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.

Something simple to address the vulnerability of vehicles to being glanced to death, does what it says on the tin - ignore every glancing hit beyond the first in a (player) turn. There are some issues here - notably in the assault phase - but I'm not sure that making walkers tough as hell in CC is actually much of a downside. More worrying is going up against a slew of light vehicles, or trying to penetrate a half-dozen OS droppods. Alternatives might be only one glance per phase, or this rule only applying to non Open-Topped vehicles.

So you want to make Necrons and AM even worse at AT?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So you want to make Necrons and AM even worse at AT?

Yes, I feel like the Necron ability to evaporate any vehicle within 24" of a Ghost Ark is probably a little too strong.

So what about AM?

And you made Stompas, Baneblades, and some other Superheavies immortal now.

No, just give vehicles a 4+ vs shooting glances. That largely fixes the problem.

Just no.

You do realise it's not just necrons taking that nerf right?

DE use haywire scourges for anti armour as they don't have anything reliable enough otherwise.


Why do people aim to nerf a certain army without realising it nerfs an already bad army even more?


For some armies you just removed their only reliable ways of hunting armour.

It also leads to an odd situation where one vehicle is better than two (one 4-HP Land Raider takes longer to kill than five 3-HP Predators).

Personally I think just bumping HP/AV up (see: 30k, wherein 4-5HP non-superheavies are commonplace and the Predator-equivalent is 13-12-12, and tanks actually feel like tanks) is a better solution to making vehicles harder to glance out than all these weird sweeping changes to the damage system.

 raverrn wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So you want to make Necrons and AM even worse at AT?

Yes, I feel like the Necron ability to evaporate any vehicle within 24" of a Ghost Ark is probably a little too strong.

Evaporate? Do show the math of the evaporation please. Go ahead. I insist.

Well, assuming it's within 12" and has 10 Warriors inside, that's 30 Gauss Shots at BS 4. 20 hits, and around 3 HP. Now, that is 235 points of AV 13/13/11 Open-Toppedness...

Edit: Oh, 24"? That's only 20 shots if it has its full complement of Warriors. 40/3 hits, 40/18 or 20/9 glances, or just over 2.

So it'll kill a Landspeeder? That doesn't jink.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Well, assuming it's within 12" and has 10 Warriors inside, that's 30 Gauss Shots at BS 4. 20 hits, and around 3 HP. Now, that is 235 points of AV 13/13/11 Open-Toppedness...

Edit: Oh, 24"? That's only 20 shots if it has its full complement of Warriors. 40/3 hits, 40/18 or 20/9 glances, or just over 2.

So it'll kill a Landspeeder? That doesn't jink.

I was more wanting the OP to show the work to make them prove themselves wrong, but oh well.

Outside of Gause do Necrons actually have a ranged weapon that will dent a Land Raider?

Who carex? Land raider is NOT a meta consideration.

No, just NO! Reason being APCs would rule, you won't be able to destroy enough before they unload; I like the upping HP idea, but then there need to be a overhaul on the pts system.

Martel732 wrote:
Who carex? Land raider is NOT a meta consideration.

I carex. Land Raider is a meta consideration when you run it with the Ironwolves detachment, there's scarier things to shoot at when there are TWC and Wulfen sniffing about and raising their legs on red Space Marines...possibly a tad too far that.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Outside of Gause do Necrons actually have a ranged weapon that will dent a Land Raider?

Anything with Heavy Gauss Cannons. That's Heavy Destroyers and Triarch Stalkers.

The Monolith has a Battle Cannon equivalent but nobody cares about that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Outside of Gause do Necrons actually have a ranged weapon that will dent a Land Raider?

Anything with Heavy Gauss Cannons. That's Heavy Destroyers and Triarch Stalkers.

The Monolith has a Battle Cannon equivalent but nobody cares about that.

It would be nice if the land raider was good vs at least a few armies.

I still wouldn't take it. I'd rather rely on Deep Strike for a maybe T3 charge instead of trying to rely on the world's worst speed bump/board decor.

This would change vehicles from being underpowered to incredibly overpowered - Low AV becomes effectively immune to mid-strength firepower that would previously be a counter to it, and High AV becomes immune to tons of things that could previously be relied on to chip it away.

Here's a thing I proposed a while ago to reduce the effectiveness of glances: give vehicles a "save" against glances where the glance only strips a hull point if the attacker rolls ≥ the AP of the weapon . E.g. If an AP4 weapon glances you, it only counts if they can roll a 4+. Mitigates against glances, and has the added bonus of making dedicated high-strength/low-AP weaponry more effective against tanks than just high-RoF, mid-strength guns.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Outside of Gause do Necrons actually have a ranged weapon that will dent a Land Raider?

Anything with Heavy Gauss Cannons. That's Heavy Destroyers and Triarch Stalkers.

The Monolith has a Battle Cannon equivalent but nobody cares about that.

Funny that, bit like the Land Raider in that respect.
Would you bother shelling a Land Raider with your troops if it had a natural 4+ save?

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Outside of Gause do Necrons actually have a ranged weapon that will dent a Land Raider?

Anything with Heavy Gauss Cannons. That's Heavy Destroyers and Triarch Stalkers.

The Monolith has a Battle Cannon equivalent but nobody cares about that.

Funny that, bit like the Land Raider in that respect.
Would you bother shelling a Land Raider with your troops if it had a natural 4+ save?

Depends the situation. If my opponent's eggs were all in that single basket, absolutely. If it is just 5-6 Vanguard or Honour Guard, I'd just let the charge happen and kill them next turn.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Outside of Gause do Necrons actually have a ranged weapon that will dent a Land Raider?

Anything with Heavy Gauss Cannons. That's Heavy Destroyers and Triarch Stalkers.

The Monolith has a Battle Cannon equivalent but nobody cares about that.

Funny that, bit like the Land Raider in that respect.
Would you bother shelling a Land Raider with your troops if it had a natural 4+ save?

Depends the situation. If my opponent's eggs were all in that single basket, absolutely. If it is just 5-6 Vanguard or Honour Guard, I'd just let the charge happen and kill them next turn.

That's a fair response, flexible too.
If you'd said "No" I'd have actually been against the 4+ but since you say "Depends" I'd propose it as an optional, like Extra Armour that actually does something useful, a costed upgrade.
For the record, I load mine with Wulfen. Makes for a properly difficult descision between stopping TWC and stopping a Landraider filled with slobbering death dealers.

Personally I would prefer a save against glances; maybe something like roll equal or under Hull Points on a D6 (6 always fails).

Means most vehicles would have a 50% chance to ignore a glance initially, Land Raiders and such a 66% chance. Super Heavies will be mostly 6's to fail only until they've taken some meaningful damage.

 Haravikk wrote:
Personally I would prefer a save against glances; maybe something like roll equal or under Hull Points on a D6 (6 always fails).

Means most vehicles would have a 50% chance to ignore a glance initially, Land Raiders and such a 66% chance. Super Heavies will be mostly 6's to fail only until they've taken some meaningful damage.

That's actually a really cool idea.
Exalted.

The problem here is battle company with up to 10+ free vehicles in an army. Not only are you dealing with 400+ points of free transports, but now they're harder to kill as well.

This type of rule will just shift the meta back to MSU-mechspam again.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Simple solution would be to increase all vehicles by +1 HP. Makes them tougher to deal with but not game-breakingly good.

 jy2 wrote:
The problem here is battle company with up to 10+ free vehicles in an army. Not only are you dealing with 400+ points of free transports, but now they're harder to kill as well.

This type of rule will just shift the meta back to MSU-mechspam again.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Simple solution would be to increase all vehicles by +1 HP. Makes them tougher to deal with but not game-breakingly good.

MSU mech spam is so much better than the Apoc garbage like Super Heavies and GMCs we have running about at present.

 jy2 wrote:
The problem here is battle company with up to 10+ free vehicles in an army. Not only are you dealing with 400+ points of free transports, but now they're harder to kill as well.

This type of rule will just shift the meta back to MSU-mechspam again.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Simple solution would be to increase all vehicles by +1 HP. Makes them tougher to deal with but not game-breakingly good.

+1HP doesn't really solve the issue, though, because it helps light vehicles with a couple hull points and feth armor a lot more than it helps big ones with good armor plating. I don't want to see 4HP Rhinos, when rhino spam is already super common.

Vehicles may be glanced once per turn means that armies like orks or dark eldar would have no chance to wreck a single vehicle in their shooting phase.

Not everyone has D weapons, melta, grav, ranged s9-10 ap1-2 with bs4... only a few armies can wreck an av14 vehicle from distance.

Why improving SM vehicles while they're still the best army in the current meta with eldar?

AM has some issues but IMHO only because they're too static, they need to change their style of play (maybe 4-5 units in chimeras/taurox and a couple in vendettas) and their tanks are actually very good against at least half of the armies available.

If you like an army with 5+ vehicles that stay where they are the entire game and they only shoot it's your problem if that tactic is not going to repay you.

Playing against a list that is mostly composed by immortal vehicles that do nothing else than shooting would be extremely boring. IMHO AM tanks are tough enough.

 Nazrak wrote:
Here's a thing I proposed a while ago to reduce the effectiveness of glances: give vehicles a "save" against glances where the glance only strips a hull point if the attacker rolls ≥ the AP of the weapon . E.g. If an AP4 weapon glances you, it only counts if they can roll a 4+. Mitigates against glances, and has the added bonus of making dedicated high-strength/low-AP weaponry more effective against tanks than just high-RoF, mid-strength guns.

I like the idea. Would need some rebalancing but idea is nice one.

And no for the OP's idea. GW went to hull points to prevent rhino's that simply refuse to die. Went too far but this would be too far back again(very GW'ish move though...)