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.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Again, you're claiming I'm saying something that I'm not. I'm not saying that glancing hits are nonexistent. I have no idea where on earth you are getting that from.

I am saying that the singular positive aspect in this regard with 6E is only applicable under a minority condition that against most attacks is only one of many (often much more likely) outcomes, and that in all the other scenario's, 6E leaves you a lot worse off and shown the math to prove it.

You haven't. Don't pretend that you've provided empirical evidence when you've done no such thing. You're not the government.

Huh?

This a completely nonsensical reply, and instead of attempting to actually take issue with any of my reasoning, you're just saying "you can't do that" without actually showing any fault in my reasoning, math, or attempting to counter any arguments put forth.



We can look at a wide variety of weapons and mathematically prove it. Unless you're talking about slinging nothing but multilasers at AV12 or the like.



For instance, lets look at an Autocannon against AV12

We have two shots, that gives us a total of

Barring instances where we completely fail to hit or at least meet the AV with all hits, we have a number of possible outcomes.

We have the possibility of any combination of both shots managing to do something in the form of 2 glances/2pens/1 glance+1 pen (total of a 1/9 chance for in total), or the possibility of a single pen or a single glance. The possibility of a penetrating hit or multiple hits when combined are notably greater than the chance of a single glancing hit.

Lets look at a Lascannon vs AV12

We can only get one result either way due to only having a single shot, but we penetrate 50% of the time, and glance only 16.666% of the time. For every single glancing hit this means we have 3 penetrating hits.


And this is all assuming only one gun is being shot at a target and not multiple guns, and we're not even getting into if the tank has already taken HP damage.

You don't need to be the US Government to figure this out...

Martel732 wrote:
Okay, I'm reading this thread. What's the exact problem here? Vehicles of any AV can now be killed by an additional mechanism. This makes them easier to kill. No more magic table protection.

A partial trade off is that the tanks are harder to suppress while they live.

Again, only really under a minority of circumstances, while they're easier to kill than they've ever been before.

Vehicles got net weaker in 6th, but they really, really needed it. I'm not sure we needed the assault nerf, but that's a different topic really.

The question is, did they go too far, and was it necessary on the scale that it happened or was it just a couple problem vehicles?

You're making a general point and using maths in a specific case to "prove" it. You can't do that.

I may as well claim that power armour is useless because plasma can penetrate it.

 BryllCream wrote:
You're making a general point and using maths in a specific case to "prove" it. You can't do that.

Would you care to provide a counter-example to prove me wrong? We can talk about using multi-lasers against AV12, or Krak missiles against AV14, sure, but I think most people would agree that such shots are again, a minority of cases.

Do *YOU* have any specifics to prove my general point wrong?

I may as well claim that power armour is useless because plasma can penetrate it.

If everything were armed with plasma weapon yes it would be. Given that plasma weaponry is generally limited specialist weaponry, it's not.

However, Autocannons and Lascannons are amongst the most common brought to bear against such vehicles, and only takes into account a single such weapon (not multiples) being brought to bear, and as such are far more appropriate in determining the viability of AV12 than plasma is in determining the viability of power armor.




So again, you're not actually providing anything that actually counters my arguments, you're just saying "no, you're wrong", without providing a compelling reason as to why. Lets see your analysis, lets see your numbers.

OK, so as a person who hasnt played since 3rd, and is just now reading the 6th rulebook, heres what Im coming off with:

Tactics and cover with vehicles is far more important than it used to be. I dont see this as a huge problem. It means you have to think more when you deploy and move your tanks than before. Again not a huge problem. Well, for most people.Those who counted on tanks as nigh destructible bastions that they could steam down the center of the battlefield shrugging off all fire will have to change their tactics.

Lascannons:
In the hands of Guard: 5th edition
'3' glances, 4+ pens with 5+ to destroy.
In 6th edition, that's the same.

The math is complicated. The sequence of hits matter, since a pen that comes before a glance has a different outcome than a pen that comes after two glances. Likewise, immobilizing and weapon destroying a tank change the damage table effects for remaining hits.

5th edition you could get unluckly and keep rolling "stunned" on the damage table. In 5th, it took a 5+ to get lucky with a golden bb (hit shot 1 kill).
In 6th with a lascannon, that's the same. But with autocannons, missile launchers, basically anything not AP1 or AP2, the chance of the 1 shot 1 kill is less. Half as much.

What did 6th edition do?
It increased the rate that damage effects wear down vehicles, while it reduced the rate that most weapons get a single lucky hit.

How about cover?
Against a single vehicle, I'd say 6th edition made it worse. Against an army, it's better. It's much easier to put 10 tanks in cover in 6th than it was in 5th.
It's also very easy to put 4-5 tanks in 4+ cover. It costs you 50 points, and it's called an Aegis Defensive Line. 5th edition had nothing like that. If you don't like that, you can take/ally with Dark Angels with cheap power fields.
With the change from 50% to 25%, suddenly waves of guardsmen can give cover to IG tanks.

Given that 5th edition gave a kill point for immobilized, it further skews comparisons between edtions.
If tanks are "useless" then in theory we should see a lack of tanks at the higher levels of competition, and tank-less armies dominating. I haven't seen that. What I have seen is as people go more infantry, my tanks (IG) are becoming better and better.


-Matt

 Vaktathi wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
You're making a general point and using maths in a specific case to "prove" it. You can't do that.

Would you care to provide a counter-example to prove me wrong? We can talk about using multi-lasers against AV12, or Krak missiles against AV14, sure, but I think most people would agree that such shots are again, a minority of cases.

Do *YOU* have any specifics to prove my general point wrong?

Am I going to provide an analysis of every single shooting weapon vs every armour value, then weight them by estimated popularity? No, I'm not going to do that.

Again, stop acting like you've made a point. You haven't.

Your hypothesis (that glancing hits are virtually non-existant) is unprovable. That doesn't automatically made it invalid but it is not provable in the sense that, say, "plasma guns are more effective per points than hot shot lasguns vs MEQ" is provable (or dis-provable).

Isn't it true that for most anti-tank fire scenarios, a glancing hit will occur 1:6 times for each hit? 1:6 is by definition a minority, but it is statistically significant.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
You're making a general point and using maths in a specific case to "prove" it. You can't do that.

Would you care to provide a counter-example to prove me wrong? We can talk about using multi-lasers against AV12, or Krak missiles against AV14, sure, but I think most people would agree that such shots are again, a minority of cases.

Do *YOU* have any specifics to prove my general point wrong?

Am I going to provide an analysis of every single shooting weapon vs every armour value, then weight them by estimated popularity? No, I'm not going to do that.

Again, stop acting like you've made a point. You haven't.

Your hypothesis (that glancing hits are virtually non-existant) is unprovable. That doesn't automatically made it invalid but it is not provable in the sense that, say, "plasma guns are more effective per points than hot shot lasguns vs MEQ" is provable (or dis-provable).

I don't think he has been saying that glancing hits don't happen he has been saying it's rare that you only get hit with one glancing hit and not more.

Not sure what is being argued here, but there is no question that if you have a lower armor value, you are much easier to kill because of hull points.

Why? I don't need difficult math to prove this. It's very simple. You will note that with AP2, the vehicle chart for penetrating hits is very similar to before. You will note that the vehicle chart for AP1 is also similar to before. You can't kill with a glance in 6th, but you couldn't kill with a glance in 5th either unless the gun was AP 1. (with the exception of sufficient weapon destroyed/immobilized)

We used to add in that sufficient immobilizes/weapon destroyed results added a small percentage of kills. We add in hull points instead now, and death from hull points happens quite often. On a predator, you need to roll immobilize/weapon destroyed 4 times in 5th edition to kill it. It has 3 hull points now. ANY 3 damaging hits will kill it. That includes glances, immobilizes, any thing that doesn't kill still eventually kills it.

Yes, non ap1 or ap2 weapons roll on a softer chart. But now ALL damage results damage a tank, regardless.
It used to be that only vehicle destroyed/wrecked results really mattered. That's not true anymore. Any result is a good result now.

 Mad4Minis wrote:
OK, so as a person who hasnt played since 3rd, and is just now reading the 6th rulebook, heres what Im coming off with:

Tactics and cover with vehicles is far more important than it used to be. I dont see this as a huge problem. It means you have to think more when you deploy and move your tanks than before. Again not a huge problem. Well, for most people.Those who counted on tanks as nigh destructible bastions that they could steam down the center of the battlefield shrugging off all fire will have to change their tactics.

The problem is that the level of firepower needed has reduced to the point where they're less survivable than in 4th ed in most instances and are practically auto-killed in CC by the basic troops of the majority of armies in the game.

And not all tanks are really designed to be sit back and hide gun tanks or cheap disposable boxes. We have stuff like Falcons, Hellhounds, etc that don't fit into either category and really don't see much of the benefits at all and get all the downsides.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Lascannons:
In the hands of Guard: 5th edition
'3' glances, 4+ pens with 5+ to destroy.
In 6th edition, that's the same.

The math is complicated. The sequence of hits matter, since a pen that comes before a glance has a different outcome than a pen that comes after two glances. Likewise, immobilizing and weapon destroying a tank change the damage table effects for remaining hits.

5th edition you could get unluckly and keep rolling "stunned" on the damage table. In 5th, it took a 5+ to get lucky with a golden bb (hit shot 1 kill).
In 6th with a lascannon, that's the same. But with autocannons, missile launchers, basically anything not AP1 or AP2, the chance of the 1 shot 1 kill is less. Half as much.

What did 6th edition do?
It increased the rate that damage effects wear down vehicles, while it reduced the rate that most weapons get a single lucky hit.

The problem is that, overall, HP's reduced vehicle lifespan by about half, that's a massive decrease.

How about cover?
Against a single vehicle, I'd say 6th edition made it worse. Against an army, it's better. It's much easier to put 10 tanks in cover in 6th than it was in 5th.
It's also very easy to put 4-5 tanks in 4+ cover. It costs you 50 points, and it's called an Aegis Defensive Line. 5th edition had nothing like that. If you don't like that, you can take/ally with Dark Angels with cheap power fields.
With the change from 50% to 25%, suddenly waves of guardsmen can give cover to IG tanks.

This requires a 50pt investment to get, increasing the cost of using vehicles, and becomes irrelevant for vehicles that don't want to/can't just sit way in the back and shoot across the board.

Given that 5th edition gave a kill point for immobilized, it further skews comparisons between edtions.

5th edition did not do this.

BryllCream wrote:
Am I going to provide an analysis of every single shooting weapon vs every armour value, then weight them by estimated popularity? No, I'm not going to do that.

You're not providing *ANYTHING*

Again, stop acting like you've made a point. You haven't.

When you want to actually poke a hole in it, then we can say so.

Your hypothesis (that glancing hits are virtually non-existant) is unprovable. That doesn't automatically made it invalid but it is not provable in the sense that, say, "plasma guns are more effective per points than hot shot lasguns vs MEQ" is provable (or dis-provable).

Again, you're either not getting or intentionally misrepresenting my argument. In every post I've said that single glancing hits happen. I'm not denying they single glancing hits happen. Let me repeat that since I apparently have to. I am not denying that vehicles will sometimes take single glancing hits. And for a third time, I am not denying that vehicles will sometimes take single glancing hits.

I *AM* saying that, far more often than not, a vehicle will be taking multiple hits and/or penetrating hits and/or already have HP damage over the course of a turn as opposed to a single glancing hit, and that under those circumstances, 6E is not advantageous to vehicles.

On what basis are you going to challenge the assertion that single glancing hits are as common or moreso than those other circumstances combined and not vice-versa?

Well, if you're talking about the viability of vehices because they aren't tough, it really depends on the vehicle, its role, and its armor value:

1. The rhino got hurt the most not only because it's more fragile, but also because you can't move 12" and disembark. Yes, you can move 6" disembark 6", but now that rhino isn't providing cover or support nearly as well. Also, it's a frontrow transport, meaning it gets exposed to more strength 4-7 firepower.

2. Backrow tanks are less affected. If you park it in a ruin, it has the same 4+ cover it did last edition, and glances don't turn off its firepower. They do eventually die in this edition, but in return they themselves are more destructive.

3. Landraider types. Front row high armor value type tanks I don't find get hull pointed out as much. If they do, its usually because of hth from thunderhammers. Why? Most guns strength 8 and up are not multishot guns. That, and when people bring melta to bear on a raider, people usually bring a lot.

4. Flyers. I hate flyers, the end.

Maybe if zero HP = Auto immobilized instead of Wrecked it wouldn't have been such a hard switch for everyone. Essentially you need at least one Pen to wreck or Explode a vehicle? Is it too early to talk about 7th edition?

No. Because then we are back to the magic table for kills. Screw that. Hull points are fine. The costs of transports and vehicles hard hit by this rule needs to be altered.

In reality, the codicies should not be physical books. They should be online forms so that GW can modify the point costs in real time as they monkey with the rules. You know, like Blizzard can do with Starcraft. GW could at least pretend its the 21st century. In this way, they could just price down the wave serpent, etc. And everyone could have a 6th edition codex as soon as 6th edition drops.

The issue with hull points is that for all intents and purposes they might as well just ditch AV entirely and move tanks to having a Toughness and Wounds stat. The damage table *was* their save. Having two overlapping kill mechanics is overkill.


Unfortunately, as to GW modifying rules, they have a longstanding and rather ironclad corporate policy against doing so dictated by management such that the development studio cannot

I'm sure that's the case. But for their game to be truly intellectually honest, they need real time updates for point values, not a $50 book every 5 years. When I really want to compete, I don't play this. I play Starcraft. Because it's much more fair.

Agreed, HP are very much like wounds. It's an imperfect fix, but this is a GW game, not an accurate armor simulator.

I get that it's a game, but if we're going to patch the system that made tanks tanks, then simply overlapping a wounds mechanic on a unit type designed with a random table in mind is simply going to get you the worst of all worlds and, as we have now, a very confused and awkward unit type that can't decide what it should be, and resulting awkwardness in gameplay.

If they were going to go with HP's, they should have ditched the damage table entirely and just given tanks an armor save, T value and Wounds instead. As is, we've functionally got a T value and wounds, but no save and what used to function as the "save" is now simply a chance to inflict ID or cripple before dying.

I've noticed the discussion has turned to "tanks are less survivable now" whereas OP's initial question was "are tanks useless?" I feel I should summarise what's been said.

I feel that whether they're less survivable, or not (although it certainly appears that they are, especially <AV13), they are still indeed extremely useful. Those turns that they lose an HP or two are not then spend sitting around stun locked, but contributing to damage.
They also have increased movement capabilities and sneaky tactics when using "flat-out."

So no, tanks aren't useless, but the way they are used has changed.>

Yeah, pretty much what Griddlelol said. *Useless* is a very strong word. I usually reserve that for things like BA techmarines and pyrovores.

Well, between becoming a whole lot more fragile and unable to survive in close proximity to enemy infantry, transports losing a ton of utility and imparting their "shaken/stunned" condition to passengers, and the removal of even the ability to contest objectives in the vast majority of instances, they've certainly lost a lot of their former utility and got a lot less useful.

Nothing is truly useless, but the relative value of vehicles is very noticeably less than it was in previous editions.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I get that it's a game, but if we're going to patch the system that made tanks tanks, then simply overlapping a wounds mechanic on a unit type designed with a random table in mind is simply going to get you the worst of all worlds and, as we have now, a very confused and awkward unit type that can't decide what it should be, and resulting awkwardness in gameplay.

If they were going to go with HP's, they should have ditched the damage table entirely and just given tanks an armor save, T value and Wounds instead. As is, we've functionally got a T value and wounds, but no save and what used to function as the "save" is now simply a chance to inflict ID or cripple before dying.

And I'm sure people would be thrilled to have a battle tank shot to pieces by hotshot lasguns.
The nice part about armor values is being totally immune to various levels of small arms fire.
With a toughness and armor save on tanks, you can't do that effect.

Hull points work fine. They prevent the endless shakes and stuns of previous editions without too much book keeping.

It's a hell of a lot better than 2nd edition. First hit, then roll to see where you hit, then roll to penetrate: Weapon Strength + D6 + variable die (D12 some times) and another die for each wound the weapon would cause, then subtract 1 for every 10" between you and the target. Once you penetrate, each location has it's own damage table.
It was fun enough for small games, but would be very tedious the size of games now.

-Matt

2nd edition shall not be spoken of. Ever. So sayeth the Emprah!

HawaiiMatt wrote:
And I'm sure people would be thrilled to have a battle tank shot to pieces by hotshot lasguns.
The nice part about armor values is being totally immune to various levels of small arms fire.
With a toughness and armor save on tanks, you can't do that effect.

That's why you give it a T value high enough that small arms fire won't bother it, an AV14 tank currently is roughly equivalent to T10 in terms of what weapons can effectively hurt it. You could always add in a special rule to address that or whatnot. But either way, effectively we're already there aside from the small arms issue.

Hull points work fine. They prevent the endless shakes and stuns of previous editions without too much book keeping.

I'd argue they don't work fine, as vehicles are easier to kill than they've ever been before, on top of losing tons of field utility. If that was an issue (you had just as much chance to pop on the first pen as to shake/stun it), then the real answer would be to adjust the damage table, not stack on another overlapping damage system and thing to have to keep track of.

That said, again, the damage table was effectively vehicles "save" aside from whatever cover they could grub up. Nobody seems to be suggesting that a Marine should just be dead after 3 wounds regardless of saves, why should tanks die after 3 hits if they don't fail their "save"?

It's a hell of a lot better than 2nd edition. First hit, then roll to see where you hit, then roll to penetrate: Weapon Strength + D6 + variable die (D12 some times) and another die for each wound the weapon would cause, then subtract 1 for every 10" between you and the target. Once you penetrate, each location has it's own damage table.
It was fun enough for small games, but would be very tedious the size of games now.

-Matt

2nd edition was a mess, yes, you also usually didn't have more than a couple tanks on the board, unlike now where I've seen boards with nearly 40 vehicles and triple digits worth of infantry (oh mech IG mirror matches...)

Overall, I'd say its a good trade off, given that this is a game. Much better than 5th Ed.

If anything, its kind of forgiving in comparison to actual combat. Infantry is pretty simple, you're hit or your not; doesn't have to kill you, just needs to take you out of the fight. With vehicles, at least you don't have to worry about cargo inside of APCs/Transports from getting blasted to bits before the APC itself is destroyed. A high enough velocity hit could be enough to kill its occupants, without penetration. Or a penetrating shot that might not damage the tanks components rips through the hull and kills crew members. It becomes much more complex. Gotta look at the bright side of things!

 Vaktathi wrote:

Exergy wrote: You know how many times a raider goes down on account of hull points? Not many. With the night shield they rarely get dakkaed to death and thus usually take concerted effort from real AT to take out.

Mathematically, this doesn't make much sense. Raiders, unless being shot at by lots of AP1/2 stuff, should go down to HP's quite often, more often to HP's in fact.

An S7 autocannon will take about 50% less shots to kill a Raider with 3HP and a 5+ invul through HP's than it will through an "explodes!" result, needing about 18 BS3 autocannon shots to kill through a penetrating Explodes and 12.5 to kill through HP loss.

An S6 Multilaser should take about half as many hits to take down an AV11 3HP 5+invul Ravager will take half as many shots of average to kill through HP loss than to kill on a penetrate.

It's not unless you start tossing stuff like lascannons and meltaguns at them does it become more economical to go for Explodes results than HP.

HP and explode happen at the same time, thus if you are trying to kill a raider with say autocannons you cannot avoid getting explode results as well as hull point loss. Even if you think it only takes 12.5 shots to kill a raider, given random chance many times you will not get your 13 shots in. Often the first or second shot will hit, pen, and explode them. The first and second shot will never kill a raider due to hull points. Next we have the other damage results. If you get an immobilized/stun result, chances are that the raider and its contents are out of position and a good opponent will shoot something else to try and kill/stop live transports instead of stuck ones.

Also, unlike IG, a lot of armies do not have access to cheap mid strength weapons. When I am facing SM, the vast majority of armies out there, it is mostly str8+ weapons that pen often and often come with AP1-2.

Lets talk about hits, as glances and explodes, both need the same chance to hit. An autocannon will get .5 pens per hit, and .166 glances per hit. .66 of those pens will immobilize, stun, or explode the raider, causing the shooter to switch targets. Thus for one autocannon hit, you will get .333 results that lead you to change target, and .333 results that only take a hull point. More often than not you will get a result that causes you to switch target before you glance it to death, and that is with an autocannon hit. Plasma, missile launchers are skewed further towards explode, immobileizing, or exploding slightly. Melta and lascannons are skewed even majorly.

Ravagers I agree, I never said ravagers dont die to hull points. Being more valuable and harder to make useless(immobilelized and weapon destroyed they are still good, AV11 meams more glances than pens compared to AV10)

Martel732 wrote:
Isn't it true that for most anti-tank fire scenarios, a glancing hit will occur 1:6 times for each hit? 1:6 is by definition a minority, but it is statistically significant.

Well, what can hurt a Leman Russ? In my meta, lasguns and melta guns. If my russ is in range of a Melta gun, it's dead already. However against lascannons, they'll glance 50% of the time. So against the main source of stun-locking my Russes, 6th edition rules have doubled their shooting output.

It's like guard getting FNP 4+ on blobs. Sure it's not going to squat against many things, but against a large chunk it will be a huge boost. And this is for free, too.

 Vaktathi wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
And I'm sure people would be thrilled to have a battle tank shot to pieces by hotshot lasguns.
The nice part about armor values is being totally immune to various levels of small arms fire.
With a toughness and armor save on tanks, you can't do that effect.

That's why you give it a T value high enough that small arms fire won't bother it, an AV14 tank currently is roughly equivalent to T10 in terms of what weapons can effectively hurt it. You could always add in a special rule to address that or whatnot. But either way, effectively we're already there aside from the small arms issue.

Hull points work fine. They prevent the endless shakes and stuns of previous editions without too much book keeping.

I'd argue they don't work fine, as vehicles are easier to kill than they've ever been before, on top of losing tons of field utility. If that was an issue (you had just as much chance to pop on the first pen as to shake/stun it), then the real answer would be to adjust the damage table, not stack on another overlapping damage system and thing to have to keep track of.

That said, again, the damage table was effectively vehicles "save" aside from whatever cover they could grub up. Nobody seems to be suggesting that a Marine should just be dead after 3 wounds regardless of saves, why should tanks die after 3 hits if they don't fail their "save"?

It's a hell of a lot better than 2nd edition. First hit, then roll to see where you hit, then roll to penetrate: Weapon Strength + D6 + variable die (D12 some times) and another die for each wound the weapon would cause, then subtract 1 for every 10" between you and the target. Once you penetrate, each location has it's own damage table.
It was fun enough for small games, but would be very tedious the size of games now.

-Matt

2nd edition was a mess, yes, you also usually didn't have more than a couple tanks on the board, unlike now where I've seen boards with nearly 40 vehicles and triple digits worth of infantry (oh mech IG mirror matches...)

40vehicles with 100+ infantry? You are exaggerating and then doubling the numbers pretending both players are mirroring lists. I usually see Mech IG with 10-12 vehicles and 65 to 75 infantry at 1800 points.
Are transports that leave cover easy to kill? Yes. But what do you expect from a ~35 point transport?
Do squads of men kill AV10 rear armor vehicles? Sure, on average they will. But you want to know what doesn't? A squad of 5. Try shooting the enemy before you drive right at them.

-Matt

Vehicles arent useless, they still offer things troops cant do n such.
But as Griddlelol said, the thread derailed to vehicles less survivable because thats their issue. They provide just as much punch/threat as before, but are silenced way easier. No idea how many times ive turn-1 popped something with rokkit koptas lol

"Well, what can hurt a Leman Russ? In my meta, lasguns and melta guns. If my russ is in range of a Melta gun, it's dead already. However against lascannons, they'll glance 50% of the time. So against the main source of stun-locking my Russes, 6th edition rules have doubled their shooting output"

The logic behind this is not quite right. When a lascannon hit s a leman russ, there are six possible outcomes, not two.

1-4 still do nothing, as they did in 5th

5 = glanced

6= penetrate

So, there are now 5 results that keep your russ shooting, instead of 4. This is NOT a 50% increase in anything. It's actually a 25% increase from 4 to 5 results.

The fact that rhinos are considerably easier to kill with small arms than in 5th doesn't really mean much for other mech, especially the guard. AV 14 is as solid as it ever has been, and AV12 is slightly weaker but still fairly tough. A BS4 lascannon has an 11% chance to kill it outright. I like those odds


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
"Well, what can hurt a Leman Russ? In my meta, lasguns and melta guns. If my russ is in range of a Melta gun, it's dead already. However against lascannons, they'll glance 50% of the time. So against the main source of stun-locking my Russes, 6th edition rules have doubled their shooting output"

The logic behind this is not quite right. When a lascannon hit s a leman russ, there are six possible outcomes, not two.

1-4 still do nothing, as they did in 5th

5 = glanced

6= penetrate

So, there are now 5 results that keep your russ shooting, instead of 4. This is NOT a 50% increase in anything. It's actually a 25% increase from 4 to 5 results.

They'll glance 50% of the time. I miss-worded my original sentance - "The chance of a Russ being stunned or worse has decreased 50%.". Which it has, from 1/3 to 1/6.

AV 12 is where the "glance it to death" wheels begin to fall off. It can still be done, but I have noticed AV 12 units have decent staying power.