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.

It could influence targeting since the fact they gain Precise on a Critical Hit means Precise doesn’t normally require a Critical Hit. If it did, they would just gain Precise.

 alextroy wrote:
It could influence targeting since the fact they gain Precise on a Critical Hit means Precise doesn’t normally require a Critical Hit. If it did, they would just gain Precise.

I think what Spoletta's getting at is that it isn't an ability that applies to the targeting step before you roll; ie it can't be that it allows you to ignore 12" targeting range limits.

It's something that only comes into play after you roll to hit, so the theory that it allows the attacker to choose hit allocation rather than the defender makes sense. Then snipers and assassin characters might have Precise as an innate ability, so they always get to pick characters out of units.

Tanks are looking quite hefty now.



Whilst it seems basic weapons can still plink away, strikes me we’ll want some dedicated Anti-Tank.

Of course, we’re yet to see a great many weapon profiles, so as ever, a lot remains to be seen. Jack of all Trades like Autocannon might still be preferred.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Jack of all Trades like Autocannon might still be preferred.

Ooh...yea...autocannons. I think those are definitely going into plink category and getting used more on infantry now.

Depends how Light Vehicles (buggies, venoms, Vyper et al) turn out. They may yet remain Autocannon fodder.

Ah good point. They might be useful on mid-range vehicles. I wonder if they'll hit S8, but be AP0.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Depends how Light Vehicles (buggies, venoms, Vyper et al) turn out. They may yet remain Autocannon fodder.

If Autocannons retain multiple-damage that might be enough to promote them to 'jack of all trades' status, as damage seems to be going down across the board.

Every time they buff the toughness of a vehicle without changing the Wound Chart, they are just making small arms more and more efficient relative to AT guns.

Oh no, rhinos are T9! My lasguns are afraid. I bet Baneblades are even T-15. Lascannons wound on 5s with one shot? Ha! Bolters are better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the bright side, vehicles only barely degrade, which is good because everyone knows tanks are fully functional (except the FCS) until they lose their last hit point. Immobilization or drive train damage? What is this, HISTORICALS? And don't get me started on the squishy people inside - they are just a weakness. Modern tank crews can't be stunned, shocked, or otherwise affected by morale because that's dumb. And this isn't Historicals.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Every time they buff the toughness of a vehicle without changing the Wound Chart, they are just making small arms more and more efficient relative to AT guns.

Oh no, rhinos are T9! My lasguns are afraid. I bet Baneblades are even T-15. Lascannons wound on 5s with one shot? Ha! Bolters are better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the bright side, vehicles only barely degrade, which is good because everyone knows tanks are fully functional (except the FCS) until they lose their last hit point.

Let's see how generous with their weapon 'perks' like Anti-vehicle(X+) and Lethal/Devastating etc. attacks they are, it might be that dedicated anti-tank gear circumvents much of the hit-wound-save sequence and/or ignores printed values.

It’s not just the toughness though.

It’s AP and Damage as well.

Note the Hunter Killer Missile is our first glimpse of a dedicated Anti-Vehicle weapon. And that is S14.

So to say “Lascannon only wound on a 5+” is…premature. Very premature.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Every time they buff the toughness of a vehicle without changing the Wound Chart, they are just making small arms more and more efficient relative to AT guns.

Oh no, rhinos are T9! My lasguns are afraid. I bet Baneblades are even T-15. Lascannons wound on 5s with one shot? Ha! Bolters are better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the bright side, vehicles only barely degrade, which is good because everyone knows tanks are fully functional (except the FCS) until they lose their last hit point.

Let's see how generous with their weapon 'perks' like Anti-vehicle(X+) and Lethal/Devastating etc. attacks they are, it might be that dedicated anti-tank gear circumvents much of the hit-wound-save sequence and/or ignores printed values.

I am glad they made vehicles tougher, then. It surely will affect all those weapons that currently terrorize vehicles, like Autocannons and Grenade Launchers. Such a meaningful impact!

Small arms and AT weapons are unaffected by this change, then, most likely.

Well this preview stated "monsters" are getting a toughness increase as well.

This I wonder will extend to Primarchs who all have the Monster keyword.

Are we gunna see a T9 Lion and Guilliman and a T11 Magnus, Morty and Angron?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s not just the toughness though.

It’s AP and Damage as well.

Note the Hunter Killer Missile is our first glimpse of a dedicated Anti-Vehicle weapon. And that is S14.

So to say “Lascannon only wound on a 5+” is…premature. Very premature.

I know. I was being a bit silly, but...

Elevating vehicle toughness, and then elevating weapon strengths, has no effect, unless you take away the "auto wound on 6s" part of the table.

If all AT weapons continue to wound vehicles on 3s and 4s mostly, and all small arms continue to wound on 6s, are vehicles really tougher? Is this *really* a well-titled article?

Unit, we don't know for certain what GW's planning with weapon profiles. For all we know they might make it so that if Toughness is 3x Strength, you can't wound at all. I'm not putting money on it, I'm just saying you're being a bit presumptive.

Plus even if small arms can still wound vehicles, a Rhino with 10 wounds and regenerating one per turn is not going to be particularly upset by lasguns.

I'm just hoping that the changes don't devalue anti-tank weapons too badly. Better durability is good, but if a lascannon and autocannon wound tanks on the same value you need substantially more AP and Dam for the lascannon to be worthwhile.

I know I'm basically saying 'wait and see', but applying snippets of new rules to the current paradigm is often pretty misleading.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s not just the toughness though.

It’s AP and Damage as well.

Note the Hunter Killer Missile is our first glimpse of a dedicated Anti-Vehicle weapon. And that is S14.

So to say “Lascannon only wound on a 5+” is…premature. Very premature.

I know. I was being a bit silly, but...

Elevating vehicle toughness, and then elevating weapon strengths, has no effect, unless you take away the "auto wound on 6s" part of the table.

If all AT weapons continue to wound vehicles on 3s and 4s mostly, and all small arms continue to wound on 6s, are vehicles really tougher? Is this *really* a well-titled article?

Lasguns have never been a problem to vehicles in 9th and 8th.
What instead proved to be an issue were mid strenght, high ROF, damage 2 weapons.

These changes do nothing to the former, while protecting the vehicles against the latter.

13/04/2023

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/13/vehicles-are-even-tougher-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

Vehicles Are Even Tougher in the New Edition of Warhammer 40,000

armoured vehicles have been struggling to keep up with the relentless firepower the average Warhammer 40,000 army can throw around. So one major focus in the new edition has been to make those units that should feel tough more meaningfully durable. And that mentality starts with the tanks.

Almost every vehicle has received a bump in Toughness

Vehicles are significantly less vulnerable to most infantry-portable weapons, even meltagun blasts.
the majority of vehicles (and monsters) are beefier than before.

Rhino : T7 > T9

Repulsor T8> T12

Gladiator T8 > T10

Storm Speeder T6 > T9

Some abilities have been made CORE :

Deadly Demise dictates how many mortal wounds are suffered by nearby units when a vehicle explodes

Firing Deck how many embarked units can shoot from inside a transport

most Vehicles have an OC (Objective Control) of more than 1, meaning that ramming a depleted enemy infantry squad to muscle them off an objective, is an entirely legitimate tactic!

Degrading vehicles profiles
A lot of vehicles used to suffer from characteristics that degraded as they took damage.

Most of those now simply suffer a penalty to their hit rolls when reduced to one-third of their starting wounds – leaving big vehicles and monsters in the fight to the last.

And many vehicles don’t degrade at all

My hope for this is that the wider range will decrease the 'all-comers' weapons.

Small arms will plink like allways,
Assuming AT get's increased too, they will remain good at taking out vehicles.

Then if things like plasma, autocannon etc stay true mid range meaning they will hopefully not be great anti vehicle and will have to carve out their own role, maybe as light vehicle/TEQ killers

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Every time they buff the toughness of a vehicle without changing the Wound Chart, they are just making small arms more and more efficient relative to AT guns.

Oh no, rhinos are T9! My lasguns are afraid. I bet Baneblades are even T-15. Lascannons wound on 5s with one shot? Ha! Bolters are better.

Didn't realise you'd seen all the rules already.

On the bright side, vehicles only barely degrade, which is good because everyone knows tanks are fully functional (except the FCS) until they lose their last hit point. Immobilization or drive train damage? What is this, HISTORICALS? And don't get me started on the squishy people inside - they are just a weakness. Modern tank crews can't be stunned, shocked, or otherwise affected by morale because that's dumb. And this isn't Historicals.

And famously, organic (or as close to organic as 40k allows) creatures also suffer no loss of performance until their last wound is gone. Your Chapter Master can keep on hitting as if he'd just walked out from the Chapter Shower this morning.

Doohicky wrote:
My hope for this is that the wider range will decrease the 'all-comers' weapons.

Small arms will plink like allways,
Assuming AT get's increased too, they will remain good at taking out vehicles.

Then if things like plasma, autocannon etc stay true mid range meaning they will hopefully not be great anti vehicle and will have to carve out their own role, maybe as light vehicle/TEQ killers

I'm guessing the point here is to weaken the mid range options like you said. Right now things get weird if a plasma or autocannon unit gets too strong. With a wider range of toughness options things like the helverins and plasmaceptors can be buffed without throwing the entire game out of whack.

catbarf wrote:Unit, we don't know for certain what GW's planning with weapon profiles. For all we know they might make it so that if Toughness is 3x Strength, you can't wound at all. I'm not putting money on it, I'm just saying you're being a bit presumptive.

Plus even if small arms can still wound vehicles, a Rhino with 10 wounds and regenerating one per turn is not going to be particularly upset by lasguns.

I'm just hoping that the changes don't devalue anti-tank weapons too badly. Better durability is good, but if a lascannon and autocannon wound tanks on the same value you need substantially more AP and Dam for the lascannon to be worthwhile.

I know I'm basically saying 'wait and see', but applying snippets of new rules to the current paradigm is often pretty misleading.

I know this, yes. I was speculating the same "3x toughness" thing...

But it's such a regression. We had good vehicle rules, where they were immune to small arms, and they felt *different*.

Right now, they just feel like an infantry unit with higher stats, and by removing degrading, even moreso. I guess I just don't see a way ahead for genuinely better vehicles in 40k - because the problem with them wasn't "too weak, make tougher" caveman brain level issues. It was basic wargame core rules issues.

Spoletta wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s not just the toughness though.

It’s AP and Damage as well.

Note the Hunter Killer Missile is our first glimpse of a dedicated Anti-Vehicle weapon. And that is S14.

So to say “Lascannon only wound on a 5+” is…premature. Very premature.

I know. I was being a bit silly, but...

Elevating vehicle toughness, and then elevating weapon strengths, has no effect, unless you take away the "auto wound on 6s" part of the table.

If all AT weapons continue to wound vehicles on 3s and 4s mostly, and all small arms continue to wound on 6s, are vehicles really tougher? Is this *really* a well-titled article?

Lasguns have never been a problem to vehicles in 9th and 8th.
What instead proved to be an issue were mid strenght, high ROF, damage 2 weapons.

These changes do nothing to the former, while protecting the vehicles against the latter.

Really? Autocannons and Grenade Launchers bothered vehicles last edition?

Man, good thing I didn't run into any of those - my Baneblades usually died to other things.

I'm sure they'll have something special for monsters which are not mentioned in this article and the impeding Tyranid update.

It makes sense for them to keep a degrading profile, but at the same time, being less durable and reliable, they'll need something as a trade-off.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s not just the toughness though.

It’s AP and Damage as well.

Note the Hunter Killer Missile is our first glimpse of a dedicated Anti-Vehicle weapon. And that is S14.

So to say “Lascannon only wound on a 5+” is…premature. Very premature.

I know. I was being a bit silly, but...

Elevating vehicle toughness, and then elevating weapon strengths, has no effect, unless you take away the "auto wound on 6s" part of the table.

If all AT weapons continue to wound vehicles on 3s and 4s mostly, and all small arms continue to wound on 6s, are vehicles really tougher? Is this *really* a well-titled article?

It takes over 26 bolter ( 36 lasgun ) shots to take a wound off a Rhino, which it then heals the next turn. You enjoy shooting them with bolters and lasguns all you want.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Every time they buff the toughness of a vehicle without changing the Wound Chart, they are just making small arms more and more efficient relative to AT guns.

Oh no, rhinos are T9! My lasguns are afraid. I bet Baneblades are even T-15. Lascannons wound on 5s with one shot? Ha! Bolters are better.

Didn't realise you'd seen all the rules already.

Sorry, I thought the thread was discussing the previews. If you would prefer to wait until the full rules release to discuss them, you could always ask for the thread to be locked.

After all, I didn't realize *anyone* had seen the full rules yet, posting here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s not just the toughness though.

It’s AP and Damage as well.

Note the Hunter Killer Missile is our first glimpse of a dedicated Anti-Vehicle weapon. And that is S14.

So to say “Lascannon only wound on a 5+” is…premature. Very premature.

I know. I was being a bit silly, but...

Elevating vehicle toughness, and then elevating weapon strengths, has no effect, unless you take away the "auto wound on 6s" part of the table.

If all AT weapons continue to wound vehicles on 3s and 4s mostly, and all small arms continue to wound on 6s, are vehicles really tougher? Is this *really* a well-titled article?

It takes over 26 bolter ( 36 lasgun ) shots to take a wound off a Rhino, which it then heals the next turn. You enjoy shooting them with bolters and lasguns all you want.

If there's one thing about vehicles that's realistic, it's that they're immune to small arms IRL because their armor just grows back!

(I think people are missing the point: the vehicle rules for this edition disappoint me because they don't fix anything that I considered bad about the earlier edition, really. Except fire points).

I would call needing to have 20 guardsmen at 24" being able to take 10% off a rhino immune enough.

Absolutely no one puts those lasguns into a rhino if they have other choices.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Every time they buff the toughness of a vehicle without changing the Wound Chart, they are just making small arms more and more efficient relative to AT guns.

Oh no, rhinos are T9! My lasguns are afraid. I bet Baneblades are even T-15. Lascannons wound on 5s with one shot? Ha! Bolters are better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the bright side, vehicles only barely degrade, which is good because everyone knows tanks are fully functional (except the FCS) until they lose their last hit point. Immobilization or drive train damage? What is this, HISTORICALS? And don't get me started on the squishy people inside - they are just a weakness. Modern tank crews can't be stunned, shocked, or otherwise affected by morale because that's dumb. And this isn't Historicals.

You're right, what kind of world is this where we don't have the fundamental historical realism of vehicles being immobolized by small shrubs, are picket fences, or moderate inclines. Even better, let's have a crew of psychically indoctrinated super soldiers literally pee their pants when a shell hits their transport for the 30,000th time in their hundreds of years of service.

They should bring back the scatter die to see which direct the pee comes out of the Marine's armor. Thank you Unit1126PLL, for your ardent support of rules revolving around people peeing on themselves.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
(I think people are missing the point: the vehicle rules for this edition disappoint me because they don't fix anything that I considered bad about the earlier edition, really. Except fire points).

That small arms can graze a vehicle isn't, to me, an indication of a system problem that needs fixing. I get that you want the 'feeling on invincibility', because you take gakloads of super heavies and tanks, but the impact feels pretty negligible.

If you grind out their anti-tank you're going to steam roll them.

ERJAK wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Every time they buff the toughness of a vehicle without changing the Wound Chart, they are just making small arms more and more efficient relative to AT guns.

Oh no, rhinos are T9! My lasguns are afraid. I bet Baneblades are even T-15. Lascannons wound on 5s with one shot? Ha! Bolters are better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the bright side, vehicles only barely degrade, which is good because everyone knows tanks are fully functional (except the FCS) until they lose their last hit point. Immobilization or drive train damage? What is this, HISTORICALS? And don't get me started on the squishy people inside - they are just a weakness. Modern tank crews can't be stunned, shocked, or otherwise affected by morale because that's dumb. And this isn't Historicals.

You're right, what kind of world is this where we don't have the fundamental historical realism of vehicles being immobolized by small shrubs, are picket fences, or moderate inclines. Even better, let's have a crew of psychically indoctrinated super soldiers literally pee their pants when a shell hits their transport for the 30,000th time in their hundreds of years of service.

They should bring back the scatter die to see which direct the pee comes out of the Marine's armor. Thank you Unit1126PLL, for your ardent support of rules revolving around people peeing on themselves.

I have no idea what world you live in that you think I was asking for small shrubs, picket fences, or moderate inclines to immobilize tanks. That's not even a rule in most Historicals, not to mention not a rule in older editions of 40k (unless your group counted those things as difficult terrain for tanks, which is hardly the rules's problem. Historicals would have that problem with the same groups.).

Methinks not every army in 40k are psychically indoctrinated supersoldiers, and methinks you should write the core rules for the BASELINE, and then the psychically indoctrinated supersoldiers can feel super duper supersoldier special when they ignore the baseline, instead of being the same as everyone else!

But you're right, thinking is hard and strawmen are much easier to beat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
(I think people are missing the point: the vehicle rules for this edition disappoint me because they don't fix anything that I considered bad about the earlier edition, really. Except fire points).

That small arms can graze a vehicle isn't, to me, an indication of a system problem that needs fixing. I get that you want the 'feeling on invincibility', because you take gakloads of super heavies and tanks, but the impact feels pretty negligible.

If you grind out their anti-tank you're going to steam roll them.

No, I think it's indicative of a system that doesn't care about actually modeling conflict.

My critiques are not balance critiques or "I am personally offended that my Baneblade took 1 wound from a bolter" (as you say, it literally never matters).

My critiques are "40k isn't a wargame, and with every edition since 6th it's moved further and further from accurately modeling conflict in the 41st millennium and moving closer and closer to just being a mechanism for Games Workshop to make money".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

catbarf wrote:Unit, we don't know for certain what GW's planning with weapon profiles. For all we know they might make it so that if Toughness is 3x Strength, you can't wound at all. I'm not putting money on it, I'm just saying you're being a bit presumptive.

Plus even if small arms can still wound vehicles, a Rhino with 10 wounds and regenerating one per turn is not going to be particularly upset by lasguns.

I'm just hoping that the changes don't devalue anti-tank weapons too badly. Better durability is good, but if a lascannon and autocannon wound tanks on the same value you need substantially more AP and Dam for the lascannon to be worthwhile.

I know I'm basically saying 'wait and see', but applying snippets of new rules to the current paradigm is often pretty misleading.

I know this, yes. I was speculating the same "3x toughness" thing...

But it's such a regression. We had good vehicle rules, where they were immune to small arms, and they felt *different*.

Right now, they just feel like an infantry unit with higher stats, and by removing degrading, even moreso. I guess I just don't see a way ahead for genuinely better vehicles in 40k - because the problem with them wasn't "too weak, make tougher" caveman brain level issues. It was basic wargame core rules issues.

Spoletta wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s not just the toughness though.

It’s AP and Damage as well.

Note the Hunter Killer Missile is our first glimpse of a dedicated Anti-Vehicle weapon. And that is S14.

So to say “Lascannon only wound on a 5+” is…premature. Very premature.

I know. I was being a bit silly, but...

Elevating vehicle toughness, and then elevating weapon strengths, has no effect, unless you take away the "auto wound on 6s" part of the table.

If all AT weapons continue to wound vehicles on 3s and 4s mostly, and all small arms continue to wound on 6s, are vehicles really tougher? Is this *really* a well-titled article?

Lasguns have never been a problem to vehicles in 9th and 8th.
What instead proved to be an issue were mid strenght, high ROF, damage 2 weapons.

These changes do nothing to the former, while protecting the vehicles against the latter.

Really? Autocannons and Grenade Launchers bothered vehicles last edition?

Man, good thing I didn't run into any of those - my Baneblades usually died to other things.

Good for you that you never played against missilesides, inceptors, exocrines, hellblasters, redemptor dreadnaughts, grav pods, hyve guards, burstides, liquefiers, disintegrators, or the other dozens of units which spammed damage 2/3/d3 mid strenght attacks and that forced GW to push the -1 damage rule on everything that was meant to be at least a little bit tanky.

And all of this is not taking into account melee kills. Melee is THE spammer of mid damage mid strenght attacks, and have you seen those profiles? Power fists are still S8, so good luck fisting a tank into debris now!

Nice that firing points are back. That might give transports some use again.

I'm now curious what the embark/disembark rules will be for the new edition. Will it be only before the vehicle moves, or will units be allowed ti disembark after their transport has moved? I guess we'll see.

The article specifically says that rhinos are tougher against melta than they were in 9th; that means that even if melta did get buffed, it can't be higher than S9, wounding on a 4+ on rhinos and a 5+ on the actually sturdy vehicles.