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.

 jy2 wrote:
The problem here is battle company with up to 10+ free vehicles in an army.

IMO that's the start and end of that debate; it's simply a bad design decision, so the only real solution is to disallow it.
It doesn't weaken the battle company really, as it's already good without a heap of free stuff since the vast majority of units are already strong, and the formation bonuses are already good, so there's not much need for more bonuses over being able to take a whole detachment of formations.

 Haravikk wrote:
Personally I would prefer a save against glances; maybe something like roll equal or under Hull Points on a D6 (6 always fails).

Means most vehicles would have a 50% chance to ignore a glance initially, Land Raiders and such a 66% chance. Super Heavies will be mostly 6's to fail only until they've taken some meaningful damage.

Is the save on Hull points remaining? Or total/starting hull points? I can see fluff or balance reasons either way.

The more beat-up a vehicle gets, the less resilient it will be. OR plasteel/ceramite armor being what it is, it either stands, or fails catastrophically.

I like the 4+ concept, but I would modify it a little.

Either set it so each Vehicle's different like units, OR:
Tanks get a 4+ Armour Save
Non-Tanks get a 5+ Armour Save

Armour Save allows for certain Weapons to have an advantage they don't normally have (i.e. Krak Missiles) and "lock" in a Glance more easily, while providing a hindrance to light arms (like Warrior spam).

 pumaman1 wrote:

 Haravikk wrote:
Personally I would prefer a save against glances; maybe something like roll equal or under Hull Points on a D6 (6 always fails).

Means most vehicles would have a 50% chance to ignore a glance initially, Land Raiders and such a 66% chance. Super Heavies will be mostly 6's to fail only until they've taken some meaningful damage.

Is the save on Hull points remaining? Or total/starting hull points? I can see fluff or balance reasons either way.

I was thinking HP remaining; so a Super Heavy for example would be largely immune to glancing until it takes a few solid hits from something that can reasonably threaten it, after which its armour is compromised or whatever so glancing to death gets easier and easier. For weaker armies in terms of anti-tank it puts more emphasis on popping the rear armour with melta equivalent weapons before you can Haywire equivalent it to death.

Vehicles already can have a 4+ or 5+ cover save by using terrain or other units, why adding an armor save when every weapon that can hurt them is ap4 or better?

 Blackie wrote:
Vehicles already can have a 4+ or 5+ cover save by using terrain or other units, why adding an armor save when every weapon that can hurt them is ap4 or better?

Multilaser is s6 ap-, melle weapons on rear armor like chainswords can glance on 6's, ap-.

Melta/armorbane would be largely/entirely unaffected. but my firewarriors gunning down front armor of a rhino with s5ap5 so glancing on 6's would at least give the rhino a chance to participate

How about the first Glance a vehicle suffers per phase does not cause it to lose an HP, but causes Shaken instead?
Subsequent Glances in the same phase will strip a HP and may cause Stunned on a further 4+?

This way it is harder to Glance a vehicle to death, but you can "suppress" it easier instead.

Or, ya know, give vehicles Armour Saves. AV does does not adequately represent T & Sv combined like GW wants it to
It more or less just represents T. I like rolling Str + D6 against AV. It should feel different than rolling Str v T on a chart.
But Armour is Armour. Give every vehicle in 40K an Armour save along with it's AV

When 8th ed is released, there should either be a conversion chart for AV, +1 for Tank, -1 for Open-topped = X+ sv. Or just give every actual entry an set Sv, similar to how 6th ed (or was it 5th?) gave each existing vehicle Hull points

-

You guys still aren't taking specific armies into consideration when throwing around these ideas.

 pumaman1 wrote:

but my firewarriors gunning down front armor of a rhino with s5ap5 so glancing on 6's would at least give the rhino a chance to participate

Give that rhino some cover save in order to save some HP.... if vehicles gain armor or invuln saves many armies wouldn't have the slightest chance to wreck them. If a vehicle gets caught in close combat IMHO is ok if it's glanced by rolling 6s hitting the rear.

Maybe it could be fair if the vehicle has a 4+ save but if it passes it has to snap fire next turn, even if it hasn't lost any HP. Making shooty tanks tougher than now would be bad IMHO, many armies still have a lot of issues in wrecking high AV vehicles, not everyone plays eldar, tau necrons or SM.

"not everyone plays eldar, tau necrons or SM."

Vehicles have so many weaknesses that everyone can exploit vehicles in one way or another.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You guys still aren't taking specific armies into consideration when throwing around these ideas.

I think we are more than you think. Those that will have problems with some of these changes already had problems dealing with them before.

Martel732 wrote:


Vehicles have so many weaknesses that everyone can exploit vehicles in one way or another.

Some armies have just 1-2 ways to wreck vehicles actually, some can only hurt them in close combat which means that at least 1-2 turns those vehicles can shoot everything they can without problems. Orks and DE for example don't have those many options, unless they bring tailored lists. But both of them can destroy on average just 1-2 AV12 vehicles in a single turn of shooting, orks have not a chance to wreck a AV14 tank by shooting, even with 3 units of tankbustas. Tyranids can't wreck AV14 in their shooting phase, same for SW. I don't play chaos or daemons and I'm not extremely familiar with them but I doubt they can easily kill a AV13-14 vehicle in the first 1-2 turns. Harlequins have only some haywire and they need to get closer. With the excpetion of the usually 4-5 overpowered armies AV14 is still tough for the majoirty of the factions.

An army with the majority of the list composed by vehicles should have problems, IMHO is totally fair. It's like orks players that still want to field efficiently mobs of 30 boyz on foot in order to bring 90-120 boyz, when it's way better relying on trukk boyz or battlewagons, and they complain about that.

The point is that you can ignore almost any vehicle in the game for multiple turns. It takes squadrons of tanks all game to do what a scat pack does in one turn. And then they all crumble in assault anyway. As opposed to MCs, who own you in assault.

Can't wreck AV 14? Who cares? Your opponent lost the moment they put that land raider on the table. The most ignorable 250 pts in the game. Behold its three crappy Imperial heavy weapons that can't all fire unless it stands still! And it will likely immobilize itself for you! The horror of AV 14!

I guess there's also the Monolith and Warhound. But seriously, other than the Warhound are these good units? Newp.

Yes land raiders are not the most competitive choice available but do SM need another overpowered unit? I don't think so.

And against a lot of armies AM tanks are still quite killy. MCs are hurting you badly? How many armies field those invincible monsters? 2-3 I guess. And that's because of their wargear or special rules, not because they're MCs. Tau big robots are extremely weak when charged. Talos, Cronos, Carnifex, squiggoth are an issue?

A scat pack is one the most broken things in 40k, you should consider something else when making comparisons. I own three armies, quite big or huge ones, and AM still has an average firepower that is way better than everything I can field. I'm not complaining about that because AM is not extremely tough but making all their tanks invincible, mobile and with a great amount of firepower would only create another overpowered army.

Right now is acceptable that AV14 vehicles are not invincible and extremely killy, otherwise half armies couldn't really deal with them.

"Tau big robots are extremely weak when charged"

Actually, they're not. They beat most of the units in my codex in CC.

It's not acceptable that the land raider is hands down the worst unit in my codex. I'd never consider using one at its current point value. Ever.

The gulf that exists between the land raider and "OP" is so huge that I can't imagine what changes it would take to get it there.

"A scat pack is one the most broken things in 40k, you should consider something else when making comparisons"

It's what I have to go up against, so nope.

Mind you, I don't think the OP's suggestion is a good rule. I think that a 4+ save against all glances is a better rule by far. It takes the much of the teeth away from autocannons/scatterlasers and puts it back with actual anti-tank weapons.

That's only because you're probably the typical tournament player that wants to win at any cost, you can't say "It's what I have to go up against" because there are more than twelve different factions, not only eldar. Yes, in tournaments you'll see a lot of them, but 40k is not only winning tournaments. And SM are better than eldar overall, or at least on the same level.

And seriously if you have access to free vehicles, 40+ grav shots in a single turn, conclave librarians, skyhammer, you can't complain about land raiders or Tau MCs being better in close combat against some of your units, because you won't charge with units that are not good in close combat.

They would beat most of the units in you codex but you have tons of good options, many armies can deal with riptides and stormsurges only if they reach them into assault. Orks or DE can handle them in close combat better than SM maybe but SM are way more efficient overall.

The land raider is the worst unit in your codex because many other units in the same book are overpowered. I know it's far from being overpowered but it belongs to an army that spams overpowered units and doesn't need another good (if not overpowered) one.

Every codex has a lot of units that nobody brings, even in friendly games, why do SM should receive other helps?

Try playing tyranids, AM, blood angels, orks, sisters, harlequins or dark eldar and you'll regret complaining about land raiders. Again, eldar are only one of the available factions, there are a lot of different armies in 40k.

Yeah, I'm BA, chief. I don't get any of that crap you listed. I'm BA and I still laugh my ass off when I see LRs.

"many other units in the same book are overpowered"

Find a single overpowered unit in C:BA. I'll give you all the time you need. And it's STILL the worst unit in the codex.

Edit:Ninja'd

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, I'm BA, chief. I don't get any of that crap you listed. I'm BA and I still laugh my ass off when I see LRs.

"many other units in the same book are overpowered"

Find a single overpowered unit in C:BA. I'll give you all the time you need. And it's STILL the worst unit in the codex.

I thought you play SM, my bad. Mostly because you said something about tau being better in close combat than most of your units, while BA close combat units are actually good fighters. BA have a lot of issues, I never heard any BA player that complains about vehicles honestly. But again it's like ork players that want to field 120 boyz while it's not a competitive option and complain about that. Every codex has units that nobody takes.

I think making shooty vehicles more resilient would be bad for a lot of armies, those ones that are currently below mid tiers and don't deserve other hard counters.

I own three armies, and they all have several units that are worse than land raiders. SW for example also have land raiders but, even if they're not competitive choices, there surely are worse things in their codex.

There's where your unfamiliarity with the BA comes in. BA units typically CAN'T beat a Riptide or Stormsurge in CC. Too many layered saves.

Maybe other BA players don't realize how disadvantaged we are not having any magical MCs to power our lists.

Or ... ya know.. radical thinking here... try not worry too much about a non tournament 'forge the narrative' level ruleset being used in tournaments?

I think vehicles have been in the best place they've been in a long long time.

Granted they were obnoxious in 5th, but that's also why they were far more powerful in 5th.

Yeah, I'm not a BA player but riptides and stormsurges are not that good in close combat and you don't really need to kill them, just to tarpit them. If I can deal with them using ork boyz or warbikes I'm sure BA can do it too. I don't have any MCs with orks and SW, I just run some talos/cronos with DE but not everytime. I'd like tons of different things for my armies, but not improving vehicles or relying on overpowered MCs.

Tarpitting them after they have shot the gak out of my list only means that they get to kill one more of my units on their way to victory. That math is completely in the Tau's favor. No reputable Tau player is going to get handled by boyz and warbikes, either.

Of course tau are a very solid army, and riptides among best units in 40k. But they're not invincible, a mid tier army can defeat the best ones actually. Not many chances but it happens, sometimes I actually win against solid lists of tau, daemons or necrons.

Beating the most cheesy SM and eldar list is more difficult. But we're talking about tournament lists, if a tau players brings a good list but not the most competitive one he's far from being invincible.

5 riptides and a stormsurge are extremely tough for example, but not everyone like to play the same list all the time, I won't play 10 times in a row against the same list.

I like playing against competitive armies but with some balance, I hate tournaments, and only play casual games.

If you want to win tournaments with a low-mid tier army it's a different thing, I don't care about winning at any cost. 40k is still a game and in a friendly environment you won't play everytime against the most cheesiest lists.

A reputable tau/eldar/SM player should be able to win even without the most competitive units, otherwise is the list itself that wins games not the player.

How about:

Take the lowest armor value on the vehicle.

AV10 - No saves of any kind allowed against glancing
AV11 - Saves on 6+ against glance
AV12 - Saves on 5+ against glance
AV13 - Saves on 4+ against glance
AV14+ - Saves on 3+ against glance

Glance, cover save (also, Jink), invlun saves, etc, all would be in the same slot. So you wouldn't get a cover save and a glance save, or Bjorn the Fell handed wouldn't get his invuln and the glance save.

This only applies to vehicles, no toughness based units, etc.

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You guys still aren't taking specific armies into consideration when throwing around these ideas.

I think we are more than you think. Those that will have problems with some of these changes already had problems dealing with them before.

Is that true? Take into consideration Necrons, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, and AM for a moment.

How do you fix each one then?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You guys still aren't taking specific armies into consideration when throwing around these ideas.

I think we are more than you think. Those that will have problems with some of these changes already had problems dealing with them before.

Is that true? Take into consideration Necrons, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, and AM for a moment.

How do you fix each one then?

Necrons did not have a problem before. In fact, I think that their ability to abuse Glancing is part of the reason for threads like this. In addition, if an Armour Save, a significant portion of them are AP:4 or better anyway.

Dark Eldar, their ranged Weapons that are used to Wreck Vehicles still tend to have good AP as well. Only the Grenades would suffer. To be fair here, all Grenades took a massive hit with the concept that one "throws" a Grenade in Melee already.

Tyranids AV choices tend to be Smash-based, Lance-Based, or similar. And to be fair here, this codex needs so much work that it would be applied with this concept in play that it really shouldn't be considered in a reason not to consider these concepts.

If it's a problem, give the gauss special rule a penalty to the glancing save or eliminate it altogether. The 4+ vs glances is there to kneecap scatpacks and HYMPs.

Martel732 wrote:
If it's a problem, give the gauss special rule a penalty to the glancing save or eliminate it altogether. The 4+ vs glances is there to kneecap scatpacks and HYMPs.

Then maybe those weapons need to be priced appropriately. Scatterlasers should be 15 on the Bikes for example.