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.

 amanita wrote:
No, they're stupid. Just because GW changed the vehicle damage table to make them too resilient doesn't mean more bloat and record keeping was needed to rectify the original problem.

Why does everyone fall into the same trap when GW makes a dumb rule? Instead of fixing or modifying the original better rule people tend to try to fix the stupid new rule that never addressed the problem in the first place?

So without hull points how you fix problem of rhino eating 10 lascannon penetrations and still refusing to die? Which is just stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zustiur wrote:
What if; glancing hits can do any number of hull points per turn, BUT cannot remove the final hull point. i.e. cannot wreck the vehicle completely.

Orks say "no thanks". Basically impossible to destroy land raider from range. Nearly impossible already with best way to deal with those being power klaw charges.

The point of the entire discussion is: why changing some rules? To get a more balanced game.

If vehicles become tougher, especially tanks and not the open topped transports, who's gonna gain some real bonus?

The answer is: Imperium factions. Only them.

So I'm asking you: do we need any other helps to SM? Do we need to put other human factions to mid or top tier livels?

My answer is no, in order to add more variety to the entire game armies like tyranids, orks, dark eldar should be improved. By making vehicles more resilient we would only make those armies even more hard to play.

Yes there are some overpowered units that can wreck vehicles too easily, balance their points value or put some other limitations on them (like allowing grav only to centurions and devastators) and the problem is solved.

There are so many posts here saying only 4 or 5 armies can harm high AV vehicles at range/outside of assault...
Ok let's list them:
Eldar,
Necrons,
Tau,
Space Marines,
Blood Angels,
Space Wolves,
Grey Knights (I think - not too familiar and don't own the dex),
Inquisition,
Mechanicus,
Skitarri,
Chaos Space Marines,
Renegades and Heretics,
Astra Militarum,
Sisters of battle,
Imperial Knights,
Militarum Tempestus,
Deathwatch,
Legion of the Damned.

Let's list the ones that don't have the tools outside of assault:
Orks,
Dark Eldar (only because their AT is very expensive on vulnerable platforms, but could quite easily be in the other list)
Tyranids
Daemons

I'm sure I've forgotten a dex or two, but let's not carry on pretending that only 4 or 5 armies can deal with high AV vehicles outside of assault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also worth noting that aside from DE, the armies from the second list are all assault based armies anyway.

Poly Ranger wrote:

Also worth noting that aside from DE, the armies from the second list are all assault based armies anyway.

I find that an odd thing to say considering 2/3 of their non vehicle units are melee units (at least primarily) and PFP is also tilted more in favour of combat

Poly Ranger wrote:
There are so many posts here saying only 4 or 5 armies can harm high AV vehicles at range/outside of assault...
Ok let's list them:
Eldar,
Necrons,
Tau,
Space Marines,
Blood Angels,
Space Wolves,
Grey Knights (I think - not too familiar and don't own the dex),
Inquisition,
Mechanicus,
Skitarri,
Chaos Space Marines,
Renegades and Heretics,
Astra Militarum,
Sisters of battle,
Imperial Knights,
Militarum Tempestus,
Deathwatch,
Legion of the Damned.

Let's list the ones that don't have the tools outside of assault:
Orks,
Dark Eldar (only because their AT is very expensive on vulnerable platforms, but could quite easily be in the other list)
Tyranids
Daemons

I'm sure I've forgotten a dex or two, but let's not carry on pretending that only 4 or 5 armies can deal with high AV vehicles outside of assault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also worth noting that aside from DE, the armies from the second list are all assault based armies anyway.

I think you are disingenuously reading his post Your list would look more like this to "outsiders"

Space marines (BA, Sw, Gk, DW, LoD, DA etc)
Astra militarum plus allies (AM, Inquisition, SoB, Tempestus)
Mars (Skitarii, mechanicum) With IK somewhere between the above and here. since they can be allied in anywhere.
Eldar
Tau
Necrons
Foregeworld chaos

Eldar and tau max out armor at 13, and Necrons have a landraider bad 14

And if we remove FW from the list, because some people like playing codex 40k/don't have the money/don't have the 10 year+ history to build it up yet then it really even gets more limited.

Poly Ranger wrote:
There are so many posts here saying only 4 or 5 armies can harm high AV vehicles at range/outside of assault...
Ok let's list them:
Eldar,
Necrons,
Tau,
Space Marines,
Blood Angels,
Space Wolves,
Grey Knights (I think - not too familiar and don't own the dex),
Inquisition,
Mechanicus,
Skitarri,
Chaos Space Marines,
Renegades and Heretics,
Astra Militarum,
Sisters of battle,
Imperial Knights,
Militarum Tempestus,
Deathwatch,
Legion of the Damned.

Let's list the ones that don't have the tools outside of assault:
Orks,
Dark Eldar (only because their AT is very expensive on vulnerable platforms, but could quite easily be in the other list)
Tyranids
Daemons

I'm sure I've forgotten a dex or two, but let's not carry on pretending that only 4 or 5 armies can deal with high AV vehicles outside of assault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also worth noting that aside from DE, the armies from the second list are all assault based armies anyway.

Space wolves???? The only ranged anti tank SW have are overpriced units of long fangs or the single melta+combi melta that carry GH coming in drop pods. The stormwolf starts in reserve and only have worthy 2-3 shots. If you play SW with a lot of anti tank you're playing a very weak SW list. SW are mostly wulfen, thunderwolves and infantries in drop pods.

Blood angels don't have that huge amount of firepower that other SM have. Same for sisters and GK.

Many of the "different armies" you listed are actually the same faction repeated more times.

And DE are an assault oriented army as their best units are talos, grotesques and reavers with their rending S6 hammer of wraths.

BA can crack tanks like no one's business though. What they can't crack? MCs.

tneva82 wrote:

 amanita wrote:
No, they're stupid. Just because GW changed the vehicle damage table to make them too resilient doesn't mean more bloat and record keeping was needed to rectify the original problem.

Why does everyone fall into the same trap when GW makes a dumb rule? Instead of fixing or modifying the original better rule people tend to try to fix the stupid new rule that never addressed the problem in the first place?

So without hull points how you fix problem of rhino eating 10 lascannon penetrations and still refusing to die? Which is just stupid.

You believe that's really a thing? In 4th Ed a penetrating hit automatically stunned the crew as well. You don't think it's good enough to paralyze a vehicle for a turn? You want to know what is even more stupid? Shooting the same piece of damaged junk over and over and suddenly it just dies because what? It bled out?

Martel732 wrote:
BA can crack tanks like no one's business though. What they can't crack? MCs.

Plasma guns devastate the average monstrous creature (T6 W4) and they have as much access to them as any other marine army.
Furious charge with a power weapon (or a few) can also seriously hurt them (Typically before they swing back)
Dreadnoughts can typically laugh at most monstrous creatures in combat (Furiosos even more so because armour 13) and with the now official errata have tonnes of attacks that will wound on a 2
Most monstrous creatures are pathetic. There are a few really powerful ones that are the most frequently used because they are actually useful.

tneva82 wrote:

Zustiur wrote:
What if; glancing hits can do any number of hull points per turn, BUT cannot remove the final hull point. i.e. cannot wreck the vehicle completely.

Orks say "no thanks". Basically impossible to destroy land raider from range. Nearly impossible already with best way to deal with those being power klaw charges.

I've suggested this before - the last Hull Point can only be removed with a penetrating hit - with an additional rule that the first Hull Point lost only ever counts as glancing.

This prevents vehicles being one-shotted or glanced to death.

It does raise the issue, as tneva pointed out, that it makes it harder to destroy a vehicle. With AV14 you'd need to have S9 to stand a chance. This is hard for some armies (like Orks) but that's more an issue with those codexes than the general rules. It should take an anti-tank gun to destroy a big-ass tank! If Orks don't have any that's a codex issue.

As with most issues with the game, a single fix isn't enough. Any change needs to consider all the impacts to all aspects of all codexes, and make other changes as necessary. That's why no one fix we suggest is ever enough.

(Although overall I'm not as negative about the game as most people. It's pretty okay if you play with friends )

Jbz` wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
What is the lowest number of Wounds on an MC?

Three (Talos/Cronos/Wraithlord/Canoptek Spyder/Kastellan Robot)

Fair enough. I am not as intimately familiar with Eldar and Martian units, and I often forget the Spyder is an MC when running the list in my mind.

Arson Fire wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
What is the lowest number of Wounds on an MC? 4, with an average of 6?

Average of 6?
What are all of these 7 or 8+ wound MCs that are pulling the average up that high?

Fine, it it is more median then mean. I was more pointing out that the number of MCs that are less than 6 Wounds are fewer than those that are 6 Wounds with all the Tyranid and Daemons out there, and those that are 6 Wounds tend to see more table time that those that are lower. Now, compare that list of the preponderance of 3 HP Vehicles, with a small smattering of 2HP and 4HP Vehicles and you start seeing the actual point.

Poly Ranger wrote:Let's list the ones that don't have the tools outside of assault:
Orks,Dark Eldar (only because their AT is very expensive on vulnerable platforms, but could quite easily be in the other list)
Tyranids

'Nids have the tools, but their platforms tend to be less-effective or not considered at all in favor of other platforms and tools. If all your Elites are being used on Malanthropes/Venomthropes, it doesn't leave a lot of room for Warp-Lance Zoanthropes or Hive Guard, as an example.

Blackie wrote:Space wolves???? The only ranged anti tank SW have are overpriced units of long fangs or the single melta+combi melta that carry GH coming in drop pods. The stormwolf starts in reserve and only have worthy 2-3 shots. If you play SW with a lot of anti tank you're playing a very weak SW list. SW are mostly wulfen, thunderwolves and infantries in drop pods.

Or the same Dreadnoughts and Predators/Vindicators/Land Speeders that are available to all the other Space Marines. This sounds more like tunnel-vision than a lack of options.

Blackie wrote:Blood angels don't have that huge amount of firepower that other SM have. Same for sisters and GK.

And same tunnel-vision with the Blood Angels and Sisters of Battle. Considering the MM Razorback the Sisters have as Dedicated Transports, its not THAT hard to fit them all in.

Outside of the Dreadknight and aforementioned Dreadnoughts, you do have a point outside of their Flyer for Grey Knights. So, still a little tunnel-vision here.

Blackie wrote:Many of the "different armies" you listed are actually the same faction repeated more times.

Says the one who tried to separate Space Wolves from Space Marines.

Jbz` wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
BA can crack tanks like no one's business though. What they can't crack? MCs.

Plasma guns devastate the average monstrous creature (T6 W4) and they have as much access to them as any other marine army.
Furious charge with a power weapon (or a few) can also seriously hurt them (Typically before they swing back)
Dreadnoughts can typically laugh at most monstrous creatures in combat (Furiosos even more so because armour 13) and with the now official errata have tonnes of attacks that will wound on a 2
Most monstrous creatures are pathetic. There are a few really powerful ones that are the most frequently used because they are actually useful.

And yet plasma guns turn off furious charge. There's a lot of little inefficiencies with the BA that add up to MCs being quite trouble some. I don't want to engage in CC because they have free AP2.

 Charistoph wrote:

Arson Fire wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
What is the lowest number of Wounds on an MC? 4, with an average of 6?

Average of 6?
What are all of these 7 or 8+ wound MCs that are pulling the average up that high?

Fine, it it is more median then mean. I was more pointing out that the number of MCs that are less than 6 Wounds are fewer than those that are 6 Wounds with all the Tyranid and Daemons out there, and those that are 6 Wounds tend to see more table time that those that are lower. Now, compare that list of the preponderance of 3 HP Vehicles, with a small smattering of 2HP and 4HP Vehicles and you start seeing the actual point.

Just to put it out there.
Mean: 4.81
Median: 5

I probably missed a couple here and there, but you would need to add another 15 or so 6+ wound MCs to the game to increase that median.
My point is less disagreeing with you, and more saying that you should really stop making up numbers. It undermines your point.

 Charistoph wrote:

Or the same Dreadnoughts and Predators/Vindicators/Land Speeders that are available to all the other Space Marines. This sounds more like tunnel-vision than a lack of options.

And same tunnel-vision with the Blood Angels and Sisters of Battle. Considering the MM Razorback the Sisters have as Dedicated Transports, its not THAT hard to fit them all in.

Outside of the Dreadknight and aforementioned Dreadnoughts, you do have a point outside of their Flyer for Grey Knights. So, still a little tunnel-vision here.

Says the one who tried to separate Space Wolves from Space Marines.

Tunnel vision? If you take predators, vindicators, land speaders, dreadnought you won't win against any mid tier army, simple. Not that I care about, I stay away from tournaments and super competitive environments but if we're talking about competitive lists SW are not SM at all, and those vehicles don't fit them.

SW are actually very different from SM beacuse you mostly see lists with wulfen and thunderwolves deathstars that can be even the entire 100% of the list. SM have nothing of those units. SM spam free vehicles and grav weapons. SW want to kick some ass in close combat. Even the psykers work completely different. You're probably going to see more SW lists without a single SM typucal unit than SW lists with some units that are in common with regular SM, and even if it happens we would talk about a small amount of points.

GK and sisters have little anti tank, the would probably kill one armoured vehicle in a single turn. Blood angels are a close combat oriented army, they can have average firepower but they're not SM, tau, necrons or eldar.

 Blackie wrote:
Tunnel vision? If you take predators, vindicators, land speaders, dreadnought you won't win against any mid tier army, simple. Not that I care about, I stay away from tournaments and super competitive environments but if we're talking about competitive lists SW are not SM at all, and those vehicles don't fit them.

Grav Weapons really aren't much more effective against Vehicles than they are against Monstrous Creatures, so every ranged AT Weapons system you can think of that Codex Marines have, Space Wolves have, except maybe the Flyers.

 Blackie wrote:
SW are actually very different from SM beacuse you mostly see lists with wulfen and thunderwolves deathstars that can be even the entire 100% of the list. SM have nothing of those units. SM spam free vehicles and grav weapons. SW want to kick some ass in close combat. Even the psykers work completely different. You're probably going to see more SW lists without a single SM typucal unit than SW lists with some units that are in common with regular SM, and even if it happens we would talk about a small amount of points.

So... Tunnel Vision it is, and you've just demonstrated what it looks like.

 Blackie wrote:
GK and sisters have little anti tank, the would probably kill one armoured vehicle in a single turn. Blood angels are a close combat oriented army, they can have average firepower but they're not SM, tau, necrons or eldar.

I would say that almost every unit taking a form of Melta is hardly "little", but it is very focused.

And I hate to tell you, Blood Angels still have the same ranged AT options that Codex Marines have. Choosing not to use them is "Tunnel Vision".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arson Fire wrote:
Just to put it out there.
Mean: 4.86
Median: 5

I probably missed a couple here and there, but you would need to add another 15 or so 6+ wound MCs to the game to increase that median.
My point is less disagreeing with you, and more saying that you should really stop making up numbers. It undermines your point.

Not making them up, just misremembering. I honestly thought that the significant majority of Wounds for Tyranid MCs were set at 6.

But we are still looking at 5 Wounds for the average MC versus 3 HP for the average Vehicle. And that's not even considering the fact that a significant portion of Weapons out there also carry an ID possibility for any Vehicle without Special Rules, but just on pure AP versus requiring ID or Force on a Weapon to do the same with most MCs.

Tunnel vision..... we're talking about the possiblity of changing some rules in order to get the game more balanced, to improve in some way those armies that are not even mid tiers.

So fielding SW without their wolfy units is possible, but competitive? Without their best units they suck, now from their currently mid tier status they would become among bottom tiers. Why would I be happy to play SW like any other SM chapter when they lack everyting that makes SM really effective? I also hate how SM tanks look so no way I would buy them, but that's my personal opinion, I collect and play SW only because I love their wolfy models. I don't want to play SM with SW colours, why giving specific codexes to different chapters if they have to play with the same style?

Same for BA, make a shooty list and you won't be rewarded, that army works better in close combat, and still it's not even a mid tier.

Ban all cheesy units and maybe SW players can think about bringing shooty dreads or las predators. Right now SW work only with a lot of close combat units, and that's what it makes them peculiar.

Grav weapons, while being way more effective against MCs, can strip a lot of hull points from vehicles.Typical SM lists have 40+ grav shots in a single turn with BS4.

I asked it before: why should we have to improve imperium factions? Aren't imperium armies/players enough yet?

Are MCs really that scary? Dark eldar, orks, GK, necron and tyranids ones certainly not. Only 4-5 in the entire 40k universe really are, and that's not because of their status or survivabilty (which alse helps them), but because of their firepower or psychic powers. Increase their points value and the entire issue about them would be fixed.

I use to run a lot of vehicles with 2 of my 3 armies and they don't seem an issue to me, there's nothing to be fixed about them IMHO. I'm not interested in defending MCs as I only field cronos and talos, and I also own a huge amount of vehicles (30ish considering all my armies) that I like to play, but you complain about immortal MCs that are screwing the game, so why do we need highlander vehicles?

 Charistoph wrote:

amanita wrote:No, they're stupid. Just because GW changed the vehicle damage table to make them too resilient doesn't mean more bloat and record keeping was needed to rectify the original problem.

Why does everyone fall into the same trap when GW makes a dumb rule? Instead of fixing or modifying the original better rule people tend to try to fix the stupid new rule that never addressed the problem in the first place?

Hull Points are as stupid as Wounds on a Monstrous Creature, and that is the standard that Vehicles should be held to. Right now, Hull Points are lower than a Monstrous Creature's, and that is partly why Glancing is so effective on Vehicles, but considered, 'meh" on a MC. What is the lowest number of Wounds on an MC? 4, with an average of 6? What is the highest on a Vehicle? 4, with an average of 3?

Think about this, or even try it. Every 2 HP Vehicle now has 4 Wounds, while every 3 HP now has 6 Wounds, and the 4 HP has 7 Wounds.

Now, trade the MCs down to being 2-4 Wounds and and ID chance on a die roll when hit by AP:1 or 2 Weapons.

Now how much fun are MCs?

Martel732 wrote:It is because it kills the crew inside even if it doesn't penetrate. Sorry, meant the GAU-8, which is a 30mm weapon.

How can a weapon that does not penetrate kill crew inside a Vehicle it needs to penetrate to reach? Something had to penetrate as a result of that weapon.

The crew gets shaken to death by the impacts whether they pen or not.

Martel732 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

amanita wrote:No, they're stupid. Just because GW changed the vehicle damage table to make them too resilient doesn't mean more bloat and record keeping was needed to rectify the original problem.

Why does everyone fall into the same trap when GW makes a dumb rule? Instead of fixing or modifying the original better rule people tend to try to fix the stupid new rule that never addressed the problem in the first place?

Hull Points are as stupid as Wounds on a Monstrous Creature, and that is the standard that Vehicles should be held to. Right now, Hull Points are lower than a Monstrous Creature's, and that is partly why Glancing is so effective on Vehicles, but considered, 'meh" on a MC. What is the lowest number of Wounds on an MC? 4, with an average of 6? What is the highest on a Vehicle? 4, with an average of 3?

Think about this, or even try it. Every 2 HP Vehicle now has 4 Wounds, while every 3 HP now has 6 Wounds, and the 4 HP has 7 Wounds.

Now, trade the MCs down to being 2-4 Wounds and and ID chance on a die roll when hit by AP:1 or 2 Weapons.

Now how much fun are MCs?

Martel732 wrote:It is because it kills the crew inside even if it doesn't penetrate. Sorry, meant the GAU-8, which is a 30mm weapon.

How can a weapon that does not penetrate kill crew inside a Vehicle it needs to penetrate to reach? Something had to penetrate as a result of that weapon.

The crew gets shaken to death by the impacts whether they pen or not.

There was a doco about tanks a while back - Can't remember which army - made an "Unstoppable" tank, to prove their point they filmed the thing rolling over a cliff, flipping a few times, hitting the bottom and rolling on. What they didn't mention was the crew inside were all unconscious.

 Blackie wrote:
Tunnel vision..... we're talking about the possiblity of changing some rules in order to get the game more balanced, to improve in some way those armies that are not even mid tiers.

So fielding SW without their wolfy units is possible, but competitive? Without their best units they suck, now from their currently mid tier status they would become among bottom tiers. Why would I be happy to play SW like any other SM chapter when they lack everyting that makes SM really effective? I also hate how SM tanks look so no way I would buy them, but that's my personal opinion, I collect and play SW only because I love their wolfy models. I don't want to play SM with SW colours, why giving specific codexes to different chapters if they have to play with the same style?

Same for BA, make a shooty list and you won't be rewarded, that army works better in close combat, and still it's not even a mid tier.

Ban all cheesy units and maybe SW players can think about bringing shooty dreads or las predators. Right now SW work only with a lot of close combat units, and that's what it makes them peculiar.

And yet, you were responding to a statement about not having the tools to do the job. The fact is that you DO have the same tools that are available to C:SM. Same goes for the BA. Not recognizing something exists because you don't like it, or something else is better in other circumstances is tunnel vision.

 Blackie wrote:
Grav weapons, while being way more effective against MCs, can strip a lot of hull points from vehicles.Typical SM lists have 40+ grav shots in a single turn with BS4.

Gauss is reliant on the same roll. It requires more shots, but Necrons don't have to worry about that, they carry them by the Nightscythe and the Monolith. They CAN do something, but it is not reliable at all. 1/6 chance to do ANYTHING. Would you say the same for a 6+ Poison's odds against MCs?

 Blackie wrote:
I asked it before: why should we have to improve imperium factions? Aren't imperium armies/players enough yet?

And you are stating some don't have the tools, ironic.

Let's address the allies issue first. SoB players would have an issue just being described as allies to Guard, as would Inquisition (I own Inq and no guard, well, aside from renegades), and MT players aren't Guard or else they would just take them in an elites slot. All of these are separate dexes and can be discussed as such. Space Marines are a different army to SW, DA and BA with unique units and rules between all so the same applies to them. There are also many Skittari players that don't take Mechanicus and vice versa. Again all are separate dexes.
In fact, suggesting that they can all be allied makes the whole conversation moot anyway as any army in the game can take, for example, an aspect host with Fragons in serpents and Spiders. Either we say anyone can overcome the issues with allies or we discuss what each armies ranged AT capabilities are. You can't apply one logic to some dexes and not to others.
Now let's look at Space Wolves as an example of ranged AT since they have been brought up. Aside from melta on infantry squads and the standard ranged AT guns imperial armies have (yep lascannons are dirt for their points), you have Deredo dreads (sp?), Diemos Vindis, Rapier Quad Mortars, Rapier Laser Destroyers, Javelins, Dual multimelta speeders, Sicarian, to name but a few (and lets not forget access to schism of mars). Not wanting to take such things is completely different to the option not existing. The best players in the list building process ensure they have the tools in a list to deal with any/most situations, and the tools are there. Denying them as options is tunnel vision as mentioned above.

Anybody that thinks Gauss is useful as AT has never used Necrons as an army. It might be nice against super expensive vehicles but it falls apart at the ones that are 150ish and below.

Christoph looks like a troll, I don't even know how to reply. I think SW, BA, DA, GK are different than regular SM, otherwise they wouldn't receive their own codex. They have their style and peculiar units.

Yes we can have some efficient anti tank but if we make a list that relies on that we won't win games, easy. I never said that those options don't exist but we can wreck vehicles in close combat more efficiently and that fits better the theme of the army.

I said that some armies work well without taking specific anti tank weapons, if we change the rules in order to make those vehicles immortal they would be screwed, because they would give up some of their best units in order to bring average ones that are currently not needed. Furthemore if we change the rules in order to make vehicle more resilient many of those anti tank tools would be ineffective or not particularly good for their points, so why force close combat oriented armies to take them?

You seem like a frustrated player that can't field his favourite toys because they're not overpowered. Now if you really want land raiders in you lists and refuse to find an alternative way to play, it's you that have a tunnel vision. If you play an imperium army you'll certainly have tons of different options, many more than other armies.

And land raiders are still extremely tough to half armies at least.

Gauss is nice, grav is extremely broken. IMHO grav spam is the most broken thing in the entire game, as well as formations that allows free transports. And the new celestine.

In conclusion I'd like to add that any imperium army can deal with MCs, change style of play, find new options if you find issues. Only AM has real troubles and that's only because they're very static. SM are way better than tau and daemons and I think their superior to eldar too. A single turn of grav spam can evaporate the wraitknight.

 Blackie wrote:
Christoph looks like a troll, I don't even know how to reply. I think SW, BA, DA, GK are different than regular SM, otherwise they wouldn't receive their own codex. They have their style and peculiar units.

I'm debating on reporting that. Argue against the argument, not the poster.

While they do have their own differences, there are still a lot that is the same between C:SM, BA, DA, and SW. Special and Heavy Weapons (aside from Grav and Helfrost) are the same along with about 85% of platforms of same are the same. Is this not correct?

 Blackie wrote:
Yes we can have some efficient anti tank but if we make a list that relies on that we won't win games, easy. I never said that those options don't exist but we can wreck vehicles in close combat more efficiently and that fits better the theme of the army.

Any army that relies only on efficient Anti-Tank won't win games unless they are going against an Armoured Company or a Knight list. An Imperial Guard force that focuses on only Lascannons and certain Leman Russ builds will fail just as much.

And I was responding to:

Space wolves???? The only ranged anti tank SW have are overpriced units of long fangs or the single melta+combi melta that carry GH coming in drop pods. The stormwolf starts in reserve and only have worthy 2-3 shots. If you play SW with a lot of anti tank you're playing a very weak SW list. SW are mostly wulfen, thunderwolves and infantries in drop pods.

The term "only" is exclusive. With that statement you considered the aforementioned Predators, Vindicators, Razorbacks, Dreadnoughts, Land Speeders, and Terminators with certain Weapon lists as non-existant. I also seem to remember the Space Wolf codex carrying more than Wulfen and Wolf-riders.

One must adapt one's tactics and tools to fit what you are facing, relying on only one thing is what leads one to tunnel-vision.

 Blackie wrote:
I said that some armies work well without taking specific anti tank weapons, if we change the rules in order to make those vehicles immortal they would be screwed, because they would give up some of their best units in order to bring average ones that are currently not needed. Furthemore if we change the rules in order to make vehicle more resilient many of those anti tank tools would be ineffective or not particularly good for their points, so why force close combat oriented armies to take them?

Better question, why worry about Ranged Weapons at all to do the job? Melee AT Weapons do better overall, anyway, at actually killing a Vehicle. Their rate of fire with higher Str is greater and tends to using the AP that will cause them to be Insta-killed as opposed to the "Glancing-to-death" method that most of the "powerful" AV Weapons use.

So, again, the point more is that those that already struggle in an area will still struggle in that area and nothing changes there, and focusing on a stupid aspect of the rules. Glancing a Vehicle to death should not be any more stupid than Wounding a Monstrous Creature to death, but it is more stupid because the Hull Points are lower for Vehicles and they often do not get any Saves against those Glances like a Monstrous Creature might.

 Blackie wrote:
You seem like a frustrated player that can't field his favourite toys because they're not overpowered. Now if you really want land raiders in you lists and refuse to find an alternative way to play, it's you that have a tunnel vision. If you play an imperium army you'll certainly have tons of different options, many more than other armies.

Do not project your own tunnel-vision on me. I am not a frustrated player in this regard. What 40K models I have would not be able to play in anything beyond Kill Team. The FAQ's many stupid rulings took care of that.

Those Land Raiders I may have wanted to field would be for carrying Crusader Marines. That's as Imperium as I have owned. As I have also owned 2 Xenos and 1 Chaos army over time, I try to take things from a higher viewpoint.

 Blackie wrote:
Gauss is nice, grav is extremely broken. IMHO grav spam is the most broken thing in the entire game, as well as formations that allows free transports.

Look up the average Codex Marine army in the Army Lists and count how many Grav shots can be made. Then look up the average Necron army in the Army Lists and count how many Gauss shots can be made.

They both require the same number To Hit with and to auto-glance a Vehicle. Grav just requires a little over half the same number of successes to exceed the other.

 Blackie wrote:
In conclusion I'd like to add that any imperium army can deal with MCs, change style of play, find new options if you find issues. Only AM has real troubles and that's only because they're very static. SM are way better than tau and daemons and I think their superior to eldar too. A single turn of grav spam can evaporate the wraitknight.

And we're talking about Vehicles here, not GMCs, so bringing up how powerful Grav is against Wraithknights is rather pointless.

One thing is, Grav usually has Grav-Amps, allowing a reroll, and Grav immobilizes and does a Hull Point, making them many times more effective than Gauss against anything but superheavies.

 JNAProductions wrote:
One thing is, Grav usually has Grav-Amps, allowing a reroll, and Grav immobilizes and does a Hull Point, making them many times more effective than Gauss against anything but superheavies.

While Gauss has volume of availability.

Interestingly enough, changes to Glancing Hit mechanics won't affect Grav Weapons at all. Grav Weapons do not generate Glancing Hits.

Charistoph, I won't argue about every point you made, I wasn't probably 100% clear when I argued what I thought, that's my fault.

I know that SW (and other armies) have a lot of possible AT options but I don't have a tunnel vision really, I only said that if you want to be competitive you MUST pick only some of the possbile choices available. And that is applied to any codex actually. If you want to play a friendly casual game you can easily take dreads, preds or anything you want with SW but in casual games even a land raider can be effective and doesn't need to be improved. That's what I meant to say in the previous posts.

I don't care about an "high viewpoint", I only care about a more balanced game. If a rule seems stupid but actually keeps the game more balanced is actually clever. So changing the core rules IMHO can be a good idea only if the result of that action is a more balanced game. Not a more realistic one.

Now what armies would take benefits by making vehicles more resilient? AM probably, but SM gladius lists mostly, which still are among of the two current top tiers. Most of the bottom tiers would have even harder times than now.

This is the point of the entire discussion.

You're scared about gauss and MCs? they're only a small part of the game. Take a land raider against orks, dark eldars, harlequins, GK, tyranids, sisters and it would probably perform, even againts good lists. Necrons have those "superscary" gauss shots, but overall SM outperform them about everything. Necrons are a mid tier army currently, relying on gauss doesn't make them overpowered at all. Grav spam SM are.

If you're out of playing I invite you to take a look at some battle reports or to play or assist to games in person. As I said before the only purpose of the idea of changing the rules is only to get a better game overall, and I think that allowing vehicles to be more resilient would make the game even more unbalanced than now.

" Take a land raider against orks, dark eldars, harlequins, GK, tyranids, sisters and it would probably perform,"

It doesn't. It's the worst thing in a list made up of bad things (BA).

Can't speak for the rest of that list, but it doesn't do too badly vs tyranids at least. Mainly because they struggle to kill it efficiently.

A flyrant that costs the same as a land raider redeemer can use its haywire flamer to deal 1 hull point to it per turn. Meaning that flyrant isn't firing its guns at anything else.

About the only other thing which is a serious threat to it at range is drop podded zoanthropes. You're not likely to see those.
Even if you do, they're not exactly the pinnacle of reliability.

Martel,

We all know BA suck. They got the short end of the SM stick. The rest of the game doesn't need to be nerfed so BA feel better. BA need a mild boost to bring them more in line.

In fact, I think all the SM books need to go into a single codex and get the 30k treatment. 1 Book, all the core units. Each chapter gets it's tactics with some unique units that are in addition to or replace the base line units. If Chaos Legions can do it SM can do it.

A big part of the reason BA suck so bad is they didn't get the updates the other chapters have received. That gets fixed when they all get updated at once. BA sucking is not the metric by which the rest of the game should be judged.

 Charistoph wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
One thing is, Grav usually has Grav-Amps, allowing a reroll, and Grav immobilizes and does a Hull Point, making them many times more effective than Gauss against anything but superheavies.

While Gauss has volume of availability.

Interestingly enough, changes to Glancing Hit mechanics won't affect Grav Weapons at all. Grav Weapons do not generate Glancing Hits.

Not by much. A kitted out Tomb Blade squad with 5 members is 110 points. That's S5 AP4 Ignores Cover. Ain't too shabby. That 5-10 TL shots that are Gauss.
5 Marine Bikers with 2 Grav Guns and a Combi-Grav is 135 or 145 points off the top of my head.

I think anyone can tell you which one is going to fare better against the most amount of targets.