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.

Murrdox wrote:

1) Increase the Hull points of most units in the game by 2-3.
2) Explodes! Result removes an additional Hull Point. If the vehicle has no Hull Points left, it explodes. Otherwise, it remains in play.
3) All Vehicles given a 3+ Armor Save by default.
4) Vehicles are WS 3 in melee as long as they are not immobile. Fast and Skimmer types add 1 to the effective WS. So a Fast Skimmer would be WS5.
5) Allow all vehicles to target multiple units with different weapon mounts.

I will agree on this if the Rhino goes to 90 pts, naked Predators go to 160 and Land raiders go to 320 points. Otherwise, no freaking way. People always forget that Vehicles are waaaaaay cheaper than MC's. And you want to have a 35 pt Rhino have the same survivability as a 190 pt Tervigon (6 wounds/hull points, 3+ armor, T6/AV10). Seriously? Do people even think before they post?

" waaaaaay cheaper than MC"

Not for what MCs get.

Martel732 wrote:
" waaaaaay cheaper than MC"

Not for what MCs get.

And what is it that MC's get? (I know this will be a lost cause conversation because comparing MC's to vehicles is useless as they fit different roles, but let's hear it anyways.

After your opinion, please tell me how paying 35 pts for 5-6 hull points, 3+ armor, no exploding transport that doesn't cost a slot is even remotely justified. Because that's the profile Murrdox suggested.

The solution for vehicles is to turn them into MCs.

Change the name of MC to something like 'construct', with two USRs being either mechanical or biological. Biological gets affected by weapons that currently do well against MCs, and Mechanical gets affected by weapons that currently do well against vehicles.

One mechanic now governs all large things, which makes the game easier to learn, manage, and remember, as well as balance. It also helps fix the nonsense like Riptides and Dreadknights that are very clearly mechanical in nature but affected by poison instead of haywire.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" waaaaaay cheaper than MC"

Not for what MCs get.

And what is it that MC's get? (I know this will be a lost cause conversation because comparing MC's to vehicles is useless as they fit different roles, but let's hear it anyways.

After your opinion, please tell me how paying 35 pts for 5-6 hull points, 3+ armor, no exploding transport that doesn't cost a slot is even remotely justified. Because that's the profile Murrdox suggested.

I'm not supporting that. What I'm saying is that as it exists right now, non-skimmer vehicles are overcosted across the board. MCs can't be one shotted, can't get immobilized, are hellacious in HTH, and get armor saves.

Here is what we basically came up with:

Front AV 10-AV 11: +1 HP
Front AV 12, AV 13:+2 HP
Front AV 14: +3 HP
Walkers: Just get x2 ignoring the Armor Bonus
Chariots: Just add their Hull Points to the Character's Wounds.
Extra Armor: Adds +1 Hull Point
Or
Front AV 10: 6+
Front AV 11: 5+
Front AV 12: 4+
Front AV 13: 3+
Front AV 14: 2+

Just make vehicles their own Toughness and give them a save and hit points. Then we'd have one unified mechanic. Go ahead and then make a "vehicle" subtype that has its own special rules (like a bike or an MC or a beast). So much easier.

Martel732 wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" waaaaaay cheaper than MC"

Not for what MCs get.

And what is it that MC's get? (I know this will be a lost cause conversation because comparing MC's to vehicles is useless as they fit different roles, but let's hear it anyways.

After your opinion, please tell me how paying 35 pts for 5-6 hull points, 3+ armor, no exploding transport that doesn't cost a slot is even remotely justified. Because that's the profile Murrdox suggested.

I'm not supporting that. What I'm saying is that as it exists right now, non-skimmer vehicles are overcosted across the board. MCs can't be one shotted, can't get immobilized, are hellacious in HTH, and get armor saves.

Vehicles should get 1 more hull point, a slightly more forgiving damage table and maybe reworked repair (ie Restore 1 hull point if you forgo movement, restore d3 hull points if you forgo movement and shooting). But no much more than that. Any kind of vehicle/walker with more than 4 hull points would be just too durable for the game. Once again, not all armies have access to melta.

MC's can be one-shotted by ID attacks. They are more rare yes, but they can also be double-strength tapped out. Demon princes, Kairos, tyrannocytes, malanthropes etc are MC's with T5. In addition to that, one only needs medium strength + ap3 to deal with the majority of MC's. Against vehicles, one needs high strength (str 6-7 won't cut it), proper positioning (side/rear), possible extremely short range (melta) and (preferably) low ap (2-1) to make it happen. A MC will require more shots to take down, yes, but a vehicle requires more specialized shots.

MC's can't get immobilized but they can be tarpitted, while vehicles can't. Also vehicles are almost all the time much much faster than MC's.

MC's are most definitely NOT hellacious in close combat. Not all MC's are WK's, design mistakes should not be the canon. Most Tyranid MC's have a pitiful Ws 3 and Ini 2, a pathetic number of attacks, no grenades and no rerolls. High strength alone is not enough. Then apart from a black mace DP (where the mace itself is the one dealing the damage rather than the DP), I cannot think of MC's that can actually be considered dedicated assault units. Can't for example find any kind of MC that would do well against TH/SS termies or any other assault staple for that matter.

For all it's worth it, I do believe that in general all shooting attacks should get -1 strength when the target is not at short range. This would go a long way towards making tanks more survivable.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" waaaaaay cheaper than MC"

Not for what MCs get.

And what is it that MC's get? (I know this will be a lost cause conversation because comparing MC's to vehicles is useless as they fit different roles, but let's hear it anyways.

After your opinion, please tell me how paying 35 pts for 5-6 hull points, 3+ armor, no exploding transport that doesn't cost a slot is even remotely justified. Because that's the profile Murrdox suggested.

MC's can do LOTS of things that vehicles cannot, even with the ideas that I posted. Just off the TOP of my head....

- MCs can assault.
- Even the weakest, most pathetic MC still attacks with an AP2 weapon.
- Even the weakest, most pathetic MC can still make a S10 AP2 melee attack.
- MCs can fire their weapons at full effectiveness and move their full movement. Vehicles either have to stand still, or fire 1 weapon and then fire snapshots with everything else.
- Vehicles can't gain cover as easily as MCs.
- Vehicles can lose weapons.
- Vehicles can be immobilized.
- Vehicles can be stun-locked and temporarily immobilized.

Of COURSE when you phrase my idea it sounds ludicrious, since a Rhino costs 35 points. Give all those bonuses to a Rhino for only 35 points? Insanity!

I'm coming from a perspective of taking vehicles back to how they were in 5th Edition.

Back in 5th Edition, that 35 point Rhino had NO LIMITATION of hit points at all. You could keep glancing and penetrating it, and if you happened to not roll a 5 or a 6, that Rhino could survive a lot of attacks.

I'm fully open to the fact that all the suggestions I made might tweak vehicles a bit too far in the other direction, but the Hull Point system has really weakened vehicles. I'd like to see them shine a bit more like they did in 5th Edition, without going so far as to having invincible Land Raiders and Monoliths.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
If there are MCs with 6 wounds, there should be vehicles with 6 HP as well (not only S-H). MCs need a table akin to vehicles too

the problem is if you hit a MC with a lascannon and roll a lucky 6 to wound it doesn't just die regardless of how many wounds you have left.

that is why wounds are better then hull points

You can hit a MC with an instant death attack and it will die, the vehicle will not. This comparison does not make any sense.

Hull points are fine. Basic tanks should have 4 starting hull points though, with an optional vehicle upgrade that would add a hull point (new rule for extra armor?). Land raider should have 5 initial HP and go to 6 with an upgrade.

And just how many ID weapons are there in the game? Remind me again, because I can not remember the last time I saw one outside of a Grey Knight army.

Hull points are anything but fine. They essentially take a vehicle and make it into an MC that does not get saves and can still be instagibbed by many weapons in the game (Lascannon, Melta, etc). They render vehicles useless.

All force weapons are ID, meaning all psykers can ID. Tyranids have a lot of ID weapons ranging from boneswords to implant attacks. Demons have a couple of different ones. Other armies might also have them, I am not familiar with them. From memory there should be an elder sniper special character with instant death methinks.

Removing the hull points would make vehicles such a powerhouse that it would be stupid. Tyranids for example would have zero ways to actually kill a transport from range, and even at melee it would take a MC and possibly smash which is 1 attack only. A rhino for 35 pts without hull points. Yeah, no. Hell no. Vehicles are not useless. They are way more cheap than MCs, they can shoot multiple weapons, MC's can only shoot 2. They cannot get locked in combat, cannot get cornered (they just tank shock), their armor equivalent is ridiculously high (AV 10 is the equivalent of Toughness 6, av 13 is the equivalent of Toughness 9, this is ridiculous), they can transport troops etc etc. Any direct comparison between MC's and vehicles would be stupid, they are not the same units, they have different roles. Should vehicles have a better damage table? Yes (ie nothing happens in 1-4, 5 is crew stunned, 6 is weapon destroyed, 7 is immobilized, 8 is destroyed). Should they have more hull points? Yes, 1 hull point more base on every vehicle would upgrade their survivability by 25%. Should we remove the hull points altogether? No way.

I have played for many years with both MC's (tyranids) and vehicles (mecha CSM) and in each army I would like to have a little bit of the other as well. CSM do have DP's though, tyranids get screwed

Okay, how many psykers do you actually see in the game? Not many outside of GK and the occasional Eldar spam. They also have to survive to hit your MC and then wound it.
Tyranids have some? Okay, that is news to me.....
Demons have some? And dont they have to pay through the nose/roll on a random chart to get them?
Nope, no Eldar snipey snipe.
Removing HP would not make vehicles overpowered, it would make them balanced. They would be able to compete again on the same level as MC's and not be instakilled by rapid firing low strength weapons.... Or in other words they would equal your MC powerhouse in capabilities. Now I know that some armies lack something in the AT department but if you look at the most recent 'dexes you will see that these shortcomings have been made up. tyranids can get into melee very easily and will butcher any tank that they hit. Sure, they lack smaller AT units but then again how could a Gaunt kill a tank in melee? Its stupid. And Tyranids could still easilly kill most transports at range - they have the guns too do so.

I do not know where you are getting this "Tanks do far more for their points cost than MC's" stuff but you are most definitely sadly misinformed. An MC is currently far superior to any tank in any way you can imagine. They have saves, are almost immune to small arms fire, are usually as fast or faster, suffer no penalties when they take wounds, have more wounds, can massacre almost anything they hit both at range and in melee, do not get immobilised by a bush and can claim cover by just sticking their toe in it. And MC's can not be oneshotted without either the very rare and expensive ID weapons/units or, in the case of the rare weaker ones, by a lucky hit from a STR 10 weapon.
A tank can not gain any of these advantages and is far more vulnerable

So what? Do you have a problem with tanks being tough? They should be. A tank is protected by thick steel plates where as an MC has a tough hide and thick muscles.... Which is tougher? Besides tanks are hardly more survivable than an MC at this point so no, you are wrong once again. Also: remind me again how many saves an MC gets as opposed to a tank?

More HP is not the answer. The answer is to remove them entirely and go back to a 4th/5th edition style damage table. a glancing hit should do very little, no more than blowing a weapon off or knocking a track loose. A penetrating hit should have at least a 50% chance to destroy the vehicle utterly.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

MC's can't get immobilized but they can be tarpitted, while vehicles can't. Also vehicles are almost all the time much much faster than MC's.

Figured I'd comment on this as well... since I forgot to mention it as yet another weakness of vehicles.

All MCs come with "Moves Through Cover" for free. This makes them pretty fast, and immune to Dangerous Terrain.

Vehicles treat ALL terrain as Dangerous Terrain. They are under constant threat from being Immobilized just for moving over rubble or having part of their hull over some terrain piece.

 Lobukia wrote:
Just make vehicles their own Toughness and give them a save and hit points. Then we'd have one unified mechanic. Go ahead and then make a "vehicle" subtype that has its own special rules (like a bike or an MC or a beast). So much easier.

I have put forward this suggestion multiple times in the proposed rules forum. People don't like change, and they are too attached to having a completely unnecessary alternate form of doing damage from the regular Toughness mechanic.




Sure you'd have to change the affects of haywire, gauss, melta, and armorbane to make it work, but its definitely doable.

You could even make a special rule called VEHICLE that makes them immune to things like poison and fleshbane.

Murrdox wrote:
Back in 5th Edition, that 35 point Rhino had NO LIMITATION of hit points at all. You could keep glancing and penetrating it, and if you happened to not roll a 5 or a 6, that Rhino could survive a lot of attacks.

That was one of the problems with 5th. I saw a single Rhino shrug off over a dozen Las-Cannon Hits during the course of the game and the and the worse that happens was is just could not do anything, but give cover and cause a road block that was stopping other vehicles from getting to the side armor of the Vindi. Not that that mattered because it spent the game not being able to fire.

 Lobukia wrote:
Just make vehicles their own Toughness and give them a save and hit points. Then we'd have one unified mechanic. Go ahead and then make a "vehicle" subtype that has its own special rules (like a bike or an MC or a beast). So much easier.

This. Exactly this. If you wanted you could give them two Toughness and Armor values for front and rear armor. Keep the movement and assault rules. Change haywire to 1 does nothing, 2-5 does 1 wound, 6 does d3 wounds. Change armor bane to does 2 wounds on a failed save, etc.

 master of ordinance wrote:


Okay, how many psykers do you actually see in the game? Not many outside of GK and the occasional Eldar spam.

I apologize for any earlier comments I've made to you, MOO. I had not realized that you were a very young and inexperienced player with a similar local group. That was my oversight, and I was wrong.

2/3rds of all 6th and 7th edition games that I have played with friends, at game stores, and at tournaments have included Psychers including almost every Eldar, Daemons, Chaos Space Marines, IG, and Space Marine list I've faced.

However strong force weapons are, though, that's not what my Black Templar fear. What they fear are Prescience shooty squads, like Grav Cannon Centurions podding in with a cheap librarian (or Grav bikes with a biker librarian). My Templars are challenged against flying daemon prince lists with Invisibility and Iron Arm or Warp Speed. I haven't even gotten to Seer Councils and they're shenanigans.

But we carry on and carry a big stick. That's what we do. That's what we're here for!

I'm with the keep but modify crowd. First, don't have vehicles die automatically when reduced to 0 hull points. Instead all damage rolls get +2 on the damage chart. Then allow glances to roll on the chart with a -3 penalty. The chart should be modified as well. I'm thinking something like: (<1)no effect, (1)stunned, (2)weapon destroyed(owner chooses), (3) weapon destroyed (opponent chooses), (4)immobilized, (5)wrecked, (6+)explodes.

Glances would only destroy on a 6 and then only if the vehicle has been reduced to 0 hull points. Pens destroy on 5+ normally, 3+ if reduced to 0 hull points. Vehicles are more vulnerable to pens, less vulnerable to glances and can still be worn down so they aren't likely to endlessly soak up lascannon fire.

--

Regarding the discussion about Dark Eldar against vehicles in 4th and 5th, my experience was blasters/dark lances did well for the most part though people tended to grumble about having large numbers of those in your list. There was no other good way to take down vehicles though (I don't think haywire was a cost effective option) and they weren't as effective as people feared they were. (Only better than lascannons against AV14.) Monoliths were as good as invincible though. There was no point in even trying to take them out. You had to accept they would do what they wanted all game long and focus your efforts on targets you could destroy.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
I'm with the keep but modify crowd. First, don't have vehicles die automatically when reduced to 0 hull points. Instead all damage rolls get +2 on the damage chart. Then allow glances to roll on the chart with a -3 penalty. The chart should be modified as well. I'm thinking something like: (<1)no effect, (1)stunned, (2)weapon destroyed(owner chooses), (3) weapon destroyed (opponent chooses), (4)immobilized, (5)wrecked, (6+)explodes.

Glances would only destroy on a 6 and then only if the vehicle has been reduced to 0 hull points. Pens destroy on 5+ normally, 3+ if reduced to 0 hull points. Vehicles are more vulnerable to pens, less vulnerable to glances and can still be worn down so they aren't likely to endlessly soak up lascannon fire.

The problem with your suggestion is that it makes spam armies even better and nerfs armies with only a handful of Anti tank. An Ork trukk would never survive since its AV10 all around. and now without AP weapons they would be ruined on a 5+ instead of a 6+.

On the subject of making monstrous and vehicles take damage in the same way...

I don't like that idea. Yes it simplifies things but at the cost of loss of flavor and diversity. The two unit types may not function in the same way or be equal in all things, but that's how it should be. As others have mentioned, vehicles are not without benefits monstrous creatures. Most vehicles are immune to S4 shooting, very few MCs are. S8 has 1/2 shot to wound top toughness MCs, 1/6 to "wound" top AV vehicles.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

Sure you'd have to change the affects of haywire, gauss, melta, and armorbane to make it work, but its definitely doable.

You already thought of the solution in your next sentence.

You could even make a special rule called VEHICLE that makes them immune to things like poison and fleshbane.

Its really that simple. I've also proposed this same idea, and I know of a few other respected posters that are either using this system or trialing it in some capacity in their own games.

Have a 'mechanical' USR where armourbane, haywire, and melta and similar all hurt more (armour bane wounds on 2+, melta causes 2 wounds per unsaved wound, haywire does it normal thing against wounds now), and then have a 'biological' USR where poison, fleshbane, and whatever else affects them like they currently do.

You'd also need to have a USR that would allow certain of these MCs/Vehicles to assault so as to differentiate between a Russ in combat and a Dreadknight, but its a hell of a lot simpler than having two distinct rule groups for large things in your game. Plus, Riptides and their ilk would finally make sense crunchwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:


I don't like that idea. Yes it simplifies things but at the cost of loss of flavor and diversity. The two unit types may not function in the same way or be equal in all things, but that's how it should be. As others have mentioned, vehicles are not without benefits monstrous creatures. Most vehicles are immune to S4 shooting, very few MCs are. S8 has 1/2 shot to wound top toughness MCs, 1/6 to "wound" top AV vehicles.

There be no loss of flavour or diversity. Every unit would still have its own profile, its own set of advantage and disadvantages, and the usual bevy of other USRs that seems to constitute flavour these days.

If anything, it would help flavour things better, as units would better match their fluff. Riptides would be affected by haywire instead of poison, for example. Russes would have armour that matters. All of that enhances flavour as it meshes with the theme better and makes more sense within the game's and universe's logic.

I don't buy the diversity argument at all. You might as well argue that all MCs are the same and all vehicles are the same if you feel that a combined mechanic would cost some important amount of diversity.

In reality, making units more balanced and fair will promote better tabletop diversity anyways, which is better than some theoretical diversity of having a bunch of unique, but otherwise useless units.

So if you were to convert vehicles to having a T and save, what would the T and save of a Rhino be versus a Land Raider for example? Would Str 4 be able to hurt the front armor of Rhinos or are we making Armour 11 == T 8? Would there still be facings?

As it is i think its better than the nightmares that is 5th monolthining (which i was stuck dealing with :/)

Personally would rather see everything in the T system with a special sub type vehicle like others have stated.

Give melta rerolls or whatever, make snipers wound differently against it.

If random effects need to be a thing then make a Critical damage mechanic where 6s that didnt need 6s in the first place lets you roll on an effect table.

AV11 can start off at T7 like most artillery pieces already.

Give special rule where attacking from the rear and in CC you reduce T by 1 or base T6.

so a Chimera would be T8 and i would leave the side at that too since the chimera is pretty easy to kill and needs a bit O buff.

T9 for av 13 and t10 for av14. which correlates perfectly to what is need to glance them anyway.

Zimko wrote:
So if you were to convert vehicles to having a T and save, what would the T and save of a Rhino be versus a Land Raider for example? Would Str 4 be able to hurt the front armor of Rhinos or are we making Armour 11 == T 8? Would there still be facings?

A link to his thread.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/634211.page
Lythrandire Berthandine has a formula somewhere that he uses to calculate AV values into Toughness values.

I'll see if I can find it.
Edit 1
His formula is:
Highest Armor Save on a vehicle – 5= Toughness.

Armor save is equal to 6- (or 7 for open topped) the number of sides that share this value.
Wounds translate over directly.
So a Rhino would be

11-5 = 6
6-3=3
T6 3+ with three wounds.

Space Marine Landspeeder
10-5=5
7-4=3
T5 3+ with 2 wounds


Also some of the old WIP ideas I had for fixing the AT usrs


Armorbane- Weapons with this rule always successfully wound on a 2+ when rolling to wound against models with the Vehicle special rule.
Melta- As with Armorbane, but only when within the weapon is firing within half range.
Lance- Treats models with T7 or higher as being T6.
Gauss- Rolls of six to wound always wound regardless of toughness.

What are the arguments for homogenizing MCs and vehicles?

One is that vehicles aren't as effective/survivable as monstrous creatures. My reply to that in its simplest form is "so what". Why should they be? They are different types of units. This really seems like an argument of personal taste. "Vehicles should be as strong as or stronger than monstrous creatures because steel>flesh in my head." You can't argue taste really.

A second argument is balance, but rules don't need to be made the same to cure that. Points costs and tweaks within the current system can do that. I think much of the complaints here really go back to point 1 in that the problem often isn't balance as much as "its not fair that MCs are more durable than vehicles".

A third argument is complexity. This is the strongest argument in my view though I don't think the AV system is difficult to learn and apply so it isn't really that strong an argument.

Whether wraithnights and riptides should be vehicles or MCs has no bearing on whether the rules should drop the distinction between the two types of units. If they are misscategorized, the solution is to properly categorize them, not scrap the system.

Who is saying vehicles need to be stronger than MC?

Most people just want them to be relevant rather than expendable.

vehicles die fairly easily in a vacuum. using terrain properly takes a lot more skill then foot in ruin for MC. (honestly MC should just not gain ruin bonsus or require to do the same 25% cover that vehicles need to deal with)

and while the AV system isnt complex the damage system excessively punishes any damage done to the vehicle while at best a FMC can possible drop from the sky and get a booboo.

its quite a gap in consequence to take a vehicle.

i would equally enjoy just nerfing MC to the ground.

Changing cover to work the same for all makes sense and doesn't require ditching the AV system.

If vehicles convert to toughness values as an earlier post suggests that looks something like AV14=T10. Vehicles suddenly become dramatically harder to kill than MCs unless MCs get toughness boosts. Middling AV12 becomes as good as a Wraithlord historically one of the more durable units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think there is a fine line between to easy to kill and too durable. People want vehicles to be hard to kill, and to be able to take a whole army of them which then makes infantry pointless. Limit how many vehicles can be taken and people get mad, limit how effective they are and people get mad. But one of the two needs to happen to ensure infantry remain a viable option.

topaxygouroun i wrote:


MC's can't get immobilized but they can be tarpitted, while vehicles can't.

To be fair, most vehicles can't be tarpitted either because they're usually dead after a single round of CC. Likewise, Walkers can be tarpitted.

Also vehicles are almost all the time much much faster than MC's.

Not if they want to shoot with any degree of capability in most cases however, and anything with any CC capability isn't any faster than any MC (walkers)

MC's are most definitely NOT hellacious in close combat. Not all MC's are WK's, design mistakes should not be the canon. Most Tyranid MC's have a pitiful Ws 3 and Ini 2, a pathetic number of attacks, no grenades and no rerolls. High strength alone is not enough.

one will notice that most walkers aren't really any better off. Aside from the newest SM codex, most Dreads are A2, while Chaos daemon engines are WS3 Init3.

Then apart from a black mace DP (where the mace itself is the one dealing the damage rather than the DP), I cannot think of MC's that can actually be considered dedicated assault units.

Carnifexes, Bloodthirsters, Trygons, the Avatar, Talos, Cronos, Tomb Stalker, Keeper of Secrets, Dimachaeron, Swarmlord, etc?

Can't for example find any kind of MC that would do well against TH/SS termies or any other assault staple for that matter.

TH/SS termi's are a dedicated anti-big-thing unit designed specifically to engage things like MC's, and you won't find any vehicle that's going to do well against them either.

But av14 was already that tough.
Nothing actually changes so long as you fix melta and armor bane rules to fit.

as well giving them armor saves will only help them slightly against the generic spam tactics everyone uses. regular anti tank will work exactly the same as they all have lower AP

To be honest I don't mind HP, just the damage table doesn't really do much.

I really want a return to penning vehicles and having a chance to destroying them. Maybe make a 6/4+ roll destroy the vehicle?

I find it strange how weapons like the battlecannon cannot destroy a vehicle they penetrate purely because they are AP1 or 2..... and why should an armour penetration stat help post penetration instead of the penetration roll?

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Murrdox wrote:

1) Increase the Hull points of most units in the game by 2-3.
2) Explodes! Result removes an additional Hull Point. If the vehicle has no Hull Points left, it explodes. Otherwise, it remains in play.
3) All Vehicles given a 3+ Armor Save by default.
4) Vehicles are WS 3 in melee as long as they are not immobile. Fast and Skimmer types add 1 to the effective WS. So a Fast Skimmer would be WS5.
5) Allow all vehicles to target multiple units with different weapon mounts.

I will agree on this if the Rhino goes to 90 pts, naked Predators go to 160 and Land raiders go to 320 points. Otherwise, no freaking way. People always forget that Vehicles are waaaaaay cheaper than MC's. And you want to have a 35 pt Rhino have the same survivability as a 190 pt Tervigon (6 wounds/hull points, 3+ armor, T6/AV10). Seriously? Do people even think before they post?

And a Wraith Knight cost only 295 with 2 wraith cannons and can swap for melee for free. While an Imperial Knight costs 325 with no guns.

MC cost more because they cant explode.

 Filch wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Murrdox wrote:

1) Increase the Hull points of most units in the game by 2-3.
2) Explodes! Result removes an additional Hull Point. If the vehicle has no Hull Points left, it explodes. Otherwise, it remains in play.
3) All Vehicles given a 3+ Armor Save by default.
4) Vehicles are WS 3 in melee as long as they are not immobile. Fast and Skimmer types add 1 to the effective WS. So a Fast Skimmer would be WS5.
5) Allow all vehicles to target multiple units with different weapon mounts.

I will agree on this if the Rhino goes to 90 pts, naked Predators go to 160 and Land raiders go to 320 points. Otherwise, no freaking way. People always forget that Vehicles are waaaaaay cheaper than MC's. And you want to have a 35 pt Rhino have the same survivability as a 190 pt Tervigon (6 wounds/hull points, 3+ armor, T6/AV10). Seriously? Do people even think before they post?

And a Wraith Knight cost only 295 with 2 wraith cannons and can swap for melee for free. While an Imperial Knight costs 325 with no guns.

MC cost more because they cant explode.

Also can move and shoot without being penalized, or charge (besides walkers).

Maybe another generic fix should be the smash, stomp, ram, and tank shock system. it seems overly useless besides end game objective grabbing. (which is rare already)