How To Improve Space Marine Tanks

[L30n1d4s]

I wonder if, instead a big points drop, vehicles across the game got a rule to increase their durability a little (not too much, or then we would be back to 5th edition imperial guard parking lot style lists again).

 

My thought is something like the following:

 

"Armoured Fortress" -- Vehicles with 10 or more wounds get 6+++ FNP for attacks that are less than Dmg3. If they already have a FNP save, like Iron Hands, then they bump up to a 5+++.

 

 

The idea here is two-fold:

 

1 - Provide the medium/heavy vehicles (i.e. 10W or more) with a bit of a boost so they can survive in the current game, especially with the loss of Core status.

 

2 - Represent in the game how vehicles are very durable against almost any kind of attack that is not a dedicated anti-tank weapon (i.e. 3 Dmg and above... this means most Plasma Guns and below, which are what make vehicles to obsolete right now, are a bit less effective against them).

Edited January 19, 2021 by L30n1d4s

[Dracos]

Assault and Rapid-fire count as 1 less AP? Something subtle that doesn't warrant a points increase?

[McGibs]

I agree that I'd rather have vehicles given a durability boost rather than a points discount. I think the design team could play with the range of stat ranges a lot more in the same way they've been willing to do with infantry wounds and toughness. Infantry runs the gamit all the way from T2 W1 Sv7+, to nurgle terminators at T5 W3 Sv 2+,4++ with -1 damage. I don't see why vehicles shouldnt have the same range to play with. Currently there's only slight distinctions between light, medium, and heavy vehicles, usually just a handful of wounds and T6 to T8.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Yea, the mechanical shift really did traditionally tough vehicles dirty. As armarnis said they uncapped the statline and then...didn't do much with it beyond wounds. They also threw away the APsystem, AV system and the strength to toughness ratios....And didn't really change any statlines to better suit the new way. Just the exact same rules for the most part now interacting with less survivability.

 

Dedicated anti tank should be able to blast them. But street sweepers and even plasma should have relatively little effect on the biggest tanks like land raiders, russes, and the like. Be that stats, or rules baked in.

[Karhedron]

As it stands, most Astartes tanks need a buff or a discount. I like the idea posted earlier about uncapping stats. Moving the really big tanks like Land Raiders and Repulsors to T9 would actually go a long way to making them viable. Now meltas and overcharged plasma only wound on a 5+ and lascannons on a 4+. It wouldn't make them indestructible but it would emphasize their advanced armour and construction over the larger but cruder Guard super-heavy tanks.

[Closet Skeleton]

Make all gladiator variants 200 points, free Auto launchers, Icarus rocket pod and Ironhail heavy stubber. Having those upgrades be free along with being 200 points would at least make them a consideration. Better yet also allow for old vehicle squadrons on top, 1-3 a slot, act independently. Saving HS slots on marine vehicles via squadrons would justify their current points premiums more. 

 

The Lancer is already over-costed at 200, making the better variants costing the same as it isn't going to solve anything. Knocking 30 points off all of them would make more sense.

[9x19 Parabellum]

As usual, I think looking to the real-world would make everything better and balance it out.

 

I would do all of the following for vehicles:

 

1. Give every vehicle in the game a new rule called "Weak point". The weak point would be defined as the exact center of the rear-most part of the vehicle. If the attacking unit can see the "Weak point", they Toughness and Armor Save is reduced by 1. 

 

2. Change the main gun(s) on vehicles from "heavy" to "ordnance".  Ordnance weapons would get the following universal rules:

-minimum weapon range (something like around 12")

-never is allowed to fire overwatch

-can fire at any target it wants, despite being in combat (obeying the minimum weapon ranges, as above).

 

3. All non-supersonic vehicles with 10+ wounds, and/or Titanic vehicles are always +1 to be shot.  They are big targets, they should be easy to lock-onto and hit.

 

4. Give vehicles the ability to move through any kind of terrain, however, they suffer 1 damage any time they move over or through anything that would be "difficult" for them.

 

5. ***CRAZY-ASS THOUGHT***  Maybe have vehicles work something like Armada...where instead of move and shoot, they have to skip the move phase.  They shoot in the shoot phase, and then they are allowed to move in the Charge Phase.

[L30n1d4s]

@Parabellum,

 

While realistic (I am in the military in real life, so I agree with most of your points here), how do any of these make vehicles more competitive in 40K? These all seem like nerfs (except shooting when tied up in combat), so this would make vehicles even less playable than they currently already are in 9th edition.

Edited January 19, 2021 by L30n1d4s

[Gederas]

As usual, I think looking to the real-world would make everything better and balance it out.

 

I would do all of the following for vehicles:

 

1. Give every vehicle in the game a new rule called "Weak point". The weak point would be defined as the exact center of the rear-most part of the vehicle. If the attacking unit can see the "Weak point", they Toughness and Armor Save is reduced by 1. 

 

2. Change the main gun(s) on vehicles from "heavy" to "ordnance".  Ordnance weapons would get the following universal rules:

-minimum weapon range (something like around 12")

-never is allowed to fire overwatch

-can fire at any target it wants, despite being in combat (obeying the minimum weapon ranges, as above).

 

3. All non-supersonic vehicles with 10+ wounds, and/or Titanic vehicles are always +1 to be shot.  They are big targets, they should be easy to lock-onto and hit.

 

4. Give vehicles the ability to move through any kind of terrain, however, they suffer 1 damage any time they move over or through anything that would be "difficult" for them.

 

5. ***CRAZY-ASS THOUGHT***  Maybe have vehicles work something like Armada...where instead of move and shoot, they have to skip the move phase.  They shoot in the shoot phase, and then they are allowed to move in the Charge Phase.

Another crazy thought:

 

Bring back Facings/Armour Value.

 

But instead of the janky ones like previous editions, make the Armour Values the same as Toughness. So a Land Raider would be 8/8/7 or something and the Gladiators would be 8/7/6.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

The problem IMO is really the AP system, treating a Predator's armour as if it provides the same protection as the power armour worn by a marine just doesn't cut it. I'm not suggesting every tank should have an invul, as Lascannons should be melting through armour. But tanks shouldn't be affected by the first one or two points of AP. 

My suggestion is simple, tanks should ignore the first two points of AP. Heavier tanks, maybe more, it's a small change, but I think it would help a lot.

I also like the idea of going higher in toughness brackets, and increasing toughness for some of the tanks. Why is the Hunter/Stalker T8 and a Predator only T7? 

[L30n1d4s]

Hmmm, interesting ideas here.... what if they retroactively gave vehicles either "Light Vehicle," "Medium Vehicle," or Heavy Vehicle" key words, kind of like how they retroactively added "Blast" to weapons across the game?

 

 

"Light Vehicles" would be T5-T6 (i.e. Speeders, Buggys, etc) and would ignore AP-1

 

"Medium Vehicles" would be T7 (i.e. majority of vehicles in the game) and would ignore AP-1 and AP-2

 

"Heavy Vehicles would be T8+ (i.e. Land Raiders, Custodes unique Dreads, Super Heavies, etc.) and would ignore AP-1, AP-2, and AP-3.

 

This would make all vehicles better against small arms, medium vehicles more survivable, and the really tough ones, like Land Raiders, require truly dedicated anti-tank weapons to bring them down.

[Gederas]

Hmmm, interesting ideas here.... what if they retroactively gave vehicles either "Light Vehicle," "Medium Vehicle," or Heavy Vehicle" key words, kind of like how they retroactively added "Blast" to weapons across the game?

 

 

"Light Vehicles" would be T5-T6 (i.e. Speeders, Buggys, etc) and would ignore AP-1

 

"Medium Vehicles" would be T7 (i.e. majority of vehicles in the game) and would ignore AP-1 and AP-2

 

"Heavy Vehicles would be T8+ (i.e. Land Raiders, Custodes unique Dreads, Super Heavies, etc.) and would ignore AP-1, AP-2, and AP-3.

 

This would make all vehicles better against small arms, medium vehicles more survivable, and the really tough ones, like Land Raiders, require truly dedicated anti-tank weapons to bring them down.

I'd love that to be honest.

 

 

I can also hear Imperial Fists players crying about "Muh Superdoctrine Nerfed again!" with that though. So all's good :lol:

[SkimaskMohawk]

Yea that sounds great. Gets around chip damage, which honestly makes no sense. Tanks don't get whittled down; either the shot doesn't make it through the armour or it does and something critical gets hit.

[Brother Kraskor]

Could even just give them 1+ saves or 0+ saves for very heavy tanks and then no need to even come up with a new set of special rules.

[Cleon]

Having a Land raider as Toughness 10 with a 0+ save - That'd be a start on making it durable...

Though a bit harsh on Str 9 guns perhaps.

[Brother Kraskor]

T9/0+ Land raider would be perfectly sufficient imo. Shouldn't be an uphill battle for lascannon. T8/1+ Repulsors and T8/2+ Gladiators.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Brother Kraskor

[Sword Brother Adelard]

If you had tanks that tough, then things like tank destroyers would become actually viable. At the moment the Lancer is largely pointless, as is the executioner. The Vindicator Laser Destroyer is somewhat better, but on the whole, they aren't as good as the alternatives.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Having a Land raider as Toughness 10 with a 0+ save - That'd be a start on making it durable...

Though a bit harsh on Str 9 guns perhaps.

Considering lascannons needed a 5 to start rolling on the vehicle damage chart for 3 editions and hull points for 2, I'm not sure what the problem is. Anti tank wounding tanks on 3s only started three years ago and resulted in the ease of removal.

[9x19 Parabellum]

@Parabellum,

 

While realistic (I am in the military in real life, so I agree with most of your points here), how do any of these make vehicles more competitive in 40K? These all seem like nerfs (except shooting when tied up in combat), so this would make vehicles even less playable than they currently already are in 9th edition.

 

Oh right. Sorry. The second implied half of that argument is that you could make tanks across the board tougher (increased toughness and/or armor saves) without increasing the points for them.  I'm not a fan of giving vehicles invuln saves as it defeats the point of anti-tank weapons.  Anti-tank weapons should kill tanks, not bump into the ceiling of AP because of an invuln save. Exceptions apply, obviously, for things like quantum shielding or various xenos tech, but in general I think astartes vehicles should rely on high toughness, AS to get their vehicles to live.

[Rik Lightstar]

I'd like to see them bump the toughness and saves on all the vehicles, even maybe going up to toughness 10 or 11 for some.

 

But then add an Anti-Tank rule for the weapons that should have it including meltas and lascannons for example that gives a +1/+2 to would against any target with the *Vehicle* keyword.

 

That would drastically reduce things like Heavy Bolters and even Autocannons chewing through vehicles but keep the role of dedicated anti-tank weapons. If it stopped Plasma being the go-to choice wherever possible that'd be great too.

 

Rik

[McGibs]

I think the most elegant solution touched on so far is dropping the bottom out of the save characteristic. They've already done this with stormshields and 1+ saves, so I don't see any qualms about giving vehicles a 0+, 1+ or 2+ saves as standard (especially as they can almost never gain light cover bonuses in 9th). It effectively gives them a layer of "ignores low ap value", and gives a unique layer of defense that's different from invul saves or other damage mitigation like FnP or Duty Eternal. Weapons with super high AP like laser destroyers or primaris plasmaguns can still melt through armour without capping out on an invul save, and it would actually give those weapons a valid role other than... shooting terminators in cover I guess?

Bumping heavy tanks like landraiders, battlewagons, and repulsors up to T9 would be nice as well, making them truely durable against most forms of shooting (and again, gives some of those high ceiling waepons like laser destroyers a proper edge), but still able to be dealt with in heavy melee (ie: dreadfists)

Edited January 19, 2021 by McGibs

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Lots of great ideas here !

[9x19 Parabellum]

FWIW, I'd also love to see vehicle facing come back, but that ship has sailed.

[Brother Casman]

Okay, dropping the bottom out of the Save Characteristic looks like an elegant solution, but due to how the rules work, a 1+ Save Characteristic would be immune to all AP, since the AP of the attack modifies the roll - not the characteristic. You might be able to justify a 1+ Save Characteristic if it degrades as the vehicle takes damage.

 

I think a solution that works better with the rules as written would be to bring back vehicle facings (to a degree) where attacks from the front (and maybe the sides) add +1 to the saving throw (not the characteristic!). Couple that with a small boost to toughness, and vehicles should feel a little better, I think. It would make maneuvering and position more important, at the very least.

 

As an aside, I would apply the same effects to monsters as well.

[Brother Kraskor]

Ah yes. Why have they done it that way anyway? Why doesn't it just reduce the armour value. Feel like they've just made it more complicated for themselves.