Damage Lethality:

[MegaVolt87]

This is just re-treading the same ground as the SM vechicle thread. http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/369185-how-to-improve-space-marine-tanks/ I'm even seeing the same arguments from the same people. 9th has increased lethality, vehicle chip dmg is stupid etc are already known qualities. Outside of points cuts, a new edition will be needed to fix vehicles in a meaningful way. Forum goers have put forward better fixes than 40k devs themselves on this very board. 40k should move to an open rules dev format like PP, initial rules, everyone then tests publicly, its all changed as needed before its final. Most players know better than game devs these days in most cases on how a game should actually work or its real result. Devs forget that the rules/ models are for us and not for them, unless the buy more stuff than us customers at MSRP to keep GW viable. 

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

To get back on track, I will say that while I agree with the OP that most units have similar damage output to what they had in prior editions I do think that units feel less durable. There are three main reasons for this.

 

1) smaller table - it's harder to create distance so units are taking fire from more units than ever before. It creates the perception they're weaker because they aren't on the table as long.

 

2) speed - with the exception of drop pod lists and rhino rush in 3rd most armies were substantially slower than they are now. These leads to units having more time on target.

 

3) Mission Pack - progressive scoring with set objectives really punishes a lot of older strategies. It forces players to spread out there forces which makes it easier to pick of stray units.

[Azekai]

On paper, tanks have more survivability, chewing through 12+ wounds shouldn’t be easy- especially if we are comparing to, say, a few editions back where a single penetrating hit could kill. Now, though, the armies are larger, so you have more redundancy, and stratagems totally change the math of anti-tank weapons. To Megavolt’s point, I don’t think the people at GW realize what rerolls do to the core math of the game. I cite Guilleman here- rerolling all hits and wounds for various space marine units, infantry and otherwise, got walked back pretty hard since early 8th, almost certainly because the absurd math.

 

Anti-tank weapons are expensive (theoretically) and fire relatively few shots... but when you can reroll misses, or fire twice, or reroll damage dice, vehicles and other ‘big boys’ tend to end up very, very dead.

Edited April 12, 2021 by Azekai

[Cornishman]

Damage lethality, especially with respect to vehicles is a tricky one.

The TLDR version: In a world were sufficient AT is brought to handle T8/3+/5++ anything less disappears off the table quickly. Also marine tanks whilst capable aren't exactly priced to be cost effective.

There are three things to me that contribute towards ‘performance’: Offence, Defence, Manoeuvrability. With cost-effectiveness being dependent on this emergent performance.

As others have brought up compared to 3E-7E unless the vehicle has relative few (i.e. 6 or less) wounds they no longer have the issue the damage tables being rather harsh to metal boxes meaning they would frequently get one shot, or (effectively) loose an entire turn of doing something useful from a single hit. So, to me compared to ‘old’ 40k tanks (especially marine ones with their paper thin side armour) are more durable and less of a liability.

Looking at the stat profiles (e.g. vehicle vs weapon) 8E started in a reasonable place for plenty of vehicles in terms of durability. With 10-11 wounds SM vehicles tended towards 3 damaging D6 Dam antitank hits required, whilst keeping some degree of usefulness during this process. Whilst not great, to me this, and the overall increased manoeuvrability was a step up from previous editions (especially when the frequency of hits on those AV11 sides is factored in).

Since the integration of Knights into regular play a few editions ago then you’ve had to consider how to handle them… Typically this means taking enough AT handle at least one (and for more competitive lists multiple) Knights or other T8/++ units.

Due to the interplay of the stats this AT will usually dispatch ‘lesser’ platforms (i.e. T7 and/or no invulnerable) more efficiently (the biggest difference is S8 AP -4 {e.g. melta, lances etc...} which is ½ as effective against T8/5++ compared to T7/3+).

9E is increasing the lethality of AT even further... which acts to further compound the ‘vulnerability’ of T7/3+ compared to T8 &/or 5++. Whilst this helps stop those T8/5++ units which often seem to hang around for ever anything less robust will disappear rather quickly.

To me whilst much improved over 8E the cover rules still seem to favour avoiding LOS rather than cover offering noticeable benefits to units obscured by cover. So whilst there are some defensive benefits available, either these can be gained by rival units (e.g. both a marine and rival tank can sit behind dense cover to get -1 to hit), or won’t entirely bridge the gulf (e.g. whilst 3+ with a +1 for light cover is equivilant to a a 5++ vs AP3, that 5++ is still superior against AP -4…).

Yet another compounding issue on is that 1) marine tanks (with the possible exception of the Vindicator) do seem rather pricy 2) Other options such as Eradicators and Attack bikes offer very cost efficient antitank options.

Taking a predator as base line, rival units include
- DG’s Plagueburst Crawler with entropy cannons vs Quad-Las Predator. For 5pts and 3” of movement you get +1W, T8/5++. Whilst not as quick I think 9" still provides acceptable manoeuvrability, whilst offensively the PCB offers similar damage output (with some no LOS fire) and is far more durable... To me a very good comparison as DG can both either of the units being compared. Personally the PBC seems to be the more desirable unit even at 5 pts more.
- DE’s triple lance Ravager vs Quad-Las Predator – At 30 pts less you get a faster T6/4+/5++ chasis. Triple lances off similar damage output (slightly worse against T8, better at T7). Whilst lower T and Sv, I think that this isn’t going to be noticeable against most AT that is fired against them, so with that 5++ I’d expect the Ravager to be more durable against most the AT that would be directed at it them. To me the clear winner is the Ravager.
- The Stalker compared to a Predator Destructor. The main armament is similar, trading more shots (6 vs 2D3) for less damage (D2 vs D3). Against any aircraft is it far superior (double shots & +1 to hit). Defensively it’s T8 which is a nice boost. Overall in performance to me a sidegrade. It does however clock in at 25 pts less than the dakka pred….

Edited April 12, 2021 by Cornishman

[MARK0SIAN]

Another issue is there’s a lot less trade off with the anti-tank weapons than there used to be. A sisters list often takes 3 x multi-Melta retributors for example. Now that pretty much guarantees any vehicles facing them are going to have a hard time. But, unlike say a lascannon, those weapons are still a great choice even if the enemy force isn’t fielding any armour at all because they’re also really good at deleting elite infantry units, especially Marine ones which make up a large part of the player base. Basically melta in particular has too many good uses.

 

I guess my overall take is the line between anti-armour and anti-infantry weapons has become too blurred with them both being too effective against their unintended targets.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

AT is not great vs horde.

[MARK0SIAN]

AT is not great vs horde.

That’s true but hordes are not exactly a big thing right now and even in horde armies there’ll be good targets for the multi-meltas.

[Sothalor]

Does the broader "meta" of Marine over-saturation play into it?

 

With Space Marines almost all becoming multi-wound individual models, and the fact that Space Marines (especially if you group the various sub-factions together) are the most numerous and popular faction...

 

Well, that has the effect of making mid-to-high strength, multi-damage a generally "safe" option to take.

 

Then combine that with the fact that any strength weapon can put damage onto any model, no matter the toughness.

 

Basically, right now any weapon that's good against Space Marines is probably going to be acceptable when targeting a vehicle.

[MegaVolt87]

For me, the game has too many re-roll opportunities currently. I much preferred old rites of battle that was just a Ld buff etc. Wanted a re-roll? take a vehicle with twin linked weapons. Lethality was there, it was just in ordnance/ template weapons and the old AP system. However when it failed, it failed no real re-roll chance. When an attack worked out, it was devastating. I never understood why GW is so hellbent on eliminating as many failure points from the game itself with so many re-roll opportunities- its ok to have things not work every turn, thats why its a dice based game with chance. All the CP abilities need a re-balance, too many are undercosted, 2 CP one that should be 3, and 1 CP ones that should be at least 2. They are just too spammable, they should be more clutch by burning up the expanded CP pool faster in 9th over 8th. If hordes are implemented well, AT will have to be sacrificed for more anti infantry weaponry. That would give vehicles a chance without an edition change. But that would require good/viable/powerful xenos codexes released in a timely fashion. Vehicle shortcomings are a mere symptom of the wider issues with 8th-9th eds of the core rules design. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

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.

ah, but it had to be an anti-tank weapon.

 

As it stands a really lucky player could destroy a landraider or a leman Russ with an imperial guard conscript squad in a single round of shooting.

At least back then a lasgun literally couldn't harm them.

 

It seems now a heavy onslaught Gatling cannon or a punisher cannon work just fine as anti-tank guns just because statistically a several of those 12+ shots will hit and wound, meanwhile your one lascannon shot might miss completely.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

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.

they should have just straight up ported AVs to T.

Armor value 10 light vehicle? T8-9. AV11? T10-11 etc.

[Special Officer Doofy]

I'm for one glad they moved away from AV and such for vehicles. Damage has been slowly creeping higher since 8ed, they just need to balance vehicles on a point and rules basis better. Death Guard Plageburst Crawlers are a vehicle and are point efficient. I take at least 2 with every 2k list. 175pts for T8 12W, 3+/5++ and -1D received, with some pretty good plague weapon shooting (all S8 with a non LoS blast weapon). Compare that to a DG predator, which costs about the same points, comparable shooting, and way less survivability (T7 11W, 3+). That extra toughness and wound, invuln save and -1D (or the old 5+++) makes a world of a difference for the same points.

 

I'm in the group that believes GW makes rules to push products. They are not trying to sell old predator and land Raider kits. So why point them competitively or give them better rules? When the new Primaris grav vehicles came out they were <FLY>ing off the shelfs. After they hit their quota they nerfed them haha. My opinion of course.

[Cornishman]

I'm fine with the way that whilst generally unrealistic small arms can whittle away on tanks. I can live with the rather improbable odds of a squad of guard (whether a standard 10 man unit or blob of 30 conscripts) taking out a land raider with nothing but their lasguns (or laspistol).

[i like maths, so by my reconning the odds of a blob of 30 conscripts taking out a LR on full health in a single round of firing (whilst in rapid firing range) is only 1:3,364,877,717,537,360,000. The odds of doing at least 8 wounds are substantially better at a mere 1:11,104,967]

Overall I really liked 4/5E (and to an extent the inherited mechanics of 6/7). AVs where at the core of the (to me) artificial mechanical divide between monsters/monstrous creatures and vehicles, which I really didn't like.

In operation I found the AV system immersive (which I liked), and rewarded manoeuvring (both defensive & offensive which I too liked), but I suspect like many I found it could easily slow things down (e.g. trying to figure out which armour facing is being shot at for the various xenos tanks which aren’t boxes).

Removing/ reducing rerolls I think is for the best. An issue could be that those loyalist boxes (and thus by implication the cost for their traitor cousins) still have costs for them baked in as a hangover. I’m a casual player, as such under 8.5E as a rule I didn’t run sallies/ Master Artisans, and avoided always going for a Chapter Master (for those asking why: again casual). Doing this C:SM things seemed rather expensive/ ineffective for the points… On those occasions I went Master Artisan and spent those CPs for a Chapter Master suddenly the army came much more potent. I’d agree with the sentiment that this combination was a bit too good. It did leave me feeling that the C:SM units were costed assuming you’d have a Chapter Master babysitting your important units, the MSU would have a partial if not full re-roll etc…

I'd agree with the sentiment that some of the rules balance is intended to shift product, which does make me wonder how many Vindicators GW has in stock given the current points difference to a pred...

[Schlitzaf]

If you ever see a conscript squad killing a Leman Russ with chip damage I’d love to see it. It just isn’t a thing that happens. To kill russ or any tank with chip damage. Specifically Lasguns. If 12ish average wounds.

30 wounds. 180 Hits. 360 Shots. Or in otherwards even if assume FRSRTR. 90 Gaurdsman In Rapid. That 500 Points to kill 150 Point Tank.

[MARK0SIAN]

People on both sides of the argument always seem to use the guardsman with lasgun against a tank example when arguing about chip damage but that isn’t the problem. It’s true no one is lining up loads of conscripts to shoot at vehicles. But what they are lining up are loads of mid tier stuff like heavy bolters, assault/chain cannons, rockets, even regular Primaris bolters etc and those things are causing way too much chip damage compared to what they should actually be causing.

 

To be clear, they’re not building anti-vehicle lists around those weapons (that’s what Melta is for) but they’re equipping those weapons because they’re good against too wide a variety of things, including vehicles.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

If you ever see a conscript squad killing a Leman Russ with chip damage I’d love to see it. It just isn’t a thing that happens. To kill russ or any tank with chip damage. Specifically Lasguns. If 12ish average wounds.

30 wounds. 180 Hits. 360 Shots. Or in otherwards even if assume FRSRTR. 90 Gaurdsman In Rapid. That 500 Points to kill 150 Point Tank.

not lasguns, but a game against myself, BA vs IG, my BA assault cannons did took most of the wounds off of a leman Russ. I think an supercharged plasma cannon did 2, assault cannons did most of the rest, and dreadnaught finished the last wound in melee

 

And for my IG, the heavy flamers did more damage to the impulsor than my melta, or plasma weapons.

Edited April 15, 2021 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

People on both sides of the argument always seem to use the guardsman with lasgun against a tank example when arguing about chip damage but that isn’t the problem. It’s true no one is lining up loads of conscripts to shoot at vehicles. But what they are lining up are loads of mid tier stuff like heavy bolters, assault/chain cannons, rockets, even regular Primaris bolters etc and those things are causing way too much chip damage compared to what they should actually be causing.

 

To be clear, they’re not building anti-vehicle lists around those weapons (that’s what Melta is for) but they’re equipping those weapons because they’re good against too wide a variety of things, including vehicles.

the fact that a lasgun can even hurt an MBT is the issue to me.

 

I also don't like the way S5-7 have the same chance of damaging a T8 unit.

I wish there was a bit more detail in that department.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

People on both sides of the argument always seem to use the guardsman with lasgun against a tank example when arguing about chip damage but that isn’t the problem. It’s true no one is lining up loads of conscripts to shoot at vehicles. But what they are lining up are loads of mid tier stuff like heavy bolters, assault/chain cannons, rockets, even regular Primaris bolters etc and those things are causing way too much chip damage compared to what they should actually be causing.

 

To be clear, they’re not building anti-vehicle lists around those weapons (that’s what Melta is for) but they’re equipping those weapons because they’re good against too wide a variety of things, including vehicles.

the fact that a lasgun can even hurt an MBT is the issue to me.

 

I also don't like the way S5-7 have the same chance of damaging a T8 unit.

I wish there was a bit more detail in that department.

Absolutely! There’s almost zero granularity in the wound table once you get past S/T 4. Especially with the multi damage weapons. Just two heavy bolter shots getting through strips away 1/3rd of the wounds of a Leman russ.

 

Essentially it’s too easy to wound supposedly tough vehicles and those wounds do too much damage.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

People on both sides of the argument always seem to use the guardsman with lasgun against a tank example when arguing about chip damage but that isn’t the problem. It’s true no one is lining up loads of conscripts to shoot at vehicles. But what they are lining up are loads of mid tier stuff like heavy bolters, assault/chain cannons, rockets, even regular Primaris bolters etc and those things are causing way too much chip damage compared to what they should actually be causing.

 

To be clear, they’re not building anti-vehicle lists around those weapons (that’s what Melta is for) but they’re equipping those weapons because they’re good against too wide a variety of things, including vehicles.

the fact that a lasgun can even hurt an MBT is the issue to me.

 

I also don't like the way S5-7 have the same chance of damaging a T8 unit.

I wish there was a bit more detail in that department.

Absolutely! There’s almost zero granularity in the wound table once you get past S/T 4. Especially with the multi damage weapons. Just two heavy bolter shots getting through strips away 1/3rd of the wounds of a Leman russ.

 

Essentially it’s too easy to wound supposedly tough vehicles and those wounds do too much damage.

Right? At this point it just seems like a punisher LR, or a Baal class predator are just about as effective in AT as dedicated AT load outs. Only difference is they're more flexible than the dedicated AT set ups.

 

I think heavy4 would have been a better heavy bolter buff than making it 2 damage

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Things like lascannons should just be a flat damage of no lower than 4

And give all T8 vehicles 3-5 more wounds, and that would likely solve the issue, or at the very least greatly improve the issue.

[chapter master 454]

Just throwing the taboo in here: Kind of realised one of the famous anti-tank weapons is on the A-10. Good ol' BRRRRT

 

I still believe in adding one more layer to the wound table as is which is if you are 3x stronger/tougher than the target/weapon and that category is ether auto-pass or auto-fail. Add in tanks going above toughness 8, it would actually mean having some sense of scale. A tank with T10-11 is now being wounded on 6s by a heavy bolter, and a toughness 12 tank is just laughing at even bolter fire. I would say that boltgun fire imo would actually be somewhat effective against armoured targets to a VERY lesser degree purely because they are depleted uranium high explosives, that isn't nothing and would likely because a serious threat to most light armour and even medium armour would be somewhat obliged to eventually answer.

 

Again, why the soft cap of 8 on toughness still? Weapons are now going up to strength 14 nowadays. Toughness should also be shifted properly.

 

However that just then causes use to need to sort EVERYONE in terms of scaling. Human base of 3/3 is fine, peak human being 4/4 (catachans), super human (space marine) is 5/5 and custodes would be 6/6. Would make orks being 4/4 reasonable. Same for necrons. I would however state that boltguns wouldn't shift in strength, boltguns weren't meant for such targets (heavily armoured super humans) hence the later development of vengeance rounds (focusing on negating the armour). Then again, if I wrote 40k Ishagu wouldn't play because all my tanks would have tracks, LOADS of tracks. Double tracked tanks, TRIPLE tracked tanks. Even grav-plated tanks would have TRACK BASED grav plates. So many tracks you wouldn't be able to keep track or on track without being on tracks! Muwahaha.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Just throwing the taboo in here: Kind of realised one of the famous anti-tank weapons is on the A-10. Good ol' BRRRRT

 

I still believe in adding one more layer to the wound table as is which is if you are 3x stronger/tougher than the target/weapon and that category is ether auto-pass or auto-fail. Add in tanks going above toughness 8, it would actually mean having some sense of scale. A tank with T10-11 is now being wounded on 6s by a heavy bolter, and a toughness 12 tank is just laughing at even bolter fire. I would say that boltgun fire imo would actually be somewhat effective against armoured targets to a VERY lesser degree purely because they are depleted uranium high explosives, that isn't nothing and would likely because a serious threat to most light armour and even medium armour would be somewhat obliged to eventually answer.

 

Again, why the soft cap of 8 on toughness still? Weapons are now going up to strength 14 nowadays. Toughness should also be shifted properly.

 

However that just then causes use to need to sort EVERYONE in terms of scaling. Human base of 3/3 is fine, peak human being 4/4 (catachans), super human (space marine) is 5/5 and custodes would be 6/6. Would make orks being 4/4 reasonable. Same for necrons. I would however state that boltguns wouldn't shift in strength, boltguns weren't meant for such targets (heavily armoured super humans) hence the later development of vengeance rounds (focusing on negating the armour). Then again, if I wrote 40k Ishagu wouldn't play because all my tanks would have tracks, LOADS of tracks. Double tracked tanks, TRIPLE tracked tanks. Even grav-plated tanks would have TRACK BASED grav plates. So many tracks you wouldn't be able to keep track or on track without being on tracks! Muwahaha.

100% agree about T going up to 12. What was the old AV cap? 14? Idr any more

[chapter master 454]

Indeed AV14 was the old cap which actually did mean a lot of tanks were immune to certain grades of weapons. Very often meaning you had to get a better angle to even dent armour with lesser weapons...unless you were necrons then...well "ha ha Gauss go BRRRT" (until 5th hit...)

 

It was certainly a clunky mechanic however with similar issues to how old templates and scatter did, requiring various edge case rules for extremely daft or super niche scenarios such as unable to clearly see the face that you are in the arc of but you can see another facing. It was kind of fun but also kind of silly as if you think tanks drift these days ho boy it was much funnier back in "the good ol' days" where you would actually move the tank, then begin rotating it at the final spot as to maximise AV facing. Tanks were doing donuts and crescent cuts with flourishes! On top of the further clunk of walkers and when and when not you would hit their rear armour value in melee (some like "I used to be an adventurer like you..."

 

So ultimately it was a flawed system mainly because by all accounts such systems would really only work if we had a full on proper spin-off game system in 40k for tanks and monsters only really. As it stands, the current system is best but just for some reason the valves haven't be correctly opened. Weapon strength being unlocked was a massive deal, much like removing the bloat of WS and BS higher than 5 (if you boys hated charts, 7th was the pinnacle of charts) however I look at how Toughness never moved beyond as well. Really we are playing 9th edition with 7th edition monsters with less wounds (because of the new stat: Damage).

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

If we increase the toughness to T12 then most anti tank weapons are wounding on 5+ without any buffs. I’m thinkimg T9 could be the sweet spot for tanks and this would make lascannons more useful.

[chapter master 454]

If we increase the toughness to T12 then most anti tank weapons are wounding on 5+ without any buffs. I’m thinkimg T9 could be the sweet spot for tanks and this would make lascannons more useful.

 

and currently we are commonly wounding even super-heavies on 3+. I would say that 5+ would be better overall as it stands tanks aren't supposed to be easily taken down. Certainly it may require tweaking but currently your argument is saying tanks being hard to kill would be a problem and currently we have a problem with tanks being too easy to kill. It certainly wouldn't be hard to implement certain buffs and benefits for anti-tank weapons but really there is the other issue with armour saves being in the wrong place of operation.

 

Armour saves and Invulnerable saves should come second (after hit rolls) followed by wounding rolls. I would argue that the to and fro of dice rolling may be more engaging as instead of defeating a full "success" the game becomes "You hit but my armour stands true". The follow up to any failed armour save would be quite fun. It wouldn't affect damage really and to be honest, damage for things like tanks would be much like passing an armour save right after a successful hit. Would let AP feel like an armour defeater instead of a "defence remover".