So a while back we looked at the issues in the differences between the cheap mech of Rhinos and the expensive mech of Land Raiders and it generated quite a response. The premise of this discussion topic was for a 5-10pt meltagun, both are basically overpriced paperweights which is particularly true with the Land Raider, especially given its function of driving towards the enemy. One of the ideas which was shouted down was introducing structure points as this significantly effects certain armies (i.e. Tyranids and Orks) without an errata. One of the more popular ideas was nerfing meltaguns/lances which I personally don't think are needed but one of the ideas which I think merited some support from a lot of parties was 'burnable' armor. In this case, Extra Armor or Spirit Stones are used in their default functioning of reducing stunned results to shakens. However, they have the bonus ability to be used up to reduce the damage of one roll (probably by 2). This is quite a good upgrade for expensive tanks like Raiders who can stop that lucky early shot ruining their day but is a huge waste of points on multiple Rhinos.
This function would also work well for tanks which suffer from one-gun syndrome. The issue with these tanks is they are also expensive paperweights anytime they get penned and almost hope for an immoblised result. The burnable armor upgrade would help here in being able to protect the big gun from being blown off but are there perhaps more ways to do this? One idea is having weapons destroyed at random. A Leman Russ which has a Battlecannon and lascannon therefore loses the battlecannon a 4+ and the lascannon on a 1-3 if it suffers a weapon destroyed. I like the concept of this as it stops expensive tanks becoming quite useless after their main weapon is destroyed and silly upgrades like heavy stubbers, stormbolters, etc. become somewhat viable. However, I don't see it being implemented by GW as some tanks have four guns which is a pain to randomly assign to on a D6.
I still think the burnable armor is one of the best ways not only to fix single gun syndrome but some of the issues expensive tanks also come across. Any further thoughts on this or relating to single gun syndrome?
Logging you in...
Ian · 746 weeks ago
I like "burnable" armour too.
Kirby 118p · 746 weeks ago
Ian · 746 weeks ago
Digilante · 746 weeks ago
Still, I really like this idea. I think the same thing could be done for general survivability too: have "reinforced chassis" wargear that gives you a 4+ save the when you suffer a destroyed result, where making it gives -2 to the roll, or something like that.
Kirby 118p · 746 weeks ago
Not sure on the reinforced chassis though at basically another cover save. I think maybe ignoring the effects of AP1 would be plausible...
Ian · 746 weeks ago
MarshalLaeroth 52p · 746 weeks ago
neverXmoor 43p · 746 weeks ago
CalPerr · 746 weeks ago
Koppenflak · 746 weeks ago
As is: "One weapon, chosen by the opponent"
Change to: "One weapon, chosen by the owning player"
That should make up for the relative ease in which tanks die up close, and plays to their strength of being long-range monsters.
Kirby 118p · 746 weeks ago
7eAL · 746 weeks ago
Kevin · 712 weeks ago
Von · 746 weeks ago
Koppenflak · 746 weeks ago
Blast!
...Well, it could still work, so long as people are willing to buy pintle weapons...
Sorrowshard · 746 weeks ago
However if you were to nerf lances and melta ATM I think Eldar would suffer the most , CWE players hardly use lances as is and for DE the str 6 meltas would be less than useless , not to mention if lances were gimped too , would make the army unplayable.
the burnable upgrades could work , though I am hesitant to agree to it on cheap ass transports , essentially only giving it to expensive tanks against one hit of the owners choice , ie modifying the result after it is rolled .
Maybe give 'ceramic plating' as an upgrade for heavy tanks giving a save vs melta or reducing its effectiveness ?
Its a tricky one for sure
Cyklown 51p · 746 weeks ago
Guest · 746 weeks ago
TheKingElessar 71p · 746 weeks ago
Kirby 118p · 746 weeks ago
sonsoftaurus · 746 weeks ago
1 weapon - easy, destroyed.
2 weapons - 1-3 / 4-6
3 weapons - 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6
4 weapons - 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5=owner chooses / 6=attacker chooses
5 weapons - 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6=attacker chooses
6 weapons - 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6
7 + weapons - a) shoot the codex writer(s) b) 1-2=owner chooses / 3-4=attacker chooses / 5=owner chooses and roll again (until 6 or fewer weapons remaining) / 6=attacker chooses and roll again (until 6 or fewer weapons remaining)
Kirby 118p · 746 weeks ago
I like the concepts with 4, 5 and 6. Personally I'd of done it with 4 weapons 1-4 and 5/6 = re-roll but I like your idea. Issue being for GW though it's another table people have to remember *eyeroll.*
Cyklown 51p · 746 weeks ago
Personally I think a 50/50 chance of who gets to decide would do things just fine.
Kirby 118p · 746 weeks ago
GDMNW · 746 weeks ago
Kirby, when I read this article it occurred to me that if one of your units was Superman you'd be writing about a possible nerf for Kryptonite. I just don't get it.
Land raiders are AV14 all the way around. They can receive cover from other tanks, units that disembark can assault on the turn that they do and sometimes count as having grenades as well...
Melta weaponry is the answer to AV14. Melta weaponry and it's availability is itself a nerf to the awesome power of AV14. The absolute maximum range of the melta special rule is 12". Excepting uber-weapons etc.
I seriously can't believe that you have a problem with this. It's not like melta is guaranteed to take out your precious tank either. Have you seen the BS of most of the people carrying those guns? They're going to miss you at point blank range most of the time. Sure, if you do hit, you will probably penetrate but it isn't guaranteed. It's simply more likely than not.
Your opponent has to bring units with melta to your AV14 tank. This makes him predictable. What you can predict you can counter. It is therefore easy to counter melta. Better yet, since you almost always have a decent assault unit inside a land raider this is a dream come true. Come on. Melta squads must, by definition, be inside your charge range to even think about shooting you.
When people take infantry units worth 250 points a pop they try to look after them so that they can do their job properly. Is it really so hard to throw a screen around your raider? Are you saying it's so tough that GW should do it for you?
Land raiders do not need some sort of ablative armour option. It's a ridiculous idea. What would be the point of Superman without Kryptonite.
Lex: Ah hah, feel the power of my kryptonite ray
SM: Nah Lex, I've used anti-krp sun tan lotion. I'm immune for five minutes
Lex: But, but, you can do everything you need to in five minutes
SM: Sure can.
Lex, why did I bother coming up with this dastardly plan
SM: No idea. This lotion should be called SM auto-win cream.
Lex: Too right. Are you going to arrest me?
SM: Nah. I expect you to play games with me and get beated easily for ever and ever for my own amusement.
Lex: Doesn't sound like much fun for me.
Hmm
7eAL · 746 weeks ago
GDMNW · 746 weeks ago
However, because melta pulls units towards you I'm not entirely sure this is a good thing for either player. A points increase only penalises the player who has to deal with AV14 for wanting to be able to deal with AV14. Leaving things as they are encourages people who use raiders and other AV14 vehicles to up their game.
I, clearly, prefer the latter.
Kirby 118p · 746 weeks ago
There is a discrepancy between the survivability and price of AV10 and AV14. Whether the answer is nerfing meltaguns to being rending or having burnable armor or something else entirely, there is a reason you don't see a lot of Land Raiders running around in top-notch lists. The most basic and spammable of units (sac melta), stops it too easily.
No Superman does not need Kryptonite in a game of balance. Neither should be needed because they aren't balanced. I don't want a rock-paper-scissors game and neither should you.
GDMNW · 746 weeks ago
I think you're ignoring a few things to make your point sound stronger than it is. You are suggesting that land raider should be x times tougher than rhinos.
The equation you propose to identify x is this one. x = 250/35 Which puts x at a little over 7. Pretty steep, and your point sounds good because melta experiences no where near that level of increased difficulty when dealing with AV14 over AV11.
Let's look at some non-survivability factors that influence the equation:
POTMS: -35
Assault vehicle: -35
Twin-Linked Lascannons: 2 x 35
Twin-Linked Assault Cannons: 35
Increased capacity: 20
Three variants: 25
Assault launchers: 20
That comes to an additional 240 points worth of cool stuff over a rhino. Let's have it because both die to melta just the same. That leaves us with -120 as a factor.
The new equation is x = (250-120) / 35. That comes out to just under four and does not include the fact that land raiders can weather pretty much everything other than melta fire while rhinos cannot.
Where is the huge discrepancy now? It doesn't exist. A straight comparison which doesn't account for the stack of advantages a land raider has over rhinos just isn't on.
As for melta being predictable. Yes it is. Why can't you do something about it? Put a squad around the tank, put some rhinos around the tank, whatever you want, it's worth doing. What about the fact that your opponent is spending money on a unit just to stop your tank? There's a lot you can do to stop scout moves, infiltrators and deep strike. All of which is worth doing.
I don't think it's as cut and paste as you seem to suggest.
Kirby 118p · 746 weeks ago
It's again about balance as madtroll points out.
Putting Rhinos or squads in front of your Land Raider demands self-blocking. I will happily throw a squad into the bubble-wrap squad or aim to immoblise that Rhino and suddenly your Raider is stuck. High AV and large tanks should generally lead armored spear heads because of their survivability. Melta laughs at this concept one you reach a certain range and the proposals are based around this. Whether it's nerfing melta so it's still a very good option against lighter tanks (which is why they are used currently; yes they are great against AV14 and a safety net in that regard but they are also very reliable against lighter tanks after the to hit roll) or adding some sort of upgrade/rules change which makes those tanks in some way more survivable (maybe just in relation to melta) without undoing their balance against other weapons.
This isn't talking about stopping offensive melta against AV14 as we aren't discussing AV14 in this particular discussion. Notice how Russes aren't being discussed but Land Raiders. The tanks which towards you and pay for their survivability have issues in relation to mech survivability compared to other tanks in 5th edition.
GDMNW · 746 weeks ago
I still think that the "once you reach a certain range" is sort of the point. Land raiders are ideal for leading the way. They'll survive anything. Until they're close to the enemy, at which point I think they've done the most important part of their job. Delivery.
You can block drop pods and deep strikers with flanking rhinos or troops and still have room to drive your land raider through the gaps.
Look, I'm sorry. If melta really is totally ubiquitous in the environment you play in then your suggestion is a good one. But in the clubs where I play melta is limited to marine armies and isn't that prevalent in those. My single raider does fine and is always at the tip of my armoured column. If it's different where you play then your argument makes a lot more sense.
Kirby 118p · 746 weeks ago
A single rock unit has it's own issues which we won't go into here and yes, heavy AV should generally lead armored columns. But you're flipflopping backwards and forwards here. You're saying melta isn't a huge issue because you can defend your land raider, then you're saying it's always leading your speartip and talking about blockings pods/deep-strikers from the Raider flanks with Rhinos (which means it's not leading the speartip) when the most basic of sac melta moves forward and shoots. Sure deepstrike/outflank melta is also good but it generally doesn't deal with Raiders and aims to disrupt movement and backfield units. Simple sac melta is going to stop a land raider and the reason the land raider is discussed is because it is moving towards the opponent which overcomes the biggest limitation of meltaguns in range. Battlewagons also have this issue but they have a bigger issue of having a narrow facing and can easily get side shots. You don't see Russes mentioned because they are generally in the backfield and only lead an armored push if the opponent has issues with AV14, etc.
GDMNW · 746 weeks ago
Kirby 118p · 746 weeks ago
madtroll 20p · 746 weeks ago
so you waste your assault on a throw away 5 man melta squad and then spend the next turn getting shot up by the rest of the opponents army?
Melta spam is ridiculous right now and it makes units like land raiders pointless. You don't like land raiders or AV14 so don't care but how can we rebalance the game so that people that do like their AV14 can justifiably run them without reversing the trend in favor of AV14.
I don't see anything wrong with looking for balance.
TheKingElessar 71p · 746 weeks ago
GDMNW · 746 weeks ago
Some squads which try to melta you are worth charging. Not all, but some. It's not always suicide melta, and some suicide melta is sufficiently expensive that it justifies getting out and CC'ing it.
madtroll 20p · 746 weeks ago
If someone was throwing in a little melta "just in case" they faced a Land Raider, then yeah, you as a player need to learn how to play against melta.
But that's not what is going on.
Whats going on is spam lists where almost every single unit in every single slot has melta in it.
Melta dreads in elites, melta speeders in fast, double melta scoring units.
A land raider is a waste of points against 90% of the competitive lists you see posted on the web.
Melta is simultaneously the best anti-tank and cheapest anti-tank. Somethings wrong with that.
Now we have people discussing on how to make tanks AV13 and higher "better" because they are destroyed just as easy as AV11 when faced with melta spam.
You make those tanks harder to kill and now all the non-marine players are penalized because they don't have access to anti-tank the way marines do.
I think the best solution is to cost melta differently. sure it has shorter range than a lascannon but kills tanks 4x as well.
This would require all new marine books to change and the internet would threaten to quit so probably not gonna happen.
GDMNW · 746 weeks ago
I guess I think that melta is manageable because of it's limitation, i.e. range. If you can keep units 7" away, or (13" with MM's) from your tank then they're just not so hot any more.
Perhaps players in my area don't take as much melta as they do elsewhere. My raider tends to last the game out largely unscathed 60% of the time. It's a rock unit that works where I come from.
GDMNW · 746 weeks ago
tzeentchling 76p · 746 weeks ago
#2501 · 746 weeks ago
In contrast, Lances don't, and reduce armor besides, turning your AV14 Land Raider into and AV12 Land Raider. That beats out even the venerable Lascannon. Sure ten Eldar are still shit against the mob in CC...
I like the ablative armor idea, particularly since it's so simple and in use today. From a fluff standpoint you're not really coming up with something new either, so I could see them adapting it in, say, the Sabbat Worlds or some like battle theater where there's a lot of armor bouncing around.
Erwos · 746 weeks ago
It just might be time to accept that people are a little too well-prepared for in-your-face and light-medium mech these days.
Ablative armor is not a bad idea, but pricing it is going to be brutal.
Nyhil · 746 weeks ago
It was a vehicle upgrade that allowed you to ignore the first penetrating hit altogether.
GDMNW · 746 weeks ago
Desc440 · 746 weeks ago
I think the best idea is to give melta D6 + D3 pen.
As for the one gun issue:
-Roll a D6 for each Weapon Destroyed result.
-On a 1-2-3, the owning player chooses the weapon destroyed.
-On a 4-5-6, the opposing player chooses.
Fenlok · 746 weeks ago
I think abundance of melta's is because they're the ONLY reliable answer to a Land Raider. So stop running LR's and I'll drop down on melta.
Kirby 118p · 746 weeks ago
Themain reason it's an issue for Raiders is they are moving forward and are super vulnerable to the meltagun...but their whole purpose gets them close to meltaguns and for 250 points they are an over glorified transport. You'll find without meltaguns these guys are annoying to deal with which is why the concept of structure points was shot down.
Melta is just good against anything and when you can spam melta and suppression fire (think Immo spam with autocannons), you've got all of your bases covered. Lascannons, etc. have the advantage of range over melta weaponry but I'd rather 10 meltas than 10 lascannons in most lists though the obvious compromise is 5 of both, etc.
GreyICE · 746 weeks ago
TheKingElessar 71p · 746 weeks ago
madtroll 20p · 746 weeks ago
Lascannons can be one per squad or 4 per heavy slot while melta can have 2 per 5 man troops choice.
Youve got throw away 60 point MMelta speeders in the fast slot.
I remember the "meta" switch from long range AT in 4th edition to short range melta in 5th because I was playing SoB at the time and all my AT was melta already. I was already doing suicide stormtrooper squads for killing tanks. Put I also took plasma for killing terms and rending flamers for mass inf killing.
If I faced a landraider a smart player could keep my AT more than 6" away from his AV14.
But the game has changed now.
Now we have drop pod spam and 2 melta guns in each pod. We have dreads with Multimeltas and super cheap landspeeders with multimeltas.
Multimelta on a dread is the default option now, you have to pay extra points to *not* have a multimelta on your dread.
Transports are stupid cheap so rushing your suicide squad into range is easy.
melta spam popped up in 5th edition because 80% of all players play marines and the new marine book gave players tons and tons of melta for next to zero sacrifice.
But now we have this weapon that is so good at killing tanks that AV14 and AV11 might as well be the same thing to it.
It's not only the best option but its the cheapest as well.
MarshalLaeroth 52p · 746 weeks ago
Cam · 746 weeks ago
TheKingElessar 71p · 746 weeks ago
Only give it to shit like Vindicators, Looted Wagons, Fire Prisms...stuff that dies without the main weapon. *Self-Edit* - maybe Artillery too? lol
Kirby 118p · 746 weeks ago
Artillery needs an overhaul unless you mean things like Griffons/Bassies/etc then hmm prob not to them as they are generally weak tanks rather than battletanks with an extra big (and lonley) gun.
TheKingElessar 71p · 746 weeks ago
IG 'artillery' should stay as is. Only mainline vehicles with 'One-Gun' syndrome need a rethink.
Vindicators, Prisms, mayyybe Predators (maybe just Chaos ones, tbh) Demolishers, LRBT...Monolith? Looted Wagon, Battlewagon etc.
VT2 79p · 746 weeks ago
madtroll 20p · 746 weeks ago
What if the melta firing player had to pick between 2d6 pen or ap1?
make the choice before rolling to hit obviously.
Sly · 746 weeks ago
Compare it to an Ironclad Dread, which has the option of AP1 (seismic hammer) or extra d6 (chainfist), and give melta only one of those bonuses.
It would also indirectly boost Bolt of Change, which can use it, as well as the few other weapons that have AP1... I can't recall many as being anything that people consider spamming (if they have a choice, which Daemons do not).
Waltz 4p · 746 weeks ago
madtroll 20p · 746 weeks ago
loudanddeep 48p · 746 weeks ago
Sure, marine players hate getting their precious tanks killed by meltas. Know what? So does everyone else (well, not necrons).
If I have to learn to deal with my other armies, I can learn to deal with it while playing my marines.
Sure, no longer can I move about on the field with relative impunity....guess what, when I play my other armies I can't either.
Ask tau what they think about a weapon destroyed result on a hammerhead? Not a lot of sympathy there.
(I suggest everyone try tau, it will give you a lot of perspective and make you a better player).
Also, last time I checked all of the other armies out there are overloaded with melta's.
If we buff land raiders, what does that do to orks? Or nids, or necrons?
Oh, so maybe those buffs only count when we play army X?
that will go over well.
In the end, yeah, sure, it sucks when a land raider gets ganked...yeah, thats the game. You didn't pop smoke? Or make sure he had a cover save? Or have screeners out there to keep them away from your broadsides? I mean land raiders.
So, if you really want to start messing with the rules....how about making melta's upgrades triple the cost.
I am sure oks/necrons/tau/nids/eldar would be fine with that.
No, wait, this is just about me and my land raider.
Kirby 118p · 746 weeks ago
What this post is about, is looking at ways to overcome weaknesses to single gun tanks. Hammerheads included. Not at fixing mech defenses like the last post where the concept of structure points was shot down for all of the reasons you pointed out. I agree with these points after they were pointed out and explained and have dropped the concept but there is still a discrepency between LRs and other tanks and one-gun tanks and other tanks which need to be fixed for balance. Having options like Whirlwinds, Land Raiders, Vindicators, some Artillery from IG, Fire Prisms, Exorcists, Hammerheads, etc. all be quite expensive and then useless when their gun gets shot off is bad for game balance. Notice that many of those vehicles aren't used much if at all because of their weaknesses.
loudanddeep 48p · 746 weeks ago
I have not done quantitative research on the point breakdowns for many of the "single gun" tanks.
Yes, I agree that it sucks to lose a railgun on a hammerhead (as tau don't have a lot of other options) or even on a vindicator (I know some people think they are not great...I just love the model). At least my vindicator is significantly cheaper than a land raider (tau are still way over costed, but thats the peril of an older codex, somewhat).
If we were going to "address" things, and actually change rules (someone here have GW's ear that I don't know about?), then I would say fix the melta proliferation. Or give them to all armies, then fix the tanks.
Otherwise, as pointed out, this leaves tau/nids/orks and others out.
(a piranha may not live to make a second shot).
Tragically, the "melta-genie" is out of the bottle and I fear it will be difficult to put back in.
Finally, any solution which is found for the "single gun" tanks will have to be balanced for the tanks that can have an abundance of guns (i.e. most guard vehicles), which is why a pure random roll would not work (maybe a roll off, winner picks which weapon destroyed?).
Regardless thank you very much for your insights and constructive commentary.
Kirby 118p · 746 weeks ago
To your points...
Melta is the major issue for Land Raiders, there's no doubt about it. They are also hugely reliable against normal tanks but ensuring all armies can get melta is too uni-dimensional IMO. See Heat Lances as the new best thing for DE in their fast slots. Changes simply to point costs or making them AP2 of giving certain tanks AP1 defense (i.e. no AP1 +1) or on their single guns (certain single gun tanks get Venerable re-rolls when a weapondestroyed is rolled? this makes the tank more likely to be destroyed though...), etc.
With all the above ideas I think some sort of burnable armor upgrade which can be used once and before the roll, an AP1 upgrade (where AP1 is relegated to AP2), or allowing the owner to pick (or a roll-off) the destroyed weapon are all solid concepts.
Coverfire · 742 weeks ago
Coverfire · 742 weeks ago
Sounds like players are suggesting to alter Melta weapons rather then vehicles. At +D3 a melta weapons could only glance a Rhino. I suggest Melta weapons roll 2D6 and pick the highest when penetrating armour, keep the AP1. This will mean it can still glance a Land Raider and be pretty effective against APCs.
Kirby 118p · 742 weeks ago
Incarno · 703 weeks ago
- Ordnance Weapons get a 4+ roll against Weapon Destroyed. If it is passed it counts as Crew Stunned instead.
- Burnable Extra Armour
- Removing Crew Shaken from the Penetrating Hit table, shifting all results down and adding a worse Explosion result (ie St4 hit on passangers and ignores Armour Saves)
- Nerfing Melta to +d3 or 3d3
- Changing Gets Hot! to inflicting a St4 hit instead of an automatic wound
- Ordnance Weapons count every unsaved wound inflicted as 2 wounds.