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.

I remember when I used to take Bright lances on every Wave Serpent and Falcons were actually useful for popping open tanks. Now the only time I take bright lances is on Vypers and Wraithlords during Apoc games to get some more damage on those titans. Everything else gets a scatter laser or star cannon.

A return to 5th edition would be a step backwards IMO. At the time the only army that could field large numbers of vehicles was IG. However, now, just about every army out there can field multiples of every single vehicle they have AND gain benifits for having large amounts of them. Returning to the world of difficult to destroy vehicles will also return to games of parking lots as opposed to boots on the ground.

Now, I don't think the current status of HPs is correct either, I play Tau, and if I want to be even slightly competitive, I'm required by the rules of the game to field nothing but riptides (which I only ever bought one of the standard ones, and one of each forge world one because I liked the models) and missile sides (which I hate the look of compared to the far improved looking railside). This wouldn't be an issue if all I played were games against like minded friends, but sadly, outside of local tournaments I don't get time to play much, and I go to the tournaments because I can guarantee three games in one day.

What this means is I don't get to use what I liked most about Tau when I got into them, Crisis Suits and Hammer Heads. Sure Crisis Suits are good, but the book has far better options for "competitive" lists, and my HHs have been parked for two years now.

What we need is to meet in the middle. Make Tanks viable again, but not nearly immortal. Yes, land raiders should be tough to destroy with anything less than an anti-tank weapon, same with super heavies, and dedicated heavy tanks, but weaker dedicated transports should drop to concentrated fire similar to how they do now.

I don't have the answer, but vehicles in general are broken and I don't think anyone will disagree with that statement.

Nocturus wrote:
A return to 5th edition would be a step backwards IMO. At the time the only army that could field large numbers of vehicles was IG. However, now, just about every army out there can field multiples of every single vehicle they have AND gain benifits for having large amounts of them. Returning to the world of difficult to destroy vehicles will also return to games of parking lots as opposed to boots on the ground.

Now, I don't think the current status of HPs is correct either, I play Tau, and if I want to be even slightly competitive, I'm required by the rules of the game to field nothing but riptides (which I only ever bought one of the standard ones, and one of each forge world one because I liked the models) and missile sides (which I hate the look of compared to the far improved looking railside). This wouldn't be an issue if all I played were games against like minded friends, but sadly, outside of local tournaments I don't get time to play much, and I go to the tournaments because I can guarantee three games in one day.

What this means is I don't get to use what I liked most about Tau when I got into them, Crisis Suits and Hammer Heads. Sure Crisis Suits are good, but the book has far better options for "competitive" lists, and my HHs have been parked for two years now.

What we need is to meet in the middle. Make Tanks viable again, but not nearly immortal. Yes, land raiders should be tough to destroy with anything less than an anti-tank weapon, same with super heavies, and dedicated heavy tanks, but weaker dedicated transports should drop to concentrated fire similar to how they do now.

I don't have the answer, but vehicles in general are broken and I don't think anyone will disagree with that statement.

Transports like Trukks, Rhinos, Raiders, etc are fine in that they get models from A to B and keep the models inside from bring shot until the transport itself dies. (trukks suffer from the issue that the guys inside said transport usually have paper thin defense so the inevitable explosion kills them). The issue with tanks as in combat vehicles is that the damage table completely shuts them down so any penetrating hits turn their shooting and/or destroy them outright plus every glance and pen takes off a HP. Compare to MCs which have armor saves and aren't diminished in their offensive power until they die and its clear why vehicles suffer. I honestly think having 3+ armor for all vehicles except skimmers and flyers having 4+ would help a lot. Help stop the high RoF high strength, gak AP weapons (gauss, scatter lasers, tesla, etc) from stripping HP off vehicles as easily while keeping the real AT weapons (krak missiles, melta, lascannons, railguns, etc) doing the same damage output. Auto cannon equivalent weapons would be good at forcing jinks from skimmers as they can bypass the armor save but aren't going to be as good against non skimmers which will have 3+ armor for protection.

Side note but I would disagree that Tau has to spam Riptides to be competitive but I do agree that the Hammerhead is really outdated in its capabilies for the points. The Ion head is quite good at killing Necrons all things considered but I rarely find the Rail head to be worth taking (despite how awesome it is in the fluff and in design).

 Vankraken wrote:

Side note but I would disagree that Tau has to spam Riptides to be competitive but I do agree that the Hammerhead is really outdated in its capabilies for the points. The Ion head is quite good at killing Necrons all things considered but I rarely find the Rail head to be worth taking (despite how awesome it is in the fluff and in design).

Also it doesn't help that Hammerhead's codex entry is crap with almost all 4th edition wargear options removed and unusable secondary weapon.
That's major reason why I quit Tau. I love Hammerheads and now they're unplayable.

Nocturus wrote:
A return to 5th edition would be a step backwards IMO. At the time the only army that could field large numbers of vehicles was IG. However, now, just about every army out there can field multiples of every single vehicle they have AND gain benifits for having large amounts of them. Returning to the world of difficult to destroy vehicles will also return to games of parking lots as opposed to boots on the ground.

Nobody is asking for difficult to destroy vehicles, people are asking for reasonably resilient vehicles. 5E vehicles were not immortal, nobody complained about Land Raiders, Hammerhads, Leman Russ tanks, Hellhounds, Fire Prisms, Dreadnoughts, Ravagers, Sentinels, Predators, etc. It wasn't a fundamental problem with vehicles in general.

Likewise, IG weren't the only army that could field large numbers of vehicles in 5E, and the only armies that can field more vehicles now than they could in 5E are through formations that give free stuff, which is a problem in and of itself that should be addressed and isn't a problem specific to vehicles, formations are just bad game design in general.




On another note, with regards to the Hammerhead, really, next to similar tanks in other armies, there's nothing wrong with the Hammerhead. For their cost and relative to equivalents like Predators or Fire Prisms or Leman Russ tanks, they're both very capable and very flexible, at least the Railgun iteration. The problem isn't that the Hammerhead itself is terrible, as a sub 150pt AV13 skimmer able to sport both a long range S10 anti-tank weapon and an anti-infantry pieplate in one platform on top of decent secondary weapons system. It's really very good next to its equivalents in other armies. It's a better tank hunter than a Vanquisher and a better infantry killer than a Dakkapred at the same time. The problem isn't fundamentally with the Hammerhead, it's that the non-vehicle MC and heavy infantry units are simply flat out more useful. A return of all 4E wargear and abilities wouldn't change that. Once 6E dropped, we saw Hammerheads disappear almost overnight even before the 4E options went away. Broadsides, Riptides, etc simply end up being both more cost effective and resilient.

True to a point, but at least old wargear made Hammerhead fun to play and modelled Tau techno-oriented way of war well. Nowadays it is just a floating Predator.

I played old Railhead in 6th and it worked okay. It was slightly less good than in 5th but playable.

Of course it is the Forgeworld 'Heads which really got screwed in the change. I bought Fusionhead turret, painted it up and got to use it in exactly 1 game before the rules changed to uselessness.

Evrryone forgets that walkers have HoW...

commander dante wrote:
Evrryone forgets that walkers have HoW...

But they never get to use it because they die before they can get into CC

SemperMortis wrote:

commander dante wrote:
Evrryone forgets that walkers have HoW...

But they never get to use it because they die before they can get into CC

not to mention ap- and unmodified str so... most SM pass and maybe they knock out a ORK or tervagaunt... woo

Really HoW is a special rule which should be removed from the game. It is fairly meaningless, slows down the game and way too easy to forget.

Says you. My S5 unconditional HoW on my Ashen Circle have won me combats.

KDK chariots have s7 HoW and they heal hull points when they wound a model with it. HoW is completely relevant to how they play.

Wait, my walkers have HoW? When did this happen?

I think walkers either need some kind of invul vs ranged weapons (like an imperial knight save but lower, like a 5+), or a price drop, or be immune to certain vehicle damage table rolls, or get +3 to movements. I haven't fielded killa kans or deff dreads since 5th edition--too slow and can't really shoot the things that threaten them very effectively.

 Vankraken wrote:

Nocturus wrote:
A return to 5th edition would be a step backwards IMO. At the time the only army that could field large numbers of vehicles was IG. However, now, just about every army out there can field multiples of every single vehicle they have AND gain benifits for having large amounts of them. Returning to the world of difficult to destroy vehicles will also return to games of parking lots as opposed to boots on the ground.

Now, I don't think the current status of HPs is correct either, I play Tau, and if I want to be even slightly competitive, I'm required by the rules of the game to field nothing but riptides (which I only ever bought one of the standard ones, and one of each forge world one because I liked the models) and missile sides (which I hate the look of compared to the far improved looking railside). This wouldn't be an issue if all I played were games against like minded friends, but sadly, outside of local tournaments I don't get time to play much, and I go to the tournaments because I can guarantee three games in one day.

What this means is I don't get to use what I liked most about Tau when I got into them, Crisis Suits and Hammer Heads. Sure Crisis Suits are good, but the book has far better options for "competitive" lists, and my HHs have been parked for two years now.

What we need is to meet in the middle. Make Tanks viable again, but not nearly immortal. Yes, land raiders should be tough to destroy with anything less than an anti-tank weapon, same with super heavies, and dedicated heavy tanks, but weaker dedicated transports should drop to concentrated fire similar to how they do now.

I don't have the answer, but vehicles in general are broken and I don't think anyone will disagree with that statement.

Transports like Trukks, Rhinos, Raiders, etc are fine in that they get models from A to B and keep the models inside from bring shot until the transport itself dies. (trukks suffer from the issue that the guys inside said transport usually have paper thin defense so the inevitable explosion kills them). The issue with tanks as in combat vehicles is that the damage table completely shuts them down so any penetrating hits turn their shooting and/or destroy them outright plus every glance and pen takes off a HP. Compare to MCs which have armor saves and aren't diminished in their offensive power until they die and its clear why vehicles suffer. I honestly think having 3+ armor for all vehicles except skimmers and flyers having 4+ would help a lot. Help stop the high RoF high strength, gak AP weapons (gauss, scatter lasers, tesla, etc) from stripping HP off vehicles as easily while keeping the real AT weapons (krak missiles, melta, lascannons, railguns, etc) doing the same damage output. Auto cannon equivalent weapons would be good at forcing jinks from skimmers as they can bypass the armor save but aren't going to be as good against non skimmers which will have 3+ armor for protection.

Side note but I would disagree that Tau has to spam Riptides to be competitive but I do agree that the Hammerhead is really outdated in its capabilies for the points. The Ion head is quite good at killing Necrons all things considered but I rarely find the Rail head to be worth taking (despite how awesome it is in the fluff and in design).

Giving all vehicles a save of some sort would be a good idea. 3+ for your more heavily armoured, to maybe 5+ for your ramshackle thrown together trucks. I, of course, see it being used badly, if GW did it, giving out 2+ armour to many of the loyalist tanks (and I think GW hands out 2+ saves far to much. 3+ is fine for most heavily armoured troops), but it could be a step in the right direction. It would certainly cut back on the damage out put from scatbikes and missile sides.

I think if they give out armor saves it should be based on the vehicles total armor value (F+S+R). The higher the number, the higher the save. I think the lowest is 30 as I can't think of any vehicles that have armor less than 10 on any side. The highest I think is the Warlord with like 42-45 or something like that. They could give that a 2+ for vehicles with 40+ armor. 3+ for 36-39. 4+ for 31-35, and 5+ for 30.

 Xerics wrote:
I think if they give out armor saves it should be based on the vehicles total armor value (F+S+R). The higher the number, the higher the save. I think the lowest is 30 as I can't think of any vehicles that have armor less than 10 on any side. The highest I think is the Warlord with like 42-45 or something like that. They could give that a 2+ for vehicles with 40+ armor. 3+ for 36-39. 4+ for 31-35, and 5+ for 30.

Except that vehicles with armor values of 40+ aren't worried about anything in the game pretty much that isn't Ap2 already And my AV10/10/10 trukkz aren't dying to Ap2 weapons they are dying to AP 4-6 weapons. So this doesn't really help all that much. I think a flat out 3+ save for Tanks and a 4+ for transports is fine. Or conversely you could make them an invul save which, then you would probably want to change the 2+ to at least a 3+ and maybe even a 4+.

I'd almost say give Ork Vehicles a 6+ invuln save. Odds are every hit you throw at them might just blow off a useless chunk of the vehicle due to extra gubbinz slapped on for no other reason that the Mek that built it thought it looked cool. I remember from EPIC that gargants were practically indestructible. Even blowing off the head and killing the controlling crew didn't actually remove it from being a threat...

Nocturus wrote:
I'd almost say give Ork Vehicles a 6+ invuln save. Odds are every hit you throw at them might just blow off a useless chunk of the vehicle due to extra gubbinz slapped on for no other reason that the Mek that built it thought it looked cool. I remember from EPIC that gargants were practically indestructible. Even blowing off the head and killing the controlling crew didn't actually remove it from being a threat...

That would be nice and fluffy and in almost no way, shape or form help ork vehicles survive. Well it would help in 1/6th of the situations but realistically ALL vehicles need help right now, with Open Topped Ork Vehicles just being a bit more garbage then most.

SemperMortis wrote:

Nocturus wrote:
I'd almost say give Ork Vehicles a 6+ invuln save. Odds are every hit you throw at them might just blow off a useless chunk of the vehicle due to extra gubbinz slapped on for no other reason that the Mek that built it thought it looked cool. I remember from EPIC that gargants were practically indestructible. Even blowing off the head and killing the controlling crew didn't actually remove it from being a threat...

That would be nice and fluffy and in almost no way, shape or form help ork vehicles survive. Well it would help in 1/6th of the situations but realistically ALL vehicles need help right now, with Open Topped Ork Vehicles just being a bit more garbage then most.

In no way shape or form was it MEANT to make them more powerful. Nice and fluffy was the goal. I remember playing against Orks in 2nd edition and laughing the whole time because of the ridiculous stuff like that, that would just randomly make the game go sideways. There is always that day that a truck loaded with boyz gets hit with a D weapon, and saves the hit on a 6, in this instance, only to unload its payload into the unsuspecting lines of the imperium/xenos/spiky imperium.

Nocturus wrote:



In no way shape or form was it MEANT to make them more powerful. Nice and fluffy was the goal. I remember playing against Orks in 2nd edition and laughing the whole time because of the ridiculous stuff like that, that would just randomly make the game go sideways. There is always that day that a truck loaded with boyz gets hit with a D weapon, and saves the hit on a 6, in this instance, only to unload its payload into the unsuspecting lines of the imperium/xenos/spiky imperium.

No.

"Nice and fluffy" is why orks are chalk full of d6 tables which read "on a 6 do decent damage, on a 5-2 do average damage, on a 1 kill this unit and any friendlies near by, and punch yourself in the balls.

The "nice and fluffy" rules may be great when you're on the other side of the table - when you know that the Ork player has equal chances of harming his own unit as doing any respectable damage to you it may be amusing - but as the ork player it's absurdly frustrating and patently terrible rules writing.

Orks are one of the armies which really suffers right now, they don't need more craptastic fluff rules which do nothing on the table top.

 morganfreeman wrote:

Nocturus wrote:



In no way shape or form was it MEANT to make them more powerful. Nice and fluffy was the goal. I remember playing against Orks in 2nd edition and laughing the whole time because of the ridiculous stuff like that, that would just randomly make the game go sideways. There is always that day that a truck loaded with boyz gets hit with a D weapon, and saves the hit on a 6, in this instance, only to unload its payload into the unsuspecting lines of the imperium/xenos/spiky imperium.

No.

"Nice and fluffy" is why orks are chalk full of d6 tables which read "on a 6 do decent damage, on a 5-2 do average damage, on a 1 kill this unit and any friendlies near by, and punch yourself in the balls.

The "nice and fluffy" rules may be great when you're on the other side of the table - when you know that the Ork player has equal chances of harming his own unit as doing any respectable damage to you it may be amusing - but as the ork player it's absurdly frustrating and patently terrible rules writing.

Orks are one of the armies which really suffers right now, they don't need more craptastic fluff rules which do nothing on the table top.

I don't see how my suggestion harms Orks in any way. It was fluffy, nice, benificial, and not over the top. I believe rules can be fluff, not fully random, and still fun. I agree Orks are a low tier army, but I am not a competitive player either, and I don't run the true meta in any of my lists, so my armies are not un-beatable by anyone including orks. I agree d6 tables are annoying when 5 out of 6 options are detrimental, and the last one isn't helpful either. In second edition, rules were fluffy, every army had a way to win, AND the game was fun. The problem was it was also very complex.

Looking at my Walkers there is one that really works; the Maulerfiend, and it has a lot of the benefits that are mentioned here, it has the 5++, the mobility, the ability to ignore some pens, and arguably some extra HP from IWND. Ithink giving all walkers those abilities might be overkill, but it shows that they are possible solutions.
I like the idea of giving many Walkers another HP, and more of them should be able to use the benefits they have, such as being able to fire an unlimited amount of weapons. the only walker I can think of that can really do this is probably the Defiler which can fire 4-5 Weapons per turn.