How should fast vehicles work in the 40k game?

[Xenith]

This question comes from me playing Eldar, and the vulnerability of their grav tanks.

 

In previous editions, we had a damage table, glancing and penetrating hits: fast things sacrificed pure armour for speed, which provided some protection from the most damaging hits. Then we also had holofields, which although maybe broken in 4th, was a special rule to make a tank harder to damage, without expressly increasing it's armour or hull points. Similarly, the really fast stuff was hit on snap shots only, so a jet was difficult to hit at all, while a fast tank would suffer a mere glancing hit instead of being penetrated. 

 

In 8/9th, we have lost this. Table have gotten smaller, with less space to move around, and these protections that speed provided were stripped away and now fast skimmers are hit and damaged as easily as a rhino...yet are still costed, points wise, as if they were near invulnerable. The weaker armour they had in 7th was translated to a lower toughness and wounds, however they also lost the actual protection-via-speed that they had. The new primaris land speeders, tornadoes and typhoons, among other stuff also fit into this category.

 

What would you do, if anything, to add in protection for fast moving vehicles, or is it not needed at all? Should we just forget the distinction between fast vehicles and slow vehicles, and give the faster ones more armour, or would it be good to maintain that distinction?

 

A flat -1 to hit would be a natual answer, but this has already been claimed by supersonic/hard to hit aircraft. A straight 5+ invulnerable, or even transhuman, 1-3 always fails to wound would likewise be decent options, but are they sensible?

 

Any thoughts?

[Magos Takatus]

I'm not sure how to tackle the issue if I am honest, I've always been a fan of Eldar skimmers and grav tanks and I love to see them on the table. I am also rebuilding my Ulthwé army so I must show my own bias. Perhaps something like Transhuman on the hit roll would work well for Eldar Grav tanks with holo fields, so they cannot be hit on a 2+ or 3+ or whatever to simulate a combination of active camouflage and evasive manoeuvres? They could be hit by flamer type weapons as they don;t have to worry about aiming as much, with stuff like the Conflagration Cannon putting out a frightening wall of fire for even evasive targets. I know that doesn't help other fast vehicles who could do with their speed and evasion being taken into consideration but I've reached my quota of questionable ideas for the day.   

[Craig]

You're right -1 to hit is the obvious answer. I'd argue that if you're a supersonic or aircraft you should have the only hits on a 6 rule.

[Warhead01]

The current system feels incompatible with meaningful vehicle rules. I would be interested in a mix of rules as I think some adjusted 2nd edition vehicle rules could be an improvement but I would not expect deeper rules to be something people would be happy to have because I imagine they would not improve the speed of the game.  Due at first to complexity. 
Capping the dice at a 6 was a mistake and rolling above a 6 to hit, while a bit of a time sink would allow for more than just a-1 to hit penalty. Would attempting to make those roes be "worth it" ? Maybe not so much in fast pace competitive play but that also exclude adding additional means of improving the to hit rolls which I would also consider reasonable. There would still need to be some units able to work past a -1 or -2 o hit just for some semblance of balance.  
9th is just not really the place for deeper rules. 
This leaves us with stratagem cards I guess or bespoke unit rules like a -1 to hit and a inv of 5+ or 6+.  Which is kinda lame.

[Special Officer Doofy]

They could start by removing all the extra shots, strength, ap and damage given out in the second 8th edition marine codex and all ninth edition codexes. That would be a good start.

[Halandaar]

I think the issue with a few of these suggestions is that we're wanting the vehicle's speed to protect it, but then applying the protection to it at all times regardless of whether it is actually moving quickly. I can't really get on with the idea that a Falcon drifting lazily along at the same pace as a walking Guardian is somehow -1 to be hit despite being a much bigger target. For speed to be a defense then IMO a vehicle needs to be moving at speed.

 

As already pointed out supersonic aircraft have the -1 to hit and so making grav-tanks and the like have the same bonus generally feels off, but due to the core rules capping hit modifiers at -1 (which in turn was a response to particularly obnoxious Eldar flyers in previous editions) buffing the defenses on aircraft to accommodate it isn't really viable. 

 

The flyers that have Hard to Hit have a minimum move of 20" - maybe you could apply to-hit penalties to fast vehicles like grav-tanks that move over that amount as they would be travelling at an equivalent speed to something which is already defined as "hard to hit". So if a Falcon advances it could go over 20" in a single move; that would qualify it for a -1. Seems... okay? Obviously you might be making sub-optimal moves to go that fast and you're giving up your fine movement which might allow cover bonuses or positioning for shooting attacks, but that actually seems like a perfectly valid trade-off for what is essentially engaging in evasive maneuvers. 

 

It does open up other issues though; the various Aeldari jetbike units can reliably move 22" in a turn (Reavers as much as 26"!) which is potentially faster than a supersonic aircraft if it only moves it's minimum of 20". Even Astartes bikes can go a guaranteed 20" a turn with Turbo Boost. Should these guys being getting negative to-hit bonuses by virtue of going the same speed as aircraft? What about the other various bikers, beasts, or jump Infantry that can hit 20" with a lucky advance roll? Fiends of Slaanesh, Hellions, Scourges, Coldstar Battlesuit Commanders and all manner of others can potentially go that fast. -1's for them too? How does it interact with Atalan Jackals who get a -1 to hit by default, or Ravenwing bikers with a 4+ Jink save on top?

 

TL;DR, every time I start trying to answer rules issues it becomes apparent just how many things there are to consider.

 

 

 

 

[Xenith]

18 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

I think the issue with a few of these suggestions is that we're wanting the vehicle's speed to protect it, but then applying the protection to it at all times regardless of whether it is actually moving quickly. I can't really get on with the idea that a Falcon drifting lazily along at the same pace as a walking Guardian is somehow -1 to be hit despite being a much bigger target. For speed to be a defense then IMO a vehicle needs to be moving at speed.

 

Absolutely, I think they managed this with ravenwing last edition, and guard in 8th where tanks got various bonuses for moving at certain speeds - like a Russ got to shoot twice if it moved under half speed, maybe the grav tanks could be -1 to wound if they moved over half speed?

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I've accepted that GW doesn't want vehicles to be good this edition. There are exceptions like plagueburst crawlers but for the most part GW just doesn't want them to be particularly good. So that attitude needs to change first.

 

Then I think you have to look at T and limiting combos. 

 

I really want to see what changes in 10th before I suggest special abilities but vehicles in general need tlc.

 

 

[Xenith]

All valid, however I think 10th will mechanically remain the same as 8th (and 9th) and thus the vehicle issues will remain. Even then, the difference between slow and fast vehicles has traditionally been in the core and special rules. Slow tanks relied on absolute armour values while fast tanks relied on rules interactions to stay alive. In this tradition, I think adding more W or Sv to fast tanks is a mistake. Maybe let them all move 6" after shooting, or target something that was visible along any point o their flight path (like in Infinity: The Game) allowing them to zip from cover to cover while maintaining fire. 

[The Yncarne]

I don’t think there’s a need to add more rules, just point things better. 

[Halandaar]

1 hour ago, The Yncarne said:

I don’t think there’s a need to add more rules, just point things better. 

 

Doesn't solve the problem, just makes the problem cost less. A vehicle that achieves nothing before being blown off the board is still a waste of points whether it's 100 or 150.

[The Yncarne]

29 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

 

Doesn't solve the problem, just makes the problem cost less. A vehicle that achieves nothing before being blown off the board is still a waste of points whether it's 100 or 150.

Disagree. Points should be used to determine a units value, not more rules exceptions which indirectly influence point cost. 

 

So are only fast vehicles having this issue? I thought the premise was that fast vehicles need extra rules to be more survivable. Are non-fast vehicles worth taking? Haven’t seen much vehicles, fast or otherwise, in most games this edition.  

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

@Xenith I don't like universal buffs in this editions framework. In earlier editions there were shared characteristics for the different unit types, now its a free for fall all. Heck different fractions models degrade differently. It makes it harder to come up with simple solutions when your trying to address a wide range of units.

 

 

[Evil Eye]

Putting aside the fact I think vehicle rules really need to return to them being treated as fundamentally different to non-vehicles I agree a speed-based Invuln save would be a good idea. Up to 6" = no save, over 6" = save, over 12" (for those that can)= better save but limited firing capabilities.