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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.

Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).

The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.

Fair call, fair call. You might be totally right in that Titanic would have been a better cutoff. One wonders why they went the Wound route, then.

To hit the Daemon Primarchs, obviously. Along with the aforementioned Morkanaughts and Gorkanaughts.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.

Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).

The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.

Fair call, fair call. You might be totally right in that Titanic would have been a better cutoff. One wonders why they went the Wound route, then.

To hit the Daemon Primarchs, obviously. Along with the aforementioned Morkanaughts and Gorkanaughts.

Why? And why couldn't they just have gotten the Titanic keyword?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Ehhh. . . I dunno man. Given the revered nature of the technology and the status of the Land Raider, 18 Wounds for a special Leman Russ deployed in the Guard sounds a bit high to me.

A special Leman Russ? It's a far, far more ancient design than the Leman Russ and arguably the Land Raider (since the Land Raider's provenance is unknown). Malcadors fought at the Eternity Gate in the HH, and were used in the Unification Wars on Terra. Just because you don't think it's revered doesn't mean it isn't.

It's far older than the Russ, and far higher tech - in fact, so high-tech that the Adeptus Mechanicus has forgotten altogether how to make the engine and drive-train, which is why it no longer has energy shields or a blisteringly high speed (the Fast special rule) like it does in the HH game.

Ok, fine. But it's also noted (looking at Lexicanum) as having less armor than a Land Raider, and like you've said, it's also smaller. It also says the drive system is tempermental, which doesn't sound like the sort of thing that has built-in redundancies would have an issue with. 18 wounds still seems like a lot to me.

And honestly? This is the sort of FW unit I just don't care about. It's older than the Land Raider! It's higher tech! It's fast because of it's super special engine and protected by a force field that isn't made anymore and and and. . . It's like when I look at the Batman Issadon rules and I can't help but do an eye-roll. If you want to use FW that's fine, but it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that some of the FW units wind up interacting in funky ways with the core rules.

I want to emphasize that those things are how it *was* not *is*.
And the reason the drive train is temperamental is no one remembers how it works. Current 40k rules it is as slow as a Russ and has no shield.

And I also never said it had more armor. In fact, I said it had less (and even said that is why it has a 3+ save)

Internal bracing won't help the drive train, and redundancies can be present in systems like the hydraulics, electronics, viewports, etc.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.

Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).

The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.

Fair call, fair call. You might be totally right in that Titanic would have been a better cutoff. One wonders why they went the Wound route, then.

To hit the Daemon Primarchs, obviously. Along with the aforementioned Morkanaughts and Gorkanaughts.

Why? And why couldn't they just have gotten the Titanic keyword?

Because gw only considers something TITANIC if it has 20+ wounds. Why? Ask them. This rule seems to be targeted at anything gw considers "too big", not stuff with the TITANIC keyword or even LOWs.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.

Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).

The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.

Fair call, fair call. You might be totally right in that Titanic would have been a better cutoff. One wonders why they went the Wound route, then.

To hit the Daemon Primarchs, obviously. Along with the aforementioned Morkanaughts and Gorkanaughts.

Why? And why couldn't they just have gotten the Titanic keyword?

Because gw only considers something TITANIC if it has 20+ wounds. Why? Ask them. This rule seems to be targeted at anything gw considers "too big", not stuff with the TITANIC keyword or even LOWs.

GW is bad at game design weird I can't imagine why a keyword would have anything to do with the wounds of a model.

And haha at the rule being 'targeted'. If you want to target something specific, you don't catch GUO and Malcadors with a sweeping change. You just give those units a rule that they can't be obscured.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.

Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).

The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.

Fair call, fair call. You might be totally right in that Titanic would have been a better cutoff. One wonders why they went the Wound route, then.

To hit the Daemon Primarchs, obviously. Along with the aforementioned Morkanaughts and Gorkanaughts.

Why? And why couldn't they just have gotten the Titanic keyword?

Because then Morkanauts would be able to fall back and shoot just like they could in 8th. Orks can't have nice things.

I still fail to parse why they either couldn't have made a new keyword or simply let the orks fall back and shoot.

Spoletta wrote:
All this talk is useless.
Apparently GW has decided that eradicators are fine and all the new AT models, both SM and Necron, are much more efficient than the previous ones, so tanks and monsters are out of the game.
9th edition is infantry hammer now.

Wat?

 Jidmah wrote:

Spoiler:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.

Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).

The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.

Fair call, fair call. You might be totally right in that Titanic would have been a better cutoff. One wonders why they went the Wound route, then.

To hit the Daemon Primarchs, obviously. Along with the aforementioned Morkanaughts and Gorkanaughts.

Why? And why couldn't they just have gotten the Titanic keyword?

Because then Morkanauts would be able to fall back and shoot just like they could in 8th. Orks can't have nice things.

Big'n'Stompy doesn't still let them do that? Did I miss that in the FAQ?

Big'n'Stompy received the same errate as all the other knight-equivalents and mega-tanks. Except all those are TITANIC which now inherently allows them to fall back and shoot.

 Jidmah wrote:
Big'n'Stompy received the same errate as all the other knight-equivalents and mega-tanks. Except all those are TITANIC which now inherently allows them to fall back and shoot.

So they can't do that anymore? But still get the same disadvantage of being sniped through windows by stuff they can't shoot back at. That sucks. Gw really had it in for Orks this time around.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Big'n'Stompy received the same errate as all the other knight-equivalents and mega-tanks. Except all those are TITANIC which now inherently allows them to fall back and shoot.

So they can't do that anymore? But still get the same disadvantage of being sniped through windows by stuff they can't shoot back at. That sucks. Gw really had it in for Orks this time around.

my gut feeling is thats not intended.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Ehhh. . . I dunno man. Given the revered nature of the technology and the status of the Land Raider, 18 Wounds for a special Leman Russ deployed in the Guard sounds a bit high to me.

A special Leman Russ? It's a far, far more ancient design than the Leman Russ and arguably the Land Raider (since the Land Raider's provenance is unknown). Malcadors fought at the Eternity Gate in the HH, and were used in the Unification Wars on Terra. Just because you don't think it's revered doesn't mean it isn't.

It's far older than the Russ, and far higher tech - in fact, so high-tech that the Adeptus Mechanicus has forgotten altogether how to make the engine and drive-train, which is why it no longer has energy shields or a blisteringly high speed (the Fast special rule) like it does in the HH game.

Ok, fine. But it's also noted (looking at Lexicanum) as having less armor than a Land Raider, and like you've said, it's also smaller. It also says the drive system is tempermental, which doesn't sound like the sort of thing that has built-in redundancies would have an issue with. 18 wounds still seems like a lot to me.

And honestly? This is the sort of FW unit I just don't care about. It's older than the Land Raider! It's higher tech! It's fast because of it's super special engine and protected by a force field that isn't made anymore and and and. . . It's like when I look at the Batman Issadon rules and I can't help but do an eye-roll. If you want to use FW that's fine, but it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that some of the FW units wind up interacting in funky ways with the core rules.

I can't really speak for HH, but flare shields are a pretty common vehicle upgrades (it's not even standard equipment) and the tank isn't especially fast, it just can shoot its main gun at full BS when it moves flat-out (the HH equivalent of advance), in fact, the lore reason is the same as LR's grinding advance. And while I am talking about lore I don't know where you are getting the bit about its drive system being temperamental or it being fast, the HH books state the exact opposite. EDIT: I checked Lexicanum and it is also right; I don't know what source you used, but FW certainly isn't to blame.

Sub-atomantic Reactor
The Malcador assault tanks found in the armouries of the Space Marine Legions are the oldest of their kind still in service, relics manufactured on Terra using facilities dating back to the Age of Strife. While hugely reliable, their power plants —hybrid reactor/combustor engine cores— lack the power of those found on the larger and more powerful war machines that largely replaced them in service. When rolling on the Tunderblitz and/or Catastrophic Damage tables for the Malcador, roll 2D6 and select the lower result.

In 40k, the Malcador is supposed to fall somewhere between a Russ and a Baneblade (obviously), but since it has the same amount of guns as Russ, and they don't want to do the extra work of making a special rule to buff its damage (like a different battle cannon variant), the only other option is to increase its wounds and they chose to do that in the simplest way possible, +50% wounds and +50% cost over the Russ.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
All this talk is useless.
Apparently GW has decided that eradicators are fine and all the new AT models, both SM and Necron, are much more efficient than the previous ones, so tanks and monsters are out of the game.
9th edition is infantry hammer now.

Wat?

Bit short sighted but the logic will be cheap efficient anti armour is available = less tanks and monsters who are wiped out with higher efficiency or rather they get less impact on the game. People then stop taking them due to their inefficient state compared to what kills them, this promotes more infantry, people then have wasted anti armour units, those dissappear to take more anti horde, infantry suffers from meta building so people take tanks and monsters. The cycle is then complete where all options work.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Big'n'Stompy received the same errate as all the other knight-equivalents and mega-tanks. Except all those are TITANIC which now inherently allows them to fall back and shoot.

So they can't do that anymore? But still get the same disadvantage of being sniped through windows by stuff they can't shoot back at. That sucks. Gw really had it in for Orks this time around.

my gut feeling is thats not intended.

I think you may be right. It looks like gw was a bit haphazard when rewriting the various fallback and shoot/charge rules for some of the bigger models. The Steel Behemoth rule for super heavy tanks has also been reworded oddly, as previously they could fire into/out of cc at full ballistic skill, now since they rely on the Big Guns Never Tire rule to fire into combat it would appear they do so at -1 for heavy weapons, which is 99% of what they are armed with. Probably should send some emails to gw about this.

In GW's defence - they don't care. They made some models, they want those models to sell. Double shooting meltas? Sure, why not? Space Marines stronger than Custodes - sounds a great seller. That ATV bike (depending on points) is going to be awesome. In contrast, the new Necron units are a bit "meh" and for good reason. You don't want your new and fresh cash-cow marine players getting disillusioned by their primary opponent having something better than them.

You think they are good now? Wait until the multi-part kits come out. In my experience, the multi-part kits always come with an option that is better than what comes in the standard box - otherwise why would anyone pay a premium for the multi-part set? Never fear however, GW will have made all the newer updates more powerful up until 2 years time when they release a load of new Primaris models and buff the army again.

"Don't fight it. Buy Primaris today." - GW Slogan since 2018

Why would they not want them to also buy necrons or even buy necrons instead? Selling either is good to them.

Sumilidon wrote:
In GW's defence - they don't care. They made some models, they want those models to sell. Double shooting meltas? Sure, why not? Space Marines stronger than Custodes - sounds a great seller. That ATV bike (depending on points) is going to be awesome. In contrast, the new Necron units are a bit "meh" and for good reason. You don't want your new and fresh cash-cow marine players getting disillusioned by their primary opponent having something better than them.

Because you invest millions into salaries, production facilities, warehouses, logistics, your own brick&mortar stores to release a new product that is less attractive on purpose. That makes sense. You contradict yourself within two sentences. Do they want to sell the new Necrons or not? Do you think it increases sales numbers to make them weaker on purpose? Without proof at hand for it, I bet my sweet little bum that Marines sell regardless of rules. They are just that popular.

Sumilidon wrote:
You think they are good now? Wait until the multi-part kits come out. In my experience, the multi-part kits always come with an option that is better than what comes in the standard box - otherwise why would anyone pay a premium for the multi-part set? Never fear however, GW will have made all the newer updates more powerful up until 2 years time when they release a load of new Primaris models and buff the army again.

"Don't fight it. Buy Primaris today." - GW Slogan since 2018

This has been proven to be wrong multiple times. New does not mean better or even good.

Take a step back friend, your emotions are clouding your view.

 Eipi10 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Ehhh. . . I dunno man. Given the revered nature of the technology and the status of the Land Raider, 18 Wounds for a special Leman Russ deployed in the Guard sounds a bit high to me.

A special Leman Russ? It's a far, far more ancient design than the Leman Russ and arguably the Land Raider (since the Land Raider's provenance is unknown). Malcadors fought at the Eternity Gate in the HH, and were used in the Unification Wars on Terra. Just because you don't think it's revered doesn't mean it isn't.

It's far older than the Russ, and far higher tech - in fact, so high-tech that the Adeptus Mechanicus has forgotten altogether how to make the engine and drive-train, which is why it no longer has energy shields or a blisteringly high speed (the Fast special rule) like it does in the HH game.

Ok, fine. But it's also noted (looking at Lexicanum) as having less armor than a Land Raider, and like you've said, it's also smaller. It also says the drive system is tempermental, which doesn't sound like the sort of thing that has built-in redundancies would have an issue with. 18 wounds still seems like a lot to me.

And honestly? This is the sort of FW unit I just don't care about. It's older than the Land Raider! It's higher tech! It's fast because of it's super special engine and protected by a force field that isn't made anymore and and and. . . It's like when I look at the Batman Issadon rules and I can't help but do an eye-roll. If you want to use FW that's fine, but it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that some of the FW units wind up interacting in funky ways with the core rules.

I can't really speak for HH, but flare shields are a pretty common vehicle upgrades (it's not even standard equipment) and the tank isn't especially fast,

Flare shields are not common. In fact, a Land Raider cannot take them, which is the vehicle in question with which the Malcador is being compared. As for fast, the Malcador in the Solar Auxilia and Imperialis Militia army lists has the FAST special rule, and the legion one can fire its main gun after going Flat Out. That means it can go 18" a turn and fire, faster than any other tank in the game that isn't a skimmer.

 Eipi10 wrote:
it just can shoot its main gun at full BS when it moves flat-out (the HH equivalent of advance), in fact, the lore reason is the same as LR's grinding advance.

No it isn't. The Leman Russ can only fire at Combat Speed in HH (out side of a once-per-game ability available only to one type of tank in the Solar Auxilia, which lets them go 12" and shoot. Still slower than the Malcador), which is 6". There's definitely a speed difference (and lore difference) between 6 and 18 inches in a turn while still being able to engage targets with the main armament.

 Eipi10 wrote:
And while I am talking about lore I don't know where you are getting the bit about its drive system being temperamental or it being fast, the HH books state the exact opposite. EDIT: I checked Lexicanum and it is also right; I don't know what source you used, but FW certainly isn't to blame.

Sub-atomantic Reactor
The Malcador assault tanks found in the armouries of the Space Marine Legions are the oldest of their kind still in service, relics manufactured on Terra using facilities dating back to the Age of Strife. While hugely reliable, their power plants —hybrid reactor/combustor engine cores— lack the power of those found on the larger and more powerful war machines that largely replaced them in service. When rolling on the Tunderblitz and/or Catastrophic Damage tables for the Malcador, roll 2D6 and select the lower result.

You're confusing 30k with 40k Malcadors. In 30k, the Malcador is faster than any other tank (see above) while still being able to fire its gun. In 40k, it's drive system is temperamental because the AdMech have forgotten how to build it. Check out the rules in Imperial Armor Volume 1: Second Edition, for example.

 Eipi10 wrote:
In 40k, the Malcador is supposed to fall somewhere between a Russ and a Baneblade (obviously), but since it has the same amount of guns as Russ, and they don't want to do the extra work of making a special rule to buff its damage (like a different battle cannon variant), the only other option is to increase its wounds and they chose to do that in the simplest way possible, +50% wounds and +50% cost over the Russ.

Yes, this is I think how it was done.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Yes...Titan level units seem to have been nerfed a bit...considering you can shoot them through walls and they cant shoot back - a lot of them went down in points though. Executioner went up. 375 for an executioner is flat out absurd. So the point remains - Gravis is a little undercosted but all their transports are madly overcosted. The net result is short ranged slow infantry aren't that great.

Just to be clear - you can shoot them through walls....if you can see them.

Yes indeed. Basically Titan level models are playing with 8th eddition LOS rules against them while following the 9th edition rules against what they shoot. It is pretty obvious how abuse-able this will be. To the point this rule basically invalidates any titanic shooting unit. It was nearly impossible to hide a titan out of LOS in 8th edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

But a malcador is smaller than a land raider, and I know you don't care but GW's design studio absolutely should not just be outright ignoring models in their own game when designing rules. Otherwise, they'd be bad game designers

I think my counter to that is; wtf is the Malcador doing running around with 18 wounds then? THAT also sounds a bit like bad game design. It's like a bigger Leman Russ, but not the size of a Land Raider. I would think 14 wounds would be more proper for a tank like that.

Part of the issue was also caused by GW in GW in their infinite wisdom limiting Toughness values by making a Landraider T8 instead of the 10 it ahould have been.

Which would have given some more design space for light tanks transports and MBT's and SMBT's and TMBT's etc but nope wer are stuck trying to cram everything int the game into the 5 toughness values FFS.

Indeed. Making LR/Repulsors a proper t10 would fix their lack of invune problem.

Remember when the big complaint about all the dedicated AT guns was that they payed for AP that they almost never got to use because all the good vehicles had invuln saves, so the guns that actually got the AT work done were the mid-damage multi-shot weapons? And how much that hurt Marines since the guns everyone took to do AT work were also casually good at ripping up elite infantry and no-invuln-save Marine vehicles?

Good times, good times.

The Newman wrote:
Remember when the big complaint about all the dedicated AT guns was that they payed for AP that they almost never got to use because all the good vehicles had invuln saves, so the guns that actually got the AT work done were the mid-damage multi-shot weapons? And how much that hurt Marines since the guns everyone took to do AT work were also casually good at ripping up elite infantry and no-invuln-save Marine vehicles?

Good times, good times.

The fundamental problem with AT weapons/armoured vehicles (math errors during the 8e Indexes that led to vehicles having too few wounds and AT weapons not doing enough damage, so spammable crossover weapons (plasma) is better AT than dedicated AT) hasn't changed.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Remember when the big complaint about all the dedicated AT guns was that they payed for AP that they almost never got to use because all the good vehicles had invuln saves, so the guns that actually got the AT work done were the mid-damage multi-shot weapons? And how much that hurt Marines since the guns everyone took to do AT work were also casually good at ripping up elite infantry and no-invuln-save Marine vehicles?

Good times, good times.

The fundamental problem with AT weapons/armoured vehicles (math errors during the 8e Indexes that led to vehicles having too few wounds and AT weapons not doing enough damage, so spammable crossover weapons (plasma) is better AT than dedicated AT) hasn't changed.

That was kind of my point...

Sumilidon wrote:
In GW's defence - they don't care. They made some models, they want those models to sell. Double shooting meltas? Sure, why not? Space Marines stronger than Custodes - sounds a great seller. That ATV bike (depending on points) is going to be awesome. In contrast, the new Necron units are a bit "meh" and for good reason. You don't want your new and fresh cash-cow marine players getting disillusioned by their primary opponent having something better than them.

You think they are good now? Wait until the multi-part kits come out. In my experience, the multi-part kits always come with an option that is better than what comes in the standard box - otherwise why would anyone pay a premium for the multi-part set? Never fear however, GW will have made all the newer updates more powerful up until 2 years time when they release a load of new Primaris models and buff the army again.

"Don't fight it. Buy Primaris today." - GW Slogan since 2018

The ATV is 85.
An old marine Attack Bike w/ MM is 55 points. 25 extra points over an ATV you can get two attack bikes.

Both of these will have the exact same wounds, toughness, attacks, etc.

The ATV has 6 S4 and 2 MM shots.
The Attack Bikes have 8 S4 and 4 MM shots.

So the Attack Bikes are basically an ATV that paid for a second MM. Can you tell me how that makes the ATV wildly better without some special rule?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Sumilidon wrote:
In GW's defence - they don't care. They made some models, they want those models to sell. Double shooting meltas? Sure, why not? Space Marines stronger than Custodes - sounds a great seller. That ATV bike (depending on points) is going to be awesome. In contrast, the new Necron units are a bit "meh" and for good reason. You don't want your new and fresh cash-cow marine players getting disillusioned by their primary opponent having something better than them.

You think they are good now? Wait until the multi-part kits come out. In my experience, the multi-part kits always come with an option that is better than what comes in the standard box - otherwise why would anyone pay a premium for the multi-part set? Never fear however, GW will have made all the newer updates more powerful up until 2 years time when they release a load of new Primaris models and buff the army again.

"Don't fight it. Buy Primaris today." - GW Slogan since 2018

The ATV is 85.
An old marine Attack Bike w/ MM is 55 points. 25 extra points over an ATV you can get two attack bikes.

Both of these will have the exact same wounds, toughness, attacks, etc.

The ATV has 6 S4 and 2 MM shots.
The Attack Bikes have 8 S4 and 4 MM shots.

So the Attack Bikes are basically an ATV that paid for a second MM. Can you tell me how that makes the ATV wildly better without some special rule?

Slot efficiency/RO3? IDK, just guessing, i haven't been tracking it (and I am not familiar with how they can be taken in an army).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
...Slot efficiency/RO3? IDK, just guessing, i haven't been tracking it (and I am not familiar with how they can be taken in an army).

That's probably not going to be it, Attack Bikes are squads of 1-3. Bet you when GW notices this they'll hike the price on Attack Bikes.

There was talk about the ATV's getting a double shoot thing. That separates them from Bikes. Whether that died along with the rest of the rumors is anyone's guess, but for awhile, GW was aware of the issue, and had/s plans to address it, but it was so broken they couldn't.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The ATV is 85.
An old marine Attack Bike w/ MM is 55 points. 25 extra points over an ATV you can get two attack bikes.

Both of these will have the exact same wounds, toughness, attacks, etc.

The ATV has 6 S4 and 2 MM shots.
The Attack Bikes have 8 S4 and 4 MM shots.

So the Attack Bikes are basically an ATV that paid for a second MM. Can you tell me how that makes the ATV wildly better without some special rule?

Really depends on whether 2 shot multimeltas for everyone is confirmed.
If it isn't, the issue is that you are getting approximately 2 attack bikes worth 110 points for 85.

Continue to doubt MMs will get this buff, because if all multimeltas are 2 shots AP-4, damage of D6+2 if in half range or whatever then they just laugh at lascannons and las-equivalent weapons in other factions. Which maybe could perhaps be fixed with points etc - but it seems like a massive gap.

We already have Eradicators pushing any vehicle/monster without an invul out of the game, we don't need more.