BrianDavion wrote:
I mostly like the vehicle rules in 6th/7th edition. they just need to give vehicles more HP. to a point where you're proably better off using high powered anti tank weapons for a one shot.

 Xerics wrote:
I liked the old rules better. I did use Bright Lances on my tanks and stuff back then and would bring a falcon or 2 to help pop tanks. These days I can just bring scatter lasers and bring down vehicles through sheer volume of fire. I prefer the more random tables to try and explode vehicles because you couldn't just math hammer a vehicle away.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Which one do you all think was more fair and balanced, and or better representative of how a vehicles should be treated?

IMO the old rules were better, Vehicles on the old rules were a lot more difficult to deal with and felt like an actual tank vs now where even a Land Raider feels like a paper bag on treds. The only way you could really deal with it was if you had a dedicated unit as an armor killer.

Now you can just plink a tank to death, vs back in the day so to say, you could fire light weapons at it for days and not do damage.

What does dakka think?

Again, this is not which one you like more, but rather which one seemed more fair.

post your reasoning if you would.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I mostly like the vehicle rules in 6th/7th edition. they just need to give vehicles more HP. to a point where you're proably better off using high powered anti tank weapons for a one shot.

Over all i think that would be a really good move, would you say doubling current HPs of vehicles would be better?

The whole topic that brought this up for me was i watch a guy the other day get tabled by tau on turn one. His knight got plinked down by a bunch of low (For Tau) AP weapons, then when i start looking at other tanks they just end up seeming like wet paper bags for the most part.

 Xerics wrote:
I say bring back 5th edition vehicle rules and tables and drop hull points completely. Give AP2 weapons +1 on chart and AP1 weapons +2 on chart. This would make anti vehicle weapons have a higher chance to explode them.

 Grimmor wrote:
I preferred 4ths Vehicle rules, as you "glanced vehicles to death" by stacking problems on them. So youd destroy all its weapons then immobilize it, then its wrecked, it was nice and simple.

I honestly feel if you removed the Wreck and Explodes result from the Glance chart and maybe retool the Pen chart a bit (anti tank weapons have gotten better over the editions) the old 4th ed rules would work fine in the current environment.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Grimmor wrote:
I preferred 4ths Vehicle rules, as you "glanced vehicles to death" by stacking problems on them. So youd destroy all its weapons then immobilize it, then its wrecked, it was nice and simple.

I honestly feel if you removed the Wreck and Explodes result from the Glance chart and maybe retool the Pen chart a bit (anti tank weapons have gotten better over the editions) the old 4th ed rules would work fine in the current environment.

That was 5th ed. In fifth glances had to cripple the vehicle before killing it.
In 4th there was a 1/6 chance for the vehicle to die.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Grimmor wrote:
I preferred 4ths Vehicle rules, as you "glanced vehicles to death" by stacking problems on them. So youd destroy all its weapons then immobilize it, then its wrecked, it was nice and simple.

I honestly feel if you removed the Wreck and Explodes result from the Glance chart and maybe retool the Pen chart a bit (anti tank weapons have gotten better over the editions) the old 4th ed rules would work fine in the current environment.

That was 5th ed. In fifth glances had to cripple the vehicle before killing it.
In 4th there was a 1/6 chance for the vehicle to die.

 Xerics wrote:
5th would be fine with the proliferation of AP2 guns if they gave those weapons + on the penetration chart. you needed a 6 to wreck and a 7 to explode on those charts if I remember correctly with a glance getting a -2 on the chart and open topped giving you a +1 on your roll. It has been a few years and if I was home instead of Jordan I would pull out my old rulebooks... I keep them around for good times sake.

 Grimmor wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Grimmor wrote:
I preferred 4ths Vehicle rules, as you "glanced vehicles to death" by stacking problems on them. So youd destroy all its weapons then immobilize it, then its wrecked, it was nice and simple.

I honestly feel if you removed the Wreck and Explodes result from the Glance chart and maybe retool the Pen chart a bit (anti tank weapons have gotten better over the editions) the old 4th ed rules would work fine in the current environment.

That was 5th ed. In fifth glances had to cripple the vehicle before killing it.
In 4th there was a 1/6 chance for the vehicle to die.

True, but IIRC glances and pens didnt have 2 different charts in 5th and pens weren't worth much of anything. I could be wrong as its been awhile and i've tried to forget the mess that was 5th.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
[
For reference, i can post the 4th ed rules of Vehicles in my OP, but before i do, is posting old rules that are obsolete kosher with the rules here? or can we still not?

It should be ok, as they are almost 10 years OOP

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I'm not saying 4th was perfect by any stretch, but that system I felt was the best in terms of dealing with vehicles. If they were to bring it back, then they would seriously need to rework the glance table and the pen table. Forcing both to share one table like they did in 5th is a sub-optimal solution at best.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I mostly like the vehicle rules in 6th/7th edition. they just need to give vehicles more HP. to a point where you're proably better off using high powered anti tank weapons for a one shot.

Over all i think that would be a really good move, would you say doubling current HPs of vehicles would be better?

The whole topic that brought this up for me was i watch a guy the other day get tabled by tau on turn one. His knight got plinked down by a bunch of low (For Tau) AP weapons, then when i start looking at other tanks they just end up seeming like wet paper bags for the most part.

No, that would not fix the problem. You know what the solution to more HP is? Spam more glances.
Vehicles need saves, or the 4th ed penetration tables back.

.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Boths rules suck. The old vehicles rules left everything to chance. I can't tell you how many times I shot all my anti tanks guns at a crappy transport only for it to not die because I just couldn't roll a wrecked or explode result. It's not fun when your best game plan for dealing with a unit is "hope I get lucky".

Its 50%. Those are good odds. I'm sure you destroyed more vehicles than you failed to destroy. Its just that you remember failures more than the successes. Its a type of cognitive bias.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Boths rules suck. The old vehicles rules left everything to chance. I can't tell you how many times I shot all my anti tanks guns at a crappy transport only for it to not die because I just couldn't roll a wrecked or explode result. It's not fun when your best game plan for dealing with a unit is "hope I get lucky".

Its 50%. Those are good odds. I'm sure you destroyed more vehicles than you failed to destroy. Its just that you remember failures more than the successes. Its a type of cognitive bias.

It's only 50% after you hit and after you pen. That means that a shot generally only has a 25ish% of actually killing a vehicle

 455_PWR wrote:
The best rule set was 3rd (dark angels player here).

3rd > 5th = 4th > 2nd > 6th > 7th (anything is better than 7th)

The main change that ruined 6th and 7th was balance issues stemming from formations and psycher phases. Formations have absolutely ruined the game. Now you have to buy multiple expensive kits to have a legal army or objective secured. 7th has given us alpha strike, d weapons, 2++ bs, free razorbacks and transports, and much more ridiculousness. The more you spend the better formations you can have.

Hopefully the new ceo (seems pretty down to earth compared to what we had), listens and axes formations. Even better, bring back the old force organization chart, and allow players to add formations with a point cost attached (like apocalypse had).

 455_PWR wrote:
The best rule set was 3rd (dark angels player here).

3rd > 5th = 4th > 2nd > 6th > 7th (anything is better than 7th)

The main change that ruined 6th and 7th was balance issues stemming from formations and psycher phases. Formations have absolutely ruined the game. Now you have to buy multiple expensive kits to have a legal army or objective secured. 7th has given us alpha strike, d weapons, 2++ bs, free razorbacks and transports, and much more ridiculousness. The more you spend the better formations you can have.

Hopefully the new ceo (seems pretty down to earth compared to what we had), listens and axes formations. Even better, bring back the old force organization chart, and allow players to add formations with a point cost attached (like apocalypse had).

 Vaktathi wrote:
There's no reason to have two overlapping kill mechanics. Trying to further disect it down to only certain damage results taking off HP's and allowing glances to do things again just further aggravates the issue, then you get the ability to stunlock tanks again and still spam=plink them to death with medium strength weaponry.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Jesus, new rules by a mile! AV 14 is still a freaking beast for anything but dedicated anti-tank to chew through. LRs and Monoliths are still the tough, resilient things they should be for anything short of melta/lance (and equivalents) and godkiller weapons.

Furthermore, I still have sweat-drenched panic flashbacks to walls of Monoliths, back when they were immune to being glanced to death, immune to any weapon rules that made them easier to kill, and impossible to neuter offensively. The day when hull points were introduced, everyone who has ever experienced this nightmare mouthed a silent grateful oath to the heavens: Never again.

 Konrax wrote:
I liked 4th personally, but i feel 5th with a bit of 7th would work best.

Keep the existing table and hull points, glances roll on the table but with -2, ap 2 gets +1, ap1 +2, and open topped +1.

Only lose hull points on a shaken and stunned result or higher. (4+ on the table)

That way glances can still hinder and damage vehicles but would be less reliable for killing things.

One table, couple mods, best of both.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Jesus, new rules by a mile! AV 14 is still a freaking beast for anything but dedicated anti-tank to chew through. LRs and Monoliths are still the tough, resilient things they should be for anything short of melta/lance (and equivalents) and godkiller weapons.

Furthermore, I still have sweat-drenched panic flashbacks to walls of Monoliths, back when they were immune to being glanced to death, immune to any weapon rules that made them easier to kill, and impossible to neuter offensively. The day when hull points were introduced, everyone who has ever experienced this nightmare mouthed a silent grateful oath to the heavens: Never again.

The problem is that this 'fix' came at the expense of light vehicles, which became even easier to kill than they were before.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Jesus, new rules by a mile! AV 14 is still a freaking beast for anything but dedicated anti-tank to chew through. LRs and Monoliths are still the tough, resilient things they should be for anything short of melta/lance (and equivalents) and godkiller weapons.

Furthermore, I still have sweat-drenched panic flashbacks to walls of Monoliths, back when they were immune to being glanced to death, immune to any weapon rules that made them easier to kill, and impossible to neuter offensively. The day when hull points were introduced, everyone who has ever experienced this nightmare mouthed a silent grateful oath to the heavens: Never again.

The problem is that this 'fix' came at the expense of light vehicles, which became even easier to kill than they were before.

Indeed, and even with heavy tanks, they're not particularly functional. How often do you see Necron Monoliths? I haven't seen one in years. Land Raiders are extinct in competitive circles. The only reason you ever see Russ tanks is because they're one of the least dysfunctional things in the majorly disfunctional IG codex and still aren't exactly giving any army out there problems. There's been a glut of both access to, and types of, weaponry that simply does not care about AV at all. Grav, Gauss, Haywire, Destroyer, etc and tons of enhancements to traditional anti-tank units (like the recent Fire Dragon & Aspect formation buffs, Devastator Doctrine for SM's, etc).

The vehicles that we're really seeing do well are either free (Gladius detachments) or generally are some sort of Skimmer with JInk EDIT: or superheavies that get to ignore half the vehicle rules anyway and have saves to boot (e.g. Knights & Eldar superheavies).

 Konrax wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
There's no reason to have two overlapping kill mechanics. Trying to further disect it down to only certain damage results taking off HP's and allowing glances to do things again just further aggravates the issue, then you get the ability to stunlock tanks again and still spam=plink them to death with medium strength weaponry.

Stun locking a vehicle is still better then being killed.

Except you can still be killed quite easily, only very slightly less easier than before, and will be less functional in the process. Allowing them to be stunlocked removes the *only* positive aspect from the HP introduction, you'd return them to 5E suppression methods, but with retaining the extra kill mechanism on top of that.

It will still allow units that glance vehicles to death to still be useful as armour suppression intead.

Of which there are comparatively few (as opposed to many that have found themselves used in such a role due to lots of S6/7 shots) and should be an issue addressed with those units specifically, rather than the whole vehicle unit type.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:
The best rule set was 3rd (dark angels player here).

3rd > 5th = 4th > 2nd > 6th > 7th (anything is better than 7th)

The main change that ruined 6th and 7th was balance issues stemming from formations and psycher phases. Formations have absolutely ruined the game. Now you have to buy multiple expensive kits to have a legal army or objective secured. 7th has given us alpha strike, d weapons, 2++ bs, free razorbacks and transports, and much more ridiculousness. The more you spend the better formations you can have.

Hopefully the new ceo (seems pretty down to earth compared to what we had), listens and axes formations. Even better, bring back the old force organization chart, and allow players to add formations with a point cost attached (like apocalypse had).

Actually the old FoC still exists. Its just that no one takes it because its terrible compared to what you can do with formations, and the decurion-type formation russian doll FoCs.

 Grimmor wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:
The best rule set was 3rd (dark angels player here).

3rd > 5th = 4th > 2nd > 6th > 7th (anything is better than 7th)

The main change that ruined 6th and 7th was balance issues stemming from formations and psycher phases. Formations have absolutely ruined the game. Now you have to buy multiple expensive kits to have a legal army or objective secured. 7th has given us alpha strike, d weapons, 2++ bs, free razorbacks and transports, and much more ridiculousness. The more you spend the better formations you can have.

Hopefully the new ceo (seems pretty down to earth compared to what we had), listens and axes formations. Even better, bring back the old force organization chart, and allow players to add formations with a point cost attached (like apocalypse had).

Actually the old FoC still exists. Its just that no one takes it because its terrible compared to what you can do with formations, and the decurion-type formation russian doll FoCs.

The only army that automatically takes their Decruion style formation is Space Marines, and thats because they get Ob Sec in it. Others have to weigh the benefit against losing Ob Sec and in Maelstrom thats a big deal. Now i am talking Tournaments here, so take this with some salt.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Grimmor wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:
The best rule set was 3rd (dark angels player here).

3rd > 5th = 4th > 2nd > 6th > 7th (anything is better than 7th)

The main change that ruined 6th and 7th was balance issues stemming from formations and psycher phases. Formations have absolutely ruined the game. Now you have to buy multiple expensive kits to have a legal army or objective secured. 7th has given us alpha strike, d weapons, 2++ bs, free razorbacks and transports, and much more ridiculousness. The more you spend the better formations you can have.

Hopefully the new ceo (seems pretty down to earth compared to what we had), listens and axes formations. Even better, bring back the old force organization chart, and allow players to add formations with a point cost attached (like apocalypse had).

Actually the old FoC still exists. Its just that no one takes it because its terrible compared to what you can do with formations, and the decurion-type formation russian doll FoCs.

The only army that automatically takes their Decruion style formation is Space Marines, and thats because they get Ob Sec in it. Others have to weigh the benefit against losing Ob Sec and in Maelstrom thats a big deal. Now i am talking Tournaments here, so take this with some salt.

Eh IMO i wish they did away with formation and brought back HQs that changed troop choices, IE Belial making Terms troops, granted it would need some balance to units like ravenwing and white scares, but that is neither here nor there.

 Gunzhard wrote:
The current rules wouldn't be too bad if it weren't for all of the Grav everywhere, which wasn't an issue in either of those previous editions.

 Grimmor wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:
The best rule set was 3rd (dark angels player here).

3rd > 5th = 4th > 2nd > 6th > 7th (anything is better than 7th)

The main change that ruined 6th and 7th was balance issues stemming from formations and psycher phases. Formations have absolutely ruined the game. Now you have to buy multiple expensive kits to have a legal army or objective secured. 7th has given us alpha strike, d weapons, 2++ bs, free razorbacks and transports, and much more ridiculousness. The more you spend the better formations you can have.

Hopefully the new ceo (seems pretty down to earth compared to what we had), listens and axes formations. Even better, bring back the old force organization chart, and allow players to add formations with a point cost attached (like apocalypse had).

Actually the old FoC still exists. Its just that no one takes it because its terrible compared to what you can do with formations, and the decurion-type formation russian doll FoCs.

The only army that automatically takes their Decruion style formation is Space Marines, and thats because they get Ob Sec in it. Others have to weigh the benefit against losing Ob Sec and in Maelstrom thats a big deal. Now i am talking Tournaments here, so take this with some salt.

GreyCrow wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
The current rules wouldn't be too bad if it weren't for all of the Grav everywhere, which wasn't an issue in either of those previous editions.

Then MCs would have to be reviewed as well, because good luck killing 3 Riptides and 2 WK lists without Grav :p

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
In the case of the Wraithknight, it's the GMC rule that's an issue. As for the Riptide, it should have never been a MC in the first place. Tyranids always had a wide variety of MCs but none of them were gamebreaking like the Riptide was (probably because none of them were as fast as the Riptide, had as much armor, or rarely matched it's number of wounds for the point cost). If the riptide had weaker armor (say 3+) and less wounds, then the usual method of dealing with MCs would be enough (mass poison weapons).

 Gunzhard wrote:
What this poll misses --- 4th and 5th edition didn't have Grav spam.

If you add 'Grav spam' to the 4th or 5th edition vehicle rules I can't see how anyone would say they're better.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
What this poll misses --- 4th and 5th edition didn't have Grav spam.

If you add 'Grav spam' to the 4th or 5th edition vehicle rules I can't see how anyone would say they're better.

Grav wouldnt be so bad in these editons, two immobilized results didnt kill a tank back then, theyd just tear off a gun, it was only after being immobilized and losing all your funs and then getting another immobilized/weapon destroyed result on top of that that the vehicle died. At the very least it would mean most vehicles would require at least one more successsful Grav attack (and in many cases a whole lot more) to kill a tank.

 Grimmor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
What this poll misses --- 4th and 5th edition didn't have Grav spam.

If you add 'Grav spam' to the 4th or 5th edition vehicle rules I can't see how anyone would say they're better.

Grav wouldnt be so bad in these editons, two immobilized results didnt kill a tank back then, theyd just tear off a gun, it was only after being immobilized and losing all your funs and then getting another immobilized/weapon destroyed result on top of that that the vehicle died. At the very least it would mean most vehicles would require at least one more successsful Grav attack (and in many cases a whole lot more) to kill a tank.

Like 5 or 6 for a Leman Russ, which is quite a few.

 Vaktathi wrote:
In 5th it wasnt so much that vehicles were too hard to kill, again, nobody complained about Predators or Hellhounds or Dreads or Land Raiders and the like.

its that transports could ignore most damage results and do their job just fine, particularly Rhinos. A Rhino with EA could ignore 5/6 glancing hits and 3/6 penetrating results and carry out its role without hindrance, and nothing carried over to passengers.

If you applied the 7e mechanics for damage results applying to passnegers, it likely would have mostly resolved the issue.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
5th had two compounding issues where together they made Transports disproportionally hard to destroy for their cost. The individual transport wasn't all that sturdy but when you could cheaply spam them en-masse, that's where the issue came from.

Another issue was that in 4th edition the game was mainly about annhilating the enemy, so you could dedicate your entire force to doing just that. 5th edition brought objectives and such. Since Transports were decently hardy now and gave units a needed movement boost, they were everywhere. Which meant that most people had to find efficient ways of popping them within a turn or two or risk having their entire army "tarpitted" by transports, some of which didn't even have guns!

 Don Savik wrote:
I think there has to be some happy medium somewhere in both rulesets.

Before tanks felt more sturdy, but most of the time they just got like 4-5 crew shaken/stunned a turn and that didn't really make you feel like you did anything. Yea its not moving/shooting but there was never a sense of it taking damage. I don't know if thats necessarily needed as far as rules go but idk it just felt off.

 Don Savik wrote:
I think there has to be some happy medium somewhere in both rulesets.

Before tanks felt more sturdy, but most of the time they just got like 4-5 crew shaken/stunned a turn and that didn't really make you feel like you did anything.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


And where does it end? What if the buffed units need to be nerfed? Do you keep buffing, until you end up with everyone having T10 and S D? Both buffs and nerfs have to used to ensure balance.
If they don't like being nerfed, tough. Maybe they shouldn't play OP units.

GreyCrow wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


And where does it end? What if the buffed units need to be nerfed? Do you keep buffing, until you end up with everyone having T10 and S D? Both buffs and nerfs have to used to ensure balance.
If they don't like being nerfed, tough. Maybe they shouldn't play OP units.

So you just nerf people's units to punish players who followed GW "Purchase Guide to winning games" ? Do you know that's how a company loses customers right ?

Basically, you're punishing purchasing consumers for something they really didn't have no part of. I don't blame Tau players for fielding Riptides en masse. I blame GW for making a BS imba unit that is an awesome concept but that is no fun to face.
Same go for the Eldar players. Sure, some (like in any faction) are DBs. But they aren't responsible for the BS that is going on with their Codex.

If you blame them, you are directing the blame at the wrong person.

EDIT :

@Grimnor : The Riptide is balanced when you take Grav Cannons and that's about it. Basically, GW has balanced the game around that gun.

 Grimgold wrote:
My thought is that hull points were a step in the right direction, First because any purely RNG damage system will perform in a very unsatisfying manner, with weapons fire either being too effective or not effective at all. HPs also add another way in which similar vehicles can be different from each other, maybe that low armor vehicle is as tough as the emperor is righteous, and that high armor vehicle is really quite delicate once you use the proper weapons.

The issue, and you see it all over this thread, is people comparing Vehicles to MCs.

GreyCrow wrote:

@Grimnor : The Riptide is balanced when you take Grav Cannons and that's about it. Basically, GW has balanced the game around that gun.

BrianDavion wrote:
I mostly like the vehicle rules in 6th/7th edition. they just need to give vehicles more HP. to a point where you're proably better off using high powered anti tank weapons for a one shot.

Martel732 wrote:
Vehicles, apart from very expensive ones, were too durable in 5th.

 Grimmor wrote:

GreyCrow wrote:

@Grimnor : The Riptide is balanced when you take Grav Cannons and that's about it. Basically, GW has balanced the game around that gun.

My Kustom Mega Kannons would like to say hi. To make the Riptide be more balanced you either up its price or drop its armor to 3+ and remove the Stims (its FnP upgrade). I've seen non stim Riptides in action against armies that didnt have Grav, they werent that bad. In any event thats still one MC and one GMC that is causing the problem. I dont hear anyone complaining about GUO, Bloodthirsters, Flyrants (except when you run 5 of them) or C'tan Shards with a God Shackle?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Grimmor wrote:

GreyCrow wrote:

@Grimnor : The Riptide is balanced when you take Grav Cannons and that's about it. Basically, GW has balanced the game around that gun.

My Kustom Mega Kannons would like to say hi. To make the Riptide be more balanced you either up its price or drop its armor to 3+ and remove the Stims (its FnP upgrade). I've seen non stim Riptides in action against armies that didnt have Grav, they werent that bad. In any event thats still one MC and one GMC that is causing the problem. I dont hear anyone complaining about GUO, Bloodthirsters, Flyrants (except when you run 5 of them) or C'tan Shards with a God Shackle?

Indeed it seems that almost all of the complaints for MCs and GMCs originate from Tau Battlesuits and the Wraithknight, and almost always because they're undercosted for the insane durability they have.

Like, the Tyranids had so many MCs through the eras and they're still considered a Tier-3 army by most, right there with Orks and Chaos! If MCs in general were the issue then Nids should be right up there with Eldar.

 Konrax wrote:

They arent t8 with 6 wounds, 5+ fnp, fast moving, with multiple d canons or melee d.

A generic monsterous creature isnt too bad because they usually need to get close and arent nearly as good shooting. The riptide lands in that category as well but to a lesser degree.

 Grimgold wrote:
20 to 30 points is letting riptides off way to easy, they are at least 3 figures out of the butter zone. With FnP and all of the tricks of a nova reactor, They are as tough as two monoliths, and pack just as much firepower. They make an absolute mockery of imperial knights, at a fraction of their points. Based on those two comparisons They should around 400, not the 180 base they are now, or the 210 points you are suggesting. Giving them a 3+ armor save would make them less cool than broadsides, and the codex is built with a certain pecking order to the suits. I say let them have their toys just make them pay for them.

 Brother SRM wrote:
I hated stunlocking vehicles to no effect

 Brother SRM wrote:
I hated stunlocking vehicles to no effect, and with how many vehicles could ignore those effects, it felt like so much shooting against vehicles was pointless. I'd like it if vehicles had some form of armor save to go with their hull points, but I much, much prefer the hull point system.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Not really, theres a case with things like Rhinos, but I dont recall any "too hard to kill" complaints about cheap vehicles like Sentinels, War Walkers, Trukks, Land Speeders, Whirlwinds, etc, and nor medium price vehicles like Dreads, Devilfish, Hellhounds, Fire Prism, Predators, Wave Serpents, Skyrays, Russ tanks, Medusas, etc.

Every complaint I can recall or find on a search from that era was either transport oriented or a specific case of something unique being busted (e.g. Psyrifleman getting S8 guns for 5pts and being able to ignore Shaken).

 Vaktathi wrote:
War Walkers on their own were not inherently hard to kill. They were AV10 walkers that lacked the invul save they have now.

What you're describing is a tactic used that made them hard to kill, which is not the same thing as being inherently and required both that appropriate terrain be present where you needed it and a 200+pt character nearby to cast Fortune on them; a setup that would generally make *anything* hard to kill, be it infantry, tank, or MC.

 Vaktathi wrote:
They could downgradd stunned to shaken by buying spirit stones at 15pts a pop and squadron rules allowed them to ignore shaken, but then you also killed them on a pen 4 or glance 6 if Squadroned.

Lets be honest, War Walkers were good in 5E, but they were hardly broken, and they certainly werent overrunning tournaments. I played them in 5E, I usually lost almost all of them. If you could kill Sentinels and Land Speeders, you could deal with War Walkers.

Yeah, they had a lot of shots, but that was also 540pts (assuming no spirit stones) and 3 HS slots got you less firepower than 380pts of Troops Scatterbikes today.

I dont think I've seen anyone complain that 5E War Walkers were hars to kill, especially when, if squadroned, they effectively died as if open topped.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Again...peoples problem doesnt actually seem to be the vehicle rules as a whole...its the cheap transports that didnt care about 5/6 glancing hits (and that could try and repair the one they did care about).

Glancing hits were plenty meaningful against everything else. .

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Again...peoples problem doesnt actually seem to be the vehicle rules as a whole...its the cheap transports that didnt care about 5/6 glancing hits (and that could try and repair the one they did care about).

Glancing hits were plenty meaningful against everything else. .

Exactly this. The Rhino - the most numerous transport of 5th was far too underpriced for what it did. They did not care if they could not shoot as they have nothing to shoot with anyway and if they where actually immobilised then they just remobilised themselves and they only had to actually worry abut their tracks being blown off if they had lost their Storm Bolter.
Anything and everything else - barring Venerable's and Psydreads - actually cared about being stunned. There was no 'snapshooting' so if you stunned a Leman Russ it was basically left sitting there for a turn, unable to fire its guns and essentially out of the equation for the turn. Even Chimeras suffered owing to their inability to repair their tracks/transmission/engine and their lack of side armour making them easy to kill.

Once again, Space Marines and Eldar broke the game and everyone else had to pay for it.

Martel732 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Again...peoples problem doesnt actually seem to be the vehicle rules as a whole...its the cheap transports that didnt care about 5/6 glancing hits (and that could try and repair the one they did care about).

Glancing hits were plenty meaningful against everything else. .

Exactly this. The Rhino - the most numerous transport of 5th was far too underpriced for what it did. They did not care if they could not shoot as they have nothing to shoot with anyway and if they where actually immobilised then they just remobilised themselves and they only had to actually worry abut their tracks being blown off if they had lost their Storm Bolter.
Anything and everything else - barring Venerable's and Psydreads - actually cared about being stunned. There was no 'snapshooting' so if you stunned a Leman Russ it was basically left sitting there for a turn, unable to fire its guns and essentially out of the equation for the turn. Even Chimeras suffered owing to their inability to repair their tracks/transmission/engine and their lack of side armour making them easy to kill.

Once again, Space Marines and Eldar broke the game and everyone else had to pay for it.

Space marines were an average list at best in 5th. The Chimera was a far superior vehicle in 5th, and the IG were a far superior list in 5th. Even with side AV 10, Chimeras were fantastic in 5th, and shot many lists, like space marines, off the table with ease.

Just to put it in perspective, I NEVER lost to space marines in 5th. They weren't that good. I had a losing record vs IG.

Martel732 wrote:
The marines got their 5th ed codex first. Marines were never top in 5th, as I preferred the 4th ed Ork codex.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Space Marines did very well in 5E, and were absolute kings of the first year or so (Vulkan....Vulkan everywhere). IG were strong, but vanilla SM's were really only eclipsed by....other Marines, SW's, BA's, and GK's.

 Btothefnrock wrote:
Lets just go back to 2nd ed, where the turret of my predator once flew off and killed a nearby techmarine...

 Btothefnrock wrote:
Lets just go back to 2nd ed, where the turret of my predator once flew off and killed a nearby techmarine...

 oni wrote:
Wow... Dakka lets me down more and more every day. :(

The current vehicle rules are fantastic. Better than they have ever been.

Walker rules could use some cleanup, but leave everything else alone.

 Sidstyler wrote:
The only way you could find the current vehicle rules "fantastic" or think they're "better than they've ever been" is if you don't actually play with vehicles, or you just don't like them at all, in which case I can imagine you would rather like the current system where vehicles never actually hit the table (unless they're literally free) because they're so terrible that they're a liability, and a waste of points.