Kirb your enthusiasm!

WEBSITE HOSTED AT: www.3plusplus.net

"Pink isn't a color. It's a lifestyle." - Chumbalaya
"...generalship should be informing list building." - Sir Biscuit
"I buy models with my excess money" - Valkyrie whilst a waitress leans over him


Monday, November 22, 2010

Tanks, Vehicles and Mech in 5th edition: Changes for 6th?



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?

Comments (79)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Wouldn't nerfing Meltaguns be a much easier way to make Av14 vehicles more durable? At the moment, S8 + 2d6 penetration dice is a little bit over the top. S8 + 1d6 + 1d3 would probably be more than enough.

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.
3 replies · active 750 weeks ago
Now I like this idea for Meltaguns.

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.
THe problem with nerfing meltaguns is you then need to nerf meltaguns, lances, ord weapons, etc. and rending weapons go back to being awesome sauce and you still have the issue of expensive tanks being one-shotted. Oh hey look, Tau railguns.

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.
I agree a slight nerf of transports is necessary but I think having shaken results on pretty much anything or getting stunned when double shaken is a bit meh. You shake something and you move on; most transports have at least one significant gun or passengers firing and shaking them stops that. Basically when a transport pops the unit needs to be less likely to operate fully next turn. Maybe increase the strength of the internal explosion and Ld modifier to pinning tests? At the same time you don't want them to be 4th ed like where you get in a transport and you die.

5+ is very likely going to be the new cover. Until then...
You are approaching this from the wrong side of the line, IMO. We should be thinking of reducing the effectiveness of meltaguns/lance weapons rather than increasing the all-round durability of vehicles. e.g. the melta or lance rule = +1 or +2 Strength when shooting at a model with an armour value.
3 replies · active 750 weeks ago
Ninja'd by Badger!
I agree. It's a slippery slope when you start making tanks harder to kill across the board. New issues will arise going that route. As Badger is saying, adjust how melta weapons work, make it more expensive, make it less accessible, but don't make the tanks themselves tougher to destroy.
RavenTalon's avatar

RavenTalon · 750 weeks ago

Badger is right on track here on the melta changes. Changing the effect of melta to +2 to AP would be a good move to balance. You would still need a decent roll to penetrate an AV 14 Land Raider (5+), but the ability to destroy transports quickly is still there. I would not want to touch lances as a general rule change though. Eldar of both stripes are too dependent on it. Melta is present in almost every army, whereas lance is just a further nerf to the Craftworld Eldar in particular right now. This would give the AV14 transports back their "heavy" status, but leave the side armor on the Predator or Wave Serpent vulnerable.

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.
I would also change Extra Armour to "Ignore the first Shaken or Stunned result each turn". That way, there is an actual reason to buy Extra Armour for, say, Leman Russes or Predators.

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.
How about Extra armour bumps up the the AV on all facings by 1 or 2 for and the first glance/pen strips it or your -1 seems pretty good

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)
AV14 isn't expensive. I can get an LRBT for 150 points and stuff it in a corner of the table, and you're not going to be hitting side or front very easily. LAND RAIDERS are expensive. It's an important distinction.

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.
2 replies · active 750 weeks ago
Jackelope King's avatar

Jackelope King · 750 weeks ago

I like kirby's suggestion for an incremental change (with burning some sort of burn-able for a -1 or -2 to the vehicle damage chart to stop one-hitting tanks), but overall, this is the direction it needs to go. Dreads can't deal with MCs because the MC can one-hit the Dread while the Dread can't one-hit the MC.
You could eliminate like 10% of the rulebook with that change, too.
thundrchickn's avatar

thundrchickn · 750 weeks ago

vehicles are fine. Shooting is overpowered. When your wolf, guard, and DE are trying to min/max S8+ weapons that can shoot across the board, then your gonna have vehicle issues. Why not just shorten the range on some of these weapons or increase their points a bit. Nothing short of artillery should be able to fire 48 inches or more.
3 replies · active 750 weeks ago
THe issue isn't "SW and IG are OP" (which they aren't). THe issue is that a meltagun has a s much chance to kill a 35 pts Rhino, a 150 pts Leman Russ and a 250pts Land Raider. Given that you are investing a good amount of points on AV 14, there's has to be a way to make that investment do more.

Basically, Land RAiders need a buff. There, I said it.
Why not just make melta not be 2d6 but be 1d6 and 1d3? Lance could also be changed from "everything greater than AV12 equals AV 12" to Lance just adding +1 to penetration. This would weaken the use of Melta and Lance without making vehicles any tougher.
Land Raiders vs meltagun, yes they die just as quickly. What about Land Raider vs Krak grenade? Land Raider laughs it off, rhino and Leman Russ have problems. Don't forget the high cost of the land raider isn't just cos it's hard to kill, it's also that it has the assault option to deliver an expensive tough unit right into the heart of the enemy. By the time you get into melta range, the contents of that Land Raider should have already gotten out and be beating face.

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.
Land Raiders do not need a buff, because they are very durable against NON-MELTA weapons. Buffing them will make Orks, Nids, etc, cry.

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.
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
I say cover saves based on terrain should be kept as they are now (a greater variety would not hurt, but that's a whole other issue), but that "artificial" cover saves (granted by, say, screening) should be slightly nerfed.
The burnable/upgradable armor is a cool idea, but all-in-all I think the rules work just fine as they are now.
The entire AP system in general is a tad ridiculous. I mean 4+ Firewarriors and 6+ boyz have essentially the same armor save 80% of the time.

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.
I 'd say vehicles should be capable of more movement combined with shooting like in 4th or better. Essentially a +6" move and shoot, and fast vehicles could 18" and shoot one gun. This would make a rhino a bit less useful and an LR more versatile. It would also allow bigger tanks which carry more guns to protect themselves by attacking the enemy while bringing warriors to the front and not getting hit in assault so easily.

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.
2 replies · active 750 weeks ago
I'm on board with using the Spearhead rules for shooting, and fixing the squadrons.

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.
Indeed. Autocannon spam is good enough as it is. I, for one, do enjoy the differences between the heavier anti-vehicle weapons that are meant to destroy their target, and the lighter ones used for suppression fire.

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's avatar

willydstyle · 750 weeks ago

Mathematically, melta is quite significantly worse against AV 14 than it is against other armor values. Against AV14 a 2d6+8 penetrates on a 7+. This is about 58% of the time. This means that 42% of the time the weapon does *not* penetrate. People talk about melta as though it is auto-pen against AV 14, and this is simply not true. Personally, I think AV14 stuff is fine right now, because there's no melta weapon with a range greater than 24" in common use. This means that most armies have to get within range of the bad stuff inside the land raider to have a significant chance to kill the land raider, and even then melta is no guarantee.
Here's what the next Ed. of 40K needs to address:
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.
7 replies · active 749 weeks ago
Vehicle spam isn't a bad thing. Did you call it "foot spam" when vehicles were unusable death traps and no one took them?
1) yes 2) no

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).
Yeah, but how do you make the horde viable? Do they hook up their attacks like voltron? Putting big guns on big models makes them a target in the tiny sea of guys. There's an article to write :D
Not gonna happen.
GW likes selling squad+transport. It brings in the dough, you know.

Instead, expect foot books to be phased out of existence.
I can't tell if you're being serious or not
Basically what you're saying is you want a return to 4th ed vehicle rules.
Structure points for very expensive, tough vehicles (Leman's, land raiders, vindicators, etc) is a good suggestion.
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.
5 replies · active 749 weeks ago
Digilante's avatar

Digilante · 750 weeks ago

I agree that I like the Structure Points idea. Rather than figure out how to accommodate the three (4th ed) races you listed above, their codices should just be updated to better deal with mech?

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.
Transports are fine.
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.
Why do you need a con for something that limits a squad size and costs points? Maybe if they were free they should have a downside, but "costs points" is a downside. So is "You can't hide 20 guy in one (Except you, battlewagon)".
neverXmoor's avatar

neverXmoor · 750 weeks ago

I just glance them to death with my gause cannons /s
Oh yeah, glancing to death is SO GOOD. No wait, is shit.

Structure points is a good idea. 2 for AV 14 and only-one-gun vehicles, 1 for everything else.
I personally vote for structure points. Its easy, quick, streamlined and makes sense. I never understood how a land raider could consistently be one shotted every game no matter how many are on the table. Now if it took two shots to do then sure. I would not go over board with it, personally I think for a land raider it should be at a maximum of 2 structure points. 3 is over kill and really hurts some armies. Its easy to implement, so an FAQ stating that a tanks that are worth X amount of points now have structure points or a combined armor level of 35 or higher then you have two structure points makes sense. So leman russ hammer heads land raiders are fine where falcons raiders and predators are just under the level which makes sense to me.

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.
Lascannons are still a poor anwser to Av14, unless spammed in obscene amounts. And as long as Meltaguns all but ignore a vehicle's armour, I doubt structure points will be of much use, considering how Melta weapons already overkill their target.
8 replies · active 723 weeks ago
Lascannons need to be AP1.
neverXmoor's avatar

neverXmoor · 750 weeks ago

Bright/dark lances too.
Charlemagne's avatar

Charlemagne · 750 weeks ago

I thought Lascannons were a reasonable answer to AV14 ...

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 ...
Suppression doesn't help you in a KP or VP game, and it's also not a whole lot of help against a Land Raider with extra armor.

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.
You need to roll 5+ to even damage a 'raider with las.
That's horrible. If it was AP1, things would be a bit better, but that's not likely to happen.
Aye as Las would then start rolling through everything else as well.
Precisely. AP1 is rare for a reason.
RagingDragon's avatar

RagingDragon · 723 weeks ago

Ok. How about making the lascannon S10/AP2?
TheGraveMind's avatar

TheGraveMind · 750 weeks ago

The basic way I've thought about fixing vehicles is this;
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.
4 replies · active 750 weeks ago
I like this idea though it would need to be extensively tested for balance.
neverXmoor's avatar

neverXmoor · 750 weeks ago

Love this idea.
So matching armor would 1) result in no damage roll or 2) roll for damage with no modifier? I'm not sure which you mean. But when you do beat the armor you get a +1? So a 13 vs AV11 would be +2? I'm not sold, but I like this general line of thinking. The suppression concept is good for the game, as someone stated above, so...

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.
It's a good idea, but doesn't solve the whole 'my land raider for 250+ points just blew up to your 10 point gun!'-problem.
I can see them adding both this, and the structure points to the game, actually.
Rather than structure points for all vehicles, how about a new vehicle type akin to "Fast?" We'll call it "Heavy" and it will apply to vehicles like Russes, LRs, Monoliths and Hammerheads. This will have the effect of treating all penetrating damage rolls against them with a -1 modifier. That will reduce the effectiveness of melta weaponry by 33% against them. And/or bring back the Ceramite Armor upgrade of old, which is a purchasable upgrade that ignores the bonus D6 for melta weaponry. Price it around 30 pts, and it wouldn't be an attractive option for cheap transports (you could basically take two Rhinos for the same cost), but at only plus ~13% for a LR would be quite attractive.
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
Problem with this is you hit the same problem the Achilles has. LR w/ceramite armor are now virtually invulernable to certain armies.

I like the extra tank classification though.
Why not shift to vehicles having a toughness instead? They would have a special characteristic called, "vehicle" that makes them immune to poison effects. Additionally, weapons like melta and lance would act like vehicle poison weapons (melta wounds on 4+, lance on 5+). This would definitely streamline the rules.
3 replies · active 750 weeks ago
LIke Erwos' idea this has merit though I guess people might like their vehicles to be significantly 'different.' Like TheGraveMinds idea you'd also need to extensively test it to ensure balance but at the same time vehicles are going to be a lot harder to suppress which is the one thing that seperates things for me atm.

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...
Frankly you are going to have to change vehicle entries across the board with any of these changes, stating that as if my suggestion is unique in that is a bit misleading.

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).
Adding something like structure points or changing the damage chart or new upgrades for burnable armor, etc. is a lot easier than changing the whole vehicle system which has been used in 40k for quite an extensive period of time.
A points drop would also be viable (200?) and melta/lance immunity is fine as long as it's not on a tank which is virtually immune to everything else thanks to AV. Look at the stormraven or eldar energy fields. AV12 which is still good but can be damaged by other means.
RagingDragon's avatar

RagingDragon · 723 weeks ago

And AV12 can be penetrated not only by other means, but by a melta without the melta bonus (1/3 chance if my math is correct).
GW likes rules that make people more willing to buy their huge kits - which happen to be mostly vehicles.
I don't know that vehicles need anymore buffing. I know this was not pointed at our Rhinos or the IG chimeras but any buffing would have to be mindful not to buff transports as a side effect. Maybe make melta only get the next d6 if you roll a 5 or 6 on the first d6?

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.
Lot of good discussion and ideas out there. Just a quick highlight:

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 :) .
Why not a mixture of all 3 options?
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?
I think the structure point system is a viable way to make higher point tanks more survivable. Though Transports should not have any. This makes them just as survivable in the current system with the Cover saves and what not. In addition to that I say make Melta weapons S8 +1d6 + 2 at half range solves the issue with melta weapons yet still making them useful.
Tratchenberg's avatar

Tratchenberg · 750 weeks ago

Trying to keep with the single damage table how about changing vehicle classification a bit.
- '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.
I disagree. In fact, the large part of the discrepancy between the two is because of meltaguns. AV14 vehicles (for the most part) are worth the points paid when ignoring the issue of meltaguns, rendering the point of the article moot. If one is to discuss the discrepancy between the points/durability ratios of light and heavy tanks, the meltagun's effectiveness is central to the problem.

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.
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
I like this idea. Only instead of giving the upgrade to Gargoyles, give Carnfex's a short or medium range melta. That way there is a reason to field fex's. Nid players are happy becausde they get to play will an old favorite, GW is happy because people by the things again.

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.
The biggest issue I have with adding structure points in the new edition is that Space Marines, IG, and maybe a different color Space Marine are going to get them. Every other army is gonna suck terribly, because they are NOT gonna go back and give Structure Points to older, non-6th Ed books.

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.
1 reply · active 750 weeks ago
If they add them, it's probably gonna be something like 2 for MTB's and similar (lemans, predators, falcons, ravagers), and 2-3 for really expensive armor, such as all land raiders, and most leman's.
I don't see the problem here.

"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.
One idea I had while reading this was to have a class of vehicle as "Heavy Tank" a heavy tank is one with a total F/S/R armour of 35+ (hammerheads, russes, LRs, monoliths etc) such units gain the "venerable" special rule as per the SM codex
I always thought that extra armour should give you a AV11 shield that needs to burn before you get to the tank.
inessence a low AV structure point.
Panic.
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
This is a concept I can see working. For 15 pts that's a great buy for high AV tanks (maybe burn = -2 on damage roll or something) but super expensive for cheap Rhinos/Chimeras.
RagingDragon's avatar

RagingDragon · 723 weeks ago

If you want to partially nerf meltas: replace +1D6 to pen with S10/AP1 or S10/AP2 at half range against vehicles. Short range meltas would remain a threat to AV14, but not an overwhelming one, and would still obliterate lesser vehicles.

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).

Post a new comment

Comments by

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...