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.

Tycho wrote:

That would help, but even just reducing the points on a lot of them would help. I feel like they're still suffering from the arbitrary points hike GW did to "have less models on the table so the game goes faster". Like many predicted, reducing by an average of 120 points had zero effect on game length, but really borked quite a few units. Tanks with lots of guns in particular.


Regarding the quality of the Compendium - did they ever address why they didn't use pictures in the unit entries? I would not have guessed ahead of time that it would make that much difference, but the book literally feels unfinished to me without them.

i'd rather vehicles become tougher and keep their current cost than become cheaper and be spammed. It makes little sense to me that 10 intercessors are more resilient than a rhino, it should be the other way around.

As for the compendium, they basically addressed nothing so far.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
A problem with vehicles it that they're all either T7 or 8, and 2+ or 3+ save, with a ~dozen wounds. They all feel essentially the same.
If they spread that out a bit, having some T9 vehicles maybe. I'd like to suggest 1+ armour saves but I'll have to say reduce AP by one, because 1+ doesn't work so well.
Then don't be afraid to hike up the strengths of AT weapons. As it is, it doesn't matter if it's S9 or S10, you're wounding and tank on 3s. But if that was S14 or S16, now you're seeing a difference.
Or, roll back the double = 2+ system go back to the old 3 higher = 2+. Then toughnesses and strengths make more sense as they appear now.

As you're pointing out, this is exactly the problem with their God awful wounding chart. It's in desperate need of a revamp.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
A problem with vehicles it that they're all either T7 or 8, and 2+ or 3+ save, with a ~dozen wounds. They all feel essentially the same.
If they spread that out a bit, having some T9 vehicles maybe. I'd like to suggest 1+ armour saves but I'll have to say reduce AP by one, because 1+ doesn't work so well.
Then don't be afraid to hike up the strengths of AT weapons. As it is, it doesn't matter if it's S9 or S10, you're wounding and tank on 3s. But if that was S14 or S16, now you're seeing a difference.
Or, roll back the double = 2+ system go back to the old 3 higher = 2+. Then toughnesses and strengths make more sense as they appear now.

As you're pointing out, this is exactly the problem with their God awful wounding chart. It's in desperate need of a revamp.

Or just go back to the old one, with the caveat that everything can wound anything on 6s. Then remove any strategems and abilities that alter the wounding table (votlw, Transhuman Physiology, Salamanders super doctrine, etc).

I'd like to scrap stratagems altogether. Or at least cut them down dramatically.
I didn't mind the start of 8th when you only had the 3 stratagems in the rulebook. Nothing major but a little something to bonk a roll every now and again.
Now the whole game seems to be building and positioning a group of units to pop off your combination of stratagems. And there's so many to choose from, it's too many to mentally keep track of as just an occasional player.
I print off a list of my favourite ~6 and damned be the rest.
And that's just my army's stratagems, got knows what combo-trap I'm innocently walking into.

Well that is why you have to train. No matter how initialy good someone is, to grow gaming skills one has to train non stop. Even just to not forget stuff for the most often played armies.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I'd like to scrap stratagems altogether. Or at least cut them down dramatically.
I didn't mind the start of 8th when you only had the 3 stratagems in the rulebook. Nothing major but a little something to bonk a roll every now and again.
Now the whole game seems to be building and positioning a group of units to pop off your combination of stratagems. And there's so many to choose from, it's too many to mentally keep track of as just an occasional player.
I print off a list of my favourite ~6 and damned be the rest.
And that's just my army's stratagems, got knows what combo-trap I'm innocently walking into.

Welcome to warhammer/ MTG.

Karol wrote:
Well that is why you have to train. No matter how initialy good someone is, to grow gaming skills one has to train non stop. Even just to not forget stuff for the most often played armies.

But I don't want to manage card combos. I want to outmanoeuvre and outsmart.
40k is a game that focuses on models, not cards. Stratagems do the opposite.

i'd rather vehicles become tougher and keep their current cost than become cheaper and be spammed. It makes little sense to me that 10 intercessors are more resilient than a rhino, it should be the other way around.

Definitely see where you're coming from with that, but I'm more looking at the newer Marine vehicles, rather than all vehicles across the board. I should have been more clear with that. I wouldn't want something like Gladiators or Repulsors to be so cheap they can be spammed either, but with the loss of fly, even the Impulsor is now not really worth its points. What's the point of it even being a "hover" platform now?

I can agree they need to be tougher, but I still think a points drop to where you could see, say a Repulsor and a Repulsor Executioner in one army and not have that be a full 3rd of the armies points would be good.

I don't think that hover should necessarily have FLY.
FLY is jumping over buildings and units. Hovering 3 inches off of the floor shouldn't grant that.

I don't think that hover should necessarily have FLY.
FLY is jumping over buildings and units. Hovering 3 inches off of the floor shouldn't grant that.

That's fair enough but it feels like there should at least be a middle ground. Like you can clear "X type of terrain", etc.

EDIT:

And I'm saying this as one of the most vocal "Marines need to be reigned in" members on Dakka! lol

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't think that hover should necessarily have FLY.
FLY is jumping over buildings and units. Hovering 3 inches off of the floor shouldn't grant that.

yeah, we have hoverboats IRL and they can't jump over buildings.
Hover should allow you to ignore dangerous terrain and thats it.

Yeah, a HOVER keyword or something.
Then difficult terrain could say that HOVER or FLY units ignore it, something along those lines.
But of all the issues in 40k, this isn't the hill I'd die on.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
A problem with vehicles it that they're all either T7 or 8, and 2+ or 3+ save, with a ~dozen wounds. They all feel essentially the same.
If they spread that out a bit, having some T9 vehicles maybe. I'd like to suggest 1+ armour saves but I'll have to say reduce AP by one, because 1+ doesn't work so well.
Then don't be afraid to hike up the strengths of AT weapons. As it is, it doesn't matter if it's S9 or S10, you're wounding and tank on 3s. But if that was S14 or S16, now you're seeing a difference.
Or, roll back the double = 2+ system go back to the old 3 higher = 2+. Then toughnesses and strengths make more sense as they appear now.

As you're pointing out, this is exactly the problem with their God awful wounding chart. It's in desperate need of a revamp.

Or just go back to the old one, with the caveat that everything can wound anything on 6s. Then remove any strategems and abilities that alter the wounding table (votlw, Transhuman Physiology, Salamanders super doctrine, etc).

I really believe that there should be a willingness to explore how to do a wounding chart on a D8 or D10

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't think that hover should necessarily have FLY.
FLY is jumping over buildings and units. Hovering 3 inches off of the floor shouldn't grant that.

yeah, we have hoverboats IRL and they can't jump over buildings.
Hover should allow you to ignore dangerous terrain and thats it.

I could live with that, but there would have to be some drawback for hover vehicles, or advantages for tracked vehicles. Maybe tracked vehicles have better armour? So 3+ for floaty tanks, 2+ for tracked.

And bizarrely, gw let the biggest floaty tank, the Astraeus, keep the FLY keyword. So the 80 ton ones can't do it, but the 300+ ton one can. Makes sense.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't think that hover should necessarily have FLY.
FLY is jumping over buildings and units. Hovering 3 inches off of the floor shouldn't grant that.

yeah, we have hoverboats IRL and they can't jump over buildings.
Hover should allow you to ignore dangerous terrain and thats it.

I could live with that, but there would have to be some drawback for hover vehicles, or advantages for tracked vehicles. Maybe tracked vehicles have better armour? So 3+ for floaty tanks, 2+ for tracked.

And bizarrely, gw let the biggest floaty tank, the Astraeus, keep the FLY keyword. So the 80 ton ones can't do it, but the 300+ ton one can. Makes sense.

well.. hover could pay the pts for the benefits that it gives.
So hover vehicles would be more expensive and tracked vehicles would be cheaper.

it depends on the mechanism of hovering - generally, the reason we don't have hover combat vehicles IRL is that they're easily disabled.

So maybe widen the range of the Immobilized result on the damage chart f-

oh wait no that's not a thing anymore. Uh, 3+ armor instead of 2+ it is!

There's many reasons we don't have hover combat vehicles. Another key thing to remember is that we don't have anti-gravity technology and no idea how such a thing would even work.
So the comparison is largely irrelevant.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
it depends on the mechanism of hovering - generally, the reason we don't have hover combat vehicles IRL is that they're easily disabled.

So maybe widen the range of the Immobilized result on the damage chart f-

oh wait no that's not a thing anymore. Uh, 3+ armor instead of 2+ it is!

Uh if memory serves me right, Skimmers were actually more durable during each AV era compared to treaded tanks.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
it depends on the mechanism of hovering - generally, the reason we don't have hover combat vehicles IRL is that they're easily disabled.

So maybe widen the range of the Immobilized result on the damage chart f-

oh wait no that's not a thing anymore. Uh, 3+ armor instead of 2+ it is!

Uh if memory serves me right, Skimmers were actually more durable during each AV era compared to treaded tanks.

Depended what you meant by durable.

Raw statline wise, not typically. Also depended whether a skimmer was a Fast Skimmer or not. A Falcon with Holofields was incredibly durable, overpowered even. Landspeeders were very NOT-durable, dying to immobilized results while having tissue paper armor. Hammerheads were about as durable as Predators, but overall less so since an immobilized counted as destroyed (like for all skimmers). They could buy the Landing Gear upgrade if they really wanted to though to avoid this problem, returning them to parity with Predators but at a cost.

Really, there was a wide array of vehicles in earlier editions. If you took, say, a Leman Russ and made it into a skimmer while making no other changes, it would lose durability (since immobilized results killed it).

In later editions, Skimmers could Jink (giving them 4+ cover) but were required to snapfire if they did so. I personally disagreed with this change, as while something like a Falcon could jink, a Hammerhead was much less likely to be able to (it isn't capable of flying like an aircraft) and certainly not something like a Gladiator, if it had existed.

But my suggestion has very little to do with earlier editions because it's a suggestion from scratch - aside from making a tongue-in-cheek reference to the absence of a vehicle damage model in 40k.

There's many reasons we don't have hover combat vehicles. Another key thing to remember is that we don't have anti-gravity technology and no idea how such a thing would even work.
So the comparison is largely irrelevant.

IMO you've gone wrong anytime you try to pull from a "real life" situation in order to inform rules in the 40k universe. It just doesn't work. In real life, there's not a single pistol that can't shoot past the end of a main battle tank. In 40k, there are many. In real life, we don't have functioning jet packs, in 40k we do. In real life you can't just instantly teleport a battleship off the coast of whatever enemy you want to kill in order to sneak attack them with your entire navy, in 40k, you can. It just doesn't work.

well.. hover could pay the pts for the benefits that it gives.
So hover vehicles would be more expensive and tracked vehicles would be cheaper.

I feel like the main thing they have tried to give hover vehicles over the years is speed and maneuverability. I could see keeping the points somewhat similar between tracked and hover vehicles, but with the tradeoff that maybe tracked vehicles have higher toughness and slightly more wounds, where hover vehicles have higher movement and can clear a lot of terrain without having to go around it. As it stands right now, being a "hover" vehicle is laregly pointless imo.

I don't remember immobilised Skimmers being destroyed in 5th, are you sure that wasn't a 4th ed thing?
I do, however, remember my local GW staff member declaring my Hammerhead immobilised and snapping off the flying base, declaring "oh sorry, I thought you would have magnetised it" and scurrying off into the back room.

But I don't think "hover" should really have any inherent disadvantages to it. There should just be a general tendancy for hover vehicles to be lighter and faster.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't remember immobilised Skimmers being destroyed in 5th, are you sure that wasn't a 4th ed thing?...

It had to have moved Flat Out on the previous turn, which required the Fast type; you wouldn't have seen it much in Tau.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't remember immobilised Skimmers being destroyed in 5th, are you sure that wasn't a 4th ed thing?
I do, however, remember my local GW staff member declaring my Hammerhead immobilised and snapping off the flying base, declaring "oh sorry, I thought you would have magnetised it" and scurrying off into the back room.

But I don't think "hover" should really have any inherent disadvantages to it. There should just be a general tendancy for hover vehicles to be lighter and faster.

"Lighter" would suggest less durability, so less armour/wounds/toughness. They can't just be the same, only faster/more maneuverable. There have to be advantages and disadvantages, otherwise there isn't a choice, it's just a question of which is better.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't remember immobilised Skimmers being destroyed in 5th, are you sure that wasn't a 4th ed thing?
I do, however, remember my local GW staff member declaring my Hammerhead immobilised and snapping off the flying base, declaring "oh sorry, I thought you would have magnetised it" and scurrying off into the back room.

But I don't think "hover" should really have any inherent disadvantages to it. There should just be a general tendancy for hover vehicles to be lighter and faster.

"Lighter" would suggest less durability, so less armour/wounds/toughness. They can't just be the same, only faster/more maneuverable. There have to be advantages and disadvantages, otherwise there isn't a choice, it's just a question of which is better.

Yeah, but that's on the guys constructing the data sheets.
It shouldn't be some inherent rule intrinsic to having hover. Just a general tendancy across the data sheets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't remember immobilised Skimmers being destroyed in 5th, are you sure that wasn't a 4th ed thing?...

It had to have moved Flat Out on the previous turn, which required the Fast type; you wouldn't have seen it much in Tau.

I remember that.
I got the impression from the comments people were saying they were always wrecked if they were immobilised.
Someone mentioned landing gear - which I specifically don't remember being a potentia upgrade either.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't think that hover should necessarily have FLY.
FLY is jumping over buildings and units. Hovering 3 inches off of the floor shouldn't grant that.

yeah, we have hoverboats IRL and they can't jump over buildings.
Hover should allow you to ignore dangerous terrain and thats it.

I could live with that, but there would have to be some drawback for hover vehicles, or advantages for tracked vehicles. Maybe tracked vehicles have better armour? So 3+ for floaty tanks, 2+ for tracked.

And bizarrely, gw let the biggest floaty tank, the Astraeus, keep the FLY keyword. So the 80 ton ones can't do it, but the 300+ ton one can. Makes sense.

Because the 80 ton ones can't carry enough engine to allow them to fly? I mean, what do you thinks making the thing weigh 300+ tons?

ccs wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't think that hover should necessarily have FLY.
FLY is jumping over buildings and units. Hovering 3 inches off of the floor shouldn't grant that.

yeah, we have hoverboats IRL and they can't jump over buildings.
Hover should allow you to ignore dangerous terrain and thats it.

I could live with that, but there would have to be some drawback for hover vehicles, or advantages for tracked vehicles. Maybe tracked vehicles have better armour? So 3+ for floaty tanks, 2+ for tracked.

And bizarrely, gw let the biggest floaty tank, the Astraeus, keep the FLY keyword. So the 80 ton ones can't do it, but the 300+ ton one can. Makes sense.

Because the 80 ton ones can't carry enough engine to allow them to fly? I mean, what do you thinks making the thing weigh 300+ tons?

we can already have small model planes fly just like b-52 bombers.... i'd assume the same applies to 40k. If you transport a lightweight vehicle, you don't need as big of an engine.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't think that hover should necessarily have FLY.
FLY is jumping over buildings and units. Hovering 3 inches off of the floor shouldn't grant that.

yeah, we have hoverboats IRL and they can't jump over buildings.
Hover should allow you to ignore dangerous terrain and thats it.

I could live with that, but there would have to be some drawback for hover vehicles, or advantages for tracked vehicles. Maybe tracked vehicles have better armour? So 3+ for floaty tanks, 2+ for tracked.

And bizarrely, gw let the biggest floaty tank, the Astraeus, keep the FLY keyword. So the 80 ton ones can't do it, but the 300+ ton one can. Makes sense.

Because the 80 ton ones can't carry enough engine to allow them to fly? I mean, what do you thinks making the thing weigh 300+ tons?

we can already have small model planes fly just like b-52 bombers.... i'd assume the same applies to 40k. If you transport a lightweight vehicle, you don't need as big of an engine.

Removal of fly keyword was just an attempt to nerf marine units that didn't need to be nerfed. Which is too bad - removal of fly made the impulsor/ repuslors even more unplayable.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Removal of fly keyword was just an attempt to nerf marine units that didn't need to be nerfed. Which is too bad - removal of fly made the impulsor/ repuslors even more unplayable.

with the nerf to the fly keyword, removing the gravitic backlash rule couldve been enough probably.

But then i'd expect the admech Dunerider to gain the fly keyword.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Removal of fly keyword was just an attempt to nerf marine units that didn't need to be nerfed. Which is too bad - removal of fly made the impulsor/ repuslors even more unplayable.

with the nerf to the fly keyword, removing the gravitic backlash rule couldve been enough probably.

But then i'd expect the admech Dunerider to gain the fly keyword.

Better off without it. The dunecrawler has about the same firepower as the gladiator lancer for about 60 points less. Lancer might be slightly more durable but I'd say the durability is a wash with one being t8 and the other having a 5++ with reroll 1's. The only practical difference is maneuverability - which they are charging the lancer way too much fore and they still removed fly keyword from it.

GW typically has a problem understanding power level in their game. Marines clearly needed a cut back. But units that were already bad...didn't really need a nerf, Esp not a tripple or quad nerf like repulsors and impuslors got.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Removal of fly keyword was just an attempt to nerf marine units that didn't need to be nerfed. Which is too bad - removal of fly made the impulsor/ repuslors even more unplayable.

with the nerf to the fly keyword, removing the gravitic backlash rule couldve been enough probably.

But then i'd expect the admech Dunerider to gain the fly keyword.

Better off without it. The dunecrawler has about the same firepower as the gladiator lancer for about 60 points less. Lancer might be slightly more durable but I'd say the durability is a wash with one being t8 and the other having a 5++ with reroll 1's. The only practical difference is maneuverability - which they are charging the lancer way too much fore and they still removed fly keyword from it.

The only reason why Gladiators/Repulsors/Astraeus have the fly/hover/whatever they have now keyword is because of the model itself, not because of the rules. Theyre all hover vehicles.
Both skorpius variants have a hovercraft look to them (and were even marketed as hovering tanks).

And the skorpius are especially good because they fill niches that admech never had before (codex transport and artillery).