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.

How has the FAQ restriction limiting the use of grenades in the assault phase to one grenade per unit affected vehicles in your gaming metas?

Has it changed your perception of how fragile vehicles are?

It hasn't really changed mine, because I already was playing it that way.

It's a very, very slight boost to vehicle survivability... But for the most part, being assaulted with grenades is a long way from being the biggest threat to most vehicles... Mine generally die to being glanced to death by ranged attacks long before anyone bothers assaulting them.

Dying to krak and melta in assault was the least of the problems with vehicles.

No because nobody plays with drafted rules where I am.

Shouldn't the poll have an option for "No, they're just as durable as before" or at least have an option that sounds less like it's you making another poll for the sake of data/weird justification of beliefs.

pm713 wrote:
No because nobody plays with drafted rules.

Shouldn't the poll have an option for "No, they're just as durable as before" or at least have an option that sounds less like it's you making another poll for the sake of data/weird justification of beliefs.

That poll option is virtually equivalent to the second poll option from the top. "Just as durable" isn't really different from "just as fragile." At that point, you're just arguing semantics. Both mean the same thing: "Nothing has changed."

I've never actually had my tanks assaulted before, so that rule does squat for me.

Since everyone around here has always used the single grenade rule...nobody even uses grenades. There's far better options than trying to single grenade a tank to death.

I've been trying out the FAQ a bit and the rule has made Warp Hunters a bit more durable in the games played. But, it is not really done in a vacuum as the rest of the Eldar needs to be considered. Prior to the FAQ, trying to get in with those vehicles to assault them was generally how they went down (as a ton of shooting got directed at a Wraithknight).

I think a lot of this durability also lies with adjusting new strategies and army list tweaks to accamodate the changes.

pm713 wrote:
No because nobody plays with drafted rules.

Well that's a false statement right there.

But while they got SLIGHTLY beefier in practice the difference is fairly minimal. CC is smallest tank killer and most of CC tank busting comes from S8+ attacks anyway so...

pm713 wrote:
No because nobody plays with drafted rules.

Shouldn't the poll have an option for "No, they're just as durable as before" or at least have an option that sounds less like it's you making another poll for the sake of data/weird justification of beliefs.

We use all the drafted rules, because like winter, they are coming.

tneva82 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
No because nobody plays with drafted rules.

Well that's a false statement right there.

But while they got SLIGHTLY beefier in practice the difference is fairly minimal. CC is smallest tank killer and most of CC tank busting comes from S8+ attacks anyway so...

How so?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
No because nobody plays with drafted rules.

Shouldn't the poll have an option for "No, they're just as durable as before" or at least have an option that sounds less like it's you making another poll for the sake of data/weird justification of beliefs.

We use all the drafted rules, because like winter, they are coming.

But not necessarily as they are now.

They're more durable, but not in a way that really matters.

It's nice to not get grenaded to death, but they weren't the problem, mid Str spam guns were (Scatter lasers, autocannons, etc.) as is haywire spam and grav spam to an extent.

That said this change will force me to include more ranged anti-tank in my planned Black Templar list since Crusader Squads now are mostly useless against all but the lightest vehicles in melee (Still going to put melta bombs on my Sword Brothers though as an insurance policy in the worst-case scenario).

At the same time though, Dreads and VenDreads are happy. Models with Krak Grenades can't do jack to them without other heavier hitting non-grenade weapons and units with them can't use the 'our weapons are useless' rule to fall back.

pm713 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
No because nobody plays with drafted rules.

Well that's a false statement right there.

But while they got SLIGHTLY beefier in practice the difference is fairly minimal. CC is smallest tank killer and most of CC tank busting comes from S8+ attacks anyway so...

How so?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
No because nobody plays with drafted rules.

Shouldn't the poll have an option for "No, they're just as durable as before" or at least have an option that sounds less like it's you making another poll for the sake of data/weird justification of beliefs.

We use all the drafted rules, because like winter, they are coming.

But not necessarily as they are now.

It's a false statement because you said that nobody uses the drafted rules, which is false.

 Ignatius wrote:

pm713 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
No because nobody plays with drafted rules.

Well that's a false statement right there.

But while they got SLIGHTLY beefier in practice the difference is fairly minimal. CC is smallest tank killer and most of CC tank busting comes from S8+ attacks anyway so...

How so?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
No because nobody plays with drafted rules.

Shouldn't the poll have an option for "No, they're just as durable as before" or at least have an option that sounds less like it's you making another poll for the sake of data/weird justification of beliefs.

We use all the drafted rules, because like winter, they are coming.

But not necessarily as they are now.

It's a false statement because you said that nobody uses the drafted rules, which is false.

Oh! I need to fix that. I meant nobody where I am uses them.

They still die from Necrons, Tau, Eldar and SM ranged attacks.

They no longer die from Ork, AM, Inq and Dark eldar close combat tricks..

Na I don't see the "fix" really

It could have been a boost to the survivability of vehicles. If vehicles would have been able to survive long enough to be assaulted that is

All it did was make Monstrous Creatures more durable.

a change to hull points would have been more welcome, along the lines of making only penning hits stripping hull points.

 carldooley wrote:
a change to hull points would have been more welcome, along the lines of making only penning hits stripping hull points.

Well since Glances only do that. what does it get to do now?

 CrownAxe wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
a change to hull points would have been more welcome, along the lines of making only penning hits stripping hull points.

Well since Glances only do that. what does it get to do now?

wait, what?

 carldooley wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
a change to hull points would have been more welcome, along the lines of making only penning hits stripping hull points.

Well since Glances only do that. what does it get to do now?

wait, what?

Glanceing hits only strip hull points. If you remove that from glances what will they do

I've only noticed a slight change in durability for my tanks, most of the time my Russes are just shot to death by massed drop melta or something like that. It's a rare day that my vehicles get assaulted now.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
All it did was make Monstrous Creatures more durable.

Since there are no 4+ armor MCs, krak grenades weren't killing them anyway.

The problem is that grenades never WERE the biggest threat to vehicles, and all the FAQ is doing with that ruling (assuming it sticks in the final version) is taking away some of the niche AT answers (such as EMP grenades turning useless) and forcing people to opt even further into the same old S7 shot spam.

From my experience and from theory-crafting, this change is most noticeable for the casual crowd, and least noticeable for the competitive crowd. The competitive scene is such that you're only in close combat if your stuff is instantly slaughtering anything that's not a death-star unit.

However, in the casual scene, having to deal with unorthodox units with unorthodox tactics is far more common, and sometimes you need a unit that's poorly equipped to take on a specific enemy be thrust into a situation that they have to do exactly that. This used to mean vehicles were very scared to get close to ANY enemies, but now vehicles don't fear that as much.

Biggest change for me has been the survivability of Dreadnaught-type units. Literally any enemy unit could kill them before, but now they're a lot tougher, which feels much better.

The change is nice in that vehicles arent auto killed as soon as something makes it into base contact, but feels like the wrong way to fix that, and I dont think helping vehicles was the intention. I found it has made a notable difference however against opponents that relied on such and my own CSM army in some instances.