Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't typically like sweeping balance changes to the rules, but it seems at this point like there are a lot of "Fast" units held back by the fact that they have to sit completely still to not give themself a penalty to hit, and a lot of the units you'd think "you know, this would be a problem if it had this ability" already have access to it - IH Tanks, Leman Russes (on the gun that matters), Crimson Hunters, etc.

So here's an idea for a "Big FAQ new universal rule": Combat Speed

Combat Speed: All VEHICLE, MONSTROUS CREATURE, BIKER and JETBIKER models gain this rule, unless they also have the SUPERSONIC keyword.

A model with this rule that moves 1/2 of its current Movement stat or less during the movement phase ignores the usual penalty for moving and firing a Heavy weapon.

I am still surprised that such a rule doesn't already exists. It is baffling that dedicated weapon platforms are penalised for moving.

I'd also add that Transport Vehicles all get the same rule as the new Space Marine Primaris Transport Vehicle.

Transport vehicles should be able to move, disembark troops, and offer them covering fire. Currently they are just simply not worth taking.

Yeah, vehicles should always be able to move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty. I don't know why GW designed them they way they are.

The funny thing is that this is pretty similar to how it was in 3rd/4th.

Ideally, I'd add a "heavy" keyword to vehicles for allowing this to happen. Some vehicles might not actually retain the stability that one would need for this to happen.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ideally, I'd add a "heavy" keyword to vehicles for allowing this to happen. Some vehicles might not actually retain the stability that one would need for this to happen.

For me it's most narrative-breaking when supposedly "Fast" vehicles have to worry about moving and firing heavy weapons. It makes less sense to me that a tank, which in the kind of WWII type combat that 40k most emulates did usually stop to fire their main turrets, can move and fire heavy, but a Vyper with a scatter laser or an attack bike with a heavy bolter has to stand still to use those effectively.

Good examples of vehicles that feel like they should be moving, but instead act like stationary turrets all game when they can:

-GSC buggies and Goliaths
-Marine Attack Bikes and Land Speeders
-Eldar Vypers and Falcons
-Blood Angel Baal Preds (you know, the fast version of predators?)
-Sentinels, Dreadnoughts, Carnifexes, etc, the walkers of the world




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
The funny thing is that this is pretty similar to how it was in 3rd/4th.

I remember the old ruleset that made having vehicles with multiple guns randomly pointless. Stationary/Combat Speed/Cruising Speed or whatever - where it was "Fire All Guns/Fire One Gun/Fire No Guns."

I hated that ruleset too. Arbitrarily penalizing models for taking multiple weapons but having those weapons be sometimes mandatory and always cost the same as other platforms where you didn't have to worry about that was not fun.

Did you mean 1/2 move or less?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Did you mean 1/2 move or less?

I did yes lol.

Yea, I could support this. I could actually move my FF instead of worrying about getting kicked down to a 5+ to hit or spending a CP.

And this still lets the stratagems exist for when you REALLY need to move and shoot.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea, I could support this. I could actually move my FF instead of worrying about getting kicked down to a 5+ to hit or spending a CP.

And this still lets the stratagems exist for when you REALLY need to move and shoot.

And retains the special status for stuff like Land Raiders while not also providing a buff to Supersonic Flyers, which seem to be right on the cusp of OP in nearly every army where they exist. Other than Tau and Crons I can't think of any Supersonic flyers I have not seen in tourney lists.

I'm not sure I agree with Bikes and Jetbikes. I'm imagining a Windrider moving half it's distance; it shouldn't be stable enough to fire with full accuracy with something bulky like a Scatter Laser. Same for Marine Attack Bikes with Heavy Bolters. The -1-to-hit seems to fit that scenario better than 6s (like previous editions) or no-penalty (like the suggestion).

But LandSpeeders, Razorbacks, Preds, Wraithlords, and Falcons? Ohpleaseyes.

In a perfect world, more granularity would be great. But I'm not thinking of any egregious result of this. Maybe things like Whirlwinds should still suffer, and Basilisks certainly should, but handling that seems like more bloat than it's worth.

TLDR: Like it, but like it more without Bikes/Jetbikes.

the_scotsman wrote:


I remember the old ruleset that made having vehicles with multiple guns randomly pointless. Stationary/Combat Speed/Cruising Speed or whatever - where it was "Fire All Guns/Fire One Gun/Fire No Guns."

I hated that ruleset too. Arbitrarily penalizing models for taking multiple weapons but having those weapons be sometimes mandatory and always cost the same as other platforms where you didn't have to worry about that was not fun.

I think it was 5th edition that added in defensive weapons for vehicles, weapons that were strength 5 and below could also be fired if the vehicle moved at combat speed. It did help as a lot of vehicles did have a collection of small arms weapons to help deal with infantry.

Bharring wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with Bikes and Jetbikes. I'm imagining a Windrider moving half it's distance; it shouldn't be stable enough to fire with full accuracy with something bulky like a Scatter Laser. Same for Marine Attack Bikes with Heavy Bolters. The -1-to-hit seems to fit that scenario better than 6s (like previous editions) or no-penalty (like the suggestion).

But LandSpeeders, Razorbacks, Preds, Wraithlords, and Falcons? Ohpleaseyes.

In a perfect world, more granularity would be great. But I'm not thinking of any egregious result of this. Maybe things like Whirlwinds should still suffer, and Basilisks certainly should, but handling that seems like more bloat than it's worth.

TLDR: Like it, but like it more without Bikes/Jetbikes.

The problem I have with it is it creates a situation where the Heavy weapons are never worth it vs the Non-Heavy options. IMO, the "fantasy" of an army should be more important than the "Would this really work in reality"? Would an elf flying a flying motorcycle be able to fire a laser with full accuracy on the move?

I mean I don't know, man, why not, none of those things exist. I do know that when people say "I want to play elfs riding flying motorcycles" They PROBABLY aren't thinking they'll act like stationary gun turrets.

Why would you ever consider a SL on a windrider over a SC? They were OP in 7th because of the glancing rule, not because they could move and fire.

For me, the only thing I'm still questioning is heavier stuff that doesn't feel like it should be zipping around or kiting. Guard artillery, heavy tanks and stuff. Ironically, most of the things that currently move and fire without penalty are in that list :p

Bharring wrote:


In a perfect world, more granularity would be great. But I'm not thinking of any egregious result of this. Maybe things like Whirlwinds should still suffer, and Basilisks certainly should, but handling that seems like more bloat than it's worth.

I think WW and Basilisks wouldn't move anyway.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ideally, I'd add a "heavy" keyword to vehicles for allowing this to happen. Some vehicles might not actually retain the stability that one would need for this to happen.

For me it's most narrative-breaking when supposedly "Fast" vehicles have to worry about moving and firing heavy weapons. It makes less sense to me that a tank, which in the kind of WWII type combat that 40k most emulates did usually stop to fire their main turrets, can move and fire heavy, but a Vyper with a scatter laser or an attack bike with a heavy bolter has to stand still to use those effectively.

Good examples of vehicles that feel like they should be moving, but instead act like stationary turrets all game when they can:

-GSC buggies and Goliaths
-Marine Attack Bikes and Land Speeders
-Eldar Vypers and Falcons
-Blood Angel Baal Preds (you know, the fast version of predators?)
-Sentinels, Dreadnoughts, Carnifexes, etc, the walkers of the world

See, and this goes into where I think keywords could come into play.

"Fast" vehicles(Buggies, attack bikes, land speeders, Scout Sentinels[not Armoured ones], Vypers, and Falcons) could get a tag allowing for it to count as stationary when within a certain range while "Heavy"(Dreadnoughts, Predators, Goliaths, Armoured Sentinels, Carnifexes) could get a similar tag for just ignoring it.

I do not think that "fast" vehicles should just be able to flatout ignore the penalty for moving and shooting Heavy weapons like they're a heavier vehicle, especially when it comes to vehicles that can get defensive bonuses that the heavier vehicles can't.

 Kanluwen wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ideally, I'd add a "heavy" keyword to vehicles for allowing this to happen. Some vehicles might not actually retain the stability that one would need for this to happen.

For me it's most narrative-breaking when supposedly "Fast" vehicles have to worry about moving and firing heavy weapons. It makes less sense to me that a tank, which in the kind of WWII type combat that 40k most emulates did usually stop to fire their main turrets, can move and fire heavy, but a Vyper with a scatter laser or an attack bike with a heavy bolter has to stand still to use those effectively.

Good examples of vehicles that feel like they should be moving, but instead act like stationary turrets all game when they can:

-GSC buggies and Goliaths
-Marine Attack Bikes and Land Speeders
-Eldar Vypers and Falcons
-Blood Angel Baal Preds (you know, the fast version of predators?)
-Sentinels, Dreadnoughts, Carnifexes, etc, the walkers of the world

See, and this goes into where I think keywords could come into play.

"Fast" vehicles(Buggies, attack bikes, land speeders, Scout Sentinels[not Armoured ones], Vypers, and Falcons) could get a tag allowing for it to count as stationary when within a certain range while "Heavy"(Dreadnoughts, Predators, Goliaths, Armoured Sentinels, Carnifexes) could get a similar tag for just ignoring it.

I do not think that "fast" vehicles should just be able to flatout ignore the penalty for moving and shooting Heavy weapons like they're a heavier vehicle, especially when it comes to vehicles that can get defensive bonuses that the heavier vehicles can't.

What defensive bonuses do fast vehicles other than supersonic flyers get to claim that heavy vehicles don't?

Sentinels, ork buggies, piranha, vypers, achilles ridgerunners...they're all much less durable than heavier tanks. The only ones I can think of that get bonuses for being "Speedy" are venoms and starweavers.

they are cheaper so you can have more of them?

Not really. Vehicles already make better weapon platforms than Dev Squads or the like because they are tougher and don't lose fire power by losing some wounds from the unit, but not all, as heavy weapons across infantry does.

From a game-design perspective, they should be worse on the output-side with heavy weapons to compensate for the bonuses on the input-side as a heavy-weapon platform.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ideally, I'd add a "heavy" keyword to vehicles for allowing this to happen. Some vehicles might not actually retain the stability that one would need for this to happen.

For me it's most narrative-breaking when supposedly "Fast" vehicles have to worry about moving and firing heavy weapons. It makes less sense to me that a tank, which in the kind of WWII type combat that 40k most emulates did usually stop to fire their main turrets, can move and fire heavy, but a Vyper with a scatter laser or an attack bike with a heavy bolter has to stand still to use those effectively.

Good examples of vehicles that feel like they should be moving, but instead act like stationary turrets all game when they can:

-GSC buggies and Goliaths
-Marine Attack Bikes and Land Speeders
-Eldar Vypers and Falcons
-Blood Angel Baal Preds (you know, the fast version of predators?)
-Sentinels, Dreadnoughts, Carnifexes, etc, the walkers of the world

It makes less sense to me that a motocycle sidecar could fire more accurately on the move than a tank. While it is true that most armored vehicles do generally shoot less well on the move than from a brief halt, sidecar bikes definitely shoot way less well because they're lighter and have none of the stabilizing equipment and are basically two guys bouncing over every rut with a machinegun. Nothing about being fast equates to being stable.

Also, a walker is far less stable than a tank; when a tank is driving the chassis shakes a little bit as it crosses terrain, when a walker is moving the chassis shakes a whole f****** ton.

I think that tanks [and large tyranid MC's] should get a "Stabilized" rule allowing them to fire their weapons on the move without penalty, but that this shouldn't apply to walkers.

How would Power of the Machine Spirit and similar rules that allow vehicles to move and ignore the -1 penalty to shoot a heavy weapon change?

the_scotsman wrote:

What defensive bonuses do fast vehicles other than supersonic flyers get to claim that heavy vehicles don't?

Sentinels, ork buggies, piranha, vypers, achilles ridgerunners...they're all much less durable than heavier tanks. The only ones I can think of that get bonuses for being "Speedy" are venoms and starweavers.

In general, I'm referring to various vehicle upgrades. Ridgerunners, for example, can take this gem:


I never said that they are more durable.

I don't need to change your mind. Vehicles _already_ have the ability to move 1/2 and fire weapons. Just with a -1 penalty. ;-)

I'd argue against Vehicles moving and firing without penalty, as a small error due to movement is magnified by range. Happy to see firing without penalty below 1/2 _range_,

 Kanluwen wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

What defensive bonuses do fast vehicles other than supersonic flyers get to claim that heavy vehicles don't?

Sentinels, ork buggies, piranha, vypers, achilles ridgerunners...they're all much less durable than heavier tanks. The only ones I can think of that get bonuses for being "Speedy" are venoms and starweavers.

In general, I'm referring to various vehicle upgrades. Ridgerunners, for example, can take this gem:


I never said that they are more durable.

Sure, but the heavier vehicles in the GSC arsenal comes with that rule by a differnet name by default. The fact that the achilles is lighter means it DOESN'T just get that, and you now have to buy it.

Also, it has fewer wounds and IIRC lower toughness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tamwulf wrote:
How would Power of the Machine Spirit and similar rules that allow vehicles to move and ignore the -1 penalty to shoot a heavy weapon change?

It wouldn't. A LR would be able to move its full movement and fire without penalty. Everything else would be able to move 1/2 of their movement or less and fire without penalty.

 Tamwulf wrote:
How would Power of the Machine Spirit and similar rules that allow vehicles to move and ignore the -1 penalty to shoot a heavy weapon change?

I dunno? Does it matter? If it's got to be something, then the ability to fire when falling back. Land Raiders could use that.

Which is why I've always hated "Realism" based rules arguments.

What this would functionally give you is a game where it makes the most game sense for certain, arbitrarily chosen "fast" units like jetbikes, bikes, and speeders to sit still and act like stationary gun turrets all game, while all "heavy" units like mobile artillery and heavy tanks would be able to roll around and fire.

With there being no benefit to getting around behind an enemy, and the weapon range on most heavy weapons being extremely long, you can almost always just plop your, whatever, vyper down on the board, and its optimal course of action is to never. ever. move.

That's a very silly thing for a vehicle based around movement. I primarily see this with my achilles "Scout Car" - it's the most stationary piece in my GSC army. Might as well be fixed artillery. it NEVER moves, because moving makes its only utility hit on a 5.

I'm in complete agreement with the_scotsman, moveing half distance or less and shooting without the -1 to hit for Vehicels and Monsters would be great.

He's not wrong about the problems with light vehicles and bikes as well. Even as cheap as it is the Scatter Laser is functionally much worse than a Shuriken Cannon unless you're running Saim-Hann, where you get to ignore the penalty for moving and shooting with Heavy weapons for free.

Vehicles in general confuse me this edition. They seem pointless and make me think everyone in the setting is stupid. They should definitely be able to move and shoot without penalty, especially flyers as it's ridiculous it takes an exarch to do that, and moving then disembarking should be a thing too so transports do something.
Personally I'd add some kind of bonus for attacking their rear so fast vehicles have a point but I see why some people would be against that.

the_scotsman wrote:

Which is why I've always hated "Realism" based rules arguments.

What this would functionally give you is a game where it makes the most game sense for certain, arbitrarily chosen "fast" units like jetbikes, bikes, and speeders to sit still and act like stationary gun turrets all game, while all "heavy" units like mobile artillery and heavy tanks would be able to roll around and fire.

With there being no benefit to getting around behind an enemy, and the weapon range on most heavy weapons being extremely long, you can almost always just plop your, whatever, vyper down on the board, and its optimal course of action is to never. ever. move.

Arguably, jetbikes and bikes shouldn't be able to benefit from the same thing as speeders since they're not classified as vehicles while speeders are.

And if we really want to go further? Tau Battlesuits and Guard Heavy Weapon Teams need significant addressing as well.

That's a very silly thing for a vehicle based around movement. I primarily see this with my achilles "Scout Car" - it's the most stationary piece in my GSC army. Might as well be fixed artillery. it NEVER moves, because moving makes its only utility hit on a 5.

A big part, IMO, of this is the fact that the penalty is strictly a -1 to hit rather than a penalty to rate of fire or the like.

A lot of stuff just needs to be rejigged, in my opinion, before we just effectively do away with the penalties.

My vehicles move and fire heavy weapons with no penalty and reroll 1s. Don't really see what the problem is.

(/s)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ideally, I'd add a "heavy" keyword to vehicles for allowing this to happen. Some vehicles might not actually retain the stability that one would need for this to happen.

For me it's most narrative-breaking when supposedly "Fast" vehicles have to worry about moving and firing heavy weapons. It makes less sense to me that a tank, which in the kind of WWII type combat that 40k most emulates did usually stop to fire their main turrets, can move and fire heavy, but a Vyper with a scatter laser or an attack bike with a heavy bolter has to stand still to use those effectively.

Good examples of vehicles that feel like they should be moving, but instead act like stationary turrets all game when they can:

-GSC buggies and Goliaths
-Marine Attack Bikes and Land Speeders
-Eldar Vypers and Falcons
-Blood Angel Baal Preds (you know, the fast version of predators?)
-Sentinels, Dreadnoughts, Carnifexes, etc, the walkers of the world

It makes less sense to me that a motocycle sidecar could fire more accurately on the move than a tank. While it is true that most armored vehicles do generally shoot less well on the move than from a brief halt, sidecar bikes definitely shoot way less well because they're lighter and have none of the stabilizing equipment and are basically two guys bouncing over every rut with a machinegun. Nothing about being fast equates to being stable.

Also, a walker is far less stable than a tank; when a tank is driving the chassis shakes a little bit as it crosses terrain, when a walker is moving the chassis shakes a whole f****** ton.

I think that tanks [and large tyranid MC's] should get a "Stabilized" rule allowing them to fire their weapons on the move without penalty, but that this shouldn't apply to walkers.

Which is why I've always hated "Realism" based rules arguments.

What this would functionally give you is a game where it makes the most game sense for certain, arbitrarily chosen "fast" units like jetbikes, bikes, and speeders to sit still and act like stationary gun turrets all game, while all "heavy" units like mobile artillery and heavy tanks would be able to roll around and fire.

With there being no benefit to getting around behind an enemy, and the weapon range on most heavy weapons being extremely long, you can almost always just plop your, whatever, vyper down on the board, and its optimal course of action is to never. ever. move.

That's a very silly thing for a vehicle based around movement. I primarily see this with my achilles "Scout Car" - it's the most stationary piece in my GSC army. Might as well be fixed artillery. it NEVER moves, because moving makes its only utility hit on a 5.

This is a very good point. Nothing says 'realism' like a 4 man jet car getting lapped by a mountain on tank treads.