Wh40k 10th Edition Vehicles in 10th + Rhino Datasheet

[Lord_Ikka]

5 minutes ago, spessmarine said:

Lol why does the Speeder have T9? It should be squishy, as far as marine vehicles can be.

To be fair, that's a new Stormspeeder, maybe the older Land Speeders get less toughness. Since we don't have anti-tank heavy weapon stats yet, it very well could be squishy for SM vehicles.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Lord_Ikka

[OttoVonAwesome]

40 minutes ago, DuskRaider said:

AV / templates and TLoS made the game so much better as far as strategy and immersion. What it is now is a shell of its former self. 
 

Sorry if I’m derailing this but between this and the fact that GW has essentially taken what made my main army unique and destroyed it has essentially destroyed my motivation to go any further with 40K (and now 30K it seems). It’s just… really demoralizing and I was hoping 10th would bring back some of the good stuff but I should have known otherwise. 

Huh?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

24 minutes ago, spessmarine said:

Lol why does the Speeder have T9? It should be squishy, as far as marine vehicles can be.

 

AoS weapon profiles, battleshock, and what else.

USRs, firing ports, and squad attached leaders from the past.

Definitely mixing things up a good bit this edition!

 

T9 is the new T7 and I always thought that T6 was too low for the storm speeders

[spessmarine]

54 minutes ago, Lord_Ikka said:

To be fair, that's a new Stormspeeder, maybe the older Land Speeders get less toughness. Since we don't have anti-tank heavy weapon stats yet, it very well could be squishy for SM vehicles.

My man, it still doesn't even have a roof. 

[Lord_Ikka]

13 minutes ago, spessmarine said:

My man, it still doesn't even have a roof. 

Toughness is going up across the board for vehicles- until we can see a large comparison of values we can't say that speeders at T9 are super tough. All we have right now are four SM vehicles to compare, and they show an increase in Toughness by 2-4 points. We don't know if that means that all vehicles are going up by that much, or if GW are giving SM a bonus for the crews being transhuman (with other vehicles going up by maybe 1-3 points instead). Without any other vehicles to compare, and without any heavy weapon stats to truly see how "tough" something is, we just don't have enough info to do more than speculate.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Lord_Ikka

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

15 minutes ago, spessmarine said:

My man, it still doesn't even have a roof. 

And?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

6 minutes ago, Lord_Ikka said:

Toughness is going up across the board for vehicles- until we can see a large comparison of values we can't say that speeders at T9 are super tough. All we have right now are four SM vehicles to compare, and they show an increase in Toughness by 2-4 points. We don't know if that means that all vehicles are going up by that much, or if GW are giving SM a bonus for the crews being transhuman (with other vehicles going up by maybe 1-3 points instead). Without any other vehicles to compare, and without any heavy weapon stats to truly see how "tough" something is, we just don't have enough info to do more than speculate.

Technically we have 2 hvy weapons stat sets

[Arkangilos]

7 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

And?

The space marine isn’t as well protected against a krak missile as a fully enclosed marine.

[spessmarine]

5 minutes ago, Lord_Ikka said:

Toughness is going up across the board for vehicles- until we can see a large comparison of values we can't say that speeders at T9 are super tough. All we have right now are four SM vehicles to compare, and they show an increase in Toughness by 2-4 points. We don't know if that means that all vehicles are going up by that much, or if GW are giving SM a bonus for the crews being transhuman (with other vehicles going up by maybe 1-3 points instead). Without any other vehicles to compare, and without any heavy weapon stats to truly see how "tough" something is, we just don't have enough info to do more than speculate.

I suppose we shall see, yeah.
But it also has the same Sv3+ as the Rhino (same T, one more wound than it) and Gladiator (one less T, one less wound than it). So still nestled oddly close in my opinion.

 

[Malakithe]

The AM in me is looking quite scared of what the Dorn and Baneblade will be capable of while the SM in me is looking at my favorite tank, the Kratos, and thinking it might be the stuff of nightmares

[Lord_Ikka]

7 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Technically we have 2 hvy weapons stat sets

We have the hunter-killer missile, which shows an improved strength of 14 and 1 better AP than its previous version and the cyclone krak missile, which simply increased it's strength from 8 to 9. Neither of those choices are considered by many to be the premier anti-armor weapons of the SM/Imperium, for that we need to get stats on lascannons and melta weapons. Only then can we start to get a feel for how tough these vehicles really are.

 

Side mention to chainfists- the anti-vehicles 3+ rule is looking quite nice now that we have a few vehicles T to look at. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

13 minutes ago, Lord_Ikka said:

We have the hunter-killer missile, which shows an improved strength of 14 and 1 better AP than its previous version and the cyclone krak missile, which simply increased it's strength from 8 to 9. Neither of those choices are considered by many to be the premier anti-armor weapons of the SM/Imperium, for that we need to get stats on lascannons and melta weapons. Only then can we start to get a feel for how tough these vehicles really are.

 

Side mention to chainfists- the anti-vehicles 3+ rule is looking quite nice now that we have a few vehicles T to look at. 

They already said rhinos will be more survivable against melta.

 

as for the people complaining about melta being worse now, yes AT weapons are meant to kill vehicles, but what’s the point of taking vehicles if a weapon with one or two shots kills it in a single round of shooting? That’s a problem we already have and most people don’t take vehicles that don’t have damage mitigation rules.

 

i find it just amazing how most of 9th people have been complaining about the game’s lethality, and now people are starting to complain they don’t think 10th will be lethal enough.

[Arkangilos]

13 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

And?

And so the vehicle would not be as tough as a fully enclosed one.

 

Come on man, I know you have the ability to use deductive reasoning.

[Lord_Ikka]

Well, hopefully we'll see in the next couple of days some stats for melta and/or other really good anti-tank weapons; missile launchers are fine, but have always been second-tier due to the fact that they have been toned down to accommodate both anti-vehicle and anti-infantry options without invalidating other weapons that are specific to just one of those options.

 

I'm glad to see a little more survivability in vehicles, throughout 9th vehicles performed poorly and I'm always in favor of having a couple of tanks in a list.

[Bloody Legionnaire]

16 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

They already said rhinos will be more survivable against melta.

 

as for the people complaining about melta being worse now, yes AT weapons are meant to kill vehicles, but what’s the point of taking vehicles if a weapon with one or two shots kills it in a single round of shooting? That’s a problem we already have and most people don’t take vehicles that don’t have damage mitigation rules.

 

i find it just amazing how most of 9th people have been complaining about the game’s lethality, and now people are starting to complain they don’t think 10th will be lethal enough.

I’m sorry, what? That’s like saying tanks should evaporate from the modern battlefield because javelins and anti-tank Air to surface missiles exist…

 

Theres plenty of benefits to vehicles and armor besides taking 4 out of 5 rounds of game play to kill them. Maybe you need to think a little more tactically and use your vehicles inline with that..

[Lemondish]

18 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

Theres plenty of benefits to vehicles and armor besides taking 4 out of 5 rounds of game play to kill them.

You have a point. Swinging back to the other extreme is no better than where we are now.

 

The biggest issue I personally had with 9th edition vehicle play was that for their points cost vehicles simply did not provide much value unless they were very tough. Now that we've seen a boost to toughness, I'm eager to see if the price is right.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Lemondish

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

34 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

And so the vehicle would not be as tough as a fully enclosed one.

 

Come on man, I know you have the ability to use deductive reasoning.

Good thing it’s not a simulation!

 

or maybe the rest of the armor is tougher, as in if it was closed topped it would be T10, ever consider that?

[Bloody Legionnaire]

4 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

You have a point. Swinging back to the other extreme is no better than where we are now.

 

The biggest issue I personally had with 9th edition vehicle play was that for their points cost vehicles simply did not provide much value unless they were very tough. Now that we've seen a boost to toughness, I'm eager to see if the price is right.

I would argue it was  vehicle damage tables going away and AV going away that led to that issue..

 

Anything in the game in 8e and 9e could just dink a tank to death on 6’s. If your opponent could force enough paper cut saves, then you’d lose your tank. I think it’s okay for anti-vehicle weapons to be more potent if they are the only weapons on the table that can deal with armored or otherwise high T targets. It balances because then you as the player know what priority targets you have to take out to keep your asset units safe. When anything can do that to your armored vehicles, their utility is IMO diminished. 
 

the guy that does blogforthrbloodgod on YouTube had a very interesting tactic for rhinos that I think was decent outside the box thinking on how to use transports to gain the advantage over your opponent. Unfortunately there aren’t enough critical thinkers in the game who have the outside the box thinking mentality vs the more conventional “I’m gonna cry and complain because I’m not creative enough to be tactically sound” that prevails in this hobby.

[Arkangilos]

2 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

or maybe the rest of the armor is tougher, as in if it was closed topped it would be T10, ever consider that?

I have, but a fully enclosed rhino has the same toughness so I would say that probably isn’t the case ;)

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

34 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

I’m sorry, what? That’s like saying tanks should evaporate from the modern battlefield because javelins and anti-tank Air to surface missiles exist…

 

Theres plenty of benefits to vehicles and armor besides taking 4 out of 5 rounds of game play to kill them. Maybe you need to think a little more tactically and use your vehicles inline with that..

No one said it should take 4/5 turns to kill vehicles. I think everyone can agree medium vehicles should be able to survive to the end of T2 or beginning of T3, rather than the end of T1, or beginning of T2, and heavy vehicles surviving into T3/4

 

i love how I point out a problem that the community at large has cited as an issue with the game, and you try to make it into a personal attack.

 

as for your attempt to equate a tabletop ‘arcade’ game, modern tanks and aircraft have counter measures that keep them useful on the modern battlefield.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

I have, but a fully enclosed rhino has the same toughness so I would say that probably isn’t the case ;)

Rhino obviously has less armor if it’s same T as an open topped vehicle.

[Arkangilos]

3 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

No one said it should take 4/5 turns to kill vehicles.

And?

 

3 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

as for your attempt to equate a tabletop ‘arcade’ game, modern tanks and aircraft have counter measures that keep them useful on the modern battlefield.

You act as if games can’t have more realistic rules. 

To me, the answer would be the old AV system with damage tables, and just add in rules for the:

5 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

counter measures that keep them useful on the modern battlefield.

 

3 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Rhino obviously has less armor if it’s same T as an open topped vehicle.

Less armor than a vehicle that doesn’t have any armor in front of the pilot and gunner? Come on man.

[Bloody Legionnaire]

9 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

No one said it should take 4/5 turns to kill vehicles.

 

i love how I point out a problem that the community at large has cited as an issue with the game, and you try to make it into a personal attack.

 

as for your attempt to equate a tabletop ‘arcade’ game, modern tanks and aircraft have counter measures that keep them useful on the modern battlefield.

Got it, you can’t handle an exaggeration poking fun at your complaining, cool… Since we need to be literal, I did not literally mean 4/5 rounds it was to stress the point being, how long do you expect your high priority assets (for your opponent) to stick around? 

Its funny you should mention that whole “equate” to “real life” thing..

 

There was a member of this forum who was a prior us military intelligence officer who had a great blog on how you can use real military approach to the battle space for this hobby/game because there are a lot principles that cross over. This game is somewhat of a combat simulator on a tactical level.. So, to continue… those “counter measures” in real life really haven’t helped the ruskie tanks much as they’ve come into contact with superior weapon systems. Some weapons aren’t going to be defeated by counter-measures alone, which is why having good tactics is an important thing.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Bloody Legionnaire

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

You know, I can almost forgive the Storm Speeder having the same toughness as the Rhino. It's a little goofy, but the armor on the model is pretty thick.

 

That it has +1 wound is hilariously bad though. GW is so weird sometimes.

[Special Officer Doofy]

Ahh, brothers @Arkangilos and @Inquisitor_Lensoven, I see the red thirst still has you two...