+1 to all Vehicle Armour

[Valkyrion]

When S was maxed at 10 it made sense for max AV to be 14 - only S9 and 10 weapons could harm it, trickling down to S4 from behind a Rhino. 

Now there are S12+ weapons, Melta and Lascannons are in every list, Ordnance and Sunder are easy to come by, and units/models can destroy vehicles many times their value in a single salvo. Super Heavy is a different thing because they can't be instagibbed, but for all none Super Heavy vehicles, would a blanket increase of +1 Armour Value on every single vehicle (and, by extension, the removal of Flare Shields), be game breaking?

 

 

 

[Noserenda]

I think vehicles need a bit of a buff, but a blanket increase is going to have weird effects at the lower end, chiefly which facings are meant to be pinged by small arms. Perhaps only increasing the front armour? 

[SkimaskMohawk]

Idk why they dropped cover while simultaneously adding old tank hunters to super-cheap lascannons. 

 

Kinda just restore cover and see how it goes?

[Petitioner's City]

4 hours ago, Valkyrion said:

When S was maxed at 10 it made sense for max AV to be 14 - only S9 and 10 weapons could harm it, trickling down to S4 from behind a Rhino. 

Now there are S12+ weapons, Melta and Lascannons are in every list, Ordnance and Sunder are easy to come by, and units/models can destroy vehicles many times their value in a single salvo. Super Heavy is a different thing because they can't be instagibbed, but for all none Super Heavy vehicles, would a blanket increase of +1 Armour Value on every single vehicle (and, by extension, the removal of Flare Shields), be game breaking?

 

 

 

 

You could keep flares on top of this to be fair, but I think the issue is very complicated - and a blanket armour increase isn't the only answer. 

 

You also need to consider that dreadnoughts (and similar things) are a key factor, as they are simply excellent in general compared to vehicles. 

 

Also cheap, enhanced AT weapons that also happen to be good against the plethora of 2w T4 infantry in the game also play a role (the lascannons Skimask mentions above, but also other similar weapons).

 

And as Skimask says, cover not really helping.

 

Finally, many vehicles just not having very good weapons on them for their cost. This is especially an issue with legacies, but then arquitors, dracosans, malcadors and others have this issue so much. 

 

Have you tried any of what Panoptica has suggested? They do some things, but yes, don't fully address the challenge.

 

[Pacific81]

8 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Idk why they dropped cover while simultaneously adding old tank hunters to super-cheap lascannons. 

 

Kinda just restore cover and see how it goes?

Usually, it's to keep mixing things up and encourage you to buy more miniatures for your army.

 

Next time around the tank armour will be buffed and anti-armour nerfed, prompting a new round of people buying vehicles.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Yea i guess I don't think of game balance as a metric to be adjusted to push sales. But yea, GW loves to skew balance across units to get an influx of sales instead of having units that are all good and having people just buy everything, albeit at a slower pace.

 

That being said, they do have a pseudo solution in the game. It's just only a solution for large squadrons of vehicles instead of any one offs, and that's the Defensor. 

[General Zodd]

I can be as sceptical as the next person, but I struggle to believe anybody in the rules team is being genuinely pressured to make deliberate imbalances in the rules in an effort to massage specific sales. The one exception is if something wasn’t selling *at all* I could imagine someone in the sales division letting them know, but deliberately making something rubbish to negatively affect their own sales? Sounds utterly barmy to me!

 

The exception I’d make is for legacy units, but I genuinely think that’s down to it being a very halfhearted (by the overall corporate machine, I make no judgement on the the passion of individuals involved) effort rather than a deliberate effort to not sell you things.

 

GW corporate cares not from which product lines the money flows, they’re quite Khornate in that regard.

 

The fact we’re debating vehicles being rubbish as a way to drive sales of new infantry is further undermined by the fact they’ve been releasing almost nothing *but* vehicles since the new edition released!!!

[Noserenda]

It has happened, but back in the Kirby era with the Wraithknight, im pretty confident most rule screw ups are exactly that, screw ups. Though in the case of AOD 2nd ed they were trying to make things bad deliberately that had nothing to do with sales and everything with trying to micro the meta.

(To the extent that pre the enormous surge in sales around 8th ed at least one person on their team was fairly convinced (and sure that others agreed) that rules dont impact sales at all, though that might have shifted when the business grew so much!) 

[Gorgoff]

10 hours ago, General Zodd said:

I can be as sceptical as the next person, but I struggle to believe anybody in the rules team is being genuinely pressured to make deliberate imbalances in the rules in an effort to massage specific sales.

 

Explain why a Stormsword cost 750 points then. ;)

 

10 hours ago, General Zodd said:

The one exception is if something wasn’t selling *at all* I could imagine someone in the sales division letting them know, but deliberately making something rubbish to negatively affect their own sales? Sounds utterly barmy to me!

 

From a corporate perspective it makes sense that people buy 40k models for 40k and not for HH because this way they can track exactly which games make what kind of revenue. 

10 hours ago, General Zodd said:

The exception I’d make is for legacy units, but I genuinely think that’s down to it being a very halfhearted (by the overall corporate machine, I make no judgement on the the passion of individuals involved) effort rather than a deliberate effort to not sell you things.

 

Maybe it is that as well, but some of these rules actually work pretty well while others are so so bad.

10 hours ago, General Zodd said:

GW corporate cares not from which product lines the money flows, they’re quite Khornate in that regard.

 

I heared that that isn't true. They like their charts like any corporation. 

They need to know how much the different branches make.

10 hours ago, General Zodd said:

The fact we’re debating vehicles being rubbish as a way to drive sales of new infantry is further undermined by the fact they’ve been releasing almost nothing *but* vehicles since the new edition released!!!

Those vehicles have great rules though which proofs our point. Almost all 40k units got nerfed to the ground and the new HH ones have playable or great rules. 

[General Zodd]

1 hour ago, Gorgoff said:

 

Explain why a Stormsword cost 750 points then. ;)

 

 

From a corporate perspective it makes sense that people buy 40k models for 40k and not for HH because this way they can track exactly which games make what kind of revenue. 

 

Maybe it is that as well, but some of these rules actually work pretty well while others are so so bad.

 

I heared that that isn't true. They like their charts like any corporation. 

They need to know how much the different branches make.

Those vehicles have great rules though which proofs our point. Almost all 40k units got nerfed to the ground and the new HH ones have playable or great rules. 

I can’t explain the Shadowsword, and never claimed to. Please explain why making it so bad nobody would ever take it is beneficial to a sales-driven company?! I’m always more inclined towards stupidity than conspiracy in cases like this.

 

The point I was making, and we’re straying from the original point of the post which is why I didn’t go into detail, is that fewer resources were spent making old/40k models compatible than were spent making current HH line models’ rules. That’s not suggesting they deliberately made them good or bad, they just didn’t put much effort in. That is perfectly in keeping with sensible business practices. Deliberately making things rubbish so you don’t generate cross sales from 40k isn’t.

 

Yes, they will want to know how much the HH line makes. They won’t be spending time micromanaging comparative sales between Vindicatora and Scorpiuses!

 

As to your final point, the whole premise of this string is that *all* vehicles need a bump, and I was arguing against the reason for that being some type of deliberate sales technique.

[Brofist]

Personally, I'd like to see the vehicle damaged table go away for the next edition

[Pacific81]

@General Zodd I definitely know of at least one case (this is going back quite a few years, although you can expect things not to have gone backwards in this regard) heard from someone that worked at WHW. There was a pattern of FW Drop-pod (I forget which) that was either selling poorly or they had too much back-log of stock for. The next rules update added a rule that dreadnoughts could assault directly, on the same turn as arrival, from the pod. The stock then completely cleared out, as they were suddenly a must-have item. 

 

We know that the Sales/marketing team direct the updates to the background (this is evident in everything from WHFB/AoS swapover to Primaris and Primarchs returning from the grave) so I don't think it's such a stretch to say that it will impact the rules writing too. Just to give a made-up scenario, sales from last year indicate everyone has Rhinos in their collection, but not many dreadnoughts or drop-pods - A +1 there or a -1 here and then suddenly everyone (that is 'chasing the meta' or playing tournaments at least) has to buy those other kits. I don't think it's being overly skeptical at all and I'm not criticising it, it's as part and parcel of GW's business model of constant new cycle/release that keeps people buying new stuff. It's why they are the biggest player in the market by far, they have absolutely zoned in on a successful equation for keeping sales high. Look at the enormous amount of hype generated by Leviathan, when the game is essentially a 0.1 adjustment of rules over a previous edition, and will again just put things into a bag and mix them up again. 

 

Just my thoughts on it anyway, it seems an obvious thing for GW to do (aside from there no doubt being instances of just sloppy rules writing or lack of playtesting)

Edited June 25, 2023 by Pacific81

[Noserenda]

FW is a bad example of sales though as their volume is always pretty low compared to plastic, for example the Arvus Lighter was FWs top selling flyer for years despite having consistently toss rules, people just liked it :D 

The Reason why a Shadow sword is priced to gather dust is linked to a whole load of bad rules choices in this edition of AoD, like i mentioned in my last post, the "team" decided to try and micromanage the forces people were playing with, the meta, not because of sales or anything like that, but because they had an image of a "correct" 30k army and were perfectly willing to use brute force/incompetence to try and make that happen, wildly misunderstanding why people collect tabletop wargames in my opinion.

Its why most the PDF units kinda suck and why all their super heavies are hilariously over costed, why all the non marine armies have glaring issues, even why vehicles broadly kinda suck and artillery/blast weapons are so toothless. Just hoping it eventually gets sorted out and we can get back to AoD being fun for all its players not just the ones that line up with the designers vision... 

[Bung]

7 hours ago, Brofist said:

Personally, I'd like to see the vehicle damaged table go away for the next edition

 

Why? Its the most realistic rule GW ever made.

Cold War professionals worked with something that came pretty close to the vehicke damage Chart.

Some different percentages obviously AS real life doesnt roll D6s.

 

(With professionals i mean real army planing officers)

[SkimaskMohawk]

I think the current version of the vehicle damage chart isn't a good fit for the state of the game. It was fine when cover was better and the AT costed more, but maybe hull points gotta go and maybe rejigger it to having glances do a -2/-3 on the chart and have explodes on a 6. 

[NemoVonUtopia]

Maybe changing the damage chart in a way that only AP1 can explode to tone down las cannons and have melta and conversion beamers more impactful. And maybe a -1BS penalty instead of snap shooting

[Noserenda]

Heh, i have a very distinct memory of some squaddies absolutely tearing the vehicle damage chart to pieces back in what would have been 3rd or 4th edition? (So slightly different to the AoD one) and whilst im not sure exactly where they worked, one of them i know well definitely joined the army to drive tanks, that boy was obsessed :D So im not sure its particularly accurate per sec. 

It does have some real gameplay problems which hull points kinda mitigate where damage isnt working right against vehicles and the eternal issues between vehicles and "monstrous creatures" IE Dreadnoughts in this edition that flat our disappear when you just use very high toughness and saves instead.

It would be a neat thing to have as a critical hit table of sorts though, maybe 6's to wound or when infantry assault with appropriate (Or inappropriate!) gear to represent them messing with exposed weapons or tracks and generally making a nuisance of themselves.  

[Gorgoff]

Make everything mechanic vehicles again.

Dreadnoughts, Sentinels, Robots you name it.

Done. Problem solved. 

 

I like it that vehicles can be blown to pieces from one penetrating hit. It is immersive, it is exciting, it is good for the game. 

Hullpoints were just invented because otherwise you have (and we had that so many times) vehicles who.

Just.

Won't.

Die.

Rhinos who eat dozens of penetrating hits for example. 

That's a thing which had to go and that's why I like hull points but making every vehicle basically a big infantry model with wounds, Toughness and the like? 

Big no go for me and trust me when I twll you that I loath the term "no go". I only use it in special moments like this. 

 

Vehicles have to be different from living creatures and their rules have to show it. And vehicles should be next to immune against small arms fire as well. I like the system as is and I don't think that vehicles are weak.

I just think that lascannons and some other weapons are to good and cover is to bad. For vehicles at least. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

4 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

that so many times) vehicles who.

Just.

Won't.

Die.

Rhinos who eat dozens of penetrating hits for example. 

 

 

Well hull points were definitely a reaction to the 5th edition vehicle damage chart, which was both more and less forgiving than the 4th Ed one.

 

4th had three separate damage charts: one for glancing, one for penetrating and one for ordnance penetrating. 

Spoiler

Glancing:

1-2 shaken

3 stunned 

4 weapon destroyed 

5 immobilized

6 destroyed 

 

Penetrating:

1 shaken

2 weapon destroyed and stunned

3 immobilized and stunned

4 destroyed

5 destroyed

6 explodes

 

Ordnance:

1 shaken

2 weapon destroyed and stunned

3 immobilized and stunned

4 destroyed

5 explodes

6 annihilated 

 

The glance chart might seem familiar, because it's the 6th edition pen chart, and basically the 7th Ed one except you need a 7+ for explodes (a minor result added in to expand). But people found vehicles very flimsy in 4th, especially transports that could get their squads torched if they died to ordnance; a missile launcher could one shot a landraider. So 5th changed the chart.

 

There was now just the penetrating chart, with glancing hits doing a flat -2 on the roll. This compounded in a variety of ways with other rules: vehicles that more than 6" could only be hit on 6s in melee; skimmers that moved flat out got cover; stuff could assault from transports that hadn't moved; eldar had some really frustrating abilities on their transports like roll 2d6 pick the lowest for the chart. What this meant was that some vehicles were extra durable and could do their job right away (like a falcon, wave serpent, or vendetta), while others demanded lots of luck or a very dedicated counter (the best anti tank weapon in the game was the manticore because you'd get multiple pen results per volley on any tank, basically guaranteeing their death). The feels bad potential could be high, but conceptually, a missile launcher was able to one shot any AV13 or lower target. 

 

6th took 4ths glancing chart and made it the pen chart, but also said "vehicles have 3 wounds from a glance or pen until they die regardless, stripped the cover from going flat out, removed the ability to assault from stationary transports, and removed the melee penalty for them moving fast. Vehicles were garbage, and were also running into the newest monstrous creatures: the riptide and wraith knight.

 

7th forced explosions onto a 7+ so vehicles would rarely be one shot any more, but otherwise they were just as weak as they were in 6th. Heresy used armoured ceramite, flare shields, and invul saves on high armour to give durability, but you'd still see tanks drowned out by haywire since you only needed to strip their hull points off.

Hull points were kinda a terrible fix for a problem that had other solutions. The change to the pen chart also results in a world where some weapons are worthless by dint of not having ap 2 or better, or by being single shot; a space marine is more able to kill a landspeeder by using his bolt gun than shooting an anti tank rocket at it. Changing it back to 4ths charts would have been a lot better; glances still allowed you to kill a vehicle, weapons that could pen did their job, and anti tank could be divorced from ap without throwing them in the dumpster, or running into the lascannon problem.

 

 

 

[Gorgoff]

Although it probably sounded that way I am by no means fixed on the current system.

In fact I really liked the 4th system. It just needed a backdoor for transported models. Don't kill them outright but instead S8 hits as is. 

3 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

.

 

There was now just the penetrating chart, with glancing hits doing a flat -2 on the roll. This compounded in a variety of ways with other rules: vehicles that more than 6" could only be hit on 6s in melee; skimmers that moved flat out got cover; stuff could assault from transports that hadn't moved;

That is a thing which I really miss. It would make Rhinos and the like so much better, would remove the necessity of Assault Vehicles for cc units and would add a layer of tactical decisions to the game. 

 

[Valkyrion]

Interesting discussion so far.

I was thinking that 'Improve all front armour values by 1' could be introduced via a faq, which could then apply this edition, rather than a full overhaul which would require new rule books. 

What about giving vehicles an invulnerable save? Say, 6++ for all vehicles going to 5++ for reinforced? 

How is that better or worse than AV15 in terms of balance?

[Gorgoff]

5 hours ago, Valkyrion said:

Interesting discussion so far.

I was thinking that 'Improve all front armour values by 1' could be introduced via a faq, which could then apply this edition, rather than a full overhaul which would require new rule books. 

What about giving vehicles an invulnerable save? Say, 6++ for all vehicles going to 5++ for reinforced? 

How is that better or worse than AV15 in terms of balance?

Or give vehicles the same cover save as everyone else. 

[MegaVolt87]

Abolition of the vechicle squadron rules would do wonders to buff tanks, while imposing the vechicle squadron rule onto dreads units would do wonders to fix the issues with both alone. How dread talons currently work is how tank squadrons should be working, it's the wrong way around currently. 

[Brofist]

Hard agree on the squadron rules. That's another legacy system that really isn't needed

[Xenith]

With a lot of vehicles being reinforced and whatnot, and most anti tank having AP2 or better, we just seem to be ignoring the 1-4 results on the chart in my games - like my spartans and raiders can't be shaken, among other things. I can also count on one hand the number of times I've suffered a weapon destroyed result and on the other hand immobilised - vehicles go from alive to HP-wrecked or exploded fast in my experience without actually having a turn with the consequences. 

 

Adding 50% to the hullpoints might be a great idea straight away, but also increasing armour.

 

I think we have to consider that the game mechanics are still based on 3rd ed, where AV14 was one of the strongest things in the game, where the strongest anti tank you could face was a maximum of 4 lascannons in a devastator squad, and games were generally 1000-1500pts maximum, and a lascannon armed devastator marine cost 40pts (15 for the marine, 25 for the lascannon). Land raider were 250pts.

 

Between 3rd ed 40k and HH2.0, land raiders still have that AV14, and have gone from 250 to 220 pts (12% drop), while a dude with a lascannon is now, what, 25pts (38% drop), and can be taken in units of 10. 

 

Similarly, a quad-las predator annihilator was 145pts in 3rd ed, however is now 160pts with the same front armour, albeit better offensively with better movement and turret lascannons. 

 

Maybe vehicles could do with just a 20% cost reduction overall. That would let me take more of them!  

Edited June 27, 2023 by Xenith