A possible fix to help vehicles?

[tychobi]

-1 to incoming damage. No minimum. Stops chip damage cold and increases survival odds across the board. Call it "Heavily Armored". Make krack grenades damage flat 3 and useable in melee somehow.

[OldWherewolf]

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

Sort of.  Each Shot of a HB does 0.33 wounds, or 1 wound per HB, so you'd need 14 HBs at BS3 with no modifiers to take down a LR (Land Raider or Leman Russ).  Best case scenario, that's 3 squads of Space Wolf Long fangs with HBs (2x5, 1x4, no cherubs) at 446 points to take down a single 265 point Land Raider or 190 point Leman Russ.  That's a fair trade, as that's a LOT of firepower, and if you want to direct that much into 1 tank I'm going to be winning everywhere else.

 

Compare that to a Multi-melta, which averages 2.333 damage at range per MM against T8 14W.  That's only 213 points for a SW Long Fang pack with 1 armorium cherub.  The Land Raider kills 2.5 marines a turn.  So it's a huge trade up for not taking tanks.  The 190 point Leman Russ with Demo cannon and 3HBs can do 11 wounds back, but can't hide so most likely won't get the first shot.

 

So I'm still in the camp the chip shots are a nuisance, and good enough for plinking off the last couple wounds, but aren't the real problem.

[jaxom]

A single Space Marine heavy bolter shot has a total chance of 7.4% or 11% in devastator doctrine to deal two damage. Cumulative: 108 heavy bolter shots or 72 heavy bolter shots in devastator doctrine to kill a Land Raider. That's 36 or 24 heavy bolters firing. If, instead, the wounds are distributed over three turns, then we're looking at 12 and 8 heavy bolters and those are not unrealistic goals for an army. Yet, it's not great (and I think is part of why the Imperial Fist superdoctrine had to change).

 

Lascannons, you'd need about 12 and 10, respectively, or 4 and 3.5 over three turns.

 

However, lets take a look at the "I just need to get one shot through and then it's dead" statistic. 13.5 shots or 9 shots in devastator doctrine; i.e. 5 or 3 heavy bolters firing. That same "need one shot to get through" would be 3 or 4 lascannons.

 

Diversity of weapons in a list is where it's at. All the true small arms can target infantry while the anti-tank weapons get tanks down to where things like heavy bolters are more efficient.

[AenarIT]

With rerolls or bonuses, especially to wound, you can make S5-6-7 weapons very efficient versus T8, given that their rate of fire is significantly higher than S8 or S9 ones. Even if the ap or the dmg are slightly lower, you drown the vehicle in dice and you kill it.

Melta remains a thing only for a couple of armies that have super efficient melta (marines, sisters) and D3+d3 lascannon equivalents that can be spammed are basically only for AdMech and DE.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

-1 to incoming damage. No minimum. Stops chip damage cold and increases survival odds across the board. Call it "Heavily Armored". Make krack grenades damage flat 3 and useable in melee somehow.

 

I wouldn't mind if they went this route, but I really think that they should probably have rules restricting those vehicles in combat patrol games.  Or maybe instead of messing with Krak grenades give most armies something similar to the melta bomb stratagem with most troop choices being eligible. It would do more than 3 damage, and be harder to stop but could only be used once per assault phase (and require a cp investment). That would give an opponent a strategy to shoot for in a smaller game. 

 

With rerolls or bonuses, especially to wound, you can make S5-6-7 weapons very efficient versus T8, given that their rate of fire is significantly higher than S8 or S9 ones. Even if the ap or the dmg are slightly lower, you drown the vehicle in dice and you kill it.

Melta remains a thing only for a couple of armies that have super efficient melta (marines, sisters) and D3+d3 lascannon equivalents that can be spammed are basically only for AdMech and DE.

 

Yeah but to get that volume of shots your committing a huge portion of your army. Look at the numbers Brainpsyk and Jaxom are providing, If someone is using that strategy against you just take more vehicles, if it takes 3 turns to get one they aren't getting two and will stink vs. 5. 

 

Marines, SoB, DE, and Admech (even before the new book) pretty much made up the top of the meta. Death guard, and Harlequin are really all that's missing from the consistent contenders and harlequin have both haywire & fusion pistols, and Death Guard have some pretty good melta options of their own, plus entropy cannons. When marines are good, people tend to tailor for them because they are your most likely opponent so they can suppress unit types. 

 

I don't care if they take out Chip damage, it bothers enough of you that it should be looked at. That said most of the vehicles that see play have an invulnerable save and those should be the focus for fixing other vehicles. It's actually my biggest gripe with this edition GW knows what vehicles need to be good, and IMO they're pushing certain units as a design strategy instead of trying to make most units work. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I can say from experience playing pure infantry when I see a vehicle/monster heavy army I know I’m going to win. Boltguns and lasguns for example being able to wound T8 it all adds up and it’s a reason why I still run stalker bolt rifles.

[Guest Triszin]

what if... we just gave them MORE wounds. like.. double all the vehicles wounds.... my crappy thought

[OldWherewolf]

what if... we just gave them MORE wounds. like.. double all the vehicles wounds.... my crappy thought

I think you're really close.  We'd also have to adjust the VPs for Bring it Down otherwise we're just doubling the VPs for killing a tank/MC

[Brother Sergeant Tiberius]

what if... we just gave them MORE wounds. like.. double all the vehicles wounds.... my crappy thought

Double up on wounds and give them a 5+ FNP against ap0 so that small arms have a harder time, then give the heavy tanks(land raiders leman russes, battlewagons) a count ap -1 as ap0 which then gives the FNP.

Then tweak the anti tank options of a little, melta 2d3+4 in half, lascannons flat 6, krak missiles to d3+3. For example Then balance everyone else's as we we all know marines are baseline.

[Pandaemonium]

If you double the wounds, you devalue the damage boost given to actual anti-tank weaponry. Freak lucky fluke chip damage should exist, but it should be harder to get. Weapons not designed for tank killing shouldn't actually benefit from AP. Non-open topped vehicles should also have their saves improved.

[Guest Triszin]

If you double the wounds, you devalue the damage boost given to actual anti-tank weaponry. Freak lucky fluke chip damage should exist, but it should be harder to get. Weapons not designed for tank killing shouldn't actually benefit from AP. Non-open topped vehicles should also have their saves improved.

So increased wounds along with a ignore ap-2 and below?

 

So then -1,2 so weapons are anti heavy troops and 3+ is anti vehicle?

Edited June 25, 2021 by Triszin

[Valkyrion]

Come 10th edition we might find an 'anti tank' keyword affixed to certain weapon types, and weapons without that keyword count their AP as 0, in effect giving tanks an invulnerable save against small arms.

[Redcomet]

Weapons should have an Anti Tank score used when wounding vehicles. Would also diversify the weapons used. Small arms should have an AT score of - not being capable of wounding vehicles.

 

Would also mean weapons that have a high Str, but that really shouldn’t have much of an impact on a tank, would be represented properly.

Edited June 25, 2021 by Redcomet

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Didn't want to make a new thread for this so I'll put it here.

 

Could we increase flier survivability a bit by having a 2 tier system of 'to hit' modifiers based on range?

 

So -1 12 inches or less at the flight path's closest point 13 inches or more -2

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Sigh… please not this again. Geedub finally fixed the to hit modifiers.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Sigh… please not this again. Geedub finally fixed the to hit modifiers.

im not taking about endless stacking of modifiers just a set modifier to represent that it's harder to hit aircraft from farther away.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

Sigh… please not this again. Geedub finally fixed the to hit modifiers.

im not taking about endless stacking of modifiers just a set modifier to represent that it's harder to hit aircraft from farther away.

Aircraft were one of the chief reasons they capped hit modifiers. We don’t need to go back to that. Aircraft already get the minus to hit, they can leave the table or go into reserves to help them survive.

 

They’re just as fragile as other vehicles but I don’t think hit modifiers are an answer. They need a points cut in a lot of cases but if they need a rules buff, I think something that represents how high up they’re meant to be would be better. So aircraft that aren’t hovering would always count as being at the maximum range of the weapon fired. So there’d be no melta bonus for example.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

Sigh… please not this again. Geedub finally fixed the to hit modifiers.

im not taking about endless stacking of modifiers just a set modifier to represent that it's harder to hit aircraft from farther away.

Aircraft were one of the chief reasons they capped hit modifiers. We don’t need to go back to that. Aircraft already get the minus to hit, they can leave the table or go into reserves to help them survive.

 

They’re just as fragile as other vehicles but I don’t think hit modifiers are an answer. They need a points cut in a lot of cases but if they need a rules buff, I think something that represents how high up they’re meant to be would be better. So aircraft that aren’t hovering would always count as being at the maximum range of the weapon fired. So there’d be no melta bonus for example.

thats an ok idea.

But how about weapons with less than 24" range can't target a flier instead? The idea that a Flamer can hit a jet flying in the sky is ridiculous same with a pistol or a shotgun, (is there a canon description of how meltas work is the video game shotgun style the best we have?)

That way a MM can still hit them, but melta, Flamer, pistol, shotgun weapons can't (unless they also have fly for example)

 

Also point drops doesn't make them better or more survivable.

Dead T1 at 300 they'll be dead T1 at 225.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

If it’s in fly mode not hover I can see a case for it.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

If it’s in fly mode not hover I can see a case for it.

I mean even in hover, it's possible it's hovering 500ft in the air.

Too high to reasonably hit and cause damage with a flamethrower, shotgun, or pistol, etc

[Brother Sergeant Tiberius]

Flyers could all just get a flat jink save vs range a 5+ invulnerable, some the more agile races could get +1/Re-rolls to it natively/via stratagem to represent their height above the ground. With dedicated anti-aircraft guns getting a damage bonus vs flyers so when it hits it hurts a flyer like it should.

[Plague _Lord]

I think vechicles should get an armour upgrade and I'm talking about all close-topped vechicles so chimeras should have a 2+ save, while leman russes a 1+ save. This would make weapons like heavy bolters much less effective vs armour.

 

At weapons in this case should probably get damage boost so krak missiles going to 2d3 damage and d3+3 base for all lascannons to compensate for the tougher armour of their targets.

[Blurf]

I think vechicles should get an armour upgrade and I'm talking about all close-topped vechicles so chimeras should have a 2+ save, while leman russes a 1+ save. This would make weapons like heavy bolters much less effective vs armour.

 

At weapons in this case should probably get damage boost so krak missiles going to 2d3 damage and d3+3 base for all lascannons to compensate for the tougher armour of their targets.

Which leaves us in essentially the same place we're at now. Chip damage is a contributing factor to tank's general fragility, but the bigger issue is the fact that melta and dark lances can mostly reliably kill a tank in 2 shots.

 

Giving a leman russ essentially a 5++ helps a lot, but not if suddenly EVERY anti-tank weapon in the game is doing even more damage.

[jarms48]

At weapons in this case should probably get damage boost so krak missiles going to 2d3 damage and d3+3 base for all lascannons to compensate for the tougher armour of their targets.

 

I think that's too much. Honestly I'd do something like this:

 

- Krak Grenades: Damage D3 (minimum 2). 

- Krak Missiles and Hunter-killer Missiles: Damage D6 (minimum 2). 

- Lascannons: Damage D6 (minimum 3). 

 

So you still roll for these weapons but if you say get a 1, it counts as a 2. In the case of a lascannon if you get a 1 or a 2, it counts as a 3. It just makes them more reliable, and at least worth taking against some like a Heavy Bolter or Plasma Gun without stepping on the toes of Ad-Mech getting the "best versions of Imperial weapons".

 

Then we give all the problem vehicles - IE: Fireprism, Hammerhead, Leman Russ, Predator, etc a few more wounds. Then they should be fine. 

Edited June 28, 2021 by jarms48

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

At weapons in this case should probably get damage boost so krak missiles going to 2d3 damage and d3+3 base for all lascannons to compensate for the tougher armour of their targets.

I think that's too much. Honestly I'd do something like this:

 

- Krak Grenades: Damage D3 (minimum 2).

- Krak Missiles and Hunter-killer Missiles: Damage D6 (minimum 2).

- Lascannons: Damage D6 (minimum 3).

 

So you still roll for these weapons but if you say get a 1, it counts as a 2. In the case of a lascannon if you get a 1 or a 2, it counts as a 3. It just makes them more reliable, and at least worth taking against some like a Heavy Bolter or Plasma Gun without stepping on the toes of Ad-Mech getting the "best versions of Imperial weapons".

 

Then we give all the problem vehicles - IE: Fireprism, Hammerhead, Leman Russ, Predator, etc a few more wounds. Then they should be fine.

...D6 minimum 3 sounds like a longer version of D3+3

 

I'd just rather have fewer random damage weapons and more set damage personally.

 

It's just :cussty a dedicated AT weapon can do so few wounds.