I'm super busy again this weekend sorry guys. We are working on getting that letter template to Games Workshop together (and thanks for all of your submissions so far). I am impressed by the response GW Australia has given it's customers. I still don't agree with the huge increase in mark-up but at least this branch of GW appears to be listening. I'd love to see the numbers to justify such a huge mark-up increase and as I, and many others have said before, am happy to pay a preimum (i.e. 20% extra) but 50%+ seems excessive. Keep at it guys!
You'll also be happy to know my Grey Knights are coming along though finishing them this time next week will be a challenge. Regardless, here is a user e-mail about tanks in 6th edition which should generate some discussion and has some interesting insights.
Kirby,
I've been pondering your article on how GW should imporved tanks - especially those currently suffering from "one gun, then done" syndrome. I think I've come up with a solution that you may find interesting enough to share with your readership.
Before I get to that, I have one outstanding pet peeve that I really want to see GW correct in 6th Edition, I ned to address it first, as it will effect the rest of my remarks. Ahem. GW calls too many things Tanks that ain't Tanks! Just as sailors the world-over get annoyed when people misuse the terms "ship" and "boat," treadheads tend to get annoyed when people call anything with armor and tracks a "tank." GW uses tank as a vehicle classification much too broadly, the majority of the vehicle classes are based on the locomotive properties of the vehilce: walker, skimmer, flyer, and tank. This bugs me, and I want GW to switch to the much more logical classifications of: walker, skimmer, flyer, wheeled, and tracked... wheeled vehicles would move a bit faster than tracked (say 8") but only on open ground and have a harder time with difficult terrain. Tracked would be the "default" just like in 5th.
Now, on to the heart of my e-mail. As you and your readers have pointed out, there exists a signifigant problem with the way tanks work in WH40K 5th Edition. However, abalative or burnable armour seems too be too complicated and structure points seems to be overkill. I propose that all of GW's vehicles be reclassed by locomotive type (above) and that some of them be assigned the "Tank" special quality (similar to the way fast or lumbering is assigned). When a Tank suffers a Weapon Destroyed result on the damage table, the tank owner's opponent may choose to destroy one of its secondary weapons _or_ inflict one point of damage on the primary weapon. Primary weapons would require two points of damage to destroy, but would be unable to shoot during the following shooting phase (as if Stunned).
The following would be Tracked Tanks under my scheme: [IG] Leman Russ (all variants), Hellhound (all variants), Destroyer Tank Hunter, Thunderer Siege Tank, Macharius, and Malcador; [SM] Predator (all variants), Vindicator, Sabre Tank Hunter; [Chaos] Predator (all variants); [Inq] Exorcist... Skimmer Tanks under my scheme would include: [Tau] Hammerhead, Skyray; [Eldar] Falcon, Fireprism, Night Spinner, Warp Hunter... The Ork Battlewagon could be made either tracked or wheeled; the Defiler would be a Walker Tank; the Monolith would be a Skimmer Tank.
The Rhino, Razorback, Chimera, and just about every other transport in the game would NOT be Tanks. The game would finally have a real distinction between IFVs, APCs, and proper Tanks!
- Ajax
Things like this have certainly been discussed before and it would require GW to make changes to older books as new descriptions came in though it does help address the issues 'structure points' raise as well as attempting to solve the issue expensive or one gun tanks have currently.
Logging you in...
necroninja 36p · 725 weeks ago
I think that distinguishing b/t Wheeled and Tracked vehicles would be a bit too much detail for GW, however.
SandWyrm · 724 weeks ago
Personally, I'd say that if a tracked vehicle gets immobilized on terrain, that it's only immobilized for that turn. Not subsequent turns.
necroninja 36p · 724 weeks ago
Also, I think that, instead of speeding up Wheeled Vehicles GW should slow down Tracked Vehicles. Perhaps by giving them all the Lumbering Behemoth rule from the Lehman Russes?
Neil · 724 weeks ago
Pretty much just Ork vehicles. And guess what, tracked ork vehicles are less likely to get immobilised than wheeled ork vehicles.
myreknight · 724 weeks ago
Garnet · 724 weeks ago
necroninja 36p · 724 weeks ago
I guess I forgot to clarify: This is in a hypothetical universe where everybody pays fair prices for Transports. Obviously, as things currently stand, making armies like Tau pay even more is unfair.
The more I think about it, though, the more I think Tank Shock should be an ability for ALL vehicles.
Kadeton · 725 weeks ago
artaxerxes · 724 weeks ago
Comrade · 724 weeks ago
As are tanks based off the Chimera chassis.
It all just seems needless and complicated.
Plus, the argument that burnable armor is too complicated is moot as I'm pretty sure the DE have such a thing. Just rework the rule to knock any result down a point on the charge, or give some sort of save that gets taken out either after first use or after the first time the player fails the roll.
Or just allow the owning player to choose which weapon is destroyed. Suddenly that pointless Stormbolter/hunterkiller/spon you can buy for most tanks becomes a worthwhile investment.
Comrade · 724 weeks ago
Whats the problem, exactly? I must have missed it. I mean if we're gonna get into specifics, tanks like the Vindicator are the first thing to come to mind (my mind, at least), then the problem itself lays more with the specific vehicle and its role on the field/codex, not so much tanks in the game at large. Tanks like the vindicator are sort of a high risk/high reward sort of venture, Which could be solved by just letting the player pick the gun that suffers the 'weapon destroyed' result. Its exactly the same as giving a main weapon two lives (in a manner of speaking).
If there is any problem with vehicles in 5th its that there's so little incentive not to take one. The mobility it grants to an army more often then not out weights the points it costs to field one. If you were going to fix the supremacy of vehicles in 5th, your efforts would probably be better spent on making infantry better. Which is why there is usually ample cover on most boards.
*Also, that should be "Chart" not "Charge"
Jason · 724 weeks ago
htmLord · 724 weeks ago
Also, inspired by another poster's comment, Reactive Armor: "Provides a -1 modifier for damage results against this tank"
Desc440 · 724 weeks ago
JeffF · 724 weeks ago
Sethis · 724 weeks ago
Tarkwin · 724 weeks ago
Sethis · 724 weeks ago
Obviously you would have to rebalance certain things.
Karvala · 724 weeks ago
Kire22 · 724 weeks ago
Angelust16 · 724 weeks ago
Something along those lines.
Kirby 118p · 724 weeks ago
TheWolfsLunch 61p · 724 weeks ago
Daniel · 724 weeks ago
Maybe change the numbers a little, but the basic idea of 2d6 is good imho.
Antebellum · 724 weeks ago
Digilante · 724 weeks ago
Rubbish Blog · 724 weeks ago
Marshal_Wilhelm 71p · 724 weeks ago
58 pt Templar Rhinos are still good. Therefore 35 pt Ultra Rhinos are too cheap. I know it was done to get the units sold, but too cheap is too cheap. Or you could change the damage tables so AV gets blown up more easily.
Either way, you are making AV less effective in a bang-for-buck situation, thereby reducing the bargain they are in terms of points, making them less likely to get bought with $$$
That is really the problem - GW wants to shift the units, so they make them 'too good'. If they weren't great value, people wouldn't spend the money and would just stick with Foot.
You either make them fair, and people won't bother with them. Or you make them great value, and they tamper with the game.
They can't be great value and fair and get sold, unless I am missing something....
Simple rules are better rules, imo. I've played from Rogue Trader to Necromunda/Confrontation to Blood Bowl. Blood Bowl is a much more fun game to play, uses tactics just the same, and is a far simpler game than the other three I've mentioned.
If one gun tanks are too weak, keep them at the same weakness, just make them cheaper.
deleted2725480 36p · 724 weeks ago
Heavy armour (e.g. Predator, Land Raider, Leman Russ, etc.) should have a type that gives them -1 on the Damage Chart making them in effect the opposite of Open-Topped vehicles. This makes it harder to kill them but easier to suppress them, and the only thing that will Explode them is AP1 which is appropriate.
I think that any non-Defensive Weapon should be classed as a Primary Weapon and that vehicles should have a 4++ or 5++ save against Weapon Destroyed results on a Primary Weapon. This would balance one-gun tanks and forces players to consider the choice of guaranteed destruction of a vehicle's Defensive Weapon or taking a chance on breaking its Primary Weapon.
Some sort of Ablative Armour upgrade that either nullifies the first Penetrating Hit suffered or gives you a save against it would also be feasible seeing as Smoke Launchers already do a similar thing.
Karvala · 724 weeks ago
Maybe things are different in your neck of the woods, but mech armies have become the Kings of 5E almost everywhere. Making vehicles even harder to deal with just kills off all other army types.
One-gun tanks don't really need 'balancing' right now. An autocannon predator at 60 points *should* have a weakness. A Vindicator at 115 points *needs* that vulnerability.
Your heavy armor suggestion will take the already huge gap in anti-tank effectiveness between melta-weapons and everything else, and turn it into a chasm. Melta-equipped armies would spam them even more, and non-melta armies - Orks, Tyranids, Necrons, get kicked in the balls..... hard....
Kirby 118p · 724 weeks ago
I agree with your sentiment with improving mech though, it doesn't need it but rather a tweak. Expensive tanks which need to get close (hi Land Raiders) die too easily to meltaguns and tanks with a single gun are generally useless piles of junk against most of the damage chart. These need to be minimised whilst not making mech stronger and most likely increasing the impact mech has on passengers (and not going all the way back to 4th ed bullshit).
Karvala · 724 weeks ago
Melta weapons are just in a league of their own when it comes to anti-tank:
S8 and rolling 2d6 for armor penetration makes the difference between AV10 and AV14 pretty minimal, making a mockery of heavy armor vehicles
AP1 for +1 on the damage table is also a huge bonus - vehicle destroyed on 4+, and only a 1/6 chance of non-permanent damage.
So what is the downside of melta?
It must be expensive then? Not really, 10 points for a meltagun, it's cheaper than plasma.
It must only be available only to specialised units then? Only for Eldar, Imperial armies especially can spam it all over the place.
It must be pretty useless against non-vehicles then? S8 AP1 - ignores armor and can ID most targets, seems pretty dual purpose to me.....
It must have a really short range then? Actually yes, the range is fairly short, a problem which is largely solved by using small sacrificial suicide melta squads to take out high-value targets. (Trade a tri-melta IG veteran squad for a dead landraider? yes please!)
If melta is not so widespread on the tabletop, then heavy armor vehicles start being very survivable. It takes a LOT of lascannons to kill a LR. Balancing the availability/cost of melta is (IMO) a better solution to vehicles than changing the vehicle rules.
Regarding single weapon tanks, taking the classic example of the Vindicator. If it loses a weapon it becomes pretty useless. But.... it is a relatively inexpensive unit considering the armor (13/11/10) and the gun (24" S10 AP1 ordnance large blast). Making it harder to neutralise the weapon would mean that the points cost (115 base) of the unit would have to take a significant jump upwards. It would also add to the slope of the already tilted pitch in favor of mech armies, which is not a good thing.
Vindicators and similar tanks are by no means unusable, but do mainly act as fire magnets and getting more than 1 or 2 shots off from them is pretty unusual.
Comrade · 724 weeks ago
From reading the comments, the majority want a knee-jerk-like nerfing of all tanks to help... uh... balance them. You know, like taking the fat kid from one side of the see-saw and putting him on the other.
Karvala · 724 weeks ago
Melta weapons don't really care what your AV value is - it's likely to tear holes in you whether you are AV10 or AV14. Since you are likely to face a significant number of melta-weapons in any competitive situation, basing your army off of expensive high AV vehicles is probably not going to be a winning solution. Spamming low AV weapon platforms that can also transport troops - that works pretty well though.....
deleted2725480 36p · 724 weeks ago
In contrast, doing something like what I suggested would balance melta by helping certain vehicles mitigate the currently overwhelming power of those spammable 10 pt meltaguns. The primary benefit of melta is +1 on the Damage Chart; the +D6 penetration is a bonus really since you generally only need that against one vehicle in the entire game (since everything else with AV13/14 on one facing has weaker AV elsewhere). If you give certain vehicles the property of -1 on the Damage Chart then melta is still good, but it's no longer ridiculously good.
One-gun tanks do need a buff. They would not require a points increase if they got a buff like the one I suggested because they would still cost a valuable Heavy Support slot that is (currently) better used on something with more redundancy, for example a Predator. In the current system the Predator is a clearly better choice than the Vindicator, but an improvement to one-gun tanks would make both units equally valid choices. This is what leads to diverse armies and is good for the game in general.
Karvala · 724 weeks ago
Your suggestion makes heavy armor more resistant to everything, making even lascannons pretty much worthless against high AV vehicles, and melta/AP1 lance becomes the ONLY really effective anti-heavy tank weapons. Your suggestion just feeds the need for meltaspam (and really screws armies like orks and tyranids that already have issues against heavy armor).
Antebellum · 724 weeks ago
N.I.B. · 724 weeks ago
Tanks doesn't need improvement, it's transports that needs to be nerfed.
Ajax · 724 weeks ago
As for the first commentor, I propossed no change to the Tank Shock rules at all. A 50-ton armored box is going to squish infantry whether or not it has wheels, treads, or xenos grav-plates... it just bugs me for semantic reasons that GW calls things Tanks that ain't tanks!
Cambrian · 724 weeks ago
FIrst, I agree outright making all vehicles even better would be a step in the wrong direction (if anything the lower end transports of the imperial armies need nerfing: rhinos, razers, chimeras, etc...). Karvala is absolutely right about melta weapons. The combination of reliable penetration and the damage chart bonus makes them by far the best AT option. How often do you hear talk in the chatbawks about a list having "enough melta". I can think of a few rules such as lance and melta that greatly disadvantages higher AV vehicles but nothing that does the same for lower AV (which isn't bad until you see how high AV is costed). Single weapon vehicles probably should see special rules to protect the main weapon. It's not like a vindicator would be overpowered if its role was responsibly made more reliable.
So some sort of weapon protection for single gun non-transport vehicles and a reduction of melta's effectiveness (roll an additional d3 like rending, rather than d6) would help balance heavy vehicles relative to light transports. Now to balance transports to their cost making them more vulnerable to high damage weapons would be a good start.
Something a +1 bonus to the damage charts for every 2 points over an attack penetrates by would be an option (I blast a rhino with a lascannon and roll a 5 for a pen: 5+9 = 14 -11av = 3, so I would get +1 on the damage table). This would work better on a 2d6 scale where there is more variation. Also having the scale more spread out would allow special weapons rules on the damage chart to be more practical as a +1 bonus is not nearly as game changing. Those special rules would mean a weapon could then be more specialized to an AT role because as Karvala has brought up a s8 AP1 melta weapon is great no matter who it is shooting at (eldar avatar aside). However a s6 AP4 weapon with bonuses to the penetration and/or damage tables can be just as good against a vehicle while not exceptional against infantry.
Lastly from a common sense perspective low AP weapons should be better at penetrating a vehicle; not damaging it... Damage potential is a property of the strength, not its AP. The current +1 on the damage table for an AP1 weapon makes about as much sense as it would if a melta weapon would of cause an additional wound.
Ajax · 724 weeks ago
Armor Values would remain basically the same value, but penetration would be the weapon's Strength + (6 - AP); tie the AV and do one wound, beat the AV and do d3 wounds... Melta always does multiple wounds and gets d6 within its short range.
At least, that's what I'd do if I got to write the new rules.
Kirby 118p · 724 weeks ago
Cambrian · 724 weeks ago
Furthermore, as Kirby mentioned, a high wound system similar to MCs would also lack the suppression and utility limitations that the current system has. Even at 4 wounds a transport would still benefit to a greater degree than a fire platform as the transport's job is to provide mobility and protection which is most advantageous in the early game. Being able to ignore the chance of an early destruction (and suppression of stun/immobilized results) would increase the ability of transports to fulfill the early game role.
I still feel that changes to how the damage chart functions is key to solving the issue.
> Separate the ability to penetrate from the damage a shot does. (Low AP does not get a bonus on the damage table but a bonus to pen)
> A shift to a 2d6 would increase the variance of results and allow more fine control in the effect of tank busting abilities. (the current +1 of AP1 weapons would be less)
> An added save, chance to repair a damaged main gun on select vehicles (perhaps if they remain stationary for a turn), or some other mechanism to help fire-platforms not be so vulnerable.
> Heavier tanks getting a small number of structure points (perhaps 2 for a predator/vindi/etc, 2-3 for a raider/russ/mono).
Marcin Ciszewicz · 724 weeks ago