Wh40k 10th Edition Vehicles in 10th + Rhino Datasheet

[Borbarad]

49 minutes ago, Subtleknife said:

Whilst this is better I still feel the fundamental problem with vehicles is they are using the same mechanics as infantry and monsters. Whilst I don't know if we should go back to vehicle facings, I still think vehicles should be using different mechanics to wound etc than infantry. In 8th, 9th and quite likely 10th, vehicles feel just like tougher infantry - which doesn't feel immersive for me.

One way of looking at it could be to change the To Wound chart in a way that if Toughness = 3x Strength the model can’t be wounded at all. 
 

This would make it so, Bolters can’t wound T12 and above and Lasguns can’t wound T9 and above. 

[Karhedron]

Part of the reason tanks have struggled is due to the fact GW has not been willing to go granular enough with toughness in past editions. With the general increase in lethality in 9th edition in particular, it created a meta where vehicles were just outclassed by infantry. The drop in AP values and increased vehicle toughness should bring back enough granularity to create a meta where vehicles can compete with infantry in value.

 

If you look at T12 units like the 10th ed Repulsor, anything less than an Autocannon is going to need 6s to even wound it (assuming the to-wound chart remains the same). There is going to be some fine tuning necessary to see how well this turns out but I am cautiously optimistic. Interestingly, it synergises well with the new SM Lieutenant ability. 6s to-Hit will now auto-wound meaning that low Strength, high RoF weapons can still inflict some decent chip damage in an emergency.

[Malakithe]

Depending on what the weapon article reveals im thinking specialized tank killer weapons will finally have a place again instead of everything being able to kill anything. 

[Karhedron]

They just need to make sure they do not undo the progress by giving out Anti-vehicle to everything down as far as melta guns.

[Orange Knight]

Anti vehicle rules should be very rare in infantry units.

 

The rule should be granted more readily to vehicle themselves, as well as big monsters. The big laser on the Repulsor Executioner comes to mind as a suitable weapon to target tanks.

 

Vehicles have really struggled for a long, long time. In my experience people are happy to pay higher points for tanks that actually work - it's why the Spartan is so popular in the Heresy game.

 

I'm 8th and 9th, the damage table was very brutal. An Impulsor that has taken damage can have it's movement reduced to 4", down from 14". It makes the unit pretty useless, and it wasn't cheap. Transports always came at a premium, so having them move slower than the unit inside wasn't fun.

 

An infantry squad that has taken damage can't shoot as many weapons back, but it can still move just as quickly and perform various actions.

 

Whilst the new rules previewed for 10th are less realistic in some ways, they will definitely make the game more fun and encourage more unit variety.

[Bloody Legionnaire]

2 hours ago, jimbo1701 said:

I know where you’re coming from but I feel that facings / armour values made things too complex overall and the newer system has evolved (and hopefully continues to do so) into something better for the game overall. 

The facings weren’t complex at all, they were just another thing to fall victim to competitive warhammer and the shenanigans that come along with crappy opponents. 
 

Better for the game in what way? Ease of play? ..Sure! Immersion and tactics? ..Not so much. 

[Sea Creature]

Facings lead to unneeded arguments.

[Metzombie]

52 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

The facings weren’t complex at all, they were just another thing to fall victim to competitive warhammer and the shenanigans that come along with crappy opponents. 

Pleas show me an unambiguous diagram for the facing of a falcon. 

[redmapa]

Quote

Next up, we answer the age-old question – why shouldn’t Aggressors get to ride in a Land Raider?

 

Maybe its just WarCom being cheeky but maybe transports wont have restrictions for new/old marines.

[Kallas]

14 minutes ago, redmapa said:

maybe transports wont have restrictions for new/old marines.

I think most people are expecting this to be the case now.

[sairence]

3 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

They’ve always been a thing? Even with an empty vehicle in the 9th dex

 

I'm obviously not talking about the Lasgun Arrays, but rather about the firing deck, that the Chimera lost in the transition to 8th, and that allowed 2 models to fire their guns out. In 7th, that would have often been 2 Melta- or Plasmaguns from a Veteran-squad.

 

I always found it to be a real fun way of using them and a nice defence for the squishy humans inside.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 4/14/2023 at 11:55 AM, Metzombie said:

Pleas show me an unambiguous diagram for the facing of a falcon. 

Draw an X over a picture of a falcon. Pretty unambiguous.

Edited April 15, 2023 by Tyriks
Don't be a jerk.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

6 minutes ago, sairence said:

 

I'm obviously not talking about the Lasgun Arrays, but rather about the firing deck, that the Chimera lost in the transition to 8th, and that allowed 2 models to fire their guns out. In 7th, that would have often been 2 Melta- or Plasmaguns from a Veteran-squad.

 

I always found it to be a real fun way of using them and a nice defence for the squishy humans inside.

Tbh for most normal transports I find people poking their heads out to shoot, really stupid. Did the vehicle count as open topped for a turn if you did that?

 

I’ve come to accept this game is an arcade style game and as such cool or fun take priority.

[SteveAntilles]

On 4/14/2023 at 12:24 PM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Draw an X over a picture of a falcon. Pretty unambiguous.

 

Where's the center of the X? What about Wave Serpents with their extra little vents? I have never met someone who agreed where the center of the Falcon hull actually was. Facings were cool, but the game is better without them IMHO.

Edited April 15, 2023 by Tyriks
removed edited quote

[Arkangilos]

1 hour ago, SteveAntilles said:

Where's the center of the X?

Center of the model.

 

I know ymmv but I have never experienced anyone who had trouble with facings. Can it be shot in the side at that moment? Yes means it’s a side shot. No means it is shot in the front.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Arkangilos

[sairence]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Tbh for most normal transports I find people poking their heads out to shoot, really stupid. Did the vehicle count as open topped for a turn if you did that?

 

I’ve come to accept this game is an arcade style game and as such cool or fun take priority.

 

Honestly, that just sounds like a you-specific issue. In a game were every interaction is an abstraction, I just know that I usually had fun with the ability and the playstyle that comes with it. 

[Bloody Legionnaire]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Tbh for most normal transports I find people poking their heads out to shoot, really stupid. Did the vehicle count as open topped for a turn if you did that?

 

I’ve come to accept this game is an arcade style game and as such cool or fun take priority.

I think what’s hemming you up is the limitations on USRs and their applications. Their benefits are consolidation of rules but to their detriment they aren’t able to specifically add interpretation and understanding like the endless ‘similar yet slightly different’ individual rules we’ve seen in 8th and 9th. 
 

Not to constantly make 40k things relate to real life but what you’re getting at (if looked at in the armor facings/AV terms) would be an upper hull armor; which would be somewhat weaker than the heavily armored sections because most of the weapons firing at a vehicle come from horizontal angles and not vertical angles. 
 

In a non-real-time game we can’t see a unit open a hatch, take some shots, and then re -secure that hatch. While I think you’re a little hemmed up on “open hatch” as a mechanic, you’re not wrong that the armor would be somewhat lighter for the upper hull. 
 

BL: I think those saying just giving vehicles T and W profiles was not necessarily the best way to move on from AV, have it right.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Bloody Legionnaire

[Interrogator Stobz]

10 hours ago, crimsondave said:

...

 

Wonder if the IG leaf blower days are on the way back.

I think we'll be OK, the amount of terrain used in comp and casual seems to have grown to a proper amount. 

I can't wait to here on WarCom about terrain interactions, both for cover and movement. 9th sucks so anything else should be better.

[Interrogator Stobz]

TBF, the bit I never like is LoS blocking to the ceiling. 

I've walked around a few competitions in 9th, there are almost zero units on raised terrain.

 

[jaxom]

On 4/13/2023 at 11:23 PM, spessmarine said:

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

On 4/14/2023 at 12:22 AM, Arkangilos said:

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

 

Space Marine power armor was explicitly given as the reason AV10 Land Speeders were not Open-Topped. Rhinos were AV11/AV11/AV10. I think it makes a lot of sense that an upscaled version of a Land Speeder would be equivalent to a Rhino. They're even about the same size.

 

 

[Lemondish]

12 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I’ve come to accept this game is an arcade style game and as such cool or fun take priority.

Rule of cool isn't a suggestion, it's THE LAW.

[Arkangilos]

37 minutes ago, jaxom said:

Space Marine power armor was explicitly given as the reason AV10 Land Speeders were not Open-Topped. Rhinos were AV11/AV11/AV10.

I hear you. I see your point. I choose to not accept it yet.

 

What were the stats on the Land Speeder Storm?
(BA couldn’t get them back then so I can’t reference)

 

Edited April 15, 2023 by Arkangilos

[The Unseen]

2 hours ago, Arkangilos said:

I hear you. I see your point. I choose to not accept it yet.

 

What were the stats on the Land Speeder Storm?
(BA couldn’t get them back then so I can’t reference)

 

It was open-topped, because the drivers are wearing scout armor along with the passengers who are hanging off of it, and could all shoot.

[Arkangilos]

1 hour ago, The Unseen said:

It was open-topped, because the drivers are wearing scout armor along with the passengers who are hanging off of it, and could all shoot.

Very well. I now accept that position.

[DuskRaider]

On 4/14/2023 at 11:01 AM, Bloody Legionnaire said:

The facings weren’t complex at all, they were just another thing to fall victim to competitive warhammer and the shenanigans that come along with crappy opponents. 
 

Better for the game in what way? Ease of play? ..Sure! Immersion and tactics? ..Not so much. 

Competitive play has consistently been the key factor in dumbing down (or streamlining as GW calls it) the game for over a decade now. Immersion has been sacrificed for faster games in the tournament environment or to appeal to a broader audience (ie younger players) at the sacrifice of a more in depth experience. 
 

Whatever happened to a roll-off to solve a disagreement in-game? That’s what the folks I played with always did and it quashed arguments and semantics quickly.