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.

Ailaros wrote:

Lobukia wrote:1) A glance is one under the AV value

Or, you know what, why not get rid of glancing hits altogether? If the result is equal or greater to the AV, it pens. That way you'd be able to actually take weapons other than missile launchers or meltaguns. If a heavy bolter regained its ability to hurt a rhino, then you wouldn't need to spam only the heaviest weapons anymore. It would also "fix" things like the brightlance. It wouldn't fix the main problem that redbeard was talking about, but this rule would actually reintegrate vehicles into the game better.

If you combined the "all glances pen" rule with something like getting rid of stunned results (or adding a result that's the opposite of shaken - temporarily can't move, but can still fire), you'd have tanks that would be immune until destroyed, but still destroyable by lighter weapons. Would make for a better system overall, regardless of mech spam.

I like the sound of this, although it makes my raiders uncomfortable...

Terrain can also give more cover to vehicles as well. I play on a minimum of 25% terrain (sometimes up to 50% if we are feeling something different). Still does nothing for the mech environment. Mech armies still thrive. I don't think most of us want to see the pendulum swing back the other way entirely, we just want other styles of lists to hit the table and have a better chance. I know there are some good non mech armies but they are not as good as mech armies.

Vehicles will always be more durable than infantry. No one likes to see their expensive models die and so they buy the ones that will survive most often.

Str 4 can hurt only AV 10, but only 1 non vehicle is not affected by Str 4, which is the Wraithlord at T8. No other MC or Infantry can be immune to Str 4. Only 2 MCs other than the above can ignore Str 3 (C'tan and Talos/Cronos). Only griots have Srtr 2, so basically Str 3 can hurt everything bar a few tough creatures in the game and vehicles. Str 4 can hurt all but 1 model, and can't touch anything with higher AV than a Trukk or Land Speeder

Vehicles, the very lightest need Str 5 to destroy them, but AV 11 needs Str 6. 12 needs 7, meaning Plasma or Autocannons. 13 needs Str 8 to destroy it. This is above the Str of most CC attacks and only extremely heavy weapons or Melta can kill it. AV 14 needs Str 9 to one shot it.

I have 12 eldar tanks and 9 war walkers and 3 wraithlords and 6 vypers.

you mad?

Seeing as you can't even field all that, not really.

More often than not most people play on boards that have significantly less than 25% terrain, you should really be playing on boards that have closer to 50% terrain coverage.

Yes because giving the vehicles an entire 4++ save is worthwhile too, not to mention those who use barrage has a field day and grows more useful. Which infantry mostly does not have.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Khornate25 wrote:
Which army have still viable foot list (except GK and BA) ? Just out of curiosity.

Necrons, Orks, Tyranids, Space Wolves, Sisters of Battle, and Imperial Guard.

Reecius would probably try and convince you of Eldar, but I just don't agree.

Dark Eldar can't function as a foot army and Tau can't function at all. Space Marines are a maybe.

Really?

I play tau against ultramehrines and blast em of and i only use 1 hammerhead and 3 battlesuits i admit that they are small battles but it isn't impossible.

blaktoof wrote:You all do realize if you want to make transports less useful its not necessary to change the rules or points of transports at all.

Play with more terrain.

More terrain= more cover for infantry= more saves= more protection

more terrain= less places vehicles can go without difficult/dangerous terrain tests.

More often than not most people play on boards that have significantly less than 25% terrain, you should really be playing on boards that have closer to 50% terrain coverage.

I HATE heavy terrain, I like massive firing areas with around ~25% covern sometimes less. And area terrain is best, none of this LoS blocking bs.

admiral9 wrote:
I play tau against ultramehrines and blast em of and i only use 1 hammerhead and 3 battlesuits i admit that they are small battles but it isn't impossible.

Tau REALLY shine under 1k. The hammerhead is just sick under 1k. If you bring it under 500 points, your friends should be allowed to break it over your head.

/uses hammerheads in 500 point matches.

Iur_tae_mont wrote:

admiral9 wrote:
I play tau against ultramehrines and blast em of and i only use 1 hammerhead and 3 battlesuits i admit that they are small battles but it isn't impossible.

Tau REALLY shine under 1k. The hammerhead is just sick under 1k. If you bring it under 500 points, your friends should be allowed to break it over your head.

/uses hammerheads in 500 point matches.

750 and 1000 are my favourite points levels for tau. Of course, they are still good at 1250. 1500 they fair well enough, but they really are not at their best. Above that, they are bad.

dreadfury101 wrote:in a 1500 point game you can take 8 deathstrikes and a primaris psyker and 2 bare bones vet squads.... could be fun... i really wanna try this now

Actually, you can only take 3 deathstrikes, as it's one per slot and they cannot be in squadron.

blaktoof wrote:You all do realize if you want to make transports less useful its not necessary to change the rules or points of transports at all.

Play with more terrain.

More terrain= more cover for infantry= more saves= more protection

more terrain= less places vehicles can go without difficult/dangerous terrain tests.

More often than not most people play on boards that have significantly less than 25% terrain, you should really be playing on boards that have closer to 50% terrain coverage.

Yeah, see, I thought that at first when I started playing horde IG. "Oh, there's cover everywhere! This'll be easy!" except in reality, it just makes vehicles that much worse. Now you've got a vehicle that's having cover block half the shots that make it through the armor. It may work well where you're at, but where I play, the mech players are very experienced, and they use the terrain to their advantage constantly. Plus, they bring dozer blades specifically so this will never be an issue for them.

If anything, cover spam makes it WORSE. I played a DE player, and even with a bare amount of terrain, he just hid his skimmers behind buildings half the game. When I had to move up to get shots on his vehicles, he tore my army a new one (although this was my first time playing DE, so I didn't really know what to expect).

Anyways, back on topic, vehicles DO need some sort of change, which I hope comes in 6th. Most aren't too bad, but the transports really don't carry any risks attached to them. They're pretty much auto includes in almost any army that has a decent one, and there are no "drawbacks" to taking them. They're dirt cheap, so they don't really hurt the amount of men you can put down. The explosion result is laughable, and most people are willing to risk the unit experiencing it, since it won't hurt any worse than if they get out. Not to mention wrecked just makes you disembark and that's it. I'm not saying make them deathtraps, but at least make it where if you've got guys in it, you should have to make a difficult decision between keeping them in or legging it. Maybe getting taming down firing ports, or just making damage results more dangerous for passengers, I don't know.

All I know is that there needs to be SOMETHING to make transports an actually difficult decision, instead of an instant buy. I want to see lists on the list forum where people are saying "well, I can bring a rhino, but if I do, then I can't do objective A. However, the rhino does let me do objective B." not just "hey guys here's my list, is there a way to trim 40pts so I can get another rhino in here?" I mean, when you see someone post a list without max transports, only to get the response "This isn't 4th edition, bring a real list next time." there is a problem with the game (No, I do not remember who said it, but it was on this forum)

TL;DR: Make it where there are pro's and cons to having transports, not just having them be the most awesome 40pt upgrade ever with almost 0 drawbacks.

I think the main problem is that so far in 5th edition, anti-infantry weapons have gotten extremely powerful while anti-vehicle weapons have kinda stayed the same level.

I mean look at all the new weapons and powers that are designed to just wipe out infantry then compare it to all the new stuff to take on tanks. I mean most people are still sticking to autocannons and missile launchers for anti-tank while my infantry now has to watch out manticores, colossus, jaws of wolf wolf, blood talon dreads, poisoned weapons, mindshackle scarabs, and much much more.

Even if you make vehicles easily to destroy I'm still going to take them because they are the only think keeping all the infantry weapons off my units.

Je suis2 au hazard wrote:

Iur_tae_mont wrote:

admiral9 wrote:
I play tau against ultramehrines and blast em of and i only use 1 hammerhead and 3 battlesuits i admit that they are small battles but it isn't impossible.

Tau REALLY shine under 1k. The hammerhead is just sick under 1k. If you bring it under 500 points, your friends should be allowed to break it over your head.

/uses hammerheads in 500 point matches.

750 and 1000 are my favourite points levels for tau. Of course, they are still good at 1250. 1500 they fair well enough, but they really are not at their best. Above that, they are bad.

I'm planning on going forgeworld when i go above 1500 or 2000. and if you have at least 1 full squad of broadsides and target locks are only like 5 points even if you hard wire them. You can easily crush mechhammer. 3 exploding chimeras per turn along with flanking missile pod/fusion blaster battlesuits.
And a fire warrior can still deal a punch.

It is doable you just need to like the army enough to think about tactics.

admiral9 wrote:

Je suis2 au hazard wrote:

Iur_tae_mont wrote:

admiral9 wrote:
I play tau against ultramehrines and blast em of and i only use 1 hammerhead and 3 battlesuits i admit that they are small battles but it isn't impossible.

Tau REALLY shine under 1k. The hammerhead is just sick under 1k. If you bring it under 500 points, your friends should be allowed to break it over your head.

/uses hammerheads in 500 point matches.

750 and 1000 are my favourite points levels for tau. Of course, they are still good at 1250. 1500 they fair well enough, but they really are not at their best. Above that, they are bad.

I'm planning on going forgeworld when i go above 1500 or 2000. and if you have at least 1 full squad of broadsides and target locks are only like 5 points even if you hard wire them. You can easily crush mechhammer. 3 exploding chimeras per turn along with flanking missile pod/fusion blaster battlesuits.
And a fire warrior can still deal a punch.

It is doable you just need to like the army enough to think about tactics.

I was talking codex. FW tau can go at any level with respectable strength.

Vehicles in 5e are big important parts of the game, but this was not always so. Back in the gritty days of 4e when glancing hits could still kill a vehicle and vehicles inflicted hits on their passengers when destroyed, transport vehicles were merely rolling deathtraps and nobody ever took them.

GW's attempt to bring transports back into the game was commendable (there's no excuse for having rules, models, or entire game mechanics for something that's useless), but they went too far this time; I'm hoping 6e finds a middle ground between 'vehicles suck' and 'help me I can't win with no vehicles'.

GW has never really achieved balance with tranports IMO. In 2e, tranports were deathtraps. Other vehicles were golden though.
3e, transports ruled
4e, transports were deahtraps
5e. transports have very few downsides

My guess is they will try to tone down transports, but I think if they want to succeed, they should look more at the vehicle damage mechanics than the actual "what happens if transport is destroyed" part.
Currently, it doesn't matter do you stun vehicle once or 10 times during turn...

But looking at their track record? I don't think they will succeed.

Deadshot wrote:Vehicles will always be more durable than infantry. No one likes to see their expensive models die and so they buy the ones that will survive most often.

Str 4 can hurt only AV 10, but only 1 non vehicle is not affected by Str 4, which is the Wraithlord at T8. No other MC or Infantry can be immune to Str 4. Only 2 MCs other than the above can ignore Str 3 (C'tan and Talos/Cronos). Only griots have Srtr 2, so basically Str 3 can hurt everything bar a few tough creatures in the game and vehicles. Str 4 can hurt all but 1 model, and can't touch anything with higher AV than a Trukk or Land Speeder

Vehicles, the very lightest need Str 5 to destroy them, but AV 11 needs Str 6. 12 needs 7, meaning Plasma or Autocannons. 13 needs Str 8 to destroy it. This is above the Str of most CC attacks and only extremely heavy weapons or Melta can kill it. AV 14 needs Str 9 to one shot it.

Its a similar arguement between Attack Bikes and Land Speeders. S4 needs 6's to glance but only need 2 weapon destroyed and an immobilised + extra to destroy. Whereas a bike gets a save. A Land Speeder need only be stunned and its useless for a turn.

AnomanderRake wrote:Vehicles in 5e are big important parts of the game, but this was not always so. Back in the gritty days of 4e when glancing hits could still kill a vehicle and vehicles inflicted hits on their passengers when destroyed, transport vehicles were merely rolling deathtraps and nobody ever took them.

GW's attempt to bring transports back into the game was commendable (there's no excuse for having rules, models, or entire game mechanics for something that's useless), but they went too far this time; I'm hoping 6e finds a middle ground between 'vehicles suck' and 'help me I can't win with no vehicles'.

Well, if those leaked rules were true...then the balance would be pretty solid. But even assuming they're right, GW would rewrite the rules after something like that getting out...so I guess this whole post is irrelevent...