Executioner main weapon?

[Orange Knight]

Sure, I agree with that. But the rules do need to be represented somehow. They are different from tracked vehicles. In the lore they can hover over oceans/water/lava and are deployed by being air/orbit dropped.

 

They should be able to arrive from reserve 9" away from enemy like a Drop Pod.

[Karhedron]

They should be able to arrive from reserve 9" away from enemy like a Drop Pod.

Blood Angels used to be able to do this with Land Raiders back in 5th with hilariously meme-worthy results.

 

To be honest, most Marine tanks are in a pretty poor place in 9th and simply cost too much for what bring to the table. The vehicles worth taking are the ones with damage mitigation (e.g. Dreadnoughts), cheap enough to spam (e.g. Razorbacks) or those that provide unique capabilities (e.g. Drop Pods and Impulsors).

 

Outside of that, you are generally better fielding more Marines. A Multimelta at close range can potentially deal up to 16 wounds and vapourise a Repulsor in 1 shot but it will never kill more than 2 Marines. GW have just gone a bit too far in buffing anti-tank weapons in this edition.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

It was really unfair to remove the keyword Fly.

A skimmer tank shouldn't have ever had FLY, those ridiculous images of executioners on top of buildings were proof of that.

 

 

Yeah it was ridiculous, I'm fine with it being gone but the points should've gone down to compensate. I also like how repulsor fields work now, but again they should've lowered the points. Taking something away from a unit without adjusting the cost of the unit rarely leaves something that sees play.

 

 

They should be able to arrive from reserve 9" away from enemy like a Drop Pod.

Blood Angels used to be able to do this with Land Raiders back in 5th with hilariously meme-worthy results.

 

To be honest, most Marine tanks are in a pretty poor place in 9th and simply cost too much for what bring to the table. The vehicles worth taking are the ones with damage mitigation (e.g. Dreadnoughts), cheap enough to spam (e.g. Razorbacks) or those that provide unique capabilities (e.g. Drop Pods and Impulsors).

 

Outside of that, you are generally better fielding more Marines. A Multimelta at close range can potentially deal up to 16 wounds and vapourise a Repulsor in 1 shot but it will never kill more than 2 Marines. GW have just gone a bit too far in buffing anti-tank weapons in this edition.

 

 

There is some fluff where an Overlord drops of repulsors in the middle of a battle so I do like Orange Knight's idea. 

 

That said Karhedron is right about the anti-tank weapons. I do think that most of them are fine lascannons and Missile launchers aren't breaking anything. It's more the 3+d3 weapons and MM that are really warping things.

[lansalt]

There is some fluff where an Overlord drops of repulsors in the middle of a battle so I do like Orange Knight's idea.

 

Indeed. That happens in one of the Indomitus or Dawn of Fire novels, can't remember which one. Turns out that primaris do not use drop pods because they do orbital insertions in repulsors! So it would be fluffy to give them deep strike with an appropiate cost (but not to open topped Impulsors).

Edited September 15, 2021 by lansalt

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

 

It was really unfair to remove the keyword Fly.

 

A skimmer tank shouldn't have ever had FLY, those ridiculous images of executioners on top of buildings were proof of that.

I’m calling nonsense every other vehicle with fly does it. Just get over it.

[Mandragola]

I agree that if repulsors got the drop pod rules they'd become instantly more attractive - particularly if you could deep strike them on turn 1. There's this odd gap at the moment in that there's no mini that shows how Primaris marines get down out of their ships. Firstborn have pods and storm ravens, for example. The only (truly) flying transport that can carry Primaris is FW's thunderhawk. Even that clearly can't carry things like redemptors.

 

It's particularly odd given that they brought out the Hammerfall Bunker (remember that? Edit: I didn't! Name now corrected), indicating that Primaris stuff does get dropped from orbit.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Mandragola

[Karhedron]

The Hammerfall Bunker should be able to deploy like a Drop Pod but I realise that this is starting to wander seriously off-topic.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

I like the idea of being able to Deep Strike impulsors and Repulsors.

It first happened in Dark Imperium, but there was confusion over how far they dropped because I think the first edition didn't make it explicit. Some people thought they were orbital drops direct!

 

It happens again in Godblight, where a RepEx and 3 Impulsors from the Novamarines are dropped from two Overlord transporters.

 

I'm happy with the loss of Fly, as I agree that was a silly keyword for those vehicles. But they should be able to ignore some forms of terrain as a result of being skimmers.

[Karhedron]

I'm happy with the loss of Fly, as I agree that was a silly keyword for those vehicles. But they should be able to ignore some forms of terrain as a result of being skimmers.

FLY has basically replaced the old skimmer and jump pack rules to represent things that can get some altitude but don't tend to remain in the sky. Proper aircraft are now represented by Airborne, Supersonic and Hard to Hit.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Yeah, but that doesn't now reflect the difference in different skimmers. From Eldar grav tanks that can pretty much fly, to SM ones which just hover. Edited September 17, 2021 by Brother Adelard

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I bought quite a few Impulsors then they got nerfed for no good reason.

[Charlo]

I wouldn't even mind if it was a stratagem, rather than in-built.

[brother_b]

All vehicles should have an inherent 5+ Invulnerable save and a Lucius style buff to saves and AP against all 1 to 2 damage non-vehicle mounted weapons. 

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Yeah, but that doesn't now reflect the difference in different skimmers. From Eldar grav tanks that can pretty much fly, to SM ones which just hover.

 

Which is why I think they don't gain any advantages going over terrain, I don't think the repulsors fluff wise gain any altitude. In the book where the overlord drops them off everybody knows it when they land lol. 

 

I bought quite a few Impulsors then they got nerfed for no good reason.

 

They had a good reason to back in 8th when they were released. They were very competitive my issue with the nerfs is that it felt like they found the price they should have been in 8th, applied it, and then nerfed it.

 

Overall I don't notice it, because bladeguard are under pointed enough that they're still worth it but our other options are lacking. It doesn't help that vanvets and dreads are stronger choices in the elite section though. 

 

All vehicles should have an inherent 5+ Invulnerable save and a Lucius style buff to saves and AP against all 1 to 2 damage non-vehicle mounted weapons. 

 

The 5++ is definitely a popular ideal. I wouldn't mind it, but I think most of the daemon engines may need some other buff to compensate. I will say that center piece should always have one in my opinion.

 

The lucius style buff is interesting, but I prefer non-conditional buffs. Its why I'm firmly in the toughness boost camp, it has a similar effect on most damage 1 weapons by making it tougher to wound in the first place, and at the same time helps against dark lances, and MM. 

 

Granted I may see vehicles as being in worse shape than you do, and honestly any buffs to non-dread marine vehicles would be welcome. 

[Sword Brother Adelard]

They don't have a lot of altitude, true. But they mae up for it by pummelling the ground into dust as they go over. But then again, all tanks should be ignoring difficult terrain tbh.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

They don't have a lot of altitude, true. But they mae up for it by pummelling the ground into dust as they go over. But then again, all tanks should be ignoring difficult terrain tbh.

why should tanks ignore difficult terrain? Treaded tanks were slowed down plenty by difficult terrain in real life

[Sword Brother Adelard]

It depends on the terrain. A main battle tank like a Land Raider is designed to bridge trench works and knock through forest. Not get slowed down by a crater as much as an infantryman. And Repulsors should be able to smash straight over them.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

It depends on the terrain. A main battle tank like a Land Raider is designed to bridge trench works and knock through forest. Not get slowed down by a crater as much as an infantryman. And Repulsors should be able to smash straight over them.

i agree hover vehicles should be able to ignore difficult terrain, but treaded tanks still have always been slowed by difficult terrain. Maybe a new type of terrain that slows tanks to create a distinction, but treaded tanks flat out ignoring terrain goes is rather a landraider be effected the same as a guardsmen.

[TheNewman]

 

 

 

It was really unfair to remove the keyword Fly.

A skimmer tank shouldn't have ever had FLY, those ridiculous images of executioners on top of buildings were proof of that.

Yeah it was ridiculous, I'm fine with it being gone but the points should've gone down to compensate. I also like how repulsor fields work now, but again they should've lowered the points. Taking something away from a unit without adjusting the cost of the unit rarely leaves something that sees play.

 

They should be able to arrive from reserve 9" away from enemy like a Drop Pod.

Blood Angels used to be able to do this with Land Raiders back in 5th with hilariously meme-worthy results.

 

To be honest, most Marine tanks are in a pretty poor place in 9th and simply cost too much for what bring to the table. The vehicles worth taking are the ones with damage mitigation (e.g. Dreadnoughts), cheap enough to spam (e.g. Razorbacks) or those that provide unique capabilities (e.g. Drop Pods and Impulsors).

 

Outside of that, you are generally better fielding more Marines. A Multimelta at close range can potentially deal up to 16 wounds and vapourise a Repulsor in 1 shot but it will never kill more than 2 Marines. GW have just gone a bit too far in buffing anti-tank weapons in this edition.

There is some fluff where an Overlord drops of repulsors in the middle of a battle so I do like Orange Knight's idea.

 

That said Karhedron is right about the anti-tank weapons. I do think that most of them are fine lascannons and Missile launchers aren't breaking anything. It's more the 3+d3 weapons and MM that are really warping things.

I kind of have to disagree, D3+3 is necessary to make dedicated AT weapons better at their job by enough to be worth taking over Autocannon-type profiles. The issue is that all the tanks need either more HP or damage reduction to compensate, provided that tanks having no durability is a bug and not a feature.

 

A solution I really like is to add to all vehicles as a blanket rule "Reduce damage by 1 to a minimum of 1, if the weapon was already D1 then add +1 to armor save rolls" because that would further differentiate small arms, light AP weapons (Assault cannon), heavy AP weapons (Heavy Bolter/Autocannons), and true AT weapons.

Edited September 21, 2021 by TheNewman

[Karhedron]

I kind of have to disagree, D3+3 is necessary to make dedicated AT weapons better at their job by enough to be worth taking over Autocannon-type profiles. The issue is that all the tanks need either more HP or damage reduction to compensate, provided that tanks having no durability is a bug and not a feature.

 

A solution I really like is to add to all vehicles as a blanket rule "Reduce damage by 1 to a minimum of 1, if the weapon was already D1 then add +1 to armor save rolls" because that would further differentiate small arms, light AP weapons (Assault cannon), heavy AP weapons (Heavy Bolter/Autocannons), and true AT weapons.

Not all vehicles are in a bad place. Dark Eldar have vehicles that are effective, cheap for their stats and generally have a 5++. Eldar seem in a decent place too if you look at the Falcon. It is not OP and has no damage reduction but it is fast and fairly priced for what it brings. I can't comment too much on other factions.

 

It seems to be specifically Marine vehicles that are significantly overpriced for their capabilities. Compare a Predator to a Falcon and it is laughable how much worse it is in terms of abilities for points.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Karhedron

[TheNewman]

 

I kind of have to disagree, D3+3 is necessary to make dedicated AT weapons better at their job by enough to be worth taking over Autocannon-type profiles. The issue is that all the tanks need either more HP or damage reduction to compensate, provided that tanks having no durability is a bug and not a feature.

 

A solution I really like is to add to all vehicles as a blanket rule "Reduce damage by 1 to a minimum of 1, if the weapon was already D1 then add +1 to armor save rolls" because that would further differentiate small arms, light AP weapons (Assault cannon), heavy AP weapons (Heavy Bolter/Autocannons), and true AT weapons.

Not all vehicles are in a bad place. Dark Eldar have vehicles that are effective, cheap for their stats and generally have a 5++. Eldar seem in a decent place too if you look at the Falcon. It is not OP and has no damage reduction but it is fast and fairly priced for what it brings. I can't comment too much on other factions.

 

It seems to be specifically Marine vehicles that are significantly overpriced for their capabilities. Compare a Predator to a Falcon and it is laughable how much worse it is in terms of abilities for points.

Tau players might have objections to that, but overall that's probably fair. Still, the shift from Dd6 to Dd3+3 brings another problem in that it increases the average damage from 3.5 to 5 and that makes ALL vehicles less durable than they were designed to be under the old damage paradigm. I'd argue that across the board damage reduction for vehicles and monsters while also adjusting the remaining AT weapons away from straight Dd6 would improve things overall.

Edited September 21, 2021 by TheNewman

[Maritn]

It's getting more an more off topic, but in regards to durability I'd like to add that vehicles like Repuslors or Land Raiders should not have a 5++, as this invalidates real AT weapons due to ignoring their AP and favors weapons with low to medium AP. These heavy tanks should have a 1+. This way, low AP weapons like AC will have problems penetrating, so you're incentivized to bring real AT but also don't completely negate the save.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

 

It was really unfair to remove the keyword Fly.

A skimmer tank shouldn't have ever had FLY, those ridiculous images of executioners on top of buildings were proof of that.

Yeah it was ridiculous, I'm fine with it being gone but the points should've gone down to compensate. I also like how repulsor fields work now, but again they should've lowered the points. Taking something away from a unit without adjusting the cost of the unit rarely leaves something that sees play.

 

They should be able to arrive from reserve 9" away from enemy like a Drop Pod.

Blood Angels used to be able to do this with Land Raiders back in 5th with hilariously meme-worthy results.

 

To be honest, most Marine tanks are in a pretty poor place in 9th and simply cost too much for what bring to the table. The vehicles worth taking are the ones with damage mitigation (e.g. Dreadnoughts), cheap enough to spam (e.g. Razorbacks) or those that provide unique capabilities (e.g. Drop Pods and Impulsors).

 

Outside of that, you are generally better fielding more Marines. A Multimelta at close range can potentially deal up to 16 wounds and vapourise a Repulsor in 1 shot but it will never kill more than 2 Marines. GW have just gone a bit too far in buffing anti-tank weapons in this edition.

There is some fluff where an Overlord drops of repulsors in the middle of a battle so I do like Orange Knight's idea.

 

That said Karhedron is right about the anti-tank weapons. I do think that most of them are fine lascannons and Missile launchers aren't breaking anything. It's more the 3+d3 weapons and MM that are really warping things.

I kind of have to disagree, D3+3 is necessary to make dedicated AT weapons better at their job by enough to be worth taking over Autocannon-type profiles. The issue is that all the tanks need either more HP or damage reduction to compensate, provided that tanks having no durability is a bug and not a feature.

 

A solution I really like is to add to all vehicles as a blanket rule "Reduce damage by 1 to a minimum of 1, if the weapon was already D1 then add +1 to armor save rolls" because that would further differentiate small arms, light AP weapons (Assault cannon), heavy AP weapons (Heavy Bolter/Autocannons), and true AT weapons.

 

 

My main issue with the 3+d3 and MM options is how efficient there are. I don't think they need to be that good to be worth taking over Autocannons variants. Typically when autocannons/plasma/scatter lasers have been spammed its been because they're under costed (and in 7th hullpoints were brutal). MM is the same in 9th, it gets held in check a bit by the mission structure which is a good thing but its just a great choice.

 

I'm also a fan of damage -1 to min 1, I tend to recommend that it gets combined with T+1 for tanks. I think it works better than having modifiers based on weapon type. It gets small arms down to wounding on 6's, then the non AT heavy weapons are all wounding on 5's for one damage. Melta and dark lances get a nerf because they're wounding on 4's, Lascannons may still need a buff or point drop but at least they wound most tanks on 3's so they have a niche.

 

It's getting more an more off topic, but in regards to durability I'd like to add that vehicles like Repuslors or Land Raiders should not have a 5++, as this invalidates real AT weapons due to ignoring their AP and favors weapons with low to medium AP. These heavy tanks should have a 1+. This way, low AP weapons like AC will have problems penetrating, so you're incentivized to bring real AT but also don't completely negate the save.

 

That's an interesting ideal, and its worth testing. Personally I don' think a 5++ invalidates AT weapons, a lot of the vehicles that do see play have them, and marines & SoB still tend to be MM focused. That said you'd effectively give them a 5+ save against MM and DL so it accomplishes the same things and there isn't alot of book keeping.  I tend to prefer the +1 T, and damage reduction because I think it tones down plasma but an improved save with damage -1 may do a lot of work.

[Brother Sergeant Tiberius]

+1 toughness works for fixing the vehicles vs the imperial factions and drukhari with their lascannons and multi-meltas but then means other factions will really struggle.

Not every faction has access to super reliable anti tank weapons and this would make the problem more unbalanced in the long run as vehicles would be too good vs some and still not worth much vs others.

Increasing the save, and needing the worst At weapons is easier. Take away 2nd shot on multimeltas/reduce their range and make cognis lascannons/dark lances 2d3 damage so less swingy but not as efficient.

[Maritn]

It's getting more an more off topic, but in regards to durability I'd like to add that vehicles like Repuslors or Land Raiders should not have a 5++, as this invalidates real AT weapons due to ignoring their AP and favors weapons with low to medium AP. These heavy tanks should have a 1+. This way, low AP weapons like AC will have problems penetrating, so you're incentivized to bring real AT but also don't completely negate the save.

 

That's an interesting ideal, and its worth testing. Personally I don' think a 5++ invalidates AT weapons, a lot of the vehicles that do see play have them, and marines & SoB still tend to be MM focused. That said you'd effectively give them a 5+ save against MM and DL so it accomplishes the same things and there isn't alot of book keeping. [...]

 

I know, but that's the idea: To make to high AP values of AT weapons count again. If e.g. a Repulsor had a 5++ having AP -2 or -4 would make no difference for the MM, but if the Repulsor goes to 1+, having only AP -2 means a 3+ save, so you'd really want high AP weapons to deal with tanks. If everyone gets an Invulnerable save, why bother with high AP weapons for AT duties. IMO too many vehicles already have an invulnerable save, I'd prefer less vehicles to have one.