A possible fix to help vehicles?

[TrawlingCleaner]

I'm assuming when you say that a tank rams it does 3+d3 Mortal wounds? If so that's bonkers and would reliably do more damage than most melee units if they were to make the changes you recommended to the toughness of tanks. 3+d3 mortal wounds on average is 5 wounds, Venoms and other cheap fast vehicles would be spammed and obliterate everything. Even as a stratagem, I think it would ruin the game.

 

If you're recommending that these vehicles get toughness increases, you would also need to boost every other vehicle AND monsterous creature toughness in the game and also rebalance Anti-tank weapons. Knights, Plagueburst Crawlers, Defilers and all manner of other (currently) T8 statlines would be horrific and most armies would struggle with them.

If you boost the Toughness of units, you also need to boost the strength of the weapons that are good VS them. We've seen them do similar with boosting the Wounds on marine units etc, they've also had to boost damage too. The problem is that generally you're straight back to square one. Melta still kills Landraiders, Autocannons are still taking out Rhinos etc etc. The only plus side to increasing Toughness of units and Strength of weapons is that it allows for more granularity.

 

The whole game system is based on the current values of most weapons and toughness characteristics. Changing that has far more knock on effects that most of us would realise and would likely cause a massive balancing issue for GW. I personally think the easiest route and thematic route is to introduce damage/AP reduction to a lot of beefier tanks/monsters. Ignoring AP-1 on most tanks and saving ignoring AP-2 for Landraider equvilents, alternatively an invuln would work well here too. Most, if not all vehicles/monsters should reduce damage by 1.

[Wulf Vengis]

Perhaps a maximum wound cap similar to ghaz?

[MARK0SIAN]

I’m finding it weird how we are looking at improving the survivability of vehicles yet a lot of people seem to say that if we increase the toughness/durability of vehicles we also need to increase the strength of anti-tank weapons thus making the buffs to vehicles completely redundant and leaving us back at square one.

[TrawlingCleaner]

You increase T8 vehicles like LR and knights to T10, some to T9 and things like rhinos to T8.

 

Melta, Missile launchers, power fists and thunder hammers (SM premium anti-tank) now all wound rhinos on 4s and LR/knights on 5s. Lascannons and Heavy Plasma Incinerators wounds are now wasted on LR and Knights (the targets the previously had an edge in).

 

Dreadnought fists and the big cannon on the Executioner are the only thing that can wound tanks well in the SM codex.

The meta would shift and it would only be about mortal wound spam and vehicle only lists. Let alone the fact that many factions would not even be able to deal with T9/T10 vehicles

 

All you've done is create another monster and useless Anti-tank guns. If you increase the toughness of vehicles you also need to increase the strength of AT otherwise it's no longer does it's job

 

If AT guns have special rules that boost their damage, give vehicles special rules that reduce the damage they take to balance that out more

[MARK0SIAN]

If you’re only going to consider anti-tank weapons as worth it if they can one shot any vehicle then you’re never going get to a point where vehicles are worth taking. Anti-tank weapons are not meant to be a silver bullet against tanks: they’re meant to be more effective against them.

 

We’ve currently got a state where 150-200 points of Anti tank infantry weapons can happily one shot 300-400 point ls worth of supposedly tough vehicles. If you up vehicle toughness and durability so that it even takes twice as long for that unit to kill it, the advantage is still with the anti-tank weapons.

 

Upping vehicle survivability does not need to go hand in hand with an improvement to anti vehicle weapons as we are trying to correct a disparity, not just shift the disparity up a few numbers.

[sairence]

I don't really think massive toughness changes are needed, because that's always going to cause huge shifts at that scale.

 

Simple datasheet rules like damage reduction, ignoring the first point of AP or 2+ armour saves instead of 3+ as standard on heavy vehicles would already make a significant difference without massively warping entire swathes of the game. If you throw in some decent invuns against ranged attacks or FNPs were appropriate can set them apart more

 

Edit: And if I can dream I would ask for less punishing damage tables. My Guard vehicles are for the most part functionally useless once they're in their middle bracket.

Edited June 17, 2021 by sairence

[Commander Dawnstar]

If you’re only going to consider anti-tank weapons as worth it if they can one shot any vehicle then you’re never going get to a point where vehicles are worth taking. Anti-tank weapons are not meant to be a silver bullet against tanks: they’re meant to be more effective against them.

 

My problem with blanket raising vehicle Toughness is that it often doesn't achieve the latter part of this thanks to the contemporary To Wound table.

 

Making Predators Toughness 9 puts a Space Marine with a Power Fist or Missile Launcher at -2 to wound while leaving a Heavy Bolter totally unaffected. Obviously those examples aren't the very pinnacle of anti-tank weaponry, but they shouldn't be in situation where they're only marginally more effective/reliable than generalist anti-infantry weapons when it comes to dealing with tanks.

Edited June 17, 2021 by Commander Dawnstar

[Waking Dreamer]

I don't really think massive toughness changes are needed, because that's always going to cause huge shifts at that scale.

 

Simple datasheet rules like damage reduction, ignoring the first point of AP or 2+ armour saves instead of 3+ as standard on heavy vehicles would already make a significant difference without massively warping entire swathes of the game. If you throw in some decent invuns against ranged attacks or FNPs were appropriate can set them apart more

 

Dreadnoughts are more than viable at the moment, and the majority are the standard toughness 7 without invulnerable saves, so their additional damage mitigation rules seems like the way to go - rather than an impossible mid-edition escalation in vehicle toughness.

 

 

If you’re only going to consider anti-tank weapons as worth it if they can one shot any vehicle then you’re never going get to a point where vehicles are worth taking. Anti-tank weapons are not meant to be a silver bullet against tanks: they’re meant to be more effective against them.

 

My problem with blanket raising vehicle Toughness is that it often doesn't achieve the latter part of this thanks to the contemporary To Wound table.

 

Making Predators Toughness 9 puts a Space Marine with a Power Fist or Missile Launcher at -2 to wound while leaving a Heavy Bolter totally unaffected. Obviously those examples aren't the very pinnacle of anti-tank weaponry, but they shouldn't be in situation where they're only marginally more effective/reliable than generalist anti-infantry weapons when it comes to dealing with tanks.

 

 

Well how about a "hard to wound" rule instead:

 

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 lascannon equivalents wound on 4s.

 

?

[Waking Dreamer]

^ Also, that "-1 to wound roll" rule would only be vs shooting attacks (which is the type of weapons that stops tanks being brought to the table right?). 

 

If a melee unit finally manages to get into combat with a tank, that's fair game now.

[jarms48]

I don't really think massive toughness changes are needed, because that's always going to cause huge shifts at that scale.

 

Simple datasheet rules like damage reduction, ignoring the first point of AP or 2+ armour saves instead of 3+ as standard on heavy vehicles would already make a significant difference without massively warping entire swathes of the game. If you throw in some decent invuns against ranged attacks or FNPs were appropriate can set them apart more

 

Edit: And if I can dream I would ask for less punishing damage tables. My Guard vehicles are for the most part functionally useless once they're in their middle bracket.

 

That's why I feel Guard vehicles need to have more wounds as well as some kind of other durability buff. That 4+ going to 5+ is crippling in itself. So either a 14 - 16 wound Leman Russ with Toughness 9 to match a T9 Land Raider, or you give it a better save and/or a damage negating ability. 

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

If you’re only going to consider anti-tank weapons as worth it if they can one shot any vehicle then you’re never going get to a point where vehicles are worth taking. Anti-tank weapons are not meant to be a silver bullet against tanks: they’re meant to be more effective against them.

My problem with blanket raising vehicle Toughness is that it often doesn't achieve the latter part of this thanks to the contemporary To Wound table.

 

Making Predators Toughness 9 puts a Space Marine with a Power Fist or Missile Launcher at -2 to wound while leaving a Heavy Bolter totally unaffected. Obviously those examples aren't the very pinnacle of anti-tank weaponry, but they shouldn't be in situation where they're only marginally more effective/reliable than generalist anti-infantry weapons when it comes to dealing with tanks.

Oh yeah totally. I’ve said in other threads that I don’t really believe you can solve this problem whilst you have the current wound table. It gives almost no granularity when you get beyond S/T 4. A strength 5 weapon wounding everything from T6 to T9 on a 5+ doesn’t really give you any room to work and it only gets worse as the S/T gets higher.

 

It means you’re left at symptom treating solutions like reducing damage by 1 or ignoring certain levels of AP without being able to address one of the core problems.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Maybe we need something like the AT system for more granularity?

In AT, all weapons have strength values, like 40k. The weakest weapons are S3, the strongest weapon in the game is S13. Each weapon also has a dice value, which is essentially its 'Type'. A Vulcan Mega Bolter does 6 shots at Strength 4. A Suzerain Plasma Destructor does 3 shots at S11-13 (it's 11 standard, but 13 if you elect for maximal power, with a risk of overheating.)

 

Titans don't have toughness, they have armour values that range from 9 on a Questoris, to 13 on a Warmaster, 

The wound roll isn't done on a table, you just roll a D6 for every hit you score and add it to the weapon's strength. If you beat the armour value, your target takes damage. (1s always fail)

There are then scales of success. So equalling the armour value of a unit does one 'wound', progressively higher scores would do more wounds. With score brackets showing how many wounds you do. A Warhound's body takes one wound on a 10-11, 2 wounds on a 12-13, and '4' wounds on 14+. (I'm simplifying this a bit, as AT has other mechanics.)

There are also bonuses available to armour rolls, so as a titan becomes more damaged, armour rolls gain between +1 and +3 strength. (In this way, low strength weapons cannot damage undamaged titans, but can apply a killing blow later on.) There are also other bonuses like Melta cannons rolling a D10 for damage within half range, some weapons do an additional D3 if you roll a 6, and there are armour bonuses for hitting side or rear facings. 

Applying it to 40k for instance, you could just massively amp up the toughness values of tanks, but keep weapons largely the same, with AT weapons gaining armour or wound bonuses, and the wound brackets conveying armour bonuses to lower strength weapons. You could keep lascannons at S9 and Meltas at S8, but set a Land Raider to T13 or T14, and a Predator to say 11. As they take wounds, smaller weapons would be able to be brought to bear. Meltas could perhaps roll D6+D3 within half range.

It would be too big a change for this edition, but would, I think, dovetail nicely with the existing system for non vehicles.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Brother Adelard

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I’m finding it weird how we are looking at improving the survivability of vehicles yet a lot of people seem to say that if we increase the toughness/durability of vehicles we also need to increase the strength of anti-tank weapons thus making the buffs to vehicles completely redundant and leaving us back at square one.

 

I think they are 3 main reasons that people feel this way.

 

1) FOC or the lack there of - There are very few restrictions on list building, so the danger of vehicles becoming too good is real. I mean a marine list with a minor CP penalty can get 8 heavies, 4 elites, with only 1 troop and 2 hqs. That is a lot of hulls, and if anti-tank isn't good enough all you do is flip the problem.  

 

2) All the fixes are for tanks - They aren't the only type of vehicle struggling, and aren't something every army has access too. Armies like Nids need strong anti-tank if your going to leave MC behind (If it wasn't for forgeworld Nids would probably manage to be worse than GSC). 

 

3) Chip Damage - A lot of solutions involve getting rid of it. In my opinion the threat from it is relatively minor, I would go so far as to say that you want them chasing that particular dragon. That said if basic infantry can't interact with tanks than the specialist gear/units need to be better at it to compensate. 

 

IMO most of the suggestions in this conversation ignore a simple fact. If the reason that vehicles need to be buffed is anti-tank is too good why aren't we nerfing anti-tank? Why not drop Multi-melta to str 7? That change makes MM wound most vehicles on a 4+ same as increasing tanks toughness, while also making them worse against infantry increasing their opportunity cost.

 

It may be pessimistic of me, but I honestly expect GW to buff vehicles instead of balancing the anti-tank. Its just an easy way to start an arms war... with only one supplier. I expect 10th to advertise that they heard us and fixed vehicles, and see a flipped meta of vehicle spam.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

I’m finding it weird how we are looking at improving the survivability of vehicles yet a lot of people seem to say that if we increase the toughness/durability of vehicles we also need to increase the strength of anti-tank weapons thus making the buffs to vehicles completely redundant and leaving us back at square one.

I think they are 3 main reasons that people feel this way.

 

1) FOC or the lack there of - There are very few restrictions on list building, so the danger of vehicles becoming too good is real. I mean a marine list with a minor CP penalty can get 8 heavies, 4 elites, with only 1 troop and 2 hqs. That is a lot of hulls, and if anti-tank isn't good enough all you do is flip the problem.

 

2) All the fixes are for tanks - They aren't the only type of vehicle struggling, and aren't something every army has access too. Armies like Nids need strong anti-tank if your going to leave MC behind (If it wasn't for forgeworld Nids would probably manage to be worse than GSC).

 

3) Chip Damage - A lot of solutions involve getting rid of it. In my opinion the threat from it is relatively minor, I would go so far as to say that you want them chasing that particular dragon. That said if basic infantry can't interact with tanks than the specialist gear/units need to be better at it to compensate.

 

IMO most of the suggestions in this conversation ignore a simple fact. If the reason that vehicles need to be buffed is anti-tank is too good why aren't we nerfing anti-tank? Why not drop Multi-melta to str 7? That change makes MM wound most vehicles on a 4+ same as increasing tanks toughness, while also making them worse against infantry increasing their opportunity cost.

 

It may be pessimistic of me, but I honestly expect GW to buff vehicles instead of balancing the anti-tank. Its just an easy way to start an arms war... with only one supplier. I expect 10th to advertise that they heard us and fixed vehicles, and see a flipped meta of vehicle spam.

I think the tendency to buff tanks/vehicles rather than reduce the effectiveness of anti-armour weapons is that the lethality of shooting in the game is high across the board. You’d have to tone down so much shooting to make the current profile of vehicles genuinely tough. Not that I’m against toning down the overall lethality of the game, far from it, I just don’t see them going for it.

 

I do agree that the lack of a strict FOC is an issue, it’s better this edition than in 8th but it’s still too easy to take all the cool toys which makes balancing things really difficult.

 

I’d also buff monsters too, they should definitely be as tough as tanks to take down. I disagree about chip damage though, I think it’s a serious issue from mid strength weapons. Even in real life, basic infantry can’t interact with tanks at range unless they have some specialist weapons. The assumption that a guy with a gun or even a heavier weapon like a machine gun should have a shot at damaging a tank just seems off, particularly with the wound table giving even a S5 weapon a 1/3 chance of wounding a baneblade.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I agree that they probably won't tone down weapons. Like I said I think GW prefers an arms race, I don't know if they'll boost vehicles, or switch which guns are good but they will create churn in our lists.

 

On the subject of chip damage its worth pointing out that your comparing contemporary weapons vs tanks to a fantasy setting that to be blunt doesn't make much sense. Its also telling that the arguments against chip damage tend to be based on Immersion. It just isn't a good strategy for killing vehicles in the game unless they're already down to 1-2 wounds. Its mainly there so new players with 500 point list can still interact with each other if one of them bought a tank (and its still in the favor of tank player unless the other guy has anti-tank). 

 

If we look at the baneblade as an example its going to take an absurd amount of heavy bolter shots to get the job done. My napkin math has it taking around 120. That isn't factoring in devastator doctrine, I also really doubt a list built around a captain, lieutenant, and 3 heavy bolter devastator squads would be popular so I didn't bother with re-rolls. That just doesn't seem like a great strategy compared to how fast dedicated anti-tank units can get the job done.

 

[roryokane]

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.

I love these suggestions. I’d add to them the concept of defensive weapons mentioned above, except I’d draw the line at S6 and below.

Basically: a land raider redeemer should be able to absolutely wreck whatever is trying to swarm it with both its asscannons and flame storm cannons.

The godhammers on a standard land raider? Nah. The heavy bolters? Sure!

 

Basically, I’m saying this out of a bias for imperial vehicles as so many use heavy bolters as hull or sponson weapons which are entirely designed as a means to gun down infantry attacking the tank. Assault cannons being S6 shouldn’t exclude them either, as they’re literally designed to be an anti horde weapon (who can forget swing the DoW intro cinematic for the first time and seeing the Dreadnought’s assault cannon wreak havoc on the Ork line?) - they feel perfectly in keeping with a “get your filthy Xenos mits off my tank” vibe.

Blast weapons like the whirlwind launcher are still excluded, but at least then a leman russ with three heavy bolters can just fire away point blank to sweep itself clear of a swarm of hormagaunts without penalty if it needs to.

 

Drawing the distinction where I have at S7 and above means anything usually mounted on a turret can’t be used the same way. Autocannons, lascannons, plasma cannons… they all feel like they shouldn’t be cleaning the sides of their own tank… but that’s just me.

[roryokane]

I agree that they probably won't tone down weapons. Like I said I think GW prefers an arms race, I don't know if they'll boost vehicles, or switch which guns are good but they will create churn in our lists.

 

On the subject of chip damage its worth pointing out that your comparing contemporary weapons vs tanks to a fantasy setting that to be blunt doesn't make much sense. Its also telling that the arguments against chip damage tend to be based on Immersion. It just isn't a good strategy for killing vehicles in the game unless they're already down to 1-2 wounds. Its mainly there so new players with 500 point list can still interact with each other if one of them bought a tank (and its still in the favor of tank player unless the other guy has anti-tank).

 

If we look at the baneblade as an example its going to take an absurd amount of heavy bolter shots to get the job done. My napkin math has it taking around 120. That isn't factoring in devastator doctrine, I also really doubt a list built around a captain, lieutenant, and 3 heavy bolter devastator squads would be popular so I didn't bother with re-rolls. That just doesn't seem like a great strategy compared to how fast dedicated anti-tank units can get the job done.

Gotta be honest, I preferred it when there was the concept of “your gun/soldier is simply too puny to hurt this thing”.

Edited June 22, 2021 by roryokane

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

That's fair roryokane, I was mainly responding to MARK0SIAN post about why people thought anti-tank should get better if tanks improve. If eliminating chip damage is how GW fixes tries to fix vehicles I won't mind, heck it'll make enough other players happy I'll see it as a good change. I just don't think it is anywhere near as impactful as its made out to be, and I think anti-tank weapons will get more efficient if they make that change.

[AenarIT]

Imho returning to the old to wound chart would solve the issue, at least in part:

2+ to wound when S-T=2 or more

3+ to wound when S-T=1

4+ to wound when S=T

5+ to wound when S-T=-1

6+ to wound when S-T=-2 or less

 

This way S4 and S5 weapons wound T7 only on a 6+, not on a 5+. Same for S5 and S6 with T8.

It would also buff S6 and S7 weapons versus T4, and so on.

All those S5, S6 and S7 weapons that are now the bane of vehicles become less efficient vs T7/8 and more efficient vs T3/4.

[Valkyrion]

Immune to Small Arms Fire - vehicles with this special rule cannot be damaged by ranged weapons with a Strength value that is half the vehicles Toughness value, rounding up. (so T9 cannot be wounded by S5).

 

Apply that to all vehicles for now, and introduce an Open Topped caveat next edition to allow for sentinels, land speeders and so on to be taken down by small arms.

 

?

[MARK0SIAN]

Immune to Small Arms Fire - vehicles with this special rule cannot be damaged by ranged weapons with a Strength value that is half the vehicles Toughness value, rounding up. (so T9 cannot be wounded by S5).

 

Apply that to all vehicles for now, and introduce an Open Topped caveat next edition to allow for sentinels, land speeders and so on to be taken down by small arms.

 

?

Not much stuff is T9 though, even a baneblade is only T8 so it wouldn’t affect anything but literal Titans. It wouldn’t have any impact on things like Leman Russ tanks or land raiders other than for S4 weapons and they’re the kind of vehicles that need the most help.

[OldWherewolf]

I think we're worrying about chip damage too much.  Nobody is going to try to kill an intact baneblade with lasguns.  You may try to plink off the last wound or so, but not the whole thing.  Really, the same is true for predators, leman russes, or most heavy tanks.

 

The problem is anti-infantry weapons are extremely lethal against infantry and anti-tank is overly lethal against tanks for their points cost.   3 MM attack bikes are 180 points, 1 Gladiator lancer is 180 points, that's 6MM shots vs 2 S10 Lascannon shots, 12 wounds vs. 12 wounds, 6PL (MMAB) vs 11 PL (GL).  Mobility goes to the MMAB.  Durability slightly favors the GL, because of the T8 vs T5, but in every other case.  A standard (non-TC!) Leman Russ w/2 HB sponsons is 190 (), and nowhere near the output of 3 MMAB. 

 

So the problem is that tanks are overcosted as GW is putting too much value in their T rating.  I think GW is ranking T on an exponential curve, when it needs to be on a logarithmic curve.  Currently, you'd have to drop the points by 10-20% (ish) to bring them in line with their infantry counterparts.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Imho returning to the old to wound chart would solve the issue, at least in part:

2+ to wound when S-T=2 or more

3+ to wound when S-T=1

4+ to wound when S=T

5+ to wound when S-T=-1

6+ to wound when S-T=-2 or less

 

This way S4 and S5 weapons wound T7 only on a 6+, not on a 5+. Same for S5 and S6 with T8.

It would also buff S6 and S7 weapons versus T4, and so on.

All those S5, S6 and S7 weapons that are now the bane of vehicles become less efficient vs T7/8 and more efficient vs T3/4.

Which str 5, 6, and 7 weapons are the bane of vehicles though?

 

I get that it hurts immersion but I think multi-melta, darkLance and cognis lascannons are much larger threats.

[Valkyrion]

This isn't a quick fix, but just for balance sakes what about making it so that weapons are either good at causing damage OR good at penetrating armour, but rarely both.

So S9 wounds on a 3+, it has AP-5 so the tanks fails its save, but it only causes 2 damage.

A different S9 weapon also wounds on 3+, but only has AP-2, so the tank can save. If it fails then it suffers 4 damage.

 

I'm just spitballing, not using real in game examples. It kinda breaks immersion, that a good armour penetrating gun doesn't cause much damage, but it opens the door for more esoteric weaponry - like S3 (wounds on 6), AP0 (3+ save), 6 damage (holy moly). Like, chances are it won't get through, but if it does then it's going to hurt.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Chip damage is a big deal… previously a heavy bolter could do no damage to a landraider… now it’s chipping away just fine.