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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

2x and 2.5 x is a pretty big points area. You are talking between 14-21 points back when orks were 7 points. LOL. I can tell you - you are off by a pretty big margin here. In order to even consider at tactical marine. It has to be less than 2x than an ork and even when it was...they were 12/13 points at one point in 8.5 with 1 wound...still no one ever took them. Yet...ork boys were spammed...what does that tell you?

It tells me that SM had tons of OP alternatives and orks didn't .

I played the entire 8th edition with firstborn marines, SW chapter, and I would still have taken them at 15-16ppm. At 12ppm they were really really cheap. The fact that the same codex had even better troops, which also matched the most recent released kits, doesn't mean that the standard power armour dude was trash.

"No one ever took them" is also too hyperbolic. By that logic every SM player was forced to rely on spamming scouts and/or the loyal32 during 8th, as most of the SM lists that placed in tournaments had those units. In real life I've never seen a single SM list that had the loyal32 or the castellan knight. Not even the 3x5 scout was really a thing outside tournaments, as SM were good enough with both the firstborn and the primaris lines of models even before the second version of their codex. They couldn't win the most competitive tournament probably but they were still very good against any opponent in any real "friendly to semi-competitive" meta. I enjoyed my pure firstborn SW army a lot in 8th, and still do actually.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

12-13 PPM for 1W MEQ undercosted? On behalf of all CSM players may I just say:

But fully agreed on your second point. The simplest and most immediate fix for the current state of tanks is an increase in the price of multi-meltas and similar AT to match their increased lethality to tanks. Nothing should get the kind of returns that cheap AT infantry and bike units get against tanks.

Maybe he is looking at it from the GK strike perspective, because a meq at 12pts does seem undercosted comparing to one that costs 20,23 or more points.

Also does it mean that multi melta and melta on vehicles would stay the same price?

I like the idea of adding wounds to tanks, but think it should be paired with main gun buffs to the vast majority of tanks. One of the big weaknesses of a Predator Annihilator for instance is that its gun isn't any better than the guns on a pair of Devastators, and has inferior output to a squad of five with four lascannons on account of the Signum and Cherub granting an extra shot and giving one model BS2+. Giving tanks similar main armament to infantry was honestly a modeling error that is part of the legacy of the original models. The buffing of the Predator Autocannon from being simply a regular autocannon to its own deal was a good move, perhaps increasing the power of the Predator's Lascannons could be the way to go.

In addition, most tanks main guns should start at 48 inch range and go up from there. The vast majority of the time, the tank should out range, out gun and out armor the infantry. The benefits of the infantry being they can't be deleted by a single high damage shot, and are far more versatile in their employment. This along with their greater durability in the case of heavy and super heavy infantry are why tanks are rarely seen, save in the factions where they are good.

In addition the simplification of the save system has done tanks, particularly tank hunters a disservice. One of the things I'm surprised they never did when they switched over from 7th to 8th, was splitting cover saves as they existed into what one would picture as a cover save, using terrain and obstacles to shelter from attacks, and what I would call an Evasion save. Instead they made cover boost armor (which I can understand) and made what would normally be an evasion type save and made them invulns or negatives to hit. Separating invulns, which are more akin to a force field, daemonic invulnerabilities and other esoteric means of defending oneself from evades could open up new niches in the meta. Having Wyches get a an evade save, or more on topic, switching the Dark Eldar Invulns on their skimmers out for an Evade Save which would have its own counters and benefits could be a more elegant solution. Having some weapons counteract evades, such as having idk Flamers ignore it (try dodging some of the torrents of acid or fire from 40k weapons) or certain types of blast weapons, but making evades potent against large single shot weapons would be a nice balance. You could make it a sliding scale too, with DE vehicles being the best at it, while regular Craftworld tanks are only proficient ok at it, too Tau being ok at it, as their armor improves and slows the tank, but provides enhanced resilience to weapons.

To continue however on my main point, a fire fight for infantry in the open against a tank kitted to deal with them, should be a fools errand. But perhaps give tanks a penalty against troops in cover, to show the difficulty of engaging numerous, small foes who can shelter from its guns. Tanks should for the part, crumple in CC vs troops kitted to kill tanks, but they already kinda do, so that is well represented. All I really mean in this, is that tanks need to gain resilience, which should be done by increasing their wounds and increasing their T values. Their main guns should be scary to be under, so alter their rules to make that so. The transports based upon those tanks already trade firepower for capacity so make them fast and resilient to enemy fire, even if its just for the points involved.

Karol wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

12-13 PPM for 1W MEQ undercosted? On behalf of all CSM players may I just say:

But fully agreed on your second point. The simplest and most immediate fix for the current state of tanks is an increase in the price of multi-meltas and similar AT to match their increased lethality to tanks. Nothing should get the kind of returns that cheap AT infantry and bike units get against tanks.

Maybe he is looking at it from the GK strike perspective, because a meq at 12pts does seem undercosted comparing to one that costs 20,23 or more points.

Also does it mean that multi melta and melta on vehicles would stay the same price?

Yes, gw overvalues GK Strikes psychic abilities.

As to your question: probably? Unless you can think of a melta equipped vehicle that over performs at the level things like MM Attack Bikes do. I can't. Can you?

panzerfront14 wrote:
I like the idea of adding wounds to tanks, but think it should be paired with main gun buffs to the vast majority of tanks. One of the big weaknesses of a Predator Annihilator for instance is that its gun isn't any better than the guns on a pair of Devastators, and has inferior output to a squad of five with four lascannons on account of the Signum and Cherub granting an extra shot and giving one model BS2+. Giving tanks similar main armament to infantry was honestly a modeling error that is part of the legacy of the original models. The buffing of the Predator Autocannon from being simply a regular autocannon to its own deal was a good move, perhaps increasing the power of the Predator's Lascannons could be the way to go.

I

According to the background the Predator Annihilator was invented by Space Wolves by retrofitting Longfangs Lascannons in the turret. So it is the same guns the Devastators have.

Maybe extra shots because of increased power supply and sturdier mounting.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
By that logic, why not always bring as many objective secured infantry as possible?

Because objective secured infantry tends to be bad at killing stuff. No army can survive by just standing around.

Isn't that actually something you can do now, build a list around primary and secondary objectives that don't involve killing the opposing force to win?

Honestly, I think a good way to "help" tanks is actually to increase the point costs of multi-meltas, and other really cheap units that delete said tanks, like the chicken-walking double tooting las-cannon hecking birds the admech just got.

To continue however on my main point, a fire fight for infantry in the open against a tank kitted to deal with them, should be a fools errand. But perhaps give tanks a penalty against troops in cover, to show the difficulty of engaging numerous, small foes who can shelter from its guns. Tanks should for the part, crumple in CC vs troops kitted to kill tanks, but they already kinda do, so that is well represented. All I really mean in this, is that tanks need to gain resilience, which should be done by increasing their wounds and increasing their T values. Their main guns should be scary to be under, so alter their rules to make that so. The transports based upon those tanks already trade firepower for capacity so make them fast and resilient to enemy fire, even if its just for the points involved.

I don't want to see a Rhino or Razorback be as durable as a Predator. Nor do I want to see a Devilfish be as durable as a Hammerhead, etc. I have no issues with these transports currently. The only vehicles I have issues with are the tanks themselves.

Rhino Based Tanks and Other Marine/Chaos Marine Tanks:
Take Castigators, Predators and Vindicators for example. Simply moving them up to 14 wounds would probably be enough to fix them. The Predator specifically could probably move up to T8 as well, it doesn't make sense that the Hunter, Stalker, and Vindicator are all T8 already but the Predator for some reason isn't.

As for the other Marine tanks the Gladiator's could probably go up to 14 wounds as well. The Land Raider and Repulsor could probably go up to 18 wounds.

Imperial Guard Tanks:
For the Imperial Guard the Hellhound could probably move up to 12 wounds. It use to have better side armour than a Chimera.

Anything on a Leman Russ platform should get a 2+ save against ranged attacks (3+ save in engagement range) to represent the old front armour 14 and rear armour 10. This increased armour save would also be applied to Guard super-heavy tanks as well (IE: Macharius and Baneblade tanks). The Leman Russ specifically should go up to 14 wounds as well.

The Baneblade and Macharius should get more wounds as well. Something along the lines of 28 for the Baneblade and 24 for the Macharius.

Tau Tanks:
The Hammerhead should go up to 14 wounds and T8.

Eldar Tanks:
I actually think the Fire Prism is okay in terms of durability. Unlike the other factions old school tanks it can still get a 6+++ and a -1 hit via upgrades.

Jarms48 wrote:

To continue however on my main point, a fire fight for infantry in the open against a tank kitted to deal with them, should be a fools errand. But perhaps give tanks a penalty against troops in cover, to show the difficulty of engaging numerous, small foes who can shelter from its guns. Tanks should for the part, crumple in CC vs troops kitted to kill tanks, but they already kinda do, so that is well represented. All I really mean in this, is that tanks need to gain resilience, which should be done by increasing their wounds and increasing their T values. Their main guns should be scary to be under, so alter their rules to make that so. The transports based upon those tanks already trade firepower for capacity so make them fast and resilient to enemy fire, even if its just for the points involved.

I don't want to see a Rhino or Razorback be as durable as a Predator. Nor do I want to see a Devilfish be as durable as a Hammerhead, etc. I have no issues with these transports currently. The only vehicles I have issues with are the tanks themselves.

Rhino Based Tanks and Other Marine/Chaos Marine Tanks:
Take Castigators, Predators and Vindicators for example. Simply moving them up to 14 wounds would probably be enough to fix them. The Predator specifically could probably move up to T8 as well, it doesn't make sense that the Hunter, Stalker, and Vindicator are all T8 already but the Predator for some reason isn't.

As for the other Marine tanks the Gladiator's could probably go up to 14 wounds as well. The Land Raider and Repulsor could probably go up to 18 wounds.

Imperial Guard Tanks:
For the Imperial Guard the Hellhound could probably move up to 12 wounds. It use to have better side armour than a Chimera.

Anything on a Leman Russ platform should get a 2+ save against ranged attacks (3+ save in engagement range) to represent the old front armour 14 and rear armour 10. This increased armour save would also be applied to Guard super-heavy tanks as well (IE: Macharius and Baneblade tanks). The Leman Russ specifically should go up to 14 wounds as well.

The Baneblade and Macharius should get more wounds as well. Something along the lines of 28 for the Baneblade and 24 for the Macharius.

Tau Tanks:
The Hammerhead should go up to 14 wounds and T8.

Eldar Tanks:
I actually think the Fire Prism is okay in terms of durability. Unlike the other factions old school tanks it can still get a 6+++ and a -1 hit via upgrades.

I see your points and agree with them, yet what about output in terms of damage. I'm still surprised that the Gladiator Lancer's big gun isn't as potent as the array of weapons on the Valiant pattern. I also phrased one of my points poorly regarding transports, particularly rhino class vehicles and tangentially the Devilfish, i didn't intend them to be as durable as their tank counterparts, I simply meant that they shouldn't be overly penalized for their transport capacity, sort of like how the Repulsor IMO is too expensive or vehicles like the Landraider or Ork Battlewagon which I think could stand to become cheaper.

 Blndmage wrote:
By that logic, why not always bring as many objective secured infantry as possible?

You mean like ork lists are currently doing? Either by spamming boyz or by spamming infantry in deffskulls Kulture which makes them all OBSEC?

 Xenomancers wrote:

2x and 2.5 x is a pretty big points area. You are talking between 14-21 points back when orks were 7 points. LOL. I can tell you - you are off by a pretty big margin here. In order to even consider at tactical marine. It has to be less than 2x than an ork and even when it was...they were 12/13 points at one point in 8.5 with 1 wound...still no one ever took them. Yet...ork boys were spammed...what does that tell you?

In 8th there was a point where Marines were 12 and Ork boyz were 7. Those Marine players in competitive metas still didn't take Marines...why? was it because a 12pt Space Marine was objective bad? or was it because the competitive lists were taking min scouts and going with loyal 32 and a castellan? Or was it because they were taking 3 min units of scouts and than going deep into ridiculously OP units like double shooting aggressors? I'm thinking it was the latter.

And those 12ppm Marines were destroying ork boyz at 7ppm. So why did Ork players still take Boyz instead of other things? Because we didn't have anything else. Our New buggies were a mixed bag of ok to hot garbage, the new HQ unit was bad, the stompa was still over priced by 40-50%, the Nauts were overpriced and fragile (same reasons as Tanks).

But with all of that said there was a brief bit in 8th where orkz were doing really well after we got our codex and before Space Marine 2, electric Boogaloo. And what were orkz spamming? Boyz? Nope, Grotz. And why were we doing that? Because we could take 25 lootas in a single mob and use 90+ grotz to make them fairly durable at the cost of several CP a turn.

Basically you are yet again wrong about anything to do with orkz its almost a trend with you.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:


As to your question: probably? Unless you can think of a melta equipped vehicle that over performs at the level things like MM Attack Bikes do. I can't. Can you?

the scouting immolator for dominions? But can't really think of another one. Maybe if tau get multi melta or at least regular melta on their FW skimmers.

I posted this in a similar thread in the proposed rules section, but thought I’d join the conversation here with my 2 cents:

I’m not convinced that tanks need a boost to durability, but if they are to get one, rather than making small arms all but ineffective with a -1 damage, I think a better solution would be to increase the save for the tanks.

If tanks are armoured, perhaps that would be better represented with 2+ being he standard save rather than 3+ which seems to be the norm for most main battle tanks. This would increase the survivability against most weapons while still allowing anti-tank weaponry with high AP to work effectively against tanks as should be the case.

For tanks which already have a 2+ save such as the Land Raider, perhaps you an additional rule in their data sheets along the lines of the rule for storm shields on Bladeguard veterans could be added:

Heavily Armoured:
Add 1 to armour saving throws made for the bearer.

Or the ability to reduce enemy attack’s AP by 1:

Heavily Armoured:
When resolving attacks against this unit, reduce the AP by one (AP -2 becomes AP-1, AP -1 becomes AP 0) to a minimum of 0.

This might not fix everything, but I think adjusting the baseline of what save vehicles get is the best place to start with vehicles ( especially tanks).

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

12-13 PPM for 1W MEQ undercosted? On behalf of all CSM players may I just say:

But fully agreed on your second point. The simplest and most immediate fix for the current state of tanks is an increase in the price of multi-meltas and similar AT to match their increased lethality to tanks. Nothing should get the kind of returns that cheap AT infantry and bike units get against tanks.

Maybe he is looking at it from the GK strike perspective, because a meq at 12pts does seem undercosted comparing to one that costs 20,23 or more points.

Also does it mean that multi melta and melta on vehicles would stay the same price?

Yes, gw overvalues GK Strikes psychic abilities.

As to your question: probably? Unless you can think of a melta equipped vehicle that over performs at the level things like MM Attack Bikes do. I can't. Can you?

Land speeders with Melta are actually fairly comparable to an MM attack bike.
10 points more but +1T +2W, speed 18", fly and shoot in melee.
No CORE, but fast marine units rarely benefit from it.
(And immunity to rad saturated shots).

 Blndmage wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
By that logic, why not always bring as many objective secured infantry as possible?

Because objective secured infantry tends to be bad at killing stuff. No army can survive by just standing around.

Isn't that actually something you can do now, build a list around primary and secondary objectives that don't involve killing the opposing force to win?

You still need to take away your opponent's ability to handle your guys which are sitting around on objectives. Most shooting units have an efficiency of 40-80% when shooting infantry, which means that they can easily wipe out twice their points if left unchecked for five turns.

So when building such a list you aren't exactly killing your opponent to win, you are hamstringing them to race ahead of them.

But that's vastly off topic now - I was referring to units like devastators or terminators being more durable than the same amount of points invested into a vehicle, despite being just as good, if not better at shooting and being able to fight back in combat.

That's actually meta dependent.
Devastators are not more durable than a vehicle point per point.
They are more durable only to high damage low RoF weapons, which is what is currently being played.
Against plasma shots a dev squad bleeds points 3 times faster than a T8 vehicle. Against bolt rifles they bleed almost 4 times faster.

Spoletta wrote:
That's actually meta dependent.
Devastators are not more durable than a vehicle point per point.
They are more durable only to high damage low RoF weapons, which is what is currently being played.
Against plasma shots a dev squad bleeds points 3 times faster than a T8 vehicle. Against bolt rifles they bleed almost 4 times faster.

Devs vs tanks (preds and vinds mostly) has been debated since forever. They've always been meta dependant, unless at some point one of the options was significantly cheaper. So typically you chose the former if you desired to rely mostly on infantries or the latter if your list was heavy on vehicles.

Spoletta wrote:
That's actually meta dependent.
Devastators are not more durable than a vehicle point per point.
They are more durable only to high damage low RoF weapons, which is what is currently being played.
Against plasma shots a dev squad bleeds points 3 times faster than a T8 vehicle. Against bolt rifles they bleed almost 4 times faster.

A predator is T7 though and unlike the predator the devs can benefit from light cover. If they do, they have the same chance of taking 2 damage from plasma - but the devs cost less and shoot better than a quad las predator.

The thing with Devs is that if you take them you are probably taking a drop pod, so can hopefully get that opening shooting off inside 12" and so get your 100%~ points return versus a range of units with limited counter play. (Obviously you can screen out DS - but screens can be cleared.)

I don't think they are materially tougher - and if just footslogging across the table are likely to be focused down and killed. But the advantage is you don't have to do that.

I'm facing them quite regularly in my semi-competitive group, and most people just traditionally deploy them on the upper floor of a ruin. And they aren't doing terribly either.

It's also not about the current space marine meta, but about how it's easier it to kill a tank with four lascannons than to kill five infantry men with lacannons, which totally should be the other way around.

 Jidmah wrote:
I'm facing them quite regularly in my semi-competitive group, and most people just traditionally deploy them on the upper floor of a ruin. And they aren't doing terribly either.

It's also not about the current space marine meta, but about how it's easier it to kill a tank with four lascannons than to kill five infantry men with lacannons, which totally should be the other way around.

Fair enough. A 2+ save undoubtedly helps.

I quite like the to-wound chart as it stands, but there is undoubtedly something odd that T4->T7 often feels meaningless, in part I think because high S and high AP usually go together. So T4/2+ and T7/3+ end up being quite similar for basically anything that isn't a heavy bolter.

 Jidmah wrote:
I'm facing them quite regularly in my semi-competitive group, and most people just traditionally deploy them on the upper floor of a ruin. And they aren't doing terribly either.

It's also not about the current space marine meta, but about how it's easier it to kill a tank with four lascannons than to kill five infantry men with lacannons, which totally should be the other way around.

I disagree.

Infantry in the open should be easier to clear than a tank, but there is nothing harder to take out than infantry in cover.

That's not he case though?

Infantry is always harder to kill, even when out in the open. Unless you bring weapons which are exceptionally good at killing them, in which case they still nearly as durable as the tank.

 Jidmah wrote:
That's not he case though?

Infantry is always harder to kill, even when out in the open. Unless you bring weapons which are exceptionally good at killing them, in which case they still nearly as durable as the tank.

No it isn't.

Bolt rifle hit on a lascannon dev nets 4.125 points
Bolt rifle hit on a quad las predator nets 2.55 points

And we are comparing heavy infantry to a light MBT.

At light infantry? Shooting at an heavy weapon team with lascannons, you net 5 points per bolter rifle.

At an heavy MBT? Shooting an LRBT with Demolisher cannon and one lascannon (more output than 4 lascannons), you score 1.14 per bolt rifle.

Infantry isn't harder to kill than tanks, let's stop pretending that.

What makes tanks very flimsy is the high amount of cheap efficient AT weapons. That's what should be fixed.

Karol wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:


As to your question: probably? Unless you can think of a melta equipped vehicle that over performs at the level things like MM Attack Bikes do. I can't. Can you?

the scouting immolator for dominions? But can't really think of another one. Maybe if tau get multi melta or at least regular melta on their FW skimmers.

I'm far from an expert but the number crunchers seem to think that Immolators scouted up with Dominions aren't all that great.

Well comparing to raiders they are not. To me a bunch of scouting dominions with 2D stormbolters in a tank with twin MM, seems good enough. But then again my MM platform is a dreadnought without the -1D rule. So I am probably biased.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

12-13 PPM for 1W MEQ undercosted?

Absolutely. TACs definitely needed to be between 2x and 2.5x the cost of an ork boy, as always, but 12ppm power armour dudes are definitely undercosted when boyz are 7ppm. 15-16ppm was the appropriate point cost. I'm talking about those ones with combat doctrines, bolter discipline and shock assault (among other things); all rules that were introduced when marines were 12ppm for firstborn and 17ppm for intercessors.

Can't say about Chaos, I haven't faced anything chaos related that isn't either 1KSons or Deathguard in ages. I know they didn't and don't have the same layers of buffs of their loyal counterparts which means they could certainly be cheaper than them. But sisters were also very undercosted at 9ppm, and they were basically cheaper tacs without doctrines and -1T but still tons of free or cheap buffs available to enhance them.

2x and 2.5 x is a pretty big points area. You are talking between 14-21 points back when orks were 7 points. LOL. I can tell you - you are off by a pretty big margin here. In order to even consider at tactical marine. It has to be less than 2x than an ork and even when it was...they were 12/13 points at one point in 8.5 with 1 wound...still no one ever took them. Yet...ork boys were spammed...what does that tell you?

Currently? It tells me you don't do calculations very accurately, which explains a lot.

The difference between 2x and 2.5x a 7 point boy is 3.5 points, not 7 - you end up looking at a range of 14 to 17.5 points, not 21.

Karol wrote:
Well comparing to raiders they are not. To me a bunch of scouting dominions with 2D stormbolters in a tank with twin MM, seems good enough. But then again my MM platform is a dreadnought without the -1D rule. So I am probably biased.

Yes Karol we know Grey Knights suck.

Nah, GSC or Knights now those armies suck. GK are just bad. A bad army can in theory, be achived with even a good codex. That is why I like 9th a lot more then 8th. In 8th it didn't really matter what you played, what the opponent played or what the scenarios or rule set were etc.

Speaking of GSC though, and I know it can be a question spoken to the void, considering the armies popularity right now. Are the GSC big and small trucks considered useful or bad, but useful if changes happened. Other then being worth 25pts with gun of course.

It's ranting time.

Most units in 40k have a tradeoff between 'defense' (toughness and cost) or offense ('movement and attack'). Getting a unit with both tends to require a point (and money) premium.

With offense, there is usually a tradeoff between 'range' and 'overall damage' (in terms of attacks, strength, etc). Units with shorter range want to 'get close' while units with longer range want to 'stay back', especially so they don't get hit with melee, meltaguns, or what have you.

Because of this, 40k has had a relatively strong reputation for certain degrees of castling, to the point that "bubblewrap" is a fairly well-known game term for largish expendable blobs of cannon fodder.

I played Orks in 5th edition. I used Battlewagons. One thing that Battlewagons were good at was transporting Meganobz; yes, they had Side Armor 12, but they were half the cost of a Land Raider, and usually had a Kustom Forcefield providing a save. Most importantly however, they had deffrollas.

In contrast to how vehicles now 'charge' stuff like other units do, Tank Shock and Ramming took place in the movement phase. Furthermore, rather than 'stopping in place' to lock an enemy unit, the Tank Shock would displace enemy models; you could drive 12" into that pile of Kroot Warriors, force a Leadership Check, or force them to 'regroup' the shortest legal distance around the wagon, THEN disembark to charge the enemy unit that was hiding behind them. :rofl:

This is in opposition to how you now need to park a transport a decent distance away, then hope the enemy doesn't charge and surround it, preventing you from disembarking. Of course, it probably doesn't help much that explosion casualties are that much more punishing in 8th-9th ("Russian Roulette" instead of "Strength 4 hit"), while most vehicle explosions are simply "D3 mortal wounds to a UNIT" instead of "S4 hit to each MODEL" within D6 inches.".

Tanks in 5th were generally durable (arguably too much so), had 'decent' firepower for their cost (as this was before the general lethality got turned up, and before the era of Knights, Scatterbike Eldar, "Call of Duty Cawl-Bolters", etc), and could provide a mix of fire support, cover, and utility via tank shock.

You could even do stuff like 'trains', where you would have one lead vehicle go forward, pop smoke, and every other vehicle advance behind it in an 'echelon', so that the net result was akin to every vehicle being in cover. With the current terrain rules requiring a vehicle to both be obscured AND in area terrain however...

Spoletta wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

12-13 PPM for 1W MEQ undercosted? On behalf of all CSM players may I just say:

But fully agreed on your second point. The simplest and most immediate fix for the current state of tanks is an increase in the price of multi-meltas and similar AT to match their increased lethality to tanks. Nothing should get the kind of returns that cheap AT infantry and bike units get against tanks.

Maybe he is looking at it from the GK strike perspective, because a meq at 12pts does seem undercosted comparing to one that costs 20,23 or more points.

Also does it mean that multi melta and melta on vehicles would stay the same price?

Yes, gw overvalues GK Strikes psychic abilities.

As to your question: probably? Unless you can think of a melta equipped vehicle that over performs at the level things like MM Attack Bikes do. I can't. Can you?

Land speeders with Melta are actually fairly comparable to an MM attack bike.
10 points more but +1T +2W, speed 18", fly and shoot in melee.
No CORE, but fast marine units rarely benefit from it.
(And immunity to rad saturated shots).

Ah, yeah. I think I forgot about those because I think of them as just better Attack Bikes. That extra movement plus FLY let's them get into melta range much easier, and the added toughness and wounds means I can't delete them with Laser Destroyers on every 2+ to wound. Yeah, if you nerfed Attack Bikes but not Landspeeders, then Landspeeders would just replace Attack Bikes.

Spoletta wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
That's not he case though?

Infantry is always harder to kill, even when out in the open. Unless you bring weapons which are exceptionally good at killing them, in which case they still nearly as durable as the tank.

No it isn't.

Bolt rifle hit on a lascannon dev nets 4.125 points
Bolt rifle hit on a quad las predator nets 2.55 points

And we are comparing heavy infantry to a light MBT.

At light infantry? Shooting at an heavy weapon team with lascannons, you net 5 points per bolter rifle.

At an heavy MBT? Shooting an LRBT with Demolisher cannon and one lascannon (more output than 4 lascannons), you score 1.14 per bolt rifle.

Infantry isn't harder to kill than tanks, let's stop pretending that.

What makes tanks very flimsy is the high amount of cheap efficient AT weapons. That's what should be fixed.

Agreed, that's why the first and best thing you should do to help tanks is nerf all of those overly efficient AT units. A multi-melta on a Land Raider pintle mount isn't worth as much as one on an Attack Bike or Landspeeder.