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.

Is it just me, or should all VEHICLE Keywords be able to move and fire HEAVY Weapons without penalty. I mean its a vehicle thats why its on there.

I think Vehicles and Monsters should have the ability to move and shoot all weapon types including heavy without a -1 penalty. They can ADVANCE and shoot Heavy weapons at a -1 penalty, but assault weapons would not get the -1. Getting penalized for shooting my main gun on my tank because i had to move to get LoS seems ridiculous.

Infantry/bikes/swarms would still suffer the normal -1 to hit for moving with heavy weapons like rules currently written.

Thoughts?

No, some vehicles should be largely stationary, like the Basilisk and standing still while firing should be rewarded, even for vehicles that are going to be moving most of the time, like the Vindicator. If your opponent stays within the 24" range of a Vindicator all game, they should suffer more damage than if they constantly stay 25+" away from the thing and force it to move.

 vict0988 wrote:
No, some vehicles should be largely stationary, like the Basilisk and standing still while firing should be rewarded, even for vehicles that are going to be moving most of the time, like the Vindicator. If your opponent stays within the 24" range of a Vindicator all game, they should suffer more damage than if they constantly stay 25+" away from the thing and force it to move.

Then just change the BS or the weapon profile.

The fact that a tank cant move wihtout the -1 is ridiculous. Same for like a Tau Riptide suit. Its already hitting on 4s and then it moves.

 Dynas wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
No, some vehicles should be largely stationary, like the Basilisk and standing still while firing should be rewarded, even for vehicles that are going to be moving most of the time, like the Vindicator. If your opponent stays within the 24" range of a Vindicator all game, they should suffer more damage than if they constantly stay 25+" away from the thing and force it to move.

Then just change the BS or the weapon profile.

The fact that a tank cant move wihtout the -1 is ridiculous. Same for like a Tau Riptide suit. Its already hitting on 4s and then it moves.

Why is it ridiculous that a unit is more accurate when stationary compared to when it is moving?

My suggestion would be that Vehicles do not suffer the -1 penalty with Heavy Weapons, so long as they have moved no further than half their movement stat that turn,

So a tank with a 10" move could move the full 10" and fire with the -1 penalty, or it could move up to 5" and fire with no penalty.

Maybe a biased opinion: I like that most of my vehicles suffer a to-hit penalty when they move BUT, I feel like a lot of eldar stuff should either ignore it or have the option to ignore it.

When my dreadnaughts move, I picture them having a tougher time landing a hit with a multi-melta than if they'd held still to aim. On a falcon or wraith lord, however, that feels out of character. Ditto on war walkers who take a to-hit penalty if you actually use the outflank rule built into their profile (which presumably contributes to their total cost).

Really, I'd be pretty happy if they just revised the Crystal Targeting Matrix to ignore the heavy weapon penalty against all targets rather than just the closest enemy unit.

Just add a 10 point option for most vehicles to take a weapon stabilizer system. IDF weapons shouldn’t get the a utility bu they don’t really need it either. For monsters call it synaptic compensation or something equally dumb. Honestly it should only be for turreted weapons but that would be a huge headache. For vehicles like the land raider, just replace PotMS with falling back and shooting or allowing it to move and then disembarking.

I do find it funny that havoks putting claws on their boots provide better stability than a tank. That absolutely makes sense

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
Just add a 10 point option for most vehicles to take a weapon stabilizer system. IDF weapons shouldn’t get the a utility bu they don’t really need it either. For monsters call it synaptic compensation or something equally dumb. Honestly it should only be for turreted weapons but that would be a huge headache. For vehicles like the land raider, just replace PotMS with falling back and shooting or allowing it to move and then disembarking.

I do find it funny that havoks putting claws on their boots provide better stability than a tank. That absolutely makes sense

Perhaps, maybe, just maybe, Havocs should not have gotten that ability.

 vict0988 wrote:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
Just add a 10 point option for most vehicles to take a weapon stabilizer system. IDF weapons shouldn’t get the a utility bu they don’t really need it either. For monsters call it synaptic compensation or something equally dumb. Honestly it should only be for turreted weapons but that would be a huge headache. For vehicles like the land raider, just replace PotMS with falling back and shooting or allowing it to move and then disembarking.

I do find it funny that havoks putting claws on their boots provide better stability than a tank. That absolutely makes sense

Perhaps, maybe, just maybe, Havocs should not have gotten that ability.

Indeed. I don't think this sort of perpetual escalation is good for the game.

 vipoid wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
Just add a 10 point option for most vehicles to take a weapon stabilizer system. IDF weapons shouldn’t get the a utility bu they don’t really need it either. For monsters call it synaptic compensation or something equally dumb. Honestly it should only be for turreted weapons but that would be a huge headache. For vehicles like the land raider, just replace PotMS with falling back and shooting or allowing it to move and then disembarking.

I do find it funny that havoks putting claws on their boots provide better stability than a tank. That absolutely makes sense

Perhaps, maybe, just maybe, Havocs should not have gotten that ability.

Indeed. I don't think this sort of perpetual escalation is good for the game.

It is crazy though that almost every single tank in the 41st millennia lacks a feature that has been common since the 1940s. I’m all for havoks losing that ability but the trade off between vehicle and infantry heavy weapons should be that infantry ones are easier to hide in terrain and vehicle ones are more maneuverable.

The "combat speed" thing from previous editions did model this pretty well. It was just really clunky/book-keepy/slowed the game down a bit.

Overall, I like that a vehicle zipping along at speed isn't as accurate as one that holds still. I just feel like my craftworlders are very special boys and girls who should get to be an exception like their true kin cousins. XD

Wyldhunt wrote:
Maybe a biased opinion: I like that most of my vehicles suffer a to-hit penalty when they move BUT, I feel like a lot of eldar stuff should either ignore it or have the option to ignore it.

When my dreadnaughts move, I picture them having a tougher time landing a hit with a multi-melta than if they'd held still to aim. On a falcon or wraith lord, however, that feels out of character. Ditto on war walkers who take a to-hit penalty if you actually use the outflank rule built into their profile (which presumably contributes to their total cost).

Really, I'd be pretty happy if they just revised the Crystal Targeting Matrix to ignore the heavy weapon penalty against all targets rather than just the closest enemy unit.

I kind of agree with this. A Russ or Battlewagon ignoring the movement penalty doesn't seem right, but a skimmer tank probably shouldn't care. Case-by-case I guess.

It's almost like they could bring back the old ordnance rules for things that simply shouldn't be able to move and fire sccurately (or at all) and then adjust how vehicles handle weapons from there.

While it does feel bad, I don't think the current rule is misplaced.
Most shooting is accurate when you are stationary and some weapons shouldn't be firing when mobile at all, yet alone with a simple -1 to Hit.

I think that GW is too tight with giving out rules that remove the penalty for the right platforms in the right circumstances. The Leman Russ Grinding Advance rule is a perfect example of the right way to handle it. It makes the turret, the most stable weapon on the tank, ignore the penalty when the tank doesn't move too fast. More tanks should have a rule like this, but not every tank nor every weapon on the tank. If you want a super accurate Eldar War Walker, arm it with Shuriken Cannons rather than Scatter Lasers.

I like the idea of Vehicles being able to fire 1 weapon without penalty. Most likely their main gun. 40Ks ridiculous wheeled hedgehogs, bristling with guns shouldn't be able to fire all 17 weapons without some issue. We buy Vehicles for a reason, mobility is a big part of that.

 Red Marine wrote:
I like the idea of Vehicles being able to fire 1 weapon without penalty. Most likely their main gun. 40Ks ridiculous wheeled hedgehogs, bristling with guns shouldn't be able to fire all 17 weapons without some issue. We buy Vehicles for a reason, mobility is a big part of that.

I get where you're coming from, but I'm not sure how well that would work out in practice. Something like a railgun hammerhead only has one gun that it really cares about. Meanwhile, a falcon with a bright lance or missile launcher (sort of kind of vaguely in a similar niche) has 2. Similarly, a sentinel might have a single lascannon where a war walker might have two bright lances. So letting vehicles fire a single weapon without penalty would impact different units asymmetrically, is what I'm saying. Not a terrible idea though.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Red Marine wrote:
I like the idea of Vehicles being able to fire 1 weapon without penalty. Most likely their main gun. 40Ks ridiculous wheeled hedgehogs, bristling with guns shouldn't be able to fire all 17 weapons without some issue. We buy Vehicles for a reason, mobility is a big part of that.

I get where you're coming from, but I'm not sure how well that would work out in practice. Something like a railgun hammerhead only has one gun that it really cares about. Meanwhile, a falcon with a bright lance or missile launcher (sort of kind of vaguely in a similar niche) has 2. Similarly, a sentinel might have a single lascannon where a war walker might have two bright lances. So letting vehicles fire a single weapon without penalty would impact different units asymmetrically, is what I'm saying. Not a terrible idea though.

Thank you for your reply. I know that a lot of vehicles have MANY weapons, but I find that unrealistic. I know, I know its sci-fantasy but come on. A zillion guns glued to a car? Primaris vehicles look comical in their armament. The weapons load out of most vehicles is absurd. Realistically (whatever value reality has on this game) a tank crew couldn't monitor that many guns. Its beyond them. They're mostly going to focus on their 1 main/ best weapon. If the whole crew sits still and does nothing else but watch the enemy and monitor their weapons they might be able to fire all weapons. Which I think is already the bonus for not moving.

Also the rule I suggested is just dead simple.

Ah, but what's the "best" gun on a war walker with 2 bright lances piloted by a single guy? And surely the turret of my falcon, which holds both the pulse laser and the missile launcher, are being controlled by the same guy?

 Red Marine wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Red Marine wrote:
I like the idea of Vehicles being able to fire 1 weapon without penalty. Most likely their main gun. 40Ks ridiculous wheeled hedgehogs, bristling with guns shouldn't be able to fire all 17 weapons without some issue. We buy Vehicles for a reason, mobility is a big part of that.

I get where you're coming from, but I'm not sure how well that would work out in practice. Something like a railgun hammerhead only has one gun that it really cares about. Meanwhile, a falcon with a bright lance or missile launcher (sort of kind of vaguely in a similar niche) has 2. Similarly, a sentinel might have a single lascannon where a war walker might have two bright lances. So letting vehicles fire a single weapon without penalty would impact different units asymmetrically, is what I'm saying. Not a terrible idea though.

Thank you for your reply. I know that a lot of vehicles have MANY weapons, but I find that unrealistic. I know, I know its sci-fantasy but come on. A zillion guns glued to a car? Primaris vehicles look comical in their armament. The weapons load out of most vehicles is absurd. Realistically (whatever value reality has on this game) a tank crew couldn't monitor that many guns. Its beyond them. They're mostly going to focus on their 1 main/ best weapon. If the whole crew sits still and does nothing else but watch the enemy and monitor their weapons they might be able to fire all weapons. Which I think is already the bonus for not moving.

Also the rule I suggested is just dead simple.

If you think rolling sheds with guns poking out of them aren't realistic I hope you never look at any of the real life vehicles that had multiple turrets.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_medium_tank

This, for example, came standard with you 7 machine guns and could mount more.

Sometimes the fluff suffers for the crunch. If it's got 2 of the same ya just get one at your best BS value.

Antiquated tanks from bygone eras do not a point make. Primitive concepts of armored combat only have value in museum displays. If the IoM wants rolling fortresses, fine. But that just requires buckets of special rules

 Red Marine wrote:
Sometimes the fluff suffers for the crunch. If it's got 2 of the same ya just get one at your best BS value.

Antiquated tanks from bygone eras do not a point make. Primitive concepts of armored combat only have value in museum displays. If the IoM wants rolling fortresses, fine. But that just requires buckets of special rules

You do realize that the Leman Russ is fething based on interwar style designs, right? In fact they look almost exactly like a cartoon ARL-44 with sponsons, the ARL being a post WW2 design that used a lot of interwar design features because the French could design tanks while occupied by the Nazis.

Please do get a clue sometime in the near future.

EDIT: It's actually based on a Char 1bis model kit not the ARL-44.

Calm down young man. Your getting a tad nasty over toys. You think 40k tanks are modeled after tanks from ww2? They're clearly modeled after tanks from ww1. Pronounced side sponsons and all.

PS. You forgot the Stuart and the Lee. A motley assortment of guns.

 Red Marine wrote:
Calm down young man. Your getting a tad nasty over toys. You think 40k tanks are modeled after tanks from ww2? They're clearly modeled after tanks from ww1. Pronounced side sponsons and all.

PS. You forgot the Stuart and the Lee. A motley assortment of guns.

GW literally used B1 kits as the basis for their original LR kits...