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.

Posted in General due to the Poll. What are peoples thoughts on the current Vehicle rules?


Its beginning to feel that vehicles are more... unstable death traps, than the armored behemoths many of them are meant to represent. A single well placed shot will destroy any model marked as a vehicle (few getting a save). While other models of similar construction that are marked as a creature, can only be killed in a single blow due to weapons with limited availability. While often still receiving some sort of save against them. At least more easily gaining saves than a vehicle does.

-Landraider, best armor in the game, can die to single melta shot. Hard to gain a save.
-Captain on a bike, multiple save options vs melta (invuln, cover, look out sir, FNP), cannot die to a single melta shot.

Rule to model, Games workshop has no consistent adherence to what is, or is not, a vehicle. Choosing rules that are convenient for trying to sell the models (as creatures are more competitive) and break the atmosphere of the game.

Some models that should have been creatures, are instead listed as vehicles, and models that are obviously vehicles, are listed as creatures.

(Some of the following mentioned for comparison reasons. )

Creatures, Not Vehicles.
-Wraithlord, Mechanical construct, No organic components, possessed by a ghost.
-Wraithknight, Mechanical construct, no organic components. a single organic pilot.
-Riptide, Mechanical construct, no organic components. a single organic pilot.
-Stormsurge, Mechanical construct, no organic components. Two organic pilots, horribly exposed.
-Ghostkeel, Mechanical construct, no organic components. a single organic pilot.
-Crisus suits, Mechanical construct, no organic components. a single organic pilot.
-Dread knight, Mechanical construct, no organic components. a single organic pilot, strapped to the front and very exposed.


Vehicles
-Soul Grinder. Literally half a fleshy daemon on top of metal legs.
-Mauler Fiend / Forgefiend / blood slaughter / etc, metal and flesh interwoven into a hungry raging entity.
-Dreadnaught, Mechanical construct, no organic components. a single organic pilot.
-Imperial Knight, Mechanical construct, no organic components. a single organic pilot.
-Gork/Morkanaught, Mechanical construct, Though multiple organics repairing and operating.
-Stompa, Mechanical construct, Though multiple organics repairing and operating.
-Bass Scorpion, Mechanical construct, with dozens of organic creatures woven into its structure, most of them still screaming.
-Penitent Engine, Mechanical construct, no organic components. a single organic pilot, strapped to the front and very exposed. (see dread knight)

It is my opinion that Warhammer 40k should do away with Armor value and facing on vehicles. Instead opting to turn Vehicle into a creature type.
Melta, lance, and other such weapons, could get a reroll to wound on models listed as Vehicle. While also enabling Vehicles to no longer die to a single blow.

Vehicles would have a Toughness value. Based on what it currently takes to damage them. As well as being able to use the Saves to adjust for quality of armor, rear armor, and open topped. These values would be easier to dial in for over all performance on the table, rather then how they would perform due to facing (vs high mobility armies or not) and lucky rolls.

-examples
Landraider T: 10 Sv: 2+
Leman Russ: T: 9 SV 3+
Rhino T: 7 Sv: 3+
Sentinal T: 6 SV 5+ (open topped) 3+ (armored)

No more needing to track which weapons broke. No more having to determine armor facing for enemy shooting (so three models hits the side, the other five the front, and coin flip for the two in the middle?).

Get rid of shaken and stuns. As it makes more sense for a infantry to be shaken by a grenade blast, than it does for a driver in a sci-fi era armored killing machine.
Remove "Explodes" results (though super heavies could keep the melt down on death thing I guess) . As infantry walking out of a crater, that was once their transport, has always been odd. And no more having to measure for each model hit by debris.

I agree most of the rules don't make any sense. I also dislike being able to blow a Vindicator up with my S10 AP1 weapon, while I'd need 6-7 successful wounds on a Wraithknight to bring it down (if he doesn't save it with his Inv or... Feel No Pain). There's not any real advantage to fielding vehicles compared to MCs. Maybe not being able to be wounded by poisoned weaponry... you can't field a vehicle without having its weapon blown off or an immobilised result. Meanwhile, MCs just go their way full weapons style and shrug off all of your heavy fire.

I think there still needs to be vehicle rules for a bit of realism, but then don't make them so flimsy. Maybe make vehicles impervious to weapons not dedicated to anti-armour duty ? I'm not really a boss when it comes to writing rules so I can't really help, just express my concern like you do.

They're just really weird in the context of the rest of the game, besides that they're the only thing that gets crit damage (i.e. penetrating hits).

I'd say give them a regular profile, and make several keywords to cover any number of exceptions and classify bonuses/penalties.

It's one of a few reasons why a radical edition change could be good.

I'm a big proponent for exchanging AV with T values and removing entirely the Vehicle Damage Table (potentially replaceable with something like AoS's table, which reduces large creature effectiveness as they take more and more wounds), for consistency across the board and to lift the veil of confusion that the AV/T distinction brings.

I'm not yet convinced on whether facings should be removed entirely (It is nifty, for such large targets, to have more and less vulnerable places to aim for - in your proposed example, a Leman Russ would no longer match a Land Raider when shot from the front, and I could even see extending that to some or all MC/GMC rather than removing it entirely). I'm also not convinced that we should get rid of the Vehicle type entirely either (though I could be - it's really a question of whether we want to keep special rules like Ramming and Tank Shock, and if so, how they would be distributed), or whether mostly-mechanical models would just have something like a "Mecha" subtype to provide the usual immunities/vulnerabilities to the likes of Poison, Fleshbane, Monster Hunter, Armorbane, Tank Hunter, Haywire, etc.

I think the vehicle unit type should stick around. Just get rid of all the vehicles rules and redo them from scratch.

Personally I think instant-kill mechanisms in general need a rethink, whether it's ID on non-vehicle models, the D table, and the Explodes! result. If you didn't have the possibility of anomalous one-shot kills most vehicles would feel fine either as-is, or with an extra hull point or point of AV somewhere.

 Igenstilch wrote:
Posted in General due to the Poll. What are peoples thoughts on the current Vehicle rules?
Creatures, Not Vehicles.
-Wraithlord, Mechanical construct, No organic components, possessed by a ghost.
-Wraithknight, Mechanical construct, no organic components. a single organic pilot.

These are made from Wraithbone which is an organic material

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Personally I think instant-kill mechanisms in general need a rethink, whether it's ID on non-vehicle models, the D table, and the Explodes! result. If you didn't have the possibility of anomalous one-shot kills most vehicles would feel fine either as-is, or with an extra hull point or point of AV somewhere.

Yeah, Instant death and Explodes suck.
The Explodes should work similar to how superheavies do, when they lose their last HP have them roll on a chart to see if they explode and scatter the large blast template if they do.

The only other issue I find with vehicles is Glances are too powerful, and (non-walker) vehicles being hit so easily in close combat regardless of how fast they have been moving.

GodDamUser wrote:

 Igenstilch wrote:
Posted in General due to the Poll. What are peoples thoughts on the current Vehicle rules?
Creatures, Not Vehicles.
-Wraithlord, Mechanical construct, No organic components, possessed by a ghost.
-Wraithknight, Mechanical construct, no organic components. a single organic pilot.

These are made from Wraithbone which is an organic material

That's fine, just pay for all the benefits of gmc. 425 sounds about right.

These are made from Wraithbone which is an organic material

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Wraithbone
"Wraithbone... It is a form of crystallized psychic energy that can exist as a solid in realspace "

Which seems to have more in common with quarts, than with bone. While Wraithbone can grow and repair like some crystalline structures have been proven to do. It is not, in of itself, classified as living nor organic.

Though knowing GW ret-con, there may be a newer source that redefines the material. I do not own the new Eldar codex.

AnomanderRake wrote:Personally I think instant-kill mechanisms in general need a rethink, whether it's ID on non-vehicle models, the D table, and the Explodes! result. If you didn't have the possibility of anomalous one-shot kills most vehicles would feel fine either as-is, or with an extra hull point or point of AV somewhere.

This sums up one of the biggest things that annoys me about vehicles, especially when I'm taking my lovely, lovely Land Raider Crusader. On more than one occasion, I've had it exploded by something like a Space Marine Attack Bike w/ Multi-Melta with just one Penetrating Hit. It should not be so easy to Explode! a 250-Point vehicle with something that costs less than half of the Land Raider Crusader's points. I think the other problem is that it seems to be normal for people to think that the capabilities of weapons with the Melta Special Rule and what not is normal when I think they're at least mildly over-powered. A Melta Weapon should not be able to One-Shot a Land Raider; a single salvo of Grav Shots should not be able to Immobilise a vehicle to death. Yes, weapons designed to destroy vehicles should have an easier time doing it compared to their counter-parts, but that doesn't mean it should be easy for them.

Jbz` wrote:The only other issue I find with vehicles is Glances are too powerful, and (non-walker) vehicles being hit so easily in close combat regardless of how fast they have been moving.

And this is part of why the Proposed Rules Sub-Forum is filled with many ideas (including a few of my own ) about Vehicle Saves, exchanging Armour Values for Toughness, changing the mechanics of Glancing Hits and Penetrating Hits, changing the Vehicle Damage Table, etc etc etc. For example, I tried to come up with a solution that would solve the problems pertaining to Glancing Hits.

Nope vehicles are fun rules, if I had to change something it would be:
- Adding movement arc similar to flyers but more manoeuvrable to ground vehicles.
- Nefring most high rate of fire anti vehicles guns.
- Increasing moment speed of most walkers
- making all piloted "monsters" walkers
- Make bikes light vehicles and jet bikes light skimmers
- kill off jink and all their shenanigans, and come up with a decent vehicle cover saves system.

Voted to re-do them, Give them toughness, wounds ("damage points") and an AoS style degrading profile, give them a save and open the toughness chart to go above 10, ditto the strength chart above 10 - use that for 'tank' type weapons and armour.

Throw in a 'size' modifier which is used to modify the 'to hit' roll or BS of the shooter (so a big thing is easier to hit than a small thing).

But basically integrate them into the main rules, not this separate system.

Bring back weapons that can do multiple wound.

As with most elements of the game that need to be severely redesigned, Sigmarize it.

Right now, vehicles play an entirely different game with an entirely different set of rules (with even more sub-games within each subclass of vehicle type). Not only does this make it nearly impossible to balance in any meaningful way, but it adds yet another layer of rules to a horrifically bloated mess of a 'game.'

Make vehicles and monstrous creatures function like behemoths from Sigmar, with depreciating abilities based on the amount of wounds suffered. That's more than half of the problem solved right there.

For the rest (movement, attacking), you could easily solve that with a Sigmarized stat profile for movement and each individual weapon.

Basically, Sigmar is a good game, 40k isn't. Make it more like Sigmar.

It is time to abandon the idea of a super badass vehicle that is the core of the army. Low-mid AV vehicles spam works very well.

In fact one of the most competitive lists in the entire 40k is SM with the gladius formation. But some other armies work only with vehicles, DE and Orks for example without transports would be tabled turn 3 no matter what you bring.

One or two big metal boxes don't work with the current meta if we consider competitive levels.

The real issue with vehicles is that many people compares them to some of the MCs that are the best units in 40k and wants to make their big tanks as effective as those nasty guys. Or maybe they have other options that work better or a codex in which nothing works.

Transports works great, gunships do not.

 Blackie wrote:
Transports works great, gunships do not.

And this is a huge problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IllumiNini wrote:
This sums up one of the biggest things that annoys me about vehicles, especially when I'm taking my lovely, lovely Land Raider Crusader. On more than one occasion, I've had it exploded by something like a Space Marine Attack Bike w/ Multi-Melta with just one Penetrating Hit. It should not be so easy to Explode! a 250-Point vehicle with something that costs less than half of the Land Raider Crusader's points. I think the other problem is that it seems to be normal for people to think that the capabilities of weapons with the Melta Special Rule and what not is normal when I think they're at least mildly over-powered. A Melta Weapon should not be able to One-Shot a Land Raider; a single salvo of Grav Shots should not be able to Immobilise a vehicle to death. Yes, weapons designed to destroy vehicles should have an easier time doing it compared to their counter-parts, but that doesn't mean it should be easy for them.

Strongly disagree. You should be able to one-shot a vehicle, just like real-world weapons can one-shot a vehicle. The issue here is not that anti-tank units are too good at doing their job, it's that MCs don't suffer similar damage. A multi-melta hit to a tank's stored ammo/fuel/etc should be a one-shot kill, but that multi-melta should also be able to blow a leg off an MC for a similar one-shot kill. No more of this nonsense where multi-wound models fight at full effectiveness up until their last wound is taken off and then fall over dead. Give MCs a damage table like vehicles and the problem is solved.

 Peregrine wrote:

And this is a huge problem.

Only for some armies that probably don't need them even if they were good. Only AM is really badly affected by this. But I'm a fan of the MSU style and totally dislike huge and expensive toys, so I'm ok with the current state of things. But I know that many people have a different perspective and I totally respect it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Give MCs a damage table like vehicles and the problem is solved.

Or give them an appropriate points value. MCs are not an issue for their rules, the problem is that some of them are absolutely overpowered and underpriced. Make the WK 600-700 points and the riptides 450 points. Problem solved without changing a single rule. But I agree that maybe they can be fixed even with some different rule too.

" is that some of them"

Some of them? The lowliest of the low get AP2 at initiative.

Vehicle rules should stay. Only the explode result should be reworked into something like "vehicle loses D3 hullpoints instead of one, if these would have been the final hullpoints then the vehicle would explode"
And ofcourse MC who look like walkers should be walkers.

Dear god no. Give MCs degradation like AoS, OR a damage table. A points bump to 450 would make Riptides worthless. 700 pts is massively overkill for Wraithknights.

 Peregrine wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
This sums up one of the biggest things that annoys me about vehicles, especially when I'm taking my lovely, lovely Land Raider Crusader. On more than one occasion, I've had it exploded by something like a Space Marine Attack Bike w/ Multi-Melta with just one Penetrating Hit. It should not be so easy to Explode! a 250-Point vehicle with something that costs less than half of the Land Raider Crusader's points. I think the other problem is that it seems to be normal for people to think that the capabilities of weapons with the Melta Special Rule and what not is normal when I think they're at least mildly over-powered. A Melta Weapon should not be able to One-Shot a Land Raider; a single salvo of Grav Shots should not be able to Immobilise a vehicle to death. Yes, weapons designed to destroy vehicles should have an easier time doing it compared to their counter-parts, but that doesn't mean it should be easy for them.

Strongly disagree. You should be able to one-shot a vehicle, just like real-world weapons can one-shot a vehicle. The issue here is not that anti-tank units are too good at doing their job, it's that MCs don't suffer similar damage. A multi-melta hit to a tank's stored ammo/fuel/etc should be a one-shot kill, but that multi-melta should also be able to blow a leg off an MC for a similar one-shot kill. No more of this nonsense where multi-wound models fight at full effectiveness up until their last wound is taken off and then fall over dead. Give MCs a damage table like vehicles and the problem is solved.

OK let's assume that a Melta Weapon should be able to one-shot a vehicle. So let's take the example of Multi-Melta on an Space Marine Attack Bike against the Land Raider:

Assuming it's in Metla Range, the likelihood of achieving an Explodes! Result (assuming no re-rolls) is 2/3 (To Hit) x 27/36 (Chance of Scoring a Pen) x 1/3 (Chance of Scoring an Explodes!) = 16.67%. Now this mathematically might sound relatively low, but when you consider that you are one-shoting a vehicle that in most situations will cost close to double (if not more) than the unit doing the shooting, that chance is quite high. And that's just for the Explodes! Result. If we try to account for the amount of damage a weapon with the Melta Special Rule can do within Melta Range, that number would be a lot higher. If these numbers were against the Armour Values in the bottom end of the AV spectrum, I would be OK with this, but this is against the highest Armour Value in the game. In short, the Melta Rule not only allows the weapon to do too much damage in Melta Range, but for me at least also exemplifies the relatively high amount of damage that many Anti-Vehicle weapons can do that needs to be toned down.

Then let's assume that it's outside of Metla Range. Being a Land Raider, it is impossible for the Multi-Melta to cause a Pen, but it still has an 11.11% chance of causing a Glancing Hit. Though argueable under-powered outside of Melta Range, I think this is a more fitting representation of what an anti-vehicle weapon should be able to do against the highest Armour Value in the game.


I also agree with the sentiment about MC's - There should be an equivalent punishment for MC's.

 Verviedi wrote:
Dear god no. Give MCs degradation like AoS, OR a damage table. A points bump to 450 would make Riptides worthless. 700 pts is massively overkill for Wraithknights.

More like 300 and 425 pts.

300 point Riptides are still worthless. Nerf the IA, nerf what's actually wrong with the Riptide. Don't just double the points out of nowhere.

 Blackie wrote:
Only for some armies that probably don't need them even if they were good. Only AM is really badly affected by this. But I'm a fan of the MSU style and totally dislike huge and expensive toys, so I'm ok with the current state of things. But I know that many people have a different perspective and I totally respect it.

Most armies have "gunboat" tanks, and those units should be viable. If they aren't then it's a problem, even of those armies have sufficiently powerful units elsewhere that can still win games.

Or give them an appropriate points value. MCs are not an issue for their rules, the problem is that some of them are absolutely overpowered and underpriced. Make the WK 600-700 points and the riptides 450 points. Problem solved without changing a single rule. But I agree that maybe they can be fixed even with some different rule too.

Or do both. They need a points nerf for balance reasons, and a damage table for fluff reasons.

 Verviedi wrote:
300 point Riptides are still worthless. Nerf the IA, nerf what's actually wrong with the Riptide. Don't just double the points out of nowhere.

You have to pay for immortality. It's more durable than a Warhound titan. That costs points. I'm tired of Tau players pretending it shouldn't.

Martel732 wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
300 point Riptides are still worthless. Nerf the IA, nerf what's actually wrong with the Riptide. Don't just double the points out of nowhere.

You have to pay for immortality. It's more durable than a Warhound titan. That costs points. I'm tired of Tau players pretending it shouldn't.

Wouldn't you know it, Tau players are tired of everyone else looking to make their units worthless, rather than merely appropriately costed.

Edit: No, this is not an invitation to derail this thread. This is not an "Are Riptides OP" thread.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
300 point Riptides are still worthless. Nerf the IA, nerf what's actually wrong with the Riptide. Don't just double the points out of nowhere.

You have to pay for immortality. It's more durable than a Warhound titan. That costs points. I'm tired of Tau players pretending it shouldn't.

Wouldn't you know it, Tau players are tired of everyone else looking to make their units worthless, rather than merely appropriately costed.

Problem is, 300 is appropriately costed for a stimtide. To be cheaper, it would have to be less durable. I basically have a whole codex of worthless units, so I'm not horribly sympathetic.

So nerf the durability. Despite the fact that you seem to want me to think Riptides are balanced, I don't. I'm just trying to show you that points increases aren't the end all be all.

Martel732 wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
300 point Riptides are still worthless. Nerf the IA, nerf what's actually wrong with the Riptide. Don't just double the points out of nowhere.

You have to pay for immortality. It's more durable than a Warhound titan. That costs points. I'm tired of Tau players pretending it shouldn't.

That's not remotely true.
A Warhound Titan cannot be killed by chaos cultists, a Riptide can.

It may be a bit cheaper than it should be but it isn't as invincible as people say it is (I say this fighting both with and against the things)


Anyway back to the topic There are parts of the vehicle rules that should be kept (virtual immunity to small arms) and parts that need to be altered (mainly probably armour saves to reduce how powerful high ROF high Str Ap 4+ is at glancing compared to the " traditional" anti-tank weapons (melta/Lascannon etc)

 Verviedi wrote:
So nerf the durability. Despite the fact that you seem to want me to think Riptides are balanced, I don't. I'm just trying to show you that points increases aren't the end all be all.

That's fine, too.