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.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 GoonBandito wrote:

Also, all Vehicle weapons should be able to fire independently at different targets, representing that they have multiple crew members inside. That alone would be a huge reason to take Vehicles over Monstrous Creatures. Imagine a Land Raider Redeemer that might actually be able fire both its Flamestorm Cannons!!!

Ah, yes, completely forgot about this. MCs can move 6 inches and fire 2 weapons. Some can even move 12" and fire 2 weapons. Vehicles move 6" and can fire 1 weapon effectively. How is that even fair?

Fast vehicles can move 6" and fire two weapons. Also vehicles can elect not to move and then fire 25 weapons. How is THAT fair?

 Hollowman wrote:

I'm inclined to just slot "wrecked" back into the damage chart at position 6, and change it so running out of hull points make glances penetrate.

It's not as overpowered as doubling hull points, but it still gives you a good bit of survivability after being stripped of HP. By the same token, the possibility of a wreck keeps vehicles from barreling through penetrating hit after hit, and allows low strength weapons to eventually be able to take down a vehicle.

It's also fairly simple.

Give standard vehicles 4 HP, big-ass rolling-fortress vehicles get 5 HP. Pens roll only on the damage table, glances remove a HP. If glancing hits remove the HP, they become pens.

And the damage table should be less likely to make a tank useless for a turn. Perhaps a more granular reduction of firepower/movement. Having results of "guaranteed to put a tank out of action for a turn or more" is rather annoying.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 GoonBandito wrote:

Also, all Vehicle weapons should be able to fire independently at different targets, representing that they have multiple crew members inside. That alone would be a huge reason to take Vehicles over Monstrous Creatures. Imagine a Land Raider Redeemer that might actually be able fire both its Flamestorm Cannons!!!

Ah, yes, completely forgot about this. MCs can move 6 inches and fire 2 weapons. Some can even move 12" and fire 2 weapons. Vehicles move 6" and can fire 1 weapon effectively. How is that even fair?

Fast vehicles can move 6" and fire two weapons. Also vehicles can elect not to move and then fire 25 weapons. How is THAT fair?

I notice you play Nids, Tau and Chaos (daemons?).

Is it possible that you have anecdotal bias, rather than statistical performance evidence?

again the problem with removing glances or utilizing that "Glance" table is that if your army doesn't have much or any long ranged High Strength Low AP weapons then your getting a nerf even as your vehicles are getting a buff. Lootaz are only capable of penetrating up to armor 12 and then have to glance AV13 to death, and with AP4 I would only be able to stun lock the vehicle without reducing any HPs off it. Other options are the Smasha gun...which sucks. Rokketz which are Rng 24 and AP 3 or the Zzap gun which is HIGHLY ineffective. SO again the only effective anti tank I have is S9 AP2 Power Klaws on the charge. Which means I still have to survive the onslaught for 2-3 turns before I can charge.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 GoonBandito wrote:

Also, all Vehicle weapons should be able to fire independently at different targets, representing that they have multiple crew members inside. That alone would be a huge reason to take Vehicles over Monstrous Creatures. Imagine a Land Raider Redeemer that might actually be able fire both its Flamestorm Cannons!!!

Ah, yes, completely forgot about this. MCs can move 6 inches and fire 2 weapons. Some can even move 12" and fire 2 weapons. Vehicles move 6" and can fire 1 weapon effectively. How is that even fair?

Fast vehicles can move 6" and fire two weapons. Also vehicles can elect not to move and then fire 25 weapons. How is THAT fair?

Correction: Fast vehicles can move 6" and fire everything at full BS. Also, no vehicle has 25 weapons, the most you'll normally see is 3-4. And it's fair because the vehicle has to not move, is still limited to directional facing (MCs fire wherever they want), and of course, is still a vehicle. Also, you can shake/stun vehicles. Can't do that to MCs.

Looking at all the ideas here, maybe games workshop isn't as dim as people think.

In regards to gauss and vehicles/monstrous creatures, they are supposed to be anti vehicle weapons. So are melta. Why is the idea that there will be more anti vehicle weapons on the table if we strengthen vehicles something that needs mentioning.

A vehicle trades the ability to ignore small arms fire (strength 4 or less) for being less survivable against high strength weapons. The trade off only becomes noticeable when something has an overwhelming amount of high strength shots and invalidates the benefits of armor value.

In a land of boltguns, the rhino is king.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Looking at all the ideas here, maybe games workshop isn't as dim as people think.

In regards to gauss and vehicles/monstrous creatures, they are supposed to be anti vehicle weapons. So are melta. Why is the idea that there will be more anti vehicle weapons on the table if we strengthen vehicles something that needs mentioning.

A vehicle trades the ability to ignore small arms fire (strength 4 or less) for being less survivable against high strength weapons. The trade off only becomes noticeable when something has an overwhelming amount of high strength shots and invalidates the benefits of armor value.

In a land of boltguns, the rhino is king.

But in a game that eats, breathes, sweats, and bleeds Grav, melta, and S6/7, armor value is, in fact, invalidated.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
again the problem with removing glances or utilizing that "Glance" table is that if your army doesn't have much or any long ranged High Strength Low AP weapons then your getting a nerf even as your vehicles are getting a buff. Lootaz are only capable of penetrating up to armor 12 and then have to glance AV13 to death, and with AP4 I would only be able to stun lock the vehicle without reducing any HPs off it. Other options are the Smasha gun...which sucks. Rokketz which are Rng 24 and AP 3 or the Zzap gun which is HIGHLY ineffective. SO again the only effective anti tank I have is S9 AP2 Power Klaws on the charge. Which means I still have to survive the onslaught for 2-3 turns before I can charge.

Hmm...
The primary issue with hull points is that vehicles can be killed by three hits. The issue with the damage table is that some armies are terrible at it, and others are capable of using it to make vehicles pointless.

So far the union of MC and vehicle rules is the least problematic solution.

Russes at toughness 15 anyone?

 krodarklorr wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Vehicles are just fine the way they are, can't see why people scream all over about them. Vehicles are seriously cheaper than equivalent MC's unless you factor in specific broken stuff like WK's. Actually if you think outside the box of GMCs and super heavies (and you should, we are talking 40k here, not apoc, bringing apoc units into 40k is a bad move and we should not make a second bad move to try and undo the first one, that's how waterfall effects happen) then vehicles are doing just good. A tri-las predator costs 140 pts and has a front armor of 13, equivalent to a Toughness 9. This is very very cheap for what it does. It should not be any more sturdy because MC's that cost 140 pts don't do half as much as what a trilas predator does. Arguments stating that "WK is too stronk while a rhino dies easier are very very bad arguments. A 250 pt tank (LR) is actually more durable than any 250 pt MC discounting Nurgle DP's. A 100 pt dreadnought is sturdier than a 120 pt carnifex etc etc etc. Not all vehicles are rhinos and not all MC's are WK's.

Sturdier against...bolt guns? If so, you are correct. If not, think of this. Gauss. Gauss will would that Riptide on a 6, but it gets a 2+ armor and a FNP roll. It will also glance that Land Raider or Dreadnaught on a 6, with no saves of any kind allowed. Also, you could have a whole squad of Melta or Lascannons shoot at a Riptide/Dreadknight/Bloodthirster, ext, and they would get an invuln save, plus a FNP occasionally. A vehicle would be dead after 2+ Melta guns, because damage chart.

Even if we consider the different USRs that effect each unit type, vehicles are boned even more. Poison wounds on a set number, but most of the time still allows armor saves (dependent on the actual weapon, but rarely do poison weapons have decent AP). Haywire, on a 2+ that vehicle takes damage, and vehicles don't have armor saves or FNP. Fleshbane: okay, wounds on a 2+, not bad. Armourbane: essentially melta, which will cause for a vehicle to explode a lot more easily from a single hit. And then there's Melta, which has absolutely no effect on MCs, and will eat a vehicle alive.

A dreadnought is sturdier than a carnifex against anything but a short range melta shot. Better against bolters (can't even hurt it unless it's from behind), better against all strength shots including lascannons, plasma, assault cannons etc etc, infinitely better than a carnifex against grav, yet you elect to compare them based on Gauss weapons alone. You then go on and compare lascannon shots on MC's with invul vs short ranged melta on vehicles. That is not a relevant comparison by a longshot. Compare same incidents. Yeah, short range melta will kill vehicles easier than the MC's but guess what? that's what melta weapons are made for. Same way instant death weapons decapitate MC's but tanks just don't care. If you compare lascannons to MC's and lascannons to vehicles you will find that all MC's (apart from WK's) to be seriously losing the combat and fast. As for poison vs haywire, compare how many units are there on the table with each rule as well as their ranges. What's the range of poison units and how often do you see them on a table vs the range of the haywires and how often do you see those. I could also add here sniper weapons, who wreck MC's but can't even hurt tanks.

I could see a point of introducing a "damage" table on the monstrous creatures, because being wounded 3-4 times should take away some of your offensive potential at least, but then you would have to do the same for all multiwounded models like characters etc. You also haven't addressed the fact that vehicles are cheaper than monstrous creatures, they can be found in troop slots and get ObSec, can be picked as dedicated transports and therefore not cost a slot, cannot be locked in combat, can tank shock units to get out if they get surrounded, can move a lot faster than MC's in the movement phase, can flat out, turbo boost, can carry troops etc etc etc.

I will say this one again also: not all monsters have invul saves, and not all vehicles are without saves. Just as some monsters have invul saves, so tanks like skimmers can have jink (tau tanks + disruption pods for a 3+), or invul save (holo fields, venoms etc etc).

The least problematic solutions so far seem to be


A: Change all AV values to Toughness values and assign armor values FNP, etc as appropriate.

B. Assign armor, and invul traits to vehicles across the board.

For instance the lowly rhino would get a 4+ armor save, light skimmer would get a 5+, and the Land Raider would have a 3+ armor save, and a 4+ invul.

On a side note, cover should be easier to attain for vehicles no matter what is done, and that will at least give some vehicles a little more survivability.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
The least problematic solutions so far seem to be


A: Change all AV values to Toughness values and assign armor values FNP, etc as appropriate.

B. Assign armor, and invul traits to vehicles across the board.

For instance the lowly rhino would get a 4+ armor save, light skimmer would get a 5+, and the Land Raider would have a 3+ armor save, and a 4+ invul.

On a side note, cover should be easier to attain for vehicles no matter what is done, and that will at least give some vehicles a little more survivability.

A rhino in this way would have a toughness of 7 (6 on the rear), 3 wounds and a 4+ save. Do you really mean to tell me that it should cost 35 pts for that statline?

Why not? I mean people keep claiming that AV is fine and not at all underperforming compared to their fleshy brethren.


Also I would say T6 and T5 for the sides. I'm guessing you made it T7 to keep it immune to bolter fire from the front?



Side note: Does price really matter when you get 12 of them for free in a Gladius Double-Demi Company?

AV11 = T 7 because all strength weapons need the same number on the roll dice to get a wound past it. Ie a missile would need 3+ to inflict a wound/hull point to either of those, a lascannon would need 2+, a plasmagun would need 4+ etc.

I think vehicles are just perfect they way they are. Things like Land raiders are poor options for competitive play, but this has to do with the Land raider functionality and cost/effectiveness ration rather than the LR being a vehicle.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
AV11 = T 7 because all strength weapons need the same number on the roll dice to get a wound past it. Ie a missile would need 3+ to inflict a wound/hull point to either of those, a lascannon would need 2+, a plasmagun would need 4+ etc.

I think vehicles are just perfect they way they are. Things like Land raiders are poor options for competitive play, but this has to do with the Land raider functionality and cost/effectiveness ration rather than the LR being a vehicle.

40k game mechanics and perfect should never be used in the same sentence together.


I really would prefer Toughness values for all of these vehicles, because it eliminates a lot of worthless alternative rules that people will have to memorize.

I think what we need to consider here is this: why is toughness 7 so much more scary then AV11? After all you've already pointed out that its the same to wound/glance roll with various weapons.

It's not the toughness. It's mostly the wounds. Vehicles have 2-4 wounds, MC's have 3-6 wounds, GUO doesn't count. It is easy to get a couple of wounds in a MC, heck my Carnifexes die all the time for stupid reasons, and it is equally easy to get some lucky 6's and rear glance a tank to death. Having more wounds though, a MC is more likely to survive an unlucky streak of 1-2 on saves, a tank does not have that option. If normal tanks had 4 hull points, they would be sooo much more durable. I would also agree on a expensive-ish vehicle upgrade (let's say 35 pts) that would reduce the damage table by 1. This would go a long way towards making tanks really really strong, but again I don't think they need it all that badly.

An army can easily field 8-10 tanks (not talking gladius, normal armies can do this) and still have 700-900 pts left to build around different stuff. An army with 8-10 MC's will have nothing else and will most probably be impossible to build in 1850 pts.

hence why i suggested a 4+ armor save on glancing hits.

I couldn't disagree more with giving vehicles a toughness value. It completely eliminates the line between MCs and vehicles. Im just not a fan.

So far,the Idea I have liked the best it doubling hull points and changing pens to 2HP.

Think about it. As the rules stand now. It takes three shots, glancing or pens, to wreck a vehicle. the damage table would stay as is. The means to kill a rhino, you could potentially still do it with one Las Cannon shot, but if you're firing with bolters at the rear it's gonna take 6. A melta can still one shot and an autocannon can still take anything less than 13 out in 3.

Of all the changes proposed, it really is the simplest and most balanced. All it really does is make glancing shots half as effective as they are now.

In order to help with weapons above AP2, you could also make a 6 on the pen table take an extra HP, so a pen with a 6 on the table would take 3 HP.

 roflmajog wrote:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:I think doubling hull points would absolutely overpower vehicles. A soul grinder with 8 hp's? A rhino with 6? A freaking drop pod with 6? Sounds like a bad idea to me. All we would see is vehicles and melta spam then.

Why are you complaining that mine makes them OP when its only doing half as much as what people have been suggesting of completely removing glances? It keeps penetrating hits exactly the same if they strip 2 HP at once, but glances only do half as much as they do currently, rather than nothing at all, which is what others were suggesting.

Desubot wrote:Its starting to sound way complicated.

If anything another simple slight buff to vehicles would be the to hit rolls against vehicles in combat. should be based on how fast it goes.

Something like 3+ for a stationary 4+ for moving 5+ for crusing 6+ for flat out.

Well done you just hit melee armies with another nerf and made them even less viable.

But whats worse melee or vehicles.

a 4+ is nothing to sneeze at. 5+ means the tank is effectively only shooting one weapon. flat out means it wont be shooting at all. and nothing would be disembarking.

Though im sure you could make it more elegant like saying its WS2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > ~ for the speed category so that skilled fighters would hit better.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
The least problematic solutions so far seem to be


A: Change all AV values to Toughness values and assign armor values FNP, etc as appropriate.

B. Assign armor, and invul traits to vehicles across the board.

For instance the lowly rhino would get a 4+ armor save, light skimmer would get a 5+, and the Land Raider would have a 3+ armor save, and a 4+ invul.

On a side note, cover should be easier to attain for vehicles no matter what is done, and that will at least give some vehicles a little more survivability.

A rhino in this way would have a toughness of 7 (6 on the rear), 3 wounds and a 4+ save. Do you really mean to tell me that it should cost 35 pts for that statline?

We never said they would all cost the same. We just want them balanced. And HP =/= Wounds.

Are you really *this* dead set against vehicles being buffed?

 Dramagod2 wrote:
I couldn't disagree more with giving vehicles a toughness value. It completely eliminates the line between MCs and vehicles. Im just not a fan.

So far,the Idea I have liked the best it doubling hull points and changing pens to 2HP.

Think about it. As the rules stand now. It takes three shots, glancing or pens, to wreck a vehicle. the damage table would stay as is. The means to kill a rhino, you could potentially still do it with one Las Cannon shot, but if you're firing with bolters at the rear it's gonna take 6. A melta can still one shot and an autocannon can still take anything less than 13 out in 3.

Of all the changes proposed, it really is the simplest and most balanced. All it really does is make glancing shots half as effective as they are now.

In order to help with weapons above AP2, you could also make a 6 on the pen table take an extra HP, so a pen with a 6 on the table would take 3 HP.

Well doubling HPs would mean having 12hp Imperial Knights. Which would be nuts even compared to WK for being underpriced and OP.

Something to think about.

The game isn't full of those things, the tournament meta is. And that is because they are all expecting to have to deal with nothing but super durable units, super killy units, and whatever the local comp is. When your local meta has 8 people and one of them is daemons you will reconsider what heavy and special weapons you bring to bear.

My local rarely sees grav because the guard, daemons, kroot heavy tau, and my harlequins invalidate them pretty easily.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

 Dramagod2 wrote:
I couldn't disagree more with giving vehicles a toughness value. It completely eliminates the line between MCs and vehicles. Im just not a fan.

So far,the Idea I have liked the best it doubling hull points and changing pens to 2HP.

Think about it. As the rules stand now. It takes three shots, glancing or pens, to wreck a vehicle. the damage table would stay as is. The means to kill a rhino, you could potentially still do it with one Las Cannon shot, but if you're firing with bolters at the rear it's gonna take 6. A melta can still one shot and an autocannon can still take anything less than 13 out in 3.

Of all the changes proposed, it really is the simplest and most balanced. All it really does is make glancing shots half as effective as they are now.

In order to help with weapons above AP2, you could also make a 6 on the pen table take an extra HP, so a pen with a 6 on the table would take 3 HP.

Well doubling HPs would mean having 12hp Imperial Knights. Which would be nuts even compared to WK for being underpriced and OP.

Something to think about.

The problem is, you're seeing the number 12 and getting scared because it's big. but it's literally the same thing as if you kept the rules exactly the way they are, and made glances only strip 0.5HP. HP aren't woundsand you can't compare them to the wounds on a MC. By making pens automatically worth 2HP, the change would only affect the power of glancing hits. Any weapons that shoots at a vehicle would do it in the exact same way it does not and do the same amount of damage.

The only think that would change for knights(or SHVs in general) would be that an explodes result would cause D6 HP instead of D3. I really do think this is the best option, super simple and effective.

Example

Old Way-
3 LC hits on a knight
2 pen, 1 glance for -3HP
damage rolls are 2 and 6. D3 roll of 2 for -1HP
Total HP Lost = 4 (66%)

New Way-
Same 3 LC hits on knight
2 pen, 1 glance for -5HP
damage rolls are 2 and 6. D6 of 3 for -2HP
Total HP Lost= 7 (58%)

I think the changes are positive overall

You are all missing the simple solution:

>Drop the HP mechanic. Its useless, pointless and hurts more than it helps.

>replace it with:

Glancing hits
1-3 no effect
3-4 crew stunned
5 weapon destroyed
6 immobilised

Penetrating hits
1 crew shaken
2 weapon destroyed
3 immobilised
4-6 wrecked
7+ explodes

modifiers:
AP --6 can only cause glancing hits. -2 on the damage charts
AP 5-4 -1 on the penetrating chart
AP 3-2 roll as normal
AP 1 +1 on the damage charts
Strength 4 or less cant damage a vehicle (no more rapid firing IG tanks to death Marine players )
Strength 5-6 get a -1 on the damage charts
Strength 7+ rolls as normal
Strength D gets a +2 on the damage charts and automatically penetrates

This simulates how vehicles act in real life whilst removing the stupid threat of low strength low AP non dedicated AT weapons. Now if you want to kill a tank you have to bring weapons that are actually intended to fight and kill tanks rather than just spamming autocannons and the like.

 master of ordinance wrote:
You are all missing the simple solution:

>Drop the HP mechanic. Its useless, pointless and hurts more than it helps.

>replace it with:

Glancing hits
1-3 no effect
3-4 crew stunned
5 weapon destroyed
6 immobilised

Penetrating hits
1 crew shaken
2 weapon destroyed
3 immobilised
4-6 wrecked
7+ explodes

modifiers:
AP --6 can only cause glancing hits. -2 on the damage charts
AP 5-4 -1 on the penetrating chart
AP 3-2 roll as normal
AP 1 +1 on the damage charts
Strength 4 or less cant damage a vehicle (no more rapid firing IG tanks to death Marine players )
Strength 5-6 get a -1 on the damage charts
Strength 7+ rolls as normal
Strength D gets a +2 on the damage charts and automatically penetrates

This simulates how vehicles act in real life whilst removing the stupid threat of low strength low AP non dedicated AT weapons. Now if you want to kill a tank you have to bring weapons that are actually intended to fight and kill tanks rather than just spamming autocannons and the like.

We would be back to 5th edition parking lots then. (yes its a bad thing. yes i know you play IG)

But your point is correct that spaming non tank weapons or light weapons to kill things is just silly.

Its why i think armor saves would be the way to deal with it as it gives the tank a chance to deflect those auto spams but leaves anti tank weapons to do there thing (like Melta)

Now that I could go for - it's not far from "get punched and you're dead", but on the other hand, actually getting a pen that doesn't have a zillion negatives is hard. The default "scary spammy weapons" tend to be S6 AP6 (scatter laser, multi-laser), and those will do next to nothing - though you might be able to stunlock vehicles with less than AV13. Autocannons, Tau missile pods and the like are still a threat to AV12 and below, but against AV13 they do next to nothing. Krak missiles are actually dangerous, as they should be - but you're also not insta-dead the minute someone points a lascannon at you. But that lascannon is fairly scary, even to Monoliths - much better odds that you'll just be wrecked outright than the current odds of exploding an AV14 tank.

That does seem like the effect we're going for, doesn't it? Emergency anti-tank is still a thing (autocannons, plasma guns, etc), but to kill real tanks reliably you'll need real AT weapons. (Dark) Eldar vehicles are still pretty vulnerable, but Jink and holo/flickerfields make this less of a problem.

Something that would make transports better is if the "explodes!" result was harder to obtain. It is very rare for vehicles to actually turn into burning fireballs. Making it require an 8+ with 7 being replaced with "wrecked" would make transports a lot safer.

Desubot wrote:
We would be back to 5th edition parking lots then. (yes its a bad thing. yes i know you play IG)

But your point is correct that spaming non tank weapons or light weapons to kill things is just silly.

Its why i think armor saves would be the way to deal with it as it gives the tank a chance to deflect those auto spams but leaves anti tank weapons to do there thing (like Melta)

But would we? There are plenty of low AP weapons with a high enough strength to function as AT weapons these days. Grav would still be able to shut vehicles down - immobilised and weapon destroyed results would soon render a vehicle a pile of junk. Almost every unit has Krak Grenades and Meltabombs. There are weapons capable of functioning in the dedicated AT role everywhere these days. The parking lot would be a viable tactic but shutting it down would be far easier, especially with formations.
Giving vehicles armour solves nothing really. They are still worse off than MC's. Forcing your opponent to bring dedicated AT weapons if he wants to deal with your tanks though, now that is something. During 5th I played my IG without armour support, unless you count a lone Chimera. I still killed tanks. My secret? I brought dedicated AT weapons to deal with them.
During 5th (and this is my personal belief for the change to HP's) I found that the people whom whined about vehicles where those whom brought no AT or only a small token, even when they knew they where facing tank heavy armies, and then complained because they couldnt do anything. They often had AT weapons but didnt see why they should have too as in their eyes their army should be able to destroy everything that stood before it (yes, a lot of these where Marine players). It was their fault that they couldnt handle the tanks, no one else's.

jade_angel wrote:Now that I could go for - it's not far from "get punched and you're dead", but on the other hand, actually getting a pen that doesn't have a zillion negatives is hard. The default "scary spammy weapons" tend to be S6 AP6 (scatter laser, multi-laser), and those will do next to nothing - though you might be able to stunlock vehicles with less than AV13. Autocannons, Tau missile pods and the like are still a threat to AV12 and below, but against AV13 they do next to nothing. Krak missiles are actually dangerous, as they should be - but you're also not insta-dead the minute someone points a lascannon at you. But that lascannon is fairly scary, even to Monoliths - much better odds that you'll just be wrecked outright than the current odds of exploding an AV14 tank.

That does seem like the effect we're going for, doesn't it? Emergency anti-tank is still a thing (autocannons, plasma guns, etc), but to kill real tanks reliably you'll need real AT weapons. (Dark) Eldar vehicles are still pretty vulnerable, but Jink and holo/flickerfields make this less of a problem.

That was the effect I was going for. Now players will no longer be able to just spam autocannons or equivalents. They will have to bring actual AT weapons. The Lascannon and Missile Launcher become viable choices again rather than mediocre options that you only bring for fluff reasons.
At the same time D weapons become scary again.

the Signless wrote:Something that would make transports better is if the "explodes!" result was harder to obtain. It is very rare for vehicles to actually turn into burning fireballs. Making it require an 8+ with 7 being replaced with "wrecked" would make transports a lot safer.

Transports are safe enough - very few weapons get a bonus on the table. The only real threats are Melta and D.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Desubot wrote:
We would be back to 5th edition parking lots then. (yes its a bad thing. yes i know you play IG)

But your point is correct that spaming non tank weapons or light weapons to kill things is just silly.

Its why i think armor saves would be the way to deal with it as it gives the tank a chance to deflect those auto spams but leaves anti tank weapons to do there thing (like Melta)

But would we? There are plenty of low AP weapons with a high enough strength to function as AT weapons these days. Grav would still be able to shut vehicles down - immobilised and weapon destroyed results would soon render a vehicle a pile of junk. Almost every unit has Krak Grenades and Meltabombs. There are weapons capable of functioning in the dedicated AT role everywhere these days. The parking lot would be a viable tactic but shutting it down would be far easier, especially with formations.
Giving vehicles armour solves nothing really. They are still worse off than MC's. Forcing your opponent to bring dedicated AT weapons if he wants to deal with your tanks though, now that is something. During 5th I played my IG without armour support, unless you count a lone Chimera. I still killed tanks. My secret? I brought dedicated AT weapons to deal with them.
During 5th (and this is my personal belief for the change to HP's) I found that the people whom whined about vehicles where those whom brought no AT or only a small token, even when they knew they where facing tank heavy armies, and then complained because they couldnt do anything. They often had AT weapons but didnt see why they should have too as in their eyes their army should be able to destroy everything that stood before it (yes, a lot of these where Marine players). It was their fault that they couldnt handle the tanks, no one else's.

What would a Grav do to a Tank if there is no HP to strip.

An immobile tank on objectives is still a massive threat and gravs cant remove weapons. nor should it.

Haywire becomes useless.

You are making another skew list to a massive list of skew lists. since if you dont bring anti tank or have no ablity to do so like orks then you are just fething them over.

The biggest issue with spam right now is that the AP of the weapon is being effectively ignored by tanks when it should be accounted for.

in 5th i played Tau. even with suicide melta and broadsides all over. it still was a massive pain.

Grav can still cause glances and immobilise. It no longer auto kills tanks though.

Haywire can still glance. It just goes from being a brokenly good tank murder device to being a weapon that can cripple but not actually destroy a tank, as it should be.

An immobile tank on an objective might as well not exist, enemy infantry can still close assault it and if you had noticed I have not removed the "An immobilised vehicle with no weapons is automatically wrecked" rule.

It is not a skew list. It makes tanks an actual threat, rather than just a minor road bump for MC's and Infantry.

Orks have: CCW's that boost their strength, Killa Kans, Deff Dreads, Rockit Launchas, Shokk Attak Gunz, etc. They are not without their AT and by the looks of things their new codex will include some pretty hefty AT stuff.

The AP of the weapon is mostly being ignored, yes. However giving tanks armour saves is not the way to go.

Tau have plenty of AT weapons and my charts will actually help them, bringing such weapons as the Railgun back into the limelight.

Lets think about it this way.

With your chart.
A melta only has a 1/6 chance of killing a rhino.

ONLY.

You would need at least 9-10 Marines with Melta guns just to kill 1 rhino. assuming they dont roll double one on pen and are close enough.
edit: SCratch that i just saw the wrecked options.


and at that you would need to mulch through multiple weapons AND get immobilized results. Maybe if the Weapons and immoblized results stacked on each other in which if there are no avalible weapons then it becomes immobilized and vice versa.

I don't see how replacing a mechanic that we are already used to with three different tables is simple. I think you guys are going in circles. If the rules discuss at the gw design table go anything like they do in here, it's not wonder everything is so crappy