A possible fix to help vehicles?

[Pandaemonium]

 

 

 

 

I'd rather see vehicles gain more wounds than toughness. The higher toughness goes the more some factions will struggle to even hurt vehicles and that I think will tip the scales too far the other way

no factions will have issues hurting a T9-10 vehicle.

The point is that it should be impossible for non-heavy weapons to hurt something like a landraider, while it doesn't quite do that(without an extra special rule any way) it does come closer. It also doesn't make sense that a 3shot HB is going to to more reliably do some damage than a lascannon.

A weapon should be S6 or above to reliably do any damage to things like baneblades, raiders, or Knights.

I'm not too familiar with xenos factions and their weapons, but not a single imperial faction or chaos faction would actually struggle against T10 vehicles.

Players might have to rebalance their army lists and melee centric armies may have to diversify a bit, but every has at least one S8 weapon that will still be able to do reliable damage to a T9-10 tank.

The less shooty armies will, orks will struggle to kill t9+ at range and proper screening means they won't get to CC.

I preferred it when small arms couldn't hurt vehicles but GW has decided that they should be able to. Looking at fixes that reverse this are kind of pointless imo as it goes against their games design atm.

how will orks have issues shooting T9-10 vehicles?

They have plenty of AT options.

One or two may need to be bumped up to S9 but that's not a big deal

Most of their abti tank comes from melee which can be negated through screening.

Then its either mek guns(variable shots str8 kmk or roll 2d6 vs toughness smasha gun) or tankbusta bomb with more dakka and preferably bad moons or lootas rocking the same thing.

Only one that won't lose effectiveness is the loots, but variable shots and bs5 already makes it swingy shooting t8 vehicles.

Making more guns str 9/10 would help but then that's another set of fixes and more balancing issues which we all know is impossible to balance for GW. T9/10 for superheavies hell yes, but for normal size tanks I think t8 with damage mitigation is a better fit imo.

 

 

Aren't the new Orks vehicle / monster hunters?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

 

I'd rather see vehicles gain more wounds than toughness. The higher toughness goes the more some factions will struggle to even hurt vehicles and that I think will tip the scales too far the other way

no factions will have issues hurting a T9-10 vehicle.

The point is that it should be impossible for non-heavy weapons to hurt something like a landraider, while it doesn't quite do that(without an extra special rule any way) it does come closer. It also doesn't make sense that a 3shot HB is going to to more reliably do some damage than a lascannon.

A weapon should be S6 or above to reliably do any damage to things like baneblades, raiders, or Knights.

I'm not too familiar with xenos factions and their weapons, but not a single imperial faction or chaos faction would actually struggle against T10 vehicles.

Players might have to rebalance their army lists and melee centric armies may have to diversify a bit, but every has at least one S8 weapon that will still be able to do reliable damage to a T9-10 tank.

The less shooty armies will, orks will struggle to kill t9+ at range and proper screening means they won't get to CC.

I preferred it when small arms couldn't hurt vehicles but GW has decided that they should be able to. Looking at fixes that reverse this are kind of pointless imo as it goes against their games design atm.

how will orks have issues shooting T9-10 vehicles?

They have plenty of AT options.

One or two may need to be bumped up to S9 but that's not a big deal

Most of their abti tank comes from melee which can be negated through screening.

Then its either mek guns(variable shots str8 kmk or roll 2d6 vs toughness smasha gun) or tankbusta bomb with more dakka and preferably bad moons or lootas rocking the same thing.

Only one that won't lose effectiveness is the loots, but variable shots and bs5 already makes it swingy shooting t8 vehicles.

Making more guns str 9/10 would help but then that's another set of fixes and more balancing issues which we all know is impossible to balance for GW. T9/10 for superheavies hell yes, but for normal size tanks I think t8 with damage mitigation is a better fit imo.

just up their rockers to S9 not like any such rule changes to tanks would be a FAQ anyway, we'd have to wait until 10th so just up a few of their heavies to S9

[Brother Sergeant Tiberius]

 

 

 

 

 

I'd rather see vehicles gain more wounds than toughness. The higher toughness goes the more some factions will struggle to even hurt vehicles and that I think will tip the scales too far the other way

no factions will have issues hurting a T9-10 vehicle.

The point is that it should be impossible for non-heavy weapons to hurt something like a landraider, while it doesn't quite do that(without an extra special rule any way) it does come closer. It also doesn't make sense that a 3shot HB is going to to more reliably do some damage than a lascannon.

A weapon should be S6 or above to reliably do any damage to things like baneblades, raiders, or Knights.

I'm not too familiar with xenos factions and their weapons, but not a single imperial faction or chaos faction would actually struggle against T10 vehicles.

Players might have to rebalance their army lists and melee centric armies may have to diversify a bit, but every has at least one S8 weapon that will still be able to do reliable damage to a T9-10 tank.

The less shooty armies will, orks will struggle to kill t9+ at range and proper screening means they won't get to CC.

I preferred it when small arms couldn't hurt vehicles but GW has decided that they should be able to. Looking at fixes that reverse this are kind of pointless imo as it goes against their games design atm.

how will orks have issues shooting T9-10 vehicles?

They have plenty of AT options.

One or two may need to be bumped up to S9 but that's not a big deal

Most of their abti tank comes from melee which can be negated through screening.

Then its either mek guns(variable shots str8 kmk or roll 2d6 vs toughness smasha gun) or tankbusta bomb with more dakka and preferably bad moons or lootas rocking the same thing.

Only one that won't lose effectiveness is the loots, but variable shots and bs5 already makes it swingy shooting t8 vehicles.

Making more guns str 9/10 would help but then that's another set of fixes and more balancing issues which we all know is impossible to balance for GW. T9/10 for superheavies hell yes, but for normal size tanks I think t8 with damage mitigation is a better fit imo.

just up their rockers to S9 not like any such rule changes to tanks would be a FAQ anyway, we'd have to wait until 10th so just up a few of their heavies to S9

Yeah we would have yo wait till 10th, some codexes would get their new higher toughness tanks and better guns and we will be stuck I'm this same position now where some factions have a bigger advantage than others

[Wulf Vengis]

Make it part of being a tank. Like units with the <tank> keyword are immune to weapons with a strength value lower than 6.

 

Could even broaden out to cover keyword <Dreadnought> or whatever else might apply.

[OldWherewolf]

Make it part of being a tank. Like units with the <tank> keyword are immune to weapons with a strength value lower than 6.

 

Could even broaden out to cover keyword <Dreadnought> or whatever else might apply.

Having played 3rd and 4th edition where that was a thing, I can say I hate that more than anything.  Not having any chance to wound, especially in 9th would be a game breaker.  I just kill you 1-2 anti-tank units then you have no chance against me.  Tanks do have weaknesses against regular infantry (hand grenades in tracks for example).

 

You're better off with just a -1 to wound (6's always wound).  But a bolter wounding a T7 tank and a T5 ork on the same value just seems off. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

Make it part of being a tank. Like units with the <tank> keyword are immune to weapons with a strength value lower than 6.

 

Could even broaden out to cover keyword <Dreadnought> or whatever else might apply.

Having played 3rd and 4th edition where that was a thing, I can say I hate that more than anything. Not having any chance to wound, especially in 9th would be a game breaker. I just kill you 1-2 anti-tank units then you have no chance against me. Tanks do have weaknesses against regular infantry (hand grenades in tracks for example).

 

You're better off with just a -1 to wound (6's always wound). But a bolter wounding a T7 tank and a T5 ork on the same value just seems off.

grenades in tracks is not even remotely comparable to a lasgun or autogun actually damaging a tank.

Grenade in tracks is why units can take AT grenades.

 

Again most armies don't have to rely on specific anti-tank units, most armies can sprinkle AT weapons throughout the army.

Edited June 13, 2021 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Blurf]

Make it part of being a tank. Like units with the <tank> keyword are immune to weapons with a strength value lower than 6.

 

Could even broaden out to cover keyword <Dreadnought> or whatever else might apply.

That's an immersion rule and has nothing to do with fixing tanks.

 

Tanks aren't bad because heavy bolters are stripping wounds off of them, tanks are bad because one multi-melta or two dark lances pop rhino chassis like balloons. Dedicated anti-tank weapons are so effective at killing tanks now that you can just slap them onto infantry squads and have a unit of tac marines wipe a Leman Russ in one round.

[Blurf]

 

 

Make it part of being a tank. Like units with the <tank> keyword are immune to weapons with a strength value lower than 6.

 

Could even broaden out to cover keyword <Dreadnought> or whatever else might apply.

Having played 3rd and 4th edition where that was a thing, I can say I hate that more than anything. Not having any chance to wound, especially in 9th would be a game breaker. I just kill you 1-2 anti-tank units then you have no chance against me. Tanks do have weaknesses against regular infantry (hand grenades in tracks for example).

 

You're better off with just a -1 to wound (6's always wound). But a bolter wounding a T7 tank and a T5 ork on the same value just seems off.

grenades in tracks is not even remotely comparable to a lasgun or autogun actually damaging a tank.

Grenade in tracks is why units can take AT grenades.

 

Again most armies don't have to rely on specific anti-tank units, most armies can sprinkle AT weapons throughout the army.

 

Which is just more reason why silly rules focusing on bolters and lasguns don't help. You can't target down anti-tank because they need so little to wipe out mech units they can just sprinkle it on their troop squads.

[Waking Dreamer]

For the selected "tough" tanks give them a simple "-1 to wound roll" that parallels some of the flyers/aircraft's "-1 to hit roll".

 

That makes sure heavy bolters are wounding T8 only on 6s, while multi-meltas wound on 5s and lascannons wound on 4s, against T8 tanks.

[chapter master 454]

...kind of find it comical people are putting forward some arguments that tanks at T9 and T10 would be too hard to kill while T8 and lower is currently so easy to kill that I would argue being T9 would actually be a reasonable start.

 

We are trying to fix TANKS here, we aren't saying every carnifex should be T10, every sentinel T8. We are talking about the big burly boss boxes of brutality: Tanks.

To define that, we aren't talking things like bikes and buggies (think the invader and ork speed freak vehicles like the shockjump and boomdakka), we aren't referring to things like land speeders or sentinels or even walkers like dreadnoughts.

We are talking about Predators, Repulsors, Leman Russes, Falcons, Hammerheards, Goliaths (bit of a stretch but the rockgrinder version I would argue counts a min), Rhinos, Chimeras. These heavy machines of war that should NOT be in any way concern for being tagged in combat because it makes near zero sense. As it stands, tanks have ALWAYS struggled to be the main highlight of any edition even the ones where they are called "parking lot" editions, even then Infantry was still busting heads like no tomorrow. The issue stems from the lack of having the rules to back up their might, and that can be addressed purely through a unique typing Keyword. Fly was a mistake of 8th and was likely not fully thought through but that sort of concept of "Universal Special Keywords" could be handy as they describe something that most armies have or will see regularly; we can reasonably say we see "Flyers" much like we see "Tanks" as basically in every army option bar select few exceptions.

It isn't even a BIG exception. "Tanks: Units with this keyword can move into and out of engagement range during the movement phase without penalty. Other non-tank units cannot move within engagement range of a Tank but may move out of engagement range of a tank without penalty (other than those that apply to moving normally). Units with this Keyword may fire normally even if there are other units within engagement range of this unit and may fire at units that are within its own engagement range without penalty"

Long winded but you can summarise it as "Tanks don't care about engagement range".

[jaxom]

 

tanks are bad because one multi-melta or two dark lances pop rhino chassis like balloons. Dedicated anti-tank weapons are so effective at killing tanks now that you can just slap them onto infantry squads and have a unit of tac marines wipe a Leman Russ in one round.

 

A tactical squad with a meltagun and a multimelta has a 60% chance if they don't have the -1 penalty for moving and firing the meltagun and are 6" or less from the Russ. A lot of that comes from the stacking +2 damage per shot that wounds

 

I think it's the risk vs reward of getting that +2 bonus which is healthy. The dark lances and cognis lascannons are more of a saturation issue from my perspective.

Edited June 13, 2021 by jaxom

[OldWherewolf]

... "Tanks: Units with this keyword can move into and out of engagement range during the movement phase without penalty. Other non-tank units cannot move within engagement range of a Tank but may move out of engagement range of a tank without penalty (other than those that apply to moving normally). Units with this Keyword may fire normally even if there are other units within engagement range of this unit and may fire at units that are within its own engagement range without penalty"

Long winded but you can summarise it as "Tanks don't care about engagement range".

I like where you started, but went a little too far.  You're absolutely right that my Baneblade should not care if there is a grot holding out his finger and touching the side of my tank.  However, I would care if that unit touching my Leman Russ, chimera or hellhound was a titan, Baneblade or a monsterous creature (carnifex, demon prince, etc.), or even another tank.

 

Maybe change that to "Tanks: Units with this keyword can move into and out of engagement range of INFANTRY during the movement phase without penalty.  Tanks may not move out of engagement range of units with the TANK, MONSTEROUS CREATURE or TITANIC keyword(s)."

 

I dug up an old Goonhammer article on eradicators (link), and this quote hits the nail on the head:

 

To be blunt, a squad of six Eradicators at half range does enough damage to wipe out any target that doesn’t have an invulnerable save. Just one more reason to leave the Repulsor Executioner at home, and even an unprotected Baneblade is going to be vapor.

And those 6 Eradicators cost as much as my 1 TC...

[jarms48]

 

And those 6 Eradicators cost as much as my 1 TC...

 

The points cost doesn't both me, it's the TC's durability that does. If Leman Russ tanks (and any vehicle on a Leman Russ hull) went up to 14 wounds and 2+ save against ranged attacks (so a 3+ save in melee) they'd be a lot better. That means taking the up-armoured tank ace could then instead give a 1+ save against shooting and a 2+ save in melee. 

[OldWherewolf]

 

And those 6 Eradicators cost as much as my 1 TC...

 

The points cost doesn't both me, it's the TC's durability that does. If Leman Russ tanks (and any vehicle on a Leman Russ hull) went up to 14 wounds and 2+ save against ranged attacks (so a 3+ save in melee) they'd be a lot better. That means taking the up-armoured tank ace could then instead give a 1+ save against shooting and a 2+ save in melee.

 

That's just it, it's all in the points cost.  If that TC, which is 30% less effective than 3 Eradicators was 30% less cost than the Eradicators and 9 wounds, I don't think we'd be having this conversation.  But as is, tanks are too expensive despite being so much more fragile compared to their infantry counterparts.

 

More wounds is a partial solution, but it wouldn't be 14, we're talking 19 wounds, or a 5++.  19 wounds barely drops 6 eradicators below a 90% chance to kill a LR.  At least the base 2+ gives us some save vs. none at all for the current Multi-Melta meta.

[jarms48]

That's just it, it's all in the points cost.  If that TC, which is 30% less effective than 3 Eradicators was 30% less cost than the Eradicators and 9 wounds, I don't think we'd be having this conversation.  But as is, tanks are too expensive despite being so much more fragile compared to their infantry counterparts.

 

More wounds is a partial solution, but it wouldn't be 14, we're talking 19 wounds, or a 5++.  19 wounds barely drops 6 eradicators below a 90% chance to kill a LR.  At least the base 2+ gives us some save vs. none at all for the current Multi-Melta meta.

 

 

I don't see Leman Russes going any higher than 16 wounds max. I think you'd be better off giving them some kind of -1 damage (minimum 1) ability instead. 

[OldWherewolf]

I don't see Leman Russes going any higher than 16 wounds max. I think you'd be better off giving them some kind of -1 damage (minimum 1) ability instead.

I agree with you, but it's all in the points cost.  Currently, a Leman Russ (non-TC) should be around 100 points.  For it's current point cost, at the minimum it should have 16 wounds a -1D. 

 

The biggest problem is the variance in output.  for 2-3 turns a LR w/DC could do nothing, then 1 turn go hot and wipe Mortarion. 

[Wulf Vengis]

 

I don't see Leman Russes going any higher than 16 wounds max. I think you'd be better off giving them some kind of -1 damage (minimum 1) ability instead.

I agree with you, but it's all in the points cost. Currently, a Leman Russ (non-TC) should be around 100 points. For it's current point cost, at the minimum it should have 16 wounds a -1D.

 

The biggest problem is the variance in output. for 2-3 turns a LR w/DC could do nothing, then 1 turn go hot and wipe Mortarion.

I suppose but couldn't the same be said for just about ANY heavy weapons squad/vehicle in the game?

Edited June 15, 2021 by Wulf Vengis

[Schlitzaf]

I mean, I’d move MBT tank units to 130 range w/ sponsons included. A Russ shouldn’t be pushing 200. That is CoolVehicle Teir (LRaiders, Ravens, nominally Repuslors, Etc)

[MARK0SIAN]

I think they have identified too much variance in weapon performance as an issue. They acknowledged it after the sisters beta codex, they’ve smoothed it out for melta and other weapons since then and we seem to be moving away from things like D3 damage to fixed 2 damage in a lot of cases. The problem is it’s taking way waaayyyy too long to roll out all of the codexes which will hopefully have these kind of variance reductions in them. Some armies could be waiting another year for their update and it’s exacerbating the issues some armies face.

[jarms48]

...kind of find it comical people are putting forward some arguments that tanks at T9 and T10 would be too hard to kill while T8 and lower is currently so easy to kill that I would argue being T9 would actually be a reasonable start.

 

We are trying to fix TANKS here, we aren't saying every carnifex should be T10, every sentinel T8. We are talking about the big burly boss boxes of brutality: Tanks.

To define that, we aren't talking things like bikes and buggies (think the invader and ork speed freak vehicles like the shockjump and boomdakka), we aren't referring to things like land speeders or sentinels or even walkers like dreadnoughts.

We are talking about Predators, Repulsors, Leman Russes, Falcons, Hammerheards, Goliaths (bit of a stretch but the rockgrinder version I would argue counts a min), Rhinos, Chimeras. These heavy machines of war that should NOT be in any way concern for being tagged in combat because it makes near zero sense. As it stands, tanks have ALWAYS struggled to be the main highlight of any edition even the ones where they are called "parking lot" editions, even then Infantry was still busting heads like no tomorrow. The issue stems from the lack of having the rules to back up their might, and that can be addressed purely through a unique typing Keyword. Fly was a mistake of 8th and was likely not fully thought through but that sort of concept of "Universal Special Keywords" could be handy as they describe something that most armies have or will see regularly; we can reasonably say we see "Flyers" much like we see "Tanks" as basically in every army option bar select few exceptions.

It isn't even a BIG exception. "Tanks: Units with this keyword can move into and out of engagement range during the movement phase without penalty. Other non-tank units cannot move within engagement range of a Tank but may move out of engagement range of a tank without penalty (other than those that apply to moving normally). Units with this Keyword may fire normally even if there are other units within engagement range of this unit and may fire at units that are within its own engagement range without penalty"

Long winded but you can summarise it as "Tanks don't care about engagement range".

 

This, you could probably move most T7 vehicles to T8 and most T8 vehicles to T9. It'd probably fix the durability issue pretty quickly. Things like Leman Russ tanks, Land Raiders, Baneblades, Knights, etc could all be T9. Predators, Hammerheads, Fire Prisms, could become T8. 

 

The only T10 vehicles I could see would be actual titan class vehicles. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by jarms48

[OldWherewolf]

I suppose but couldn't the same be said for just about ANY heavy weapons squad/vehicle in the game?

HWTs have a separate problem. 9th is a trading game, so anything you put up on a point is going to die.  If I can put a 15 point HWT up on an objective marker, and you have to put a a 50+ point wych/scion/IG squad, or 100 point marine squad to take it, the cheaper army has a big advantage.  So that 15 point unit is worth a whole lot more than 15 points in terms of VPs.

 

Vehicles, since they usually start at the 75 point range, can be balanced for what they accomplish.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Here’s of a summary of what I consider to be practical solutions:

 

rhino chassis goes to T8

predator and gladiator chassis goes to T9

landraider and repulsor chassis goes to T10

 

All chassis listed above have a 2+ armor save.

 

All chassis above gain 3-4 wounds.

 

All chassis above ignore AP1 and AP2.

 

Tanks can ram when charging which automatically inflicts 3+d3 damage.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Here’s of a summary of what I consider to be practical solutions:

 

rhino chassis goes to T8

predator and gladiator chassis goes to T9

landraider and repulsor chassis goes to T10

 

All chassis listed above have a 2+ armor save.

 

All chassis above gain 3-4 wounds.

 

All chassis above ignore AP1 and AP2.

 

Tanks can ram when charging which automatically inflicts 3+d3 damage.

a rhino ognoring AP2 sounds a bit excessive

[Brother Sergeant Tiberius]

Here’s of a summary of what I consider to be practical solutions:

 

rhino chassis goes to T8

predator and gladiator chassis goes to T9

landraider and repulsor chassis goes to T10

 

All chassis listed above have a 2+ armor save.

 

All chassis above gain 3-4 wounds.

 

All chassis above ignore AP1 and AP2.

 

Tanks can ram when charging which automatically inflicts 3+d3 damage.

That's just OTT and completely unnecessary when you can just tone down the few outlier units that can click delete any vehicle.

Its nice to know some people just want movie marines and an easy roflstomp

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I’ve sent this to geedub.