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.

Everyone wants to keep making units tougher, more damaging.

But the escalation spiral needs to stop. In a game where you can drop multiple Knights on the battlefield, infantry isn’t going to be worth squat, no matter what you give them.

If the game ever goes back to it roots - about 2-3 full 10-man squads, maybe one less if you bring a dreadnought, and the most BS unit on the board is ONE tank, the likes of marines will be worth a damn in the game.

It not that marines are bad, it’s that the game has reached a level of ridiculousness that they are irrelevant.

I still think marines need to be more than they are now on the table to match the background, and let's be honest here nkw, 40k is pretty much all background. Rules wise it's never been anything special. There are far betcrer tabletop wargame rules than 40k has ever had.

It's all been a killer background and art, plus minis.

The armies on th tabletop need to match the background as much as possible. I think a lot of armies do this. IG is about masses of weak solders backed up by tanks and buffs.

Orks are about screaming mobs of creatures genetically engineered to live for combat.

Eldar and tau match their background pretty well.

Marines and necrons don't really match tneir background very well.

 Stormonu wrote:
Everyone wants to keep making units tougher, more damaging.

But the escalation spiral needs to stop. In a game where you can drop multiple Knights on the battlefield, infantry isn’t going to be worth squat, no matter what you give them.

If the game ever goes back to it roots - about 2-3 full 10-man squads, maybe one less if you bring a dreadnought, and the most BS unit on the board is ONE tank, the likes of marines will be worth a damn in the game.

It not that marines are bad, it’s that the game has reached a level of ridiculousness that they are irrelevant.

I can say this isn't really true. I have switched over to be a mostly Kill Team player, and I like to play Chaos Space Marines with just enough cultists to have mobile cover on more open boards. I don't think my marines hold up very well just against other factions' troop choices. There are a few kinds of marines that do okay in Kill Team like Plague Marines, Deathwatch Marines, Grey Knights and maybe Thousands Sons (I haven't really seen them in action), but I have been rather unimpressed by the performance of tactical marines and their Chaos counterparts. I find the best Kill Team marines are a strange glass cannon types which is why I think Deathwatch and Grey Knights do okay since they have ways to bring the pain. Still, there are so few of them to make a kill team that a lucky shot reduce the fighting strength by 1/5. Even with Kill Team's wounding system it seems to happen since often times these marines are outnumbered more than 2:1.

As for improving marines, I think marines should have a Move 7", 2 Wounds, Bolters -1 AP and 2 Attacks base standard with a corresponding point increase somewhere in the 16-20 points range. I am of the opinion that marines should be good at everything reflecting their high flexibility with a weakness of a high point cost. I know those changes would cause a huge cascade of rule changes all the other kind of Astartes (and other elite Imperial infantry) and the weapon choice they have.

To combat buffing auras, I would go for a chose a single unit kind of ability instead more akin to a character joining a squad. That would at least have the benefit of somewhat limiting buffs with the added benefit of at least one full strength sqaud. That still wouldn't come close fix all my changes which take far more effort to put everything back in place again. I know it wouldn't without a near complete re-write of several codices, but I would much rather marines have more elite stats rather than just be cheaper units to field.

 Stormonu wrote:
Everyone wants to keep making units tougher, more damaging.

But the escalation spiral needs to stop. In a game where you can drop multiple Knights on the battlefield, infantry isn’t going to be worth squat, no matter what you give them.

If the game ever goes back to it roots - about 2-3 full 10-man squads, maybe one less if you bring a dreadnought, and the most BS unit on the board is ONE tank, the likes of marines will be worth a damn in the game.

It not that marines are bad, it’s that the game has reached a level of ridiculousness that they are irrelevant.

Except realistically speaking heavy armor isn't a hard counter to infantry because infantry can easily hide and pack weapons able to neutralize heavy armor. Due to armor creep, things like Anti-Tank weapons such as lascannons and lances need to become more damaging and accurate versus vehicles. I've posted before about slapping heavy weapons with a -1 to hit vs infantry and a +1 to hit vs monsters/tanks, sorta like how flakk missiles work vs flyers. Just reduce vehicle's ability to mulch infantry while increasing infantry's lethality with heavy weapons. And/or get proper cover mechanics.

I've been thinking for a while, the vehicles and maybe monsters, should be -1 to hit to hit infantry. Vehicles in reality have difficulty seeing infantry, especially up close.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Marines and necrons don't really match tneir background very well.

I guess this is one of those IMO things - but I think they do, they are just overcosted.

A lot of this comes down to what Marines are in the fluff. Are they just enhanced humans - stronger, tougher, better armed - or is it "5-10 Space Marines can conquer a planet !!111!!!111!!!". For the former - they are there because of their statline compared to a guardsman. The problem is they pay too much for it to be effective on the tabletop.

The problem with marines is that their offensive power "for their points" is low, and while they have okay defensive stats vs low strength ap- weapons, they are disproportionately vulnerable to anything with S5, AP1+ or mortal wounds.

If Guardsmen were say 5 points and Marines were 12 points then I wouldn't say Marines would suddenly become super competitive - but they would be significantly better than now. If Guardsmen are locked in at 4 points forever then push Marines down to 11 points.

You can go the other way and say Marines should have Custodes stat lines - in order to conquer that planet - but that hasn't ever been the case in 40k before.

 Marmatag wrote:
If you want 2 damage bolters play sisters. Obviously broken stratagem.

Been speaking with sisters players about the codex and they're laughing at how overpowered their army will be. Not much can handle a giant wave of 4++ bodies occupying the table.

Sisters also get the nice benefit of being S4 in melee now, and getting multiple attacks as well as fight twice. Marines will charge sisters and lose the fight. If anyone played marines.

oh, please. You know what's an """OBVOUISLY BORKEN STARTAGEM""" by that logic? The 3 CP chapter masters stratagem space marines get. It's absolute BULLGAK that that stratagem exists when the bonus it gives is INSANE compared to Vessels of the Emperors Will+ Divine guidance. For the same cost, Marine players get REROLL ALL HITS instead of +1 and it lasts the WHOLE GAME and it goes off AUTOMATICALLY. Marine players get all the OP stuff and obvious favoritism and yadda, yadda, yadda, whining about armies you don't play.

Also, you should probably do math before you make it clear that you honestly have no idea what you're talking about. SoB are T3 and hit on 4s, even with +1 attack and +1S, 7 SoB STILL lose to 5 marines. Especially considering that that bonus only lasts ONE combat phase. 7 Sisters of battle do 1.2 damage on the charge to a unit of marines, 5 marines do .888 back. After that turn,the remaining 6 SoB do .38 damage per turn and marines would do .74. Even WITH the bonus from Bloody rose, 7 sisters still loses a fight to 5 marines. By A LOT. (Oh but the Passion! Yeah, you tried to use it, it failed 4 times and your unit died).

This cannot be healthy dude. Sisters got the most mediocre Codex update since grey knights and you're whining about THEM being OP? At least you still have your Girlyman cheese to fall back on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I'd warn them not to laugh too obviously, or it risks getting needed into oblivion for the real codex!

Actual sisters players have yet to find the humour in the chapter approved codex.

Sorry, i'm speaking about people who have large collections, and have for some time, not people who are aspiring flavor of the month runners.

High, large collection for some time, and I can tell you with absolute surety that wrong about SoB basically everyone knows they're mediocre and mostly meant for an okay allies pick at the moment.

Marines with Scouts+Azrael can do the exact same setup for almost the same cost with better offense(reroll to hit and 1s to wound>>>>Vessels+DG and access to better special weapons), better defense(T4 4++ better than T3 4++), better mobility(only 1 character Aura to manage), better flexibility(massively more support options), and even a cheaper per model cost to boot.

But you wouldn't do that because it's not very good AND it sucks to play. It wins against armies that can't handle that many relatively cheap 4++ bodies but anyone with a enough anti-infantry to deal with a typical horde army will shred it quickly and uncontested due to it's low mobility and low damage output.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Everyone wants to keep making units tougher, more damaging.

But the escalation spiral needs to stop. In a game where you can drop multiple Knights on the battlefield, infantry isn’t going to be worth squat, no matter what you give them.

If the game ever goes back to it roots - about 2-3 full 10-man squads, maybe one less if you bring a dreadnought, and the most BS unit on the board is ONE tank, the likes of marines will be worth a damn in the game.

It not that marines are bad, it’s that the game has reached a level of ridiculousness that they are irrelevant.

Except realistically speaking heavy armor isn't a hard counter to infantry because infantry can easily hide and pack weapons able to neutralize heavy armor. Due to armor creep, things like Anti-Tank weapons such as lascannons and lances need to become more damaging and accurate versus vehicles. I've posted before about slapping heavy weapons with a -1 to hit vs infantry and a +1 to hit vs monsters/tanks, sorta like how flakk missiles work vs flyers. Just reduce vehicle's ability to mulch infantry while increasing infantry's lethality with heavy weapons. And/or get proper cover mechanics.

interesting idea, its almost like cover WOULD make it harder to hit something (like in old 2nd ed./necro) and trying to point a missile launcher or Anti tank weapon at a human sized target is difficult at best. I could definately get onboard with this. That and dialing back the power/scale creep of the game. It does seem like GW has just pushed apocalypse into the normal game. But hey they do have to sell models so I understand it.

Funny, I've seen loads of other posts about how vehicles are too fragile this edition.

I guess that's more normal vehicles and not super heavies.

But still, I don't feel like Predators etc need nerfing, which is what this would also do.

 Stux wrote:
Funny, I've seen loads of other posts about how vehicles are too fragile this edition.

I guess that's more normal vehicles and not super heavies.

But still, I don't feel like Predators etc need nerfing, which is what this would also do.

That's very wrong though, vehicles are way more resilient than they used to be. A land raider could die from a single lascannon or power klaw hit in the past, not to mention light vehicles like trukks that could die in huge numbers in a single turn.

Of course if you design a list with only anti tank in mind you have the feeling that vehicles that aren't superheavies are too squishy. Then the players that bring those lists cries when they face an horde army or can't deal efficiently with T5-6 drukhari stuff.

ERJAK wrote:


This cannot be healthy dude. Sisters got the most mediocre Codex update since grey knights and you're whining about THEM being OP? At least you still have your Girlyman cheese to fall back on.

Marmatag doesn't even play Marines.

If the only reason you can see for someone claiming Marines is bad is that the person in question plays Marines and thus has an intrinsic reason for getting them buffed you need to take a deep breath and remove your arch-cynic goggles.

 Blackie wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Funny, I've seen loads of other posts about how vehicles are too fragile this edition.

I guess that's more normal vehicles and not super heavies.

But still, I don't feel like Predators etc need nerfing, which is what this would also do.

That's very wrong though, vehicles are way more resilient than they used to be. A land raider could die from a single lascannon or power klaw hit in the past, not to mention light vehicles like trukks that could die in huge numbers in a single turn.

Of course if you design a list with only anti tank in mind you have the feeling that vehicles that aren't superheavies are too squishy. Then the players that bring those lists cries when they face an horde army or can't deal efficiently with T5-6 drukhari stuff.

Eh, it's more complicated than that though.

Yeah, a Land Raider is probably more resilient to a Lascannon than it used to be. Will take a minimum of 3 shots now, whereas previously it was possible (though unlikely) to down it in one.

It is however now vulnerable to S7 and below weapons from the front and sides. Against AV 14 it wasn't possible for S7 to do anything at all. Now all these mid tier weapons are pinging wounds off left and right.

Lets be sure to keep things civil people, we all have divergent views but rule #1 is there for a reason. Please keep it in mind.

 Stux wrote:
Funny, I've seen loads of other posts about how vehicles are too fragile this edition.

I guess that's more normal vehicles and not super heavies.

But still, I don't feel like Predators etc need nerfing, which is what this would also do.

Vehicles issue is that low ap, high volume of fire is just too effective. We need to return to vehicles basically being immune to all small arms fire, but being vulnerable to AT weapons. Albeit not skewing as much as prior editions, which veered fairly anti-vehicle.

Tyel wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Marines and necrons don't really match tneir background very well.

I guess this is one of those IMO things - but I think they do, they are just overcosted.

A lot of this comes down to what Marines are in the fluff. Are they just enhanced humans - stronger, tougher, better armed - or is it "5-10 Space Marines can conquer a planet !!111!!!111!!!".

Reductio ad absurdum. Altho is it interesting to note that the background on iron warriors does say sometimes as few as 10 of them were left to garrison a planet...

They are heavily genetically enhanced humans, now called "transhumans", with the most advanced armor the imperium can mass produce and subjected to a lifetime of training, conditioning, indoctrination and the benefit of hundreds of years of combat experience from their chapters. They are lifetime soldiers raised form childhood to be the best fighters possible.

!0 shouldn't be able to conquer a planet unless it's really weak, but a thousand, backed up by their orbital fleet, yeah, maybe.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Reductio ad absurdum. Altho is it interesting to note that the background on iron warriors does say sometimes as few as 10 of them were left to garrison a planet...

That was the reference I was going for.

Tyel wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Reductio ad absurdum. Altho is it interesting to note that the background on iron warriors does say sometimes as few as 10 of them were left to garrison a planet...

That was the reference I was going for.

Well, yeah, it was a real thing. Part of what may have been Horus' long term scheme to drive the iron warriors away from the imperium. Still, garrisoning a planet with 10 men is just barely possible, if those 10 men have access to WMD that can hit any part of a planet and the populace has no real defense against them. But yeah, 10 marines conquering a planet, not unless it's a stone age low population world.

Here was the actual official quote you were thinking of.

"Quickly recognised as experts in the art of siege warfare, the Iron Warriors were regularly called upon to exercise their skills in cracking open enemy defences. This had an unfortunate effect on the character of their Legion. By their nature, sieges are the most grinding and demoralising type of warfare: long periods of tedium and unspectacular labour, broken by episodes of merciless, close-quarters brutality. The Iron Warriors saw the storming of the breach as an escape from the tedium, and developed into ferocious close quarters fighters. They even came to prefer for enemy strongholds not to surrender, thus justifying the slaughter of everyone within once the fortresses were taken.[1b] It became the Legion's curse (one of many) that these episodes of brutality eclipsed their superb affinity for the application of logic and mathematics to military problems, in the eyes of their fellow Space Marines and the Imperium as a whole.[14d]

Given their expertise at constructing and manning fortresses, the legion also found itself constantly diminishing in active crusading size as units from it were detached to act as garrison troops watching over worlds in the process of compliance. The most famous of these garrisons was that of the Iron Keep on Delgas II, where one 10-man squad of Iron Warriors watched over a disgruntled population of 130 million.[1b] It is unknown why the Iron Warriors were so often selected for such assignments, or why Perturabo always accepted such orders without protest, but it is supposed that it began to inflict serious damage to the legion's morale. Even Space Marines need rest, but the Crusade gave them none.[1c] A particularly brutal battle of the Great Crusade for the Iron Warriors was the thankless Sak'trada Deeps Campaign against the Hrud, which saw heavy casualties on a strategically far-off and worthless system.[25]

Worse, their "typecasting" as siege engineers or garrison troops set them apart from their brother Legions and made them feel increasingly marginalised. In particular they were aggrieved by the Imperial Fists, whose primarch, Rogal Dorn, often boasted about the impregnability of the defences they had constructed around the Imperial Palace on Terra. Perturabo was not the only one of the primarchs who found his brother Dorn braggadocios, but Perturabo was unable to let the insults to himself and his Legion pass, and these continued to fester in his heart.[1c] Likewise, Corax, the primarch of the Raven Guard, made little secret of his contempt for Perturabo and his Legion, dismissing them as stolid attritionists, anathema to Corax's own concept of fluid, hit-and-run warfare.[19]"

It also didn't help when perturabo scouted out a major enemy stronghold, found it's weakness, relayed the information to leman russ and jaghatti khan who used it to defeat the enemy, and for his efforts perturabo was simply referred to as an unnamed "other" who provided them some useful information in the epic written about the battle.

 Stux wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Funny, I've seen loads of other posts about how vehicles are too fragile this edition.

I guess that's more normal vehicles and not super heavies.

But still, I don't feel like Predators etc need nerfing, which is what this would also do.

That's very wrong though, vehicles are way more resilient than they used to be. A land raider could die from a single lascannon or power klaw hit in the past, not to mention light vehicles like trukks that could die in huge numbers in a single turn.

Of course if you design a list with only anti tank in mind you have the feeling that vehicles that aren't superheavies are too squishy. Then the players that bring those lists cries when they face an horde army or can't deal efficiently with T5-6 drukhari stuff.

Eh, it's more complicated than that though.

Yeah, a Land Raider is probably more resilient to a Lascannon than it used to be. Will take a minimum of 3 shots now, whereas previously it was possible (though unlikely) to down it in one.

It is however now vulnerable to S7 and below weapons from the front and sides. Against AV 14 it wasn't possible for S7 to do anything at all. Now all these mid tier weapons are pinging wounds off left and right.

Yeah but just think about how many points of stuff did you need to kill a land raider in previous editions and how many do you need now. In 8th edition vehicles are way more resilient overall.

Consider vehicles like ork trukks, they were 3HPs with AV10-10-10, a single lascannon had really high odds to blow it up and even bolters could glanced it to death quite easily. Haywire, grav and meltas were also super effective against vehicles, now they all reduced their punch against vehicles by a lot. D weapons don't exist anymore. Vehicles were 2-4HP with the chance of being instant killed by a single shot, now multidamage weapons exist but they're not as effective as they used to be as vehicles now have 6-18 wounds typically and also a save. I'm not even considering other bonuses that were expensive upgrades before like 5++ invuln on some drukhari vehicles and now are free or didn't exist at all like the 6++ on deathskulls vehicles or the 6+++ on black heart vehicles.

Killing something like a land raider with a non dedicated anti tank weapon is certainly possible now but extremely more unlikely than 1-shotting the same vehicle with a dedicated anti tank weapon in 7th edition.

A unit like scourges could strip 3HPs on average rolls in 7th edition, which means a dead tank or 75% of its wound taken away. Now the same unit should deal 4 mortal wounds with average rolls, less than 50% of the wounds on a tipycal tank, just 25% on a heavy one like land raiders. Stripping 3 out of 4 HPs was a good deal with average rolls, stripping just 4 out of 16 look extremely underwhelming in comparison.

Oh and the new degrading chart is not even remotely as penalizing as the penetrating hit chart since vehicles that got a single pen used to be immobilized for the rest of the game, not be able to shoot at all, lose a weapon or be instant killed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Funny, I've seen loads of other posts about how vehicles are too fragile this edition.

I guess that's more normal vehicles and not super heavies.

But still, I don't feel like Predators etc need nerfing, which is what this would also do.

Vehicles issue is that low ap, high volume of fire is just too effective. We need to return to vehicles basically being immune to all small arms fire, but being vulnerable to AT weapons. Albeit not skewing as much as prior editions, which veered fairly anti-vehicle.

Can you make concrete examples about vehicles suffering that much from light firepower? I play 3 armies that are all vehicles based and they always die from dedicated anti tank, never to S3 or S4 shots, with the exception of some drukhari vehicles maybe which are just T5 4+ though and used to die quite easily against anti infantry weapons also in previous edition, when they were 2-3 HPs AV 10-10-10.

How many bolter, poisoned or lasgun shots do you need to kill an average tank like a rhino/razorback?

IIRC it's around 200 shots to fully kill a rhino chassis model with lasguns, but my concern isn't being fully killed by small arms fire, but weakened. A flurry of las shots or the crazy amount of firepower admech infantry can pump out can wind up degrading the profile of a vehicle and reducing its BS, which depending on the starting BS can effectively cripple it. The one good thing about the old system is that vehicles were flatly immune to most small arms fire and you had to use dedicated AT weapons to inflict any damage or else have your shots uselessly ping off the armor.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
As for improving marines, I think marines should have a Move 7", 2 Wounds, Bolters -1 AP and 2 Attacks base standard with a corresponding point increase somewhere in the 16-20 points range.

Apart the move, that's exactly how they already are.

thought id copy this over here as it seems pertinent to this discussion..


Boop!

true balance is one of those utopian ideals that can only be strived for but will never be achieved and should never be forced, what we have in this thread are people trying to force it, people trying to strive for it and people blindly believing we already have it (those people are insufferable).

While you are not convinced that the more units you have the more variation you need so the more tactical depth is required to differentiate them, well... your belief is not required, a well designed system knows that in order to show the difference in multi faction games you need to have a sufficient depth of rules otherwise you get heavy overlap in rules and everything ends up feeling "vanilla" and "bland" this has been the death nell for several good games, on the flip side you get games that have variation of units rather than factions, battletech has a vast vast array of units all different from each other, but this makes for a nightmare for new players, thats too much depth.

then we have 40k, its trying to have its cake and eat it, its trying to show multi factions but the main rules simply do not allow for the complexity and depth needed to show the differences in each faction, this is mainly down to the D6 system they have chosen in my mind, they have severely limited their own scope for expansion, they have tried to address the 1-10 scale for stats but its still limited by the D6, in order to see that I am right about this you need only look at the codexs and see the massive amount of crossover in rules and themes.

Sadly this limit hits low armour save units in this ed (and pretty much every ed after 3rd) the hardest, in a marine was to have a 3+ save on a D10. and then apply modifiers, power armour would be worth something, the D10 system could easily show the differences in power armour too, astartes 3+, soriatus 4+, hell you could even throw in the marks, but thats a bit far, imagine if terminator armour had a 1+ save on a d10, then you would be forced to use massively powerful weapons to actually dent them, as it should be.

anyway, waffling over.

 Blackie wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Funny, I've seen loads of other posts about how vehicles are too fragile this edition.

I guess that's more normal vehicles and not super heavies.

But still, I don't feel like Predators etc need nerfing, which is what this would also do.

Vehicles issue is that low ap, high volume of fire is just too effective. We need to return to vehicles basically being immune to all small arms fire, but being vulnerable to AT weapons. Albeit not skewing as much as prior editions, which veered fairly anti-vehicle.

Can you make concrete examples about vehicles suffering that much from light firepower? I play 3 armies that are all vehicles based and they always die from dedicated anti tank, never to S3 or S4 shots, with the exception of some drukhari vehicles maybe which are just T5 4+ though and used to die quite easily against anti infantry weapons also in previous edition, when they were 2-3 HPs AV 10-10-10.

How many bolter, poisoned or lasgun shots do you need to kill an average tank like a rhino/razorback?

Absolutely agree with you here.

You need an average of 54 bolter shots to take ONE wound off a Land Raider. Resilience against small arms just simply isn't an issue in 8e, tanks are not vulnerable to them in any meaningful way whatsoever.

The issue is that armies can bring so much decent strength, high AP, multi damage weaponry. And it's not just good against vehicles, it's good against elite infantry too. So people do bring a lot of it.

This is what I say about Orks.... I once threw 60 orks into a single rhino and it took 2 turns to finally beat it down... I shot 60 shots from my orks into one before and it only took 1 wound. With ork players all you need is a line of cheap rhinos and you've won. XD

 Wyzilla wrote:
IIRC it's around 200 shots to fully kill a rhino chassis model with lasguns, but my concern isn't being fully killed by small arms fire, but weakened. A flurry of las shots or the crazy amount of firepower admech infantry can pump out can wind up degrading the profile of a vehicle and reducing its BS, which depending on the starting BS can effectively cripple it. The one good thing about the old system is that vehicles were flatly immune to most small arms fire and you had to use dedicated AT weapons to inflict any damage or else have your shots uselessly ping off the armor.

This is just theoryhammer though. In practise S3 and S4 do absolutely nothing against tanks. In 7th edition 10 orks could melt a rhino in combat just with the nobz attacks, now the full 30 man mob with the same nob will deal way less damage on average rolls.

To be way more resilient against weapons that used to damage them a lot and finally vulnerable but still extremely resilient against low S low AP weapons is definitely a win-win for vehicles. The concept around the old system maybe was better but in practise vehicles have now some purpose, in 7th they were just dead weight. The only ork competitive lists that played with vehicles were full dread mobs or had 8+ trukks or 5 battlewagons, and none of them was even remotely comparable to the real top tiers. SM basically just spammed drop pods.

there is some big problems with tank resiliance in melee. A tank in melee should be a dead tank. I get that lasguns shouldn't be blowing up land raiders, without some god tier level of rolls. But 5 termintors being stuck on a rhino for 3 turns, should really not happen.

Karol wrote:
there is some big problems with tank resiliance in melee. A tank in melee should be a dead tank. I get that lasguns shouldn't be blowing up land raiders, without some god tier level of rolls. But 5 termintors being stuck on a rhino for 3 turns, should really not happen.

Why would you be stuck on a Rhino for 3 turns though? Fall back and let your heavy guns deal with it.

There are plenty of units that are great at taking down vehicles in melee though. Terminators just aren't very good at anything for their points.

Yep, I find that my Knight Errant is pretty decent at taking down vehicles in melee...

 Crimson wrote:
Yep, I find that my Knight Errant is pretty decent at taking down vehicles in melee...

Hah! I had Smash Captains and Old One Eye in mind

 Stux wrote:

Karol wrote:
there is some big problems with tank resiliance in melee. A tank in melee should be a dead tank. I get that lasguns shouldn't be blowing up land raiders, without some god tier level of rolls. But 5 termintors being stuck on a rhino for 3 turns, should really not happen.

Why would you be stuck on a Rhino for 3 turns though? Fall back and let your heavy guns deal with it.

There are plenty of units that are great at taking down vehicles in melee though. Terminators just aren't very good at anything for their points.

have you tried to kill a tank with stormbolters, or have you seen what happens to termintors if they are not in melee protected from plasma ? Because I'll tell you it ain't .
funny. Also as far as good vs tanks and GK, if good can ever be said about them, melee is more efficient then trying to finish vehicles, other then the DE ones, with shoting.

Terminator should be S5 T5... I mean... come on! Since when did rowboatface have the ability to mass produce big marines who are basically just as durable as an invulnerable walking tank that are extremely rare because they're so good? To the point that entire wars will be fought to obtain a single suit....

If Terminators had T5 S and T they would damage most vechiles on a 3 and be pretty tough against all none elite weapons while staying the same vs S3 weapons.

If I had my way they would be a 3+ save but you roll 2 dice and pick the highest.