So in the latest review of the latest Forge World Land Raider variant we noticed how poorly balanced the Achilles was. The weapons themselves were pretty good but lack of transport capacity, assault vehicle status and the combination of ferromantic invulnerability was counter-intuitive (basically the Achilles is quite happy to run into the teeth of an army due to it's melta immunity yet it doesn't have the capacity to deliver such units as Terminators). However, ferromantic invulnerability is where the balance issues come in. Armies which rely on melta and lance weapons for heavy anti-tank become very Ork-like against the Achilles; i.e. bad against AV14. Armies like Tau and Imperial Guard who have weapons which ignore this special rule (i.e. railguns, S10 Ord, etc.) however don't care (it's just like a normal Land Raider to them) and any army built around multiple Achilles enters a rock-paper-scissors 40k. This sucks. However, it does raise a very important part about vehicles in 5th edition and the glaring need for an improvement.
What? Did Kirby just say mech needed to be improved? Yes indeedy. We all know vehicles right now are excellent choices due to their inherent survivability. This isn't to say mech is the only way to play 5th edition but vehicles and especially transports are a highly viable option compared to 4th edition. With the changes to the vehicle damage chart and the importance of AP1, guns like meltaguns have become very important (not to mention the cheaper cost) in a lot of armies. Whilst some immunity to melta is good (i.e. Stormraven or Avatar), when a unit which is generally only killable to certain armies through meltaguns, making it immune to them is poor balance. However, for guns like these there is very little difference between AV10 and AV14. Sure there's ~10% difference between the two in terms of meltagun effectiveness but AV14 is often far more expensive than AV10 and no where near as spammable.
What this has lead to is more mech armies with lots of light to medium (i.e. inexpensive) tanks compared to a few heavy tanks. This comes down to a 35 pt Rhino being pretty much the same in terms of survivability as a Land Raider against some of the best and most common anti-tank out there (i.e. meltaguns). This sucks for anyone wanting to use an expensive, heavy tank. Considering the divergence between point cost of low AV and high AV tanks and the similar ease to which certain guns can drop both, there's an inherent imbalance between cheap and expensive tanks. Cheap tanks are generally better as you can get that many more of them. What this means is in some way we need to differentiate from light and heavy tanks in some form not just based on Armor Value.
So, here's where we come in with potential changes and discussion. Just so we're clear... I think 5th edition is great and rather than an overhaul it just needs tweaks (like 5.1 or something). Tanks in general don't need to be touched really, maybe making the explosion more deadly to guys inside (up the strength?) but I feel the vehicle damage chart is fine as is. However, there are a couple of ways we can fix the lack of survivability divergence between cheap and expensive tanks whilst still keeping them balanced within the system.
One easy one is adding structure points based upon expense or armor value (or arbitrarily). For those not familiar with structure points, tanks start with X structure points and when a wrecked/destroyed result is inflicted upon a tank, subtract 1 from X. When X reaches 0 the vehicle is destroyed. So a normal and cheap tank like a Rhino would have 1 structure point whilst a more expensive tank like a Land Raider might have 3 structure points. The problem with this is anyone without the capability of dealing with heavy armor normally (like Orks atm) are now at an even worse disadvantage against high AV tanks. However, it makes the heavier tanks more viable as they are less likely to be one-shotted and basically be an expensive heap of junk. This is probably the simplest and easier implementation but getting the structure points right is important to maintain balance. I.e. most tanks stay as one but heavier tanks like Russes or Hammerheads might have two and only extremely durable tanks like Monoliths or Land Raiders would have three.
Another way is to use different vehicle damage charts for different tanks. Problem with this (beyond being more complex when GW seems to be moving towards streamlining), to make the difference between tanks extreme enough might make lighter tanks very easy to pop (i.e. 4th edition easy) and still leaves heavy and expensive tanks vulnerable to being one-shotted. Not a fan of this concept as it doesn't really solve the problem and just takes light mech back to the darkdays of 40k.
A further option would be to have burnable or mutable armor. Currently upgrades like spirit stones, extra armor, etc. are pretty useless with their current expense on cheaper tanks but quite usable on more expensive tanks you want to keep moving. Changing their rules so they can be 'burned' to downgrade or nullify an effect (like a structure point there) can make tanks more survivable but due to their increased cost, not seem worth it on the cheaper tanks which you spam. For example, change the ruling of EA to negating AP1 effects/providing a -1 on the damage table which can be "burned" (used up) for a one-off -3 (you no longer then get the -1 effect). This can stop heavy tanks from being one-shotted early and is obviously a good investment whilst putting them on all of your cheaper tanks is going to add up quickly. I like this concept though it would need to be refined a bit more as it doesn't make heavy tanks really hard to kill for some armies (i.e. like structure points) and burnable items aren't exactly new (combis, smoke launchers, etc.).
So these are just a few ideas batted around before in the chatbawks and on YTTH and I thought with the recent release of the Achilles rules it would be a good time to discuss it again. Any other ideas or thoughts on the above ideas or general thoughts on vehicles in 5th edition currently?
Badger · 750 weeks ago
I also think transports deserve a slight nerf. They shouldn't be able to shrug off "Shaken" and "Weapon destroyed" results. At the moment, it takes on average no less than 15 AC shots in order to prevent a Rhino with a 4+ cover save from moving. A vehicle that has been shaken twice in the same turn should be stunned as well, and should a vehicle lose its last weapon, it should also count as being shaken.
I'm not too fond of the default 4+ cover saves either. Drop it to 5+. Making a vehicle twice as survivable because it is merely hiding behind a wall of Chimeras is a bit too much.
necroninja 36p · 750 weeks ago
As for Transport Nerfing... I dunno. As far as I can see, you've only got two options I can think of:
1. Make Tanks Worse: attack additional penalties to Shaken and Weapon Destroyed to stop transports from "shaking them off". So now gunline vehicles are just suffering even more when they get results that are already unfavorable to them...
2. Pick On Transports: Have only Transports suffer the additional penalties. Now this is going to seem fake and contrive and, honestly, it will be. So that makes it a bad option.
Kirby 118p · 750 weeks ago
Ya an average pen roll of 15 is insane but that's at 6" at least and rather than nerfing multiple weapons to ensure heavy tanks are less likely to get one shotted (which also makes cheap tanks better still btw when we only want to 'help' expensive tanks) I think it's easier to implement an improvement upon heavy tanks.
Kirby 118p · 750 weeks ago
5+ is very likely going to be the new cover. Until then...
Mercury · 750 weeks ago
Mercury · 750 weeks ago
Thor 59p · 750 weeks ago
RavenTalon · 750 weeks ago
My fear is that 6th edition (or 5.1) melta weapons will get the plasma treatment: made to expensive to be worthwhile without tons of cheap ablative wounds in the squad (IG) or FNP (SM Command Squads). Remember the old "Force Commander" layout with PW and PP? When was the last time you saw a commander with that weapon loadout? Or a tactical squad with a PG and PC?
5ht edition is great. Vehicles actually being more survivable than the troops inside of them is great. Let's just hope that this one gets play tested properly, maybe even out of house, before GW nerfs the meltagun of 6th edition to the plasmagun of 5th edition status.
Badger · 750 weeks ago
Of course, expensive vehicles can still be one-shotted... But so do most units in the game. I lost T6 MCs to Lasguns and Terminators to Grots... That's how 40k works.
gundog8324 · 750 weeks ago
And I hate to be the one to say it, how about making AV 14 and 13 cheaper cause if it aint melta spam it is lascannon spam, or just up the antitank cost and the cost for vehicles to older edition codices(IE 50ish pt rhinos and 60-70ish chimeras), do this and more infantry hit the field and thus meltaguns fall off
problem is will never happen because it will ruin their profit margin(nothing wrong with families to feed, and shareholder's, etc, but it would be nice to have some other motives for rules)
Erwos · 750 weeks ago
I've proposed this before, and I'll propose it again: vehicles and walkers should be on a T/W/Save system like everyone else, and certain things should happen as you burn through those wounds (in terms of wounds taken, 1/3 total wounds = one weapon per turn, 2/3 total wounds = immobilized, 3/3 total wounds = destroyed). This system would be great in that it gives both players a less volatile result in terms of shooting vehicles - no more one hit kills, but every wound adds up.
Jackelope King · 750 weeks ago
Erwos · 750 weeks ago
thundrchickn · 750 weeks ago
Gx1080 · 750 weeks ago
Basically, Land RAiders need a buff. There, I said it.
kelterran · 750 weeks ago
Ginge · 750 weeks ago
The extra 100 points between Leman Russ and Land Raider shouldn't be considered too much just cos a meltagun treats both with as much contempt - the fact that you don't have to worry about side or rear shots with the Raider, don't have to worry about most infantry assaulting you with the Raider, don't have to choose not to move if you want your troops to assault this turn (that one is for the rhino) or turn your vulnerable rear armour towards the enemy to disembark in optimum position (Chimera - though a Land Raider doesn't even HAVE vulnerable rear armour, so this point is kinda mute) THAT is where your extra 100 points is going.
blacksly · 750 weeks ago
The issue is how melta almost ignores a vehicle's armor rating.
An idea might be to treat melta as Ordnance: roll two dice, take the highest.
Then, make AP1 get a +2 on the damage table only on Glancing Hits.
Lastly, lower standard cover saves to 5+ (including vehicles, and other saves get worse by 1, such as Turbo Boosting getting 4+).
Now you end up with less of a melta-dominance as the main anti-tank weapon, but making up for the loss of tankbusting due to melta you gain overall tankbusting due to lower cover saves.
Badger · 750 weeks ago
kannascrusade 33p · 750 weeks ago
GreyICE · 750 weeks ago
Moving past that, Melta changing to being +d3 is good. 2-9 is a much better result range for 14 (1/3 pen, 1/6 glance, 50% for some result). Land raiders can then gain an 'ignore AP 1' upgrade, and they're back to invulnerable bricks.
Ianos666 29p · 750 weeks ago
Conversely glancing should only get a -1 on the dmg table, which would make impact on light armor but not so much on AV13-14 which is usually targeted by meltas and str9+.
I think the above changes will also make fast vehicles and especially skimmers better as they should be, and will make the game overall, more fast paced and focused on maneuver.
Erwos · 750 weeks ago
Reducing glancing hits to -1 is a mistake, though. The single thing that has made vehicles so usable this edition is the extreme debuff to glancing. Giving glances the ability to one-hit kill would basically reverse this completely.
Badger · 750 weeks ago
Overall, I think the current vehicle rules only need a few, subtle changes, but they're already quite good.
There is also a clever idea I read on Warseer amongst a pile of rubbish posts: allow units to disengage from an exploding vehicle on a successful Initiative test.
willydstyle · 750 weeks ago
HERO · 750 weeks ago
1. Cover saves being 4+ across the board.
2. Vehicle spam needs to be addressed; which means the Glancing chart needs to introduce Wrecked/Destroyed.
3. 1,2 repeating until they get it right.
Erwos · 750 weeks ago
Kirby 118p · 750 weeks ago
In the end 2 helps their bottom line and makes the game more tactical as long as GW continues to produce non-vehicle armies which work. It gives variety. Being able to drop anywhere from a large amount of infantry (BA, SW, Tyranids, Biker SM, etc.) to a large amount of tanks (IG, WH, SM, BA, etc.) and anywhere in between is what is good for the game atm. All GW really needs to do is make a true horde which can deal with mech (Tyranids generally not being 100+ model count to begin with).
Apathyman 36p · 749 weeks ago
VT2 79p · 750 weeks ago
GW likes selling squad+transport. It brings in the dough, you know.
Instead, expect foot books to be phased out of existence.
Apathyman 36p · 749 weeks ago
VT2 79p · 749 weeks ago
Aurenian 57p · 749 weeks ago
VT2 79p · 750 weeks ago
The only armies that outright can't deal with heavy armor as it stands are orks, demonhunters, and necrons. Everybody else has at least some way to bring them down.
Digilante · 750 weeks ago
I think there should be a little more risk involved in using a transport as well, perhaps make explosion damage ignore armor saves? Right now you take a transport and it is pretty much all pro and no con.
VT2 79p · 750 weeks ago
What isn't fine is the armies that don't have transports. Again, necrons and demonhunters mostly. If you're not built to take them, you need something to even the odds (tyranids).
Yeah, people outright refuse to run transports a lot of the time, but there's no real cure for stupid.
Apathyman 36p · 749 weeks ago
neverXmoor · 750 weeks ago
Gx1080 · 750 weeks ago
Structure points is a good idea. 2 for AV 14 and only-one-gun vehicles, 1 for everything else.
stillfrosty · 750 weeks ago
Proposed changes to melta and lance weapons not only fails to solve the problem, it actually makes certain armies completely unable to deal with heavy tanks. Dark Eldar, Eldar, Sisters of Battle and all others who choose not to bring lascannon spam. We should not have to redo 5 codecies to improve tanks. Melta guns are fine, lances are fine. Fix the tanks.
Badger · 750 weeks ago
Erwos · 750 weeks ago
neverXmoor · 750 weeks ago
Charlemagne · 750 weeks ago
I mean, you aren't too likely to destroy your target, but the chance for suppression is in no way bad, especially when you can field enough to cause a 'vehicle pile-up'. Those moments are simply the best ...
Erwos · 750 weeks ago
Ultimately, you've got to be able to get kills, and the lascannon tends not to live up to its pricing in this area. Thus, my suggestion of making it AP1 - that gives a 1/9 chance of a kill on an AV14 hit, which makes it a far more fearsome heavy anti-tank weapon than a missile launcher or autocannon.
VT2 79p · 750 weeks ago
That's horrible. If it was AP1, things would be a bit better, but that's not likely to happen.
Kirby 118p · 750 weeks ago
VT2 79p · 749 weeks ago
RagingDragon · 723 weeks ago
TheGraveMind · 750 weeks ago
Get rid of glancing. Then, how ever much you beat a tanks armor by on your pen roll, gives you that much bonus on the damage chart.
Ignoring AP1 rules, a melta average of 15, will get +4 on rhinos, and only +1 on LR, so the heavy tank killing weapon truly is overkill for light tanks.
of course this is basic idea. some change to make it smoother would be good, but it actually makes the AV matter against melta's, while not giving structure points.
Kirby 118p · 750 weeks ago
neverXmoor · 750 weeks ago
kannascrusade 33p · 750 weeks ago
What if along these lines, GraveMind, you kept the -2 for matching a targets armor, then added 1 for every next point. For example, a 12 vs AV11 would be a -1. A 13 would be no modifier and so on. The +1 bonus to AP1 weaponry would no longer exist.
Suppression would still exist. S9 weapons could get +2 vs AV11, and at best a -1 vs AV14. Meltaguns still hold their place on the battlefield. They'd continue to blow up light armor easily, but would be slightly less effective versus vs AV14 (an 8+9=17 would be needed for a +1 vs AV14, with the possibility of higher). S10 would at most get no modifier against AV14, but would continue to wreck light armor.
Overall, this increases the chance of light armor exploding but makes heavy armor slightly more survivable.
VT2 79p · 750 weeks ago
I can see them adding both this, and the structure points to the game, actually.
Colin · 750 weeks ago
Kirby 118p · 750 weeks ago
I like the extra tank classification though.
Matthew · 750 weeks ago
Kirby 118p · 750 weeks ago
Take a look at the T-Fex. That baddy is shooting you until it dies. A hammerhead I can stop shooting all game but if it reverts to a T/W/S system, it's going to keep shooting, etc. This would need to be reflected in vehicle price which would mean whole-say changes across the board and terrible codex creep unless errata'd...
Matthew · 750 weeks ago
To address stunning, etc, I think having AP 1 weapons stun/shake vehicles would be satisfactory. This would require a weapons overhaul as well, of course. But I think having "weapons destroyed" results are a bit silly - effectively it makes single weapon vehicles almost worthless and multiple weapon vehicles artificially tough. Reduce everything to a stun/shake/DEAD results and it'd make vehicles more reliable (much like a MC).
Kirby 118p · 750 weeks ago
@corianasix · 750 weeks ago
I'd also be worried about having upgrades which ignores melta and/or lance completely, I agree with those who are saying that the situation is largely fine. Erwos was right when he said that the problem is with Land Raiders, which are simply too expensive for their current durability. GW designed melta and lance well: the former is far more powerful, but this is compensated for by a short range - you have to get it right in the opponent's face. Here is where the problem lies for the Land Raider, because they want to get in your face too, to deliver the Terminators. It would be nice to have an option for a Land Raider that is equipped as a long range gunboat. As for the transport version - well admit its true purpose, stop trying to give it uber cool (and expensive) weapons, and drop the points cost a little. GW seem to like the idea of more models and more killing, so I think a points drop is most likely.
Kirby 118p · 750 weeks ago
RagingDragon · 723 weeks ago
VT2 79p · 750 weeks ago
Keeper · 750 weeks ago
HEROs points do make me wonder what they are going to do with cover saves next edition. As marine player it is nice for plasma saves etc but for the most part cover is not always a concern. Other armies though in this edition were probably balanced around the abundant 4+ save so DE and nids for instance with relatively poor armor saves could really suffer if they made cover more difficult to get.
Kirby 118p · 750 weeks ago
Remember this isn't about meltaguns perhaps being too good; whilst this is a potential issue it's more about the lack of durability increase of heavy/expensive tanks compared to cheap/light tanks.
Keep it up :) .
cambrian · 750 weeks ago
1) Make the glance penalty -1 instead of -2
2) Add structure points to make certain vehicles (Land Raiders, Monoliths, etc...) or give them a special rule to ignore the first wrecked result each game.
3) Reduce melta effectiveness to make them essentially always rend. (roll an additional +d3 at half)
By doing this you've reduced transport effectiveness, brought up heavy vehicle effectiveness, balanced melta, brought up ork and similar competitiveness. The big question here would be what would be the big draw back to this change other than it is a larger overhaul?
DT365 · 750 weeks ago
Tratchenberg · 750 weeks ago
- 'Light' vehicles, pretty much those that are open topped now and a couple of others, +1 on the damage roll
- 'Medium' vehicles, current damage roll.
- 'Heavy' vehicles, Land raiders, Monoliths, Leman Russ varients, Vindicators, other seige vehicles, -1 on the damage roll
Open topped can be kept as a transport mechanic but I don't think it needs to affect how easy a vehicle dies. Consider a lascannon hitting the pilot of a raider vs the pilot of a land speeder, the lascannon doesn't care the the marine is in power armour... Following this I'd make a battlewagon a medium vehicle, its so big its hard not to get side armour shots on it but at the same time how many of those shots are actually going to hit something vital on it? There's so much empty space that a melta shot could burn a hole straight through it and not hit anything (useful)...
Playing around with the classification keeps it simple, (no tracking of structure points, ablative extra armour, etc) while making a clear difference between vehicles.
Guest · 750 weeks ago
Lance weapons are balanced by paying the points for their specialization; they are no better vs AV12- vehicles while paying points similar to a weapon with increased S. S10 is balanced by paying increased points over weapons with a lower strength. Haywire/wraith/distort are bad or on bad units right now (jetbike Guardians with wraithcannon option please). Melta is supposed to be balanced by short range. However, melta weapons currently have another advantage of being cheap, making them +1 in terms of pros-cons compared to other AV14 killing options.
Nerfing melta does not do anything for Orks/Tyranids. Buffing AV14 vehicles screws them over worse. Toughness/wounds has the issue with poisoned weapons. You could ignore poisoned weapons in the rule, but there are many weapons that wound on a fixed roll that have their points/balancing based around the current armor value system like wraithcannons, agonizers, etc. Having exceptions for each case goes against the streamlining goal and also has the issue with edition/codex balance.
Now, as we all know, the best compromise is one that leaves all parties dissatisfied. Tyranids, Orks, etc shouldn't be left out of the fun of using cheap and plentiful guns to negate the usefulness of an expensive and supposedly durable tank, and the melta/lance spamming armies should likewise have to experience the helplessness of having no viable guns(not melee) against AV14.
The solution is obvious here, give AV14 tanks with lance/melta weapons to Orks, Tyranids.
Orks - Battlewagon can trade its transport capacity and normal guns for 3 improved Zzap guns(36", S: 6+D6, 11 or 12 both grant AP1 but 11 blows up the gun and 12 inflicts an automatic glancing hit in addition) crewed by Gretchin. Receives a 4+ invulnerable save against melta/lance weapons (justification being the same as that on Grot tanks, where the extra crap that does nothing actually helps by increasing the overall heat capacity of the tank's "armor").
Tyranids - No vehicles, so we have to go with the next best thing vs melta, hordes. Gargoyles may upgrade one model in 5 to trade its weapon/venom to gain a 12", S4, AP5, Melta, Rending, weapon. Fluff: launches flying termite-wasps with mandibles made of whatever RC are and glands containing a dual-purpose fluid(complexes of enzymes to control function) used as fuel to fly farther/faster, or as a type of Pyrovore acid that eats through armor. The closer the target the more acid is left to burn away armor.
Daemonhunters - Getting a new book. Wait and see.
Well, that was fun, but on a more serious note, the only viable solution is one that not only creates a fair (doesn't have to be linear; jumps in capability are OK, as long as points increase proportionally) gradient between cheap/weak and expensive/tough (the intended purpose of the discussion), but also does not aggravate any current balance issues. Best of all would be a solution that incorporates those two while also reducing imbalance in currently broken matchups.
babel · 747 weeks ago
Moving on, the core issue is that melta spam kills land raiders too quickly. Light tanks don't need changed because their cheapness is balanced by all the stuff that can kill them. Other heavy tanks have standoff options that keep them out of melta range.
Fixes are making land raiders useful outside of melta range by giving them weapon options that allow them to have a long range role, or by making them survive melta better.
Of the two, increasing melta survivibility is easier and requires less changes to the existing roles. Add in a tank upgrade that gives a 4+ vs melta. Price it high enough to discourage using it on light tanks, fluff it as a new kind of armor that is great against melta but not much else.
artemi7 78p · 750 weeks ago
Also, the Land Raider is more or less set in stone at this point. It will ALWAYS be AV14, it will ALWAYS cost 250 points, and it will ALWAYS be a transport that has guns and a Machine Spirit. If GW wants the Land Raider to be better, they will change the entirety of the rest of the game around it, because it is NOT moving, for any reason.
Also, I agree with lowering cover to 5+. That was one of the biggest mistakes in this edition, in my book.
VT2 79p · 750 weeks ago
GDMNW · 750 weeks ago
"Lack of durability increase"
Are you trying to establish that AV14 tanks aren't much tougher than light transports? What fuels that idea? Against any weapon other then a lance or melta weapon AV14 is amazing. Even S10 weapons are only penetrating a third of the time and they have to hit you first. The reason that lance and melta weapons exist is because AV14 is so durable. Without these weapons around AV14 tin cans would be nigh unstoppable.
They're still pretty tough as it is.
Let's think about this for a moment. Lance weapons are typically strength 8 which drops them in the same category as S10 weapons. They only penetrate a third of the time. Sure there are exceptions but we're dealing with the run of the mill stuff here.
Now melta weapons. The most common is the near ubiquitous melta gun. Anyone who can take these things nearly always does. Otherwise AV14 would be unstoppable. To use the melta rule you have to be within 6". That's completely predictable. That's where the idea of suicide melta squads comes from.
Almost everyone knows that squads who melta AV14 vehicles end up so close to the enemy that they are as good as dead. Who uses suicide squads against Rhinos? You just slap a couple of krak grenades on the back and they're gone.
I've not even mentioned cover saves, nor the fact that you can easily screen what usually constitutes a 500+ point investment once you have put something nasty inside to stop deep strikers or infiltrators from sneaking up on you.
No, I think you've missed the mark. AV14 is a lot more durable than AV10-13 and structure points would be total overkill. AV14 vehicles are already more than durable enough. What forgeworld get up to really shouldn't put you off what's going on in 40k.
ItsPug · 750 weeks ago
Panic · 747 weeks ago
inessence a low AV structure point.
Panic.
Kirby 118p · 747 weeks ago
RagingDragon · 723 weeks ago
I like ItsPug's suggestion above of giving Land Raiders and other heavy tanks a venerable equivalent special rule.
I also like the idea of using toughness and wounds for vehicles; however, it would require extensive changes to the entire 40K ruleset and codexes, thus i doubt it is viable in the near future. Obviously they would have to be immune to poison. Perhaps suffering a shaken when wounded, and stunned if they recieve additional wounds in a given turn. When they hit 0 wounds, then roll for wrecked vs. exploded (say 1-4 = wrecked, 5-6 = exploded).