How To Improve Space Marine Tanks

[Komrk]

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.

This feels like a non-issue to me, if you drop the bottom out of saves you just explicitly say “a roll of a 1 is always a failure” like plenty of other games do. I can’t think of a situation where that would break the game.

[Gederas]

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.

This feels like a non-issue to me, if you drop the bottom out of saves you just explicitly say “a roll of a 1 is always a failure” like plenty of other games do. I can’t think of a situation where that would break the game.

Hell, Games Workshop even does it in their own games:

 

In Age of Sigmar, the Bastilodon (the Seraphon ankylosaur) and the Leviadon (the Idoneth Deepkin's giant turtle) have a 1+ save at full wounds (it means it just ignores Rend/AP -1) as rolls of 1s are always failures

Edited January 20, 2021 by Gederas

[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.

This feels like a non-issue to me, if you drop the bottom out of saves you just explicitly say “a roll of a 1 is always a failure” like plenty of other games do. I can’t think of a situation where that would break the game.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

This feels like a non-issue to me, if you drop the bottom out of saves you just explicitly say “a roll of a 1 is always a failure” like plenty of other games do. I can’t think of a situation where that would break the game.

 

Hell, Games Workshop even does it in their own games:

 

In Age of Sigmar, the Bastilodon (the Seraphon ankylosaur) and the Leviadon (the Idoneth Deepkin's giant turtle) have a 1+ save at full wounds (it means it just ignores Rend/AP -1) as rolls of 1s are always failures

 

Right, but the rules explicitly say that an unmodified roll of one is a failure. A roll modified to a one is still a pass, since it would be "equal to or greater than the Save Characteristic", if the Save Characteristic is a 1+. Likewise, even higher APs don't help, since a roll can never be modified below a 1. That's why GW changed storm shields to be +1 to the armour saving throw, rather than the +1 to the Save Characteristic they were initially.

 

I know about the Bastiladon, and I also know that it's Save Characteristic degrades as it takes wounds, so it doesn't stay at a 1+ save.

[Brother Kraskor]

Honestly feels like they have made it much more complicated than it needs to be. Armour save = roll that number or higher and you ignore the wound. AP = changes the value of the armour it is resolved against. Shouldn't need a law degree to play this game.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Brother Kraskor

[Xenith]

The problem is that GW thinks putting an "8" in the "T" column means something. It doesn't.  

 

This is pretty much my thought also. In the old armour values, a AV12 was 'wounded' by a S8 weapon on a 4+, so is the equivalent of T8. A S8 weapon only 'wounded' a land raider on a 6, which back then would have been T10, but in todays money would be T16.

 

T8 on Land Raiders basically make them the equivalent of the old AV12, robbing them of 4 points of armour. Lascannons went from damaging them on a 5+, causing 1 'wound', to damaging on a 3+ and causing up to 6 wounds, which is bonkers. Sure they gained an armour save...but most anti tank weapons ignore most of it.

 

Anything that used to be AV14 needs to go to T10 minimum, anything that was AV13 needs T9 minimum. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Armor facing inevitably leads to arguments so I don’t want to see this mechanic make a come back. Remember one of the big reasons to go to wounds was preventing vehicles being one shot destroyed.

[9x19 Parabellum]

All true, but also needs to be remembered that if that lascannon rolled a "6" it could blow up the whole Land Raider in one shot. That is flatly impossible now.   And, before, it only required 4(?) glancing hits to kill a land raider.  Now, only three lascannon wounding hits could conceivably blow up a land raider, but more likely about 5 or 6 would be needed.

 

In short, if a Land Raider goes to T10, it needs to have it's wounds dropped, I think, but only if it also gains some kind of immunity to Str 3 and 4 weapons.  (Again, the problem here is that small arms fire can wound high T tanks....that should not be so and kind of screws up all the modeling and game design.)

[YogiDaAngel]

If small arms fire is a problem why they don't add rules like:
Armor plating: "Ignore any dmg from weapons with S characteristic of 4 or less, for weapons with characteristic of 5-7 ignore 1 dmg to mainimum of 1, for weapons with S higher than 8 (including 8) inflict dmg as normal"
And 2nd bullet point with low AP:
"If AP characteristic of weapon is lower than 3 ignore it when rolling armour save"
Something like that i think would fix some issues. 

[Subtleknife]

Personally, I would make a few changes.

 

Unlock toughness characteristic. Might need a bit of a work on some higher end higher strgth weapons.

 

Allow vehicles to have a 1+ save etc with a 1 always failing.

 

Allow vehicles to natively reduce the damage of multi damage weapons (how much would depend on the vehicle). This would be counteracted by some weapons having the AT trait (ie melta, lascannons and macro plasma etc would have it. Normal plasma etc would not have it) which would counteract the ability of a vehicle to reduce damage.

 

Finally, I would have a rule that if the toughness was over double the str of a weapon then the weapon cant harm the vehicle.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Subtleknife

[War of the Eagle]

How about just giving all anti tank weapons a "tank hunter" key word. All none tank hunter weapons get -1 damage to the minimum of 0. Bolters lasguns now do squat.

[L30n1d4s]

Another (pretty simple) option would be to give all units with the "Vehicle" or "Building" Key Word -1 to Wound.

 

Then, give selected weapons (i.e. Melta, Lascannons, Railguns, Pulse Lasers, Heavy Gauss Cannon, Chainfists, etc. etc.) a rule called "Anti-Tank" which could be added to their profiles, just like "Blast" was added to weapon profiles this past year.

 

Weapons with the "Anti-Tank" rule would ignore this -1 to Wound on Vehicles/Buildings, unlike all other weapons in the game.

 

On a side note, factions like Imperial Fists and Iron Warriors, who are supposed to specialize in killing tanks and vehicles, could get some special rules (i.e. maybe part of their Super Doctrine) allowing them to give "Anti-Tank" to additional weapons that normally don't get access to it (say, all S7 and above weapons could get "Anti-Tank" when their Super Doctrine is active.... so, Autocannons, Krak Missiles, Plasma, etc.)

Edited January 20, 2021 by L30n1d4s

[Brother Kraskor]

Lots of good ideas. I think what all this discussion has clearly demonstrated is that tanks should not be treated as just oversized, slightly hardier infantry! The rules don't reflect the difference. 

[Komrk]

Lots of good ideas. I think what all this discussion has clearly demonstrated is that tanks should not be treated as just oversized, slightly hardier infantry! The rules don't reflect the difference. 

 

That's exactly what got me to take a break with the release of 8th edition. Tanks before weren't perfect, but they felt tough unless facing dedicated anti-tank weapon which is... well kinda the point. Treating tanks as oversized infantry is ridiculous.

[Zustiur]

This is why my home brew edition flipped armour saves around to function like 7th ed BS. Now I can have armour save 8, for example, which is a 2+ followed by a 4+.

 

Also, I don't use the 8/9th wound chart and have land Raiders at T10.

[mertbl]

I'd like to see the "only suffer x damage a phase" rule used across more of the game. Say a baneblade can only take 12 damage in a phase, you could still kill it in 1 turn, its unlikely but doable. On the smaller end with gladiators and other battle tanks, maybe they only take 8 damage a phase. Sure your tank will be knocked down to probably bottom tier but itll still be around.

[Karhedron]

I think all Astartes tanks are suffering for the sins of Iron Hands lists in late 8th edition. Tanks might be worth those prices if they could still be buffed, remain in Devastator Doctrine etc.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Maybe, but I would hope the solution wasn't a simple price drop.

[Petitioner's City]

I would like it if, like terminator armour in 2nd edition, vehicles had armour profiles on 2D6. This could give a Titan at 3+ on 2D6, versus a Land Raider on perhaps 5+ and a light buggy on 9+, etc. It would just add that greater granularity (although honestly I think all stats should be D10 or 2D6 or similar - it would just make more nuanced so many aspects of the game). 

 

EDIT - this is also easy to house rule, either by simply

 

• rolling vehicles' saves on 2D6 (making armour pen really matter on anti-tank weapons, and giving vehicles real resistance to most weapons)
• or reducing their save on 2D6 by -2 (2+ becoming 4+, 3+ becoming 5+, 4+ becoming 6+, etc) so that vehicles are still really tough but not nigh-invulnerable at higher levels
• or "halving" their save on 2d6 - 2+ becoming 4+; 3+ becoming 6+, 4+ becoming 8+, etc), making vehicles at high levels still tough, but making low-save vehicles suitably vulnerable.

All could work and are worth trying. I do miss the days of the Citadel Journal, where such house rules could be submitted!

Edited February 8, 2021 by Petitioner's City

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Look at some of the Necron vehicles that have an invulnerable save and the equivalent of Transhuman... really any tank like a land raider or repulsor should have this type of resilience imo.

[DistractionTacMarine]

Interesting thoughts here, but I think may be overcomplicating the issue a bit.

 

Put tanks and vehicles into three categories: Light, Medium, and Heavy (maybe Super Heavy for LOW tanks). Light tanks get no additional benefits but can get Light Cover. Medium tanks ignore AP1 and get +1 to save against D1 weapons. Heavy tanks ignore AP1 and 2 and get +1 to save against D1 weapons. I guess Super Heavy could get that plus -1 damage or something.

 

That gives us a universal set of keywords and rules that mimic existing rules and so should be easy to understand. It’ll also go a long way towards protecting tanks from incidental damage from bad rolls against bolters and lasguns or whatever. It also doesn’t make them immune to anti-tank and it doesn’t make them unkillable.

Edited February 18, 2021 by DistractionTacMarine

[Captain Idaho]

It's just very expensive.

 

The key positives for vehicles are they don't have negatives to hit whilst also being able to scoot around obscuring terrain to hit targets.

 

They (all vehicles) just all need a 30pts decrease across the board.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

It's just very expensive.

 

The key positives for vehicles are they don't have negatives to hit whilst also being able to scoot around obscuring terrain to hit targets.

 

They (all vehicles) just all need a 30pts decrease across the board.

 

I think discounting all vehicles would be bad ideal, dreads for example are really good at the moment.  That said I do wonder if we're going to see armies get discounts for certain unit types. I'm not a huge fan of the concept but I could see them making guard have the best tanks, sisters the best low wound walkers, marines having the best dreads, and admech basically having loyalist daemon engines. Its weird that we've been in 9th since july and we're still waiting on the second xenos codex but once we have a couple more we'll start to have a better ideal of what GW's intention is. 

 

Ishagu you're also forgetting slot efficiency since they discouraged multi-detachment. There's multiple factors that made marine vehicles less good than in 8.5 without even touching on points or ability nerfs.

 

I don't think discouraging multi-detachments has very much to do with it. Typically multi-detachments were either used to create soup lists, or by armies that had some broken choices in one particular slot like Eldar flyer lists. 

 

Marines have awesome choices across the board, and at the same time no slot is that so dominant that we'd want to lean into that hard.  

[Ishagu]

The 3 Gladiator variants each need a 50 point drop. Even this might not be enough to make them compelling... Edited February 21, 2021 by Ishagu

[Captain Idaho]

It's difficult because Predator Destructors come in at 175pts with Heavy Bolters and a 50pt decrease of Gladiators treads on those shoes directly.

 

So they would need a points decrease also.

 

50pts... I think that probably is about right. Sounds a lot but when you think about the way they Heavy slots and compete with so much, you're still looking at 170pts for a vehicle!

[Ishagu]

No one would take them now in a truly competitive sense. I could include a Gladiator because I love the model, but that's the main reason.

 

50 points might not be enough. I'm not suggesting more because people tend to recoil when someone makes a case for a drastic change in rules or points.

 

A Gladiator Valliant at 200 points. Is that too cheap? No - it has no invul and a very drastic bracket profile.