability to weapons one strength lower. While that also means an increased durability against higher strength weapons (what used to auto-"wound" AV10 now only wounds on a 2+), I think most vehicles become overall more vulnerable as a result of the direct translation change.

Except now they have a Save to roll. Mathematically it all balances out I think. No auto wounds, 1 str weaker can wound on a 6+ armor saves are around to offset shots coming at them when vehicles previously had no saves.

Haywire can be changed to auto wounding vehicles on a 3+ with "ap2" or whatever so vehicles don't get a save against it.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:


Shifting the save-per-AV value would also be a potential choice.

AV / T / SV
14 / 10 / 2+ rerollable
13 / 9 / 2+
12 / 8 / 3+
11 / 7 / 4+
10 / 6 / 5+

Landraider: T10 with 2+/2+/2+ all rerollable
Leman Russ: T9 with 2+/2+/5+ front rerollable
Hammerhead: T8 with 2+/3+/5+
Ironclad: T8 with 2+/3+/5+
Dreadnought: T8 with 3+/3+/5+
Armored Sentinel: T7 with 3+/5+/5+
Sentinel: T6 with 5+/5+/5+

If by rerollable you mean 2+ 6+ I can start to agree with this. But a 2+ rerollable is bull gak and shouldn't exist in the game at all. In my opinion just about every instance of rerollable in the game should be changed to function like +1 BS. A 3+ becomes 2+ A 2+ can reroll to succeed on a 6+. etc etc... It would fix a ton of the total Bull Crap shenanigans in the current meta.

Whoops, forgot to make that clear! Yes, I'd grant rerolls exactly as you describe. Good catch.

Edit: tangentially but related to the reroll-as-per-BS, I'd also like to see negative modifiers work along similar lines (at least for matched stat resolution methods like WS/WS and S/T, though if I ever get around to doing a complete rewrite, that would also include BS/Evasion), where what would be worse than a 6+ requires rerolling a successful roll on a 2+, worsening the reroll's requirement for each step down. For example, a Plasma Gun fired at a T10 Landraider would need a 6+, then a 2+, to successfully wound, while a Lasgun would need to roll a 6 then a reroll of a 6.

That way no weapon is entirely useless against almost any target (Except S2 or less against T10, or S1 against T9, or their equivalents in another matched stat comparison), but there are severe diminishing returns to the point that Lasguns don't end up slaughtering Land Raiders left and right.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

Haywire can be changed to auto wounding vehicles on a 3+ with "ap2" or whatever so vehicles don't get a save against it.

That would bypass the high T/low wound count of vehicles a bit too much for my taste. Perhaps 2+ to wound, with Rending?

Armorbane/Ordnance/Melta/Tank Hunter could increase the strength of the weapon for to-wound rolls.

I'm in favor of creating a Mecha subtype, so that Riptides/Ghostkeels/Stormsurges and the like could gain more appropriate vulnerabilities (to all of the above) and immunities (to things like Fleshbane and Poison).

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

I'm in favor of creating a Mecha subtype, so that Riptides/Ghostkeels/Stormsurges and the like could gain more appropriate vulnerabilities (to all of the above) and immunities (to things like Fleshbane and Poison).

Don't really need to. They are Vehicle Walkers. If vehicles function like other models then vehicle walkers suddenly becomes very similar to MC with the exceptions that poison doesn't work on them because they have HP instead of wounds and haywire does.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

I'm in favor of creating a Mecha subtype, so that Riptides/Ghostkeels/Stormsurges and the like could gain more appropriate vulnerabilities (to all of the above) and immunities (to things like Fleshbane and Poison).

Don't really need to. They are Vehicle Walkers. If vehicles function like other models then vehicle walkers suddenly becomes very similar to MC with the exceptions that poison doesn't work on them because they have HP instead of wounds and haywire does.

True under your formulation in which a Vehicle type is distinguished. I'm in favor of removing the type entirely (part and parcel with the removal of the facings and the conversion into the T/Sv format), so I'd want some way of distinguishing between the mechanical and the flesh. This would also allow a change to the way we treat Necrons and similar mostly- or entirely-mechanical infantry, not just MC. Poison and Fleshbane being so potent against Necrons is as absurd, if not moreso, than their potency against a Riptide (which is at least piloted by a flesh-and-blood being).

Martel732 wrote:


I disagree. MCs are a huge problem. Some much more than others.

Why do you consider MCs a problem? Only those with a huge fire power really are, but that's because of their wargear. Make riptides 450 points, wraitknight 600 points and let's see. MCs like the tyranids ones or dark eldar talos/cronos are far from being overpowered, daemons are very good only because the roll 400 dice in the psychic phase, so what do you concern about MCs?

I play orks, dark eldar and SW, and never thought MCs as a problem to be fixed, so I'm just curious. I also don't get why people thinks vehicles aren't working, but that's probably beacuse I only consider that vehicles should serve only a purpose, to transport units, nothing else. That's how vehicles in my armies work better, trukks, BWs, drop pods, stormwolf, venoms, raiders, they all have their usage and I like them as they actually are. Wave serpents are also very good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Land Speeders become interesting.
Thunderwolves with ranged weaponry.

That would be disgusting, they should remain AV10. AV for vehicles is ok.

 Blackie wrote:

I play orks, dark eldar and SW, and never thought MCs as a problem to be fixed, so I'm just curious. I also don't get why people thinks vehicles aren't working, but that's probably beacuse I only consider that vehicles should serve only a purpose, to transport units, nothing else. That's how vehicles in my armies work better, trukks, BWs, drop pods, stormwolf, venoms, raiders, they all have their usage and I like them as they actually are. Wave serpents are also very good.

That's not going to be a very widely accepted presumption, since things like Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) are a thing, and are fairly widely represented throughout a lot of codexes (including Dark Eldar and Space Wolves).

There's an underlying preference for all units to be at least moderately relevant, and that can and should include things like Ravagers, Predators, Hammerheads, and the like. If they under-perform, it is worth fixing them so they perform reasonably well.

The differences between AV and T as stats are heavily cosmetic in nature to begin with. One of the most worthwhile aspects of eliminating AV is in its ability to remove the curtain that makes direct comparisons so much more vague.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

I play orks, dark eldar and SW, and never thought MCs as a problem to be fixed, so I'm just curious. I also don't get why people thinks vehicles aren't working, but that's probably beacuse I only consider that vehicles should serve only a purpose, to transport units, nothing else. That's how vehicles in my armies work better, trukks, BWs, drop pods, stormwolf, venoms, raiders, they all have their usage and I like them as they actually are. Wave serpents are also very good.

That's not going to be a very widely accepted presumption, since things like Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) are a thing, and are fairly widely represented throughout a lot of codexes (including Dark Eldar and Space Wolves).

There's an underlying preference for all units to be at least moderately relevant, and that can and should include things like Ravagers, Predators, Hammerheads, and the like. If they under-perform, it is worth fixing them so they perform reasonably well.

The differences between AV and T as stats are heavily cosmetic in nature to begin with. One of the most worthwhile aspects of eliminating AV is in its ability to remove the curtain that makes direct comparisons so much more vague.

In my exprerience ravagers are average vehicles too, many people think they underperform but take kabalite trueborn in venoms instead which are way more expensive (40+ points more) and even less resilient. I don't want a game with even more overpowered shooty units like some heavy vehicles could be. Predators and hammerhead for example are not useless, AM tanks still have a huge amount of firepower.

The point is there are some shooty units that obliterate everything else in comparison like the tau big robots, those ones are needed to be crippled some way. There's no need to improve land raiders, land speeders or predators as SM already are the most competitive army. With the exception of AM people that complains about their vehicles already have a powerful army even without them, and improving shooty vehicles would make mid or lower ties armies like dark eldar, orks or tyranids even worse.

Maybe walkers could be improved some way, maybe increasing their movement range.