A possible fix to help vehicles?

[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.

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.

At a hundred points 4 lascannon shots, and 6 heavy bolter shots would be an impressive amount of fire power.

 

That said I'm not suggesting that other rules shouldn't be updated, I'd like it if power of the machine spirit prevented stats degrading due to wounds taken. That and land raiders should function like assault vehicles.

 

I mainly posted because point decreases can be fix, although GW needs to be more aggressive with them IMO.

[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.

At a hundred points 4 lascannon shots, and 6 heavy bolter shots would be an impressive amount of fire power.

 

That said I'm not suggesting that other rules shouldn't be updated, I'd like it if power of the machine spirit prevented stats degrading due to wounds taken. That and land raiders should function like assault vehicles.

 

I mainly posted because point decreases can be fix, although GW needs to be more aggressive with them IMO.

Yeah at a 100 points they’d be worth it but then they’d also invalidate pretty much everything else at that price, certainly all the other tanks. I agree though, a points cut can be a fix but only if the units only problem is that it’s overcosted. If it has a role and is good at that role but costed too high then points cuts can definitely be a fix, for example a huge number of named characters came down significantly in one of the 8th updates because they had good rules but they were costed like they were the emperor himself. So in that case a price cut fixed them. However if the unit simply isn’t good at its task then points drops can’t fix them IMO.

[Dark Shepherd]

 

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

Knights are arguably a game breaker too and impossible to balance as a sole faction, theyre broken codex exposed a few big holes in the rules and points updating system. At least they fit better on the the board, no room for Baneblades with 9ths terrain :) !

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

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.

At a hundred points 4 lascannon shots, and 6 heavy bolter shots would be an impressive amount of fire power.

 

That said I'm not suggesting that other rules shouldn't be updated, I'd like it if power of the machine spirit prevented stats degrading due to wounds taken. That and land raiders should function like assault vehicles.

 

I mainly posted because point decreases can be fix, although GW needs to be more aggressive with them IMO.

Yeah at a 100 points they’d be worth it but then they’d also invalidate pretty much everything else at that price, certainly all the other tanks. I agree though, a points cut can be a fix but only if the units only problem is that it’s overcosted. If it has a role and is good at that role but costed too high then points cuts can definitely be a fix, for example a huge number of named characters came down significantly in one of the 8th updates because they had good rules but they were costed like they were the emperor himself. So in that case a price cut fixed them. However if the unit simply isn’t good at its task then points drops can’t fix them IMO.

this guy gets my point.

 

If it's a good unit that is over costed a points drop is a fox, but it is not a buff.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

@Inquisitor_Lensoven - how would you define a buff then? For a me a buff is something that makes something better, and a point drop accomplishes that. Its just like how they buff abilities in video games by changing the resource costs involved, the ability becomes better because its cheaper and provides the same effect. The ability in the game worked before so it wasn't broken (unless we're talking about cyberpunk), it just wasn't used because it wasn't good enough.

 

I mean at the end of the day if you had to choose between a land raider with current point cost, and one that is fifty points cheaper with no other differences what rational reason would you have to choose the most expensive option... it's just worse.   

 

I'm not saying that lowering point costs is the only way they should buff units or that it fixes all of them. An Iconic unit like a Land Raider should have unique rules, and I think GW needs to look at it. Its one of the few units I can think of that hasn't been considered "good" the entire time I've played 40k (I've had marines since 3rd edition). With how much they charge for the things that isn't ok. 

 

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

@Inquisitor_Lensoven - how would you define a buff then? For a me a buff is something that makes something better, and a point drop accomplishes that. Its just like how they buff abilities in video games by changing the resource costs involved, the ability becomes better because its cheaper and provides the same effect. The ability in the game worked before so it wasn't broken (unless we're talking about cyberpunk), it just wasn't used because it wasn't good enough.

 

I mean at the end of the day if you had to choose between a land raider with current point cost, and one that is fifty points cheaper with no other differences what rational reason would you have to choose the most expensive option... it's just worse.

 

I'm not saying that lowering point costs is the only way they should buff units or that it fixes all of them. An Iconic unit like a Land Raider should have unique rules, and I think GW needs to look at it. Its one of the few units I can think of that hasn't been considered "good" the entire time I've played 40k (I've had marines since 3rd edition). With how much they charge for the things that isn't ok.

a points drop doesn't make a unit better. That's my whole point...dropping the points does not increase how effective a unit is. A landraider doesn't magically get better because you knock 50pts off...the landraider will still have the same exact effect on the tabletop...a change of points is a lateral movement, it doesn't increase or decrease how well the landraider performs.

 

as i've said before, a buff to me, is a rule change that increases the inherent effectiveness of the unit.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[sairence]

Point decreases help only if the rules a unit has are somewhat decent. It's a slider for efficiency.

 

If a unit has rules that make it inferior, those rules will stay inferior even when you drop the cost. So reducing points really only helps as an adjustment when a unit has the tools to fulfill its role. But if it doesn't have the tools, discounts won't make it better, just cheaper.

[jarms48]

Point decreases help only if the rules a unit has are somewhat decent. It's a slider for efficiency.

If a unit has rules that make it inferior, those rules will stay inferior even when you drop the cost. So reducing points really only helps as an adjustment when a unit has the tools to fulfill its role. But if it doesn't have the tools, discounts won't make it better, just cheaper.

This, a Deathstrike missile launcher could be 50 points and still be useless. It’d basically be a glorified heavy bolter platform and an objective holder. Though, I think that’s an exception.

Edited May 19, 2021 by jarms48

[Valkyrion]

i don't think the snapshot of the wider battle, as 40k games are generally quantified as being, necessitates chip damage and degrading profiles (or auras but that's another issue).

 

if a vehicle has 15 wounds or more it can only be targeted by weapons with SX, if it has 12 wounds or more then SX-1, 9 wounds SX-2, 6 wounds X-3 and so on.

 

So, your Land Raiders can at first only be shot at by weapons with S8, for example, until it falls below 12 wounds then it can be targeted by S7 weapons too, so as the vehicle loses wounds (suffers damage) more enemy weapons can be brought to bear against it. 

 

We're supposed to be playing 5 minutes of mayhem, and no general in their right mind is going to fire small arms at battle tanks unless absolutely necessary. As it is now, the general can direct small arms fire at a baneblade because 'why not?'. 

[Blurf]

I thought the problem with vehicles was that large multiwound models die SUPER fast compared to infantry blobs thanks to the melta and darklance changes.

[Blurf]

i don't think the snapshot of the wider battle, as 40k games are generally quantified as being, necessitates chip damage and degrading profiles (or auras but that's another issue).

 

if a vehicle has 15 wounds or more it can only be targeted by weapons with SX, if it has 12 wounds or more then SX-1, 9 wounds SX-2, 6 wounds X-3 and so on.

 

So, your Land Raiders can at first only be shot at by weapons with S8, for example, until it falls below 12 wounds then it can be targeted by S7 weapons too, so as the vehicle loses wounds (suffers damage) more enemy weapons can be brought to bear against it.

 

We're supposed to be playing 5 minutes of mayhem, and no general in their right mind is going to fire small arms at battle tanks unless absolutely necessary. As it is now, the general can direct small arms fire at a baneblade because 'why not?'.

 

It's heavy on bookkeeping, highly exploitable, encourages skew lists, minimizes player agency, is wildly unfun, and doesn't make any sense even in the scenario you suggested it for.

 

In '5 minutes of mayhem' there's not going to be a general. There'll barely be field commanders. If a tank is about to roll you over it doesn't matter if you have a bolt pistol or a lascannon that's what you're gonna be shooting at.

[Blurf]

 

@Inquisitor_Lensoven - how would you define a buff then? For a me a buff is something that makes something better, and a point drop accomplishes that. Its just like how they buff abilities in video games by changing the resource costs involved, the ability becomes better because its cheaper and provides the same effect. The ability in the game worked before so it wasn't broken (unless we're talking about cyberpunk), it just wasn't used because it wasn't good enough.

 

I mean at the end of the day if you had to choose between a land raider with current point cost, and one that is fifty points cheaper with no other differences what rational reason would you have to choose the most expensive option... it's just worse.

 

I'm not saying that lowering point costs is the only way they should buff units or that it fixes all of them. An Iconic unit like a Land Raider should have unique rules, and I think GW needs to look at it. Its one of the few units I can think of that hasn't been considered "good" the entire time I've played 40k (I've had marines since 3rd edition). With how much they charge for the things that isn't ok.

a points drop doesn't make a unit better. That's my whole point...dropping the points does not increase how effective a unit is. A landraider doesn't magically get better because you knock 50pts off...the landraider will still have the same exact effect on the tabletop...a change of points is a lateral movement, it doesn't increase or decrease how well the landraider performs.

 

as i've said before, a buff to me, is a rule change that increases the inherent effectiveness of the unit.

You've got the right idea but you're a little off.

 

On table effectiveness is absolutely affect by points because of opportunity cost. If you couldn't possibly bring something better for the same cost, that unit is always going to effective on the table.

 

The problem with point reductions is tg hat it affects every aspect of the model at once. If the unit has the tools to do the job but other options can do the same for less resource investment, that can be fixed by points changes. An SoB Castigator would be fine if it was 30pts cheaper.

 

Some units though have rules that are so subpar that no matter how much you lower their points, they'll never be able to do the job as efficiently as another option...until they reach a breakpoint where you're essentially only paying for its base stats. At that point it becomes spammable.

 

A land raider wouldn't be good at 220, or 200, or 180, but at 60 you'd want to run 20 of them.

 

TLDR, point changes can fix units, but only if they were at least decent to begin with.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

@Inquisitor_Lensoven - how would you define a buff then? For a me a buff is something that makes something better, and a point drop accomplishes that. Its just like how they buff abilities in video games by changing the resource costs involved, the ability becomes better because its cheaper and provides the same effect. The ability in the game worked before so it wasn't broken (unless we're talking about cyberpunk), it just wasn't used because it wasn't good enough.

 

I mean at the end of the day if you had to choose between a land raider with current point cost, and one that is fifty points cheaper with no other differences what rational reason would you have to choose the most expensive option... it's just worse.

 

I'm not saying that lowering point costs is the only way they should buff units or that it fixes all of them. An Iconic unit like a Land Raider should have unique rules, and I think GW needs to look at it. Its one of the few units I can think of that hasn't been considered "good" the entire time I've played 40k (I've had marines since 3rd edition). With how much they charge for the things that isn't ok.

a points drop doesn't make a unit better. That's my whole point...dropping the points does not increase how effective a unit is. A landraider doesn't magically get better because you knock 50pts off...the landraider will still have the same exact effect on the tabletop...a change of points is a lateral movement, it doesn't increase or decrease how well the landraider performs.

 

as i've said before, a buff to me, is a rule change that increases the inherent effectiveness of the unit.

You've got the right idea but you're a little off.

 

On table effectiveness is absolutely affect by points because of opportunity cost. If you couldn't possibly bring something better for the same cost, that unit is always going to effective on the table.

 

The problem with point reductions is tg hat it affects every aspect of the model at once. If the unit has the tools to do the job but other options can do the same for less resource investment, that can be fixed by points changes. An SoB Castigator would be fine if it was 30pts cheaper.

 

Some units though have rules that are so subpar that no matter how much you lower their points, they'll never be able to do the job as efficiently as another option...until they reach a breakpoint where you're essentially only paying for its base stats. At that point it becomes spammable.

 

A land raider wouldn't be good at 220, or 200, or 180, but at 60 you'd want to run 20 of them.

 

TLDR, point changes can fix units, but only if they were at least decent to begin with.

i agree, that an effective unit can benefit from points drops.

 

My whole point is that an ineffective unit isn't magically better because it's slightly cheaper.

The only way to make ineffective unit good via points is A massively ridiculous drop, that would never actually happen.

[Ishagu]

Point decreases help only if the rules a unit has are somewhat decent. It's a slider for efficiency.

 

If a unit has rules that make it inferior, those rules will stay inferior even when you drop the cost. So reducing points really only helps as an adjustment when a unit has the tools to fulfill its role. But if it doesn't have the tools, discounts won't make it better, just cheaper.

Yes and No

 

If a Landraider cost 75 points it would be the most overpowered and broken unit in the game.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

Point decreases help only if the rules a unit has are somewhat decent. It's a slider for efficiency.

 

If a unit has rules that make it inferior, those rules will stay inferior even when you drop the cost. So reducing points really only helps as an adjustment when a unit has the tools to fulfill its role. But if it doesn't have the tools, discounts won't make it better, just cheaper.

Yes and No

 

If a Landraider cost 75 points it would be the most overpowered and broken unit in the game.

But only because it would become better at something else’s role than that vehicle. It would be better than the tanks and better than a rhino but it still wouldn’t have anything going for it other than that. It still wouldn’t have a unique role.

 

It doesn’t have enough firepower to be a gunship and it’s not tough enough to really protect valuable cargo and it doesn’t do anything to help a unit assault like have an assault ramp rule to disembark and charge after moving.

 

Drop the points enough and you’d either be taking it as a rhino or tank but not for any intrinsic property of a land raider which is not a fix for a poor unit.

[Schlitzaf]

So lets diagonsis fje problem:

Is problem actually with tanks or a type of tank? Because I am hearing more of the latter. Than anything else here. For twnks who want to he danger close I’d recommend increase in WS and giving an actual weapon

[chapter master 454]

So lets diagonsis fje problem:

Is problem actually with tanks or a type of tank? Because I am hearing more of the latter. Than anything else here. For twnks who want to he danger close I’d recommend increase in WS and giving an actual weapon

 

Or just you know, make it so charging a tank is kind of dangerous as instead of doing melee tanks operate on a "move, get out the way" concept because they are in fact several tons of metal.

 

The issue I raised on this is that Vehicle is a broad term. Charging a low to the ground ork buggy that is open topped makes sense for making unable to run away: the ork wants to punch you in the face and also you are punching the ork in the face so he can't really drive. However when we talk predators and land raider tanks that are fully enclosed, why do they suddenly become unable to shoot when an infantry men runs up and puts a finger on it? Suddenly it HAS to fire at what is in melee range regardless of weaponry.

 

This is where an argument I seem to get laughed at a little but comes in: Lore reflecting in Mechanics (and vice versa but that isn't a point here right now). I am not arguing for the outrageous versions of units where a lone fire warrior solos an entire war but I am asking that if in the lore the tanks are said to just grind things down under treads (not grav plates) then why isn't that a mechanic?

It can be as simple as just creating the variant keyword Tank for Vehicles where that adds the ability to literally ignore any engagement range restrictions, they can move freely and even just roll on top of an objective, pushing infantry off. I would add that infantry only get displaced IF the tank ends up where the model is and the owner gets to reposition the model shortest distance required and also attempt to maintain coherency, no tank shock but possibly add it as a morale modifier if a morale test is taken. Tanks just get to rock into and out of engagement range at will but similarly tanks can't tag other tanks, monsters or even infantry in combat; they just can't. So you can't just use a rhino to prevent overwatch but you can use it to bully your way through enemy infantry lines and get to more vulnerable points.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

Point decreases help only if the rules a unit has are somewhat decent. It's a slider for efficiency.

 

If a unit has rules that make it inferior, those rules will stay inferior even when you drop the cost. So reducing points really only helps as an adjustment when a unit has the tools to fulfill its role. But if it doesn't have the tools, discounts won't make it better, just cheaper.

Yes and No

 

If a Landraider cost 75 points it would be the most overpowered and broken unit in the game.

yes, but to make an LR competitive you have to do ridiculous levels of points drops.

Sure for $50 a hi-point handgun is a great buy. It's still a :cuss gun, but it's a great buy.

[Schlitzaf]

The befter solution is giving them a real melee attack 3+ to hit 6 attacks -2 AP -2 Damage

[MARK0SIAN]

Melee attacks is not going to stop them dying when someone with a melta or similar even looks at them. Making tanks good at melee is another example of making them worth taking by becoming something they’re not.

 

Currently tanks in some armies don’t do anything better than the equivalent points of an infantry unit.

 

They don’t outshoot them

They don’t take and hold ground better

They don’t survive longer

They’re harder to buff

 

Until they do something worthwhile and unique (preferably in a role that a tank should occupy) they’re going to struggle. The designers have (intentionally or accidentally) created a set of rules, points costs and unit abilities that are very unfriendly to most vehicles in this edition and until something fundamental in at least two of those categories changes then I don’t see it being a vehicle friendly edition for a lot of armies.

[jaxom]

 

as i've said before, a buff to me, is a rule change that increases the inherent effectiveness of the unit.a points drop doesn't make a unit better. That's my whole point...dropping the points does not increase how effective a unit is. A landraider doesn't magically get better because you knock 50pts off...the landraider will still have the same exact effect on the tabletop...a change of points is a lateral movement, it doesn't increase or decrease how well the landraider performs.

 

Regarding this and the previous replies to it: I think it would help to define a unit buff (the unit gets objectively better) versus a point-efficiency buff (the unit gets more efficient at its role for its point cost). A unit buff may also be a point-efficiency buff, but not the other way around. For example, an artillery unit getting a new rule to ignore cover is a unit buff, but if its points go up then it may not be a point-efficiency buff.

 

The reason why I make the distinction is that point-efficiency tends to be where tournament players and those more interested in list design tend to focus when it comes to choosing which units to include for specific roles in an army. Cultists where/are objectively a unit with terrible rules, but their point-efficiency was extremely high at the beginning of eighth edition. Castellans were a great unit, but once their point-efficiency dropped due to their increasing cost.... 

 

The other area where point-efficiency can become a pseudo-unit buff is redundancy. Multiwound, multimodel units have firebreaks for wounds (no spill over), but degrade faster than vehicles as they actually lose wounds. Being able to include more of a vehicle unit (two Russ tanks instead of one) not only creates not just a wound firebreak, but a target declaration firebreak while not degrading as fast individually. One tank is a target, three tanks are a threat.

 

 

 So you can't just use a rhino to prevent overwatch but you can use it to bully your way through enemy infantry lines and get to more vulnerable points.but I am asking that if in the lore the tanks are said to just grind things down under treads (not grav plates) then why isn't that a mechanic?

 

It is a mechanic, though the efficacy of it is questionable. Charge a unit with the Rhino, make its melee attacks, hopefully survive, and in the next movement phase Fall Back towards the enemy's line/more vulnerable points. It many ways it mirrors the old Death or Glory mechanic. Doing this to a unit with a powerfist or what have you is not the best idea and you're only likely to inflict one wound, but a unit without antitank is unlikely to kill the Rhino before it can "fall back." 

 

The befter solution is giving them a real melee attack 3+ to hit 6 attacks -2 AP -2 Damage

 

Or have something like Blast for melee, something that scales the attack's effectiveness with model count in the unit being attacked.

[Schlitzaf]

Melee attacks is not going to stop them dying when someone with a melta or similar even looks at them. Making tanks good at melee is another example of making them worth taking by becoming something they’re not.

 

Currently tanks in some armies don’t do anything better than the equivalent points of an infantry unit.

 

They don’t outshoot them

They don’t take and hold ground better

They don’t survive longer

They’re harder to buff

 

Until they do something worthwhile and unique (preferably in a role that a tank should occupy) they’re going to struggle. The designers have (intentionally or accidentally) created a set of rules, points costs and unit abilities that are very unfriendly to most vehicles in this edition and until something fundamental in at least two of those categories changes then I don’t see it being a vehicle friendly edition for a lot of armies.

You mean a weapon doing job its supposed to do, does its job. Is a bad thing?

 

Where what vehicles do well:

Non Blast Based Vehicles still Pew Pew Pew in melee

They can redeploy without loss of any fire power

They require dedicated weaponry to take down reasonably

 

Like the a melta unit one rounding s vehicle. How is that a bad thing? If eradicators couldn’t. They’d be absolutely garbage. A vehicle is many things. If Marines are garbage because they just fail to do anything. Does that make infantry bad?

 

By vehicle you mean tank, by tank you meant the main battle tank:

Leman Russes

Predators

Etc

 

Or SuperTanks:

Land Raiders

Monoliths (yes I know a LoW)

Non-Knight LoW’s

 

 

There isn’t a problem with vehicles. Vehicles work fine. The fact units one shot them is intended design. If those units didn’t one shot they’d be completely garbage or didn’t one shot efficiency.

 

Land Raiders and most SuperTanks have always been garbage. Or downright game wrapping. As a melee infantry army, “big guns never tire” absoutely fricking sucks.

 

Because I have limited anti tank. And my anti-tank is alpha or outflanking. And dealing with some thing like a double shooting punisher into tide squads is awful. And scooping up a 20 marines a turn is awful. As I can only do twickle damage or reliant on like 4 units and characters.

 

Does this bias me? Perhaps. But if my Erads couldn’t reliably one shot. I’d basically never remove a tank. And said Erads are easy to screen. And have awful variance.

 

What exactly is the problem:

You complain about one shotting by units whose only effective because they one shot

You feel don’t do enough damage to units but thoss units take 2+ rounds to use punch or pew pew. And feel that you should be able to remove “Squads” of Ork Boyz (300) points from a single tank in a single round. But complain if reverse is true.

 

What do “tanks” need to do? I’d argue super tanks MBT who want to be dangerclose should be +1 Toughness. And Sponsons should be cheaper in general. While dedicated super tanks or LoW shoild be T9 or T10.

[Brother Casman]

Okay, so I've been turning over a few ideas in my head for a few days, and I've been thinking about Land Raiders specifically, but I'll put them out there regardless.

 

So, for context, in previous editions the Land Raider was AV14 all around. To actually damage the tank, you had to get through the armour, via an armour penetration roll. You'd (usually) roll a D6 and add the value to the Str characteristic of the attack. If you equaled the AV value, you did a glancing hit (and some minor damage), and if you beat the AV value, you did a penetrating hit (and usually major damage).

Some quick comparisons:

Str 10 needed a 4+ to do anything to a Land Raider

Str 9 needed a 5+

Str 8 needed a 6+

Str 7 and below could not beat the armour with a D6 AP roll and (generally) couldn't cause damage

 

GW has moved to a unified Toughness system for models in recent years (which I generally prefer, but that's topic for another discussion), and the To Wound roll is mostly analogous to the old AP roll. If we wanted to keep Str 10 attacks to a 4+ to actually cause damage to a Land Raider, the Land Raider would need to be a minimum T of 10.

So versus Toughness 10:

Str 10 needs a 4+ (which is fine)

Str 9 needs a 5+ (matches our old scale, so probably okay)

Str 8 needs a 5+ (hmmm, our old scale was 6+, but that would require T 16 in this case. T16 would make the Str 10 wound on a 5+, so a bit of a dilemma)

Str 7 and Str 6 also need a 5+ (hmmm...)

Str 5 and below need a 6+ (uh-oh)

 

I think part of where people are getting hung up is that the Land Raider doesn't feel as durable as it did before. With the AV system, there was literally no point in attacking with low Str weapons, since they couldn't do anything.

 

With all that in mind, I would probably start by bumping the Toughness of the Land Raider up to 10 (at minimum). I would probably also explore the idea of adding a rule associated with the "Vehicle" keyword, where if the Str of your attack is 3 or more points lower than the Toughness, you can't actually wound the vehicle. In general, we won't be able to wound a T 10 Land Raider with Str 7 or lower attacks, though specific weapons may need to get looked at along the way.

 

Alas, as a solution, I fear we'd be looking at an edition change to implement all that. So, my short answer is that we should probably bump up the Toughness of Vehicles in general.

[Brother Casman]

As for vehicles getting tied up in melee when they don't want to be, I'd probably just allow them to drive out of melee with no penalty.

[Schlitzaf]

Casman I have gone and explained this earlier. Your promoting a false equivalency or narrative, as I went and explained elsewhere. That old armor value was actually LESS durable  than they are now if you look at point efficiency. Because the way old armour table worked it was less than effective than the current setup. As you only need 4 glancings to kill a vehicle with how hullpoints work. And past editions one super melta = :( tank (with good variance on rolls).