Damage Lethality:

[Schlitzaf]

So I am and was hyper entertained by various statements today in SoB leak thread. While not to say these statements are without merit they are not really accurate either.

 

The last comment before I wrote this thread:

“A Land Raider one shot by half its cosf”. And for me, I am like “When wasn’t a Land Raider one shot by a cheaper at half or even less”. And its well....properly only edition a Land Raider CANNOT be one shot unless there is 20 damage weapon I don’t know about.

 

What is true is scratch damage is a thing. But same token, it takes 54 Bolters or 72 (or 27 or 36 in rapid) Lasguns to deal 1 wound to T8 T2+ Save model. Which has increased lethality is Heavy Bolters, and Autocannons which in the past COULDN’T touch heavy armour but now can. Needing 18 or 15 shots depending on ballistic skill.

 

Same token? A single Stray Lascanon from Lascannon 5 man MSU Tact squad one blow up your cool thing first round. While suicide sterngaurd stylw units admittedly still can but now we can zone them.

 

And scoutless marines can zone, we have 1) Rhinos. Whom cost a bit more than a squad of those cheap zoning scouts. But have argueably more midgame utility or intercessors/tacticals.

 

And beyond that? Tanks are in a relative sense rather cheap. Take a Leman Russ w/ Hvg Bolter Sponson. About 150-160 points.

 

7 Battlecannon Shors (averaging hit 3-4)

9 Heavy Bolters (4.5 hit/3 In combat).

 

An infantry squad? With Closest equivalent being Plasma Gun + Heavy Bolter. Run 160-180. Suffers move and shoot. Easily removed from the board. And if tag cannot shot anything. While 200% more wounds spread over bodies admittedly. Those bodies are wounded far easier.

 

And otherwise? Atleast my area, its basically was presumed any unit you put on the table short of unkillabke deathstars, a unit your whole list was designed to protect. Its a dead unit. Even more so a saying “a open in the open is dead”.

 

Am I jaded? Wrong? Nothing in 8th or 9th genuinely feels more lethal then when I played in prior editions (admittedy most of my experience is 5th)

[Marshal Loss]

9th edition is without a doubt the edition of increased lethality, at least in my experience. Vehicles could probably do with a durability boost with how much damage everything else does, but personal mileage will vary. Big damage hits don't spill over when they hit infantry but vehicles have to take the full brunt of it, and there are a lot of weapons not traditionally considered AT whose AP & D allow them to function as vehicle killers as well. It's no coincidence e.g. that the most popular SM vehicle at the moment (Redemptor) comes with inbuilt -1D.

 

It's great fun though, having a blast when I'm able to actually get games in.

 

edited for clarity

Edited April 9, 2021 by Marshal Loss

[Schlitzaf]

And? Same token how that any different from when you’d be glanced to death as a rhino or killed with Autocannons. Like look at the hard facts. With exception of Strength 4 and below weapon. In general compare like for like vehicles are more durable now then they used be.

A Rhino in past to 18 Heavy Bolters Shots/Hits, 27 Marines/36 Gaurdsman.

A Rhino in 9th. 36 Heavy Bolter Shots/Hits and 54 Marines/72 Gaurdsman.

 

Autocannons in prior editions needed 6 Shots/Hits, 9 Marines, 12 Gaurdman.

Autocannons in ninth needed 24 Shots/Hits, 36 Marines/48 Gaurdman.

 

Now admittedy you could argue “But Cover” in prior editions made tanks more durable. But the math becomes either the same or still better. Now you could say “Bolters/Smalls Arms” well to wound a rhink you need 12 Bolters and 36 Lasguns.

[Dark Shepherd]

They have meant one round of shooting by a unit half a land raiders cost kills it? Though IMO eradicators should only get double ahots if they remain stationary

 

In any event I reckon 2+ armour saves at the very least should be way more common among (marine) vehicles

[Marshal Loss]

Like look at the hard facts.

If you're going to throw the "hard facts" card, you should probably at least try to take into account

• The proliferation of re-rolls
• Impact of stratagems, warlord traits, etc
• Vehicles having armour saves that often aren't any better than equivalent infantry, and which can't benefit from cover
• The respective costs of these weapons in their respective context(s) relative to earlier editions
• Vehicles degrade (which, in comparison to e.g. the chance of removing a weapon in a prior edition, is guaranteed once you have pushed them past a certain threshold)

Look at everything in a vacuum, as you are doing here, and you'll miss the bigger picture. Go look at the data on vehicle survivability & usability on WarhammerCompetitive, Goonhammer, etc. Chip damage is also far more impactful than you're making it out to be when some of the above is taken into account.

 

 

Am I jaded? Wrong? Nothing in 8th or 9th genuinely feels more lethal then when I played in prior editions

 

1. Yes

2. Honestly not sure how anybody can play 9th and not note the edition's increased lethality

[chapter master 454]

Tanks have always paid heavy taxes for what seems to be not existent things. Infantry can still run up to them, shout "tag" and suddenly the tank stops being able to fire at anything worth while. The issue lies in the fact tanks are taken to offer the BIG guns, we don't take tanks for anti-infantry duty (or at least, not purely for commonly), we take them for firepower to deal with threats. It is why things like the Repulsor confused me because it says it is a transport (even started as one remember) but cost as much if not more than a land raider but was just a "standard" transport yet had more guns than a baneblade! It was a fairly ok mid-field battleship but as a transport: failure. As an actual tank you would want: Failure. I also point out that it was only taken by primaris armies because it was the only source of anti-tank for them, when did you ever see one with the onslaught? Then they got obsoleted by the executioner who took it in the right direction by offering actual firepower and we never saw repulsors again.

 

Now we have gladiators and I would wager that all primaris lists just cut the now defunct and fairly gutted executioner for other anti-tank options that are cheaper.

 

Core issue is how close everything is together. We have strength 10+ weaponry more commonly now yet we don't see T9 or above at all, so land raiders are apparently just as armoured as wraithlords (?) and somehow having a shield can mean you have equal to armour of a land raider. If toughness actually got widened with minimal point increases then we might see tanks actually appear again when they are costed appropriately and not just "infantry who cost way too much and are far too easily countered". 

[Dark Shepherd]

Another issue is that whats core and what isnt is a bigger deal in 9th than I think what the writers thought

 

They really overnerfed the ironhands list, that the playtesters warned them about in advance :)

[Dr. Clock]

It's a tough problem for most, really... but I think the answer may not be to make armoured units more like bricks and instead make them more like... vehicles.

 

Drukhari Raiders and venoms are amazing in spite of the fact that they are paper airplanes... this is because they do the job of moving you where you need to be in a game that is now primarily about positioning, and only about destruction to the extent that it prevents the opponent from existing in a place.

 

Transports are still worthwhile when they are protecting the ObSec inside, but I do agree that 'attack' tanks or 'mixed' tanks like LRs need a hand.

 

My hotfix? Give all vehicles the option to encircle from Reserves for 0CP just like jump troops get to drop, and give everyone a 1CP 'jump out of a tank that just moved but not charge after' strat. White Scars don't need that alone when they just run everywhere anyway.

 

After that, I feel that most 'D6 Blast / d6 damage' weapons need a boost... You could slap a universal '+2 shots' on Vehicle/Monster-mounted blast weapons and everyone would be alot happier with their vindicators and Russes, and even Tyranid monsters and Orks would be happy for the dakka.

 

And I hear ya on the LR specifically. It always felt like it should have truly next-level armour in comparison to almost anything in the game. -1 Damage would not be beyond the pale for them tbh as 'the one true brick'. It would basically turn them into 'the Dreadnought tank' which is a pretty good luck tbh ; )

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[Spleenex]

[sNIP] If toughness actually got widened with minimal point increases then we might see tanks actually appear again when they are costed appropriately and not just "infantry who cost way too much and are far too easily countered". 

 

I'm not even sure a point increase would be necessary. As it stands now, most tanks (for SM, anyway) are far too expensive for what they do. Buffing their toughness while keeping the same price point might actually get people to take them.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

[sNIP] If toughness actually got widened with minimal point increases then we might see tanks actually appear again when they are costed appropriately and not just "infantry who cost way too much and are far too easily countered".

I'm not even sure a point increase would be necessary. As it stands now, most tanks (for SM, anyway) are far too expensive for what they do. Buffing their toughness while keeping the same price point might actually get people to take them.

I think it's just SM tanks sucking.

From what I've seen the guard still rely pretty heavily on leman russes, getting 2 in a 500 pt game with with 3+ infantry units and HQs(one of which might even be another leman Russ)

Vehicles in guard armies are pretty much a requirement from what ive seen.

[Waking Dreamer]

I'm curious, the Land raider has been brought up a few times in this thread and the other, and as the iconic WH40K "toughest tank" in standard SM armies, a lot of improvements have been suggested - to represent it's rolling fortress reputation (while keeping it's current points cost). Of the following listed below I'd like to know the consensus of what would be the most effective solution:

1. Doubling it's Wounds (W32 with degradation at W12 / W6)
2. Increased Toughness (T9)
3. -1 to Damage (to min. 1 dmg)
4. -1 to Wound (S5-S7/S8/S9 wounds 6+/5+/4+ respectively)

Would any of the above justify the current 285-315 points cost?

Edited April 12, 2021 by Waking Dreamer

[Schlitzaf]

 

 

Like look at the hard facts.

If you're going to throw the "hard facts" card, you should probably at least try to take into account

• The proliferation of re-rolls
• Impact of stratagems, warlord traits, etc
• Vehicles having armour saves that often aren't any better than equivalent infantry, and which can't benefit from cover
• The respective costs of these weapons in their respective context(s) relative to earlier editions
• Vehicles degrade (which, in comparison to e.g. the chance of removing a weapon in a prior edition, is guaranteed once you have pushed them past a certain threshold)

Look at everything in a vacuum, as you are doing here, and you'll miss the bigger picture. Go look at the data on vehicle survivability & usability on WarhammerCompetitive, Goonhammer, etc. Chip damage is also far more impactful than you're making it out to be when some of the above is taken into account.

 

Am I jaded? Wrong? Nothing in 8th or 9th genuinely feels more lethal then when I played in prior editions

1. Yes

2. Honestly not sure how anybody can play 9th and not note the edition's increased lethality

Its like....a unit taking damage has its combat effectiveness reduced. I mean madness. Sarcasm aside.

 

A Dbl Plas Tactical Squad in Seventh cost bit under 90 damage and had BETTER lethality vs a rhino then they do now. And them charging if they didn’t rapid could actually reasonable kill the rhino.

 

And reason I ignored chip damage is that in past editions your vehicles were one round killed or stun/shaken locked. And more often the former. And fact degrading damage is actually relavent nowadays, is another point of the fact vehicles are tougher.

 

And vehicles have higher toughness in contrast to infantry equivalent. And rerolls aren’t any more common competitively speaking. More common casually perhaps. And if you look at the math anti-vehicle weaponry on infantry was relativelt speaking CHEAPER in prior editions.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Tanks were much more resilient prior to 8th edition in general.

[Umbros]

This needs to be taken in consideration with terrain usage. Proper terrain usage (especially obscuring) should significantly minimise fire lanes, so tough choices so the higher lethality cant just be applied without cost.

[Rogue]

In some editions, maybe. But I can remember editions of the game where tanks could be taken out pretty easily via damage tables - every single time they were wounded, there was a chance of them blowing up, or at least losing the ability to move or fire, rendering them useless.

 

On the subject of the land raider and it being the archetypal brick tank, I'd point at something like the ork bonebreaker - from watching battle reports, it seems that you can use pre-game options to boost it to T8 with a 5++, making an ork transport brickier than a raider.

[MARK0SIAN]

I'm curious, the Land raider has been brought up a few times in this thread and the other, and as the iconic WH40K "toughest tank" in standard SM armies, a lot of improvements have been suggested - to represent it's rolling fortress reputation (while keeping it's current points cost). Of the following listed below I'd like to know the consensus of what would be the most effective solution:

 

1. Doubling it's Wounds (W32 total)

2. Increased Toughness (T9)

3. -1 to Damage (to min. 1 dmg)

4. -1 to Wound (S5-S7/S8/S9 wounds 6+/5+/4+ respectively)

 

Would any of the above justify the current 285-315 points cost?

I don’t think any of them would justify it to be honest. It’s not that they’re bad ideas or anything it’s just that even if you added them all the vehicle still fails in it’s primary roll which is delivering a nasty unit into the heart of the enemy. It’s often competing with deep strike to get the unit where you want it, it can’t transport anything nasty that doesn’t generally have free access to deep strike, it screams ‘shoot here first’ with all the points wrapped up in one basket, having to disembark before it moves means generally it’ll be turn 3 before the expensive unit can get out near the enemy (plenty of time to counter it) and it can be stopped moving by tagging it with a fast unit.

 

To make it more survivable I’d give it an invulnerable save, increase its wounds and either reduce incoming damage or -1 to wound rolls. However I’d also let it transport Primaris units and give it an assault ramp that lets a unit disembark and charge after it has moved. They’d never do all that of course but that’s what I genuinely think it needs.

 

In general vehicles just evaporate this edition. When you’ve got things like multi-Melta retributors or marine attack bikes running around, any single vehicle without an invulnerable save is going to be easy pickings and often the vehicles cost so many points that you can’t build in redundancy to compensate for that.

 

This makes it bad for things like marine vehicles but at least they’ve got alternative units to fall back on. It’s armies like guard who are going to really struggle this edition. It’s not healthy for the game for the lethality to keep increasing like it is so my preferred solution would be for everything’s lethality to be toned down, however that’s unlikely so I think the most realistic prospect we can hope for is a wounds increase in vehicles to make them slightly more survivable.

[chapter master 454]

Anyone saying tanks were more durable prior to 8th is somehow forgetting the damage tables. I mean, even prior to that back at times of 4th necrons didn't use anti-tank guns they would just keep glancing your tanks until they died. Then we got new damage tables, hull points and tanks became an even bigger joke. Finally we got 8th which seemed to even the playing field a little bit, it certainly helped tanks a lot that they now actually have the wounds count to actually compete with monsters but the price there was now even monsters are a joke if they go above 10 wounds.

 

9th again tried to address issues for tanks and certainly gave some conservative buffs to tanks that just ultimately should of been defaults or are just not good enough because they don't solve the problem.

 

Are tanks more durable in the post 8th edition game: Yes. Trust me, they are. However that isn't hard to do when prior they were wet paper bags. Now they are more akin to a dry paper bag, takes a bit more effort to destroy but not much. The main issue is how easy it is to ignore tank armour, like comically easy yet somehow an infantry squad carrying shields can tank that demolisher cannon round much better (but if they didn't have the shields, they still do better somehow...). The unit of filthy dirty xenos theatre performers are more able to tank a demolisher cannon than a tank just because...and let me see if I read this correctly...: "Flip real good". Heck, even Custodes have better armour by default because...em...they flex real hard?

 

Ultimately armour saves and toughness are supposed to be insane on tanks or they should be nigh invulnerable to small arms fire while effectiveness of anti-tank should range from hopefully to normally leaves a hole, but the range is "This minces infantry and by incident is all amazing anti-tank" to "this will defo one shot a tank but why? Just take the anti-infantry gun, it handles tanks just fine". No, seriously. If any anti-infantry gun gets damage 2, it suddenly becomes a good anti-tank gun.

Tau are the most obvious for this with Heavy Burst Cannons. It isn't really a sin for them because it was all they had going for them (no seriously...I hope 9th treats us better...8th pre-season into 8th was...rough as sandpaper toilet roll!) and effectively their "anti-infantry" option for the riptide was more a "anti-everything" gun. They may point to that tanks simply don't have enough wounds. After all, only takes 5 shots to get through to do 10 wounds and if it was an anti-infantry gun that isn't an issue as mass fire was kind of their thing. Wouldn't be surprised if I heard Heavy Bolter Devastators are knocking out land raiders, knights and imperator titans in droves.

Meanwhile, a lascannon will average only 3-4 wounds per shot...and that's if we fire 3-4 of them which costs...hmm...more than double the 4 heavy bolters did. (correct me if wrong here...sadly games aren't a thing I don't get and I haven't played a single game of 9th but my experience of 8th still stands).

 

Again, why has weapon strength finally found the strength to go even further beyond strength 10 but toughness is STILL "soft" capped at 8. WHY? In effect that does indeed point to increased lethality while not increasing durability. Tanks should be STARTING at 8 and going from there, light armour and such is fine but when a "light" tank is only marginally less resilient to gun fire than a land raider, there are issues.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Vehicles aren’t more durable now unless they have special rules like Necrons and Drukhari.

[War Angel]

Vehicles aren’t more durable now unless they have special rules like Necrons and Drukhari.

Any anti tank weapon could explode a tank in a single shot in 3rd edition. Tanks are definitely stronger now. Also tanks could only shoot one target, and usually couldn’t get all of their guns to face said target.

 

I’m not saying they are perfect now, but they’re definitely better. I really think the best solution would be to make them a little cheaper so they don’t take up so much of your army. Making them tougher wouldn’t make sense, as lascannons and melta guns are ment to destroy tanks. And eliminating chip damage just means the first player to pop the other guys tank will have an invincible tank in some match ups.

[MARK0SIAN]

I think the issue at heart is that as long as you have a system where armour and infantry share the same wounding mechanic against the same weapons profiles then it’s pretty much impossible to find a balance where medium weapons are good against heavier infantry but not very effective against heavy vehicles.

 

The ‘To wound’ table exacerbates this even more. For example a heavy bolter wounds an imperial guard sentinel, a land raider and even a warlord Titan on a 5! Having to wait until your toughness is double the strength of the weapon for it to only wound on six is absurd, especially if you’re not going to actually give out Toughness above 9.

 

Changing the wound mechanic would help reduce the chip damage and medium weapons just being too effective as all-rounders. However that won’t happen so let’s hope they up the wounds and bring in damage reduction.

 

As for dedicated anti-tank weapons they’re also generally too effective. Meltas were in a terrible place in 8th but now with the buffs that can be laid on the various melta units they’ve become a delete button against anything without an invulnerable save. When you can have 8 shots (maybe more with a cherub) hitting on 3s with rerolling all misses that wound on a 3 or 4 leaving (if you’re lucky) a 6 plus save for a minimum of 3 damage (but an average of 5-6 in melta range) then pretty much nothing can survive that.

 

Vehicles are in dire need of help but because so many of their issues stem from core features of the game and the weapons that it’s hard to see what can be done about it other than adding on more wounds and maybe upping the toughness.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Now ranged weapons that aren’t dedicated AT can do significant chip damage to vehicles. Fifth edition is often referred to as the parking lot edition... third edition was rhino rush. You saw a lot more armor back in the day.

[Claws and Effect]

Bring back "Assault vehicle" 

 

Apply it to Land Raiders and some of the FW tanks (not that anyone uses them in 40k). 

 

Make it a strategem for 1 or 2 CP. 

 

If a unit is embarked on a Land Raider or (transport type here), use this strategem at the end of the Movement phase to disembark the unit within. The unit may then charge at a -2 to the dice result. 

[Valkyrion]

What about adding the 'Tank' keyword to certain vehicles (e.g for Land Raiders, Storm Ravens, Battlewagons, Leman Russ but not things like Sentinels or Land Speeders or Falcons) and allow 'Tanks' to roll saves on 2D6 with double 1 always failing.

[Valkyrion]

Bring back "Assault vehicle" 

 

Apply it to Land Raiders and some of the FW tanks (not that anyone uses them in 40k). 

 

Make it a strategem for 1 or 2 CP. 

 

If a unit is embarked on a Land Raider or (transport type here), use this strategem at the end of the Movement phase to disembark the unit within. The unit may then charge at a -2 to the dice result. 

 

I actually think this needn't be a strat, it should be core but the person receiving the charge gets to overwatch at the vehicle without it costing a CP (or it still costs a CP but they can fire at full BS or something). If they destroy the vehicle the charge fails.

It would allows for some cool cinematic death or glory type moments.

 

If a vehicle moves normally you should be allowed to exit it after its moved, IMO. Disallow charges and disembarking for vehicles that advanced (which should be a straight 6" or 2D6 or something').

[Spleenex]

What about adding the 'Tank' keyword to certain vehicles (e.g for Land Raiders, Storm Ravens, Battlewagons, Leman Russ but not things like Sentinels or Land Speeders or Falcons) and allow 'Tanks' to roll saves on 2D6 with double 1 always failing.

I like the idea of adding a "Tank" keyword to trigger a special rule. Could even use the "Vehicle" keyword. But rolling saves on 2D6 is probably a non-starter, as it has a completely different probability distribution: a 3+ save on 2D6 has a 97% success rate (vs. 83% on a D12 roll). And its not a linear distribution. Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of anything with the "Vehicle" keyword just ignoring the first point of damage from any single attack. That way a Land Raider can't get plinked to death by lasguns or something.