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.

S3 wounds T6 on 6s. It can't touch AV 10.

Indeed. T6 is slightly weaker than AV10. AV9.5 perhaps.

tneva82 wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Even the lightest of vehicles in the game have an AV of no less than 10, and most vehicles are higher than that (depending on faction). The Toughness equivalent to AV 10 would be 6, and the vast majority of MC are either at or below that T value.

T6!=AV10.

On a "equivalent to-wound/hull point loss" sense, it mostly does, with the caveat that T6 is (slightly) vulnerable to S3 where AV10 is immune, but AV10 is subject to automatic "wounds" at S9 or higher where T6 would still only be wounded on a 2+.

S4? Wounds/damages (i.e. removes a Hullpoint) on a 6.
S5? Wounds/damages on a 5+.
S6? Wounds/damages on a 4+.
S7? Wounds/damages on a 3+.
S8? Wounds/damages on a 2+.

The resulting damage is in many ways different (due to the table-rolling nature of penetrating hits), but in that narrow sense, they are equivalent values - certainly the closest to an equivalent value that AV and T can get, at any rate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arson Fire wrote:
Indeed. T6 is slightly weaker than AV10. AV9.5 perhaps.

Slightly weaker against low S attacks, slightly stronger against high S attacks (AV 10 is automatically glanced or penetrated by S9 and automatically penetrated by S10, while T6 is subject to nothing worse than a 2+).

Martel732 wrote:
Drop pods vs Tau is suicide. Even for skyhammer. The true counter to Tau is just accept that you can't outfight them and use gladius and win by horde tactics. But BA don't have the gladius, and 400 pts of free obj sec transports being necessary to even the scales vs MCs is my whole point.

There is no reason to ever nova charge anything other than shields. Another design flaw with the Riptide. Of course, when you've got all the MC rules working for you, it helps. A lot.

Riptide is a 300 pt model. At least.

Oh . A tailored Tau list will absolutely ruin your day. A TAC one? Not so much. And if a Riptide is deleting a unit a turn, it doesn't cost 220 pts. The actual cost is closer to 600 points, and that should absolutely be able to.

Tygre wrote:
I've always considered T8 3+ save to be equivilent to AV12 because of the Eldar Dreadnought/Wraithlord in the 3rd ed codex. In 2nd it had an armour value equivilent to an Imperial Dreadnought if I remember, but I do not know what it had in the 3rd ed rulebook errata lists.

That would make T6=AV10

No it wouldn't unless you give AV10 vehicles also 1+ save without 1 always fail rule. Otherwise you have anything that has S3 capable of hurting vehicle they before couldn't.

Similarly AV11!=T7.

And mere idea of lasguns taking out vehicles is pretty damn stupid. Whole point of armoured vehicles has been to protect against small arm fire. Armour at 40k is really so crappy they can't even protect guys from small arm anymore?

What's the point of having an armor save on vehicles though with the plethora of low ap weapons? They would just be wrecked before they got across the board

 TheLumberJack wrote:
What's the point of having an armor save on vehicles though with the plethora of low ap weapons? They would just be wrecked before they got across the board

They already do that now. At least most low ap weapon are suppose to kill vehicles

 TheLumberJack wrote:
What's the point of having an armor save on vehicles though with the plethora of low ap weapons? They would just be wrecked before they got across the board

To force people to actually use those low ROF anti-armour weapons. A Dreadnought wouldn't get glanced to death by scatterbikes as easily if it had even a 3+ save.

 TheLumberJack wrote:
What's the point of having an armor save on vehicles though with the plethora of low ap weapons? They would just be wrecked before they got across the board

There are only certain low AP weapons being used, and none of them are low ROF for the most part.

Fair enough, I see the error in my thinking

 TheLumberJack wrote:
Fair enough, I see the error in my thinking

It all circles back to lascannons, heavy rail rifles, hammerhead rail gun, etc all being junk. Because they aren't efficient vs MCs and can't reliably kill vehicles, either.

Martel732 wrote:

 TheLumberJack wrote:
Fair enough, I see the error in my thinking

It all circles back to lascannons, heavy rail rifles, hammerhead rail gun, etc all being junk. Because they aren't efficient vs MCs and can't reliably kill vehicles, either.

Well I think the only way to make those weapons efficient is they need the ability to strip multiple wounds if they are high enough strength

Lol we don't have to fix it. GW will do it for us ; )

 TheLumberJack wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 TheLumberJack wrote:
Fair enough, I see the error in my thinking

It all circles back to lascannons, heavy rail rifles, hammerhead rail gun, etc all being junk. Because they aren't efficient vs MCs and can't reliably kill vehicles, either.

Well I think the only way to make those weapons efficient is they need the ability to strip multiple wounds if they are high enough strength

I agree with that. Although they need to be made more desirable vs vehicles as well. It's a massive mess.

I always like the idea of have a MC with 2 sub types. Mechanical which has an armor value and Biological which does not. Maybe the Mechanical will be immune to poison but faces all the issues armor does but Biological will be effected by poison and no armor.

Make Walkers into MC: Mechanical

Sadly I don't think there is one blanket answer though.

Martel732 wrote:

 TheLumberJack wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 TheLumberJack wrote:
Fair enough, I see the error in my thinking

It all circles back to lascannons, heavy rail rifles, hammerhead rail gun, etc all being junk. Because they aren't efficient vs MCs and can't reliably kill vehicles, either.

Well I think the only way to make those weapons efficient is they need the ability to strip multiple wounds if they are high enough strength

I agree with that. Although they need to be made more desirable vs vehicles as well. It's a massive mess.

What if it was something like: If Str is 3 more than opponents toughness, strips 2 wounds. If it is 4 more, strips 3 wounds. This would mean the only way to one shot AV10(or T6 if vehicles get a toughness) would be to bring strength 10 weapons. Or instead of multiple wounds, you get the ability to roll multiple dice to wound

Edit: nevermind

Increase the cost of MC.

Alternatively, get rid of Walkers and make them MCs with the Walker special rule that makes them immune to poison.

 kronk wrote:
Increase the cost of MC.

Alternatively, get rid of Walkers and make them MCs with the Walker special rule that makes them immune to poison.

I like your second option better than the first, mostly due to being a part time Tyranid player, Tyranids are proof that Monstrous Creatures are perfectly capable of being rubbish.
I'd actually like to see the vehicle damage table deleted and rending made into a viable rule again like stacking damage.
Eg. AV14 vs S6 Rending
Strength six isn't enough to inflict hull damage but on a roll of six rather than rolling the second dice to attempt to cause damage Rending drops the AV by two points bringing it down to AV12 and within damage range from the next initiative step onwards.

"Tyranids are proof that Monstrous Creatures are perfectly capable of being rubbish. "

Still better than Imperial vehicles.

Martel732 wrote:
"Tyranids are proof that Monstrous Creatures are perfectly capable of being rubbish. "

Still better than Imperial vehicles.

Better is not good.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Tyranids are proof that Monstrous Creatures are perfectly capable of being rubbish. "

Still better than Imperial vehicles.

Better is not good.

T6 3+ ignores armor in melee still gets my attention. But I know, BA.

 Vash108 wrote:
I always like the idea of have a MC with 2 sub types. Mechanical which has an armor value and Biological which does not. Maybe the Mechanical will be immune to point but faces all the issues armor does but Biological will be effected by poison and no armor.

Make Walkers into MC: Mechanical

Sadly I don't think there is one blanket answer though.

No, this is absolutely the blanket answer.

You either drop vehicles as a type of unit entirely and make all existing vehicles into MCs with a USR called 'Mechanical' or similar, and all living MCs get the USR 'Biological', or you drop MCs as a type of unit and turn all MCs into vehicles with a similar split to differentiate biolgical vs mechanical units.

Either way, certain USRs for weapons now become effective against their logical unit type; poison won't do much against mechanical units, and likewise haywire won't do much against biological units. You also fix many of the issues with special and heavy weapons when you rework them so that there's roughly even parity between anti-biological and anti-mechanical unit types.

This change has many benefits. Its simpler to learn and play having one ruleset govern all large models. Its significantly fluffier, as we get to fix the discrepancy of why a riptide is an MC and a dreadnought is a vehicle. Its easier to balance as we don't have to try and factor how armor values typically don't get saves but are immune to all weaponry below a certain strength. Everything can now be balanced based on their statline as they're all easily comparable.

And before certain chime in with complaints that grav is op, or that certain units are criminally undercosted; yes, if someone competent were to make such sweeping changes to the core rules, rest assured, they'd also fix other broken elements like grav and poorly pointed units.

The solution is a core rule change. Shifting some point values doesn't address the issue that the rules are illogical, overly complicated, and make the game significantly harder to balance.

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Tyranids are proof that Monstrous Creatures are perfectly capable of being rubbish. "

Still better than Imperial vehicles.

Better is not good.

T6 3+ ignores armor in melee still gets my attention. But I know, BA.

I didn't know Blood Angels couldn't get Las Canons, Power Swords or Lightning Claws...I wonder if that means one of my mates who runs BA is a cheat?

Lascannons are fantastically terrible in 7th against the field.

Power swords and claws are both quite overcosted, especially in the BA codex.

Would people be more willing to take single shot weapons if they had something like this special rule*: If the first shot pens or wounds, resolve another at 1 lower Str and one higher AP each time until it either fails to pen or passes a save. So Lascannons would resolve Str9AP2, Str8AP3, Str7AP4, Str6AP5, Str5AP6, Str4AP-, and so on until one of the two limiting conditions are met.

* oh, another USR. nevermind.

Martel732 wrote:
Lascannons are fantastically terrible in 7th against the field.

Power swords and claws are both quite overcosted, especially in the BA codex.

And yet a Las Canon will get enough shots to pop most Tyranid MCs before they even get to their own shooting range. 15 points is pretty normal for a power sword on a Space Marine.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Lascannons are fantastically terrible in 7th against the field.

Power swords and claws are both quite overcosted, especially in the BA codex.

And yet a Las Canon will get enough shots to pop most Tyranid MCs before they even get to their own shooting range. 15 points is pretty normal for a power sword on a Space Marine.

No, it really won't. LoS and cover is a thing. Plus, the snap shooting on vehicles that have to move.

15 pts is an unsustainable price for a power sword, normal or not. That wounds an MC on a 6.

increase cost of MCs and GMCs
Change Glancing hits to:
no hull point lost, roll on damage table -2


Boom, walkers (and vehicles) are LEAGUES better

Martel732 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Lascannons are fantastically terrible in 7th against the field.

Power swords and claws are both quite overcosted, especially in the BA codex.

And yet a Las Canon will get enough shots to pop most Tyranid MCs before they even get to their own shooting range. 15 points is pretty normal for a power sword on a Space Marine.

No, it really won't. LoS and cover is a thing. Plus, the snap shooting on vehicles that have to move.

15 pts is an unsustainable price for a power sword, normal or not. That wounds an MC on a 6.

So, just because a vehicle can move more than six inches it naturally has to, not that it matters, you even have vehicles that can be equipped with a las canon and move up to twelve inches while still firing at full Ballistic Skill value.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure you'd be wounding most Tyranid MCs on a five considering they're mostly T6 and your Blood Angels have Furious Charge.
You know I play Space Wolves as my primary army so these numbers aren't exactly foreign to me. I've killed those creatures with these weapons.