A possible fix to help vehicles?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

A lot of frustration I'm seeing for vehicles in 9th is cheap weak chaff units tying up big expensive tanks.

 

So how about a 'ramming speed' or 'break through' rule? Possibly as a stratagem for 2 or 3 CP?

 

Something along the lines of

"Move select vehicle 1D3" forward past an enemy unit selected vehicle is in combat with, dealing 1D6 attacks at S8 D2. (Cannot be used against other vehicles)"

 

How does everyone feel about that?

[ranulf the revenant]

I'd be with you :). Don't think something like this would happen anytime soon though...

[Valkyrion]

What about something like;

Vehicles in engagement range of enemy units of less basic Power Level than the vehicle can move as though they were not in engagement. 

This makes it so that a proper horde can keep the vehicle in situ, or a similarly big unit can, but the 5 stealers can be run away from. 

 

I'd also quite like the return of defensive weapons in either of these methods;

Defensive Weapons automatically hit models in engagement range

Or

A vehicle can fire any defensive weapons during Overwatch without using a CP

or

A vehicle can fire any defensive weapons during overwatch at normal unmodified BS.

Defensive weapons being S4 or less (unless there are some particularly devastating S4 weapons out there that I can't think of?)

 

 

One of these solutions allows the vehicle to move away from combat, the other presents a deterrent to the opponent to try and tie up a vehicle. 

[excelite]

Solving this with a strat or the power level solution seem a little bit suboptimal to me, since they potentially add to rule bloat.

 

A nice simple solution could be to give the vehicles a close combat weapon profile like dozer blades or rams like those that are on quite a lot of older style rhino based vehicles anyway.

 

This would introduce a nerf for grav based primaris vehicles, but I don‘t think every vehicle has to have a way to solve this...

[MARK0SIAN]

I’m not a fan of making basic abilities a unit should have into stratagems. A tank shouldn’t only be able to run over a grot if you’ve got CP left. I’d rather solve this with a basic ability for vehicles to move out of combat either if they’re higher power level like Valkyrion suggested or if there’s simply physical room to do so.

 

I added in the second part because you could potentially have a single model from a high power level horde unit touch the front of the vehicle and that would some how mean it was incapable of reversing a few feet. So in other words to trap a vehicle (maybe a vehicle above a certain power level) a unit had to both physically surround the vehicle and be of an equivalent or higher power level. Maybe add in an exception against moving out of combat from single monsters or similar who can’t wrap the vehicle?

[chapter master 454]

So the problem here is that the archetype of "Vehicle" is lumping far too many things into one umbrella that don't all below there. Really it does require another keyword instead of "Vehicle" purely because bikers are vehicles, sentinels are vehicles, ork buggies are vehicles and eldar jetbikes are vehicles and so are the harlequin star...whichever it is the small transport one. These are all "Vehicles" that can be reasonably tied up in close combat, you can quite easily see how enemy units could get on these and cause some real issues such as climbing on and letting lose salvos of gunfire into the driver, even if behind glass (which would likely not be able to handle sustained pummelling). We could imagine these troopers pulling pins and lobbing them inside the open areas of the vehicle to cause damage or in the case of bikes attempt to pull the rider from their mount. We can even imagine with sentinels troopers even being able to possibly pull the sentinel down with enough combined effort (yea, one dude might not do it but what if a whole squad of guardsmen suddenly start grabbing on and not just shooting it but trying to pull on it).

 

Those are all vehicles that are wildly different. I do believe Bikers is a keyword...sorry if my 40k is Super out of wack but I haven't played in well over a year and so far...no chance in sight still.

If I remember rightly, we have "Monster", "Biker", "Walker", "Vehicle" and "Flyer" as keywords that can appear on such units (I leave out Titanic as commonly they have rules against such issues, it is an exception to not have such like in the case of Armigers).

So why isn't "Tank", "Light" and "Heavy" not a thing? I mean I suppose rule bloat but then again we have to compromise somewhere and to be honest keywords getting special exceptions has and is happening already (Flyer used to get special treatment in 8th and now infantry has a penalty with heavy weapon types). To be honest Monsters and Tanks should really have some modicum of immunity to being tied down. Being a monster or tank should be default come with "you can always leave engagement range without penalty and may "push" other models out of the way to do so" however you only have half your movement stat to do so. Caveats would be that Light Tanks can't push models but retain full movement (and maybe add that light tanks get to advance and fire assault weapons without penalty?) and heavy tanks just straight up get to go full movement and push models freely. I would add that Vehicles and monsters themselves cannot by themselves tie up other monsters and vehicles unless there are multiple of them.

(think 1 carnifex vs. 1 predator. The 1 carnifex would not count as still engaging the predator after assault and thus both are free to move. However if there were 2 carnifexs the predator would count as engaged but not the carnifexes, really make mass monsters something).

 

Just some spitballing...too hot where I am to keep thinking (scotland...what is with this heat!)

[dice4thedicegod]

I’m still feeling grateful that vehicles can shoot whilst in engagement range. Haven’t had time to get salty yet!

[Valkyrion]

Keyword rule bloat is a thing that GW have caused for themselves by turning things like Melta Bombs and Smoke Launchers into stratagems. I've just checked the SM dex and walker doesn't appear as a keyword for dreadnoughts - it might be a keyword in 8th?

 

A simple fix for now would be to say that vehicles are only locked in combat by Monsters and other vehicles - it seems silly that two rhinos can force a combat lock but there are no other keywords at the moment. Then in 10th change that rule to Monsters and certain equipment types or keyword types - for instance, Dreadnought melee weapons could force a lock, or more alien things like Great Unclean Ones sliming them or make haywire grenades a thing like melta bombs that can be used in combat against a vehicle that means they can't move out of combat etc.

Basically, unless an Infantry unit has a piece of equipment specifically to prevent vehicles from moving, that vehicle can move following all the normal rules.

[Ishagu]

A point drop will definitely help them. There is a sweet spot of cost vs output vs durability that can make any unit useful

[MARK0SIAN]

A point drop will definitely help them. There is a sweet spot of cost vs output vs durability that can make any unit useful

Whilst I agree several vehicles are currently overcosted, they relied too much on points drops in 8th to improve things. It just leads to a race to the bottom where some units are dirt cheap in points but they’re still never taken because their rules are terrible. In 8th they were extremely reluctant to change unit stats or rules and much rather dropped points. I really hope they go a different direction this edition and are more open to tweaking the rules of units that aren’t seeing the table.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Yeah I agree with Ishagu, a point drop would a good fix for marine tank vehicles (with the exception of the PBC which is.... pretty good  ). I think the frustration with chaff, has more to do with not having the points to both support the vehicles correctly and play the primary objective well.

 

I do think part of the issue is that GW is trying to push certain units for specific fractions, the difference between how good dreads, and daemon engines are compared to the other marine vehicles is telling. I do wonder if its meant to add flavor which if handled right can be good (but probably won't be), or if its plan to push certain products through the pandemic to reduce the number kits they have to worry about manufacturing (necessary evil?). Either way out of the 4 codex that they have released so far, all of them have vehicles/monsters seeing play in competitive lists so its not like GW doesn't know how to get vehicles on the table.

 

I think MARKOSIAN has a valid point that looking at more than point costs for units that aren't being used should be on the table. I just feel that in this case with only 4 codex released and two of those four being "marine" armies that its a bit early to go down that route. The weapon changes they've made so far reinforce this opinion for me because Melta is being pushed hard, and a point adjustment to two shot Melta weapons may fix a lot of issues.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Yeah I agree with Ishagu, a point drop would a good fix for marine tank vehicles (with the exception of the PBC which is.... pretty good ). I think the frustration with chaff, has more to do with not having the points to both support the vehicles correctly and play the primary objective well.

 

I do think part of the issue is that GW is trying to push certain units for specific fractions, the difference between how good dreads, and daemon engines are compared to the other marine vehicles is telling. I do wonder if its meant to add flavor which if handled right can be good (but probably won't be), or if its plan to push certain products through the pandemic to reduce the number kits they have to worry about manufacturing (necessary evil?). Either way out of the 4 codex that they have released so far, all of them have vehicles/monsters seeing play in competitive lists so its not like GW doesn't know how to get vehicles on the table.

 

I think MARKOSIAN has a valid point that looking at more than point costs for units that aren't being used should be on the table. I just feel that in this case with only 4 codex released and two of those four being "marine" armies that its a bit early to go down that route. The weapon changes they've made so far reinforce this opinion for me because Melta is being pushed hard, and a point adjustment to two shot Melta weapons may fix a lot of issues.

No FAQ maybe a pandemic related plan, but these rules were written and decided on long before the pandemic hit

[Lexington]

I could see tying it to Wounds. Maybe something like, a vehicle can’t be obstructed by Infantry units with fewer cumulative Wounds than the Vehicle’s own Wounds value?

[jarms48]

There’s several ways to buff vehicles:

- Most could go down 10 - 15% of their current point costs.

- Many tanks need more durability more wounds, more resilience to chip damage, etc. An interesting way to reduce chip damage would be vehicle classes (light, medium, heavy). Light would have no benefit and would essentially be your toughness 5 and 6 vehicles. Medium would be your toughness 7 vehicles and they would treat AP-1 as AP0. Heavy vehicles your toughness 8 would treat AP-2 as AP0. Which means while you certainly can still use those weapons against tanks, you really should be using actual dedicated AT weapons against them.

- Blast weapons need to be better. It should be minimum 3 per D6 not per weapon.

- Terrain rules need to change from 18 wounds or more to 20 wounds or more.

- LoW choices need to be less CP taxing to bring.

 

For example, take the Baneblade. It costs as much as a Knight and is worse in nearly every way. So, what can you do to buff it?

- Give it 28 Wounds (up from 26).

- Give it a 2+ Save against shooting attacks.

- Give it the ability to reduce incoming damage by 1.

- Give it BS3+.

- Make Super-heavy Auxiliary detachments work exactly like Fortification Networks. Free if the same faction as the warlord and also let them take regiment traits. This would also apply to every other LoW in the game.

 

Suddenly the Baneblade doesn’t look so bad. Sure it still doesn’t have an invul but it can now tank a decent amount of hits, and with other buffing sources (Jury-Rigged Repairs, Gunnery Experts, Hull-down Deployment, etc) you could actually get a lot more out of it.

Edited May 17, 2021 by jarms48

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

There’s several ways to buff vehicles:

- Most could go down 10 - 15% of their current point costs.

- Many tanks need more durability more wounds, more resilience to chip damage, etc. An interesting way to reduce chip damage would be vehicle classes (light, medium, heavy). Light would have no benefit and would essentially be your toughness 5 and 6 vehicles. Medium would be your toughness 7 vehicles and they would treat AP-1 as AP0. Heavy vehicles your toughness 8 would treat AP-2 as AP0. Which means while you certainly can still use those weapons against tanks, you really should be using actual dedicated AT weapons against them.

- Blast weapons need to be better. It should be minimum 3 per D6 not per weapon.

- Terrain rules need to change from 18 wounds or more to 20 wounds or more.

- LoW choices need to be less CP taxing to bring.

 

For example, take the Baneblade. It costs as much as a Knight and is worse in nearly every way. So, what can you do to buff it?

- Give it 28 Wounds (up from 26).

- Give it a 2+ Save against shooting attacks.

- Give it the ability to reduce incoming damage by 1.

- Give it BS3+.

- Make Super-heavy Auxiliary detachments work exactly like Fortification Networks. Free if the same faction as the warlord and also let them take regiment traits. This would also apply to every other LoW in the game.

 

Suddenly the Baneblade doesn’t look so bad. Sure it still doesn’t have an invul but it can now tank a decent amount of hits, and with other buffing sources (Jury-Rigged Repairs, Gunnery Experts, Hull-down Deployment, etc) you could actually get a lot more out of it.

personally I don't consider a points drop a a buff. Changing points doesn't change the effect a model will have against other models. It'll change how many you can take, but doesn't change how effective the model and its rules are.

[chapter master 454]

Super Heavies are a different kettle of fish to deal with really. Without a doubt they are ether complete non-factors or become game warping monsters however I suppose one could present arguments relating to times when single characters were mega-buffed into Smash Masters and basically won entire games by themselves.

 

Vehicles themselves are a problem as the solution is difficult within restricted design space.

 

Personally I would like to make 40k have elements of infantry combat, tank combat and monster combat and these also interact in different ways with each other possibly even form a combat triangle of Infantry beats tank, tank beats monster, monster beats infantry in a loose but common factor. The design behind that is infantry hide in tight places or cover where tanks have a harder time getting their guns to be effective however if they catch something that can't take cover they can mince it, monsters can't really take cover but can sure stomp into it, thrash about in it and cause a big ol' mess but due to their size can't hide or benefit from such terrain.

 

Infantry should naturally have actions that they can take advantage of, right now they only have advance but what if infantry could opt for other actions. Hunker-Down, no movement but enemies outside of 18" treat them as having cover. Heads-down in terrain, can't fire but receive extra benefits such as possibly not being a target for distant enemies and even close enemies struggle to hit them (useful for objectives).

 

However this comes at the cost of complexity which is something that divides but ultimately drives people away. THICC doesn't attract when its a rule book, TL:DR is the very essence of it.

 

Could we add expansions that add these functions? I argue yes, the current 40k is actually more modular than ever and we could add in expansions that have monster on monster combat, tank on tank combat and more indepth infantry on infantry combat with further expansions for how these intereact (read: more books to sell, something GW likes to do. I would be a generous god and try and make the rules cross compatible from the start).

[Karhedron]

Whilst I agree several vehicles are currently overcosted, they relied too much on points drops in 8th to improve things. It just leads to a race to the bottom where some units are dirt cheap in points but they’re still never taken because their rules are terrible. In 8th they were extremely reluctant to change unit stats or rules and much rather dropped points. I really hope they go a different direction this edition and are more open to tweaking the rules of units that aren’t seeing the table.

Putting a points drop in an FAQ is pretty straight-forward. Rewriting stats is a bit more controversial. That is why poor CSM are having to wait for their official codex to get the 2W upgrade. There probably have been instances of stats being changed via FAQ but I can see why it is not GW's preferred method.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

Whilst I agree several vehicles are currently overcosted, they relied too much on points drops in 8th to improve things. It just leads to a race to the bottom where some units are dirt cheap in points but they’re still never taken because their rules are terrible. In 8th they were extremely reluctant to change unit stats or rules and much rather dropped points. I really hope they go a different direction this edition and are more open to tweaking the rules of units that aren’t seeing the table.

Putting a points drop in an FAQ is pretty straight-forward. Rewriting stats is a bit more controversial. That is why poor CSM are having to wait for their official codex to get the 2W upgrade. There probably have been instances of stats being changed via FAQ but I can see why it is not GW's preferred method.

Yeah I get that it’s more hassle and shouldn’t be done a lot but the fact is some units will never be viable without a stats/rules change rather than a points drop. I mean, how many points drops did the land raider have and it was still never used?

 

They should be cautious but willing to change things like number wounds, toughness, saves, number of shots or even give out some special rules of units are not performing their job.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

Whilst I agree several vehicles are currently overcosted, they relied too much on points drops in 8th to improve things. It just leads to a race to the bottom where some units are dirt cheap in points but they’re still never taken because their rules are terrible. In 8th they were extremely reluctant to change unit stats or rules and much rather dropped points. I really hope they go a different direction this edition and are more open to tweaking the rules of units that aren’t seeing the table.

Putting a points drop in an FAQ is pretty straight-forward. Rewriting stats is a bit more controversial. That is why poor CSM are having to wait for their official codex to get the 2W upgrade. There probably have been instances of stats being changed via FAQ but I can see why it is not GW's preferred method.

Yeah I get that it’s more hassle and shouldn’t be done a lot but the fact is some units will never be viable without a stats/rules change rather than a points drop. I mean, how many points drops did the land raider have and it was still never used?

 

They should be cautious but willing to change things like number wounds, toughness, saves, number of shots or even give out some special rules of units are not performing their job.

yep, a points drop is not a buff, it's a lateral movement at best.

 

Points drops should be the fix to strong units that just aren't taken very often in regards to how good they are.

[jarms48]

This was my thoughts on buffing Space Marine vehicles.

 

 

 

Personally, I'd like to see a distinction between First-born and Primaris vehicles. First-born vehicles should be more "tanky and reliable" while Primaris vehicles should be more "high-tech".

 

Something like: 

- Rhinos, Razorbacks, Predators, Vindicators, Stalkers, Hunters, Whirlwinds, and Landraiders should all get the old Self Repair ability the Rhino use to have. I would simplify that rule to read: "If this model has lost any wounds, it regains 1 lost wound."

 

- Hunters, Predators, Stalkers, Vindicators, and Whirlwinds should be increased to 12 wounds.

 

- Landraiders specifically should be increased to 18 wounds. Landraiders should also get a 12 Inch Move and the Assault Vehicle ability to make them more viable as transports. Even with all this they'd probably still be overcosted. I think around 260 points would be fairer for the base variants. 

 

That should give the classic tracked Space Marine vehicles some much needed durability. I'd only give the tracked vehicles the Self Repair rule, due to their simpler designs. 

 

In terms of Primaris vehicles:

- The Impuslor is simple, it should be increased to 12 wounds and give it Auto Launchers.

- The Gladiator should be given Auto Launchers by default and have the option to take a Shield Dome.

- Repulsors should be increased to 18 wounds and have the option to take a Shield Dome.

 

Basically, Primaris vehicles cost more but all of them have the potential for invul saves. 

 

So basically, First-born vehicles get more wounds to play with and regenerate wounds every turn. Primaris vehicles are more advanced and can all take invul saves for a small points increase. 

 

These were more thoughts on making Guard vehicles more durable.

 

 

 

Brainstorming openly again, this is my take on making Imperial vehicles more durable. 

 

Imperial Guard and GSC vehicles:

- Essentially all (ex)Imperial vehicles should benefit from the GSC Rugged Construction rule. The rule should be simplified to "Each time an attack is allocated to this model, subtract 1 from the Damage characteristic of that attack (to a minimum of 1)." The only vehicles that wouldn't get this rule are the non-tracked ones, such as Sentinels due to their more complex nature.

 

- Armageddon-pattern Basilisks and Medusas, Basilisks, Deathstrikes, Griffon Mortar Carrier, Hydras, Manticores, and Wyverns should be reduced to 10 wounds. This is a buff and a nerf. It's a nerf to durability but a buff to VP's, as each would now only give 1 VP for Bring it Down.

 

- Hellhounds should be increased to 12 wounds and given 14 movement.

 

- Leman Russ Tanks should be increased to 14 wounds and given a 2+ save against shooting attacks (3+ save in engagement range). The latter buff is representative of the old armour facing system, when Leman Russ tanks had the same front armour as a Landraider.

 

- Stygies Destroyer Tank Hunters should be increased to 12 wounds and given a 2+ save against shooting attacks (3+ save in engagement range).

 

- Thunderers should be given a 2+ save against shooting attacks (3+ save in engagement range).

 

- Malcadors should be given a 2+ save against shooting attacks (3+ save in engagement range).

 

- Valdor Tank Hunters should be reduced to 18 wounds and given a 2+ save against shooting attacks (3+ save in engagement range). Similar to the Basilisks above this drops their Bring it Down VP from 3 to 2, it also puts it inline with the Malcador.

 

Imperial Guard Lord of War:

- Baneblades (and variants): should be increased to 28 wounds and given a 2+ save against shooting attacks (3+ save in engagement range).

 

- Macharius Heavy Tanks (and variants): should be increased to 24 wounds and given a 2+ save against shooting attacks (3+ save in engagement range).

 

Imperial Guard Stratagems:

- There needs to be some kind of Pop Smoke! stratagem that lets an Imperial Guard player use a Smoke Launcher in the enemies shooting phase.

- Jury-Rigging: Change this to heal D3 wounds. 1 CP for 1 wound and the restrictions really isn't worth it 99% of the time.

- Tech-Adept: Add this stratagem into the Imperial Guard codex, this would make Tech Priest Enginseers more viable. As they could now double repair either a single vehicle, or spread the heals across two vehicles.

 

Imperial Guard Regiment Doctrines:

- Jury-Rigged Repairs: Simplify this to "At the start of your turn, if a vehicle model with this doctrine has lost any wounds, it regains 1 lost wound."

 

Imperial Guard Orders:

 

- I'd like to see a defensive Tank Order. Something like: Button Up! This vehicle treats AP-1 as AP0 until the start of your next Command phase. If this vehicle has the Armageddon regiment keyword, this bonus becomes AP-2 (it stacks with their regimental doctrine).

 

 

Guard use a lot of vehicles, dropping many of the Chimera based vehicles to 10 wounds helps with Bring It Down. Giving all these vehicles Rugged Construction makes them more resistant to chip damage, while giving the old front armour 14 vehicles a 2+ save against shooting helps bring back some of that old durability though still being vulnerable in melee.

 

With some of those other changes I suggested in my earlier post, that'd make vehicles quite durable against basic shooting and melee attacks. Requiring an opponent to actually invest in some actual AT weapons. 

Edited May 18, 2021 by jarms48

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I don't understand how a point drop isn't a buff. There is nothing inherently bad about a land raider stats. Land Raiders didn't see play after the point drops because they were too expensive. For example if Land Raiders were a 100 points total, they'd be one of the best units in the game.

 

I do think that they should explore other options because to be blunt Land Raiders and Redeemers are priced like center piece models and should feel like it. So I'm not suggesting they have to fix it through points, I just don't understand how point drops dont make a unit better.

[MARK0SIAN]

I don't understand how a point drop isn't a buff. There is nothing inherently bad about a land raider stats. Land Raiders didn't see play after the point drops because they were too expensive. For example if Land Raiders were a 100 points total, they'd be one of the best units in the game.

 

I do think that they should explore other options because to be blunt Land Raiders and Redeemers are priced like center piece models and should feel like it. So I'm not suggesting they have to fix it through points, I just don't understand how point drops dont make a unit better.

For me it’s mainly if the unit doesn’t have a role or doesn’t perform that role well enough. Yeah if you made land raiders 100 points they’d be taken but only as a brick of wounds to take up space and soak up firepower. You wouldn’t be taking it because it did anything particular well that some other unit couldn’t do. They’d still have pretty lacklustre firepower, they’d still die just as easily as they do now and they still wouldn’t perform their intended role of an assault transport because of the rules around disembarking. So until it did something worthwhile, which it only could through a rules change, a points drop wouldn’t get me to take it unless it dropped to absolutely absurd levels so it was worth taking as a simple bullet sponge for a squad inside. Edited May 18, 2021 by MARK0SIAN

[Dark Shepherd]

Points can also be upped on anti tank units esp Melta Spammers

 

Superheavies are arguably best left in Apocalypse or Onslaught, terrain heavy boards mighnt work with them. At least Knights have a much smaller footprint

[MARK0SIAN]

Points can also be upped on anti tank units esp Melta Spammers

 

Superheavies are arguably best left in Apocalypse or Onslaught, terrain heavy boards mighnt work with them. At least Knights have a much smaller footprint

I think we will start to see some points increases on melta and some other options. Generally, if a unit or weapon is frequently being maxed out in terms of the rule of 3 then that unit or weapon is too cheap or too powerful. We are certainly seeing that with some units like retributors so I think some units will be in line for a points hike soon, depending on when their codex comes out.

[sairence]

Superheavies are arguably best left in Apocalypse or Onslaught, terrain heavy boards mighnt work with them. At least Knights have a much smaller footprint

I feel game design has left that idea behind when we got all Knight armies and Demon Primarchs. Apocalypse doesn't seem to be actively supported beyond the initial release, which is a bit of a shame...and Onslaught, aka higher point levels, isn't really an answer when a unit is just bad for what it costs. Baneblades aren't going to get better in bigger armies, they'll just die even faster to an opponents increased firepower. :P