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.

Karol wrote:
The only vehicles that seem to be used a lot are those that are cheap, those that have inv saves or which have fly. Which for marines, the army that makes up the majority of all armies played, mans that the vehicles in 9th are not that good. LR die too fast, pods and rhinos can't transport a lot of the units being used, the impulsor cost so much, that you may as well buy another unit you want instead of the transport. The various primaris tanks have a bad cost to damage to resiliance efficiency. I don't think many people use the marine flyers too. So maybe the vehicle situation got better for some armies, but not the core audiance GW has.

A Land Raider's problem is not necessarily that it dies too fast. It just doesn't pull enough weight for the points. T8 and a 2+ save is pretty good even without an invul against most weapons. The main problem for Marine transports is, that there is nothing worthwhile to transport.

Speaking from a tournament POV, what would you want to transport?
Vanguard Vets have Jump Packs.
Your Multi-meltas are carried by attack bikes.
Your Dreadnoughts don't want to be transported, as they would lose firepower.
HQs? Either want to run along Dreadnoughts for buffs or got a bike or Jump Pack themselves.
Troops either infiltrate onto objectives or sit on their own homefield objective. And yes, taking a second squad here is then just more beneficial than having an Impulsor.

Devastator Squads could make use of a Drop Pod as expensive suicide units.

 Blackie wrote:
Vehicles that weren't AV13 or 14 were actually useless since ANY result on the damage table was dreadful. Light and medium armored vehicles are much tougher and fun to play now.

AV13-14 vehicles were much more resilient to firepower but a single blow of a S 9-10 dude (with orks I had plenty of those) could wreck them with little effort.

Not to mention the limitations on firepower with firing arcs and movement.

In 5th I had to bring gimmicks to make my vehicles work: 3 battlewagons or 9 killa kanz to 1500 points games, all shielded by a KFF which gave them 4+. Unplayable units otherwise, but very competitive if spammed and under the KFF effect.

No, overall vehicles are in a much better spot now. Of course people can like older mechanics and considered them more fun to play, but if we're talking about usefulness of the vehicles now they finally do something.

It really depends on what type of game you want. AV facing and destroyable weapons etc. are more of a sim/wargame we can identify from the real world. the wound system is an abstract game mechanic for more game and less simulation.

i dislike the wound system as it is now implemented because it is done poorly DUST uses a wound system mixed with a sim system so that vehicles still retain some aspect of recognizable behavior IE certain weapons cannot "wound" vehicles if the armor class rating is to high(light infantry weapons cannot hurt vehicles above class 3 for example because those are not open topped etc..) or keeping weapon firing arcs with a wound mechanic.

I also have quite a different experience than you with 5th edition which our group still plays. My AV12 dreadnoughts have proven to be quite resilient. and bringing any armor including AV10/11 requires you to take multiples so the enemy force cannot focus all of it's AT fire on a very few targets.

A.T. wrote:

The 5e damage chart was too reserved and the 4e chart too brutal for the higher costs ... ror transports at least, 5e vehicles spent a lot of time shaken and stunned.

We solved that problem by simply putting the snap fire mechanic into our 5th editions games so vehicles could at least contribute something while stunned/shaken. Not all the best rules were in one edition sadly and some great rules were tossed out for what reason the emperor only knows. that's the reason why our groups and Mezmorki's prohammer does a good job fixing that very problem. .

 Blackie wrote:
Vehicles that weren't AV13 or 14 were actually useless since ANY result on the damage table was dreadful. Light and medium armored vehicles are much tougher and fun to play now.

AV13-14 vehicles were much more resilient to firepower but a single blow of a S 9-10 dude (with orks I had plenty of those) could wreck them with little effort.

Not to mention the limitations on firepower with firing arcs and movement.

In 5th I had to bring gimmicks to make my vehicles work: 3 battlewagons or 9 killa kanz to 1500 points games, all shielded by a KFF which gave them 4+. Unplayable units otherwise, but very competitive if spammed and under the KFF effect.

No, overall vehicles are in a much better spot now. Of course people can like older mechanics and considered them more fun to play, but if we're talking about usefulness of the vehicles now they finally do something.

Hmm.
We must've been playing 5e wrong then. Because our tables saw plenty of those "useless" vehicles successfully played. And not necessarily in spam quantities.

 aphyon wrote:
We solved that problem by simply putting the snap fire mechanic into our 5th editions games so vehicles could at least contribute something while stunned/shaken. Not all the best rules were in one edition sadly and some great rules were tossed out for what reason the emperor only knows. that's the reason why our groups and Mezmorki's prohammer does a good job fixing that very problem.

It depends what you are going for and what you are trying to fix. Snapfire adds a lot of rolling to the game and makes gamestates fuzzier (which is to say you no longer can stop shooting at a vehicle know it is out of the next phase, or stop moving a model knowing your opponent can't move and shoot to reach it).

The counterpoint to prohammer is simplehammer - stripping down the rules, or in this example rewarding beating on a vehicle (i.e. +1 damage against an immobile target, firers choice of immobilized/weapon destroyed, etc) to reduce the impact of shaken by reducing the value of shaking a vehicle then moving onto the next target.

Of course trading speed and clarity for range of options and outcomes is a matter of personal taste, and as GW demonstrates it's easy to go too far one way or the other.

on the OP I somewhat agree in that 5th was one of the better editions of 40k, but I honestly think 8th edition with indexes was one of the best times for 40k. things were not perfectly balanced, but they were pretty good compared to most editions and much more balanced than our current mess.

A.T. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Vehicles that weren't AV13 or 14 were actually useless since ANY result on the damage table was dreadful. Light and medium armored vehicles are much tougher and fun to play now.

Many of the top-tier lists in 5th were built around AV10-12 vehicles with little or no special protection. Even the least of the factions (radical daemonhunters) could run a potent parking lot.

The 5e damage chart was too reserved and the 4e chart too brutal for the higher costs ... ror transports at least, 5e vehicles spent a lot of time shaken and stunned.

Potent parking lot = Spam. Even orks could spam 8-10 trukks and be very powerful, I refuse to consider "fun to play" this kind of lists. Shaken or stunned = useless. CC vehicles like melee dreads with an immobilized result also useless. Tanks with a single weapon, like razorbacks without conversions, useless with a weapon destroyed or 50% to be useless if they had 2 weapons. Open topped vehicles instant killed on 4+ for a single penetrating hit or even on 3+ against AP1.

My poor trukks vs lascannons: autoglance, pen on 2+. On 4+ instant killed. Now they can soak 3+ hits that bypass saves before getting wrecked. Even BWs had high chances to be instant killed due to AV12 on the sides and AV10 in the back.

I used to wreck AM battle tanks with AV10 in the back with crappy choppa guys, or with just with the lone dude wielding a power klaw, now they can soak an insane amount of hits from choppas and even power klaws instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aphyon wrote:

It really depends on what type of game you want. AV facing and destroyable weapons etc. are more of a sim/wargame we can identify from the real world. the wound system is an abstract game mechanic for more game and less simulation.

Exactly, I'm not discussing game mechanics being better or worse. That's totally subjective.

I'm only disagreeing with those who believe vehicles were more powerful in older editions.

 Blackie wrote:
My poor trukks vs lascannons: autoglance, pen on 2+. On 4+ instant killed.

In practice that translated to a roughly 28% chance of wrecking an unarmoured, open topped vehicle with no obscurement with a shot from a dedicated anti-tank weapon (assuming marine 3+ to hit rather than guard 4+ to hit).

At the start of 5th that's 230 points of minimum size devastators and one of your three heavy support slots for a statistical wrecked/destroyed result on one 35 point trukk out of cover.

You mean your flimsy AV10 vehicles died to dedicated anti-tank weapons?

Inconceivable!!!

A.T. wrote:

The counterpoint to prohammer is simplehammer - stripping down the rules,

AKA: 8th/9th edition

Did 8th/9th strip down the rules? Special army stuff aside, it seems like it added more to the core rules. 9th added the Core rule!

ccs wrote:

A.T. wrote:

The counterpoint to prohammer is simplehammer - stripping down the rules,

AKA: 8th/9th edition

The opposite of 8th/9th edition - aka bucket of dice hammer, deck of cards, character traits, faction traits, unit traits, wargear traits, overlapping auras, and a pool of points to charge up your ultimate combo attack-hammer

 Nurglitch wrote:
Did 8th/9th strip down the rules? Special army stuff aside, it seems like it added more to the core rules. 9th added the Core rule!

Depends on the army. I have seen prior books for my faction and I would say that we lost units, gear options, special rules and in 8th got reduced to an index army state till the PA book came out at the tail end of 8th.

I think we're talking about the game using the definite army, rather than 'your' army.

Well DE, from what I have been told, lost all their special characters, same with Imperial Guard. So the your is broader then just my army. I just know the most about my factions, I don't go around looking for pre 8th ed non GK books.

You know, I think I enjoyed 8th the most when (a) everyone was playing the index, and (b) nobody I was playing with used knights or similar super-heavies.

 Nurglitch wrote:
You know, I think I enjoyed 8th the most when (a) everyone was playing the index, and (b) nobody I was playing with used knights or similar super-heavies.

Different strokes for different folks.

I found indexes functional, but flavourless and boring as $%&^.

I love my bespoke strats, relics, WL traits and subfaction rules and find the game empty and pointless without them. Then again, I don't actually identify as a table-top wargamer, which is probably the difference- most TT wargames bore me. 40k is the only one that's ever held my interest longer than 2 years.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
You know, I think I enjoyed 8th the most when (a) everyone was playing the index, and (b) nobody I was playing with used knights or similar super-heavies.

Different strokes for different folks.

I found indexes functional, but flavourless and boring as $%&^.

I love my bespoke strats, relics, WL traits and subfaction rules and find the game empty and pointless without them. Then again, I don't actually identify as a table-top wargamer, which is probably the difference- most TT wargames bore me. 40k is the only one that's ever held my interest longer than 2 years.

Congratulations?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You mean your flimsy AV10 vehicles died to dedicated anti-tank weapons?

Inconceivable!!!

Losing 5+ in a single turn truly is. Which made them useless unless spamming tons of them, and I really hate spamming units. They died to anything that was at least S5, not necessarily meltas or lascannons.

Since 8th I can finally enjoy my trukks, buggies, dreads and BWs in all the combinations I want and I'm very happy with that. Rhinos and razorbacks also. And I don't think LRs are actually that much easier to wreck like they were before either. They need at least 3-4 melta hits on average that goes through saves to blow them up, in 5th a single hit had 50% odds to instant kill it. Against many anti tank weapons still have a 5+ or even a 4+ save, while in 5th it was hard to put those tanks in cover, of course they had no save if they weren't.

 Nurglitch wrote:
Did 8th/9th strip down the rules? Special army stuff aside, it seems like it added more to the core rules. 9th added the Core rule!

8th/9th reorganized the rules on a broad scale to move content from the core rules into the army rules to make the game look simpler without actually simplifying anything.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
Did 8th/9th strip down the rules? Special army stuff aside, it seems like it added more to the core rules. 9th added the Core rule!

8th/9th reorganized the rules on a broad scale to move content from the core rules into the army rules to make the game look simpler without actually simplifying anything.

Possibly also to be able to release "Free Core Rules!" and stick a bunch of "depth" into the codexes to in order to incentivise purchase.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
You know, I think I enjoyed 8th the most when (a) everyone was playing the index, and (b) nobody I was playing with used knights or similar super-heavies.

Different strokes for different folks.

I found indexes functional, but flavourless and boring as $%&^.

I love my bespoke strats, relics, WL traits and subfaction rules and find the game empty and pointless without them. Then again, I don't actually identify as a table-top wargamer, which is probably the difference- most TT wargames bore me. 40k is the only one that's ever held my interest longer than 2 years.

you wat m8?
It's a hobby, not an identity.

Plus if someone is not invested or interested in table top gaming, then their arguments for or against anything related to the activity, lose a lot of it power. It is like someone not being much interested in painting saying a specific technique or paint existing makes painting better or worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:


you wat m8?
It's a hobby, not an identity.

So is being a fan of Lazio, but you are not going to tell me it isn't an identity at the same time.

Karol wrote:
Plus if someone is not invested or interested in table top gaming, then their arguments for or against anything related to the activity, lose a lot of it power. It is like someone not being much interested in painting saying a specific technique or paint existing makes painting better or worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:


you wat m8?
It's a hobby, not an identity.

So is being a fan of Lazio.

I don't know what that is.

Since it's Karol, probably some Eastern European sports team.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
From what I've seen, I feel like DUST handles vehicles very well.

I wasn't a huge fan of prior edition's handling of it. It was too swingy. Not helped by the distribution of AT in 40k.

In 40k a dedicated AT unit like a Predator Annihilator or a Devastator squad use the same weapons (the lascannon) as another unit which is only meant to have token AT ability, like a Tactical squad. They just use more of them.
Which makes it really hard to have interesting AT mechanics that enable one-shot one-kill because it just results in everyone fishing for 6s with increasing numbers of dice.

You guys never heard of Lazio Rom? Football club?

a_typical_hero wrote:
You guys never heard of Lazio Rom? Football club?

Should I have? Do they win sportsball competitions a lot?

Yeah, outright admitting you don't really enjoy the hobby of tabletop wargaming weakens any argument someone has about tabletop wargaming...

...sorry, Jake. I think you are a tabletop wargamer

 Sim-Life wrote:

Karol wrote:
Plus if someone is not invested or interested in table top gaming, then their arguments for or against anything related to the activity, lose a lot of it power. It is like someone not being much interested in painting saying a specific technique or paint existing makes painting better or worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:


you wat m8?
It's a hobby, not an identity.

So is being a fan of Lazio.

I don't know what that is.

Italian football team.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
You guys never heard of Lazio Rom? Football club?

Should I have? Do they win sportsball competitions a lot?

Yeah.

Their brawls with juve groups and those of ASP Roma are legendary, we watch them a lot. Specially the end 90s stuff. Not that the new stuff is bad. So it is very easy to be a fan and for it make part of your identity . There are parts here, where you can't wear specific colours of stuff, or you will get beaten up as supporter of enemy team. And no one will ask if you are one for real or you are just some guy that come to Cracow from UK, thinking white and green combination is a safe thing to wear.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
Did 8th/9th strip down the rules? Special army stuff aside, it seems like it added more to the core rules. 9th added the Core rule!

8th/9th reorganized the rules on a broad scale to move content from the core rules into the army rules to make the game look simpler without actually simplifying anything.

Personally I think the shift from rules being in the BRB and moving into the codexes has resulted in the much more rapid issue of rules bloat despite the complexity of the game being overly simplified.