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.

Hello everyone!

As you may know, Hull Points were added to the game to solve the problem of Rhinos that took 27 penetrating hits (in 5th edition) but were simply stunned or shaken with every single one. While doing an efficient job at this, Hull Points also closed the gap between vehicles and Monstrous Creatures, and cause significant balance problems (IMO) in that regard.

So what about this idea:

Usually, when a shell hits a tank, it can do anything from bouncing off, perhaps causing minor spalling damage, to coring the vehicle and shredding the insides. Sometimes, the shell even tears through the tank so fast that it goes right through the tank without doing terrible damage! To represent this, the mechanic for damaging vehicles is as follows:

To pen the armor: Roll 1d6 and add the weapon's strength to it (and any additional modifiers for special rules, et cetera). This will henceforth be called the Armor Penetration Roll. Then, look at the following chart:

If the Armor Penetration Roll is less than the armor of the vehicle, the shot has bounced off and inflicted no damage.
If the Armor Penetration Roll is equal to the armor of the vehicle, the shot has caused some minor spalling that could injure or stun the crew, disengage track linkages, bend weapon barrels, etc. Roll on the Vehicle Damage Chart.
If the Armor Penetration Roll exceeds the armor of the vehicle, the shot has penetrated its armor - Roll on the vehicle damage chart, adding +1 for every point the armor is exceeded by. Note that one can never obtain more than +3 on the chart - anything higher than that means the shot has overpenetrated and will not do any more damage.

Vehicle Damage Chart
1) While the shell has caused spalling and cratering, there is no effect on the functioning of the tank. Nothing happens. Passengers, however, take d6 Str 3 AP- hits on a further roll of a 5+.
2) Driver stunned or drive train damaged: The vehicle cannot move next turn. Passengers are unaffected.
3) Gunner injured/stunned or fire control system damaged: The vehicle may only fire snapshots next turn. Passengers are unaffected.
4) Entire crew stunned or massive systems failure: The vehicle can neither move nor fire normal shots (instead firing snap shots) next turn. Passengers must fire snapshots, even if they disembark.
5) Weapon system destroyed: Randomly determine which weapon on the tank is destroyed. Passengers are unaffected. If this result is suffered and the vehicle has no weapons left, count it as Incapacitated instead.
6) Immobilized: The vehicle may no longer move for the rest of the game. Passengers are unaffected. If this result is suffered on an already-Immobilized vehicle, count it as Incapacitated instead.
7) Incapacitated: The vehicle may not move or shoot for the remainder of the game and now concedes victory points as if destroyed - however, this result may be repaired. Passengers must disembark, making an out-of-sequence disembarkation. If there is no room to place a model, it is destroyed.
8) Destroyed: The vehicle is destroyed beyond immediate repair and becomes Wrecked! Passengers must disembark, making an out-of-sequence disembarkation, and are Entangled, counting as Pinned.
9) Explodes: The vehicle detonates, sending flying shrapnel everywhere. Every model within d6" takes a Str 4 AP- hit. It is removed from the table. Passengers suffer a Str 4 AP- hit per model, are placed where the footprint of the vehicle was, are Entangled, and must take a normal morale check as if they had suffered 25% casualties.

Example:
Freddy, using his Tau Hammerhead, fires at a Rhino. On the first turn, the railgun hits, but rolls a disappointing 1 for armor penetration. The railgun's sheer power, however, means this still grants an unmodified roll on the damage chart! Freddy rolls a 3 on the damage chart forcing the Rhino to snap fire. Damn thing is still moving. So, on his second turn, the Hammerhead fires again, hitting (whew!) and penetrating the armor with a 2! This grants a roll on the damage chart with a +1 modifier and the dice comes up a 4, making it a 5 and blowing the storm bolter off of the Rhino. Frustrating, yes. Fortunately, on the third turn, the railgun rolls a 6 to penetrate the armor! As a 16 vs an 11, the difference is 5, but this means that the shot overpenetrated and the modifier is +3. Freddy rolls a 2 on the damage chart, blowing off a further weapon! But since the rhino has no further weapons, it is Incapacitated instead! The passengers are forced out, and if there is no Techmarine present to restore the vehicle's war-spirit, it is effectively destroyed. Well done, Freddy!

This seems like it should work, especially if weapons with AP1 or 2 grant a bonus to the vehicle damage chart. It feels like vehicles will be slightly more durable than they are right now, but not as tough as in 5th edition. Sort of a half step between where they are now and where they were then.

That said, I'm not really clear on what you dislike exactly about hull points. Personally, I rather like them as it's frustrating to have to hit with a shot, then to pen with a shot, then to realize all you've done is inconvenienced the vehicle's shooting for a turn. To me, hull points are a way of saying, "Okay, yes, you've put enough holes in this thing for it to simply not be functional at this point."

I think this might be especially important in an edition where a vehicle that's crippled-but-alive can still be claiming an objective.

So what exactly is the issue you're trying to resolve? You say the current rules "close the gap" between vehicles and MCs, but what exactly do you mean? If I look at a carnifex or a talos, I can think of plenty of vehicles that are far less expensive than they are (rhino, drop pod, raiders, etc.) and should probably be somewhat less durable accordingly. Then there are things that are quite a bit more costly (imperial knights, leman russes, etc.) and probably should be more durable than they are. It just depends on how much of that unit's price tag is going towards staying alive.

I know this is an old debate, but even the humble rhino is immune to bolter fire (except on its rear). MCs get armor saves and easier access to cover saves, but those can be negated. Vehicles are susceptible to armor bane and haywire, but MCs are susceptible to fleshbane and poison.

So what exactly is the issue you wish to address with these rules? Making vehicles more durable? Why exactly should they be more durable? I don't ask this in a confrontational way. I simply wish to understand your reasoning and goals so that I can critique your suggestion better.

Expensive tanks need to be better in the game. Period. The cheap tanks are serviceable for the reasons you pointed out.

I'd broadly agree, Martel. It's slightly different problems, though: light/medium vehicles get sanded to death by spamcannons, medium/heavy vehicles get blown sky-high. Medium-armored vehicles are too expensive, and so forth.

I spent most of a thread arguing against armor saves on vehicles some time ago. On further consideration I've realized that what I actually oppose is scaling that save based on AV (so that a Raider has a 6+ and a Land Raider has a 2+). That fails to patch the existing problem while mostly killing the idea of "emergency AT". But it got me thinking: I think some kind of save makes sense. Think about how much more durable a Devilfish is than a Chimera. Why? Jink. The Devilfish can Jink, and thereby shrug off 50% of damaging hits. The catch with Jink, of course, is that for the attacking player, it's almost as good as getting a Crew Shaken result: just fine if you need to put a pie-plate-puker out of action.

So the thought that came to mind is this: First, a new special rule (Resilient) and second, vehicles get a fixed armor save.

Resilient: A model with the Resilient special rule may still take armor saves against attacks with an AP equal to (but not less than) its armor save. For example, a model with a 4+ (Resilient) armor save could still take its save against a Heavy Bolter wound, but not against an AP3 Krak Missile.

With this, vehicles would have a 4+ (Resilient) armor save against all glancing or penetrating hits. Resilient here serves two purposes: I don't want easily-spammable missiles and autocannons to ignore this save, and also I think a 3+ save is too good in general. Also, it provides another tool in the box to address things like the durability of MCs and Terminators. (Also, 2+ (Resilient) saves, which should be super-rare, would still be pierced by AP1...)

Maybe not a perfect fix. I actually like the OPs idea for the most part, though I do worry about the idea of crippled-but-alive vehicles contesting or claiming objectives, and I have some concerns about how it makes AP1 essentially irrelevant. But the essential issue is spot-on: getting vehicles right is hard.

The issue between tanks and MCs is that a given tank is basically an MC with a toughness value of (AV-4), only 3 wounds (4 in some cases) and no save whatsoever.

For example, a Rhino is basically toughness 7 (11-4) which means Autocannons "wound" it on 4+ and Lascannons on a 2+, both of which are true about the AV.

However, the Rhino only has 3 hull points ("wounds) and no armour save, so while a Carnifex might get a 3+ against an autocannon, the Rhino gets jack squat. The Carnifex also has more wounds.

Other reasons:
The Carnifex can claim a save simply for being in cover - no need for obscurement.

The Carnifex can see through 360 degrees for shooting.

The Carnifex can fight back in close combat.

The Carnifex is unaffected by being shot - whereas the Rhino could be stunned-immobilized-shaken-whatever, the Carnifex can simply go about its business after being Lascannoned in the face. This is in addition to hull points.

You can see where the problem is exacerbated when you compare a Leman Russ Punisher to a Walkrant, for example.

I like it but I dislike it at the same time. Mostly because it continues to the trend of more dice rolls and charts just to find out what happens to a vehicle.

Vehicles need to find a mechanic that makes them unique but not totally useless and/or convoluted.

Melevolence wrote:
I like it but I dislike it at the same time. Mostly because it continues to the trend of more dice rolls and charts just to find out what happens to a vehicle.

Vehicles need to find a mechanic that makes them unique but not totally useless and/or convoluted.

It is the same number of rolls you do now.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
I like it but I dislike it at the same time. Mostly because it continues to the trend of more dice rolls and charts just to find out what happens to a vehicle.

Vehicles need to find a mechanic that makes them unique but not totally useless and/or convoluted.

It is the same number of rolls you do now.

Which is a problem in itself. That's what I'm getting at. :( We need less dice rolls and more reliable rules/effects.

Melevolence wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
I like it but I dislike it at the same time. Mostly because it continues to the trend of more dice rolls and charts just to find out what happens to a vehicle.

Vehicles need to find a mechanic that makes them unique but not totally useless and/or convoluted.

It is the same number of rolls you do now.

Which is a problem in itself. That's what I'm getting at. :( We need less dice rolls and more reliable rules/effects.

Well, right now it's the same number of rolls as a normal thing, and with cover, the same number of rolls as a thing with FNP.

To Hit, Armor Penetration, Damage Chart

To Hit, To Wound, Save

To Hit, Armor Penetration, Cover Save, Damage Chart

To Hit, To Wound, Save, FNP

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The issue between tanks and MCs is that a given tank is basically an MC with a toughness value of (AV-4), only 3 wounds (4 in some cases) and no save whatsoever.

For example, a Rhino is basically toughness 7 (11-4) which means Autocannons "wound" it on 4+ and Lascannons on a 2+, both of which are true about the AV.

However, the Rhino only has 3 hull points ("wounds) and no armour save, so while a Carnifex might get a 3+ against an autocannon, the Rhino gets jack squat. The Carnifex also has more wounds.

Other reasons:
The Carnifex can claim a save simply for being in cover - no need for obscurement.

The Carnifex can see through 360 degrees for shooting.

The Carnifex can fight back in close combat.

The Carnifex is unaffected by being shot - whereas the Rhino could be stunned-immobilized-shaken-whatever, the Carnifex can simply go about its business after being Lascannoned in the face. This is in addition to hull points.

You can see where the problem is exacerbated when you compare a Leman Russ Punisher to a Walkrant, for example.

All of these things. MCs are stupid good in 40K, even the "bad" ones.

Special rule to end all this crap.

Make it so that glancing hits can not remove the last hull point. When a vehicle is on its last hullpoint, glancing hits do not wreck the vehicle and can only be imobilized. Further glancing hits do not destroy weapons or remove the last hull point. Penetration hits are needed to destoy weapons and cause explosions and remove the last hp. This way, vehicles are not destroyed by glancing hits but enough glancing hits actually disable the effectiveness of a vehicle. The vehicle is still dangerous if it still possess guns. anti tank weapons will be nessacary to eliminate vehicles.

Fluff wise think about it. You could possibly imobilize a tank with non anti tank weaponry that are high calibur by damaging the treads or shoot the gears off or hitting hydraulics. Can weaponry with no armor piercing damage the inside of the tank?
Civilian Cars explode because they are not armored at all. Some Military vehicles are armored and can take punishment but end up blowing up because it hits the engine.

There problem solved for freaking Scatbikes cheese.

Take a look at bolt action's system for vehicle damage. Yours is very similiar but I prefer BA's because it is much simpler.

Upon a successful hit roll a D6 and add the weapons strength. Compare it to the armor of the vehicle. If the result is less than the AV, nothing happens. If it is equal it is a glancing hit. Roll on the chart below with a -3 penalty to a minimum of 1. If the result exceeds the AV the shot is a penetrating hit and thus roll on the chart below with no modifiers.

1: Crew shaken: Can only make snap shots and can not move for one turn.

2: Immobilized: The vehicle can no longer move or make jink saves for the rest of the game.

3: Weapon destroyed: One randomly determined weapon is destroyed and can no longer be used.

4+: Knocked out. The vehicle is destroyed. All passengers if any must make a emergency disembarkation.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Take a look at bolt action's system for vehicle damage. Yours is very similiar but I prefer BA's because it is much simpler.

Upon a successful hit roll a D6 and add the weapons strength. Compare it to the armor of the vehicle. If the result is less than the AV, nothing happens. If it is equal it is a glancing hit. Roll on the chart below with a -3 penalty to a minimum of 1. If the result exceeds the AV the shot is a penetrating hit and thus roll on the chart below with no modifiers.

1: Crew shaken: Can only make snap shots and can not move for one turn.

2: Immobilized: The vehicle can no longer move or make jink saves for the rest of the game.

3: Weapon destroyed: One randomly determined weapon is destroyed and can no longer be used.

4+: Knocked out. The vehicle is destroyed. All passengers if any must make a emergency disembarkation.

I like this. It means my Fire Dragons can still destroy a vehicle on a glancing hit.

The problem with that and also with the minimum of 1 thing is that it is a glancing hit . If the shot (barely) glanced off the armor, how is the tank wrecked?

And how come there is a 0% chance for the tank to be even a bit safe from it?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem with that and also with the minimum of 1 thing is that it is a glancing hit . If the shot (barely) glanced off the armor, how is the tank wrecked?

And how come there is a 0% chance for the tank to be even a bit safe from it?

If the problem is the glancing hits one solution could be to switch up glancing and penetrating.
For example:

Glancing hit
If a glancing hit was scored, roll a d6 with no modifiers on the vehicle damage table and apply the results.

Penetrating hit
If a penetrating hit is scored the vehicle loses 1 hull point and makes a roll on the vehicle damage table, applying any modifiers.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

For example, a Rhino is basically toughness 7 (11-4) which means Autocannons "wound" it on 4+ and Lascannons on a 2+, both of which are true about the AV.

However, the Rhino only has 3 hull points ("wounds) and no armour save, so while a Carnifex might get a 3+ against an autocannon, the Rhino gets jack squat. The Carnifex also has more wounds.

Not this conversation again, please. A Rhino costs 35 pts, a Carnifex costs 120 without ranged weapons of any kind. Did you factor this in in your comparison? A Rhino can also carry people inside, move much much faster than a Carnifex (12" move + flat out), costs no slot, can be super scoring, does not care about leadership, doesn't get slowed etc etc etc. A 3 wound T7 no save monster that can carry people and costs 35 pts is a good deal. If I had such a thing in Tyranids I would play it every single time, promise. Do you really want the rhino to get a 4+ save and cost 35 pts? Really?

And this thread has been opened 50 times already. Tanks die easily, we know. It's their turn I guess, like they were unkillable two editions before that. Give all the vehicles and walkers one more hull point base and an option to purchase one more for X points. Problem solved. Your average rhino has 4 hull points and lasts 25% longer, or you can pay an extra X and make it into a 5 hull point powerhouse. Tada.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

For example, a Rhino is basically toughness 7 (11-4) which means Autocannons "wound" it on 4+ and Lascannons on a 2+, both of which are true about the AV.

However, the Rhino only has 3 hull points ("wounds) and no armour save, so while a Carnifex might get a 3+ against an autocannon, the Rhino gets jack squat. The Carnifex also has more wounds.

Not this conversation again, please. A Rhino costs 35 pts, a Carnifex costs 120 without ranged weapons of any kind. Did you factor this in in your comparison? A Rhino can also carry people inside, move much much faster than a Carnifex (12" move + flat out), costs no slot, can be super scoring, does not care about leadership, doesn't get slowed etc etc etc. A 3 wound T7 no save monster that can carry people and costs 35 pts is a good deal. If I had such a thing in Tyranids I would play it every single time, promise. Do you really want the rhino to get a 4+ save and cost 35 pts? Really?

And this thread has been opened 50 times already. Tanks die easily, we know. It's their turn I guess, like they were unkillable two editions before that. Give all the vehicles and walkers one more hull point base and an option to purchase one more for X points. Problem solved. Your average rhino has 4 hull points and lasts 25% longer, or you can pay an extra X and make it into a 5 hull point powerhouse. Tada.

The original Big Squiggoth was 50 points and it has a save. You also need to remember that a Rhino cant fight back. Also we dont care about the Rhino being durable, this is trying to make Land Raiders and Leman Russ' not explode when someone glares at them.

14 AV vehicles do not explode when someone glares at them. They do explode when 4-5 meltaguns manage to get within 6", and that's your fault for allowing, not the game's. And inb4 to "but deepstrike", blitzkrieg. Not every army has access to ap1/ap2 weapons and if they do they pay good points to be able to have a chance to kill land raiders, such as you pay good points to have a tank that's silly durable. If exploding is the problem, then we have to disagree 100%, exploding a vehicle is pretty good as it is. If the problem is wrecking, I offered a solution to my post. 1 more hull point for free and 1 more if you pay points. Enjoy your immortal 6 HP land raider.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

For example, a Rhino is basically toughness 7 (11-4) which means Autocannons "wound" it on 4+ and Lascannons on a 2+, both of which are true about the AV.

However, the Rhino only has 3 hull points ("wounds) and no armour save, so while a Carnifex might get a 3+ against an autocannon, the Rhino gets jack squat. The Carnifex also has more wounds.

Not this conversation again, please. A Rhino costs 35 pts, a Carnifex costs 120 without ranged weapons of any kind. Did you factor this in in your comparison? A Rhino can also carry people inside, move much much faster than a Carnifex (12" move + flat out), costs no slot, can be super scoring, does not care about leadership, doesn't get slowed etc etc etc. A 3 wound T7 no save monster that can carry people and costs 35 pts is a good deal. If I had such a thing in Tyranids I would play it every single time, promise. Do you really want the rhino to get a 4+ save and cost 35 pts? Really?

And this thread has been opened 50 times already. Tanks die easily, we know. It's their turn I guess, like they were unkillable two editions before that. Give all the vehicles and walkers one more hull point base and an option to purchase one more for X points. Problem solved. Your average rhino has 4 hull points and lasts 25% longer, or you can pay an extra X and make it into a 5 hull point powerhouse. Tada.

Shall we compare a Walkrant to a Leman Russ Punisher then?

For example, a Leman Russ Punisher is basically toughness 10 (14-4) which means Manticore Storm Eagle Missiles "wound" it on 4+ and Lascannons on a 5+, both of which are true about the AV.

However, the Leman Russ Punisher only has 3 hull points ("wounds") and no armour save, so while a Walkrant will get a 3+ against a Manticore Storm Eagle missile, the Leman Russ Punisher gets jack squat. The Walkrant also has more wounds.

Other reasons:
The Walkrant can claim a save simply for being in cover - no need for obscurement.

The Walkrant can see through 360 degrees for shooting all of its guns.

The Walkrant can fight back in close combat.

The Walkrant is unaffected by being shot - whereas the Leman Russ could be stunned-immobilized-shaken-whatever, the Walkrant can simply go about its business after being Storm Eagle Missiled in the face. This is in addition to hull points.

Also, walkrants and the Leman Russ Punisher move at the same speed, except that the walkrant can charge and so is arguably faster.

There, happy?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

For example, a Rhino is basically toughness 7 (11-4) which means Autocannons "wound" it on 4+ and Lascannons on a 2+, both of which are true about the AV.

However, the Rhino only has 3 hull points ("wounds) and no armour save, so while a Carnifex might get a 3+ against an autocannon, the Rhino gets jack squat. The Carnifex also has more wounds.

Not this conversation again, please. A Rhino costs 35 pts, a Carnifex costs 120 without ranged weapons of any kind. Did you factor this in in your comparison? A Rhino can also carry people inside, move much much faster than a Carnifex (12" move + flat out), costs no slot, can be super scoring, does not care about leadership, doesn't get slowed etc etc etc. A 3 wound T7 no save monster that can carry people and costs 35 pts is a good deal. If I had such a thing in Tyranids I would play it every single time, promise. Do you really want the rhino to get a 4+ save and cost 35 pts? Really?

And this thread has been opened 50 times already. Tanks die easily, we know. It's their turn I guess, like they were unkillable two editions before that. Give all the vehicles and walkers one more hull point base and an option to purchase one more for X points. Problem solved. Your average rhino has 4 hull points and lasts 25% longer, or you can pay an extra X and make it into a 5 hull point powerhouse. Tada.

Shall we compare a Walkrant to a Leman Russ Punisher then?

For example, a Leman Russ Punisher is basically toughness 10 (14-4) which means Manticore Storm Eagle Missiles "wound" it on 4+ and Lascannons on a 5+, both of which are true about the AV.

However, the Leman Russ Punisher only has 3 hull points ("wounds") and no armour save, so while a Walkrant will get a 3+ against a Manticore Storm Eagle missile, the Leman Russ Punisher gets jack squat. The Walkrant also has more wounds.

Other reasons:
The Walkrant can claim a save simply for being in cover - no need for obscurement.

The Walkrant can see through 360 degrees for shooting all of its guns.

The Walkrant can fight back in close combat.

The Walkrant is unaffected by being shot - whereas the Leman Russ could be stunned-immobilized-shaken-whatever, the Walkrant can simply go about its business after being Storm Eagle Missiled in the face. This is in addition to hull points.

Also, walkrants and the Leman Russ Punisher move at the same speed, except that the walkrant can charge and so is arguably faster.

There, happy?

No, not quite. Because a Leman Russ does things by fielding it to the table (it fething shoots at stuff) while a walkrant does absolutely nothing until it gets into hth with its movement of 6. Which practically means it does nothing in the game whatsoever, because everything can outrun a 6" moving MC.

A Leman russ can still fire its main weapon at 360" and it can pivot on the spot and count as not having moved, so it can effectively fire all its weapons at 360" if it so wishes, albeit at the cost of its effective toughness. Rear armor on vehicles is something that needs attention, I will give you that one. The armor save on the walkrant is all but irrelevant since the only thing it is stopping is autocannons, and how ofter do you see those around? Yeah armor stops assault cannons and heavy bolters, but guess what? These can't even hurt a leman russ in the first place. Against krak missiles, lascannons, plasma guns the Leman Russ is better by virtue of having effective Toughness 10. Against grav the Leman russ is infinitely better by being wounded on a 6+ rather than a 3+. Only thing that a Walkrant is better against is the short range meltagun, and that's because melta is specifically designed to be anti-vehicle. Yes a vehicle is susceptible to haywire. So a tyrant is to Instant Death. Yes haywire is more common than ID. Still not enough to guarantee a point.

At lesser points, a Tyrant can only get 2 ranged weapons, and if it does they are extremely short ranged (18"), longer range weapons like heavy venom cannons you can have only one. A Leman russ tank commander can have an adorable 29 attacks by virtue of having more long ranged weapons. The Tyrant can fight back in combat, the Leman russ can disengage from Combat. It also cannot be tarpitted or cornered etc etc etc.

Really we have done this discussion a million times. I absolutely agree that 3 hull points is too few. I said so 2 times before in this very page. I also think that tanks that are not transports should not have AV 10 in any facing. AV 10 means soft points like door joints and fire points, tanks that don't get people inside should have a minimum AV of 11, this would fix a hell lot of problems. Still the fact is that MC's and vehicles are two different things and cannot be compared.

I half way wonder what would happen if you made it so that in order to glance vehicles you had to get +1 higher than the AV value, and a 2 higher to pen.

What do you think? Would vehicles be TOO strong then?

Aren't Storm Eaglie Missiles Barrage, and thus hitting side armour?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Aren't Storm Eaglie Missiles Barrage, and thus hitting side armour?

Right, good point. So the LRBT is T9 and still not getting a save, while the walk rant doesn't have armor facings.

Also, the Russ moves 6" with a 24" gun and the walk rant moves 6" with an 18" pair of guns.

And if you think the Russ is better at shooting, just wait until you compare the two in close combat! It is almost like the Russ isn't even there!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Aren't Storm Eaglie Missiles Barrage, and thus hitting side armour?

Right, good point. So the LRBT is T9 and still not getting a save, while the walk rant doesn't have armor facings.

Also, the Russ moves 6" with a 24" gun and the walk rant moves 6" with an 18" pair of guns.

And if you think the Russ is better at shooting, just wait until you compare the two in close combat! It is almost like the Russ isn't even there!

On a funny side, the walkrant isn't even there either when it comes to hth. It is dead 20" behind.

Are you really comparing these two based on getting hit by one single type of weapon and ignoring all the others?

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Aren't Storm Eaglie Missiles Barrage, and thus hitting side armour?

Right, good point. So the LRBT is T9 and still not getting a save, while the walk rant doesn't have armor facings.

Also, the Russ moves 6" with a 24" gun and the walk rant moves 6" with an 18" pair of guns.

And if you think the Russ is better at shooting, just wait until you compare the two in close combat! It is almost like the Russ isn't even there!

On a funny side, the walkrant isn't even there either when it comes to hth. It is dead 20" behind.

Are you really comparing these two based on getting hit by one single type of weapon and ignoring all the others?

No, I am giving examples. I don't have the time to lead you through every single weapon type to the inevitable conclusion.

And don't say that Walkrants are "vulnerable to bolters and other small arms, while the LRBT isn't".

It takes 144 lasgun shots from guardsmen to kill it, or 108 bolter shots from marines. That's hardly "vulnerable".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Aren't Storm Eaglie Missiles Barrage, and thus hitting side armour?

Right, good point. So the LRBT is T9 and still not getting a save, while the walk rant doesn't have armor facings.

Also, the Russ moves 6" with a 24" gun and the walk rant moves 6" with an 18" pair of guns.

And if you think the Russ is better at shooting, just wait until you compare the two in close combat! It is almost like the Russ isn't even there!

On a funny side, the walkrant isn't even there either when it comes to hth. It is dead 20" behind.

Are you really comparing these two based on getting hit by one single type of weapon and ignoring all the others?

No, I am giving examples. I don't have the time to lead you through every single weapon type to the inevitable conclusion.

And don't say that Walkrants are "vulnerable to bolters and other small arms, while the LRBT isn't".

It takes 144 lasgun shots from guardsmen to kill it, or 108 bolter shots from marines. That's hardly "vulnerable".

Well I did take the time to lead against the most common weapons out there. You elected to ignore the inevitable (indeed) conclusion.

Tyrants are way more vulnerable than something that is immune to said lasgun or bolter shots, I trust you can understand that much.

"Tyrants are way more"

If the game went 20 turns, maybe. They are NOT vulnerable over the course of a five turn game.

Martel732 wrote:
"Tyrants are way more"

If the game went 20 turns, maybe. They are NOT vulnerable over the course of a five turn game.

Jesus are people in here 12 or something? A unit that CAN be hurt by a bolter is a MORE SUSCEPTIBLE unit against bolters compared to a unit that CANNOT be hurt from bolters.

Seriously, how difficult can it be to read a WHOLE statement and not parts of it?

It's not more susceptible in a meaningful way. What you say is strictly true, but for all practical statistical purposes, the MC in question is not vulnerable to bolters or lasguns any more than the Leman Russ is. This, by the way, is the problem with MCs in a nutshell. A 5.5% chance of clearing a wound AFTER to hit against a 3+ armor MC is not by any reasonable definition "vulnerable". Nor is it useful on the timescale of a match.

Indeed, the difference is negligible in a 7 turn game. Saying that a Hive Tyrant is more vulnerable to bolters is like saying that a Leman Russ is more vulnerable to Dangerous Terrain checks, which is also strictly true (in that it has to take them) but is basically irrelevant.